the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman,
that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.”
Water As A Flood
Greetings! As is apparent from the first three articles below, “Approved behind closed doors, curbs that end three centuries of Press freedom.”, “Queen sets seal on cross-party politicians' charter for press regulation.” and “FCC to police news media, question reporters in wide-ranging content survey.”, the powers that be are attempting to stop the flow of information as more and more people are awakening to the fact that there is something terribly wrong with the world today and the direction it is heading.
Of course, many have seen this situation arising for a considerable period of time.
Jesus nailed it when He said in John 8:44 “He (the serpent)was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
This is of course, one of the outstanding attributes of the coming anti-christ and his government; “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.” Revelation 13:5. Jesus, even said in Matthew 24, if it were possible he would even be able to deceive the very elect. Every tyrant operates in this manner, having control of what news reaches the masses.
“According to 'Reporters Without Borders', more than a third of the world's people live in countries where there is no press freedom. Overwhelmingly, these people live in countries where there is no system of democracy or where there are serious deficiencies in the democratic process. Freedom of the press is an extremely problematic problem/concept for most non-democratic systems of government since, in the modern age, strict control of access to information is critical to the existence of most non-democratic governments and their associated control systems and security apparatus. To this end, most non-democratic societies employ state-run news organizations to promote the propaganda critical to maintaining an existing political power base and suppress (often very brutally, through the use of police, military, or intelligence agencies) any significant attempts by the media or individual journalists to challenge the approved "government line" on contentious issues. In such countries, journalists operating on the fringes of what is deemed to be acceptable will very often find themselves the subject of considerable intimidation by agents of the state. This can range from simple threats to their professional careers (firing, professional blacklisting) to death threats, kidnapping, torture, and assassination.”
So, what is the flood that Satan casts out of his mouth after the woman? Could it be a flood of lies and propaganda against Christians in his attempt to destroy the true followers of Jesus Christ.
“It could be he casts after her a flood of lies, lying propaganda to try to swallow her up.
If this is the case the ones who really swallow these lies are those whom "God shall send ... strong delusion, ... That they all might be damned because...they received not the love of the truth." (2Th.2:10-12)
"And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth." (12:16) The earth is a type of the worldly people and the very fact that they are swallowing all these lies ought to help us realize they're not the truth! "They are of the world (or earth, the system): therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." (1Jn.4:5)
“The woman is represented as having wings, and as being able thus to escape from the serpent. But, as an expression of his wrath, and as if with the hope of destroying her in her flight by a deluge of water, he is represented as pouring a flood from his mouth, that he might, if possible, sweep her away.” Barnes notes on the Bible
How will we be able to differentiate between the flood of lies and the truth?
Jesus said, He is the truth. John 14:6. Knowing God's Word, and being able to hear from Him and know His voice is key.
“When he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.” John 10:4-5
And remember, no matter how much of a flood of lies the Devil pours out, the truth will still be heard, even to the end of the Tribulation.
“I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” Revelation 11:3
Have a great week ahead.
Approved behind closed doors, curbs that end three centuries of Press freedom
By TIM SHIPMAN and GERRI PEEV
PUBLISHED: 18:40 EST, 30 October 2013 | UPDATED: 19:30 EST, 30 October 2013
A secretive committee of four ministers yesterday approved a Royal Charter to regulate the Press, provoking claims that politicians are undermining 300 years of freedom of speech.
The Privy Council, which advises the Queen, rubber-stamped the plans after newspapers lost two last ditch legal bids to halt the process.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg chaired a meeting at Buckingham Palace at which Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Culture Secretary Maria Miller and Liberal Democrat peer Lord McNally were also present.
The Queen was then obliged to grant the Royal Charter.
It grants politicians the right to meddle in Press regulation for the first time since the licensing of newspapers was abolished in 1695.
The plans were drawn up by all three main parties in late night negotiations over pizza with the Hacked Off pressure group. It is the first time in British history that a Royal Charter has been imposed upon an industry without its consent – a move that has provoked criticism that the Queen has become embroiled in political controversy.
On a day of high drama, four newspaper and magazine industry bodies went to the High Court to seek an injunction to prevent the Privy Council proceeding.
But it was only when the hearing was under way that lawyers for the newspapers realised that, without warning the papers, the judges had also decided to rule on a separate application for judicial review of the Privy Council’s ‘unfair, irrational and unlawful’ decision not to approve a rival Royal Charter drawn up by the newspapers.
Lord Justice Richards, sitting with Mr Justice Sales, rejected the application for judicial review and for an injunction.
The two judges retired to consider their verdict for only 15 minutes before returning with a ruling that ran to around 3,000 words – strongly suggesting it had been prepared in advance.
In their judgment, they said of the Privy Council’s rejection of the industry charter, ‘none of it can have come as surprise to anyone’.
Addressing the argument that the Privy Council had acted unfairly by refusing to tell the newspaper industry the criteria being used to make their decision, they said they could not see ‘any realistic possibility that a different procedure might have led to a different outcome.’
A senior industry figure said: ‘If that’s the case why did the Privy Council spend more than five months considering our charter? Or was the whole process just a sham?’
Newspaper groups will now file a separate case at the Court of Appeal over their calls for judicial review of the Privy Council’s decisions both to reject their Royal Charter and approve the politicians’ version.
They said last night: ‘We are deeply disappointed with this decision, which denies the newspaper and magazine industry the right properly to make their case that the Privy Council’s decision to reject their charter was unfair and unlawful.
‘This is a vital constitutional issue and we will be taking our case for judicial review – of the Privy Council’s decisions on both the industry charter and the cross-party charter – to the Court of Appeal.’
Both rival Royal Charters would create a ‘recognition panel’ to oversee an independent regulator with powers to impose fines of up to £1million on newspapers for wrongdoing.
