Nuclear Don't Ask, Don't Tell (NDADT)
If you read that NDADT the way many anagrams are read, it could be rendered "end that," which is appropriate considering that a Global Thermonuclear Exchange certainly would end a great deal. I wouldn't call it an opportunity for creative destruction, unless I were to feel that the whole human race is not above the level of a super-malignant bacterial colony/disease infecting the Earth with plans to further infect the universe — emphasis on "whole." There are certainly malignantly minded people in the world. If you aren't already familiar, let me introduce some of them to you. You already know who they are but may not have been made privy to their existential double-dealings.
The easiest way to do this in short order is for you to read the following linked articles, all of which will open in a new tab or window so you won't lose your place here:
"Declassified GAO Report Exposes Fatally Flawed Israel Investigations," by Grant Smith. Antiwar.com. May 10, 2010.
U.S. presidents have long acquiesced to "strategic ambiguity" – a policy of neither confirming nor denying that Israel even possesses nuclear weapons. This pretext has allowed the U.S. to deliver the lion's share of its foreign assistance budget to Israel, despite clear legal prohibitions imposed by the Glenn and Symington amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act.
Ah, yes, that's the issue. If they had had to admit their long-standing, internationally illegal, clandestine nuclear-weapons program, the US wouldn't have been able to feed them nuclearly and with tens of billions in weapons and hi-tech, etc.
Also, yes, Grant is suggesting that you ought to consider that Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) was a Zionist instrument who took the money to get the Presidency and continued playing the existential game with the Israelis. If you haven't done so already, you should also look into the USS Liberty. The best, most credible source I know on the geopolitics of that whole affair is Alan Hart.
"Why, really, was the USS Liberty attacked by Israel?" by Alan Hart. Alanhart.net. June 12, 2010.
That will help you connect some dots, as they say. To really begin to understand the level of Zionist infiltration, etc., in America, it is necessary to dig not for hours but years.
That said, it is vitally important not to confuse the acts of some for the acts of the whole. Not all Jews are malignant souls. Jesus had the DNA of Judah, from whom the label "Jew" derives. Jesus Christ was the furthest soul from malignancy I've ever had the privilege of coming to know through reading and elsewise. Anyone who thinks Jesus is evil is criminally insane but not excused.
Now, let's move on to Mordechai Vanunu.
"The Ongoing Misery of Mordechai Vanunu," by Eileen Fleming. Dissident Voice. May 15, 2010.
Mordechai Vanunu is one of the most self-sacrificing people on the planet. He sacrificed for you. He did what he did so you could come to realize that the Zionist have been flying under the radar for decades. The Zionist have maneuvered via first the British Empire and then the American Empire to do pretty much whatever they've wanted vis-a-vis the Arab Palestinians and neighboring states. The British and American people have been played for suckers. There's no doubt about it.
In my own research on all of this, I decided from the start that I would look at everything. I would listen to the most rabid racists on all sides. What I also refused to do and still do is to become a racist or ethnic bigot. What I came to be able to articulate is that the most ardent enemies of a people almost always have the worst real and fake dirt on those people. The challenge is to sort the truth from the fiction. What is a grave error is to come to realize that one is dealing with a racist or ethnic bigot who is mixing in falsehoods and then just dismiss everything as false. In fact, if you haven't already been there, let me inform you that enemies plant disinfo artists in enemy camps to speak plenty of truth but to poison the well with huge lies that will send people aways short of doing the requisite sorting to get at the hard truths.
Therefore, I have read racist material. I've read the racist material of Zionists, and I've read the racist material of anti-Jews (all Jews). It's very difficult to know at first whether one is dealing with a racist. It is a mistake to just take other's word for it. Of course, there are closet racists as well. In addition to planting disinformationists, enemies also attack the messengers of the other camp. Zionists will call Alan Hart an anti-Semite when, in fact, Alan Hart is not an anti-Semite. Semite means descendant of Shem, which we are told includes the Arabs. Alan is pro-Palestinian Arabs. However, the Zionist misuse the term "Semite" to means "Jew." Alan is also not anti-Jew. He is anti-Zionist or Zionism to be more precise. Alan knows the difference between political Zionism and the biological/genetic Jew. I won't go into the complication of defining "Jewishness" here. There are those who rightfully have problems with Talmudic Judaism. I certainly do. Jesus certainly did and does. It's a steep theological learning curve that one need not know before coming to realize the point of this particular article, which is made clear in it's title: "Nuclear "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (NDADT): Israeli-American Existential Gaming."
