he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and
the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the
water of life freely. And he shewed me a pure river of water of life,
clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the
(Revelation 21:6, 22:1)
Water Of Life
Greetings! We are very pleased to inform you that the documentary “The Coming Temple” has now been completed and can be seen below.
The video was one and a half years in the making and we are hoping the truth shown in this video will be disseminated far and wide.
It is for this reason we plan to feature the video on this web site for the foreseeable future.
We are also now working on producing DVD version of the video which will contain a brochure with additional information.
Yours in Jesus,
Russia’s New Satan 2 Mega-Nuke Described With Chilling Accuracy in Isaiah Prophecy
By Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz October 28, 2016 , 8:00 am
“The earth is broken, broken down, the earth is crumbled in pieces, the earth trembleth and tottereth.” Isaiah 24:19 (The Israel Bible™)
As tensions rise between Russia and the United States and Cold War fears return, Russia revealed a terrifying new addition to its nuclear arsenal, aptly dubbed Satan 2. Verses in the Book of Isaiah describing in detail what can only be nuclear destruction are suddenly relevant as never before as the hell weapon’s capabilities come to light.
This week, Russia revealed that it had successfully tested the RS-28, a super-heavy thermonuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile. Containing 16 warheads, the Satan 2 delivers a blast of 40 megatons, 2,000 times more powerful than the atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. It is capable of wiping out a landmass “the size of Texas or France,” according to a report by the Russian Sputnik news agency.
Russia’s new Satan 2 missile. (Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau)
The delivery system has a range of over 6,000 miles at 4.3 miles per second, putting the East and West Coasts of the US within range. There are plans to incorporate Project 4202, a Russian hypersonic glider warhead carrier that can deliver the nuclear payload at an astonishing Mach 7, or over 5,300 MPH. It is doubtful that existing missile defense systems can cope with a threat travelling at such speeds.
Nuclear scenarios of the magnitude presented by this new weapon are hinted at in Biblical prophecy, most notably in Isaiah. His description of bomb shelters is clear.
“And men shall go into the caves of the rocks, and into the holes of the earth, from before the terror of Hashem, and from the glory of His majesty, when He ariseth to shake mightily the earth.” Isaiah 2:19
He describes total destruction that arrives in an unnaturally swift manner, similar to the instant, total chaos of a nuclear bomb’s detonation.
“At eventide behold terror; and before the morning they are not.” Isaiah 17:14
The prophet describes with disturbing accuracy nuclear winter, a period of abnormal cold and darkness following a nuclear war, caused by a layer of smoke and dust in the atmosphere blocking the sun’s rays.
“For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” Isaiah 13:10
The last chapter of Isaiah describes nuclear war in spiritual terms.
“For by fire will Hashem contend, and by His sword with all flesh; and the slain of Hashem shall be many.” Isaiah 66:16
Rabbi Yosef Berger, rabbi of the Tomb of David on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, explained to Breaking Israel News that Isaiah was describing events that had no relevance in his time, and it is only becoming clear now what he was referring to. He gave another example.
“On the fifth day of Sukkot last week, we read in the special prayers, ‘A Hoshana (supplication) of three hours’. The Gaon of Vilna (the foremost Torah scholar of the 18th century) explained that this describes the war of Gog and Magog, which will take three hours to wreak its destruction, returning the world to tohu va’vohu (unformed and void),” Rabbi Berger explained.
“At the time he said this, this made no sense. Men did not have the ability to destroy the world, or attack distant enemies on a massive scale,” Rabbi Berger explained. “It was inconceivable that a war could be waged in three hours. The Gaon of Vilna was describing a situation that is only beginning to make sense now.”
“In the same way, Isaiah was using terms from his time to describe a situation which did not exist, but when we look at his words now, we can understand how they are absolutely timely and relevant,” said Rabbi Berger.
“Also, the motivations that would bring a country to create such a destructive weapon were inconceivable just a few generations ago,” he continued. “All this is possible to understand through prophecy, which sees this as part of a bigger picture: as the will of God. All the things the prophets wrote about, we are only beginning to see now as the precursor to the Messiah.”
How Will We Live Now? Francis Schaeffer’s 'How Should We Then Live' After 40 Years
Al Mohler | President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary | Thursday, October 27, 2016
HOW WILL WE LIVE NOW? FRANCIS SCHAEFFER’S 'HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE' AFTER 40 YEARS
The year 1976, the very year that many Americans came to know that evangelicals even existed, continues to reverberate throughout evangelical Christianity. The towering giants of the evangelical world at that time seemed to see our world in increasingly hopeful terms. The urgent cultural crises of the 1960s appeared to be in recession.
As we now know, it was not really so. In 1973 the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand nationwide. Larger intellectual currents were setting the stage for a massive shift in the culture. Evangelicals were wearing “I Found It” buttons and building massive megachurches, but the culture was shifting toward a hostile secularism that would not be fully apparent for a generation.
Still, some saw it coming. I turned 17 years old in 1976, facing my last year of high school and trying to figure out the world around me. An apologetic crisis had troubled me for a couple of years by then, and I needed help. I was already facing some of the issues and questions that would explode onto the American scene in coming decades.
Thankfully, I did get help, and from multiple sources. D. James Kennedy introduced me to the writings of Francis Schaeffer. I devoured He Is There and He Is Not Silent and Escape from Reason and The God Who Is There. At that point, I had not met Francis Schaeffer, but his writings were a form of theological rescue for me. I did not fully grasp all that Schaeffer presented in his books, but I did get his main points, and they gave me a way of understanding how the Christian faith related to and answered the questions of the world around me.
I was asking huge questions. At the same time, I was captivated by a world that had opened to me through two British television series, both like nothing that had been presented in that medium before. I watched every minute of Lord Kenneth Clark’s magnificent series Civilisation and then Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man. Bronowski’s telling of the human story and the rise of modern science was fascinating to me, but I knew that much of what he was presenting flatly contradicted Christianity.
Civilisation, on the other hand, raised no such alarm. I was hanging on every word and image as Kenneth Clark told the story of Western civilization and illustrated every epoch with his masterful explanation of painting and architecture, literature and music. I was hooked, and I wanted to see the cathedrals and abbeys and museums and libraries that Lord Clark showed me on television for the very first time.
