Occupied? Who Owns The Land Of Israel?

Posted: September 1, 2024 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
5

James A., Ph.D.

Although the title is “Who Owns the Land?” of Israel, the answer to that question really begins with “Who Owns the Earth?”. In his documentary “Occupied”, claiming to prove that Israel is being illegally occupied by “Jews” having stolen the land of Israel from the “Palestinians”, this question is overlooked by Stew Peters as well as his comrades, Jackson Hinkle (who openly supports Hamas and is an admitted Marxist), Jake Shields, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes and Infowars just to name a few. It has become common and acceptable now to accuse a people who have a 4,000 year connection to the land of Israel of stealing the land from a people who never existed (so-called Palestinians), who never had a state, a constitution, a president, king, and where non-Jewish people living in the land were never referred to as “Palestinians” until the term was used by PLO founder Yassir Arafat (who was Egyptian, not “Palestinian”) in 1964, almost 20 years AFTER Israel had officially declared their independence (again) in 1948.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” Genesis 1:1

“For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills”. Psalm 50:10

“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine” Exodus 19:5 (and I will get to the “if…keep my covenant” part later for the excuse frequently used that the Jews forfeited all the promises to Abraham).

Now that we’ve established who the landlord is, who did the Landlord give the land to? What does the Bible say?

And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him. Genesis 12:7

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Genesis 17:8 (an “everlasting possession” doesn’t sound like forfeiture to me, but I digress)

The LORD God of heaven, which took me from my father’s house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence. Genesis 24:7

And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Genesis 26:4

And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham Genesis 28:4

And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed Genesis 28:13

Get the picture yet? God is the landlord, He gave the land to Abraham AND HIS SEED AFTER HIM, and gave it to them as an EVERLASTING POSSESSION.

How did the land get it’s name?

The land God gave Abraham later became known as Israel. Israel is the name that God gave Jacob, the grandson of Abraham and son of Isaac, Abraham’s son, after a struggle with the angel of the Lord in Genesis.

And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. Genesis 32:28

According to Stew Peters, Israel was merely the name of Jacob and never referred to a piece of land, and all his followers say ‘amen’. The term “Israel” was only meant to be a referent to a child of Abraham but never an identification of a land known as Israel. This ignorance is par for the course among those who only cite a handful of proof texts (a practice of all cults) while ignoring the larger body of Scripture.

Does the Bible ever refer to Israel as a piece of land?

The land God gave Abraham and inherited by his children was referred to as Israel shortly after God changed Jacob’s name.

And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter; which thing ought not to be done. Genesis 34:7

“Wrought folly IN ISRAEL” is not a reference to having wrought folly in a person, but having wrought folly IN A LAND.

Furthermore, all throughout the Old Testament (as well as the New which we will get to later), the LAND is referred to as Israel, and the territories of the land divided up specifically by tribe (the names of the children of Jacob. Genesis 49:28). The territories of Israel are defined clearly in Judges 7-14 (which far exceed today’s current boundaries. Talk about “stolen land”. It’s ISRAEL that is the victim of theft, not the other way around), and the landlord who gave them this land with that name was known as “The God of Israel” (Joshua 24).

There are numerous references to Israel as a corporate body and more than just a name for Jacob (“House of Israel”, “Children of Israel”, “Congregation of Israel” “Kingdom of Israel” [1 Samuel 15:28], etc…) but I will list just a few that specifically refer to the land itself as Israel to silence the critics who never seem to read the Bible they claim to believe.

Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: 1 Samuel 13:9

And the Syrians had gone out by companies, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; and she waited on Naaman’s wife. 2 Kings 5:2

And one went in, and told his lord, saying, Thus and thus said the maid that is of the land of Israel. 2 Kings 5:4

And he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel. 2 Kings 6:23

And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, If it seem good unto you, and that it be of the LORD our God, let us send abroad unto our brethren every where, that are left in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites which are in their cities and suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us: 1 Chronicles 13:2

And David commanded to gather together the strangers that were in the land of Israel; and he set masons to hew wrought stones to build the house of God. 1 Chronicles 22:2

And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred. 2 Chronicles 2:17

In Ezekiel alone there are over 50 references to “the land of Israel”.

Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life. Matthew 2:20

How did Stew Peters manage to read through the Bible and miss over 2,000 references to the land, coasts, kingdom, lot, territories of Israel from Genesis to Matthew? Then again, that shouldn’t come as a surprise to someone who can’t figure out the shape of the earth, either.

Thus we see from the beginning of history, God made a promise to Abraham that involved LAND, that promise extended to his ancestors, it was an everlasting covenant and promise, and the land was called Israel. (See my article on “Not All Israel Are Of Israel?” for a detailed explanation of how this promise works it way through particular tribal lines that can not be fulfilled by the church, and is completely separate from the “spiritual promises” by faith inherited through Abraham by the church.)

“But didn’t Israel forfeit the land because of their rejection of the Messiah?”

Yes, and no. An everlasting promise is an everlasting promise and an everlasting possession is an everlasting possession, and any apparent conflicts with Israel’s possession of the land must be interpreted with that premise in mind, especially since the promise was made while Abraham was sleeping (Genesis 15:12). All throughout the Old Testament God allowed Israel to be temporarily displaced from their land and ruled by their enemies as punishment for disobeying His laws. However, they would always come back to the land of Israel. If one act of disobedience caused a forfeiture of the land to all of Abraham’s descendants, then there would never have been any Jews returning to Israel after, for example, the Babylonian exile, and we would never have had an Israel where the Messiah was born (Micah 5:2). Replacement advocates will claim “well, there was a ‘final rejection’ when the fake Jews rejected ‘their’ Messiah”. Not only is such a sentiment never mentioned in Scripture (a “final rejection”), but it always seemed strange to me how a fake people could lose something that was never theirs in the first place.

This reasoning makes it obvious that all of the times Israel disobeyed God and lost the land, it was lost to THAT group of people at THAT time (just as it was lost TO MOSES but not TO JOSHUA). At no time was Israel told that any particular act, including rejection of Jesus as Messiah, constituted a breach in some contract where Israel permanently lost rights to the land.

In fact, in spite of Israel’s constant disobedience, God still promised to bring the Jews back into the land of Israel IN SPITE OF “all that they have done”. There are hundreds of references to Israel’s FUTURE restoration in the land, and the references are clearly regarding the “last days”.

Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 31:37

This verse shows clearly that God keeps His promise to the Israeli patriarchs IN SPITE OF the things Israel as done to provoke Him. God even chastises those who thought they could get away with devouring Israel because they sinned against God:

All that found them have devoured them: and their adversaries said, We offend not, because they have sinned against the LORD, the habitation of justice, even the LORD, the hope of their fathers. Jeremiah 50:7

So while it is true that God scattered the Jews for their disobedience, He also promised to regather the Jews, often in the same verse He mentions their scattering.

For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. Isaiah 54:7

Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. Ezekiel 11:17 (See also, Jeremiah 23:3, 29:14, 31:8, 31:10, Ezekiel 20:34, 20:41, 36:24, 37:21).

At the time Ezekiel had written this, Israel was scattered throughout the world, and would become even more scattered at the “Diaspora” when Rome had driven them out of Israel and renamed the land “Palestine” as a way to mock the Jews. So the “original” so-called “Palestinians” were actually JEWS. Palestine is a Latin word, not an Arabic word, that means “Philistine”. The battle between David and Goliath was well known to the Romans and renaming the land after a Philistine (Goliath) was a way to mock the God of Israel, and show the Jew that their God is inferior to the gods of Rome. It is therefore completely disingenuous for the world to claim that some non existent Arab people who are Muslim, who frequently emphasize that the Koran can only be properly understood through the Arabic language, would choose a Latin name for their land, particularly the language of an empire they consider pagan. And even though much of the Jewish population had been driven out, just as in all of the previous temporary evictions throughout the OT, there was always a remnant population of Jews still left in the land, and thus Israel has NEVER been completely without a Jewish population who has continually occupied the land.

God even gave the ORDER in which He would gather Israel. Although there were Samaritan Jews who had never left Israel and many other Jewish families who had begun moving to Israel during the 1800s, there was a mass movement of Jews throughout the world moving back to Israel and in the order given in Isaiah 43.

Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east [Syria, Iraq, Jordan 1930-1945], and gather thee from the west [Europe after WW2]; I will say to the north, Give up [Russia 1988]; and to the south, Keep not back [Ethiopia 1991, Operation Solomon]: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Isaiah 43:5-6

Contrary to the claims of Reconstructionists and Preterists, at no time from when Israel was scattered throughout the world were they ever reassembled and gathered by God into their own land. Therefore, all such references regarding the regathering of the Jews is yet future. It would also be absurd to apply these O.T. promises to the church. When did God ever scatter the church for their disobedience to the Messiah with a promise to regather them? To claim the rebirth of Israel in 1948 was not a fulfillment of prophecy doesn’t merely show an ignorance of the word of God, but seems to be based on a blatant disregard for it motivated by a hatred of anything Jewish.