Benjamin Freedman is an interesting case in point. Benjamin Freedman was a Jew who warned against/exposed Zionism. Of course, he is cited by racists, anti-Jews. It does not mean that Benjamin Freedman was anti-Jew, meaning against all Jews (biological; genetic). I doubt that he was. I doubt he was against his own children. He made clear that he didn't want his sons fighting in another unnecessary world war. His sons were biologically, genetically, of Jewish extraction. Benjamin Freedman was a former religious Talmudic Jew. He converted to Christianity. He likely had plenty of Jewish blood in him and knew it, despite his mistaken/overstated views on the Khazars.
He was mistaken as to the timing of WWIII, overstated the Khazar aspect, in correctly set the issue up as militant Christian versus Marxist, and made several other errors; but he was not wrong at all about the Balfour Declaration and the shift in American foreign policy from anti-war to war hysteria caused exactly by "Public Relations" better expressed as false propaganda and psy-ops (psychological operations) during the Wilson administration. That whole area is a can of worms surrounding one, Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud.
Edward Bernays took Sigmund Freud's understanding about sexual urges and worked out methods to manipulate people on subconscious levels. He rapidly turned the totally anti-war American public into a mob demanding the slaughtering of the "evil Hun." Edward Bernays considered the American people a stupid herd deserving of being thusly manipulated. Edward Bernays was an evil ass. Rather than learning of the potential for the wicked misuse of his uncle's insights and exposing them to the people to help protect them, he kept them within the circle of elites who made him rich applying them to, for instance, get tens of millions of women addicted to nicotine.
And Libertarians still think it's an issue of freedom to be "allowed" to be hooked on nicotine. Bernays laughs at them from his grave every time they smoke another coffin nail or complain against tobacco taxes or advertising restrictions, etc.
What that speech reveals is what was termed by the Nazis and others as the "Stab in the Back." The Zionists have worked overtime to send it down the memory hole. The Germans felt betrayed in WWI by Jewish-Zionist interests around the world and in Germany. Most Jewish monied-interests, the Jewish international financiers and all of the corporate interests supported by that financial network, shifted just as Freedman suggested they did. That's critical to understand. A huge false propaganda war was waged against Germany. It was every bit as sophisticated and chilling as the propaganda war waged by the Nazis. The problem for most people though is what I expressed above and that concerns sorting.
There were racist Nazis. There's no doubt about it. However, there were and are racist Zionists. In fact, one may rightly say that both Nazism and Zionism promoted/promote racism. Once you can get over that hurdle, you can start taking with a block of salt all the Zionist propaganda that floods the US and Europe, etc.
The truth is that the US could have sat out WWI. England could have accepted defeat at the hands of the Germans, who would not have asked for starvation reparations from England as England ended up doing to the Germans, which gave rise to the Nazis and WWII.
Check me out on it. I'm telling you verifiable facts here. Germany would have become as the US has become. It was not Germany that was spoiling for a fight. It was the older imperial nations trying to keep Germany down in the world, just as the American neocons have saber rattled about would-be rival empires such as China.
The world geopolitical chess board is about resources and pipelines and transportation routes for resources, etc. Germany was extending into the Middle East via rail and otherwise. It was "threatening" the British Empire's hold on vast swaths and huge resources yet to be fully exploited for the British ultra-rich.
Of course, European/London banking was largely controlled by Jews, many of whom were Zionists. The Balfour Declaration was addressed to a Rothschild (banking empire) for instance. Freedman didn't mention that.
