Steven Gaal
-
Posts
4,661 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Steven Gaal
-
-
Scientists Detect Fukushima Radiation on North American Shores – Humans Exposed through Seafood Consumption?
Statesman Journal, Apr 6, 2015: BREAKING NEWS Scientists detect Fukushima radiation on North American shores — Seaborne radiation from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster has reached North America… cesium-134 and cesium-137 in a sample of seawater taken in February from a dock on Vancouver Island… It’s the first time radioactivity from the March 2011 triple meltdown has been identified on West Coast shores [see: April 2011 -- California seawater squeezed from kelp sample had 400,000 Bq/m3 of Iodine-131]… sample was taken Feb. 19… It contained 1.5 becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3) of cesium-134, the Fukushima fingerprint, and 5 Bq/m3 of cesium-137 [actually 1.4 and 5.8, respectively]… Fukushimaradiation concerns coastal communities… models have predicted that in general, the plume would hit the shore in the north first, then head south toward California… currents can be unpredictable… Woods Hole has received support from the National Science Foundation to analyze about 250 seawater samples that will be collected next month…
CTVNews, Apr 6, 2015: First low-level trace of Fukushima radioactivity detected off B.C. — But the levels are so low they are likely of little concern… Still, researchers say this is the first detectable of radioactivity from Fukushima found in a water sample taken from the U.S. and Canadian West Coast… Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist at WHOI who has been measuring radioactivity in Pacific seawater since 2011, says it’s been important to carefully monitor the oceans, given that the Fukushima disaster saw the largest accidental release of radioactive contaminants to the oceans in history.
Buesseler’s statement: “Even if the levels were twice as high, you could still swim in the ocean for six hours every day for a year and receive a dose more than a thousand times less than a single dental X-ray. While that’s not zero, that’s a very low risk.. We expect more of the sites will show detectable levels… Predicting the spread of radiation becomes more complex the closer it gets.”
CBC Radio, March 2015: Four years after the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, scientists like UVic’s Jay Cullen are still monitoring the Pacific waters near us for radiation. Listen to what he’s found and what he hasn’t… Cullen: “If we see cesium-134 in a water sample or a fish for example we know that that’s been affected by the Fukushima disaster… Not only is cesium a marker for other isotopes that were released… it also represents a potential radiological health risk because if its internalized… it can damage our cells and cause illness. So the risk of illness appearing in individuals relates to the activity, how much of that isotope ends up in their body. Given the nature of this disaster, with most of the isotopes going into the North Pacific Ocean, the most likely way that a human being would be exposed to this radioactivity at this point would be through the consumption of seafood.” >> Full interview hereWatch Woods Hole’s latest projection of Fukushima Cs-137 levels through 2021 here
-
Countering The Lies Of The Mainstream Media
Apr 7, 2015
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The site you are reading this article on is part of the ‘alternative’ or ‘independent’ media. Many of these sites do not take advertising and are run on the basis of donations from readers. Many of the authors whose articles appear on these sites write for no or little financial remuneration.
Contrast this situation with the so-called ‘mainstream’ print and TV media.
The corporate mainstream media with its well-paid journalists and increasing concentration of ownership bows to the concerns of advertisers. It tends to be privately owned and its owners have a vested interest in maintaining an economic system based on private ownership and in manufacturing consent for it. Moreover, such outlets these days are increasingly part of major conglomerates, which may include armaments manufacturers, banking or industrial concerns, and will not therefore adopt stances or report on stories that are harmful to the interests of the wider organisation.
The public is thus given access to a world view that is distorted in favour of state-corporate interests. Such interests have succeeded in getting across the message that, for example, the ‘free market’ is the best way to deliver goods and services to people, state provided welfare is bad and ‘individual responsibility’ is good, ‘austerity’ is necessary, privatisation increases efficiency, an endless ‘war on terror’ must be waged on designated enemies, well-being is measured in terms of a never-ending quest for GDP growth, the US and NATO are the ‘world’s policemen’, giant agribusiness must displace peasant farmers to secure food security and gross inequalities and unregulated corporate power are both necessary and legitimate.
Over the past 15 years, numerous ‘alternative’ news websites have sprung up that challenge these assumptions and the belief that ordinary citizens should be passive consumers of a predetermined news agenda. There are now dozens of popular news sites that inform people of issues the mainstream media has deliberately failed to tell people the truth about. There are also many more sites with global reach that exist to scrutinise specific sectors, hold practices to account and counter corporate propaganda (for example, GMWatch, Corporate Europe Observatory, Food & Water Watch, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, etc.).
The existence of ‘alternative’ independent sites has led the European Union to express concerns about the ‘damaging’ effects of people having access to these sources of information. The EU argues that societal consensus is being eroded as people are being ‘led astray’ by dissenting voices on the internet. In the report ‘A free and pluralistic media to sustain European democracy’, the EU feels there is a danger that people are being misguidedly radicalised. It advocates EU funding for ‘responsible’ journalism, getting the EU’s viewpoint across regularly and prominently in the media and placing controls on the net. The EU perceives this to be ‘pluralism’.
What is ‘responsible journalism’?
An article by Annie Day indicates that as a result of its destabilisations, coups, mass bombings and death squads, the US military and the CIA have been responsible for a figure of an estimated ten million deaths since 1945. Yet the corporate media never describes any of this as constituting a form of mass terror. Through the cynical hijacking of the concept of ‘terror’, the US now attempts to justify its ongoing tyranny through a ‘war on terror’, which goes unquestioned on a daily basis by the mainstream media.
Ukraine is the latest example of a US-backed terror campaign, which the corporate media has consistently failed to question. As the world edges ever closer to nuclear war, the mainstream media merely parrots the official lie coming from Washington that the situation is all due to ‘Russian aggression’.
You can also add to that ten million, countless others whose lives have been sacrificed on the altar of corporate profit, which did not rely on the military to bomb peoples and countries into submission but on the IMF, World Bank and WTO. It begs the question how many lives have been cut short across the world because of the inherent structural violence or silent killing of the everyday functioning of predatory capitalism?
The appropriation of wealth through a system that funnels it from bottom to top via a process of accumulation by dispossession is celebrated by the corporate media as growth, prosperity, and freedom of choice, despite evidence that, from Greece to Spain and beyond, the reality for the majority has been falling wages, increasing poverty, the stripping away of choice and misery.
So where is the ‘responsible journalism’ that the EU calls for?
Does it lie with those journalists in the corporate media whose claim to respectability is their rigid professionalism, their accountability, their objectivity?
If you can call professionalism, accountability and objectivity being in the pay of and not wishing to offend advertising interests, officialdom and powerful corporate interests then they are paragons of absolute responsibility.
Peddling their high salaried deceptions, they have failed and continue to fail the public and genuinely hold power to account. By shining their ‘investigative’ light on ‘parliamentary procedures’, personalities, the rubber stamping of policies and the inane machinations of party politics, they merely serve to maintain and perpetuate the status quo and keep the public in the dark as to the unaccountable self-serving nature of power broking and the unity ofinterests that enable Big Oil, Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Agra and the rest of them via their secretive think tanks and policy initiatives to keep bleeding us all dry.
But that’s the role of the media: to help reinforce and reproduce the material conditions of a divisive social system on a daily basis. It’s called having a compliant, toothless media. It’s what the corporate media itself calls part of ‘liberal democracy’. And in this type of ‘liberal democracy’, it is people like Edward Snowden or Julian Assange who expose the wrongdoings of the political-corporate elites that are hounded.
It was George Orwell who said that journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed and everything else is public relations. Orwell was correct. Former CIA boss General Petraeus stated in 2006 that his strategy was to wage a war of perceptions conducted continuously through the news media, while John Pilger observes that the role of respectable journalism in western state crimes – from Iraq to Iran, Afghanistan to Libya – remains taboo. Its role has been to serve as first-choice cheerleader for illegal wars.
Intelligence agencies secure media compliance
There are of course some good journalists working in the corporate mainstream media. But if you think this article mounts to little more than a one-sided attack on the ‘mainstream’ media, you may need to think again.
Many readers will be aware of a recent story about the former editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s largest newspapers, who claimed that he accepted news stories written and given to him by the CIA and published them under his own name.
This revelation came as a shock to many. But it should not have because in the UK, for example, the British intelligence agencies along with the CIA has for decades strived to ensure that the mainstream press and TV complied with the interests of the Establishment. In addition to making sure that the British left was subverted, infiltrated and made toothless, the mainstream media was molded by the intelligence agencies to parrot the Establishment’s viewpoints and aims.
How this was achieved is described in the article ‘The Psyops War: British Intelligence and the Covert Propaganda Front and the CIA’s Interference in British Politics.’
The article reveals the tight-knit relationship between senior journalists and MI5:
MI5 targeted labour correspondents in both newspapers and broadcasting right up to the 80s; they were recruited in droves for their contacts with a wide range of trade union officials and with each other. According to Peter Wright, MI5 always had about twenty senior journalists working for it in the national press. “They were not employed directly by us, but we regarded them as agents because they were happy to be associated with us.”
As the national public service broadcaster funded by the state, special attention was paid to the BBC:
At the BBC, Brigadier Ronald Stonham liaised with MI5 and Special Branch and advised the corporation on whether or not to employ people. Names of applicants for editorial posts in the BBC were similarly ‘vetted’ by MI5.
From the article, it becomes clear were the elite thinks journalism’s loyalty should ultimately lie:
“There should be times when the journalist, when he’s examined all the facts and tested all his sources, should come down on the side of the government of the day, the established order and the Establishment as a whole.” – Chairman of the Radio Authority
And the working class in particular should certainly know its place (Toxteth is an urban district and is used here to signify the social unrest that gripped a number of British cities in the early eighties):
“We are in a period of considerable social change. There may be social unrest, but we can cope with the Toxteths… but if we have a highly-educated and idle population, we may possibly anticipate more serious conflict. People must be educated to once more know their place.” – from a secret Department of Education Report.
The article makes clear who the British Establishment regards as the ‘enemy within’ and what it perceives the role of the much-heralded ‘free press’ (much heralded by people belonging to this ‘free press’) to be.
With massive decreases in readership, however, the print media seems to be in terminal decline. The Establishment’s grip on the control of information has been in danger of slipping as the internet has become a major vehicle for the dissemination of information.
The state-corporate-financial elite has presided over a bought and paid for mainstream media for some time. Now it is engaged in an ongoing strategy of global mass surveillance and a clamp down on internet freedom. The goal is to eventually have a fully controlled internet that mirrors the shackled ‘free press’ that the Establishment has for so long cherished.
=====
Colin Todhunter is an independent writer and former social policy researcher
-
More than 140 top doctors attack government record on NHS
+++++++++++
Letter from senior health professionals says coalition has left NHS in weakest position ever and calls on people to use votes to reinstate service
David Cameron during a visit to Frimley Park hospital. Photograph: Getty Images
Sarah Boseley Health editor
Tuesday 7 April 2015 18.41 EDT Last modified on Wednesday 8 April 2015 05.24 EDTLeading doctors in the NHS have accused the coalition government of a catalogue of broken promises, funding cuts and destructive legislation which has left the health service weaker than ever before.