But Kenneth Clark was also telling a story — a story with art and aesthetic values at the center. I knew of the Protestant Reformation, but I did not know enough to understand that Lord Clark was telling the story of the civilization and culture of the West from a humanistic worldview.
In 1976 Francis Schaeffer released How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, and I bought one of the first copies. I read it from cover to cover with intensity, knowing that Schaeffer was telling the story of Western civilization as well.
How Should We Then Live? was both a book and a multi-episode video project, just like Lord Clark’s Civilisation. This was not a coincidence. Schaeffer was deliberately answering both Bronowski and Clark in his project, but Clark most directly. He was telling a very different story.
The subtitle of the book made that clear — The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. That was virtually the opposite of Lord Clark’s story. Schaeffer did not disagree with every argument of Clark’s Civilisation, but he did disagree with many of Clark’s arguments and, more importantly, with a humanistic interpretation of the main story.
The main title of the book struck me as odd. It still does. It is correct, in terms of English usage, but I found it an odd way to ask the question. Then again, Schaeffer was odd. He famously dressed as if he had come down from the Swiss mountains in a previous century. In one sense he had. Francis Schaeffer and his wife, Edith, had founded and then directed L’Abri Fellowship, a ministry in the Swiss mountains, drawing disaffected and confused young people from around the world, mostly the United States, and presenting them with the gospel of Christ and, strangely and wonderfully enough, answering their questions with a rational and demonstrative apologetic for biblical Christianity. While other leaders were building the evangelical empire, the Schaeffers took in scores of long-haired and intellectually agitated young people, engaging their minds and interpreting the culture.
I read How Should We Then Live? cover to cover in the first weeks of my senior year of high school. According to my library log, started when I was 13, this was the 80th book I had bought with my own money. At $12.95, back then it seemed to cost a fortune. I knew it was worth the price, but Schaeffer’s book troubled me. Who was right about the main story of Western civilization, Francis Schaeffer or Lord Kenneth Clark? I wasn’t sure when I first read the book. Lord Clark pointed to the continual rise of the culture over centuries, right down to the present. Schaeffer saw modern culture as overwhelmingly opposed to God and disintegrating, cut off from any ability to make transcendent judgments or truth claims. He saw the looming humanism as a direct challenge to Christianity. I realized then that Lord Clark believed the same, and yet he saw the new humanism as a liberation from ancient but persistent religious beliefs. To my chagrin, I had not realized the presuppositions behind Kenneth Clark’s story of civilization.
The collision between Kenneth Clark and Francis Schaeffer, confronted in my first reading of How Should We Then Live?, introduced me to the great collision of worldviews that became such a central interest and urgency of my life. On the one hand, I felt embarrassed that I had not recognized the problems with Lord Clark’s storyline. On the other hand, I knew that I desperately wanted to understand the intersection of ideas, morality, art, culture, architecture, music, science, philosophy, and biblical Christianity.
Schaeffer did not tell the story perfectly. Some of his generalizations were too broad and some crucial details were missing. Later critics would target Francis Schaeffer as the architect of an unsustainable effort to rebuild evangelical Christianity in a recovery of Reformation theology and biblical authority. More liberal critics have argued that Schaeffer established a dead end from which evangelicalism has not yet recovered.
I see the truth as very different from that assessment. Later generations of evangelical scholars have accomplished far more than Francis Schaeffer in terms of academic scholarship and influence in many disciplines within the academy. But Francis Schaeffer was both asking and answering the most urgent questions long before the renaissance of modern evangelical scholarship.
Years before words like “worldviews” and “truth claims” entered the common evangelical vocabulary, Schaeffer was introducing the terms and stressing their importance. He knew that the great conflict of worldviews was underway, and he cared deeply about a generation of young people who were even then deciding between Christianity or intellectual revolution.
Schaeffer also believed that our worldview inevitably determines our moral judgments and understanding of reality. He was right when he challenged Lord Kenneth Clark to an intellectual duel, even if Lord Clark might scarcely have cared if Francis Schaeffer existed. Schaeffer did not set out to convince Lord Clark that he was wrong about the trajectory of civilization in the West; he wanted Christians to understand what was at stake.
Schaeffer was absolutely right when he began How Should We Then Live? with these words: “There is a flow to history and culture.” Yes, there is such a flow, and Christians had better know which way the culture is flowing.
“People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of those presuppositions than even they themselves may realize,” Schaeffer wrote, and he was talking this way when most evangelicals were unaware of the storm of worldviews that was coming. He perceived the presuppositions of the looming humanistic and secular worldview as showing up first in art and high culture. He was right. While most evangelicals were watching Gunsmoke and taking their kids to the newly opened Walt Disney World, Schaeffer was listening and watching as a new worldview was taking hold of the larger culture.
He was also right that the greatest threats to evangelical faithfulness were the promise of personal peace and affluence. He was prophetic in criticizing the Christian church for a legacy of racism and the abuse of economic abundance. He was right when he looked to developments like Roe v. Wade and knew that something seismic had shifted in the culture, and that bigger shocks were yet to come.
He was also asking precisely the right question: How should we then live? That question which troubled Schaeffer so much in 1976 troubles all of us now. We are about to find out if Christians in this generation are going to believe and to live authentic biblical Christianity. How will we live now?
An Ancient Rabbi Brings an Urgent Warning to Christian Leaders Today
9:30AM EDT 10/25/2016 MICHAEL BROWN
One of the noted leaders, of that day, Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradyon, conducted public Torah classes, paying for it with his life. (Hc_07/Flickr/CC)
In the year A.D. 123, the Roman government launched a severe crackdown against the Jews, culminating in 134 A.D., when all Jewish practices were forbidden, including circumcision, Torah study and Sabbath observance.
How did the rabbis respond?
One of the noted leaders of that day, Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradyon, conducted public Torah classes, paying for it with his life.
But this was no emotional, spur-of-the-moment decision. There was a rationale behind his actions, traceable to Rabbi Akiva, the greatest rabbinic sage of that era, also martyred for his allegiance to the Torah.
