Imposing Peace

Imposing Peace
Vol: 27 Issue: 7 Sunday, December 7, 2003

The architects of the Geneva Agreement, Palestinian PLO Executive Committee member and former culture and information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo and former Israeli justice minister Yossi Beilin, met on Saturday with former US president Bill Clinton and former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright in New York. That ought to be scary enough to rattle you out of your Sunday morning doldrums.

According to Abed Rabbo, following their meeting Clinton said that the Geneva Initiative is a formula more developed than the plan the former US president offered late during his second term. Or so says the PLO’s official propaganda rag, the Palestine Media Center.

(Of course, to believe that, one would have to believe that Bill Clinton would admit that somebody else did a better job than he did.)

The PMC also reported meeting with the former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who expressed a similar point of view. Surprise! Allbright also giddily told cameras in 1998, “I asked the President and he denied it” — just before Clinton went on TV to admit his ‘inappropriate relationship’ with a 21 year-old intern. (Clearly, Allbright has great gifts of discernment)

In any case, the Geneva Agreement continues to grow in popular support among every nation except the one most directy affected (Israel).

German foreign minister Joschka Fischer viewed the agreement as a ‘light of hope’ while Secretary of State Colin Powell met with the architects (in any other context, they would be conspirators) to praise the plan.

Kofi Annan said he was encouraged after meeting Friday with the architects of the Geneva Accord at the UN headquarters in New York.

“A major part of the Geneva Accord’s importance comes from the hope of future reconciliation and peace that it brings to both Israelis and Palestinians,” he said.

After meeting Powell, Beilin and Abed Rabbo flew to New York for a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who told them he would discuss in next month’s meeting of the Quartet how the US, UN, EU, and Russia can help promote the initiative.

Annan gave Beilin and Abed Rabbo an effusive welcome, calling their plan “positive and praiseworthy” as well as “consistent and compatible” with the road map, but adding that the road map remains the “key mechanism” for any future negotiations.


Unlike genuine agreements, (you know, the ones signed by authorized representatives) the Geneva Agreement received instant recognition and unmitigated praise.

From the perspective of Bible prophecy, the implications of this agreement are staggering. This is an effort to IMPOSE a solution to the ‘Arab-Israeli’ question — and if the UN has its way, by force, if necessary.

The main reason that the Geneva Accords are getting so much press is because the governments on both sides are not involved in it. That is why it appears ‘hopeful’. Because the ones who have the authority to negotiate such a deal wouldn’t sign it.

Arafat’s hand-picked prime minister Ahmed Qureia refused to meet Ariel Sharon unless the Israelis stop constructing a security fence to keep out terrorists.

For inexplicable reasons, the UN has decided that keeping terrorists out of Israel is a ‘violation of international law’ — passing a General Assembly resolution to that effect and recommending the fence be taken to the World Court at the Hague.

No such resolution has ever been passed against the terrorists, so one can only assume that anti-Israeli terrorism is legal, while Israeli anti-terrorism defense measures are not.

Ahmed Qureia told reporters of a possible meeting between himself and Sharon. He assured them that there were ‘no preconditions’ to the meeting, which was dutifully noted by the press.

Then he listed them. He demanded that the US pressure Israel to halt the ongoing construction of the fence and settlement activities, stop the targeted killing of terrorists, withdraw from Palestinian cities and villages, and lift the travel ban imposed on PA Chairman Yasser Arafat.

The mainstream press headines? “Queria Says No Pre-Conditions to Peace”.

On December 1st, the UN observed an official “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People”. In his prepared comments, Kofi Annan said the Geneva Agreement ‘proves’ a settlement can be reached to end the conflict.

The ‘International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People’ is observed each year on 29 November, which fell on a Saturday this year.

Difficult to understand why the Israelis don’t exactly trust the UN when it comes to its security, no?

According to the prophet Daniel, there will be a period of peace IMPOSED on Israel by the international community. According to the prophet Zechariah, it will not hold, and will ultimately result in the ‘whole world’ being against Israel.

According to the prophet Ezekiel, at the time of the Gog-Magog invasion, Israel will be known as a land of ‘unwalled villages’ a distinction without a difference in the modern world — EXCEPT that the whole world is now facing Israel down over the wall it is currently erecting. (Israel can’t very well be known as a ‘land of unwalled villages’ without it’s first having a wall, can it?)

Returning to Daniel, we find that imposed peace eventually collapses, requiring someone to ‘confirm’ the agreement. The prexisting agreement is for a duration of seven years. (The Oslo Accords duration was EXACTLY seven years, but it failed)

Taken together, one gets a sense that the clock is running down very quickly.