In a letter to the Guardian, more than 140 senior doctors pass a damning judgment on the government’s stewardship of the NHS, which they say is under pressure because of unnecessary market-oriented changes.
Letter: More than 100 senior health professionals write in a personal capacity outlining their view of how the NHS in England has fared under the coalitionRead more“As medical and public health professionals our primary concern is for all patients. We invite voters to consider carefully how the NHS has fared over the last five years, and to use their vote to ensure that the NHS in England is reinstated,” they write.
The signatories to the letter include Dr Clare Gerada, former chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners; Prof John Ashton, retired director of public health; epidemiologist Prof Michael Coleman; Simon Capewell, professor of public health at the University of Liverpool; Trisha Greenhalgh, professor of primary care at Oxford; Martin McKee, professor of European public health, and Raymond Tallis, emeritus professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Manchester.
The letter, which the doctors have written in a private capacity, challenges the government on its NHS record and deplores the current pressures facing the health service.
Entering the last election, David Cameron assured voters that the NHS was safe in Conservative hands. The doctors, however, say the NHS “is withering away and if things carry on as they are then in future people will be denied care they once had under the NHS and have to pay more for health services. Privatisation not only threatens coordinated services but also jeopardises training of our future healthcare providers and medical research, particularly that of public health.”
Just a week ago, 100 senior business leaders wrote to the Telegraph, claiming a Labour government would “threaten jobs and deter investment” in the UK. The NHS is a potentially difficult issue for the Tories and a strong suit for Labour.
Earlier on Tuesday, the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said he would meet the funding challenge thrown down by the NHS chief executive, Simon Stevens, last year. Stevens said in October that the health service faced a funding gap of £30bn by 2020, of which £22bn could be met through efficiency savings.
Hunt told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme: “We will give whatever they need. It might be more than £8bn, it might be less.”
Within hours of Hunt’s pledge, an earlier draft of the doctors’ letter was leaked to the Daily Telegraph, which claimed that Labour had orchestrated it. Julian Smith, the Tory candidate defending Skipton and Ripon, told the paper: “This Labour stitch-up is another desperate attempt to weaponise the NHS. The truth is that only today Andy Burnham said he didn’t support the NHS’s own funding plan. Under this government, we’ve got more doctors, more nurses and more patients being seen than ever before.”
But Gerada, who organised the letter, denied that the Labour party was responsible. “It has not been orchestrated by Labour, it has been put together by me and a few other medical leaders,” she told the Telegraph. “I’m not doing this from a party political point of view. My views on the health service and the Health and Social Care Act go back and are well known. This letter was drafted by me and some others.
“I am a Labour party member now, but I’m not an activist in the Labour party. This is a view of many doctors who have serious concerns about the state of the NHS as it is now.”
A Labour spokesperson said: “It’s little surprise that doctors have written this letter – they are deeply concerned about the direction of the NHS under David Cameron and the consequences for patients of another five years of Tory government. The NHS needs Labour’s better plan for 20,000 more nurses and 8,000 more GPs, paid for with a £2.5bn a year time to care fund, and guaranteed GP appointments within 48 hours.”
Zara Aziz: I accept that we can’t fund everything, but there is a lack of consistency in which treatments are rationed and service provision varies across the countryRead moreThe letter attacks Andrew Lansley’s NHS shakeup, which was passed by parliament in 2012 as the Health and Social Care Act. It is “already leading to the rapid and unwanted expansion of the role of commercial companies in the NHS. Lansley’s Act is denationalising healthcare because the abolition of the duty to provide a NHS throughout England, abdicates government responsibility for universal services to ad hoc bodies (such as clinical commissioning groups) and competitive markets controlled by private sector-dominated quangos,” the doctors write.
The squeeze is hitting patients, they continue: “People may be unaware that under the coalition, dozens of accident and emergency departments and maternity units have been closed or earmarked for closure or downgrading. In addition, 51 NHS walk-in centres have been closed or downgraded in this time, and more than 60 ambulance stations have shut and more than 100 general practices are at risk of closure.”
Thousands of NHS beds have closed since 2010, they say, while mental health and primary care are in disarray and public health has been “wrenched” out of the NHS and is now the responsibility of local authorities.
The way forward is clear, the doctors say. “Abolish all the damaging sections of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that fragment care and drive the NHS towards a market-driven, ‘out-for-tender’ mentality where care is provided by the lowest bidder. Reversing this costly and inefficient market bureaucracy alone will save significant sums. Above all, the duty on the secretary of state to provide a health service throughout England must be reinstated – it still exists in Scotland and Wales.”
-
Brewing human rights crisis In Baltimore as city threatens mass water shutoffs (LINK)In what residents warn is a mounting human rights crisis, the city of Baltimore has commenced sending 25,000 noticesThe rush to humiliate the poor "The surf-and-turf bill is one of a flurry of new legislative proposals at the state and local level to dehumanize and even criminalize the poor as the country deals with the high-poverty hangover of the Great Recession." (LINK)
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Rick Brattin, a young Republican state representative in Missouri, has come up with an innovative new way to humiliate the poor in his state. Call it the surf-and-turf law.
-
Harassment of coroner Dr. Thomas Noguchi
* RFK coroner denies charges (March 20, 1969)
* Dr. Noguchi appeals firing, demands impartial hearing (1969)
* Strange charges made at coroner dismissal hearing (May 1969)
* Thomas Noguchi returned to county coroner's post (1969)
* Noguchi returns to work discounts reported exodus (1969)
* County aides harass him, Noguchi says (Jan. 8, 1970)
* Noguchi 'witch hunt' victim, says lawyer (March 26, 1982)
* Panel urged to give Noguchi his job back (Feb. 12, 1983)
* Officer recommends Noguchi's reinstatement (Feb. 13, 1983)
* Coroner outlives his detractors (Nov. 27, 1983)
* Interview dr. Thomas Noguchi (November 1986) NEW
* LA coroner confidential (Sept. 10, 2009) NEW
-
Christ, not again (LINK)
So familiar. A police officer claims a black man struggled with him for his weapon, and then the officer had to shoot him to protect himself.
Only problem with the story: a passer-by recorded the incident on his cell phone. The reality was that the black man was running away, the officer fired 8 shots into his back, and then threw his taser onto the ground next to him to fake the evidence of a struggle, in full view of his fellow officers. The video is horrific: after shooting the guy, he’s lying on the ground motionless, and Officer Michael Slagger walks over, yells at him to put his hands behind his back, and cuffs him.
He’d been hit 5 times. He was dead. There was no attempt at resuscitation.
The police killed a man in cold blood, and lied about it.
So, so familiar.
-
Divert ?? This is from the same website. Im just protecting your back....you don't want to be part of the bottom picture list !!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why Do Atheists Believe in Neanderthals?
Posted on Mar 24, 2015 - 2:39pm by Doc Bacon
Neanderthals are one of the great gods in the pantheon of Atheistic spirituality.
There’s nothing children love more than a fabulous bedtime story. For America’s most ardent Atheists, the excitement over the Neanderthal legend is much the same. They thrill at the notion of a man-beast with supernatural powers throwing himself around the primordial sludge, beating his chest and howling at the moon. The image represents their darkest sexual desires and frees their minds to legitimize the foulest moral crimes. It is lust and insanity and pain all wrapped up in a myth so delicious, it’s launched a thousand Hollywood fables.
But why do so many seemingly intelligent people get lured into this reckless world of false belief?
1. Indoctrination into Atheism
The Good News has been censored from much of this world. It is maddening to think of all the communist dictatorships and Islamic caliphates that prevent their people from accepting Christ into their hearts.Here at home, the crime of denying Jesus is even more heinous, for the Bible is freely available to all those who want it. Some are pushed into the Atheist trap by their parents. Others are lured into it on the internet or at university. In each case, the young person feels overwhelmed by a cultural trends that renounce God. To fill the gaping void left by His absence, Neatherdalism appears to answer the most basic questions of human existence. It says that we crawled out from the mud, and to the mud we shall return. It’s not a particularly sublime hypothesis, but no one has ever accused the Atheist thinker of profundity!
2. Indoctrination Into Sexual Degeneracy
Erogenous frustration leads many to make horrific life choices. This problem has become uniquely acute in an age when our young people are force fed a diet of violent sexual imagery. Pre-marital intercourse, masturbation and even homosexuality appear plausible in a left-leaning America under Barack Hussein Obama.By definition, radical homosexuals necessarily believe in Neanderthals. In their minds, the mythical monster is part father figure and part rapist, that sweaty, hairy, dangerous ape they dream of encountering in the heat of the night.
Sex is, like any other narcotic, a highly addictive substance. Once you taste its bitter fruits, it can be quite difficult to go back. As the Atheist pursues these endless nights of wanton lust, he will seek some sort of “spirit guide” who condones his hellaciousness. In this way, the Neanderthal becomes the patron saint of sexual self-destructiveness. And the Atheist will worship his God of sensuality until the dawn.
Many teens feel forced to accept the Neanderthal superstition in order to seem cool and trendy.
3. Peer Pressure
The jungle gyms can be a cruel place for an awkward teenager. He will do anything to fit in with the “cool” crowd. Unfortunately this means taking risks and rebelling against family values. In such instances, the myth of the Neanderthal has great allure. The furry monster of “evolution” is the ultimate outsider, a filthy freak who has torn up the rulebook of good behavior. Yet once youngsters travel down this dark road, how long before they stop in at the crack house or call the corner of Prostitution and Abortion their new home?4. Fear of Heaven
Contemplating the utter enormity of existence is too painful a task for some. They’d much prefer easy answers, an escape hatch from Heaven’s Gate. The legend of the Neanderthals says to these people that life simply doesn’t matter, that we should go wild and have fun. This type of Atheist often lacks something invariably humane, the ability to contemplate the beauty of Creation. He may be a simple person, one is is dangerously unaware of the ultimate fate of those who reject God.While the rhetoric of Darwinian “evolution” may sketch out human history in the vaguest of terms for the simpleminded Atheist, the truth is that the cult of the ape-man is not a practical religion to live one’s life by.