The Talmud relates: "Once the wicked Roman government issued a decree forbidding the Jews to study and practice the Torah. Pappus ben Judah came by and, upon finding Rabbi Akiva publicly holding sessions in which he occupied himself with the Torah, Pappus asked him: 'Akiva, are you not afraid of the government?'
"Rabbi Akiva replied: 'You, Pappus, who are said to be wise, are in fact a fool. I can explain what I am doing by means of a parable: A fox was walking on a river bank and, seeing fishes hastening here and there, asked them, "From whom are you fleeing?" They replied, "From the nets and traps set for us by men." So the fox said to them, "How would you like to come up on dry land, so that you and I may live together the way my ancestors lived with yours?" They replied, "You—the one they call the cleverest of animals—are in fact a fool. If we are fearful in the place where we can stay alive, how much more fearful should we be in a place where we are sure to die!"
"'So it is with us. If we are fearful when we sit and study the Torah, of which it is written, 'For that is thy life and the length of thy days" (Deut. 30:20), how much more fearful ought we to be should we cease the study of words of the Torah!'" (see b. Berakhot 61b with Eyn Yaakov)
There is a lesson here for us today, especially those of us in Christian leadership. I pray that we will take heed!
You see, for years we have made careful calculations, not wanting to rock the boat, not wanting to offend our constituents, not wanting to stir up controversy, not wanting to provoke the ire of our ideological enemies. And outwardly, it appeared that our "tiptoe through the culture wars" strategy was succeeding, as our church buildings were full and our bank accounts overflowing.
But all the while, we were selling our souls, losing our lives to save our lives, denying the calling of the Lord to preserve our reputations. And now we are paying the price, with our religious freedoms being threatened and with some dangerous, uncharted waters ahead should Hillary Clinton be elected.
A Christian leader might protest and say, "You have it all wrong. If things get really rough, then we'll take a stand. When we're truly threatened with the loss of our freedoms, then we'll be courageous."
That, my friend, is a self-deceived mindset, like a morbidly obese man who says, "It's true that I can't get up the stairs without losing my breath, but if I need to run up those stairs, I'll be ready."
Not a chance.
As the Lord said to Jeremiah the prophet when he was complaining about the tough times he was experiencing in his hometown of Anathoth, "If you race with the foot-runners and they exhaust you, how then can you compete with horses? If you are secure only in a tranquil land, how will you fare in the jungle of the Jordan?" (Jer. 12:5, New Jewish Publication Society Version).
To apply this to us in America now, if we're afraid to speak up today because someone will unfriend us on Facebook, what will we do tomorrow when someone puts a gun to our heads? (That gun could be metaphorical or real.)
If we won't take a stand today for fear of losing some wealthy congregants, what will we do tomorrow when obedience to God will cost us our tax exemption?
If, in our Christian schools today, we won't address cultural controversies for fear of offending some board members (or drawing the attention of the local accrediting association), what will we do tomorrow when refusing to compromise could mean the complete shutting down of our schools, along with a possible prison sentence?
People of God, it's time for us to wake up. Do you sense the Lord stirring your heart?
If Donald Trump is our next president, he might well stand up for our religious liberties, helping to push back against the anti-Christian spirit rising in our land. But if we don't seize the moment and come out of our self-imposed closets, speaking the truth with boldness and love, a far worse fate will come upon us.
And if Hillary Clinton is our next president, you can be sure you will be in her crosshairs.
What will we do then?
Will we cave in and capitulate, claiming in our pseudo-spiritual language that, "The culture wars are over and God just wants to love others"?
Or will we demonstrate real love for God and our neighbor by declaring with Paul, "I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death"? (Phil. 1:20, NIV, and note that he wrote this from prison, facing potential martyrdom).
Now is the time to read the stories of men and women of God from past generations (and to this day) who refused to bow down to the gods of this age, laying down their lives rather than denying their Lord.
Now is the time for us to take a determined, uncompromised stand—while it is still light and while the door is still open—before we hang our heads in shame when our kids and grandkids ask us, "What were you afraid of? Why were you so silent? Why did you let this happen to us?"
I'm not counseling anyone to do anything foolish—to provoke some kind of religious conflict or to engage in self-righteous, obnoxious behavior or to respond in a fleshly, emotional way.
Instead, I'm urging each of us (in particular those of us in leadership), to do what is right today, to stand for what is true regardless of cost or consequences, walking in the footsteps of Jesus our Lord.
As He warned us repeatedly, "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (Mark 8:35, ESV).
It's time we find out exactly what He meant, before the spirit of the world entices us out of our element (like that fox enticing the fish), thereby leading us to our spiritual graves.
In short, to compromise is to shrivel up and die; to obey the Lord at any cost is to flourish and thrive. What will we do?
Let us heed the wisdom of an ancient rabbi, and let us shout our message from the rooftops, without shame and without fear.
And let us remember again the words of Jesus, who said, "For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38, ESV).
It's time that the whole world know that we are not ashamed.
What in the World is Going On? Tenth Graders Are Being Asked To Persuade People to Get A Microchip
By Nate - 10/28/2016
Imagine you work for a human microchip company. The president has given you the opportunity to make a televised speech to the nation. What would you say to persuade people to get a microchip? The question you just read is not from WikiLeaks, and not from a biotechnology corporation, but rather it was the subject of a lesson being taught by a Public Florida High School to tenth graders.
What in the World is Going On? Tenth Graders Are Being Asked To Persuade People to Get A Microchip
The following message was sent to Freedom Fighter Times.
After researching for the lesson online, the following similar lesson came up. It is by an author called Semantics Logic which uses the website Prezi to share presentations online for educational purposes.
The transcript for the lesson is as follows:
Should humans have microchips? What would be the benefit of a microchip?
After viewing two videos students will be able to identify the positive and negative effects of cloning.
After viewing one video about microchipping, students will be able to describe the controversy of microchipping humans.
While viewing the videos today, you will be taking focused notes. Our focused questions are:
Write a Summary
Why is microchipping controversial?
What are the positive and negative effects of cloning?