The following passages to the regathering of Israel are clearly all future events yet to be fulfilled, and have nothing to do with the church.

For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5

For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. Hebrews 4:8-9 [Side note: notice it is Jesus who said this IN THE O.T.!]

Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Ezekiel 37:12

But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation.

For I will cleanse their blood that I have not cleansed: for the LORD dwelleth in Zion. Joel 3:20-21

“That I have not cleansed” is a clear reference to a future Israel.

And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God. Amos 9:15

Not only does God gather the Jew back to the land of Israel, but He also GATHERS HER ENEMIES there during the tribulation (Revelation 16).

For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. Joel 3:1-2 (There’s how God feels about a “2 State Solution”)

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. Zechariah 12:9 (See N.T. cross reference in Revelation 16.)

Here’s something to ponder. For all the talk of the Church replacing Israel, there sure is an awful lot going on in Israel at the end of time, including Jesus returning to the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1-4).

So yes, while it is true, that God scattered Jews for disobedience, and then caused them to be ousted from Israel in AD 70-120 by Rome, He also promised to regather them. I have already written a lengthy article on the Time of Jacob’s Trouble and how the land promises are distinct from the spiritual promises that the church inherited from Abraham here in “Not All Israel Are Of Israel?”, so I won’t repeat those points here.

Blindness IN PART happened to Israel according to Romans 11:25-30, and it is this IN PART and UNTIL that is always ignored by the Replacement advocates, the “until” being “until the times of the gentiles be fulfilled”, all of which follows Paul’s question, “Hath God cast away His people? God forbid”. Romans 11:1. If the church replaced Israel, this would be a strange reading of Romans 11:1-2, “Hath God cast away the church? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away the church which he foreknew.” But these are the leaps in logic and twisting of Scripture that must be justified in order to interpret Romans 9-11 as being applicable to the church and not the future restoration of a remnant of literal Jews in Israel.

Paul says, “All Israel shall be saved” in Romans 11:25-28. Is that talking about the church? Is not the church PRESENTLY redeemed? If you are a Bible believing Christian, are you not NOW redeemed? Are you not NOW justified? Romans 5:9. Are you not NOW sanctified? 1 Corinthians 6:11, and does not the Scripture say you HAVE BEEN saved? Ephesians 2:1, 8-9. If the church has replaced Israel, THEN WHY IS THE CHURCH WAITING TO BE DELIVERED? Notice Paul says ALL Israel SHALL BE (future tense) saved. That is clearly not a reference to the church, but to an unredeemed (“blood that I have not cleansed” Joel 3:20-21) remnant of Jews who are redeemed during the Great Tribulation and are protected through the end of a 7 year Holocaust 2.0 to repopulate the Millennial Kingdom. [For the skeptic who challenges the 7 year period by allegorizing Daniel 9, see the math in Revelation 11:1-3 where the 2 witnesses minister for 3.5 years, and then the wrath of Satan in Revelation 12:11-12 and 13:4-8 for 3.5 years AFTER the 2 witnesses are killed in Revelation 11: 3.5 years + 3.5 years is still 7 years despite the Common Core math used by Stephen Anderson, Stew Peters and Alex Jones).

“But Didn’t the Rothschilds Create Israel?”

The assertion that the Rothschild family created the land of Israel and therefore the formation of “a nation born in a day” (Isaiah 66:8) in 1948 is not a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy is one of the most ridiculous claims ever made. What’s worse is the history revisionism done by the Left, the “New Conservative”, and the mainstream media as if “Palestine”, a Latin word, was a recent name chosen by ARABS for the land and this land was populated by these “Palestinian” people long before “Jews” ever “took the land” from them. There was never a Palestinian kingdom (it was called the Land of Canaan, not Palestine, when Israel conquered it under God’s direction), no Palestinian state, charter, township, or people group named “Palestinians” nor even a “Palestinian” currency (Some efforts have been made to prove otherwise by claiming that coins with the word “Palestine” prove there was a “Palestinian” presence prior to 1948. But the coin is written in Hebrew and reads “The Land Of Israel”). This term was not even in use to describe a non-Jewish group of people living in Israel prior to Yassir Arafat inventing it as term to describe “refugees” in 1964, “refugees” who were gathered by other Muslim countries to occupy Israel and then rewrite history as if they had been there all along.

Two things are important to note first. First of all, it is irrelevant if any wealthy Rothschild purchased any of the land, or even claimed to have created Israel (as one popular YouTube video of a Rothschild claims). The litany of verses above showing how Israel obtained the land and how it was named occurred 4000 years before the Rothschilds were around. It is God, not the Rothschilds, who determined the occupants and destiny of Israel. Secondly, even IF the Rothschilds had anything to do with securing land for the Jews, so what? Even if the intentions of the Rothschilds were different from those of Israel’s Landlord, God has often used and allowed the ill intentions of pagan leaders to fulfill His will by using their evil against them (Genesis 50:20). He does so in the exodus of the Jews out of Egypt by using Pharaoh, Cyrus to deliver Israel in Isaiah 45, and most notably the ten kingdoms that arise in the tribulation who rise up to destroy the whore that rides the beast. Revelation 17:15-17.

The argument that Israel is illegally occupied because a banker secured some funding to secure the land is a rather silly argument. One of the most important figures in American history who nearly single handedly saved the American Revolution by funding the Revolutionary Armies was a Jew named Haym Salomon. Is America therefore an illegitimate nation because it received funding from a Jew? Furthermore, is America an illegitimate nation over the Trail of Tears? Or land that it took from Natives in Texas? California? This presents quite a conundrum if it does. If America should give back land it took by conquest, then there should be no problem with Jews having their land given back to them since it was taken from them by conquest. If land should not be given back because “to the winner goes the spoils”, then critics can’t complain about the occupation of Israel by Jews. Those same critics certainly do not make the same arguments against the occupation of over 50 countries by Muslims all taken through military conquest. If every nation were required to return land that was acquired through conquest, there would be no room for anyone at all anywhere on the planet. But it seems this argument applies ONLY to Israel and the Jews.

If the Rothschilds ran the world (Jews run the world, don’t you know!), and obtained Israel by some elaborate, illicit conspiracy, they did a lousy job. Although even if true, why is it a bad thing for a person with means to obtain their own property back from squatters? (This theory also ignores purchases made by King David, such as 1 Chronicles 21, etc)

Israel went through a number of revisions of various treaties (Sykes-Picot Accord, 1916 and the Balfour Declaration that ultimately ended up, after its numerous revisions, with Israel only getting a small amount of land no bigger than Rhode Island. What has now become Jordan, which was initially created for “refugees”, was itself part of Israel’s original borders (nobody seems to have a problem with Jordan being a “modern creation”. It seems a “modern creation” being evidence of the establishment of an illicit nation only applies when Jews are part of the deal). However, in spite of England’s apparent willingness to give concessions to the Jews, England and it’s spies (like Jack Philby who helped create Saudi Arabia, another “recent creation” nobody seems to have a problem with) did everything they could to block Jews from returning to Israel, even during WW2 when they attempted to flee Hitler and return to Israel.

However, all of the debate about who purchased what and whether any of these accords had legitimate legal standing are irrelevant. It was God Himself who gave the land to Israel as an everlasting possession.

But Aren’t All Those Jews Fake Jews?

First, see my recent article on the misuse of Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 on whether modern day Jews in Israel are “the synagogue of Satan” and therefore not “real Jews”.

Two theories about fake Jews are prominent today. One is that fake Jews infiltrated Israel during Jesus’ time and so even if “Jews” did occupy Israel during Jesus’ day, they weren’t real Jews and so the promises to “Israel” are irrelevant. Without going into detail debunking this ridiculous conspiratorial genetics argument, it is easily refuted by John 1:12-14, and Matthew 23. Jesus said He came unto HIS OWN, and HIS OWN received Him not. And in Matthew 23:37-39, Jesus weeps over a people who He reached out to who rejected Him. Why would Jesus be weeping over a people who weren’t Jewish, but fake? Furthermore, if those who rejected Him were “fake Jews” why is Jesus blaming them for not recognizing the time of THEIR visitation? It’s not their fault.