5. Fear of Responsibility
Being a Christian and living a life according to Biblical Law is a very daunting task. Some are simply too lazy or uneducated to understand why this is so important. It doesn’t just help our souls, but also contributes to our communities and to the United States of America as a whole. Yet when the socialists promise free community college, welfare and Obamacare marijuana, God matters little for those who probably don’t deserve to be in the country in the first place.6. Satanism
The forces of darkness should never be underestimated and this is never more true than when it comes to the Radical Atheist Elite. From Richard Dawkins to Ricky Gervais, the most militant Atheists have bartered away their souls for a few minutes of fame. In return, they are beholden to their Dark Lord and all he asks of them is new recruits. They will use any means necessary to recruit you into this fiery pit with them, from dangerous cult music and video games, to comic books and motion pictures containing subliminal messages of Illuminati power.Yes, this is why the Neanderthal myth has become so fundamental to Militant Atheism today. Despite there being absolutely no Biblical evidence whatever for evolution or “ancient ancestors,” the Atheists truly loves the Neanderthals. In fact, many of the supposed skeletal remains showcased by Atheist scientists happen to be either shards of monkey bones or remnants of the physically deformed. Few in the business of “science” will publicly admit that so-called “carbon dating,” is little more than speculation based on the hocus-pocus of questionable 19th-century mechanics. And yet, the main stream media can’t stop shilling this controversial idea that the Earth is millions upon millions of years old!
-
Well if they knew the attacks were going to happen tha day, why didn't they they script a scenario for Bush to act heroiclly instead of "like" a clueless moron. And if the van was part of some coverstory why did it get so little play? IIRC it was only mentioned in one or two obscure publications. // COLBY
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Many scenarios are made for the end of the "PLAY" of the covert operation. LIKE in Dallas
DALLAS the Patsy list
- FRENCH INTEL (posted thread on this)
- OSWALD just used him,the rest of this list were on stage but never used.
- WALKER (Per Trejo Walker thought RFK had tried to kill him,thus Dallas revenge/counterplot. see Mae Brussell world watchers archive FEB 26,1978)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------T
- The great number of the multiple Oswald double/impersonations have been dropped from the MSM historical record. (Known only to JFK researchers)
=============================
Cheney may have been higher in command in the 911 matter. Cheney/Bush seemed not to have a great relationship.
-------
Dick Cheney Flips and Provides Evidence That George W ...
www.politicususa.com/.../dick-cheney-flips-evidence-george-w-bush-co...
Dec 14, 2014 - Later, Cheney said that Bush was not misled. He claimed that ... W. Bush. I like thisUnlike I like this article445I dislike thisUndislike This is not for me18 ... This "person" known as Richard Bruce Cheney is truly evil. He is just as ...
=====================================================
George W. Bush on Dick Cheney: 'It's been cordial ... - Politico
www.politico.com/.../george-bush-on-dick-cheney-its-been-cordi...
/search?biw=1600&bih=726&q=related:www.politico.com/story/2013/04/george-bush-on-dick-cheney-its-been-cordial-90545.html+Cheney+not+really+like+Bush&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=GKckVaj_CISpogTsvICAAQ&ved=0CDoQHzAD
Politico
Apr 24, 2013 - It's no secret that Bush and Cheney had a falling out toward the end. ... "What has your relationship been like between you two since you left the White ... "They'll all be here for the opening, though, and that'll be really fun — a ...
============================================
Final Insult in the Bush-Cheney Marriage - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.com/.../the-final-insult-in-the-bush-c...
/search?biw=1600&bih=726&q=related:www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/magazine/the-final-insult-in-the-bush-cheney-marriage.html+Cheney+not+really+like+Bush&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=GKckVaj_CISpogTsvICAAQ&ved=0CCQQHzAA
The New York Times
Oct 10, 2013 - Cheney did not spend social weekends at Camp David. ... crystallized by books with titles like "The Co-Presidency of Bush and Cheney" and ... a beat, Cheney replied, "You know, that's the one thing about this job I really love.
===============================================
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney Basically Hate Each Other
gawker.com/.../george-w-bush-and-dick-cheney-basically-hate-e...
/search?biw=1600&bih=726&q=related:gawker.com/5321718/george-w-bush-and-dick-cheney-basically-hate-each-other+cheney+and+bush+falling+out&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=aKgkVfr3FtjjoASYnIDACQ&ved=0CEoQHzAF
Gawker
Jul 23, 2009 - Time has a great piece out today on the last days of the George W. Bush ... Most compellingly, the two central characters', Bush and Cheney, views on ... He made his points in a calm, lawyerly style, saying Libby was a fall guy ...
-
Epidemic Of Police Brutality Now Sweeping Through Schools (LINK)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
===
Cops Raid Elderly Couple Looking For A Meth Lab and Guns- Find Only Quilting Supplies (LINK)
-
Why U.S. Economic ‘Statistics’ Get More and More Absurd
Many recent commentaries have noted a distinct devolution in the numerical lies which the U.S. government calls its “economic statistics”. Numbers which used to be mere exaggerations (i.e. used to somewhat mirror the real world) have now become literally perverse: opposite to reality.
-
-
The Ultimate Good News/Bad NewsMark 8:27-33 September 05, 2010 41-40
Free Download- Video (MP4)Right-click (Control-click on the Mac) and select 'Save As...' or similar
- High Quality Audio
- Low Quality Audio
=========================================================================
We come now to Mark chapter 8...Mark chapter 8. I have in my mind the desire to move somewhat rapidly through the gospel of Mark, hoping that some time next summer we may be able to finish this book. And I think we can do that. We’ll take some chunks and stay close to the text of Mark and not deviate unless the Lord causes us to go another direction. That’s kind of the plan. So we’re looking forward to just a great time together as we cover the second half of this wonderful history.
In the eighth chapter we come to verses 27 and following, verses 27 down to verse 33. This is a portion of Scripture that we’ve looked at before, not in Mark but a parallel text is in Matthew 16, and another parallel text is in Luke 9. It is little wonder that these three synoptic gospels, as they are called, they each give us a synopsis of the life of Christ, all feature this particular event because it is such a monumental one.
I have chosen to call this message, “The Ultimate Good News/Bad News” experience. And we’ve all had those. We’ve all had somebody say to us, “I have good news and bad news.” We know that. Sometimes it is trivial, and sometimes it is serious. But this is the ultimate good news/bad news experience. This is so extreme for Peter and the Apostles who are the ones to whom this good news and bad news are delivered. This is the ultimate trauma, the highest high followed by the lowest low.
In Peter’s case, the greatest commendation he ever received followed by the greatest condemnation he ever received, or for that matter anyone ever received. At first, the news couldn’t have been better and suddenly it couldn’t have been worse. Here’s the moment, let me read it to you, verse 27.
“Jesus went out, along with His disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them ‘Who do people say that I am?’ And they told Him, saying, ‘John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.’ And He continued by questioning them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered and said to Him, ‘You are the Christ.’ And He warned them to tell no one about Him. And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter, and said, ‘Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interest, but man’s.’”
This is just a compelling passage. This is the high point of the entire gospel of Mark. Everything prior leads up to it. Everything after, flows from it. This is the moment in time when the disciples settle the matter of the person of Jesus. This is the moment when they believe and are convinced and confess as to who His person is, He is the Christ, the Son of the living God, as Peter gives us in the full statement recorded in Matthew.
But there is still great confusion about...not the person, but the plan. They affirm the person, they deny the plan. From the perspective of Peter and the disciples, the good news was the affirmation that they understood the person, Jesus Christ, to be the Messiah, the Son of the living God. To a hopeful Jew, that is the ultimate revelation. That is the greatest revelation that could ever come. For centuries as a nation, for a lifetime as an individual, the Jews had anticipated the coming of their Messiah, and with the coming of Messiah, the fulfillment of all the Old Testament promise from the very beginning of the Old Testament, through to the end, just replete with promises that were attached to the arrival of the Messiah, promises of salvation, the expanded land, the Kingdom, blessing, prosperity, the earth changing, the land of Israel changing, glory coming, Israel being the most prominent powerful nation on the face of the earth, Messiah reigning, all joy, all peace, all blessing.
That’s what they waited for. They had followed Jesus, these men had, including the Twelve Apostles and others called disciples. They had followed Him for over two years. And all along they had hoped that He would be the Messiah. They had hoped He would be the Messiah, now they know it. Here they finally affirm they know it.
However, fast on the heels of that most glorious of all revelations, that most wondrous of all knowledge and conviction and confidence, comes the incomprehensible bad news that the Messiah is going to be killed and I’m not sure after that they heard the part about the resurrection. Shocking news, so shocking that Peter goes from being a hero to being an anti-hero. So shocking that he goes from being a spokesman for God, to being a spokesman for Satan. Such is the paradox of this hour, two colliding revelations. He is Messiah, the one whose life will bring salvation and blessing to Israel and the world, yet He will be killed by the people of Israel and the world.
Finally, these disciples have come to the place where they can say, “You’re the Christ. You are the Christ.” Already they have said, “Truly You’re the Son of God,” that’s as to His person, being Christ is as to His work as the deliverer and the anointed one, the Prophet, Priest and King promised. They said, “Truly You’re the Son of God,” when He walked on water after the feeding of the five thousand. They have confirmed His deity and now they confirm His messianic office. And both of these come in just a few weeks. They’ve come to the rarified air, you might say, of the Mount Everest of revelation, they’ve come to the summit. You’re the Son of God and You are the Christ, only to be knocked off the summit into the lowest valley below. It is an oxymoron to them that the Messiah, the source of life, would be killed, that the Messiah, the King of Israel would be rejected by Israel. These are colliding realities that constitute the good news and the bad news.
So let’s look, first of all, at the good news...the good news, verses 27 to 30. “Jesus went out,” now we’ll stop there just long enough to go back to remember in verses 22 to 26, the prior passage, they were in Bethsaida which is on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, a little bit east of Capernaum. This town was the home of three of the Apostles. A familiar place, Jesus had done many, many miracles there, many works there. In fact judgment was pronounced on that town because there were so many works there that their punishment in the day of final judgment will be worse than the punishment of Tyre and Sidon, two idolatrous pagan cities, because of the revelation of Jesus that they had.
Well He’s back in a very familiar place, and familiar to the Apostles, a familiar town to all of them there on the north shore where many of them plied their trade as fishermen in the hometown of at least three. The conclusion of His ministry there was the healing of a blind man in private. He says to the blind man in verse 26, “Go home, don’t go into the village.” This is another one of those things in the gospel of Mark where Jesus says, “I don’t want this spread around.” And we’ll look at that in a moment.
So He’s finished that one final miracle, as it were, in the town of Bethsaida, now developing into a city. And then it says in verse 27, “He went out.” So we can assume that He left Bethsaida and went straight north because it says He went along with His disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. That would be 25 miles straight north of Bethsaida which was very near the Sea of Galilee called Fishing House, so we would assume its connection with fishing, that is Bethsaida, straight north to Caesarea Philippi. That is on the...that is the last outpost in Galilee, that’s the last outpost in Israel. It’s very near the ancient town of Dan. And you remember back in Judges chapter 20 and in 1 Chronicles, when you wanted to know the length of the land of Israel, you would say that it went from Dan to Beersheba...Beersheba was the southernmost outpost on the border and Dan was the northernmost outpost on the border. And Caesarea Philippi was up there on that northern border, mostly a Gentile city, it was mostly occupied by Gentiles although officially it was in the territory of Galilee in Israel. Originally its name was Paneas, it had been named by the pagans who lived there once and dominated that city for the god Pan. Have you ever heard of a pan flute? It is because in Greek mythology, Pan is a half-man, half-goat who plays a flute. And supposedly, this mythical character was born in a cave in this vicinity and so it came to be identified with that. There would have been a shrine to Pan still there, although his name had been replaced. And the reason it was replaced was that Herod the Great had been given that territory by Caesar Augustus and he had been given responsibility of that and all of Israel to rule on behalf of Rome, really over the Jews.