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. . . .Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:28,32)

“He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” (Revelation 22:20)

The Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve
Vol: 27 Issue: 6 Saturday, December 6, 2003

One of the most enigmatic figures in recent history is also one of the most significant. Paul Warburg was so highly respected a financier that he was tapped by Senator Nelson Aldrich to author a study on discounting commercial bills. Aldrich, John D. Rockefeller s father in law, was the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Aldrich s committee was charged with developing a central banking scheme for the United States, ostensibly to forestall the financial panics that regularly plagued the US economy at the turn of the century.

The United States at that time suffered from periodic liquidity crises, engineered largely by the financial community. Bankers argued that it was due to the rigid nature of the currency supply. In those days, in order to make a loan, the banks actually were required to have the money on deposit! A system of pyramiding reserve schemes made it possible for banks to obtain further funds, but they could not actually issue loans until those funds became available.

Therefore, the bankers argued, adequate money supplies could not be funneled in time to the industries that needed it the most. Sounds sensible, when you hear the bankers argue it.

The argument quickly loses weight, though, when you restate its true implications. Held up against the light of true intensions, here is what it means. “We want to be able to charge you interest for loans made with money we don’t have, so we want you to lend it to us for free first” (via the trusty old fractional reserve banking scheme). To ensure the population got the message, a series of currency shortages were engineered.

Since the entire banking system was not yet under a central authority, the panics were generally localized in predetermined geographic locations across the States. A large bank, or group of cooperating banks, would restrict credit to farmers and businesses.

As a result, industries were often unable to finance inventories or get crops to market. Many went under. Such failures had a ripple effect. Grain rotting in the fields meant a shortage of livestock feed. Higher feed prices forced many livestock producers into bankruptcy. Business failures often weakened other related industries.

Ultimately, the pressure was felt on Wall Street, where market prices would plunge, small, weak banks would fail, and the currency supply would be further restricted. The pressure was on. The destruction of the smaller, weaker banking competitors provided ‘two benefits.’ One is the obvious fewer independent banks mean fewer slices of the pie. Secondly, a small number of big banks are much easier to regulate (translate that ‘control’) than are a larger number of independents. The engineered crises therefore provided a ‘payday’ on several fronts.

A central banking scheme, argued the same bankers who engineered the crises, would eliminate financial panics. All that is needed, they reasoned, was the ability of bankers to lend more money than they had at interest. Creating money in this way would enable industry to buy now, and pay later when they realized their profits. Of course, for the scheme to work there would have to be centralized control of the banking system.

The problem, argued the proponents of centralized banking, was that there were just too many rugged individualists in the financial community. Wise leadership, and absolute control of all banking and monetary policy was necessary to keep these ‘panics from repeating themselves. What was not noted was that those who absolutely controlled banking would be more dangerous than anything they were saving us from.

The Invisible Emperor

Now let’s take a closer look at Paul Warburg. He was born in Hamburg, Germany in 1868. He was the son of a wealthy German banking family who ensured he received the ‘best education. When he was 18, he went straight to London, headquarters of the Rothschild banking empire.

Two years later, sufficiently schooled, he returned to Hamburg where he joined his brothers, Aby and Max, as a partner in the family firm, M. M. Warburg & Co., Hamburg. In 1895, Warburg married Nina Loeb, another offspring of a Rothschild backed banking dynasty. In 1901, the couple moved to New York. He was immediately offered a partnership in his father-in-law s firm of Kuhn & Loeb, one of Wall Street s most prestigious firms. Soon after entering the world of American-style banking, Warburg began to set in motion a plan for a central bank.

Some conspiracy theorists claim Warburg was given his ‘marching orders to establish a central bank in the United States while he was apprenticed to the Rothschild group in London. While there is no direct evidence to establish that as fact, it is interesting. Especially in light of the fact that the Rothschild group had been attempting to establish a central banking system in the United States since the Revolution.

Some may call all of this ‘conspiracy , others may see it as merely ‘coincidence’, but the facts are what they are. How you interpret them is up to you. But the implications, however they are described, are indeed intriguing and enormous.

Success At Last

After passage of the Aldrich-Vreeland Emergency currency bill, Warburg went on the offensive. The New York Times gave him ample space (not surprising, as the New York Times belonged to his father in law) to expound on the perceived flaws in the bill. Warburg dismissed it as unworkable, saying no measure that bases currency on a long term basis like the Aldrich-Vreeland bill (which allowed banks in regional currency associations to use their aggregate bank balances as the basis for issuance of currency) is acceptable. Or, to translate, “any bill which does not allow banks to create money out of thin air, then charge interest for loaning that phantom money, is unacceptable.”

The ‘Merlins’ of Money

Warburg argued for an elastic currency. In other words, he wanted a currency that could be expanded or contracted to meet the needs of the economy. Expanding the money supply is really just a euphemism to describe the magician s trick of creating money out of thin air. The authority to either expand or contract that currency would rest with the central banking authority. (Who would, of course, use that authority for the public good, whether they agreed with it or not. The fact the proposed central bank was to be a private, for-profit banking monopoly notwithstanding.)

