End Times News and Gospel Message 18 March 14

Do you, like 56 percent of the US population, believe that the US should "not get too involved" in the Ukraine situation? Do you think that the US administration putting us on a war footing with Russia is a bad idea? Are you concerned that the new, US-backed leaders of Ukraine, not being elected, might lack democratic legitimacy? Are you tempted to speak out against US policy in Ukraine; are you tempted to criticize the new Ukrainian regime?

Be careful what you say. Be careful what you write. President Obama has just given himself the authority to seize your assets.

According to the president's recent Executive Order, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine" (first reported by WND's Aaron Klein), the provisions for seizure of property extend to "any United States person." That means "any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States."

Declaring a "national emergency" over the planned referendum in Crimea to determine whether or not to join Russia, the US president asserts that asset seizure is possible for any US person "determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State":

(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following: 

(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; 

(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or 

(C) misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine;

The Executive Order is, as usual, so broadly written that it leaves nearly everything open to interpretation. 

For example, what are "direct or indirect...actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine"? Could that be someone writing an article that takes issue with the US policy that the Crimea referendum is illegal and illegitimate? Could it be standing up in a public meeting and expressing the view that Ukraine would be better off with nationwide referenda to determine whether other regions should become autonomous or joined to neighboring countries? What if a Polish-American appears on a radio or television program suggesting that parts of Poland incorporated into Ukraine after WWII should be returned to Polish authority?

Probably the president will not seize the assets of Americans in the scenarios above. But he says he can.

As the US government moves ever-closer to war with Russia, it is reasonable to expect these attempts to squash dissent and to remove "threats" to the administration's position. The historical pattern is clear.

Recall Eugene V. Debs sentenced to ten years in prison for his opposition to US involvement in WWI. Recall Japanese-Americans interned in camps during WWII because their loyalty to the United States was deemed suspect. 

The stage is being set to silence dissent. It sounds alarmist to read this, agreed. 

Probably the president will not use his Executive Order to seize the assets of Americans who disagree with his Ukraine policy. But he says he can. Careful what you say.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

BLOCKING PROPERTY OF ADDITIONAL PERSONS CONTRIBUTING

TO THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, finding that the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation with respect to Ukraine -- including the recent deployment of Russian Federation military forces in the Crimea region of Ukraine -- undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Accordingly, I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order; and

(ii) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(A) to be an official of the Government of the Russian Federation;

(B) to operate in the arms or related materiel sector in the Russian Federation;

(C) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly:

(1) a senior official of the Government of the Russian Federation; or

(2) a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(D) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of:

(1) a senior official of the Government of the Russian Federation; or

(2) a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 2. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Sec. 3. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:

(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 6. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and

(d) the term the "Government of the Russian Federation" means the Government of the Russian Federation, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of the Government of the Russian Federation, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of the Russian Federation.

Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

Sec. 8. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to determine that circumstances no longer warrant the blocking of the property and interests in property of a person listed in the Annex to this order, and to take necessary action to give effect to that determination.

Sec. 10. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 11. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on March 17, 2014.