The second theory made popular BY A JEW named Arthur Koestler was that the modern day Jew is a Caucasian that migrated from the Khazarian kingdom, which is an odd claim to make considering that the Khazarian kingdom, including it’s leadership were mostly Asiatic. It never dawned on those who make this claim to ask how the Jews got there in the first place, or to ask: if Jews were scattered as predicted by God, they’d have to end up SOMEWHERE, right? James writes to “the 12 twelves scattered abroad (James 1), so it’s obvious Jews were in a variety of locations. Of course, a special pleading fallacy is employed by those who ascribe to the Koestler theory which ignores the Sephardic and Hasidic Jews (among others) located in Spain, Poland, Russia, Ethiopia, etc before an after these supposed settlements in Khazar land.

But it appears that the advocates of this theory think a group of non existent white people just woke up one day and said, “Hey, let’s be Jewish and learn Hebrew, call ourselves Ashkenazis, and maybe the Muslims attacking everyone in this area who really hate Jews will respect our new identities. Then we’re going to convert the leadership, and take off to Germany and start a new race”

I intend on writing a follow up article to this one subject- as this section has already exceeded the length I intended for the subject of who owns the land of Israel- on the Khazarian myth even though many others have exhaustively debunked this absurd theory.

God gave the land to Israel, to the Jews, and made a promise that it was theirs, not the church’s, as an everlasting possession. In spite of all Israel had done, God promised He would yet save a remnant of Jews during the tribulation (Romans 10-11), but to save a remnant, there has to be a remnant to save, hence the regathering of Jews to the land of Israel throughout the world. Then, something completely lost to Stew Peters, Greg Reese and Alex Jones, after 144,000 JEWISH witnesses minister for 3.5 years under 2 JEWISH witnesses, Jesus returns IN ISRAEL (not America), IN JERUSALEM to establish His kingdom, which will in part be governed by His disciples RULING OVER THE 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL (Matthew 19:28). That’s quite a bit of subject matter involving a specific location from an omniscient God who apparently didn’t know that there’s no real Jews in Israel so He shouldn’t waste His time coming back there. The “real Jews” are in America, so we all need to get involved politically and save America, make it great again so that God will see the error of His ways and ignore Israel and focus His attention on the more important nation. And hopefully in the mean time, if the Catholics, Orthodox and Calvinists pray hard enough, they’ll get God to see that those “Jews” running Hollywood, all the world banks and the media are responsible for every bad decision all of humanity makes, and are even responsible for tornadoes and hurricanes!

Or perhaps they need a different god. They’re going to get one. Their blatant Jewish hatred plays right into the hands of the antichrist and New World Order. They are aiding Muslim terrorists (oh, but Israel created them, too, don’t you know!) who hate America, and doing so on behalf of bussed-in Gazan “refugees” (talk about a fake people!) defending a land that God Himself said would be judged (Amos 1:7, Zephaniah 2:4, Zechariah 9:5) and was “desert” (not occupied by some mythical “Palestinian” population) in the apostles’ time (Acts 8:26) and in doing so, their “America First” view (which I have no problem with when interpreted correctly) is actually inviting a curse upon America (as if we didn’t have enough problems with legalizing abortion and homosexuality). We are in a spiritual battle, and we need spiritual help, but the current “conservative” movement is doing the exact opposite and America is going to pay the price for it.

______________________________________________________________________

Apparently, those who believe America should not be involved in foreign wars have no problem if other countries do it. Stew Peters cheers for Muslim country to kill Jews in Israel.

.For further reading, I highly recommend “Holy Ground” by William Grady if you want a thorough and exhaustive explanation about the history of Israel, both ancient and modern.

Does Revelation 2:9, 3:9 Prove Modern Day Jews Are Not Real Jews?

Posted: August 10, 2024 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4

Does Revelation 2:9, 3:9 Prove Modern Day Jews Are Not Real Jews?

James A., Ph.D.

One of the most misquoted verses in the New Testament used by Replacement Theology advocates (Reconstructionists among Calvinists/Reformed, Dominionism among Orthodox/Catholic, which incorporate preterism or historicism) often cited to “prove” that the modern day Jew in Israel and abroad is not a “real” Jew is Revelation 2:9, and 3:9.

2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

The argument goes that all Jews are of the synagogue of Satan. They are not real, physical, genetic Jews but are the offspring of an 8th century Khazarian kingdom, and the modern day state of Israel was therefore not a miraculous act of God or fulfillment of prophecy, but was in fact, the creation of the Rothschild family, and therefore the land is stolen land, and the current occupiers are “illegal occupiers” (How Muslims who’ve conquered over 50 countries or American Democrats who stole land from Indians can make these claims with a straight face has always perplexed me! No Muslim or American has ever offered to return land they conquered to the ancestors of the people they conquered it from). After all, how can it be a fulfillment of prophecy since the Church is Israel who replaced the Jew after the Jews as a whole rejected their Messiah?

These arguments are often backed up by a small handful of misquoted verses out of the Old Testament showing that since some covenants regarding occupation in the land of Israel were conditional, and that generation was disobedient, that Israel forfeited those promises, and ergo the modern Jew must not actually be Jewish. If true, it would not follow that the claims of the modern Jew to be Jewish is not true, only that they forfeited certain promises that were conditional.

I have addressed the matter of whether the church has replaced Israel in a separate blog article correcting a popular misinterpretation of Romans 9 (Not All Israel Are Of Israel?).

The interpretation of Rev 2:9 to claim that since some Jews follow Satan proves that there are no genetic Jews left and therefore the so-called modern Jew in Israel is living in illegally obtained territory is patently ridiculous on it’s face.

First of all, notice that throughout all of the N.T. passage once the church has begun, there is no admonition given from the apostles responsible for the Scriptures to the believer to make a distinction about who is Jewish and who is not (Galatians 3:28). Although ironically, it appears to have escaped the Replacement Advocates that Jesus was Jewish (John 4:20), Paul was Jewish (Romans 10:1, 11:1) as were the first few thousand members of the church (Acts 2-4). Therefore, if the Jew forfeited the promises of the O.T. through rejection of the Messiah, and therefore forfeited their genetic lines, then no Jew could have comprised the population of the church. At which point in history the Church replaced the Jew these advocates are never quite clear on.

Although Paul makes an argument about what a spiritual Jew is in Romans 2, what Paul is not claiming is that there are no real Jews left, or that the Christian has now become a “spiritual Jew”. Paul himself asserts his own Jewishness just a few chapters later when he argues that God is not through with Israel (Romans 9-11), Paul never argues that part of the Great Commission included discerning a real Jew from a non Jew, but that is precisely what is inferred in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9: Jesus is commending these churches for making that very distinction.

Now here is a common sense observation: Who is best suited to identify a fake Jew? A REAL JEW! So while the Replacement advocate cites this passage to prove no real Jews exist, it goes right over his head that the people Jesus is commending for identifying these fake Jews ARE THEMSELVES JEWS!

The question that then must be asked is why does there seem to be focus on who’s really Jewish when the N.T. has made clear there’s no distinction according to Galatians 3:28? Only a dispensational view of Scripture can answer this question adequately. That view is God is now dealing with Israel once again after Christ’s body made of Gentile and Jew alike has been removed, and these are now JEWISH CHURCHES saved during the tribulation. According to Romans 11, God has not cast away “His people” which He foreknew (Israel) and the Gentiles were graphed in for a moment of time, but because of God’s love for the fathers and His promise to them, Israel will be restored in the future after they have been under blindness IN PART until the fulness of the Gentiles are commenced (Romans 11:25).

There is much dispute over whether Romans 9-11 is about Israel and the Jew or according to Catholics and Calvinists, “the elect” are references to the Church, but it’s quite obvious from Romans 11:25-28 that Paul is referring to the nation of Jacob’s physical descendents given that the reference is to a group of people who ARE NOT YET SAVED (“and so all Israel SHALL BE saved”), but will be at some future point when God “turns ungodliness from Jacob” and shall (future) “take away their sins” (vs 25-26). The church’s sins are already taken away, so it’s clearly not a reference to the church being “the elect”. The “remnant” are those literal, physical Jews who survive the tribulation period (Zechariah 13:8-9) and what is left is a remnant of believing Jews with the rest of the unbelieving Jews having been killed off, and so literally all of Israel is saved because saved Jews are all that’s left.

That the churches of Revelation 1-3 are Jewish, not Gentile churches during the dispensation of Grace is apparent from the following facts:

*Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, the rest were ministers to their own people (Galatians 2). James writes “to the 12 tribes scattered aboard” (James 1:1-2) so we know there were Jewish congregations throughout Europe. When John, the author of Revelation, writes to Gaius in 3 John, he is writing to a Jewish audience (3 John 1:7).

*The symbolism used is something Jewish readers would understand (candlesticks, etc…).

*One hundred forty and four thousand Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel are sealed in Revelation 7:4-8. There would be no need to seal this many witnesses if a mostly Gentile church was still around. These people sing the “song of Moses” in Revelation 14, another indication that this is a strictly Jewish target audience. And as if it wasn’t obvious enough, the 144,000 who are sealed are listed by tribe, Jewish tribes (it is often argued these tribes have been lost, but modern DNA is ameliorating this matter, and certainly God knows who and where they are, He clearly knows in Revelation 7). I often like to ask my “The Church Is Israel” friends which Jewish tribe they belong to!