In 1910 Paul Warburg began working with Senator Nelson Aldrich (maternal grandfather of the Rockefeller family) on the Federal Reserve Act, yet another effort to create a central bank of issue in the United States. The Act was put before the House on Dec 23, 1913 when most members of Congress were home for Christmas and it was signed into law in their absence.

The Act placed the Constitutional power of Congress to regulate the US economy into the hands of private banks. After the vote, Congressman Charles Lindbergh told Congress: This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth when the President signs this act, the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. He was later to observe:

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world — no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men .

A dollar was no longer a unit of measurement. Instead, it became the thing it was supposed to measure, like turning a quart into milk. The Federal Reserve System is a private banking system. It belongs to its stockholders, who are not the American people. The only stockholders in the Fed are federally chartered private banks. All the major stockholders in the current Fed can trace their roots to the banking families of Europe.

The first governor of the Fed was Paul Warburg, now a naturalized US citizen. World War I saw the creation of the income tax system as a ‘temporary’ measure to finance the war effort.

Here is one of the most amazing facts of this infamous period of history. At the very time that Paul Warburg headed the US Federal Reserve, his brother Max headed the German Secret Service! During World War I members of the Warburg family ably represented both sides. Sir William Wiseman, a partner in Warburg, Kuhn and Loeb, was the head of British intelligence during World War 1.

It goes to prove that the Money Trust has no nationality or loyalty.

The historical evidence is simply staggering, particularly since so little of it is publicly known, yet all of it is true. The simple facts regarding the Warburg troika during and after World War I, devoid of spin or hyperbole, make you wonder, “How could such things be possible?” And then, you begin to recognize just how much power is concentrated in the hands of the banking elite.


I wanted to share a bit more of what I have put together while researching my new book. Pretty staggering, isn’t it?

How Do I Hate Thee? Let me Count the Ways!

How Do I Hate Thee? Let me Count the Ways!
Vol: 27 Issue: 5 Friday, December 5, 2003

On “Fox News Sunday” Washington Post reporter Ceci Connoly complained because President Bush went to Baghdad but won’t allow TV cameras to record the return of flag-draped coffins from Iraq or Afghanistan.

Then she made this utterly laughable statement: “George Bush, from the time he was a candidate in 2000, right on through Thanksgiving Day, has absolutely controlled, maybe even manipulated the press.”

If Bush can control, or manipulate the press, he needs new advisors. Those advisors could stop Bush from making the press report that he is an idiot who used cocaine in the 1980’s.

Surely, Mr. President, your control of the media is not being used wisely. You should use your media control to tell the country you are smarter than they think and to stop making unsubstantiated, dark claims of drug abuse.

His advisors should tell the President not to tell the press to report that he had prior knowledge of September 11 and did nothing to stop it, instead of using his control of the press to make himself look like a monster.

President Bush should have used his control of the press to highlight the positive things taking place in Iraq.

For example, every press report starts out, “Since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations,” and then goes on to report the latest death toll (from all causes) and lumps them together to make it look like we are getting creamed by the Iraqi insurgents.

Mr. President, you should use your control of the press to get them to say something like, “Since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations,” Iraq’s hospitals and schools are no longer being used as weapons dumps, and are open and functioning.

Or, “Since the end. . .etc.”, not a single Iraqi has been dropped into an industrial shredder for criticizing the government, or something to that effect.

No sir, you are being ill-advised in how to use your controlled press to your best advantage. Indeed, Mr. President, you are using your pet press as if you were trying to lose the election or worse, being impeached for one of your many alleged ‘conspiracies’ against poor Saddam and the misunderstood Ba’athists.


I’m not making this up, honest! Nobody could. Truth is stranger than fiction, they say.

Tell me, on what planet in which alternate universe would some visitor have to be from in order to believe Connoly’s idiotic assertion that George Bush controls, or, (dare I repeat it again?) MANIPULATES the press?

The day after the President returned from his secret trip to Baghdad, the press savaged him. ABC’s Good Morning America groused that, ‘things are so unstable’ in Iraq, and that’s why the president had to ‘sneak in, in darkness.’ Well, duh!

CBS News’ Harry Smith took Bush to task, calling him a liar for saying the war in Iraq was connected to the war on terror. Despite the reams of evidence proving the opposite — since all those stories get spiked before they make it to the airwaves.

A Pentagon memo that listed dozens of contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein s Iraq was leaked to the Weekly Standard magazine and published more than two weeks ago. Despite the explosive nature of the leak, the broadcast network evening news programs have ignored the story.