BARACK OBAMA

Could you soon be struggling with heightened security issues and risks on the internet, and in addition be subjected to having to pay taxes for using the internet? This may soon be a reality. A U.S. government plan to give away authority over the Internet’s core architecture to the “global Internet community” could endanger the security of both the Internet and the U.S. — and open the door to a global tax on Web use. 
This far-reaching decision was reached after the U.S. Commerce Department announced it would relinquish control of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organization charged with managing domain names, assigning Internet protocol addresses and other crucial Web functions, such as secure roadmaps from web-connected devices to websites and servers across the globe. ICANN’s current contract expires next year and will not be renewed. 
This development is thought in some quarters to be a reaction to allegations of excessive U.S Commerce Department influence through ICANN, following the high profile and much publicized leaks by former agency contractor Edward Snowden. 
U.S. officials denied that their decision had anything to do with the NSA spying revelations and the consequent worldwide controversy, saying instead that there had been plans since ICANN’s creation in 1998 to eventually migrate it to international control.
Former Bush administration State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton told The Daily Caller that “U.S. management of the internet has been exemplary and there is no reason to give this away in return for nothing … we should assume ICANN would end up as part of the United Nations…it can impose whatever taxes it likes. It likely would start with a tax on registering domains and expand from there.”
This may add up in costs for individuals and businesses but could turn out to be a real cash cow for the U.N. As Dailycaller.com further reports: “... if folded into the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the organization would have access to a significant revenue stream outside of member contributions for the first time. 
The greater danger posed by the giveaway lies with the security of the Internet itself. While the U.S. has never used ICANN in a war or crisis situation, the potential exists for it to obstruct Internet commerce or deter foreign cyber attacks – powerful tools in the globalized information age.”
In Whiton’s words “…under invariably incompetent U.N. control, it could mean a hostile foreign power disabling the Internet for us”.
ICANN’s relocation critics called the decision hasty and politically tinged. In addition they voiced significant doubts about the fitness of ICANN to operate without U.S. oversight and beyond the bounds of U.S. law. 
Business groups, among others have long complained that ICANN’s decision-making was dominated by the interests of the industry that sells domain names and whose fees provide the vast majority of ICANN’s revenue. Critics have therefore considered the U.S. government contract a modest check against such abuses. 
However Fadi Chehade, president of ICANN, disputed many of the complaints about the transition plan and promised an open, inclusive process to find a new international oversight structure for the group. Said Chehade: “Nothing will be done in any way to jeopardize the security and stability of the Internet.”
These developments seem to signify a major change in the views held by the U.S from just over a year ago, when the U.S led part of a western bloc opposed to a proposed U.N telecommunications treaty that advocated for stronger government sway over Internet affairs and a reduction in western dominance of the Internet. 
The head of the U.S. delegation to the UN Web conference held in Dubai in December 2012, Ambassador Terry Kramer, was quoted as stating that one major concern (among several others) was that the western bloc feared that any U.N rules on cyberspace could squeeze web commerce, open the door for more restrictions and result in monitoring by authoritarian regimes (such as China and Iran) that already impose wide-ranging clampdowns.
According to Kramer, “No single organization or government should attempt to control the internet or dictate its future development. We are resolute on this.”
This assertion seems strange if indeed there had been plans since ICANN’s creation in 1998 to eventually migrate it to a centralized international control such as the U.N - as alleged by U.S officials eager to demonstrate that the decision had nothing to do with the fallout and pressures that arose from the Snowden revelations. It isn’t clear why the U.S would then be leading the western bloc in an open contradiction: to publicly oppose a move that is already part of its agenda or policy.
There are other indications that seem to support the assertion that the move to relinquish control of ICANN by the U.S may further facilitate already ongoing repressions of freedom of speech by individual governments. Recent examples include a recent CNN.com reported that 2 Saudi men were convicted and jailed for posting pro-protest and anti-establishment messages on Twitter. 
In another press publication citing examples of internet censorship, Russia has blocked three major opposition news websites as well as the popular blog of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny in a media crackdown that comes amid Vladimir Putin's standoff with the west over Ukraine. Such incidents may well escalate when the ICANN mandate is finally transitioned out of U.S hands.
Nevertheless, the questions still linger: Will it be possible for the U.S to hand over ICANN without risking the protections and benefits enjoyed by users globally so far? Isn’t there a better way to do this than hand it over to the U.N and then hope for the best, if U.S internet security vulnerabilities will increase? What hope is there for a balanced approach that can protect the best aspects of internet management and use, while blocking or minimizing potential avenues for abuse by corporations and oppressive governments.
Some answers may lie in the views of the inventor of the World Wide Web, who believes an online "Magna Carta" is needed to protect and enshrine the independence of the medium he created and the rights of its users worldwide. World Wide Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee said that the web had come under increasing attack from governments and corporate influence and that new rules were needed to protect the "open, neutral" system. 
Speaking exactly 25 years after he wrote the first draft of the first proposal for what would become the World Wide Web, the computer scientist said: "We need a global constitution – a bill of rights." Berners-Lee's Magna Carta plan is to be taken up as part of an initiative called "the web we want", which calls on people to generate a digital bill of rights in each country – a statement of principles he hopes will be supported by public institutions, government officials and corporations.
Berners-Lee also reiterated his concern that the web could be balkanized by countries or organizations carving up the digital space to work under their own rules, whether for censorship, regulation or commerce – effectively creating a series of national network “silos”.
Berners-Lee has been an outspoken critic of the American and British spy agencies' surveillance of citizens following the revelations by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. His views also echo across the technology industry, where there is particular anger about the efforts by the NSA and Britain's GCHQ to undermine encryption and security tools. 
Berners-Lee also spoke out strongly in favor of changing a key and controversial element of internet governance that would remove a small but symbolic piece of US control: "The removal of the explicit link to the US department of commerce is long overdue. 
The US can't have a global place in the running of something which is so non-national. There is huge momentum towards that uncoupling but it is right that we keep a multi-stakeholder approach, and one where governments and companies are both kept at arm's length." 
It remains to be seen if and how the cyber attack security concerns raised, the potential increases in tax and loopholes for increased government abuse will be handled following the ICANN handover – assuming that it isn’t just another red herring designed to buy some time to appease NSA critics.