Whether or not the lessons are the same is minuscule compared to the impact that either lesson will have on high schoolers. Not to mention, the impact those soon to be adults will have on the world.
The lesson is a clear statement that a version of the Mark of the Beast is coming to the United States in the form of microchips. The question still, of course, is how in the world is the President of the United States going to persuade the masses to accept said chip. In this lesson, it would appear as though the Powers that be are fishing for answers from tenth graders.
Revelation 13:16-17 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
16 And he made all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads.
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name.
This is not the first time, that breach of ethics type of lessons have been taught to kids. In other public schools children are being taught to use dildos, and directing dead babies.
The entirety of the in-doctrinal style education system has got to change; the future generations are in for a rude awakening when microaggressions are not taken seriously by the real world.
The audacity to microchip a human in similarity with an animal showcases the true meaning of evolutionists and scientists alike. Both fields do not teach the value of human life, rather what is taught is the ideology that humans are just another animal.
Is Darwinian Evolution an Idea whose Time has come and Gone?
By Steve Weatherbe, LIfe Site News On October 25, 2016
SEATTLE, Washington, October 25, 2016
Twenty years ago, Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe exploded an intellectual bomb in the pathway of evolutionary thinking with his book, Darwin's Black Box.
"I was astonished it got so much attention," Behe told LifeSiteNews. "The New York Times wrote it up immediately." Behe's book ultimately sold 300,000 copies. Now his most ardent advocates at Seattle's Discovery Institute are marking the anniversary with the one-hour documentary, Revolutionary.
The video claims that, since Behe's book, things have never been the same for Darwinian evolution, the quasi-scientific cornerstone of modern atheism, which claims that life evolved from a simple single-celled ancestor to its current complexity by billions of years of random mutations filtered through survivability. Together, DI's thinkers and Behe championed an alternative to Darwin's explanation for what drives evolution: intelligent design.
Critics say intelligent design adds nothing to scientific knowledge because it attributes useful patterns in nature to an unknowable and untestable deity - a "God of gaps" in knowledge. But intelligent designers say Darwinian evolution is "the God that failed," which is ex-believer Arthur Koestler's phrase for Communism.
The documentary's producer, John G. West, who is the associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, told LifeSiteNews that intelligent design is not inherently in conflict with evolution if it merely means that life evolved from simple to complex forms over time. The problem is with the idea that this could happen by random.
Darwin's mechanism seemed convincing in the 19th century, but as the complexity of even simple things like cells became clear, so did the problem with Darwin's "Black Box" - the cell.
Behe told LifeSiteNews: "Darwin imagined a cell was just a glob of jelly." At that time, there was no idea of molecules let alone DNA. Producing the first living cell from assorted chemicals present in the world or the universe seemed an easy task. Now it looks like a huge gap - with no idea in sight for how to bridge it.
Behe challenged the idea of random mutations as the driver of evolution with the concept of "irreducible complexity." He used as his example the bacterium flagellum, a lifeform that propelled itself with a kind of protein propeller connected to a kind of protein engine. None of dozens of parts involved had any purpose until assembled in the flagellum, so Behe argued that they could not have evolved in parallel because there would have been no reason for them to survive until they made their contribution to final, complex lifeform.
The video relates counterattacks from the evolutionary establishment who claim another simple lifeform - archaella - could have evolved into the flagellum, and more recent research indicating this is unlikely.
The video begs the question but does not answer it: Why are so many in the scientific community so committed to Darwin? When a school board in Pennsylvania ordered intelligent design taught alongside evolution in the classroom, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science took it to court and got a judge to ban intelligent design from the classroom as an unseemly intrusion of religion.
The basis of opposition is not scientific at all, explains West, but atheistic. Intelligent design refutes not evolution but unguided evolution by exposing the preposterous unlikelihood of achieving the complexity of life by chance. "Two-thirds of America's top scientists are atheists or agnostics," he says, adding that most of science doesn't depend on evolution at all. It is simply the predominant belief system.
Moreover, the "intellectual cracks" are showing in Darwinian evolution. "Darwinian evolution is less than useless. It is one of the biggest dead ends," West told LifeSiteNews, as scientists waste their time defending it instead of pursuing new lines of inquiry.
An example is the insistence for years by evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins that 98 percent of DNA protein whose purpose could not be determined was "junk" - or material whose evolutionary usefulness had long since departed.
"Dawkins said, 'That's just what we'd expect to get from Darwinian evolution,'" West related. But then an offshoot of the Human Genome Project called the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements started in 2002 began bearing fruit a decade later, with several studies showing the "junk" DNA bore important instructions. "Then the Darwinians said, 'That's just what you'd expect to get," West said.
As a result of Behe's work and that of others supported by the Discovery Institute, the shakiness of Darwin's random driver of evolution is being acknowledged, West claims. Evolutionary scientists are meeting next month in London, summoned by the Royal Society, to discuss "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology." Its underlying purpose, West says, is to discover a wholly materialistic driver for evolution to replace random mutation - and fend off intelligent design.
While it is part of the scientific establishment's self-belief that modern science developed only by vanquishing religious explanations for the universe, West contends the opposite is true - that the scientists such as Isaac Newton who pioneered the scientific method confidently looked for scientific laws and patterns because they believed in an intelligent, rule-giving designer.
TSA Inspects Texas Pastor’s Bible
November 01, 2016
Dr. Gene and Suzanne Lingerfelt
By Todd Starnes
The pastor of a Texas megachurch said he was stunned when a government agent stopped him at a TSA checkpoint so his Bible could be inspected.
“I couldn’t believe it. I literally couldn’t believe it,” said Gene Lingerfelt, the pastor of Faith Christian Center in Arlington, Texas.
The pastor and his wife were on their way to Cancun for vacation when he was stopped Monday in the TSA Pre-Check line for a “bag check.”
Brief aside: Your friendly neighborhood columnist has TSA Pre-check, too – and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been pulled aside for additional screening. So now we’re literally getting charged to get manhandled by the TSA – although we do get to keep our shoes on.
At first, the pastor was not terribly surprised by the disruption.
“That particular bag was filled with all of my cords – charger cords, computer power cords – in some airports like Heathrow – I always get stopped,” he said.