But while the newspaper industry’s version of the charter would require industry-wide approval for any changes, the politicians’ version could only be changed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the approval of the recognition board, which has no Press representation.
Despite being threatened with penal damages and costs if they do not sign up, not a single newspaper or magazine has said it will join a regulator operating under the Government’s Royal Charter.
Roger Alton, executive editor of The Times, warned that the consequences could be far reaching.
‘It’s the end of 300 years of Press freedom if you’ve got politicians deciding to judge how stiff the standards of regulation are and that’s what will happen,’ he said. Mr Alton said ‘it could potentially be the difference between a free country and a non-free country’, adding that it was ‘inconceivable’ that such a thing would happen in America.
‘The idea that a deal stitched up between a few politicians over pizzas and a handful of lobbyists from Hacked Off, which is essentially an anti-newspaper group, is the thing that now controls the Press, which is one of the most vital safeguards in our democracy, I find extraordinarily depressing, very sad. It will be resisted.’
Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said: ‘It is a pity the Queen has been brought into controversy. Royal Charters are usually granted to those who ask for one – not forced upon an industry or group that doesn’t want it.’
Culture Department sources rejected claims that the Queen should not have been embroiled in the row.
‘The Government has already debated what was presented to the Privy Council; and the Queen was asked to formally approve it,’ a senior source said. ‘Under a constitutional monarchy, the Queen acts on the advice of her government. The Privy Council has granted the cross-party Royal Charter. It is not for the Queen to decide on its merits.’
Mr Clegg rejected claims that politicians would muzzle the Press. ‘The reason why politicians of all shades congregated in favour of a cross-party charter is that this whole system is designed to protect rather than undermine the continued right of the Press to regulate itself,’ he said.
Culture Secretary Mrs Miller said a charter was ‘the best way to resist full statutory regulation’ of the Press. ‘The decisions today mean that we can move forward with that and we will continue to work with the industry to make sure that this is a success,’ she added.
Queen sets seal on cross-party politicians' charter for press regulation
Senior press figures warn they will not sign up for scheme that they see as ‘state interference’
WEDNESDAY 30 OCTOBER 2013
After a succession of last-gasp legal attempts by the newspaper industry to thwart the process, the Queen has given her approval to a government-backed royal charter governing the regulation of the press.
At a meeting of the Privy Council, the Queen set her seal on the document, which is backed by the three main political parties but is almost universally opposed by the publishers it is intended to oversee.
Hours earlier, senior newspaper representatives had gone to the High Court to seek an injunction to stop the Privy Council hearing, claiming that the industry’s own version of a reform charter had been unfairly rejected.
At lunchtime, Lord Justice Richards, sitting at an emergency hearing with Mr Justice Sales, had denied the press representatives an injunction, saying the dismissal of the rival charter by a committee of the Privy Council this month had not been unlawful.
The Press Standards Board of Finance (Pressbof) immediately took its case to the Court of Appeal. But at 4.45pm – 45 minutes before the Privy Council was due to meet – Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, sitting with two other Court of Appeal judges, refused the final application for an injunction pending further legal action. “We are not willing to grant interim relief ‘administratively’ pending an application for permission to appeal,” he said.
In an attempt to lessen industry opposition to the charter, the Government announced a series of late amendments before it was submitted to the Privy Council. One concession, designed to allay fears that politicians might meddle with the freedom of the press, means any future changes to the charter will require the unanimous agreement of the recognition body’s board as well as a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament.
The Privy Council meeting, held at Buckingham Palace, was attended by four ministers: Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Culture Secretary Maria Miller, and the Liberal Democrat justice minister, Lord McNally of Blackpool.
Tony Gallagher, editor of The Daily Telegraph, was among the first senior press figures to express anger that politicians were imposing their charter and to indicate that his title would not comply. “Well done everyone involved in the royal charter,” he commented on Twitter with heavy sarcasm. “Chances of us signing up for state interference: zero.”
Mrs Miller acknowledged that the press did not have to sign up to a regulator set up under the charter but she said she hoped they would do so. “Self-regulation is exactly that… and the press obviously can choose to be subject to the royal charter or not, that is inherent in the process,” she said.
The passing of the government charter was “disappointing”, said Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors. “Those who seem to want to neuter the press forget that there are 20 national papers, 1,100 regional and local papers and hundreds of magazines who have not done any wrong but they are willing to submit themselves to the scrutiny of the most powerful regulator in the Western world, so long as it is independent of politicians now and in the future.”
The charter establishes a recognition body to oversee a powerful new regulator set up by the industry.
Hacked Off, the lobby group that has led the campaign for tighter regulation, welcomed the decision. “News publishers now have a great opportunity to join a scheme that will not only give the public better protection from press abuses, but will also uphold freedom of expression, protect investigative journalism and benefit papers financially,” it said.
The Privy Council: What is it?
Established in 1231 by Henry III, the Privy Council includes hundreds of politicians, royalty and other leading figures from the UK and from the Commonwealth.
However, just four ministers – Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who is Lord President of the Council, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Culture Secretary Maria Miller and the Liberal Democrat Justice minister, Lord McNally of Blackpool – were present at the council meeting at Buckingham Palace yesterday when the Queen set her seal on the new Royal Charter governing regulation of the press.
On its website, the council dismisses its reputation for secrecy as a “myth” that stems from the wording of a Tudor-era oath, still taken by councillors, which requires them to “keep secret all matters”.
Other members of the council include Prince Philip, New Zealand’s former Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and the Labour politician Lord Mandelson.
The Daily Caller
FCC to police news media, question reporters in wide-ranging content survey
10:25 AM 10/30/2013
The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment concerns.
The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of information on demographics, point of view, news topic selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and out of the FCC’s traditional purview.
The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to invasive questioning about their work and content.