*The 2 witnesses in Revelation 11 begin their ministry by measuring a Jewish temple where the Gentiles are outside of the parameters (as they were at the second temple).

*In Revelation 2:14 the audience is commended for avoiding the error of Baalam who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.

*Revelation 2:20 refers to Jezebel, a reference to a whore that attached herself to a Jewish king, and symbolically represents a woman who rides a beast who deceives the nations of the world into following the antichrist (see Revelation 17-18).

Although many pre-tribulation advocates (of which I am one) believe the church of Philadelphia represents a period of church history of a group of believers who represent a church that will not go through the tribulation, the existence of another church after that who does (Laodicea) presents a problem with such a time line. If the church of Philadelphia is a raptured church, then why is there one church left after Philadelphia is removed? The better explanation is that God protects a particular remnant of Jews from the judgments and wrath of Satan when they heed the warnings of Jesus in Matthew 24 and are miraculously protected (probably Petra) when Satan begins his final onslaught in the middle of the tribulation (Revelation 12:11-17). Furthermore, it is the church at Philadelphia that is one of the 2 commended for distinguishing between Jew and non-Jew and as I noted earlier, this would not be a task of the church during the dispensation of Grace.

There is another view that holds that the “non Jews” being called out are Replacement Theology advocates who have stolen the promises of Israel and applied them to themselves. While I believe that is certainly a possible interpretation, it couldn’t be applied to ALL of the replacement advocates such as the reconstructionists among the Reformed. As misguided as I believe the Reformed doctrines are, I wouldn’t claim that they are all of the synagogue of Satan. While this could certainly apply to the church of Rome, this passage is clearly a reference to physical, literal Jews, not “spiritual Jews”, and none of the Replacement Theology advocates make claims to be the physical, literal descendants of Jacob which is what is in mind for Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.

There are certainly events used as referents in Revelation 2-3 that were part of the narrative at the time John wrote Revelation, that doesn’t prevent a multi purpose application (as much of prophecy does. See for example Jesus quote only part of Isaiah 60 in Luke 4:18-20 which shows one prophecy had multiple applications for future events).

John’s reference to “synagogue of Satan” is used by Replacement advocates to claim that any Jew claiming to be a Jew is not really a Jew because, look, John says Jews are from the synagogue of Satan. First of all, that’s kind of an odd claim to make if there are no real Jews. It’s a self-defeating argument (if it’s true it’s false). John isn’t saying that ALL Jews are of the synagogue of Satan, but THIS PARTICULAR group is, and “synagogue” in this sense is used in an idiomatic sense in that if this group belonged to any synagogue at all, it’s not a Jewish one established by any Bible believing Jew in Christ, but a synagogue governed by Satan. And again, as stated above, it is actual, real, literal Jews who are commended for pointing this out.

Furthermore, after World War 2, Operation Paperclip and Operation Gladio were missions responsible for the escape of Nazis from Germany and other occupied territories. With the aid of the Vatican and American intelligence, thousands of Nazis were brought to the United States and Argentina (evidence suggests that Hitler himself was relocated to Argentina as opposed to the popular narrative that he committed suicide. See documentary “Grey Wolf” 2012 for multiple eye-witness testimony regarding these facts), and many were given Jewish identities. There is also the so-called “Palestinian” movement which claims to be the original and legitimate occupiers of the land of Israel (and I will deal with the question of “who owns the land?” in the follow up article to this one), thus essentially, these “Palestinians” are claiming to be the true inhabitants of a land God gave to the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Ezekiel 11:17, Ezekiel 37:11-15, Amos 9:11-15, etc…), and thus the “Palestinians” are laying claims on property claiming promises made to actual Jews, so in a sense, they are claiming to be the rightful owners and recipients of God’s real estate and hence, claiming to be “Jewish”.

Many of these Replacement advocates like Alex Jones, Jackson Hinkle, Jake Shields, Stew Peters and their ilk also like to point out there’s an evil kabal within “Judaism” who wants to rule the world and therefore has made every effort to undermine and control the world. Sadly, much of that accusation is true, but tell God something He didn’t already know when He made the promises He made to Israel anyway, and how does it follow from that that there are no real Jews? Does America not have an evil cabal within it’s government? Why is it that Israel is the only country where the genetics of the occupants are questioned because of the evil actors in its government? Has Israel had a lot of corrupt influence in the media, Hollywood, the banking industry? Of course, but so have many other countries and people groups, but you’ll never hear these Replacement advocates claim that none of those living in America are not real Americans or real Christians because Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama are evil. There is always a double standard (a special pleading fallacy) when it comes to anything Israel.

God is fully aware of the evil done by many Jews. He’s also aware of YOUR sins. God was well aware of it when He punished Israel’s enemies who thought they had a “right” to persecute Israel because Israel had forsaken their God.

“All that found them have devoured them: and their adversaries said, We offend not, because they have sinned against the LORD, the habitation of justice, even the LORD, the hope of their fathers” Jeremiah 50:7

God still intends to save a Jewish remnant IN SPITE OF all that they have done. God made it pretty clear that the gifts and callings He’s made are “without repentance” (Romans 11:29), and that His will will be fulfilled IN SPITE OF the evil things the modern Jew has done:

“Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.” Jeremiah 31:37

I’m sure God thanks Stew Peters, Infowars, and Candace Owens for constantly reminding Him of what He already knows, but in the end, there’s a reason why Jesus’s return occurs in Jerusalem, not Washington D.C. So they can continue “boasting against the branches” (Romans 11:18) all they like, it won’t change the outcome of when God resumes His historical timetable, the times of the Gentiles cease (Luke 21:24), and the focus is back on His elect, Israel, and there God destroys all the nations to that sought to destroy Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:9), and the war that ends all wars ends in Israel (Revelation 16, Joel 3:1-2). For God to save a remnant of Jews, there must be Jews who survive going into the Tribulation, and that is where the protection of the United States plays a role, and it has been traditionally for that reason God has allowed the United States to prosper…and it will be the capitulation of that practice and the aid given to Israel’s enemies (including the “conservative” right) that will bring God’s curse upon America from which no “Make America Great Again” advocate will be able to prevent. It is also for this reason that Satan tries so hard to undermine America and persecute Israel. Satan is a doomed creature. He knows it. Satan believes that if he can some how destroy Israel and the Jew he can prevent prophecy from being fulfilled and hence thwart his own destiny.And of course, the Stew Peters, Jackson Hinkle, Infowars and Candace Owens crowds are happy to oblige Satan in his goals while they repeat Hamas terrorist talking points.

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Genesis 12:3

Twitter Suspends Me Over Trump Vaccine Tweet

Posted: August 24, 2021 in Uncategorized
0

James A., Ph.D

Twitter has, for the umpteenth time, suspended my account…AGAIN. This time, in “lockstep” with all the other people telling the truth about the COVID scams. It’s ironic that of all the hundreds of tweets I’ve made about the COVID scams, it’s the one criticizing Trump that I get suspended for. Go figure.

Was Trump Controlled Opposition?

Posted: January 8, 2021 in Uncategorized
3

By James A., PhD

What is controlled opposition? Lenin said, “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it”. Controlled opposition is when a third party controls the resistance of people rising against the status quo of the current parties in power. America has been dominated by a two-party system, both of who are on the same side. In fact, there’s a standing joke among Harvard Skull & Bones members about who will volunteer to be a Republican, and who wants to be a Democrat. With the rise of independent media, more patriots were waking up to the false dichotomy system of Republican Democrat, and started to rebel. The awakening among conservative Republicans probably began when George Bush, Sr gave his “New World Order” speech in 1990.

Let me explain why the Democrat vs Republican duopoly is so effective in controlling the masses before I explain why I believe Trump is controlled opposition. It’s easier to control a large group of people if you keep them divided and get them to fight among themselves. That way, they turn on each other, and not the government. The Deep State did that with blacks. When it was obvious that blacks would no longer tolerate being enslaved, Democrats with the help of Republicans that brought Nazis to America, created a plan called COINTELPRO that created a religious gang rivalry among blacks in Chicago. First, they pumped drugs into Chicago neighborhoods that would be controlled by a new face of Black Panther resistance called VICE LORDS. Vice Lords are ISLAMIC. After the VL was established, the CIA created a rivalry by giving drugs to Larry Hoover who founded the Black Gangster Disciples. The BGD are “Hebrew Israelites” or in other words, JEWISH. Can you see where the conflict arises! The Deep State created a rivalry that most of the current gang members haven’t even thought of, and to this day, those gangs still kill each other.