But what he thought was a routine search through his technology devices, was anything but.
“This very nice young man starts going through and pulling out my computer, iPad, paperback books and then he came to my Bible,” he said.
At that point, the government agent set aside all the tech gadgets and began rifling through the pastor’s Bible.
“I thought it was so strange,” Dr. Lingerfelt told me. “He fanned through the entire Bible and very nicely explained to us that we got stopped because of the Bible.”
Let that thought linger for just a moment – an American pastor on American soil was stopped by a government agent because of a Bible.
Did the TSA suspect the Lingerfelts were smuggling the Good Book through its checkpoint?
“We’ve never had that kind of experience before,” Mrs. Lingerfelt told me. “I was dumbfounded. I stood there and watched as he rifled through the pages.”
“We always travel with our Bibles to read on trips or vacations,” she said. “This was the first time something like this has ever happened.”
Dr. Lingerfelt said he was not sure what the TSA agent was looking for.
“There was nothing in it except book marks and notes,” he said.
The pastor should’ve directed the government agent to the Gospel of John, chapter three and verse sixteen.
After it had been inspected, the TSA returned the pastor’s Bible and he was allowed to continue his journey. For the TSA’s sake, it’s a good thing they did.
“If they had confiscated my Bible, I’d be in jail,” Dr. Lingerfelt said.
Folks, you don’t tug on Superman’s cape and you never take a preacher’s Bible – especially a preacher from Texas.
Palestinians demand UK apologize for 1917 Balfour Declaration that helped create Israel
Published time: 1 Nov, 2016 16:46
Edited time: 2 Nov, 2016 13:57
A campaign by Palestinian activists demanding the UK issue a formal apology for supporting the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East almost a century ago is gaining momentum after the launch of a new parliamentary petition.
Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Jenny Tonge hosted the launch at the House of Lords last Tuesday, where the plight of the Palestinian people was blamed on the legacy of the Balfour Declaration and wider British colonialism in the region.
The activists, backed by the Palestinian diplomatic mission in the UK, intend to push the British government in the run-up to the document’s centennial in November 2017. If the petition – currently pending approval – reaches 100,000 signatures, parliament will have to consider debating the subject.
The Balfour Declaration was a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild – head of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland – that promised support for the idea of a Jewish homeland in historical Palestine as long as the rights of existing non-Jewish communities were not “prejudiced.”
Shortly after the letter was published, the Ottoman Empire was defeated by allied powers in World War I and Britain established mandate rule in the territory of historic Palestine, previously ruled by the Ottomans.
Last Tuesday’s event at Westminster proved controversial after a video surfaced showing one audience member saying Jews had “agitated” Adolf Hitler before the Holocaust, and compared Israel to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS, ISIL).
“Just as the so-called Jewish state in Palestine doesn’t come from Judaism, the Islamic State in Syria is nothing with Islam. It is a perversion of Islam just as Zionism is a perversion of Judaism,” the unidentified man said.
“If anybody is anti-Semitic, it’s Israelis themselves,” another audience member said, to applause.
Israel condemned what it called a “shameful” gathering, which “gave voice to racist tropes against Jews and Israelis alike.”
Tonge was criticised for not appearing to challenge the comments. She later said she did not hear the first man’s full “rant.” The Lib Dems decided to suspend Tonge, pending an investigation into the event.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also called on the UK to apologize for the Balfour Declaration while in New York last week.
“We ask Great Britain, as we approach 100 years since this infamous declaration, to draw the necessary lessons and to bear its historic, legal, political, material and moral responsibility for the consequences of this declaration, including an apology to the Palestinian people for the catastrophes, misery and injustice this declaration created and to act to rectify these disasters and remedy its consequences, including by the recognition of the state of Palestine,” Abbas told UN delegates.
“This is the least Great Britain can do.”
In a statement sent to Al Jazeera, a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesperson said the government would not apologize for the 100-year-old document, but recognized it was a sensitive subject for many.
“The Balfour Declaration was a historic statement and one that the UK Government will not be apologising for… We are focused on encouraging the Israelis and Palestinians to take steps which bring them closer to peace,” the FCO said.
COUPS, COUNTER-COUPS RAGE WITHIN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
Intelligence operative Steve Pieczenik details next 'revolution'
Published: November 5, 2016
It’s a struggle taking place at the highest levels of power. Coups, counter-coups and a civil war between the elites. And at the center of it all is one of the America’s most experienced intelligence operatives.
Yes, there is a nonviolent civil war within Washington, according to Steve Pieczenik, deputy assistant secretary of state under men such as Henry Kissinger and James Baker.
Pieczenik served in the State Department for 20 years. He battled terrorism in the 1970s and, using his training as a psychiatrist, created pioneering tactics and strategies used in hostage situations. He contributed to the success of the Camp David Accords in 1978 by building psychological profiles of the key negotiators.
Since leaving government, he’s been a strategic consultant for groups such as the RAND Corporation and the United States Institute of Peace. Most famously, he formed a partnership with author Tom Clancy to co-create the “Op-Center” and “Net-Force” books and eventually authored several books of his own, including the thriller “State of Emergency,” which posits a second civil war.
And now, this consummate insider, one of the most experienced policy makers and crisis managers alive, says a nonviolent civil war is raging within Washington.
“On November 1, 2016, Hillary and Bill Clinton and their entourage of assistants [effected] a civilian coup,” he charged.
In contrast to the usual concept of a coup in which the military takes over the government and communication centers, this coup was done silently and effectively through two methods, corruption and co-optation, he claimed
“The Clintons have been involved in co-opting our White House, our judiciary, our CIA, our Federal Bureau of Investigation, our Attorney General Loretta Lynch and our director of the FBI James Comey for some time now,” he said. “What they’ve done is make sure they’re part of a group of people that are interrelated through political cronyism.”
However, Pieczenik said intelligence operatives and staff officials in various government agencies have formed a force to counter the “Clinton coup.”
The alliance, he claims, is what is behind increasing efforts by both independent journalists and law enforcement officials to put more pressure on the woman Donald Trump has dubbed “Crooked Hillary.”