A methodology worked up by Silver Spring, Maryland-based Social Solutions International (SSI) says that in addition to its general evaluation of news content, the survey will include a “qualitative component” featuring interrogations of news organization owners, management and employees.
Among the questions federal contractors will be asking of private media companies:
For media owners:
“What is the news philosophy of the station?”
For editors, producers and managers:
“Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic ‘beats’? If so how many and what are the beats?”
“Who decides which stories are covered?”
“Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?” (Followup questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was spiked.)
According to a May article in Communications Daily, Social Solutions International will be paid $917,823 for the study, which also questions news consumers about their habits and numerically codes news content according to how well, in the FCC’s view, it meets the “critical information needs” (CIN) of particular “communities.”
“The FCC has a duty to make sure that the industries it regulates serve the needs of the American public no matter where they live or what financial resources they have,” acting FCC chairwoman Mignon Clyburn said in a May announcement [pdf] of the survey. “The research design we announce today is an important next step in understanding what those needs are, how Americans obtain the information critical to their daily lives in a dynamic technological environment, and what barriers exist in our media ecologies to providing and accessing this information.”
Other observers take a less sanguine view of the proposal.
“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers, web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell, who served as an FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller. “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one should be concerned.”
Italian magazine says U.S. spies listened to pope, Vatican says unaware
VATICAN CITY | Wed Oct 30, 2013
(Reuters) - An Italian magazine said on Wednesday that a United States spy agency had eavesdropped on Vatican phone calls, possibly including when former Pope Benedict's successor was under discussion, but the Holy See said it had no knowledge of any such activity.
Panorama magazine said that among 46 million phone calls followed by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) in Italy from December 10, 2012, to January 8, 2013, were conversations in and out of the Vatican.
In a press release before full publication on Thursday, Panorama said the "NSA had tapped the pope". It cited no source for its information.
Asked to comment on the report, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said: "We are not aware of anything on this issue and in any case we have no concerns about it."
Media reports based on revelations from Edward Snowden, the fugitive former U.S. intelligence operative granted asylum in Russia, have said the NSA had spied on French citizens over the same period in December in January.
Last week, the German government appeared to confirm that Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone had also been monitored by American spies. The issue has also caused Washington problems with Brazil and China.
Panorama said the recorded Vatican phone calls were catalogued by the NSA in four categories - leadership intentions, threats to the financial system, foreign policy objectives and human rights.
Benedict resigned on February 28 this year and his successor, Pope Francis, was elected on March 13.
"It is feared" that calls were listened to up until the start of the conclave that elected Francis, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, Panorama said.
The magazine said there was also a suspicion that the Rome residence where some cardinals lived before the conclave, including the future pope, was monitored.
Catholic News Service
Palestinian president hopes to use pen from pope to sign peace treaty
By Cindy Wooden
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Francis gave Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas a fancy pen as a gift, and Abbas told the pope, "I hope to sign the peace agreement with Israel with this pen."
Pope Francis responded with his hope that the agreement would be reached "soon, soon."
The exchange took place Oct. 17 in the papal library after the pope and Palestinian president had spent almost half an hour meeting privately.
Abbas had given the pope a Bible and a framed scene of Bethlehem, West Bank. The pope gave Abbas a framed scene of the Vatican along with the pen, "because you obviously have many things to sign," which is when Abbas spoke about his hopes to sign a peace treaty.
A Vatican statement about Abbas' meeting with the pope and a later meeting with the Vatican foreign minister, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, said, "The reinstatement of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians" was a topic in both conversations.
"The parties expressed their hope that this process may bear fruit and enable a just and lasting solution to be found to the conflict," it said. "Hope was expressed that the parties to the conflict will make courageous and determined decisions in order to promote peace" and that the international community would support their efforts. The U.S.-mediated talks began in July.
The Vatican statement did not mention Pope Francis' possible trip to the Holy Land, although when Abbas greeted Archbishop Mamberti he told him that he had invited the pope to visit. Abbas' delegation also included the mayor of Bethlehem, which likely would be on the itinerary of a papal trip.
In April, Israeli President Shimon Peres also invited the pope, and Israeli media have been reporting that a papal visit is expected in the spring. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office announced Oct. 16 that the prime minister would meet U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Rome Oct. 23 and meet the pope during the same trip.
The Vatican statement on Abbas' meetings said the pope and Palestinian leader also discussed the ongoing war in Syria and expressed their hopes that "dialogue and reconciliation may supplant the logic of violence as soon as possible."
The two also discussed the work underway on a Vatican-Palestinian agreement regulating "several essential aspects of the life and activity of the Catholic Church in Palestine," as well as the situation of Christian communities in the Palestinian territories and the contributions Christians make to society throughout the Middle East.
Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution
BY JOEL GEHRKE | OCTOBER 30, 2013
Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.
That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.
"The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers," Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.
"The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.
In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing "an absurd proposition" that "could be used as a backdoor way to undermine" Second Amendment rights, among other things.
The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.
Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond's case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
That law implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is accused of violating in that country's vicious civil war.
"The problem here is precisely that Congress, rather than implementing the treaty consistent with our constitutional system of federalism, enacted a statute that, if construed to apply to petitioner’s conduct, would violate basic structural guarantees and exceed Congress's enumerated powers," according to Bond's lawyers.
The Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.
"If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states' rights to regulate abortion," she told the Washington Examiner.
The Judicial Crisis Network is a conservative legal activist group.
Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy?
By Brian Wheeler
Politics reporter, BBC News
The more information we have about what governments and corporations are up to the less we seem to trust them. Will conspiracy theories eventually destroy democracy?
What if I told you I had conclusive proof that the moon landings were faked, but I had been told to keep it under wraps by my BBC bosses acting under orders from the CIA, NSA and MI6. Most of you would think I had finally lost my mind.