When he died, he split his realm into four parts. Gave it to his four sons. This part fell into the hands of his son Philip, Herod Philip the Tetrarch as he is known, who also ruled the area where Bethsaida was. This area fell into the hands of Philip the Tetrarch and it was a political thing to do when you got an area to do deference to Caesar to keep him on your good side. So he changed the name to Caesarea, which is a form of Caesar. It’s not to be confused, by the way, with the southern coastal Caesarea, west of Jerusalem. But, you know, naming cities after Caesar was something lots of folks wanted to do, to curry political favor. This was, however, Caesarea Philippi, connected with Philip the Tetrarch.
It is, as I said, a Gentile area. If you go 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee, you get into the shadow of the foot of Mount Hermon which rises nine thousand feet up and this area would have been one of the three headwaters for the water that flowed down into and made up the Jordan River. A place filled with idols because filled with Gentiles, because connected with idolatry in the past. The temple was there to Caesar Augustus. He was a mortal deity, if there is such a thing. Paneas was a mythical deity, he was a mortal deity.
The area was generally hostile to Judaism. It was generally hostile to Scripture. And so it’s a good location for the Lord to clarify that not all religions are, after all, acceptable. There’s only one Lord, one living God and when Peter says, “You’re the Son of the living God,” he had to be playing off all the dead idols that made up the panoply of deities which people in Gentile realms worshiped.
So they’re in that area, in that region. They are on the way, it says, to Caesarea Philippi and they have an ongoing conversation. You can’t...you can’t expect when you read a text of Scripture that that’s all that was said, okay? I think we understand that, right? We get a synopsis of what was said, we get a summary of what was said. This is conversation going on as they move through the villages that made up the region around the city of Caesarea Philippi.
They’ve been with our Lord for two and a half years. Luke adds in Luke 9:18 his section on the same event that Jesus had been praying, as, of course, was His custom. Comes back from praying and He gets together with the disciples. And then Mark says He questioned His disciples.
Now look, they’ve had two and a half years of school, it’s time for the exam. “Two and a half years they have been 24/7 with our Lord, two and a half years of divine revelation, two and a half years of thousands of miracles, two and a half years of the most profound teaching imaginable, and unimaginable, two and a half years for them to see everything they needed to see to learn everything they needed to learn. And recently it seemed as though His power had been ramped up, that vast powerful miracle of creating enough food for nearly 25 thousand people, let’s say, and then it followed a few weeks later, that in the area near Bethsaida with another similar feeding in Decapolis that perhaps approached 20 thousand people and He created food out of nothing. And there was that walking on the water episode of which Peter was an eyewitness, for he did it himself under the power of the Lord. And then there were the great healings, healing of Gentiles on the little tour in the Gentile areas and healings of Jews. There may have been a flurry of these things recently, but the massive miracles of creating food, creative miracles visible in every sense should have been sort of the final culminating evidences they needed to affirm that this is indeed their Messiah. They’ve had enough revelation to be believers.
Now let me say this. Galilee had had enough revelation to be damned. Okay? They were, in the words of Romans 1, without excuse. They had enough revelation to be judged. There’s no question about that. And Jesus judges them. There’s a passage in John 12 in verse 36 where Jesus says, “While you have the light, believe in the light so that you may become sons of light.” He says in the verse before, “Walk while you have the light so the darkness will not overtake you.” And then it says, “These things Jesus spoke,” verse 36, “and He went away and hid Himself from them.” You’ve had the light, you’ve had the light, you’ve had the light, no more light.
This incident comes at the end of His life, just before the Upper Room discourse in His passion week. It’s over. He went away. Verse 37, “Though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.”
Was this a shock and a surprise? No. It fulfills the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke, “Lord, who has believed our report and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For this reason they could not believe.” You will not believe and now you cannot believe. You’ve passed the point where it’s even possible.
Listen, if there was enough revelation to condemn unbelievers, there is enough revelation to convince believers. They shouldn’t have been asking these questions. Why does it take them so long to make this confession? And I remind you that this is the first time any person, any human in the gospel of Mark makes this confession about who Jesus is. The Father makes it at the baptism. The demons make it several times. But it’s not until now, two and a half years into this, with only some months left until the cross, that they finally make this confession. It’s about time.
So, when we come to this passage then, first comes the good news, and that is the confession, and it launched by an exam. I love these kinds of exams, there’s only two questions in this exam...I like a two-question exam, get right to the point. Two questions: question number one, “He was questioning His disciples saying to them,” and this is in conversation back and forth, ebb and flow, “‘Who do the people,’” hoi anthropoi, it’s a generic term, “‘Who do the people say that I am? Just another prophet? Who do they say I am?’” the people. Luke 9:18 says, “He also said, as the conversation went on, ‘What do the crowds say about Me?” and He used the word ockchlos meaning crowd, or masses. Luke’s favorite word to refer to the uncommitted crowds who followed for the miracles and the entertainment, but were impenitent, hard-hearted, self-righteous, indifferent and unbelieving. “Who do they say I am?”
In fact, in Matthew He adds that He said, “Who do they say I the Son of Man am?” What’s human insight? Give me the answer of human insight?
The response comes in verse 28, and again, you remember the questions being asked and answered and battered around a little bit? “And so they said to Him, ‘Somebody said John the Baptist,’” that seemed to always lead the parade of options. “And somebody else says Elijah, and there are others who think one of the prophets.”
And you can imagine in the conversation as it goes back and forth that they’re giving Him these names...John the Baptist? That’s the most common notion. How could it be John the Baptist, he was dead? Had his head chopped off. Don’t you remember Matthew 14:1 to 4, Luke 9:7 to 9, that Herod who chopped off his head when he heard about Jesus going everywhere, doing all these miracles said, “John the Baptist has come back from the dead?” Back from the dead. That seems to be the popular notion because you couldn’t deny that Jesus was a prophet. You couldn’t deny that He was a miracle worker. So maybe He was a resurrected John the Baptist.
Well others had other opinions. Some thought He was Elijah. Why would they pick Elijah? Well they would pick John the Baptist because John the Baptist was to be the forerunner of the Messiah. John even declared himself to be the forerunner of the Messiah. And Elijah, according to Malachi chapter 3 and chapter 4 was to come to the earth just prior to Messiah’s arrival. So if it’s not John the Baptist, maybe He’s not John the Baptist raised from the dead, maybe He’s Elijah. Elijah, after all, according to 2 Kings 2, had been taken to heaven and didn’t die. Well maybe he’s come back as Malachi said he would. And according to Matthew, somebody else said Jeremiah, some think You’re Jeremiah. Now why would they pull Jeremiah out? Well there was a very kind of bizarre tradition among the Jews at this time that Jeremiah in anticipation of the Babylonian captivity realizing what was coming, went to the temple and took the altar of incense and the Ark of the Covenant, took them away and put them somewhere at Mount Nebo, and according to the tradition, before Messiah returned, Jeremiah would return and he would go get the altar of incense, he would go get the ark and when he recovered the ark, then Messiah would come in His glory.
So there were all these possibilities. By the way, they were all wrong. The tradition about Jeremiah shows up in 2 Maccabees, that intertestamental apocryphal book, but they were all short of the truth. But here’s what they all had in common...they knew that Jesus had to be a prophet. They knew He had to be from God. But they also were convinced that He could not be the Messiah, not possible, absolutely not possible.
Why could He not be the Messiah? Because they had a very highly developed Messianic concept, political ruler, military power, overthrows Rome, destroys all Israel’s enemies, brings blessedness to Israel, prosperity to Israel, permanent peace to Israel, elevates Israel to be the greatest nation on the face of the earth, all other nations are under the shadow of Israel. The Messiah reigns in Israel and dominates the world, righteousness flows. They took all the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, the desert blossoms like a rose, Isaiah’s prophecies about the character of the Kingdom, all of that, the promises to David all fulfilled, the promises to Abraham all fulfilled, the promise of the New Covenant to Jeremiah, the salvation of Israel fulfilled and the salvation of Gentiles as the gospel extends to the earth.
Where was all this? Their messianic concept was highly developed and so they couldn’t get to the point where they saw Jesus as the Messiah, cause He didn’t fit that. He wasn’t a military leader. He wasn’t the conqueror. He wasn’t a destroyer of armies. He didn’t look like a king, act like a king. So they come up short. John 3:1 to 2, “We know You are a teacher come from God because nobody can do what You do except God be with him.” So we get that...we get it, You are a prophet from God. And that’s what they’re all saying, that’s the popular view...John the Baptist, Jeremiah, Elijah and I’m sure they threw in some others. That’s question number one on the test.
The second question in verse 29, “He continued by questioning them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’” And, by the way, that is the most important question that you will ever answer. That is the most important question that any human being will ever answer...who is Jesus Christ? Everybody on this planet is accountable to God eternally for the answer to that question. Wrong answer means hell. Right answer means heaven. Common people have answers to that, philosophers have answers, pseudo-scholars have answers, liberal theologians have answers, Muslims have answers to that, Jews have answer to that, secularists, atheists, humanists, religionists...answers, however, that condemn them, wrong answers.
And then we’re all exposed to the endless books on the search for the historical Jesus. Articles that have been written, television seminars and series that have been portrayed as searching for the real Jesus. Whenever you see anybody searching for the real Jesus, you know it’s a satanic operation. What it is, is a veil to attack on the Bible. It’s not hard to find them if you read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I haven’t found it difficult at all...not at all.
In fact, they...the disciples...conclude exactly what John says the gospels were written to prove. John 20:31, “These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.” That’s why the four gospels are written, John 20:31. It comes at the end of the fourth gospel...they’re all written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. What is Peter’s confession? According to Matthew’s full presentation, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Peter confesses exactly what the gospels are demonstrating. He doesn’t have the gospels, he’s there, he lives it.
So he comes to the conclusion that any good faithful gospel reader has to come to, so don’t give me any nonsense about your searching for the historical Jesus outside the gospels. That is a pretext for trying to destroy the scriptures and that is Satan’s game.
So, the question...who do you say that I am? Peter answered, he is now the established spokesman, and I’m sure they were talking about this all the time. I’m sure as they went around day after day were always talking about...Is He...Is He not? Who is He? But this is the first time a confession is made in Mark. “You are the Christ.” That’s the second time the word “Christ” has been used in the gospel of Mark. The first time is in 1:1, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We haven’t heard that word in eight chapters. Christos, Hebrew equivalent for anointed. Christos is not a name, Jesus is His name. You should call His name Jesus. The name above every name given to Him after the resurrection is Lord. Jesus is His name, Lord is His ultimate title.