“In order to stop this coup, we in the intelligence community and others involved have informally gotten together,” he announced. “And with their permission, I am permitted to announce we are initiating a counter-coup through Julian Assange and Wikileaks.”
According to Pieczenik, this alliance of intelligence operative and government officials has fired a shot across the bow of the Obama administration, essentially putting its officials on notice about the sheer amount of evidence in their possession.
“What is happening in effect is when Comey had to open the case against Hillary Clinton and discuss the emails involved with the Anthony Wiener case, it was not the case involved that was important as it was the fact that this was the ‘entrée’ for many of us in the counter-coup to say, ‘we have your number,'” he said.
“Not only do we have your number, we’re going to stop you from making Hillary the president of the United States. And at the same time, we will convict and indict the president of the Untied States, Loretta Lynch and many others who are involved in the cover-up of the massive corruption that occurred under the Clinton Foundation,” he said.
Pieczenik said a large number of operatives are involved.
“I am just a small part of something far bigger than myself,” he claimed. “It was the brave men and women who were in the FBI, the CIA, the director of intelligence, the military intelligence and men and women in 15 other intelligence organizations who are sick and tired of seeing this corruption in the White House in the Justice Department and in the intelligence system. And we decided that there was something we had to do to save the republic.
“We’re going through a major transition and, frankly, a second American Revolution.”
Michele Bachmann, who served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during her time in Congress, said the motives for a potential coup by insiders are clear.
“The lawlessness in Obama’s obvious government directed coverup of Hillary Clinton’s national security betrayals, coupled with her rank selling of government favors through the office of Secretary of State, are so egregious that government insiders see the Obama/Clinton actions as a stealing of America,” she told WND. “These paid law enforcers, if true, see themselves as the true patriots trying to hold on to the mere threads left of our once majestic constitutional republic.
“These worthless Oval Office grifters, the Clintons and Obamas, have overplayed their hands and the American people have taken notice. Short of massive voter fraud, and the 50,000 rigged, non-certified George Soros voting machines, Trump will prevail on Tuesday,” she said.
Pieczenik did not identify forces within the government who are part of the alliance, but reports from media outlets such as the London Guardian claim a large number of FBI agents are pro-Trump and are angered at what they believe is Hillary Clinton’s corruption.
Julian Assange is also denying the leaked emails from Clinton campaign manager John Podesta come from the Russian government, suggesting that forces within the American government are responsible for the leaks.
In a more recent video, Pieczenik suggests a sexual scandal involving Bill and Hillary Clinton is about to break. He even implied the Clintons would be accused of pedophilia.
“Not all the information has come out with regard to Wiener and his sexting to a 15 year old in North Carolina,” said Pieczenik. “The real issue underlying a lot of Bill Clinton’s nefarious activities as well as Hillary’s sexual activities is the fact that we know that both of them have been a major participant in what is called the ‘Lolita Express.’ This is the plane owned by Mr. Jeff Epstein, a wealthy multimillionaire who flies down to the Bahamas and allows Bill and Hillary to engage in sex with minors. That is called pedophilia. And as a result of the excellent work the New York Police Department does in tracking pedophiliacs, they also have a record of both Hillary, Bill, and other people associated with the Clintons with regard to pedophilia.”
Bill Clinton’s long-established friendship with Epstein, a well-connected financier and sex offender, has included multiple trips to Epstein’s private island. Pieczenik alleged both Bill and Hillary Clinton took these trips for the purposes of engaging in sexual acts with minors.
Unconfirmed reports suggest the New York Police Department has found evidence of such misdeeds in the newly located emails that restarted the investigation.
On Thursday, Blackwater founder and former Navy SEAL Erik Prince alleged the NYPD was preparing to host a press conference to announce imminent arrests, but is receiving pushback from the Justice Department.
However, there have been no confirmed reports of any such evidence actually being found besides anonymous sources.
Pieczenik also said his alliance of intelligence operatives is “targeting” Huma Abedin, whom he believes could be an agent of Saudi Arabia. As Pieczenik explained, there are many unanswered questions about Abedin and how she has risen to become Hillary Clinton’s closest aide and the central figure in the email scandal.
“She was born here in the United States, left after two years, went back to Saudi Arabia,” Pieczenik said. “The family is prominent, wealthy. The real question is, how did she come back in 1996, get to the top of the political ladder, and become an assistant to Hillary Clinton when, in fact, her connections, including her mother, her brother, and others are very much tied in with the Wahhabis in the Saudi Arabian government? The answer from my perspective, and possibly from those who I work with, is that she’s very much an agent of influence and possibly an agent and an operator on behalf of Saudi Arabia.
“She’s been here for a long time. And the question is, who gave her the top-secret clearance so that she could have received that information after only having been here two years after 1996?”
WND has reported extensively on Abedin’s ties to terrorists and even funders of Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
According to Pieczenik, the Saudis have skillfully managed to insert their agents into the American foreign policy apparatus. Huma Abedin, he suggested, is just the latest success for them.
“Saudi Arabia has had a major influence in our government since the Clintons, the Bush seniors, the Bush juniors and now Hillary,” he said. “They wanted to make sure they have someone very close to the hand of power. And I’ve got to say, as a counter-intelligence agent, they’ve done a very good job.”
With Wikileaks releasing new information every day and the FBI’s investigation continuing, any one of these stories could break through at any moment, said Pieczenik. He said some intelligence operatives and law enforcement officials want Hillary Clinton not only to be charged with obstruction of justice or lying under oath, but under RICO, a legal tool that punishes acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
He claimed a prosecutor will step forward to charge her “whether she will be in the White House or not.”
Pieczenik even went so far as to say the election is being rigged, and he urged Trump not to accept the results if he loses, arguing the “intelligence community” will similarly reject them.
Ultimately, Pieczenik credited Trump with inspiring this new American revolution and the sudden resistance to the corruption of the Clintons.
“What’s been activated has really been an American revolution through the words of Donald Trump,” he said. “He may or may not know the specifics, but that’s not as important as how he brought up the anger that the American people feel.”
And the veteran operative said the struggle will go on regardless of what happens on Election Day.