But, for some, that scenario - a journalist working for a mainstream media organisation being manipulated by shadowy forces to keep vital information from the public - would seem entirely plausible, or even likely.
We live in a golden age for conspiracy theories. There is a growing assumption that everything we are told by the authorities is wrong, or not quite as it seems. That the truth is being manipulated or obscured by powerful vested interests.
And, in some cases, it is.
"The reason we have conspiracy theories is that sometimes governments and organisations do conspire," says Observer columnist and academic John Naughton.
It would be wrong to write off all conspiracy theorists as "swivel-eyed loons," with "poor personal hygiene and halitosis," he told a Cambridge University Festival of Ideas debate.
They are not all "crazy". The difficult part, for those of us trying to make sense of a complex world, is working out which parts of the conspiracy theory to keep and which to throw away.
Mr Naughton is one of three lead investigators in a major new Cambridge University project to investigate the impact of conspiracy theories on democracy.
The internet is generally assumed to be the main driving force behind the growth in conspiracy theories but, says Mr Naughton, there has been little research into whether that is really the case.
He plans to compare internet theories on 9/11 with pre-internet theories about John F Kennedy's assassination.
Like the other researchers, he is wary, or perhaps that should be weary, of delving into the darker recesses of the conspiracy world.
"The minute you get into the JFK stuff, and the minute you sniff at the 9/11 stuff, you begin to lose the will to live," he told the audience in Cambridge.
Like Sir Richard Evans, who heads the five-year Conspiracy and Democracy project, he is at pains to stress that the aim is not to prove or disprove particular theories, simply to study their impact on culture and society.
Why are we so fascinated by them? Are they undermining trust in democratic institutions?
David Runciman, professor of politics at Cambridge University, the third principal investigator, is keen to explode the idea that most conspiracies are actually "cock-ups".
"The line between cock-up, conspiracy and conspiracy theory are much more blurred than the conventional view that you have got to choose between them," he told the Festival of Ideas.
"There's a conventional view that you get these conspirators, who are these kind of sinister, malign people who know what they are doing, and the conspiracy theorists, who occasionally stumble upon the truth but who are on the whole paranoid and crazy.
What constitutes a conspiracy theory?
"Actually the conspirators are often the paranoid and crazy conspiracy theorists, because in their attempt to cover up the cock-up they get drawn into a web in which their self-justification posits some giant conspiracy trying to expose their conspiracy.
"And I think that's consistently true through a lot of political scandals, Watergate included."
'Curry house plot'
It may also be true, he argues, of the "vicious" in-fighting and plotting that characterised New Labour's years in power, as recently exposed in the memoirs of Gordon Brown's former spin doctor Damian McBride.
The Brownite conspiracies to remove Tony Blair were "pathetically ineffectual" - with the exception of the 2006 "curry house" plot that forced Blair to name a departure date - but the picture painted by Mr McBride of a "paranoid" and "chaotic" inner circle has the ring of truth about it, he claims.
Gordon Brown was a keen student of conspiracy theories
And Mr Brown - said to be a keen student of the JFK assassination - knew a conspiracy when he saw one.
"You feel he sees conspiracies out there because he has a mindset that is not dissimilar to the conspiracy theorists," said Prof Runciman.
He is also examining whether the push for greater openness and transparency in public life will fuel, rather than kill off, conspiracy theories.
"It may be that one of the things conspiracy theories feed on as well as silence, is a surfeit of information. And when there is a mass of information out there, it becomes easier for people to find their way through to come to the conclusion they want to come to.
"Plus, you don't have to be an especial cynic to believe that, in the age of open government, governments will be even more careful to keep secret the things they want to keep secret.
"The demand for openness always produces, as well as more openness, more secrecy."
Which brings us back to the moon landings. I should state, for the avoidance of any doubt, and to kill off any internet speculation, that I am not in possession of any classified information about whether they were faked or not. My contacts at Nasa are not that good.
But then I would say that wouldn't I?
The War on Syria: The September 2013 Military Stand-off between Five US Destroyers and the Russian Flotilla in the Eastern Mediterranean
Two US missiles were launched towards the Syrian coast, and both failed to reach their destination
By Israel Shamir
Global Research, October 26, 2013
israelshamir.net 5 October 2013
The Cape of Good Hope Presentation at the Rhodes Forum, October 5, 2013
First, the good news. American hegemony is over. The bully has been subdued.
We cleared the Cape of Good Hope, symbolically speaking, in September 2013. With the Syrian crisis, the world has passed a key forking of modern history. It was touch and go, just as risky as the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
The chances for total war were high, as the steely wills of America and Eurasia had crossed in the Eastern Mediterranean. It will take some time until the realisation of what we’ve gone through seeps in: it is normal for events of such magnitude. The turmoil in the US, from the mad car chase in the DC to the shutdown of federal government and possible debt default, are the direct consequences of this event.
Remember the Berlin Wall? When it went down, I was in Moscow, writing for Haaretz. I went to a press-conference with Politburo members in the President Hotel, and asked them whether they concurred that the end of the USSR and world socialist system was nigh. I was laughed at; it was an embarrassing occasion. Oh no, they said. Socialism will blossom, as the result of the Wall’s fall. The USSR went down two years later. Now our memory has compacted those years into a brief sequence, but in reality, it took some time.
The most dramatic event of September 2013 was the high-noon stand-off near the Levantine shore, with five US destroyers pointing their Tomahawks towards Damascus and facing them – the Russian flotilla of eleven ships led by the carrier-killer Missile Cruiser Moskva and supported by Chinese warships. Apparently, two missiles were launched towards the Syrian coast, and both failed to reach their destination.