What is Christ? That is the word for anointed that defines His work. He is God’s promised King, prophet, priest. In fact, if you read Luke, the full statement of Peter, “You are the Christ of God.” If you read Matthew, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” I don’t think Peter said one thing, I think he repeated it several ways in the conversation. You are...they got it right...You’re the Christ, the Son of the living God...according to Matthew 16.
You say, “Well what are they thinking for two and a half years?” Oh, they were thinking that He was. They were thinking He was God, Son of God. They were thinking He was the Messiah. Of course they were. In fact, they were...they were mostly convinced that He was, why else would they turn their backs on Judaism, right? Why else would they walk away from the darkness? Why else would they follow Jesus to this extent?
By the way, many of His disciples had long since departed, right? John 6, they didn’t walk with Him anymore. He said things that scared them away. But they’re still here. Do they believe that He is the Son of God? They said it on the lake when He walked on the water, “Truly You are the Son of God.” Do they believe He’s the Messiah? They have...they have to some degree believed it all along. Why? John the Baptist, John 1:34 said, “You’re the Son of God,” He’s the Son of God. John the Baptist said, “Behold, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” John the Baptist identified Him as the Messiah. They accepted that. And in John 1:41, Andrew proclaims Jesus to be the Messiah. And Nathaniel calls Him the Son of God, the King of Israel.
So at the very outset based on the testimony of John the Baptist before they had seen anything, they acknowledged that Jesus could be the Messiah. And they said it, “He’s the King of Israel, He’s the Son of God, He’s the Messiah.” But through the years, they struggle with that. They don’t struggle because there’s no evidence of divine power. They just struggle because He doesn’t conform to their preconceived patterns. Its like, “He that is convinced against his will is unconvinced still.” It’s just a really hard hurdle to get over. They struggle with doubts because as the people concluded, He can’t be the Messiah, so He has to be somebody short of the Messiah, John the Baptist, the forerunner to the Messiah, Elijah who will come back before the Messiah, Jeremiah who will come back before the Messiah. But nobody is saying He’s the Messiah. He doesn’t fit the preconceived theological package. He’s maybe obviously a prophet of God, we’ll grant Him that. But He just hasn’t done what the Messiah will do. Where’s the conquest? Where’s national independence? National freedom? Power? Blessing? Where’s the overthrow of Rome? And He’s so meek and lowly and humble and submissive and pays taxes to Rome and He’s hated by the leaders of Israel.
In fact, it was so bewildering compared to their messianic view that even John the Baptist got confused. John the Baptist, the one who was His forerunner, the one who was related to Him, the one whose mothers were related, who talked about all these issues? John the Baptist must have heard from his own family all the story about how the angel came and announced to his mom and dad that he would be born and that he would be the forerunner of the Messiah and they must have told him about how Mary came and bore the child who was the Messiah, and Jesus was his relative and he knew who He was, and it was all angelic, divine revelation, and he heard perhaps again and again the incredible stories of the annunciation and the birth of the Messiah, and yet he gets confused. Why?
Well he’s in prison. This doesn’t look like the right plan here. So he sends some of his disciples and they come to Jesus and they say, “We want to know whether You’re the Messiah or we should look for somebody else.” That was the question everybody had. It can’t be You. Are You just another prophet and then the Messiah?
So you can understand they’re fluctuating between fear and doubt. And it’s not so much that they don’t accept that He’s the Son of God, the Messiah, it’s really not deniable. It’s just that they can’t take full ownership of it because it doesn’t look the way they think it should look. But here at last, the truth of His deity and Messiahship is settled. And though they continue to have doubts and fears about the plan, they don’t have doubts and fears about the person anymore, okay? They settle that here.
Jesus was the Son of Man, He also was the Son of God, by nature, man, and by nature, God. He’s not a mythical deity like Pan, and He’s not a mortal deity like Caesar. This confession comes out of Peter’s mouth, but it’s collective. But it isn’t just the result of experience. It isn’t just the result of empiricism. It isn’t just the result of human reason. It isn’t just connecting the obvious dots because when Peter says, “You’re the Christ, the Son of the living God,” immediately this is what Jesus said to him, recorded in Matthew 16:17, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonas, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but My Father who is in heaven.”
Human reason doesn’t get all the way. Empiricism doesn’t get all the way. Experience doesn’t get all the way. It requires divine intervention to make this confession. That’s why 1 Corinthians 12:3 says, “No man can confess Jesus as Lord but by the Holy Spirit.” It’s a divine work and this is the moment. There were moments before this. There was a moment on the sea when they said, “Truly You are the Son of God.” That was a divine revelatory moment, “Truly You are the Son of God.” But Messiah, You just don’t fit the picture. Now they say, “You are the Christos, You are the Anointed One, You are Messiah, the One who has come as the prophet, priest and king to reign and rule, You are.”
And I would just extend this reality to say to you that no one makes the full confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ but by the intervention of God. No one is fully convinced unless God gives understanding. No man comes unto Me, Jesus said in John 6, unless the Father draws Him.” First Corinthians he says, “The only way you’ll know the truth is when the Spirit of God teaches you...the Spirit of God teaches you. The natural man understands not the things of God, they’re known only to those who are taught by the Holy Spirit.”
I love Matthew 11 and verse 27, along this same line, because it affirms that truth which I have just articulated to you. “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and anyone who whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” You can’t know God unless the Son reveals Him to you. You can’t know Christ unless the Spirit reveals Him to you.
So here comes the revelation from God as to who Jesus is. The remaining doubts disappear. It doesn’t mean they didn’t doubt the plan. Oh, they doubt the plan. But it does mean from here they don’t doubt the person. And that’s where you start, isn’t it? The truth of Jesus Christ was then believed because the full revelation came from God to them. Jesus was confessed as the Messiah because the work of God and the work of the Holy Spirit had been done in their hearts. They confess the truth in clear and deliberate contrast to the popular viewpoints. Everybody says You’re something other than Messiah, we say You’re Messiah. And they were the few who found the narrow way.
The good news ends with a familiar warning in verse 30. He warned them to tell no one about Him. And we covered that so many times...warning, epitimao, strong, strong word...to command, to warn, to rebuke, very strong compound word, sternly commands them, “Do not...do not spread this around. Don’t tell anybody about Me.”
Why? Did He not want to excite His enemies? Some people think that. Did He not want to excite His friends? And now that He has said He’s the Messiah, they’re going to escalate something like they did in John 6 when they tried to make Him King by force, remember that?, after He had fed them. Is it because He doesn’t want to excite His enemies or His friends? No...no. He’s not going to...He’s not going to diminish the hatred of His enemies, right? They’re still going to be after Him and they’re going to hate Him all the way till they get Him on the cross. And He’s still not going to be able to quell the excitement of some of His superficial friends, witness a few months down the road when He enters into Jerusalem at the triumphal entry and the whole city is screaming at Him as the King, as the Messiah. He’s not simply trying to keep His enemies off His back and keep His friends from pushing Him into things He doesn’t want to do. I’ve told you before and I say it again, the reason He says “Don’t tell anyone about this” is because He’s instructing the disciples that this is not the full message. He didn’t want miracles spread around because it wasn’t the full message that He was a miracle worker. To say He’s the Messiah is not the full message. You can pronounce Jesus as the Messiah, but that’s not the full message because it’s missing the gospel.
Well that’s evident because of the next verse, the bad news. Don’t tell anyone, you’ve got more to learn. “And He began,” which means this began the theme of His teaching from here on out, “He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed and after three days rise again.”
Bad news. The best news ever just pronounced, followed by the worst news. What a blow. The last thing they would expect on the hills of a grand moment of revelation and clarity was a death announcement. How could the Messiah of God, the Redeemer of Israel, the conqueror of all God’s enemies suffer? Suffer?
By the way, “began to teach,” it becomes the theme. Chapter 9 verse 31, “As they go He was teaching His disciples, telling them, ‘Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men.’” when He’s been killed, He’ll rise three days later. Chapter 10 verse 33, “Behold, we’re going to Jerusalem. The Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes will condemn Him to death, hand Him over to the Gentiles. They’ll mock Him, spit on Him and scourge Him and kill Him. Three days later He’ll rise again.”
What’s the point of all of this? Well He says it in verse 45 of chapter 10. “The Son of Man didn’t come to be served, but to give His life a ransom for many,” as Phil was singing about. He came to give His life a ransom for many. He would unfold that for them. Why You going to die? Why You going to die? You must suffer? It’s a little particle, de, it means it’s necessary, it is required that You suffer many things. What do You many things? Betrayal, arrest, denial, abandonment, injustice, prison, mockery, beating, crucifixion, disaffection from His disciples, etc., etc. You’re going to suffer many things, the Father determined, and be rejected, apodokimazo. Dokimazo means to test something to see if its true, to validate it, to access it. This is a compound form of that and it means to reject after investigation.
Jesus will suffer many things. One of those things will be an investigation. First Annas, Caiaphas, then Herod, then Pilate, all the mock trial. The verb is carefully selected. After examination, after assessment, after testing, He will be rejected as flawed and faulty and false but not without some kind of form of careful consideration. All of this comes to a head in the trials of Jesus. And the strange, bizarre aspect of it is that it’s not going to be by pagans and it’s not going to be by self-confessed, wicked, godless men, but all of this is going to come by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes. The Sanhedrin conducted all of that. They were the ones responsible for His betrayal. They bought Judas for His arrest. They were the ones who brought about the mock trials. They were the ones who handed Him over to the Romans for all the physical abuse. They were the ruling counsel of Judaism. They were the elite, 70 men, they were made up of elders, judges, tribal heads, chief priests...those would be the temple system priests, the Sadducees, the religious liberals, and then there were the scribes who would be the Pharisees. So it was a coalition government made up of Pharisees, Sadducees who were enemies theologically, and other important leaders in the community and judges and they constituted this coalition, religious governing body over Israel and it was they who would be responsible for the killing of the Messiah.
How could they ever process this? I guess they didn’t think of Isaiah 53, “He would be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement of our peace would fall on Him and by His stripes we would be healed.” Isaiah 53 lays it out. The suffering servant, the servant will suffer and die. And so the bad news comes on the heels of the good news and it’s the worst news imaginable, it’s incomprehensible, they can’t even process it. I don’t think they even heard the last part, “And after three days rise again.” He had said that before early in His ministry before these guys even were a part of His life when He said, “Destroy this body and in three days I’ll raise it up.” Here He says it again. Did they know Psalm 16, “That the Holy One will not see corruption but the Lord will show them the path of life,” a prophecy of the resurrection. Peter preached on that resurrection passage, didn’t he?, on the day of Pentecost. When Peter preached the resurrection on the first day that the church was born and the Spirit came, he chose Psalm 16 which proves the resurrection. Did they not know Isaiah 53 ends in verses 10 to 12 that the Messiah will be glorified and exalted and lifted up after His substitutionary death in which He dies as a substitute for transgressors? The resurrection is certain. It’s as certain as the crucifixion.