Media analyst Brent Bozell writes, This refusal to cover the story stands in stark contrast to the rabid enthusiasm the networks have shown when reporting leaks that could hurt the Bush administration politically. A pointless media firestorm erupted in May of 2002 when snippets of President Bush s national security briefing on intelligence prior to 9-11 made its way into the hands of journalists. This past summer, a White House leak that outed a CIA agent was subject to similar media hype.”

The networks standard for leak coverage is clear. If the leak hurts the Bush administration, cover it extensively. If it helps the Bush administration, spike it.

Reality Check: The press could not hate George Bush more. Every fifteen minutes, some liberal rag is calling for an ‘investigation’ of Bush for some imagined conspiracy — unless it is a Clinton conspiracy, and then they complain that it is time to ‘move on.’

Connoly’s complaint about Bush refusing to grant camera access to record returning flag-draped coffins is transparently partisan. What they REALLY want is to run a split screen shot of a Bush speech praising US troops. In one screen would be Bush, in the other, rows of flag-draped coffins.

Bush probably remembers when CNN did that to his father in first Gulf War. And over and over again until Bush was defeated by Clinton in 1992.

NBC’s Matt Lauer returned to the flag-draped coffin theme, suggesting the trip had nothing to do with Thanksgiving or the troops. In Lauer’s world, Bush went to Baghdad to counter criticism that, “he did not attend any of the funerals of the fallen soldiers in Iraq,” which would provide Lauer’s network the split-screen option they so desperately desire.

The Bible says that in the last days, the antichrist will rise to power through his control of the developing propaganda machine. The press will turn the spawn of the devil into the picture of an angel. And it will work.

Bill Clinton, Pervert, Perjurer and Predator, is highly respected in virtually every country in the world, and beloved to half of America.

Senator Hillary Clinton can go to Iraq and tell the troops that they are fighting for a losing cause on behalf of an ungrateful nation and the press gives her a pass.

Bush tells them they are winning the war on terror and the press calls him a liar. And, bar none, George Bush is the least respected leader in the world, beating out even Ariel Sharon.

Can anybody tell me why? Just one example of something George Bush has done that would earn him such universal disrespect and outright hatred?

(Something true, please. I’ll wait. . . No luck? Well, here’s a hint.)

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

The machinery is in place, tested and refined, and awaits its ultimate master. And apparently, nobody noticed. Or nobody cares.

Words that Kill

Words that Kill
Vol: 27 Issue: 4 Thursday, December 4, 2003

The United Nations war crimes tribunal investigating the butchery in Rwanda has convicted three Rwandan media executives of genocide in a case that will set a precedent for the new International Criminal Court.

The three men were convicted of using words as weapons. “You were fully aware of the power of words, and you used the radio — the medium of communication with the widest public reach — to disseminate hatred and violence,” wrote presiding Judge Navanethem Pillay in sentencing to life in prison Ferdinand Nahimana, founder of Radio Television des Mille Collines. “Without a firearm, machete or any physical weapon, you caused the death of thousands of innocent civilians.”

More than 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were murdered in a three-month killing spree carried out by thousands of Rwandans against their neighbors. The seeds of the genocide, prosecutors say, were sown by news outlets like Kangura and Radio Machete.

Human rights advocates praised the verdict.

“This is the first time that journalists have been convicted for their participation in genocide, and I think it’s a wake-up call to hatemongers everywhere that they can’t incite people to commit genocide or ethnic cleansing,” said Reed Brody, legal counsel to Human Rights Watch. “If you fan the flames, you’ll have to face the consequences.”

Karin Karlekar, the managing editor of Freedom House’s annual survey of press freedom, praised the convictions but warned that some governments might use the verdict as a justification to clamp down on media in their own countries.

“Rwanda has already begun doing it,” she said. “These guys were way over the line, but it’s the gray area [of public speech] that is endangered, especially in countries with racial or ethnic tension.”

The convictions mark the first time since the Nuremburg Trials in 1945-46 that hate speech has been prosecuted as a war crime.


If ever there was any case in which somebody deserved to be prosecuted for hate-speech, it s this one. And that is what makes the case so complicated. The hate speech law under which the Rwandan media executives were convicted has been on the books for fifty years, but this is the first time it has ever been invoked.

Here is a little background: The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was passed following the Holocaust. It was championed by a Holocaust survivor who lost his whole family to the Nazis.

Raphael Lemkin was a Polish Jewish professor of international law who coined the word genocide by linking the Greek word for race and the Latin root word for killing. The convention, in force since Jan. 12, 1951, defines genocide as the committing of certain acts with intent to destroy, wholly or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group and deems it a crime under international law, whether committed in war or peace.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was drafted in May, 1948, and adopted by a vote of 55-0 at a meeting of the U.N General Assembly in Paris on December 9, 1948. Three days later, on December 12, President Harry Truman signed it, although it took another forty years for the treaty to be ratified by the Congress.