Bear with me here. I'm not digressing. This is all background for what's going on even right now in American-Israeli relations and how and why America has agreed to hit Libya under the international law "Responsibility to Protect" framework but Obama is also "saying" (coded language) the US won't use it universally but without really saying it. He said that it won't be used to overthrow every tyrant. What he's failing to do, and doing so on purpose, is to avoid saying that Israel will not be allowed to conduct another sort of Operation Cast Lead, which would have been stopped if the Israeli-Zionists were treated as Qaddaffi is being treated right now.
You see, things are changing and the "powers that be" know it. No longer are they being allowed to control the flow of information and ideas. My ideas here get out there despite the best efforts of the censors to suppress them by whatever means, some of which I've described above.
The powers that be are fast becoming other than. They are having to adapt to a rapidly changing world, even though many things appear to be remaining the same.
If the US fails to go after Israel as it has gone after Qaddaffi if and when the Zionists attempt another sort of Operation Cast Lead or an invasion of Lebanon, etc., they know the world will react very differently with each such event and leading up to the world literally turning on Israel to rip it apart, which is Biblical prophecy by the way. The "Christian-Zionists" know this, but they don't talk about the rest of the story. The Zionists lose! Only a remnant survives because they choose righteousness before it is too late — before the wrath to come. So, be on the right side of history. Don't support the Zionists even while you remain firmly anti-war.
Now, I'm going to switch back to more from Eileen Fleming to flesh out some more what's been going on in the dark between Israel and Zionist-controlled politicians in the US. Eileen Fleming wrote the following:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Today, Uzi Even, an Israeli scientist, a Tel Aviv University chemistry professor and former worker at Israel's Dimona reactor, said, "The policy of nuclear ambiguity, by which we fool only ourselves and nobody else, is not good for us any more. It was good, effective and successful for close to 40 years, but over 40 years many things changed and now I am telling you clearly, this policy is no longer in our interest."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeq... [link fixed]
In 2005, Mordechai Vanunu, the whistle blower of Israel's WMD program told me:
"President Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building atomic weapons. In 1963, he forced Prime Minister Ben Gurion ["Guirion" to "Gurion" throughout] to admit the Dimona was not a textile plant, as the sign outside proclaimed, but a nuclear plant. The Prime Minister said, 'The nuclear reactor is only for peace.'
"Kennedy insisted on an open internal inspection. He wrote letters demanding that Ben Gurion open up the Dimona for inspection. The French were responsible for the actual building of the Dimona. The Germans gave the money; they were feeling guilty for the Holocaust, and tried to pay their way out. Everything inside was written in French, when I was there, almost twenty years ago.
"Back then, the Dimona descended seven floors underground. In 1955, Perez and Gurion met with the French to agree they would get a nuclear reactor if they fought against Egypt to control the Sinai and Suez Canal. That was the war of 1956. Eisenhower demanded that Israel leave the Sinai, but the reactor plant deal continued on.
"When Johnson became president, he made an agreement with Israel that two senators would come every year to inspect. Before the senators would visit, the Israelis would build a wall to block the underground elevators and stairways. From 1963 to '69, the senators came, but they never knew about the wall that hid the rest of the Dimona from them.
"Nixon stopped the inspections and agreed to ignore the situation. As a result, Israel increased production. In 1986, there were over two hundred bombs. Today, they may have enough plutonium for ten bombs a year."
Now, there you have an Israeli scientist admitting that Israel has nuclear weapons. Is he in solitary confinement? No. However, Mordechai Vanunu is still a prisoner of Israel. He is not allowed to leave.
This brings us to what Eileen Fleming is doing right now in exposing these issues: "March 22, 2011: Email from CNN, Message from Vanunu, TWEETS to Bibi," by Eileen Fleming. We Are Wide Awake.org. March 22, 2011.
In case you don't figure it out, Eileen is no racist and Mordechai Vanunu isn't either. As for Benjamin Netanyahu, well, actions speak louder than words; and he's supporting more "settlement" building on Palestinian Arab lands as part of his continuing ethnic-cleansing policy. Now that's racist, and Obama, and everyone else in Washington's high circles, knows it full well!
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)