So the bad news is really good news cause He’s going to be killed but He’s going to be killed for you. He’s going to die in your place. He’s going to be basically punished for your sins, made sin for us, 2 Corinthians 5:21. He’s become a curse for us, Galatians 3. And then Matthew 16:21 says, “From that time on, Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, scribes, be killed, be raised up third day.” I think this was daily conversation from here on out. No questions anymore about the person but they struggle with the plan. They really struggle with the plan.
The struggle was not because Jesus wasn’t clear. Please notice verse 22, He was stating the matter plainly, parrhesia, it means clearly. I’d like that to be my life verse. “He was stating the matter clearly.” Clear is good, clear is good. Only here He’s stating something crystal-clear, unmistakable. You don’t have to be a scholar to figure out what He said. It’s not esoteric mystical language. He was stating it clearly7. Their confusion then comes not from His communication. But they can’t accept the plan.
So Peter, the middle of verse 32, took Him aside. Grabbed Him. “Come with me, Lord, Son of God, Messiah, come with me.” Brash? Yeah. Presumptuous? Absolutely. Drunk with privilege? Sure. Encouraged by a sense of importance from the Lord’s affirmation that you receive what you receive from God, He is full of love and kind intentions. There’s no question about the person but he’s got some questions about the plan. So he grabs the Lord and pulls Him away.
Now if you ever questioned the humanity of Jesus, this is one of the greatest illustrations in the gospels of how human Jesus was. He treated Him like a man because He was a man.
Pulls Him aside. He has to give Him a better understanding of this whole Messiahship responsibility. And then it says, “He began to rebuke Him.” He began to rebuke Him. Wow! It’s the same word used before when Jesus rebuked them or warned them not to tell anybody, strong, strong word. He goes after Jesus and he really takes Him on.
Matthew says it this way, “God forbid, Lord, this shall never happen to You.” He’s not asking questions, he’s making statements. Idiomatically, an interesting phrase in Matthew, “May God grant You better than that. Whoa! This isn’t going to happen and we’re not going to allow this.”
Well, verse 33, “Turning around and seeing His disciples, He had been pulled away by Peter, He rebuked Peter so they could all hear.” Same word again, third time it’s used...strong, and said, “Get behind Me, Satan.” Whoa! First of all, Matthew says, he said, “You’re a stumbling block, you’re in the way, you’re a hindrance.” Then the real blow, “Get out of My sight, Satan,” that’s literally what it says. “Get out of My sight, Satan.” It’s a bad idea for followers to play God. When you put yourself in the place of God, you end up putting yourself up in the place of Satan. He says, “You’re not setting your mind on God’s interests but man’s.” That’s an indictment of Peter. Peter didn’t want a cross. These guys were looking for glory. Do we remember that Peter in...that James and John had come with their mother to ask if they could sit on the right and the left in the Kingdom? I mean, it was all about elevation, glory, power, prosperity. Jesus says, “You are an offense to Me,” according to Matthew. “You’re a skandalon. Skandalon means you’re a trap, you’re a baited trap. You’re a Satan trap. You’re a Satan stumbling block. If you’re trying to dissuade Me from the cross, you’re on Satan’s side. Get out of My sight.”
Boy, has ever a man been so high and so low so fast? Whoa. Peter and the others were caught in the narrowness of the present and failed to grasp the echoes of the past prophets and the future glories of the resurrection. “You’re the stumbling block if you try to stop Me from the cross, which itself will be the stumbling block.”
Peter must have been crushed. But man’s way and Satan’s way is the path to glory and blessing and power without suffering, without pain. God’s way is glory, blessing, power through suffering...through suffering. Peter learned, he really did. It would be good to close by looking at 1 Peter, just a couple of comments.
First Peter 2:21, Peter writes, “You’ve been called for this purpose since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you and example for you to follow in His steps. He suffered and so will you. He committed no sin nor was any deceit found in His mouth...verse 22...while being reviled, He didn’t revile in return. While suffering, He uttered no threats but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously.”
He’s writing to suffering believers who are being persecuted and he’s saying, “This is the path to glory and the model is your Savior.” This is Jesus’ path to glory, this is our path as well. And then verse 24 shows he understood the substitutionary atonement of Christ. “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.” And he did now understand Isaiah 53, for he draws this final statement from it, “By His wounds you are healed.”
So he understood the substitutionary atonement and he understood the path to glory through suffering, for even the Savior as well as for all who follow the Savior. So he says in chapter 4 verse 12, “Don’t be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you. Don’t be surprised.” Verse13, “Through the degree you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing.” Verse 19, “Those who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right. Learn to suffer, it’s the path, it’s the path to glory.” Chapter 5 verse 10, “After you’ve suffered a little while, the God of all grace who called you to His eternal glory in Christ will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.” And then here is a doxology that must have come from his own experience, “To Him be dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
Peter needed to be perfected, confirmed, strengthened, establish, didn’t he? And it was a path of suffering that took him there.
The good news, Jesus is Messiah, the Son of God. The bad news, He’s going to die. The good news, He’s going to rise. And the really good news is called the gospel that Jesus died and rose again for the salvation of all who believe in Him.
Father, this is why we’re here to worship, cause of the glory of the gospel. Confirm it to our hearts, we pray in Christ’s name. Amen.
-
-
Breakthrough in hydrogen-powered cars may spell end for petrol stations
A study funded by Shell Oil has shown that it is possible to convert all 100 per cent of the sugar stored in corn stover – the stalks, cobs and husks leftover in a harvested maize field – into hydrogen gas with no overall increase in carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.100 per cent of the sugar stored in corn stover can be converted into hydrogen gas with no overall increase in carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphereScience Editor
Monday 06 April 2015
=======================================
Scientists have dramatically increased the efficiency of producing clean hydrogen fuel from plant waste in a breakthrough that could one day lead to petrol stations being replaced by a network of roadside “bioreactors” for refuelling cars.
A study funded by Shell Oil has shown that it is possible to convert all 100 per cent of the sugar stored in corn stover – the stalks, cobs and husks leftover in a harvested maize field – into hydrogen gas with no overall increase in carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.
The researchers perfected the process by mixing the raw biomass with a watery solution containing a cocktail of ten enzymes that turned the plant sugars xylose and glucose into hydrogen and carbon dioxide, said Professor Percival Zhang of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Previously it has only been possible to convert between 30 per cent and 60 per cent of the plant’s sugars into hydrogen using either fermenting microbes or industrial catalysts. However, the latest technique converts 100 per cent of the plant sugars into hydrogen, Professor Zhang said.
Producing pure hydrogen gas from crop waste and biomass is seen as one of the most important goals of the green economy because of the need to produce clean alternatives to petrol. However, existing methods are inefficient, costly and are dogged by the problem of how to distribute the hydrogen once it is made.
“All the products produced by the process are gases so they can be separated and collected easily from the biomass substrate. Over its lifecycle, the process is carbon neutral and we have achieved a 17-fold increase in the rate of the reaction which makes it economically viable,” Professor Zhang said.
“This means we have demonstrated the most important step toward a hydrogen economy – producing distributed and affordable green hydrogen from local biomass resources,” he said.
One of the critical developments in the process is being able to directly use “dirty” biomass as the fuel rather than relying on highly processed sugars as the source of hydrogen. In addition to being more efficient, this means it should also be possible to build large bioreactors the size of petrol stations near to sources of biomass, so leading to a network of green re-fuelling stations distributed around the country, Professor Zhang explained.
Read more: 5 best features of Elon Musk’s new electric car
Norway's electric car boom
Green energy revolution predicted after graphene discoveries“The next problem is to work on how to scale it up. But if we receive further funding I think in three to five years we should be able to build a bioreactor that is something like a gas station which can produce 200 kilos of hydrogen fuel a day. This would be enough to re-fuel about 40 or 50 cars,” he told The Independent.
The key step in the study was to identify the precise combination of enzymes that would work together on the plant waste to convert all of its xylose and glucose – which together account for 90 per cent of the sugars in plant waste – into hydrogen and carbon dioxide, which can be collected separately.
These 10 enzymes were initially made in microbial fermenters using genetically engineered bacteria. The separated enzymes were then added to the solution of plant waste where they continued to work for several weeks. However, the aim eventually is for these enzymes to continue working for months or years without being replaced, Professor Zhang said.