Speaking of the Rwanda case, Secretary General Kofi Annan said this week, (from Paris, naturally), “Our time — this decade, even — has shown us that man’s capacity for evil know no limits . . . Genocide — the destruction of an entire people on the basis of ethnic or national origins — is now a word of our time too, a stark and haunting reminder of why our vigilance must be eternal.”


Despite the genocide treaty, there ve been plenty of certifiable cases of genocide that have occurred over the last fifty years. And the tyrants that committed them have, in many cases, been fawned over and even feted by the UN General Assembly.

Pol Pot murdered 1.7 million Cambodians half the population during the 1970 s. He never stood before a UN tribunal. There is, of course, Yasser Arafat, who has advocated genocide against the Jews. The UN wants to grant his government official statehood and has already granted the PLO observer status at the UN.

The UN said and did NOTHING when the combined armies of the Arab world launched FIVE wars of aggression aimed at destroying Israel and wiping out as many Jews as possible for the crime of being Jews.

Individual acts of genocide efforts to kill on account of ethnicity are committed against Jews on a daily basis by Arab terror groups.

And the UN fought tooth and nail to keep Saddam Hussein in power. Even though the UN knew how brutal the Ba athist regime actually was.

The UN knew BEFORE US troops arrived about Uday and Qusay and the shredding machines and torture chambers and killing fields. The UN knew that Saddam routinely ordered entire villages of ethnic Kurds wiped out simply for being Kurds.

The Rwandan media executives were convicted under Article 2, paragraph (b) of the treaty. Article 2 defines genocide and has three distinctions. First, it must be against a national, ethnical, racial or religious group and it consists of two sub-elements. Killing members of the group is genocide, according to paragraph (a).

But paragraph (b) includes causing mental harm to an identifiable group as genocide. Now you know why it took forty years for the Congress to ratify the treaty.

The Rwandan convictions make sense, given the evidence and the wording of the genocide treaty, and the treaty seemed to have worked as it was designed although it is somewhat selectively applied, as we ve seen.

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. It was such an important principle that God inspired it to be written twice. Proverbs 14:12 and Proverbs 16:25 are identically worded.

The Bible says that in the last days, the antichrist will launch an all-out assault on Christianity. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. (Revelation 13:7)

Christianity is a genocidal religion, according to the United Nations. The UN has previously ruled that telling people that Jesus is the only way to heaven causes serious mental harm to other religions. If Jesus is the only way, then Christianity is saying all the rest of the religions will lead people to hell.

It was for that reason that the Roman Empire persecuted Christians. Not because Rome didn t have room for another god they were up to their armpits in gods already. But if Jesus is Lord, the other gods are worthless, and consequently, their worshippers are condemned. To the Romans and to the UN, that constitutes hate speech.

The Bible has already been declared hate speech in Canada and Christians have been prosecuted for preaching from certain parts of it.

Virtually all of the tools of the antichrist s eventual government came together at a single point in history, coinciding with the rebirth of Israel. The genocide treaty, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the founding of the Marxist World Council of Churches all took place in 1948.

The beginning of the ultimate rumor of war the Cold War began with the Berlin Blockade of 1948. The official birth of the Computer Age is marked by the 1948 invention of the transistor by Bell Labs.

The General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade, (GATT) which grew into the World Trade Organization, was signed in 1948.

North Korea s Communist government that now threatens nuclear war was formed by Kim Jong Il in 1948. These are only a couple of examples out of hundreds.

Run a Bible search on ‘fig tree’. See how many verses AREN T referring to Israel.

For example, Joel 1:6-7 says, For a nation is come up upon MY LAND, strong, and without number, whose teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the cheek teeth of a great lion. He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my fig tree: he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches thereof are made white.

Jesus told His disciples, Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. . .

And then the kicker verse. . Verily I say unto you, THIS generation SHALL NOT PASS, till all these things be fulfilled. (Matthew 24:34-36)


Special Report: Birth of a Dynasty

Special Report: Birth of a Dynasty
Vol: 27 Issue: 3 Wednesday, December 3, 2003

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who writes its laws” – Meyer Rothschild (1743-1812)

The Europe of the late eighteenth century was a polyglot of various kingdoms of all sizes and shapes; duchies, kingdoms, states and empires. They were constantly squabbling among themselves. The citizenry were little more than serfs. In reality, they were just pawns in a bigger game in which their meager political rights could be extended or withdrawn at whim.

It was into this period of history that a young man appeared on the scene whose life would ultimately impact all the nations of the earth. Through his descendents, Meyer Amschel Bauer would progress from the role of advisor to kings to rulers of them all.

The Red Shield

Meyer Amschel Bauer was born in Frankfurt-On-The-Main in Germany in 1743, the son of an itinerant goldsmith. Meyer s father, Moses, eventually set up a money-lending shop on the Judenrasse and settled down to a more permanent life for his family. On the door of his shop he proudly hung the red shield of the family crest.