“If she [Hillary Clinton] does not stand down, this will continue as revolution, hopefully civil, hopefully without violence.”
Nigel Farage Warns Of Untold "Public Anger" After UK High Court Decision As Deutsche Now Sees 2017 Elections
by Tyler Durden
Nov 3, 2016 3:39 PM
The aftermath of today's surprising decision by a UK high court to rule against the government's Brexit stance, pushing a Parliamentary vote to ratify Article 50, may have major consequences for the political landscape of the UK according to Deutsche Bank. As DB's Oliver Harvey writes, the court’s decision today reduces odds of a “hard Brexit” and weakens PM May’s position, which makes a 2017 election now the German bank's most likely scenario.
Here is a recap of what happened for those who missed it, and what Deutsche Bank thinks will happen next:
UK High Court Rules against government prerogative
This morning the High Court ruled against the government in a judicial review brought to prevent the triggering of Article 50 without a parliamentary vote. The judgment, which can be found here, concluded that: ‘it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament,’ and that ‘the Court expressly accepts the principal arguments of the claimants…[that]…the Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to [trigger Article 50]’.
What happens next?
The government has chosen to appeal the High Court’s decision. This appeal is likely to be heard at the Supreme Court on 7th and 8th December and the government has the right to withdraw it before the hearing.
The decision to appeal the decision may turn out to be a high risk approach. First, the seniority of the judges hearing the decision at the High Court, including the Lord Chief Justice and Masters of the Rolls, and the unequivocal nature of the judgment, which “expressly” accepted the arguments of the claimants, may reduce the scope for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. Second, if the government loses the appeal, it reduces the time available to enact legislation to trigger Article 50 before the deadline of end-March 2017. In the event the appeal fails, the government will need the support of both the House of Commons and House of Lords, with the latter particularly problematic.
2017 election base case scenario
We believe that the decision today is significant and, all else equal, has reduced the chances of hard Brexit. First, if the government’s appeal is not upheld, the government will have to seek parliamentary approval for starting the Brexit process. It is unlikely that either the House of Commons or House of Lords block the process outright, but both are likely to want to attach conditions to the government’s negotiating stance, such as greater emphasis on Single Market access, as a quid pro quo for support.
Second, if the government’s appeal is upheld, today’s judgment still hands ammunition to pro-European MPs that wish parliament to have greater input in the Brexit process. By contrast, it will enrage Euro-skeptic MPs who demand a hard Brexit. In sum, it has weakened PM May’s Brexit position further and makes a new general election next year our base case scenario, either before or after the triggering of Article 50. May’s very small parliamentary majority (15), will make it very hard to balance competing interests on Brexit in her own party and in the wider House of Commons, without a larger mandate to conduct renegotiations.
We took profit on our short GBP recommendation two weeks ago based on the risk of a ruling against the government and think the move higher in GBP may have further to run in the near term, particularly with short positioning still extensive. We retain our bearish medium-term forecasts next year based on a deteriorating macro backdrop and a challenging political backdrop for Brexit negotiations.
Meanwhile, the local reaction, especially from Brexit supporters, is one of substantial displeasure. Case in point, former - and interim - UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who spearheaded the Brexit movement, warned fellow politicians that any attempt to block or delay Britain's exit from the European Union will be met with untold anger from the public. In a statement released after the historic High Court ruling on Article 50 the interim Ukip leader said he fears a Brexit "betrayal" is on the horizon, the Mirror reported.
After the High Court ruling was announced on Thursday morning Farage said: "I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand. Last night at the Spectator Parliamentary Awards I had a distinct feeling that our political class, who were out in force, do not accept the 23rd of June Referendum result."
"I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50."
He crptically added that "if this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."
Meanwhile, UKIP millionaire donor Arron Banks accused the "legal establishment" of "declaring war on British democracy". He added: "Parliament voted six-to-one in favour of letting the people decide. They didn't get the answer they wanted, and now they're going to use every dirty trick in the book to try to sabotage, delay or water down Brexit."
Other Euroskeptics piled on, with UKIP leadership hopeful Suzanne Evans blasting the judges and said the court ruling "undermines democracy". She wrote on Twitter : "How dare these activist judges attempt to overturn our will? It's a power grab & undermines democracy. Time we had the right to sack them."
"Article 50 is an EU trap we must not fall in to. It will tie us into the EU for years. The government must appeal. People power must win."
Others took the opposite side, with labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn saying: "This ruling underlines the need for the Government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay." He added that "Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit."
"Labour will be pressing the case for a Brexit that works for Britain, putting jobs, living standards and the economy first."
Finally, Liberal Democrats Leader Tim Farron welcomed the ruling. He said: “Given the strict two year timetable of exiting the EU once Article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the government now lay out their negotiating to Parliament, before such a vote is held."
In short, the chaos that has marked much of UK political life over the past 6 months is only set to accelerate.
'A society that can’t defend its children has no tomorrow': Putin condemns Europe’s handling of migrants and says the child rape in Austria shows 'a dilution of national values'
Vladimir Putin has spoken of disbelief in EU's handling of migrant crisis
He cited the case of a 10-year-old boy raped by an Iraqi migrant in Austria
Leader claimed that a society that can't defend its children has no future
He also added that it highlighted a 'dilution of national values in Europe'
By JENNIFER NEWTON FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:13, 3 November 2016 | UPDATED: 13:42, 3 November 2016
Vladimir Putin has waded into the migrant crisis condemning Europe's handling of asylum seekers and saying a case of child rape in Austria 'dilutes national values'.
The Russian president has largely kept quiet over the refugee crisis in Europe but has now spoken out of his disbelief over its handling claiming that a continent that 'can't protect its children' has no future.
His comments come off the back of a case in Austria last week, which saw an Iraqi migrant have his conviction of raping a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Vienna overturned.
He was originally convicted of the crime but it was overturned because a court didn't prove he realised the boy was saying no.
It came after the migrant, identified as 20-year-old Amir A., claimed that it was a 'sexual emergency' because he had not had sex for four months.
A second trial for the rape is expected to take place next year, but the attacker is likely to remain in custody until then.