It was claimed by a Lebanese newspaper quoting diplomatic sources that the missiles were launched from a NATO air base in Spain and they were shot down by the Russian ship-based sea-to-air defence system. Another explanation proposed by the Asia Times says the Russians employed their cheap and powerful GPS jammers to render the expensive Tomahawks helpless, by disorienting them and causing them to fail. Yet another version attributed the launch to the Israelis, whether they were trying to jump-start the shoot-out or just observed the clouds, as they claim.
Whatever the reason, after this strange incident, the pending shoot-out did not commence, as President Obama stood down and holstered his guns. This was preceded by an unexpected vote in the British Parliament. This venerable body declined the honour of joining the attack proposed by the US. This was the first time in two hundred years that the British parliament voted down a sensible proposition to start a war; usually the Brits can’t resist the temptation.
After that, President Obama decided to pass the hot potato to the Congress. He was unwilling to unleash Armageddon on his own. Thus the name of action was lost. Congress did not want to go to war with unpredictable consequences. Obama tried to browbeat Putin at the 20G meeting in St Petersburg, and failed. The Russian proposal to remove Syrian chemical weaponry allowed President Obama to save face. This misadventure put paid to American hegemony , supremacy and exceptionalism. Manifest Destiny was over. We all learned that from Hollywood flics: the hero never stands down; he draws and shoots! If he holsters his guns, he is not a hero: he’s chickened out.
Afterwards, things began to unravel fast. The US President had a chat with the new president of Iran, to the chagrin of Tel Aviv. The Free Syrian Army rebels decided to talk to Assad after two years of fighting him, and their delegation arrived in Damascus, leaving the Islamic extremists high and dry. Their supporter Qatar is collapsing overextended. The shutdown of their government and possible debt default gave the Americans something real to worry about. With the end of US hegemony, the days of the dollar as the world reserve currency are numbered.
World War III almost occurred as the banksters wished it. They have too many debts, including the unsustainable foreign debt of the US. If those Tomahawks had flown, the banksters could have claimed Force Majeure and disavow the debt. Millions of people would die, but billions of dollars would be safe in the vaults of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. In September, the world crossed this bifurcation point safely, as President Obama refused to take the fall for the banksters. Perhaps he deserved his Nobel peace prize, after all.
The near future is full of troubles but none are fatal. The US will lose its emission rights as a source of income. The US dollar will cease to serve as the world reserve currency though it will remain the North American currency. Other parts of the world will resort to their euro, yuan, rouble, bolivar, or dinar. The US military expenditure will have to be slashed to normal, and this elimination of overseas bases and weaponry will allow the US population to make the transition rather painlessly. Nobody wants to go after America; the world just got tired of them riding shotgun all over the place. The US will have to find new employment for so many bankers, jailers, soldiers, even politicians.
As I stayed in Moscow during the crisis, I observed these developments as they were seen by Russians. Putin and Russia have been relentlessly hard-pressed for quite a while.
* The US supported and subsidised Russia’s liberal and nationalist opposition; the national elections in Russia were presented as one big fraud. The Russian government was delegitimised to some extent.
* The Magnitsky Act of the US Congress authorised the US authorities to arrest and seize the assets of any Russian they deem is up to no good, without a recourse to a court.
* Some Russian state assets were seized in Cyprus where the banks were in trouble.
* The US encouraged Pussy Riot, gay parades etc. in Moscow, in order to promote an image of Putin the dictator, enemy of freedom and gay-hater in the Western and Russian oligarch-owned media.
* Russian support for Syria was criticised, ridiculed and presented as a brutal act devoid of humanity. At the same time, Western media pundits expressed certainty that Russia would give up on Syria.
As I wrote previously, Russia had no intention to surrender Syria, for a number of good reasons: it was an ally; the Syrian Orthodox Christians trusted Russia; geopolitically the war was getting too close to Russian borders. But the main reason was Russia’s annoyance with American high-handedness. The Russians felt that such important decisions should be taken by the international community, meaning the UN Security Council. They did not appreciate the US assuming the role of world arbiter.
In the 1990s, Russia was very weak, and could not effectively object, but they felt bitter when Yugoslavia was bombed and NATO troops moved eastwards breaking the US promise to Gorbachev. The Libyan tragedy was another crucial point. That unhappy country was bombed by NATO, and eventually disintegrated. From the most prosperous African state it was converted into most miserable. Russian presence in Libya was rather limited, but still, Russia lost some investment there. Russia abstained in the vote on Libya as this was the position of the then Russian president Dmitry Medvedev who believed in playing ball with the West. In no way was Putin ready to abandon Syria to the same fate.
The Russian rebellion against the US hegemony began in June, when the Aeroflot flight from Beijing carrying Ed Snowden landed in Moscow. Americans pushed every button they could think of to get him back. They activated the full spectre of their agents in Russia. Only a few voices, including that of your truly, called on Russia to provide Snowden with safe refuge, but our voices prevailed. Despite the US pressure, Snowden was granted asylum.
The next step was the Syrian escalation. I do not want to go into the details of the alleged chemical attack. In the Russian view, there was not and could not be any reason for the US to act unilaterally in Syria or anywhere else. In a way, the Russians have restored the Law of Nations to its old revered place. The world has become a better and safer place.
None of this could’ve been achieved without the support of China. The Asian giant considers Russia its “elder sister” and relies upon her ability to deal with the round-eyes. The Chinese, in their quiet and unassuming way, played along with Putin. They passed Snowden to Moscow. They vetoed anti-Syrian drafts in the UNSC, and sent their warships to the Med. That is why Putin stood the ground not only for Russia, but for the whole mass of Eurasia.
The Church was supportive of Putin’s efforts; not only the Russian Church, but both Catholics and Orthodox were united in their opposition to the pending US campaign for the US-supported rebels massacred Christians. The Pope appealed to Putin as to defender of the Church; so did the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch. The Pope almost threatened to excommunicate Hollande, and the veiled threat impressed the French president. So Putin enjoyed support and blessing of the Orthodox Patriarchs and of the Pope: such double blessing is an extremely rare occassion.