Young Meyer showed a tremendous capacity for understanding the most complex aspects of his father s business. He learned all he could, and when his father died he went to work as a clerk in the Oppenheimer Bank in Hanover. The bank s management quickly recognized his talents and he advanced rapidly.

By 1750, he was a junior partner in the bank. He returned to Frankfurt where he purchased the House of the Red Shield and restored the family business. Meyer Amschel Bauer came home. In keeping with the custom of the time, he changed his name to match his business, becoming Meyer Amschel Rothschild. Thus one of the most powerful names in history was born, ROTHSCHILD, which is German for Red Shield .

Building A Power Base

During the 1760 s, the now successful banker Meyer Rothschild renewed an old acquaintance with General Von Estorff. As a lowly Oppenheimer clerk, he had often run errands for the general. Rothschild discovered the general had a weakness he was a hopeless numismatist, a collector or rare coins. He managed to find out what rare coins the general coveted most and then offered them to the general at a considerable discount.

Soon, Rothschild was a regular at the court of the general s patron, Prince William of Hanau. He employed similar tactics to ingratiate himself with other members of the royal court, and eventually with Prince William himself. On September 21, 1769, he was appointed to the court of Prince William.

His business card proudly proclaimed in gold letters; M. A. Rothschild, by appointment court factor to his serene highness, Prince William of Hanau . Now that he had secured his professional position, it was time to begin building a dynasty. Meyer married Gutele Schnaper in 1770. She gave him five sons; Amschel, Saloman, Nathan, Karl and James.

Prince William was better known to history as William of Hesse. He amassed his fortune by hiring out his army of mercenaries to the highest bidder. One of his best customers was King George of Britain, who hired the Hessians to quell a colonial uprising [the American Revolution].

William, who was known as Europe s most cold-blooded loan shark, amassed a considerable fortune renting out his army. At his death he possessed Europe s largest fortune. His rental agent on commission, of course, was Meyer Rothschild and Sons. The Rothschild enterprises with Prince earned him more than three million dollars an immense fortune at the time!

With this huge accumulation of wealth, Meyer Rothschild established four of his five sons in branches of the family business located in Berlin, Vienna, Paris and Naples. But it was his son Nathan who really set up the stage for future history. He was sent to establish the first international bank with its headquarters in London.

It remains there in all its power until this day.

Murder, Inc.

Murder, Inc.
Vol: 27 Issue: 2 Tuesday, December 2, 2003

In the days leading up to the Invasion of Iraq, Yasser Arafat sent Saddam his warmest personal regards, hoping that Saddam might continue his practice of paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers from exile. Alas for poor Yasser, Saddam is now spending his money on his own suicide bombers.

Yasser Arafat has now given permission for the Geneva Agreement negotiators to attend the signing ceremony, although he stopped short of issuing the requested personal letter of endorsement. Arafat dropped his more rigid position after he realized he was on the same side as Sharon by opposing it. In addition, by dropping his objections, he was able to extract huge concessions from the United States.

While deeply engaged in the war on terrorism around the world and in Iraq, America has been manipulated into sending an official representative to a ceremony for the non-agreement.

He allowed its Palestinian players to negotiate the proposals up to the draft stage but forbade them to sign it. He organized and paid Fatah thugs to stage demonstrations and issue threats of violence against the Palestinian collaborators and traitors of Geneva as the launch date approached. Masked Fatah gunmen shot up the home of senior Palestinian negotiator Yasser Abd Rabbo.

At the last minute, as a gesture to the Egyptian president, Arafat permitted a group of Palestinians to attend as private individuals led by Jibril Rajoub. But large numbers opted for the safety of boycott.

Arafat’s tame prime minister, Ahmed Queria, has also made it clear that the Palestinians at Geneva represent neither the PLO nor the PA. Queria has already said in no uncertain terms that he will not act against Palestinian terror groups, citing the danger of a civil war.

Recently, US Undersecretary of State William Burns held a reception in Amman, Jordan, in honor of Qureia. The following week, President Bush called on the Israelis from London to ‘stop humiliating’ the Palestinians.


In one of the most bizarre political manuevers of the century, the administration is throwing its weight behind the unofficial Geneva Accords. The fact that NEITHER side endorsed them is evidently of no consequence.

The Geneva deal would move Israel back to pre-1967 borders, grant Arafat authority over the holy places like the Temple Mount and Joseph’s Tomb, and surrenders half of Jerusalem to be capital of a new Palestinian state.

The White House has made statehood for Yasser Arafat the centerpiece of its Middle East policy. What kind of state will it be?