Every 4 years, when a Democrat is control of the presidency, there’s a Republican majority in the House or Senate. Liberals relax. Conservatives rage. Four years later, a Republican takes office, Democrats get the House and Senate, the liberals rage, and the conservatives relax. This relaxation every 4-8 years is based on HOPE. If you don’t like the current political atmosphere, JUST WAIT 4 YEARS and vote them out. As long as people have HOPE, THEY DON’T REVOLT.

HOWEVER, once people catch on to the fact that the two party system is rigged, and they’re both really on the same side, a middle opposition begins to rise that threatens the establishment. The Tea Party was a temporary answer to that, but Glenn Beck was no more a real conservative than the Bush Empire. The Deep State knew that something needed to be done to prevent an angry, patriotic middle party from rising up, gaining momentum, and possibly engaging in a 1776 part 2 style revolution. It’s that middle party that owns all the guns, after all. So how do you accomplish this? By getting someone who speaks out against the corruption of the Shadow Government, and promises to make America great again. Someone who attended the exact same Jesuit school as John Brennan: Fordham (even wonder why Trump’s SCOTUS appointees were ALL CATHOLIC, 2 of them, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, are both Jesuits as well. Trump’s wife is Roman Catholic and Trump praised Pope John Paul II at the anniversary of his death).

Trump was used to not only control the rising middle opposition, but was so obnoxious that defending him discredited many Christians. Try witnessing to someone who finds out you voted for Trump these days. You won’t get passed Romans 3:23. But after all, WHO ELSE was there that talked about defending capitalist and American values? Sure, he was a whoremonger, adulterer, foul mouthed, but he made the country prosper, didn’t he? Or was that all part of the show?

The 2 things that bothered about labeling Trump controlled opposition was the economy, and the opposition from the media. However, opposition from the media is what caused us to defend Trump! Why! Because conservatives have a general aversion to false accusations and we like to defend the innocent. The media purposely attacked Trump to provoke conservatives in to defending him. It also worked with Kavanaugh. How many protestant Christians would normally defend a Jesuit for the Supreme Court? Yet we ALL defended Kavanaugh because of the “persecution” he was getting. It was a slick trick, and we all fell for it.

But what about the economy? Wasn’t it a great economy? Sure. But who benefited the most? With a planned COVID crisis coming, the economy was never going to recover, but it DID benefit certain classes of people. If you KNOW a crisis is coming, you want to start prepping and building a nest egg, right? Trump’s economy benefited all of the Big Tech giants, Amazon, Elon Musk, and thousands of other moguls who are part of the Deep State, all who can ride out the storm now in spite of an impending recession or depression. The “booming economy” guaranteed that all of our overseers will not need to worry about their bills or obligations when the rest of the country is out of work. It’s a way to create a permanent slave class while guaranteeing that the tech giants can build a BEAST system unscathed by the COVID plandemic. Keep in mind, that it was Trump that approved of the initial lockdowns in the first place that led to the first wave of job losses.

So long as Trump told us what we wanted to hear, and Q Anon suckered everyone into “trusting the plan”, nobody revolted, or at least thought about revolting until it was too late. That’s controlled opposition. Trump has been loyal to his Rockefeller sock puppets the entire time. I’ll save the Nazi connections with Richard Nixon and Trump’s uncle, John Trump and the connection to Tesla, Elon Musk, and Nazi technology for another article.

Trump is now pushing a vaccine that will permanently alter your DNA. He endorsed vaccines that are experimental, and which gives the global government a perfect opportunity to use this is a test run for mark of the beast technology (I’m not saying vaccines are the mark, they are not in spite well-meaning prophecy teachers, but they do open the door for the tracking and mandatory receipt of unwanted bodily intrusions that you will either get or be unable to travel and eventually buy or sell without proof of vaccination, and in the future, proof of a mark).

Trump also helped negotiate a two-state solution in Israel in the recent Abraham Accords, which is dividing God’s land: one of the reasons He judges the nations (Joel 3:2).

This doesn’t mean that Christians were wrong to vote for him. We can only vote on the information we have. We may not have liked some things about him, but our plight was about saving America from Communism. It was about saving our Constitution, not about a shady past and potty mouthed hedonist, so for patriotic Americans, it wasn’t about the person, but about the document that expresses our rights and liberties, and Trump just happened to be the only person available that we HOPED would make that happen. But that HOPE is what kept the people from revolting, and now the Deep State and Big Tech are so enriched and coordinated that a revolt is almost impossible to mount.

There’s a LOT more reasons to think Trump is controlled opposition given by my friend, Scott Johnson on ContendingForTruth.Com . Now I don’t agree with all of Scott’s arguments or conclusions because, in my opinion, some of the sources are too mainstream to be credible, and those from Wayne Marsden I believe are so bogus that even Snopes debunked them. But overall, I think Scott makes a good case for Trump being controlled opposition.

I voted for Trump. Twice. But Trump threw in the towel and gave up. That’s what a controlled puppet would do. Let people have hope right up until the clock runs out.

What About Constantine Simonides’ Exemplars For His “Forgeries”?

Posted: February 21, 2020 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
0

James A., PhD

One of the accusations against Constantine Simonides’ claims to being the actual author of the Codex Sinaiticus is that he was a forger (you would think being a forger, if true, actual FAVORS Simonides, not discredits him!), and thus was a liar. Although, no accusation of forgery against Simonides was ever proven, and at least on one occasion, Constantine Tischendorf had to retract a claim against Simonides regarding the Shepherd of Hermes.

In a debate with Chris Pinto, James White sided with the Romanists that Simonides was a forger. But there’s a glaring omission in White’s debate tactic against Pinto. White demanded that Pinto point to the examplar that Simonides used for Codex Sinaiticus if there was to be any truth to Simonides’ claims. I personally thought this line of debate was irrelevant given that Simonides produced 2 Greek copies of Hermas and Barnabas unknown to exist any where else in Christendom, so he obviously had exemplars that nobody else seen, but I digress. What’s interesting about White’s logic is that not once did he ever attempt to point to any exemplars that Simonides used for his so-called “forgeries”.

Wouldn’t that be important? I mean, come on, if it was important for Pinto to produce evidence of the exemplar Simonides used for Sinaiticus, would it not be equally important to point to the exemplars that Simonides used in documents he was accused of forging? That fact that White omits this shows he knew that line of questioning was a red herring that had nothing to do with Simonides claims to the authorship of Sinaiticus.

The debate tactics and logic of the rabid anti King James Only crowd is nearly as bad as the fake news main stream media.

Twitter Permanently Suspends My Account For Reporting To Senators That Trump Is Being Censored

Posted: February 13, 2019 in NEWS
Tags: , ,
0

James A., PhD

Twitter has now permanently suspended my account. No reason was given, but the last tweets that I published were screenshots sent to Trump, and several Republican senators with evidence that Trump’s Twitter feed was being censored.

On February 13, 2019, Trump had a yuge rally in El Paso Texas. Much of his speech echoed his epic State of the Union address. Immediately after the rally, Trump tweeted a photo of the massive audience which included several video excerpts from his speech at the rally. Since mainstream media always takes truncated clips of Trump’s speeches out of context, using Twitter has been Trump’s way of reporting what HE actually said, and last night, Twitter was trying to prevent Trump’s tweet from going viral, and I had proof.

Not only was “El Paso” not trending even though it had over 400 thousand tweets ascribed to the subject, but Trump’s tweet showed up ONLY on the El Paso hashtag, but did NOT show up on his own timeline. Within 30 minutes of sending the evidence for this to several FOX News reporters and US Senators, my account was permanently banned without explanation.

Part of my recent tweets also included criticism of Democrat Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, for her antisemitic rhetoric. Given that I am half Native American and Jewish ethnically, Omar’s comments were particularly offensive. Omar also cause Jewish journalist, Laura Loomer, to be banned from Twitter.

fff

I’m just one more Christian conservative in a long line of other conservatives who have been censored by Twitter.

 

UPDATE:

One thing I discovered with my new Twitter account is just how bad I was shadow banned on the suspended account. Below is the “tale of 2 screenshots”. The first one is my suspended account. My last tweet generated only 100+ impressions, which should be MUCH, MUCH higher given that I had @26 thousand followers, and the hashtags and names tagged. The new account, which barely has any followers, generated nearly twice as many impressions. fff

Russia’s Connection To the Islamic Immigration Crisis

Posted: January 9, 2019 in NEWS, Prophecy/Current Events
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

James A., Ph.D

In Brannon Howse’s new book, Marxianity, Howse devotes a chapter to the migration crisis that is crippling Europe right now. However, although Howse doesn’t address the so-called “Russian Collusion” accusation by Democrats and RINOs, I think he has inadvertently exposed a fatal flaw in the Russian Collusion canard that proves Russian president Vladimir Putin would’ve never wanted Donald J. Trump to become president of the United States.