-
These people have been barred from entering the UK
Dieudonné M'bala M'bala is not alone
By Milana Knezevic / 5 February, 2014
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/02/banned-entering-uk/
-
Texas Man Thrown in Jail for Weeks Because his Lawn was Overgrown (LINK)A hard-working Texas man was thrown in jail after a warrant was issued for his arrest for an overgrown lawn.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) -
POSTED IN FAIR USE
The American Chronicle
===
Sunday, September 15, 2013Why the CIA Assigned Ruth Paine to the Oswalds
Ruth (b. 1932) and Michael Paine (b. 1928) were a CIA couple assigned to babysit another CIA agent Lee Oswald and family while they resided in Dallas. We believe that the primary reason for the association was James Angleton’s plan to murder Oswald.When Oswald returned from the USSR in 1962 under eyebrow raising circumstances with a Soviet wife, James Angleton was all beside himself, fearing that Oswald had been compromised or was a double agent. To limit his perceived losses, he spawned an elaborate plan to murder Oswald.Shortly after returning to the US, CIA operative George DeMohrenschildt introduced Oswald to Michael and Ruth Paine at a party given by an employee of the Magnolia Oil Company, Volkmar Schmidt. Ruth Paine, allegedly a Quaker, claimed that she wanted to help the beleaguered young couple establish themselves in Dallas, in return for which Oswald’s wife, Marina, would give Russian language lessons to Ruth, who claimed that she wanted to learn the language.The main problem with her story is that Ruth already knew Russian for she was teaching it at a school in Dallas. Furthermore, we know that she had family connections to the CIA, including associations with Allan Dulles, director of the CIA until 1961 when Kennedy fired him for his bungled Bay of Pigs disaster.The salient point of interest is that Paine knew Russian and would be the ideal babysitter for Oswald as she could monitor Lee’s and Marina’s conversations when staying at her house – something which she insisted that Marina do from the beginning. It is well known that the CIA sent Ruth Paine to many foreign and domestic locations to gather intelligence. So her work with the Oswalds was fully consistent with her job as spy.Paine was also used to plant false evidence on Oswald, including the famous backyard photos of him holding a rifle. We also speculated with good reason elsewhere that Paine was the one who used the fake identity of Alek Hidell to order a rifle from Klein mail order, an identity which was subsequently planted on Oswald after his arrest.In addition to these connections, Dallas Police Officer Roger Craig noted in early 1968, when he finally saw his testimony to the Warren Commission, that the Commission altered his statements concerning Ruth Paine – a clear indication that she was far more important than most anyone knew.Craig had observed Oswald enter a light green Nash Rambler which, he stated to the Warren Commission and in his memoirs, did not have a license plate matching Texas plate colors. According to Craig “The driver of the station wagon was a husky looking Latin, with dark wavy hair, wearing a tan wind breaker type jacket” who had been arrested immediately after the assassination but just as quickly released because he did not speak English!But the point about the Rambler is extremely important because it appears in 2 more instances of the investigation. Edgar Eugene Bradley, whom Craig said claimed to be a Secret Service agent, stopped him for information about the Rambler into which Oswald entered – in fact he was obsessed with the details about it.The reason for his interest in the Rambler was undoubtedly because Ruth Paine owned such a vehicle of the same color, a fact which police officer Buddy Walthers confirmed when he and “Harry Weatherford, and we met Officer Adamcik that works for the city [irving] and Officer Rose and another one of their officers…” went to Ruth Paine’s home in Irving, Texas where they saw a similar vehicle. Our speculation is that it was the same one.Paine told the Walthers that she was expecting them, yet the news of Oswald’s arrest had not been made public and Marina did not seem to know that he had been arrested. Thus, Paine let slip very incriminating evidence that she knew Oswald was being framed as the patsy.If the vehicle which the “husky Latin” was driving was indeed Paine’s vehicle, he had completed his errand by the time police arrived at the Paine’s. We believe that his assigned task was to take Oswald to the Texas Theater where he was caged like a trapped rat.The man claiming to be a Secret Service agent – Bradley – was in reality a right winged preacher from North Hollywood and closely associated with Carl McIntire, both of whom we believe were involved in the assassination conspiracy.Later in life when Paine was on assignment in Nicaragua during the 1990s, she very briefly and opaquely opened up to a friend concerning the murder and her part in it:There was, however, one occasion when the friend tried to bring up the assassination when Ruth began to say how sad she was that her daughter (then about 40) was estranged from her. Ruth said that her daughter told her that she refused to talk to her until “she came to grips with the evil that she had been associated with.” The friend said that Ruth had tears in her eyes when she said this and was certain that this was a veiled reference to the Kennedy assassination.Of course we have no sympathy for Paine who is indeed an evil woman who framed an innocent man and assisted the assassins in their goals of murdering a president.But in 1963, Paine’s largest value to the CIA was her knowledge of Russian which made her the perfect babysitter for the Oswalds. Her avid interest in an ostensibly non-descript, returning defector, can only mean that she was eye ball deep in the CIA, and assisting Angleton in the murder of Oswald.Reference
Steve Jones, New Evidence Regarding Ruth and Michael Paine, Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Winter 1998
Bill Kelly, Ruth Paine's Garage, JFKCountercoup, December 9, 2009
Various, Ruth Paine's Station Wagon, Education Forum thread, started April 28, 2006
Roger Craig, When They Kill a President, 1971, republished electronically ratical.org
Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.#################################################
#################################################
see also
-
Of all the seed oil produced in the US, 90 percent comes from soybeans. The shelf life and temperature stability of soybean oil is increased through the process of hydrogenation, which also generates unhealthy trans fats in the oil.
DuPont developed genetically modified soybean oil that has a fatty acid composition that is low in linoleic acid. Linoleic acid was thought of as the unhealthy component of the oil that causes obesity, diabetes and fatty liver in humans; however, new in-depth research has found hardly any health benefits of GM soybean oil over regular soybean oil.
When scientists at the University of California, Riverside, and UC Davis investigated the differences of the soybean oils, they found that the genetically modified soybean oil was not "healthier" at all. The reduced linoleic acid profile does not reduce diabetes, obesity and fatty liver like the industry had promised.
-
The Question of “Failures”- Deliberate or Incompetence?Published September 11, 2011
By Kevin Fenton
BoilingFrogsPost.comAlthough the story of the CIA’s actions in the run-up to 9/11 is complicated, at a fairly early point in any examination of them it becomes clear the agency committed multiple failures, and that these failures enabled the attacks to go forward. The key issue that remains in dispute ten years on is whether these “failures” were deliberate or simply the product of overwork and incompetence. Making an informed judgment means taking the time to look at all the failures, put them in order, and analyze what it all means.
Perhaps the most comprehensible problem is the scope of the CIA’s failings. There was not one error by some lowly neophyte, but a massive string of failures. As Tom Wilshire, one of the key CIA officials involved in the withholding of the information commented to the Congressional Inquiry, “[E]very place that something could have gone wrong in this over a year and a half, it went wrong. All the processes that had been put in place, all the safeguards, everything else, they failed at every possible opportunity. Nothing went right.”
In addition, some of the failures were extremely serious. For example, the alleged failure by Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, to inform CIA Director George Tenet that Flight 77 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar was in the country in August 2001 is simply beyond comprehension. Added to this, the failures were committed by a small group of intelligence officers, centered on Wilshire and his… Continue reading →
-
ForeknowlegeThe NSA & 9/11: Failure to Exploit the US-Yemen Hub & BeyondPublished August 5, 2011
Just one of the Legacies of 9/11
by Kevin Fenton BoilingfrogsTwo of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.The authorization I gave the National Security Agency (NSA) after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.-President Bush, December 17, 2005In the aftermath of 9/11, reams of newsprint were given over to discussing the CIA and FBI failures before the attacks; the agency had some of
the hijackers under surveillance and allegedly lost them, the bureau was unable even to inform its own acting director of the Zacarias Moussaoui case. However, the USA’s largest and most powerful intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, got a free ride. There was no outcry over its failings, no embarrassing Congressional hearings for its director. Yet, as we will see, the NSA’s performance before 9/11 was shocking.It is unclear when the NSA first intercepted a call by one of the nineteen hijackers. Reporting indicates it began listening in on telephone calls to the home of Pentagon hijacker Khalid Almihdhar’s wife some time around late 1996. However, although Almihdhar certainly… Continue reading →
-
- Nice wall of Spam! // COLBY POST # 20
- GAAL REPOST # 21 PART OF INFO THAT IS NOT RESPONDED to
- Why do you keep repeating yourself? post #22 // COLBY
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
ANSWER POST # 23
BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR THE MATERIAL PROVIDED/POSTED ABOUT and JUST YELL SPAM.......
-
A study showed that CTs are more likely to be disreputable than the general population // COLBY
++++++++++++++++++++++
Gee a study by wait wait Im a psychic yes Im a psychic a study by a skeptic GAAL -
COLBY you are you areYou are transparent. I see many things/You are transparent. I see many things/You are transparent. I see many things / You are transparent. I see many things]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Dune Movie Clip - watch all clips http://j.mp/zLyThr click to subscribe http://j.mp/sNDUs5 The Emperor (Jose Ferrer) consults with a guild navigator, who orders the murder of Paul, the son of the…00:03:30Added on 6/16/11164,933 viewsYou are transparent. I see many things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGqdE1NdMTg -
WTF is George Putnam? I'll fix that for you: // COLBY
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He was mentioned already in this thread
==
A Birch Society Fascist Reminisces about the Late Right-Wing L.A. Radio Propagandist George Putnam
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mg7D3kYysfw/SNKK2dpQYwI/AAAAAAAAHtg/jIw6oMoUbRE/s1600-h/George_Putnam.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mg7D3kYysfw/SNKK2dpQYwI/AAAAAAAAHtg/jIw6oMoUbRE/s1600-h/George_Putnam.jpgFar-right L.A. talk show crank George Putnam
Also see: The CIA propaganda front Human Events rhapsodizes on the passing of the ultra-conservative bunkmeister, as well.
George Putnam, Broadcasting Legend, Dies at 94
By Bill Hahn
www.jbs.org
16 September 2008 15:35
The Los Angeles Times reports that George Putnam, broadcasting legend, has died at 94.
Anyone who ever heard George Putnam’s voice would instantly recognize it. His flowing and booming voice was always rich with enthusiastic passion. It was impossible to correctly guess his age judging from his voice alone. When broadcasting, it seemed the airwaves quivered and trembled from the amount of bass in George’s voice.
My limited interaction with the George Putnam show came not long after I was hired by The John Birch Society in mid-2007. After having received a call from George’s long-time producer Chuck Wilder inquiring about a guest for the show, I spent some time asking a few key JBS staff about George and his radio program. The overwhelming opinion was that George was top-notch and well worth the time to set-up a guest.
I confirmed JBS President John McManus as a guest, informed staff of the upcoming show and set-up a reminder to myself to listen to the program. The day of, I dialed into the broadcast through the Internet and found myself mesmerized by his style and compassion for the truth. Opening the show was a a quick clip from a song by Harry Nilsson (Everybody’s Talkin’) made popular through its exposure in the movie "Midnight Cowboy." Having liked the song growing up and not having heard it in a long time, it grabbed my attention right away.
George’s style was always one of a gentleman. Always courteous and fair to his guests and callers. During that interview, he touched on a number of issues, as well as asking about the Society, its mission and recent activities. During this interview and several thereafter, he always asked about the Society, giving us a chance to share with listeners. He or Chuck must have been subscribers to our news magazine,The New American. Many times I would get a call or email from Chuck after a new issue of the magazine was published asking for a guest for the cover story.
On one occasion, no one here was available, and not wanting to turn down an opportunity, I agreed to be on. We discussed illegal immigration and the half hour flew by. George made my short time on his show very comfortable. He didn’t take calls during this time, but I learned later on that he didn’t screen his on-air calls, which is standard for today’s talk shows. But it does make for interesting radio!
George was in broadcasting for more than 70 years, spending more than 30 years with producer Chuck Wilder. You can listen to the memorial show played on Friday, September 12, just hours after he passed away.
Fighting health problems, he had given his last regular show in May of this year, but came back in July for a show celebrating his 94th birthday. I feel highly privileged to be one of his last guests.
The lyrics in the show’s opening song describe a person going on a journey:
"I'm going where the sun keeps shining
Thru' the pouring rain
Going where the weather suits my clothes
Backing off of the North East wind
Sailing on summer breeze
And skipping over the ocean like a stone"
I can’t help but think of the journey George must be on. If there is a radio frequency in Heaven, I’m sure George is on it at high Noon, his preferred time.
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/2902-george-putnam-broadcasting-legend-dies-at-94 -
And still waiting for any evidence the three journalists who died were working together on some 9/11 story.// COLBY
======================================
GOLLY IT CONTAINS A QUESTION MARK........COMPREHEND ??
9/11 Cover-Up? Three US-Journalists Dead Within 24 Hours (LINK)
=======================================================================
UK's War on RT Is an Attack on Free SpeechOfCom's campaign against RT is not a "counter propaganda" campaign. It is a campaign to suppress the expression of inconvenient opinions
Ministry of TruthConfirmation that the British broadcasting regulator Ofcom is investigating another complaint against RT is a disturbing development.