And speaking at a press conference this week, Putin slammed Europe's migration policy and cited the case, where the victim was from a Serbian family living in Austria.
He said: 'In a European country, a child is raped by a migrant, and the court releases him.
'It doesn’t fit into my head what on earth they’re thinking over there.
'I can’t even explain the rationale – is it a sense of guilt before the migrants? What’s going on? It’s not clear.'
He also claimed that the case highlighted 'the dissolution of traditional national values' adding: 'A society that cannot defend its children has no future.'
And Putin's words appeared to have struck a chord, as he is extremely popular with Serbs.
In the rape case, the boy had arrived in Austria with his Serbian mother, who paid for him to go to the Theresienbad swimming pool, where he was violently attacked.
The boy was so badly injured that he needed hospital treatment but he will be forced to go back to court for the Iraqi man's second trial, outraging the Austrian Serbian community.
Austrian media say the case has hardened the communities position against asylum seekers, who were previously divided about whether to vote for the left-leaning Green party candidate or the far right option Nobert Hofer in upcoming elections.
However, it is not the first time Russia has lashed out at the EU's handling of the migrant crisis.
In March, Konstantin Romodanovsky, head of Russia's Federal Migration Service accused leaders of willfully ignoring cultural differences that have caused such widespread friction and chaos across the Continent.
He also added that 'multiculturalism has failed' because Europe never formed a unified strategy to integrate refugees into Western society.
He said: 'The European Commission left it up to individual nations to decide how they want to treat asylum seekers – despite the fact the policies and capabilities of member states are very different.
Romodanovsky also accused EU countries of ignoring the 'differences in culture, religious traditions, and customs' with the refugees, the vast majority of whom are Islamic.
A BRIEF PRIMER ON THE INVASION OF ISIS-HELD MOSUL
MICHAEL MCGRADYOCTOBER 20, 2016
As the U.S. Presidential candidates went head to head on the debate stage in Las Vegas, a joint coordinated force of Iraqi Kurds, central Iraqi government security forces, and a small element of U.S. military advisers attached to counter-insurgency paramilitary groups march on the Islamic State-held city of Mosul.
In an offensive that’s planned to take up to a month, joint forces seek to retake Mosul from Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, IS) with swiftness and absolute retribution.
Kurdish Peshmerga forces indicated that “The objectives are to clear a number of nearby villages and secure control of strategic areas to further restrict ISIL’s movements,” via field coverage from CNN.
In fact, via statements, Iraqi forces are “advancing faster than expected” in the major offensive against the Islamic State jihadists who seek to regain control of Mosul.
“We are advancing faster than we had expected and planned,” Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said Thursday, speaking on a video conference to an international audience co-hosted by France and Iraq on the future of Mosul. The Times of Israel reports that foreign leaders are worried about the attack and that is should be done right.
Particularly, French President Francois Hollande said that the radical Islamic terrorists who control the territory are, though intending to fight it out in Mosul, are fleeing to IS territory held in Assad’s Syria. Islamic State controls Raqqa which serves as the seat of ISIS coordination in the Syrian region.
“We can’t afford mistakes in the pursuit of the terrorists who are already leaving Mosul for Raqqa,” Hollande indicated. “We cannot allow those who were in Mosul to evaporate. Everything must be done to protect civilians who are exposed in combat zones and used as human shields.”
Currently, several dozen villages have been liberated by coalition forces. Residents of the liberated areas exposed the horrible acts of Islamic State from utilizing civilians as human shields and other atrocious acts.
Countries in West Europe and the United States seek to settle the score with the several attacks on the respective country’s soil. France has 4,000 strong, via land and sea forces, deployed in the area, the United States has several hundred special forces operators serving as advisers.
Iran’s Judiciary chief warns of Western-Arab plot to partition Iraq
Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:33PM
Iran’s Judiciary chief Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani (L) and Iraqi Parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri meet in Baghdad on October 30, 2016. (Photo by dadiran.ir)
The Iranian Judiciary chief has warned of a plot hatched by some Western and Arab countries to partition Iraq, expressing the Islamic Republic’s opposition to any scheme aimed at undermining the Arab country’s territorial integrity.
“We oppose the disintegration of Iraq and insist on Iraq’s unity and independence,” Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani said in a meeting with Iraqi Parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri in Baghdad on Sunday.
He added that global powers have always used terrorism and imposed wars on regional nations in an attempt to plunder their assets and said such a plot was also hatched for Iraq because it is a rich and populous country.
He further pointed to the ongoing Iraqi military operations to recapture the northern city of Mosul from Daesh militants and expressed hope that the Iraqi people would emerge triumphant in the battle against Takfiri terrorism.
The Iraqi government soldiers, backed by allied fighters from the Popular Mobilization Units and Kurdish Peshmerga forces, launched a large-scale offensive to liberate the strategic city on October 17.
Mosul has been under Daesh control since 2014. The terrorist group has described the city as its so-called headquarters in Iraq.
There are reports that about 50,000 Iraqi ground troops are involved in the Mosul offensive, including 30,000 army troops, 10,000 Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and the remaining 10,000 from police and Popular Mobilization Units.
Commander of Federal Police Forces Lieutenant General Raed Shaker Jawdat announced on Sunday that Iraqi forces have managed to establish control over 61 villages, purge 1,400 square kilometers of Daesh militants and evacuate 1,396 displaced families to safety zones.
He added that 747 Daesh terrorists have also been killed and 88 others captured during the mentioned period.
Jabouri, for his part, said Iran and Iraq are standing by each other in the fight against Takfiri terrorism which is abusing the name of Islam.
He added that his country would require more cooperation with Iran in different fields, particularly in the political and social sectors, after the liberation of Mosul and welcomes the expansion of ties with Tehran.
Amoli Larijani and Jabouri also exchanged views about strengthening Tehran-Baghdad judicial cooperation.
The Iranian Judiciary chief arrived in Baghdad on Saturday at the head of a high-ranking judicial delegation. Earlier on Sunday, he held talks with Medhat al-Mahmoud, the head of the Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council.
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the attorneys general of the two countries for cooperation on human rights issues and in the fight against terrorism.
Until next week...keep on believing.