It is already a well established fact that Obama and Hillary Clinton worked out a plan that netted Putin 20% of American uranium through the Uranium 1 deal, and Hillary’s 2016 campaign staff in cooperation with FBI, DOJ, and UK officials worked with Russian intelligence to fabricate a dossier that provided the grounds for a FISA warrant used to spy on the Trump campaign (with information illegally obtained from the FISA warrant fueling Robert Mueller’s targeting of “suspects” to interrogate). It is becoming painfully obvious that there is a Democrat/Russian connection that involves a scheme to destabilize sovereign countries through the massive influx of immigrants which has given rise to hoards of Islamic terrorism and rape in Germany, England, France, and Sweden and elsewhere.

So while Democrats accuse Trump and his campaign staff of colluding with Russia, the facts are pretty clear that the accusations are a smoke screen to hide their cooperation with Russia in using not only ISIS, but Islamic migration in general to cause chaos from which they will ultimately use to forge a solution that involves global governance and full-blown communism. President Trump’s border policies, and his demand for a wall in particular to secure the US southern border, would be a direct threat to one of Putin’s-and the Democrat’s-largest schemes in destabilizing the US, and Putin’s plan on using Islam as a proxy army against conservative Americans. There’s no way that Putin would’ve ever sanctioned a scheme that made Donald Trump the president of the United States of America.

Here are the facts explicating the Nyquist-Cernea white paper on Russia’s weaponization of Islam excerpted from Howse’s Marxianity.

*In a recently published article by the Katehon Institute in Russia, B. Ozerov explained that the Soviet government in 1918 “was guided by understanding Islam as a close ideology to the communist doctrine.” After all, Islam favored ideals of equality, social justice, and the redistribution of wealth. According to Ozerov, Moscow’s initial plan in the region was to “transform Islam into an Eastern edition of Communism…”

*Some of our sources have claimed that modern terrorism was introduced to the Muslims by the communist block a half a century ago. This point must not be forgotten when evaluating the left’s strange love affair with Islam. “From the very beginning,” said former KGB Lt. Col. Konstantin Preobrazhensky, “the so-called Bolsheviks, or communists, were considering Muslims as the reserve [army], as the human resource for the world revolution.”

*Prof Przemyslaw Zurawski Vel Grajewski, is one of Poland’s best political analysts…According to Prof. Zurawski, the Russians are not responsible for all the refugees who have flooded in Europe, but is is certain “they did their best to make [the problem] larger…to confuse the political scene in European countries…as much as they can.

*In July 2005 the Russian KGB/FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko told the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita that Ayman al-Zawahiri (then Al-Qaeda’s second in command) was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in 1997.

*The Ukrainian MP, Anton Gerashchenko speaking on TV Channel News One, stated: “The crisis of migrants in Europe arose because of Putin. The war in Syria began in 2011, but migrants flooded [Europe] like a large river in the spring of 2015. Russia made a decision after Europe imposed economic sanctions on Russia: ‘Let’s create problems for them.’ They created a problem: $1,000 was allocated for the head of [each] refugee who will be taken from Syria to Europe. A million refugees are a billion dollars. This is nothing to Putin…” The cost to Europe, however, is much more than $1 billion. Gerashchenko added that an atmosphere of xenophobia has been created in Europe along with the growing influence of various nationalist parties, which are known for their favorable position toward Putin’s Russia.

*The Romanian intelligence defector, Lt. Gen. Ion Mahai Pacepa has described Moscow’s use of Arab terrorist organizations throughout the Cold War in his books. We know that Russia stands firmly behind the Islamic terror regime in Tehran [Iran].

*As reported by the BBC, U.S. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the senior NATO commander in Europe, said that Russia and Syria were “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.” He cited Russia’s use of barrel bombs against Syrian civilians. What was the purpose of such indiscriminate attacks? The purpose was, he said, to “get them [masses of people] on the road” to Europe.

*In terms of the Muslim refugee crisis in Europe: reports of ISIS training camps in Russia, reports of GRU/SVR and Russian Mafia assistance to a massive influx of refugees, reports of Russian infiltration of terrorist organizations throughout the Muslim world, etc., constitute a loaded gun.

 

 

 

Was Jerome Corsi Complicit In A Go Fund Me Scam?

Posted: December 17, 2018 in NEWS
Tags: , , , , ,
1

James A., Ph.D

On December 13, 2018, The Daily Caller (“DC”) (founded by Tucker Carlson of FOX News) published an article claiming that Dr. Jerome Corsi helped raise $25,000 for a doctor that didn’t exist. I will direct the reader to the article so as to not take credit for their work and to avoid redundancy in repeating the same claims.

Corsi’s lawyer, Larry Klaymen, posted a response to the article here. 

For the following reasons, I believe Jerome Corsi knowingly and intentionally engaged in wire fraud, theft, conspiracy to defraud,  and assisted in a scam that bilked $25,000 from his followers to endorse a cause he knew to be fraudulent. I do not say this lightly. I have been a fan of Corsi’s for several years, and own some of his well-researched books. I supported and defended Jerome Corsi when he was attacked by the “Q Anon” crowd in April of 2018 [I believe Q Anon is an absolute fraud and have posted quite a bit of evidence on my Twitter page to prove it]

Let me address why I think every excuse that Corsi and Larry Klaymen-who I have a lot of respect for-have made in their defense against the Daily Caller article are absurd.

The Daily Caller Article Is Based On A Mueller Leak?

Corsi is the target of a Robert Mueller probe where Mueller is seeking to connect Corsi to Roger Stone and Wikileaks. I do not think Mueller can prove that, nor do I think Wikileaks got any of their information from Russian agents, so the entire premise of Mueller’s witch hunt is based on a question begging presupposition. Nevertheless, Corsi has asserted that Mueller tried to set him up to lie against president Trump, and the information obtained by the Daily Caller is just another one of those attempts to vilify Corsi. At most, I think that’s a half truth.

However, let’s assume arguendo that Mueller did leak the information. So what? That doesn’t prove that the content of the DC article is inaccurate. In fact, most conservatives point out that the attacks on Wikileaks should not detract from what’s revealed in them. Criticizing the DC article based solely on HOW the DC obtained is known as a pyschogenetic fallacy, and dismissing it based solely on its source is a classic genetic fallacy. The response offered by Klaymen does nothing to address the merits of the facts and arguments raised by the DC, and therefore the arguments Klaymen and Corsi raise against the DC article that are based solely on its source and how it was obtained are fallacious and erroneous.

Furthermore, what exactly did Mueller leak? Corsi published several videos endorsing the Go Fund Me campaign, offered several links to the “doctor’s” website, publicly named the person (Thomas Sickler) he was raising funds for and even had some fancy campaign videos made for him and publicly stated that his wife’s cousin was treated by this doctor (“Mendelsohn”) in Israel. So what exactly did Mueller convey to Chuck Ross (the author of the DC article) that wasn’t already open source, public information? All of these facts are listed in the DC article with the links where they can be verified.

It is interesting that of all the public appearances Corsi made on FOX and Youtube following his Mueller interrogation, which included the claims that Mueller was targeting his stepson, Corsi never mentioned that Mueller was also looking into his Go Fund Me campaign reference by the DC article. In my opinion, Mueller likely didn’t know about the Go Fund Me (given what Corsi himself told us about the interrogation) but now, Corsi is attempting to insert a peremptory defense in the event the Mueller uses it against him. In other words, if Mueller can’t charge Corsi with collusion, he’ll turn to the Go Fund Me fiasco, and when he does, Corsi can say “we told you so”. It’s kind of a round-about way of preventing Mueller from using the Go Fund Me campaign against him, but if he does, it will be bootstrapped to his argument as proof that Mueller leaked the information to Chuck Ross.

Corsi Endorsed The Campaign With A Personal Testimony

Jerome Corsi claimed that his wife’s cousin was treated by this doctor in Israel. Even if the “doctor” (“Mendelsohn”) and the “cancer victim” (“Sickler”) (who may be the same person given that the organization’s medical practice website in Florida is registered in the “cancer victim’s” name) had “misled” Corsi, and were the ones scamming him, Corsi would’ve known that the practice was a scam once his wife’s cousin arrived in Israel and realized that no such doctor existed. That would likely make for one very angry cousin if she was truly suffering from cancer and traveled from Argentina to Israel only to find that no such treatment is available at the hospital where it is claimed to be practiced at, nor does the doctor exist who is claimed to be its champion.

Corsi’s followers may have been reluctant to contribute to this campaign, but given Corsi’s endorsement of the treatment, and his claim that the doctor cured his wife’s cousin, Corsi put any doubt to rest and put his potential contributors at ease by vouching for the cancer treatment.