There were many exciting and thrilling moments in the Syrian saga, enough to fill volumes. An early attempt to subdue Putin at G8 meeting in Ireland was one of them. Putin was about to meet with the united front of the West, but he managed to turn some of them to his side, and he sowed the seeds of doubt in others’ hearts by reminding them of the Syrian rebel manflesh-eating chieftains.
The proposal to eliminate Syrian chemical weapons was deftly introduced; the UNSC resolution blocked the possibility of attacking Syria under cover of Chapter Seven. Miraculously, the Russians won in this mighty tug-of-war. The alternative was dire: Syria would be destroyed as Libya was; a subsequent Israeli-American attack on Iran was unavoidable; Oriental Christianity would lose its cradle; Europe would be flooded by millions of refugees; Russia would be proven irrelevant, all talk and no action, as important as Bolivia, whose President’s plane can be grounded and searched at will. Unable to defend its allies, unable to stand its ground, Russia would’ve been left with a ‘moral victory’, a euphemism for defeat. Everything Putin has worked for in 13 years at the helm would’ve been lost; Russia would be back to where it was in 1999, when Clinton bombed Belgrade.
The acme of this confrontation was reached in the Obama-Putin exchange on exceptionalism. The two men were not buddies to start with. Putin was annoyed by what he perceived as Obama’s insincerity and hypocrisy. A man who climbed from the gutter to the very top, Putin cherishes his ability to talk frankly with people of all walks of life. His frank talk can be shockingly brutal. When he was heckled by a French journalist regarding treatment of Chechen separatists, he replied:
“the Muslim extremists (takfiris) are enemies of Christians, of atheists, and even of Muslims because they believe that traditional Islam is hostile to the goals that they set themselves. And if you want to become an Islamic radical and are ready to be circumcised, I invite you to Moscow. We are a multi-faith country and we have experts who can do it. And I would advise them to carry out that operation in such a way that nothing would grow in that place again”.
Another example of his shockingly candid talk was given at Valdai as he replied to BBC’s Bridget Kendall. She asked: did the threat of US military strikes actually play a rather useful role in Syria’s agreeing to have its weapons placed under control?
Putin replied: Syria got itself chemical weapons as an alternative to Israel’s nuclear arsenal. He called for the disarmament of Israel and invoked the name of Mordecai Vanunu as an example of an Israeli scientist who opposes nuclear weapons. (My interview with Vanunu had been recently published in the largest Russian daily paper, and it gained some notice).
Putin tried to talk frankly to Obama. We know of their exchange from a leaked record of the Putin-Netanyahu confidential conversation. Putin called the American and asked him: what’s your point in Syria? Obama replied: I am worried that Assad’s regime does not observe human rights. Putin almost puked from the sheer hypocrisy of this answer. He understood it as Obama’s refusal to talk with him “on eye level”.
In the aftermath of the Syrian stand-off, Obama appealed to the people of the world in the name of American exceptionalism. The United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional”, he said. Putin responded: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.” This was not only an ideological, but theological contradistinction.
As I expounded at length elsewhere, the US is built on the Judaic theology of exceptionalism, of being Chosen. It is the country of Old Testament. This is the deeper reason for the US and Israel’s special relationship. Europe is going through a stage of apostasy and rejection of Christ, while Russia remains deeply Christian. Its churches are full, they bless one other with Christmas and Easter blessings, instead of neutral “seasons”. Russia is a New Testament country. And rejection of exceptionalism, of chosenness is the underlying tenet of Christianity.
For this reason, while organised US Jewry supported the war, condemned Assad and called for US intervention, the Jewish community of Russia, quite numerous, wealthy and influential one, did not support the Syrian rebels but rather stood by Putin’s effort to preserve peace in Syria. Ditto Iran, where the wealthy Jewish community supported the legitimate government in Syria. It appears that countries guided by a strong established church are immune from disruptive influence of lobbies; while countries without such a church – the US and/or France – give in to such influences and adopt illegal interventionism as a norm.
As US hegemony declines, we look to an uncertain future. The behemoth might of the US military can still wreck havoc; a wounded beast is the most dangerous one. Americans may listen to Senator Ron Paul who called to give up overseas bases and cut military expenditure. Norms of international law and sovereignty of all states should be observed. People of the world will like America again when it will cease snooping and bullying. It isn’t easy, but we’ve already negotiated the Cape and gained Good Hope.
(Language edited by Ken Freeland)
Amish Girl Forced Into Experimental Chemotherapy Is Taken Out of U.S. and Recovers with Natural Treatment
October 30, 2013
Early in October 2013, the entire nation heard about how Sarah Hershberger, a 10-year old Ohio Amish girl with leukemia (now recovered), was being forced into a two-year unproven experimental chemotherapy study by Akron Children’s Hospital (ACH). Parents reported this week the child is fully recovered through natural treatments.
It was just learned the parents, Andy and Anna Hershberger, took their significantly recovered daughter out of the United States before the court ruled that a hospital-affiliated, attorney-nurse, Maria Schimer, was made the medical guardian to make sure Sarah will get her treatments.
Schimer is General Counsel (chief legal advisor) for Northeast Ohio Medical University (NEOMED), a close affiliate and business partner of the hospital. According to Andy, Ms. Schimer has never met Sarah or him and his wife and they were never told their child was being used in a research study–among other things.
Although they do not know it yet, the hospital now has a big problem they must deal with. Sarah is completely recovered, as of October 23, according to Andy. The hospital told them and the news media that Sarah would die in a few months without the treatment they recommend. Three doctors that have treated her with a natural, biochemical protocol using nutrition, supplements and plant extracts have declared Sarah cancer free based on cat scans and blood tests–confirmed three times.