Before saying anything further I must declare an interest.
I am regular guest on RT. I am also a regular guest on Crosstalk, the programme that according to media reports is at the centre of the Ofcom investigation. I have the highest personal regard for Peter Lavelle, who is the programme’s host.
Before discussing this investigation and the issues to which it gives rise, I also however wish to make clear that I have not seen the complaint that is the cause of the investigation or any other document related either to the complaint or to the investigation. Nor have I discussed either the complaint or the investigation with anyone at RT. Nor were RT or anyone working for RT informed of this article or provided with a copy of it before publication. All the opinions expressed in this article are my own and none have been discussed with RT or indeed with anyone else before publication.
So far as I can tell from media reports, the investigation follows a complaint of lack of impartiality on the part of RT and specifically by Crosstalk in discussing the Ukrainian crisis.
If so then the relevant provision is Section 5 of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code. This says, in part:
“Principles
To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are complied with.
.........
Meaning of "due impartiality”:
"Due" is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. "Due" means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So "due impartiality" does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm and Offence of the Code, is important.”
I am not an expert on media law, but this provision seems to me clearly intended to ensure that news content is presented accurately and objectively by a broadcaster. It does not appear to me to prevent the expression of individual opinions. That also seems to me clear from reading the rest of Section 5 of the Code.
Crosstalk is a discussion and opinion programme that discusses news, whereas Section 5 seems mostly applicable to news programmes that report news. Section 5 does not appear to me to limit discussion or analysis of news (the purpose of Crosstalk) provided the news, which is being analysed and discussed, is reported objectively and accurately. That this is so appears to be borne out by the Guidance Notes to the Code, which say:
"In accordance with a broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, the broadcaster has the right to interpret news events as it sees fit, as long as it complies with the Code".
To my knowledge the makers of the programme, and Peter Lavelle in particular, always strive for the greatest possible accuracy when reporting facts or news. As Peter Lavelle has several times said on Crosstalk programmes I have attended, guests have a right to their opinions but not a right to the facts.
Given so, it seems to me that not only does the complaint upon which the investigation is based have little merit, but it appears if anything to be an attempt to prevent the free expression of opinions, which is contrary to Article 10(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
Moreover the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Handyside v United Kingdom (5493/72) said "Freedom of expression...is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population" (Para. 49 of the judgment).
As I have said already, I do not hold myself out as any sort of authority on the Broadcasting Code or on media law in general. However knowing what I do about the Crosstalk programme and in light of what seems to me to be the applicable law, I can see no logic to this Ofcom investigation.
The fact however remains that an investigation is taking place. If, as it seems to me, there is no logic behind it, why is it taking place?
The short answer is that there is a sustained attempt underway to elevate a particular set of opinions about the Ukrainian crisis to the realm of fact so as to delegitimise or even prohibit expression of any conflicting set of opinions that may contradict those opinions that are being invested with the status of fact. That set of opinions is the one held about the Ukrainian crisis by the present government of Ukraine and its supporters in Britain and the West, these of course being all the major Western governments and media institutions.
To see how this is so, it is merely necessary to try to imagine a similar Ofcom investigation of a broadcaster that offers a one-sidedly pro-Ukrainian view of the crisis.
The Western media over the course of the crisis has reported as “facts” that Yanukovych was overthrown as a result of a popular revolution, that President Poroshenko’s election in May 2014 was legitimate, that the role of neo-Nazi and far right groups in Ukraine is marginal, that the Ukrainian military was winning the war in the Donbass in July and early August 2014, that the Russian military is present in large numbers in eastern Ukraine and that it is the Russians and the east Ukrainian militias that caused the peace process launched in Minsk in September 2014 to fail.
Each one of these “facts” is open to challenge. On examination they turn out to be not “facts” at all but merely opinions that can be contested in every case: Thus opinion polls show an even split of Ukrainians supporting and opposing the Maidan movement that overthrew Yanukovych; Poroshenko’s election was arguably illegitimate since it took place following an unconstitutional coup that was rejected by people in Ukraine’s eastern regions; the neo-Nazi and far right groups appear to have a disproportionate influence in Ukrainian politics and in the Ukrainian military where they have formed themselves into volunteer battalions outside the chain of command; the Ukrainian military was in reality never close to victory at any stage in the war in the summer of 2014; the German government now disputes US and NATO claims concerning the presence of large numbers of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine; and the true reason for the failure of the Minsk peace process launched in September 2014 is not Russian or east Ukrainian failure to honour their commitments but Ukraine’s intransigent refusal to undertake the constitutional negotiations it committed itself to by the Minsk process.
No Western or British broadcaster would however face investigation by Ofcom for reporting the “facts” (or rather opinions) that I set out above, and none in fact has ever had to, even though these “facts” give a strongly pro-Ukrainian take on the conflict and even though they represent the mainstream of reporting of the conflict by the Western and British media.
Similarly no Western or British broadcaster has faced investigation by Ofcom for saying that MH17 was shot down by the Russians or by the east Ukrainian militia, even though that “fact” too is not a fact at all (since it is has not been proved) but is as of the time of writing merely an expression of opinion.
That the issue is one of expression of inconvenient opinions rather than of misreporting or inaccurately reporting news or “facts” is shown by the way the British media has recently taken to misrepresenting certain comments made by RT’s chief, Margarita Simonyan.
A recent editorial in the Guardian said this about her comments:
“It is a tactic straight out of Mr Putin’s KGB playbook from the 1970s. Generate a plurality of narratives, so the truth can be obscured. In such circumstances, the very idea that there is such a thing as “the truth” can itself be called into question. “There is no objectivity – only approximations of the truth by as many different voices as possible” is how Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of state-backed Russia Today, puts it. This is weaponised relativism.”
Contrast this with what Simonyan actually said in the interview with Der Spiegel, from which the above quote comes:
“SPIEGEL ONLINE: Efforts are made to be objective. But your network only covers one side, offering Syrian dictator Bashar Assad a platform for his political message.
Simonyan: There are people who refer to Assad's political opponents as the "democratic opposition." Even the rebels, however, have raped women and murdered children. Take Saakashvili, for example. He is held up as a hero by the BBC. For others, he represents an oppressor of freedom. There is no objectivity -- only approximations of the truth by as many different voices as possible.”
Where Simonyan says that facts may validly be the subject of different opinions and of more than one interpretation, the Guardian insists only one opinion or interpretation - its own - which also happens to be the mainstream Western one - is valid, and anything else is “weaponised relativism”.
It is not difficult to see how behind this seeming concern for "objective truth" - and the corresponding rejection of alternative opinions and interpretations that contradict it - lies a thinly disguised form of authoritarianism. To see where that leads, it is only necessary to look at the final paragraph of the editorial:
“Amid the various narratives of “the truth” now being rehearsed by the Russian state, it is necessary to insist upon a reality; on Friday morning Mr Nemtsov was alive, but by the day’s end he was dead. Amid the mischievous misdirection of the Kremlin’s counter-measures, this is, quite simply, the truth.”
That Boris Nemtsov was killed on Friday 27th February 2015 is a truth denied by no one. The “reality” the Guardian insists on is not that one. Rather what the Guardian is actually doing (as the editorial read as a whole makes clear) is demanding that its opinion (which is also the mainstream Western opinion) that the Kremlin killed Nemtsov or caused him to be killed be accepted as “reality”. Any other opinion about the murder is rejected as “mischievous misdirection” by the Kremlin. This notwithstanding the fact that as of the time the editorial was written no facts had come to light to support the Guardian’s opinion that the Kremlin had caused or was responsible for Nemtsov’s death, and all the facts that have come to light since tend to refute it.
When mere opinion independent of proof or facts is elevated to the level of unchallengeable truth, free expression becomes impossible. When provisions intended to guard against factual misreporting and inaccuracy, such as Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code, are misused to suppress the expression of inconvenient opinions, it is valid to warn of censorship. That is the situation we appear to be in now.
-
YOU WERE TO NEVER KNOW THIS AND "SPEECH" ABOUT IT > public figures, including prominent politicians.
=========================================
VIP paedophile murders: Police didn't tell family about quizzing suspects in killing of boy aged eight
=
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
The unprecedented scale of current police investigations into historic child abuse can be revealed for the first time today, as senior officers warn of the challenge of investigating alleged crimes that go back decades.
An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has revealed that:
Forces around Britain are carrying out more than 60 major investigations into sex attacks and beatings in schools, children’s homes and churches dating back to the 1950s.
More than 2,000 people have come forward in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal to say they were abused at institutions or by public figures, including prominent politicians.
A staggering 1,200 of the alleged victims were inmates of just one institution, a northern borstal once visited by the late Home Secretary Leon Brittan and praised for its ‘short, sharp shock’ regime. He himself is now at the centre of a number of abuse claims.
The Song RemainsThe Same (my apologies Led Zeppelin)
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
If you have not ...please read post # 1 this thread ,thank you Steven Gaal
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Afghan Mission Accomplished: More Heroin for the WorldThe Guardian reports statistics on opium agriculture in Afghanistan:
Who’s kidding who?
In Colombia, the US government proved it could eradicate coca and opium-poppy growing fields. One of the solutions was an herbicide called Roundup. You may have heard of it.
But in Afghanistan, the US just didn’t remember that. It skipped their mind. Oops.
Suddenly, the Afghanistan mission became one of good will. Mustn’t upset the farmers. In Colombia, upsetting the farmers was perfectly all right.
When you can lessen a problem but choose not to, you want the problem to persist. It’s simple.
And at that point, the problem becomes an opportunity—it always was.
More opium poppy; therefore, more heroin. More trafficking, more profits.
Since the US government has been consciously facilitating the growth of opium farming in Afghanistan, it stands to reason that government players have been taking their cut of the action.
If the US government, which has been fighting a full-scale war in Afghanistan, wanted to destroy the opium-heroin business in that country, it had the ideal opportunity.
The mission would have been far easier than waging “the war against drugs” in Mexico, where US military intervention has been limited.
In Afghanistan, there were US troops on the ground. There were air attacks. What else would you need?
Pentagon planners spend their lives working out multiple scenarios for possible wars in various regions of the planet. They take into account all aspects and contingencies.
In planning for a war in Afghanistan, what to do about the opium-poppy growing fields would have been high on the list of options.
So opium-poppy farmers were no “delicate problem” the US invading force encountered after entering the country. There were no surprises.
Since the US invaded Afghanistan, the Army knowingly undertook operations that would definitely expand opium-poppy agriculture.
Of course, the CIA’s connections to the drug trade in Afghanistan go back a long way, so it’s no surprise that the US war in Afghanistan has facilitated and expanded opium-poppy production.
Peter Dale Scott, in his essay, “Drugs, Contras, and the CIA,” writes:
The war against drugs? A towering joke.