Was Corsi Duped and Mislead by Dr. Mendelsohn and Thomas Sickler?

Corsi asserts that it’s possible that he was mislead or “bamboozled” by Sickler and the doctor, but that he genuinely believed that Sickler was a cancer patient and the Dr. Mendelsohn was a real doctor. HOWEVER, keep in mind it was Corsi’s claim that this doctor healed his wife’s cousin that gave credence to the claims of the medical treatment, and therefore, for the endorsement of Sicker’s campaign. That means that the narrative about Corsi’s cousin came BEFORE the campaign was started for Thomas Sickler. Hence, Corsi knew it was fraud before he started the campaign on Sickler’s behalf.

Moreover, how ironic is it that the “cancer patient” Corsi was raising funds for just happens to also be the same patient who owns the website for one Dr. Eliad Mendelsohn? If the doctor was a fraud when Corsi sent his wife’s cousin to Israel (if THAT is even true: we haven’t heard from the cousin), he was a fraud when Corsi established the campaign for Sickler, and Corsi knew it. But my, what a coincidence that Corsi just happens to run into the very person who created Dr. Mendelsohn after his cousin returning from Israel would’ve told him that no such doctor exists! This clearly implies that not only did Corsi know that Dr. Mendelsohn did not exist, but implies he knew who was behind the fraud because the odds that he would start a Go Fund Me campaign for the very person who created Dr. Mendelsohn after knowing that his wife’s cousin was not treated by any such person, while not being suspect about the person approaching him for the need to be treated by this “doctor” would be astronomical.

Therefore, it appears to me that Jerome Corsi knew all along that the Dr. Mendelsohn “cancer treatment” was fraudulent, and he compounded the scam by lying about the treatment of his wife’s cousin which gave the campaign a veridical appearance, when in fact, it resulted in defrauding hundreds of people who contributed to what they thought was a genuine campaign to treat a cancer patient.

Conclusion

I am not only disappointed in Jerome Corsi as a long time faithful follower of his, but I am angry. Corsi has given the impression that he is a Christian, and has declared that he would not accept Robert Mueller’s plea agreement because he could not “lie before God and country” to something he knows to be a lie. And yet, it is obvious to me that Corsi lied about the Sickler/Mendelsohn Go Fund Me campaign. These kind of actions give other Christians a bad name, and it should be called out.

Corsi owes his followers an apology. He owes his followers reimbursement for their contributions to this campaign. Corsi should also be criminally prosecuted for theft and conspiracy to defraud the contributors (note: Corsi denies receiving any of the proceeds of the campaign, but at this point, I believe even that needs to be investigated).

One of my biggest complaints against the current Trump presidency is that not enough has been done to drain the swamp. I believe Mueller’s inquisition is a witch hunt, and good people like Mike Flynn are being destroyed while crooks and liars like Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Eric Holder, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein and the rest of the Deep State cabal seem to get away with murder. It’s obvious that there’s one standard of justice and another for conservatives. Nevertheless, it numbs the mind to think that Corsi should be exonerated merely because Deep State actors aren’t held accountable for their actions. Corsi should be held to the same standards as anyone else, and any defense of Corsi’s actions are inexcusable. I pray Corsi seek’s the counsel of the Lord, and after some long reflection comes to repentance.

Why Michael Avenatti’s Accusation That Jacob Wohl Set Him Up Is Absurd

Posted: November 20, 2018 in NEWS
Tags: , , , ,
0

James A., Ph.D

“Creepy Porn Lawyer”, Michael Avenatti, was arrested on or about November 14, 2018, for felony domestic battery. Although Avenatti denies being either “charged”, or accused of a felony, the LAPD website states both: that Avenatti was not only “charged”, but charged with a class F Felony.

After Avenatti’s release on $50,000 bail, Avenatti accused Jacob Wohl of orchestrating a smear campaign against him. In other words, Avenatti was arrested not because he actually assaulted someone, but because there’s a vast conspiracy between Jacob Wohl and the Los Angeles Police Department (which just happens to be one of the most liberal strongholds in the country).

For the following reasons, this accusation against Wohl is patently absurd.

1. Avenatti’s grounds for this accusation seems to be based on a single tweet made by “Surefire Intelligence” which stated simply, “Surefire strikes again”. It is obvious that the tweet was not an admission to Wohl’s “complicity” in Avenatti’s arrest, but a sentiment that they thought they were  first to circulate the story, which is a common “puffing” tactic used by all news reporting agencies and marketers. Even if Surefire was playing head games with Avenatti, that’s not evidence that Wohl was behind Avenatti’s arrest.

2. The reports which rely heavily on TMZ and AP Network News, who report getting their information from the LAPD, state that the victim reporting the incident had visible injuries. The injuries were serious enough to charge Avenatti with a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. To think Wohl orchestrated the physical, visible bruises on the victim is absurd. Avenatti has attacked TMZ for being part of the “conspiracy” against him as well because it’s owner is friends with President Trump, even though TMZ has quite a plethora of negative anti-Trump articles. However, ironically, Avenatti is silent on the same reporting done by AP, who is clearly not Trump-friendly.

3. Avenatti was arrested for a DOMESTIC battery, which typically indicates the victim and perpetrator were in a close relationship.* This is also supported by the fact that the victim obtained a restraining order (screenshot of relevant portion of the article below) against Avenatti on November 15, 2018. The fact that the victim feared that Avenatti would return not only shows trauma, but also shows that Avenatti and the victim knew each other, and knew each other long enough for there to have been a relationship. For Wohl to have orchestrated this, he would have to have known who Avenatti was dating, and then somehow, convinced the victim to cooperate in a conspiracy to have Avenatti arrested for battery, in addition to being willing to take a punch.

To think that Wohl just schmoozed into this woman’s life and someone convinced a girl he didn’t know to accuse her boyfriend of domestic abuse is just absurd. How did Wohl know who Avenatti was dating? How did Wohl know where they lived?  Note that in all of Avenatti’s public statements, he has not denied knowing the woman, he has not denied having a relationship with the woman, and he has not directly accused the woman or Jacob Wohl of knowing each other.

4. Avenatti is reported to have told the police, “she hit me first”. Avenatti has not denied that he made this statement to police. This statement made in the heat of the incident would be considered in law “res gestae, excited utterance”. These kind of utterances are often the most powerful statements because they reflect what a person is thinking and feeling in the moment without having time to reflect on how they could have or should have responded differently, and before you give your official spin narrative to the media. The fact that Avenatti has claimed he never hit the woman, AT ALL, yet claims that she hit him first based on his excited utterance shows that not only is he lying about hitting her, but is trying to give the impression that even if he did, it would be OK to crush a woman’s face simply because she hit him first.

So much for “believe survivors”, and “believe women”.

The media, and Avenatti’s supporters have pointed to another incident in where they accuse Wohl of orchestrating an attack against Robert Mueller. Even if this were true (and there’s no proof that it is), it is a post hoc ∴ propter hoc fallacy to claim that Wohl is behind the Avenatti arrest based solely on Avenatti’s question-begging premise that Wohl orchestrated a “Mueller smear”.

Thus ultimately, the only grounds so far that Avenatti has put forward in an attempt to substantiate his claim that Jacob Wohl was behind his arrest is a single tweet that is quite ambiguous. This is just sloppy, irresponsible lawyering, and hardly constitutes evidence of a conspiracy.

Unfortunately, California is an activist state. It is where the ACLU goes judge shopping, and where courts have exonerated illegal immigrants in the face of overwhelming evidence of murder, and warned them in advance of impending arrests by ICE. It is highly likely, in my opinion, Avenatti will seek the assistance of the US Senator over Los Angeles, Dianne Feinstein, the senator who was involved in smearing Justice Kavanaugh, who will then put pressure on local LAPD officials and the mayor, and thus it is unlikely Avenatti will face any real consequences, and the victim will not get any real justice. But until the case against Avenatti has been adjudicated, it is absurd to make Jacoh Wohl into a patsy, and direct public ire against him without any evidence whatsoever that Wohl had anything to do with putting Michael Avenatti’s fist into the face of his girlfriend as reported by the LAPD, TMZ, and AP.  All Avenatti is doing at this point is harpooning the public pool of opinion. “Harpooning the jury” is a lawyer tactic where even though a lawyer knows a comment will be objected to and ordered stricken from the record, it nevertheless stews in the minds of the jurors and can often be persuasive in deliberations. It is clear that’s what Avenatti is doing. Even though there’s absolutely no substance to his accusations, he’s employing a common propaganda technique to deflect and project the entire case onto Jacob Wohl. In my opinion, if all this is true, Avenatti should take the advice of Jacob’s father:

*Although it appears that the victim was misidentified at first as Avenatti’s ex-wife, Lisa Avenatti, it is clear that Avenatti was accused of hitting SOMEONE. It would not be difficult for any media to make this kind of mistake given that Avenatti was charged with a domestic battery, and his last known spouse was Lisa Avenatti. However, domestic battery can include a girlfriend. What Avenatti has attempted to do is deny that any person was assaulted at all by laying the entire alleged assault on Lisa, and since Lisa denies being the victim, ergo it follows that no victim exists at all and the event as alleged never happened. Again, bad lawyering and really bad logic.