Of the 100s of stories and broadcasts, the local and national media failed to investigate the story behind the story–the side of parents Andy and Anna Hershberger and the grandfather, Isaac Keim, a bishop in the Amish church. Andy told us “after the news media took only a part of my statements and twisted them, I wasn’t going to talk anymore.” He and his family were happy and thankful that the Journal took the time to hear their side–never told before.
The Hershberger family says they never were told the chemotherapy waspart of a research project using experimental chemicals. They also said the hospital did not get their signature for the second phase of different chemicals and only Sarah was asked to “put her name on the line.” They claim they were not told of the serious side effects. They said Sarah’s confidential medical information was given to the news media violating federal privacy laws. After a significant improvement in killing the cancer, they saw that the chemo was starting to kill Sarah and decided to stop the treatment and employ a better option to stop the cancer altogether.This is when the hospital took legal action to keep Sarah in the treatment study. During the four-month ordeal, besides the anguish and financial losses Andy suffered a serious traumatic stress condition disabling him for three weeks. Family and friends helped with the kids and the vegetable harvest and sales at their produce stand and the nearby auction. Now the Hershbergers want to return to the United States, come home to their six other children in Medina County Ohio and put their lives back together after what they describe as gross mistreatment by the hospital.
The hospital told the family and the news media Sarah would die in a few months without their treatments. Isaac Keim, the Amish bishop, said Akron General Hospital told him the same thing a year ago when he had cancer. He refused chemotherapy and took a more natural approach and he feels just fine. He knows other Amish people still living healthy several years after they were told they would be dead in a few months if they did not accept the cancer treatments being recommended.
Lost Business for the HospitalACH will lose as much as $1,000,000 or more by not treating Sarah the full 110 weeks in this study and, according to our sources close to the case, has already billed $130,000 for the first five weeks. Add to this the various pediatric cancer research grants and other funds it is receiving directly or indirectly for this type of study. This is not counting the billings for treatments for the long-term side effects such as other cancers, kidney dysfunction, heart problems and nerve damage–all common for those that survive chemotherapy.
They tell us chemotherapy saves lives, boosts long-term survival rates and does not damage healthy cells. All these statements by the cancer industry have been proven false.
Isaac Keim has said the Amish community in Ohio is turning away from the hospital and its 80 area locations. Many of them are now going elsewhere, he says. Andy says the hospital will not want people to hear about how they have been mistreated and especially the fact that Sarah is fully back to normal now–just in about two months.
This is not a religious issue; the Amish accepts modern medicine–as did the Hershbergers wanting Sarah to start chemotherapy. This case is about the rights of good parents having the freedom to choose other treatment options that are less expensive and possibly more effective. This case is about the power of corporations over individual rights to decide which medical treatments and experiments for children and adults must undergo.
Isaac Keim, by his authority as bishop of an Amish church, has declared the Amish church is against the court ruling and the actions by the hospital. He said he knows of many Amish bishops in the other churches who believe the same.
Why is the hospital going to all the time and expense, even with the risk of tarnishing their reputation, all to make sure their advice is taken as opposed to other available treatments widely known in Europe as well as clinics in the U.S.? After all, these are Amish people, and it could become an extremely costly public relations nightmare. ACH and NEOMED may have banked on the Amish to stay quiet and not talk to the outside world, knowing also the Amish does not sue in court thereby making more information public.
What’s at Stake National Cancer Institute (NCI) lists 39 different and ongoing cancer trials at ACH each with a number children. ACH has revenues of $700,000,000 per year, 60% of which are Medicaid billings and other government agencies, according to their annual report. They are currently building a bond-funded $250,000,000 expansion for additional rooms and treatment facilities.
The ACH doctor over Sarah’s case practices part-time at ACH and four other Ohio hospitals. He is the Professor of Pediatrics at NEOMED.
At issue in this case is whether parents have the sole authority for medical decisions about their children and the power of corporations line ACH forcing unproven experimental treatments. In Ohio, the law allows a court-ordered limited medical guardianship “when it is the best interests of the child.” This is the principle on which ACH attorneys based their appeal. This brings up many important questions:
How is it that a hospital whose primary interests are the profits from expensive procedures be an objective opinion or argument on what is in the “best interests” of the girl?
How is it the Court would give over medical decisions over to a hospital affiliate business partner?
What does the court decision mean for any person bringing a family member into a hospital who does not agree with the treatment decided on by their panels of experts? Do they risk legal actions for having a different opinion even if based on another medical opinion? Do they risk losing custody of their child?
It is most likely that legal proceedings will continue in reversing the second appellate court’s decision based on constitutional grounds.
Top seven natural cures for cancer that got buried by the FDA, AMA, CDC
Sunday, October 27, 2013 by: S. D. Wells Tags: natural medicine, cancer cures, government agencies
(NaturalNews) How do you keep the spread of cancer "growing"? Bury the cure. How do you keep 1.5 million Americans "infested" yearly with mutated cells that multiply uncontrollably? You breed cancer in food and medicine. How many years ago did America start this evil strategy to make people sick and deny them the cure? Nearly 100 years. Where did it all really start? The American Medical Association (AMA) and a man named Morris Fishbein, who single-handedly removed nutrition from medical schools in the U.S. and installed a fake seal of approval for harmful lab-made drugs that made cancer worse. What else did Fishbein do? (http://www.v1.thehealingjournal.com)
Just in case you "doubters" and skeptics want some concrete proof, some evidence to take with you on your journey NOT to get cancer, here are some historical, proven facts to help you understand WHY you need to go 100% organic and research and use natural remedies, to build your immunity to disease with superfoods, herbs, tinctures and organic supplements. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
Let's begin this journey of truth and the not-so-healthy history of medicine in this bold country we call the "Land of the Free." Let's begin with the TOP SEVEN CURES for cancer that mainstream media will never admit to, because their advertising money comes from Big Pharma, the GMO Agriculture giants (Monsanto/Dupont/Bayer/Dow Chemical/etc.) and the lobbyists and politicians who make their money off of stocks in cancer therapies that don't work:
1. The AMA once paid a cancer virus researcher $250K to retire in Mexico and stop working on natural cures:
2. Burzynski documentary reveals true agenda of FDA and cancer industry to destroy cancer cures that really work:
3. 'Dying to Have Known' documentary features Gerson Therapy natural cancer cure:
4. Harry Hoxsey: Guilty of Curing Cancer with Herbs:
5. Magic mushrooms could treat depression, but clinical trials unnecessarily delayed by drug laws:
6. Marijuana - A cure for cancer?
7. Beat cancer with 35% hydrogen peroxide!
Pay it forward 100 years
Nearly 100 years ago, the AMA began removing nutritional education from medical schools in America. Medical doctors would no longer understand anything about using food as medicine (or be allowed to suggest it), and all mid-wives, Native American herbalists and natural healers would be referred to in medical journals as "quacks." The Western Medicine philosophy would soon come to be that no food in the world could ever heal a human being or cure any disease or disorder; in fact, only pharmaceuticals and vaccines would ever be able to make that claim (legally) and get away with it, whether in peer reviews, medical and science journals (JAMA), scientific "studies" or labeled as such on products. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
Currently, it is illegal for any food, herb, tincture or superfood product to say that it cures anything, yet medications advertised on TV since 1997 can say they treat all kinds of diseases and disorders, even though the side effects are horrendous, some of the time including internal bleeding and suicide. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
Mother Nature, on the other hand, has a CURE for everything and also offers prevention and immunity for everything under the sun. Nutritionists and Naturopathic Physicians will tell you all day that organic fruits and vegetables are the key to healing and living a healthy life. A plant-based diet can heal nearly any health problem, and the body is like a machine that fires "on all cylinders" when given the correct fuel. Take this knowledge and be on your way to health freedom and natural living, where you have lots of energy, rarely ever get sick, can think critically all the time, can be spiritual and independent and take care of your family! Follow Natural News and track the truth. Learn and grow from it. Don't eat cancer. Don't drink cancer. Be organic. (http://programs.webseed.com)
Sources for this article include:
Tlachtga where the Great Fire Festival at Samhain was celebrated.
As millions of children and adults participate in the fun of Halloween on the night of October 31st, few will be aware of its ancient Celtic roots in the Samhain (Samain) festival. In Celtic Ireland about 2,000 years ago, Samhain was the division of the year between the lighter half (summer) and the darker half (winter). At Samhain the division between this world and the otherworld was at its thinnest, allowing spirits to pass through.
The family's ancestors were honoured and invited home whilst harmful spirits were warded off. People wore costumes and masks to disguise themselves as harmful spirits and thus avoid harm. Bonfires and food played a large part in the festivities. The bones of slaughtered livestock were cast into a communal fire, household fires were extinguished and started again from the bonfire. Food was prepared for the living and the dead, food for the ancestors who were in no position it eat it, was ritually shared with the less well off.
Christianity incorporated the honouring of the dead into the Christian calendar with All Saints (All Hallows) on November 1st, followed by All Souls on November 2nd. The wearing of costumes and masks to ward off harmful spirits survived as Halloween customs. The Irish emigrated to America in great numbers during the 19th century especially around the time of famine in Ireland during the 1840's. The Irish carried their Halloween traditions to America, where today it is one of the major holidays of the year. Through time other traditions have blended into Halloween, for example the American harvest time tradition of carving pumpkins.
Two hills in the Boyne Valley were associated with Samhain in Celtic Ireland, Tlachtga and Tara. Tlachtga was the location of the Great Fire Festival which begun on the eve of Samhain (Halloween). Tara was also associated with Samhain, however it was secondary to Tlachtga in this respect.
The entrance passage to the Mound of the Hostages on the Hill of Tara is aligned with the rising sun around Samhain. The Mound of the Hostages is 4,500 to 5000 years old, suggesting that Samhain was celebrated long before the first Celts arrived in Ireland about 2,500 years ago.
Celtic Earth Works on the Hill of Tara
Thirsty? There's a global wine shortage
By Aaron Smith @AaronSmithCNN October 29, 2013: 10:30 PM ET
China's wine obsession spurs Bordeaux sales
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
There's just not enough wine in the world, says Morgan Stanley, and the problem is only going to get worse.
The industry is experiencing an "undersupply of nearly 300 million cases" a year, according to a report from Morgan Stanley Research.
Australia-based analysts Tom Kierath and Crystal Wang say the shortage comes despite the fact that there are one million wine producers globally, making 2.8 billion cases each year. About half of that comes from Europe.
But that's not enough to keep up with worldwide demand
Global production fell by more than 5% last year - to its lowest level since the 1960s - primarily due to bad weather in France and Argentina.
Production in Europe alone dropped 10% in 2012, the report said. That same year, worldwide consumption rose by 1%.
Related: Four secret wine tasting destinations
The French consume the most wine, followed by Americans, and then the Chinese.
Wine has become particularly popular in China, as the economy booms and the standard of living there rises. China is also producing more wine of its own, said the report.
America consumes 12% of the world's wine but produces just 8%. And the U.S. is only getting thirstier ; consumption rose 2% last year.
The U.S. wine making industry is also growing. The number of American wineries has "expanded dramatically" in the last 15 years, according to the report. But most of them are "boutique" operators rather than major producers, so they're not driving any real growth in supply.
And there is little reason to believe that global wine production will pick up any time soon.
Morgan Stanley said that output from newer producers like the U.S., Argentina, Chile, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa has already peaked.
-- Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that wine production totals 2.8 million cases per year. It is 2.8 billion cases.
Until next week...keep on
I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the
vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's