The hottest-selling toy this year in Ramallah and Gaza is a replica statue of Osama bin-Laden holding the Pentagon in one hand. The other stretches out toward a model of the World Trade Center, complete with crashing jets and spouting flames.

In March, the PA named a square in Jenin after an Iraqi who killed four American soldiers in a car bomb attack on March 27th.

The PA’s chief religious authority, Akrameh Sabri called on all Moslems to oppose the US, which has systematically shed innocent blood, ever since the bombing of Japan U.S. terrorism against Afghanistan and Iraq must be opposed by all Moslems.

There was dancing in the streets at word of the capture of US and British troops in Iraq, including Jessica Lynch. An official on Palestinian Authority Television delivered a sermon expressing the hope that, Americans will drown in their blood.

In an article published in the PA newspaper Al Hayat, Al Jadida, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council called President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Human beings whose ambitions have turned them into bloodthirsty beasts.

And who can forget the rousing images of Palestinian sorrow at the murder of 3000 innocents on September 11? Palestinians flooded the streets shouting for joy and throwing candy to children (a tradition symbol of celebration in the Middle East).

Statehood for the Palestinians is now official US policy. The president set forth pre-conditions for a state of Palestine (carved out of Biblical Israel) in a Rose Garden speech in June, 2002. The Palestinians were to stop suicide attacks, disarm Hamas and Islamic Jihad, end anti-Semitic/anti-Israel incitement and unequivocally recognize Israel s right to exist.

The Palestinian Authority honored those committments with the same zeal they honored all previous promises. By ignoring them.

Regardless, Bush endorsed the so-called Road Map putting Israel s fate in the hands of the UN, EU, Russia and the US State Department. For Israel, that is the equivalent of trial by lynch mob.

Preconditions for the Palestinians included electing a leader to replace Arafat and ending Palestinian violence against Israel. You don’t need me to explain how that turned out.

While in London, the president criticized the Israelis for building their security fence, humiliating Palestinians by searching them for bombs, and for not dismantling unauthorized settlements.

This whole ‘unauthorized’ settlement thing is intriguing. Since the West Bank and Gaza were captured by Israel following a war of aggression and subsequently annexed (like we did Texas and California) who would Israel go to for authorization to settle on territory captured in a war?

Who authorized the American settlements of Houston, Dallas or Los Angeles?

No Israelis danced for joy in the streets of Tel Aviv on September 11. The Israelis mourned our dead almost as much as we did. There are no rabbis asking God to drown Americans in their own blood.

A majority of Palestinians (75 percent in an October 7-14, 2003 survey) support suicide bombings. In a 2002 poll, 51 percent demanded a Palestinian state in all of historic Palestinian (i.e., all of Israel).

Overwhelming majorities support a so-called Palestinian right-of-return, which would flood Israel with millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Terrorist mastermind Arafat is the beloved leader of the Palestinian street.

For decades, the Palestinian masses have been nurtured on raw anti-Semitism Jews seek global domination. Jews are the enemies of morality. Jews drink the blood of children, etc., and so on, and so forth, ad nauseum, but for some inexplicable reason, the White House wants to hand statehood to the masterminds of the Palestinian It is ludicrous to believe a civilized country like Israel could peacefully co-exist beside a state run by anti-Israeli terrorists. A state that sanctions honor killings of Palestinian women for real or perceived infidelity.

The State of Palestine would be run by the men who ordered the destruction of busloads of women and children, the murder of entire families sitting down to Passover, ordered the shooting of women and children in their beds in Israeli settlements, the lynching of unarmed soldiers and the dragging off of two 13 year-old boys, (one of them from Maryland) to be stoned to death in caves.

Of the Israeli dead in the current Israeli/Palestinian war, 77% were non-combatants. Arafat’s promise of a demilitarized state is no better than any of his previous promises. Remember the Karin A? It was an arms ship intercepted in the Red Sea, carrying more than fifty tons of armaments headed to the Palestinian Authority. What would happen if Arafat controlled his own borders?

What is the administration thinking? Not only is granting statehood to Murder, Inc., idiotic, it also lacks any support from the American people.

In a recenty McLaughlin Group survey, only 13% think Arafat’s PA should get statehood — 77% of Americans staunchly oppose it. Two-thirds of poll respondents think that a Palestinian state would be a terrorist state. And three out of four believe Arafat’s long-term goal is the destruction of Israel.

So why would the administration back statehood for the Palestinians? Beats me. The only one in the administration who thinks this is a good idea is Colin Powell — and, evidently George W. Bush.

By and large, Bush’s foreign policy has been courageous — and as the evidence continues to flow in, it has proved to be sound. But when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, he, like his predecessors, has a blind spot. The same blind spot exists at the United Nations.

Israel lives on the other side of the Looking Glass from the rest of the planet. As such, Israel is the only country capable of seeing the danger inherent in turning statehood over to the March Hare.