Destroying Michael Avenatti’s Conspiracy Against Tucker Carlson

Posted: November 13, 2018 in NEWS
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

James A., Ph.D,

Tucker Carlson made headlines the week of November 7-8, 2018, as the domestic terrorist groups, Antifa, Smash Fascism, with Think Progress, surrounded his home, tried to break into his house, threatened him with mail bombs, and terrorized his wife.

But over the weekend, we learned there was another event that precipitated this, which Tucker was trying to keep a low profile on to protect his children. According to a statement by Tucker Carlson, a Leftist confronted his daughter, and called her Tucker’s whore. His daughter returned to their table in tears, and the Leftist was subsequently confronted by Tucker and his son. The restaurant investigated the matter and suspended the Leftist’s membership.

It has been said that it’s not the crime, but the cover up that always seems worse, and in this instance, Creepy Porn Lawyer, Michael Avenatti, takes the cake. In a not-really-surprising twist, Avenatti is representing the Leftist who accosted the Carlson family, and is attempting to spin the narrative, and accuse the Carlson’s of doing exactly what his client did to them. Of course, this isn’t the client’s first rodeo with an establishment like this. Avenatti’s client, Juan Granados, once sued a Virginia Health Club over similar allegations (we’ve also seen similar tactics like this from the LGBT Mafia who target Christian businesses, like cake shops).

Avenatti released the following statement on Twitter, which was preceded by several other tweets (which will all be addressed below), and it is my purpose to challenged every statement made.

First of all, let’s address the elephant in the room. Given that the November attack by Antifa at Tucker’s residence was about his opinion over the Honduran caravan approaching the border, it is beyond ironic that the Leftist accosting his family at the restaurant just happens to be “an immigrant”. What a great way to spin a narrative than by claiming that Tucker’s family conspired to attack an immigrant, giving the impression that his views on FOX about the caravan are actually based on racism. Secondly, are we really supposed to believe that Carlson’s entire family was involved in some vast conspiracy to find a gay Latino at a restaurant to confront him over his immigration status, as opposed to visiting the restaurant to enjoy a meal with family? What’s entirely missing from Avenatti’s narrative is how this conflict arose in the first place if he’s denying that he did what the Carlson’s say he did.

Inappropriate Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

Avenatti attempts to commit a common fallacy of appealing to credentials and authority to bolster his client’s credibility (as he attempted to do with a Kavanaugh accuser, Julie Swetnick). In other words, my client isn’t guilty because he’s an activist in good standing with his activist community. It also begs the question: how do we know he has great character? I would argue, however, that his activism is what makes him more suspect, not a credible witness. Leftists have adopted a win-by-any-means-necessary revolutionary tactic, and seeking out the Carlson family in a restaurant attempting to provoke a confrontation and then use it to create a false narrative in the mainstream media against Carlson is not beyond the type of typical tactics we’ve seen from the Left.

1. Granados claims that he has witnesses that claim he did not call Tucker’s daughter a whore or a cunt. Yet none of those witnesses have provided a statement which as Avenatti well knows, is hearsay. So on point 1, it’s the word of Granados against Tucker and his two children, and other witnesses in a video that Avenatti audaciously claims supports his client.

The obvious question looming here is how the Carlson’s came into contact with Granados in the first place? In a short one minute video posted Avenatti, Avenatti argues for Granados that Tucker told him to “go back where you came from”, yet this would require Tucker to know where he came from. How would Tucker have known that? The video shows nothing of the sort. There are numerous voices shouting, and a lot of profanity exchanged, but what is never said is “go back where you came from”. Avenatti is attempting to “Acosta” the video, make you see something or not see something based on gaslighting. In fact, the video shows that other witnesses support Tucker’s claim. One witness attempting to get Granados to leave says, “you’re going to defend that guy? [uses thumb to point to Granados] Did you see what he did?”.

2. Granados then claims that Tucker’s daughter never returned to her table in tears. How would he know that? Did he follow her back to the table? What made him pay attention to her in the first place if he claims the confrontation never happened? Isn’t it kind of odd that he would be watching her return to a table after a confrontation he says didn’t occur? In denying the description provided by Tucker’s daughter on this point, Granados actually incriminates himself.

3. Granados then asserts that Tucker and his son are/were the aggressors “as shown in the video”. As stated above, the video shows nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the video is taken AFTER the incident described by Tucker Carlson’s statement. This is the equivalent of the older brother punching his little brother in the stomach (remember “The Good Son”!), and then filming his brother’s reaction for the purpose of blaming the victim for being aggressive. The video does nothing to refute what Carlson claims happened before the video was taken. Moreover, it would be even more suspicious if there just happened to be a camera rolling ab initio.

4. Granados alleges that Tucker’s daughter was drinking, and was “underage at 19”. First of all, how does this creep know how old she is? Granted, he could have learned that later, but a statement such as what Avenatti is providing is supposed to recite events AS YOU WERE AWARE OF THEM AT THE TIME, not as you became aware of them later, and Granados is affirming that he knew of her age AT THAT TIME. Was he stalking Tucker’s daughter? Furthermore, Granados never mentions how he knew Tucker’s daughter was drinking an alcoholic beverage. Did he ask the bartender what he served her? Did Avenatti get a statement from the bartender? Is this even true at all? Perhaps the bar was the closest place to get a refill on a soda without having to wait for a waitress. This statement is unproven and slanderous, and frankly, the restaurant should sue Granados for defamation by accusing them of serving alcohol to minors.

It is extraordinary how much Granados seems to know about where Tucker’s daughter sat, what she drank, that she traveled to a bar on several occasions, and whether or not she was crying, all while denying he never had any contact with her that night as described by Tucker. For a person who didn’t know what she was talking about, he sure knows an awful lot about her, and her activities at the restaurant.

__________________________

Now that we’ve disposed of the Granados statement, and the video, let’s move on to Avenatti’s explanatory tweets (I’m going to skip some of the first tweets because they are redundant to what his client argues in his written statement above, and those arguments have already been addressed).

In Tweet 2/3, Avenatti posts, 

2/3 – and battery (on video). You are the aggressor in the video as is your friend. The man at the bar sits there calmly. Numerous witnesses contradict your claim of innocence. Your daughter was drinking underage in a bar with your assistance and knowledge. You were intoxicated.

At first, Avenatti claimed that Tucker’s daughter was “LIKELY” drinking underage. Then he moves to claiming it as an absolute fact that not only was Tucker’s daughter drinking, but that Tucker himself was intoxicated. How does Avenatti know either statement is true, and where are the witnesses and forensic evidence to prove his statements? This is a defamatory claim that the Carlson family should sue Avenatti for.

Secondly, Avenatti claims that “numerous witnesses” contradict Tucker, but then why is he asking for help to find witnesses? If there were numerous witnesses, shouldn’t Avenatti already know who they are and obtained and published their statements? It seems the strategy is to create the narrative first, then search for the elements necessary to prove the crime later. Publicizing only one small part of the story allows activists to come forward claiming they were there, when all of the evidence that Avenatti claims he relies on should’ve been presented before making his claims.

2/2 – We are attempting to locate additional witnesses and to identify those depicted in the video. In particular, we need assistance identifying the balding man that grabs the man seated at the bar. We anticipate charges being filed. Anyone with knowledge, pls contact us.

Finally, Avenatti asks in a tweet,

3/3 – You told the man to “go back where you came from” before the video starts. And if you were so innocent, why didn’t you disclose it weeks ago as you recently did in connection with the protest at your home?

Tucker already explained why he never mentioned this incident, an explanation that is ignored by Avenatti, and it’s more than a reasonable explanation. Unlike Democrats who enjoy using children as political props, Conservatives don’t exploit their own children to help their career or agenda. He wanted to keep his children out of the media. Given the actions of these mobs, what parent wouldn’t? The difference between this restaurant incident, and the mob at Tucker’s house, is that it was the mob itself that posted the video of what they did and made it public, whereas the incident at the restaurant was never made public until Michael Avenatti spoke about it publicly on behalf of his client. For Avenatti to even ask this question shows either abject incompetence, or deliberate means to promote propaganda.

I may add more to this later, so check back often, and leave your comments. But in my opinion, I believe that Avenatti is orchestrating these events, and should be investigating by the Department of Justice.

 

 

Older Entries