But, to be fair, that blindness where Israel is concerned is supernaturally imposed. It can’t be explained any other way. Arafat has killed almost as many Americans over his career, either personally, or at his behest, than has Osama bin-Laden. The administration hasn’t begun stumping to carve a state out of Afghanistan and turn it over to bin-Laden. The blindness only extends to Israel.

Psalms 44:14 explains; “Thou makest us a byword among the heathen, a shaking of the head among the people.”

This incredible prophecy was true when the Psalmist penned it, it was true through every century since, and it remains true today. And it won’t change until the Return of the Lord.

“And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” (Zechariah 12:10)

Know Your Enemy

Know Your Enemy
Vol: 27 Issue: 1 Monday, December 1, 2003

That is one of the first rules of warfare. And in Iraq, we dropped the ball. As a consequence, we are regularly treated to the sight of dead soldiers, destroyed military vehicles and a rising body count. Not to mention cheering Iraqi crowds such as the one that formed following the ambush/murder of seven Spanish intelligence operatives.

Thinking the dead were Americans, the Iraqis chanted ‘Saddam is great’ at one point, posing for cameras while standing ON the bodies of the dead. It makes one wonder if the Iraqis wanted to be liberated, or if they were happier under Saddam Hussein.

US forces came under a massive coordinated ambush on Sunday, but the uniformed Saddam Feydeyeen picked the wrong convoy. This one was backed up by a tank and a Bradley fighting vehicle.

Lt. Col. William MacDonald of the 4th Infantry Division said that after barricading a road, attackers opened fire from rooftops and alleyways with bombs, small arms, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. By the time the smoke cleared, US officials say that 54 Iraqis were dead and 18 wounded. No US troops were killed, but five were wounded.

The military said Sunday’s attack was the fiercest firefight experienced by coalation troops since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1.

As of Wednesday, Nov. 26, 434 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq, according to the Department of Defense. Of those, 298 died as a result of hostile action and 136 died of non-hostile causes, the department said. One hundred and four of those troops were killed in November alone.


To the casual eye, it looks like the naysayers were right, and that we aren’t as welcome in Iraq as was initially promised. Although the administration says that 99% of Iraqis are glad to see us, it is hard to tell from the crowds cheering the coalition dead and the constant attacks.

The administration DID drop the ball, but not by invading Iraq. It is impossible to argue that ANYONE would be better off if we had left Saddam in place. As with so much of the Iraq story, the problem isn’t with intent or purpose, but rather a failure of intelligence.

US intelligence and military planners broke that first rule of warfare and failed to fully grasp the nature of the enemy.

US intelligence estimated that before and during the early stages of the war was that Baath Party members would fight for the Saddam regime. But once the regime was destroyed or on the verge of collapse, the Baath members would flee for their lives or seek to blend in with the civilian population.

It shows a total lack of understanding of the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The estimated 2 million or so hard-line Ba’athists in Iraq have nowhere to hide.

They are well known by the Iraqi people, particularly those who have been victims of Baath excesses. The Baath members were heavily involved in torture and murder under the Saddam regime. Saddam insisted that no regime member kept his hands clean.

They cannot stop fighting or they will be hunted down and killed by their own people. They are less afraid of dying at the hands of US troops than being subjected to the same kind of treatment at the hands of Iraqis that Iraqis suffered at their hands when they were in power.

There are too many Iraqis missing a tongue, an eye, or a hand, or a loved one, for them to forgive and forget. But US retaliation against the Ba’athists makes the US, to some, as bad or worse. Everybody in Iraq carries a gun, so as soon as the shooting starts, everybody is a potential target.

Feydayeen fire at US troops, innocent Iraqis get caught in the cross fire, return fire, and become US targets.

Enlightened US policy will not defeat the Ba’athist dead-enders. The only thing that will defeat them will be to eliminate them. Pulling out and running will only prove terrorism works and that US resolve is directly proportional to the number of US casualties. The US must stand its ground or terrorism will increase.

There is evidence that al-Qaeda is recruiting mercenaries to fight against the coalition in Iraq. al-Qaeda established a new group called Al Manara to recruit foreign mercenaries.

Al Manara operates mostly in several Arab countries and helps bring recruits to countries bordering Iraq, particularly Iran, Syria and Turkey. The Al Manara network received financing from Saddam Hussein. Saddam and bin-Laden have a history going back to 1991.

Those arguing that the war in Iraq is a mistake and that America should cut and run are even more clueless about the identity of the enemy than even the US intelligence services are.

The war in Iraq is as much a part of the war against terrorism as the war in Afghanistan. President Bush framed it correctly, calling it a battle between good and evil. For this, he has been widely ridiculed as overly simplistic. I beg to disagree.

“They also that render evil for good are mine adversaries; because I follow the thing that good is.” (Psalms 38:20)