Daniel Castro, a senior analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation perhaps summed up this decision best: "If the Obama Administration gives away its oversight of the Internet, it will be gone forever,"

Over 40 sheriffs walked out of the Oklahoma State Capitol this week after an unknown senator demanded they remove their firearms. After entering the capitol for an annual meet and greet with legislators, the state’s sheriffs were confronted and given an ultimatum, disarm or leave the building. “One of the senators, whom they wouldn’t tell us, complained because we were armed in the building,” Wagoner county sheriff Bob Colbert told KTUL News. According to Colbert, the senator not only refused to identify, but also ordered others in the capitol to relay the message. “Everybody in that building knew who we were,” Colbert said. After being given their options, all 40 sheriffs refused to comply with the senator’s demand and walked out of the building, firearms holstered. “So we all packed up and left,” Colbert said. “Pretty sad day for me.” Although several senators reached out to apologize to Colbert, the sheriff is still stunned at the events that played out. “We’re the people that protect these people,” Colbert said. Colbert argued that lawmakers should be far more concerned about issues such as the state’s finances than legal firearm holders. “If the state troopers are satisfied that we’re ok in that building I’m pretty sure that the legislators should have something else to worry about such as the economy or something,” Colbert said. While armed public servants may assume that they are out of the gun control agenda’s reach, the situation in Oklahoma clearly shows how far some are willing to go. Just last year in Washington state, a city council meeting on gun rights experienced a similar incident as well. After speaking for several minutes, a military veteran was interrupted and asked to disarm by a lone city councilman. After his request was voted down 2-4, the councilman stormed out of the room.

An American Airlines passenger jet like the one above vanished over Angola

The video below contains a film clip from the movie "Chariot" Remember, the Illuminati likes to give sneak previews or glimpses of their future operations and plans. This is a plausible explanation for the disappearance of Malayasian flight MH370 and the Angolan jet. While investigators remain puzzled as to the whereabouts and fate of Malaysian Air flight 370, lost in the discussion is the fact that the Boeing 777 is not the first jumbo jet to go missing. In 2003, a Boeing 727 went missing on a flight from Angola to Burkina Faso. The plane disappeared in the wake of an intelligence warning about al-Qaeda planning a suicide aerial attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi. A worldwide search for the missing plane went nowhere and, despite FBI and CIA investigations, eventually the case faded from the headlines. Of course, that Boeing disappeared with only the pilot on board, rather than with a full complement of passengers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q91h4Dl_iQo&app=desktop

Eleven years after her brother disappeared from Quatro de Fevereiro International Airport in Angola, Benita Padilla-Kirkland is trying to persuade the FBI to re-open his case. She believes she has the “new information” agents told her they require. But she suspects that the agency already has more information than agents will admit to.

Kirkland’s brother, Ben Charles Padilla, a certified flight engineer, aircraft mechanic, and private pilot, disappeared while working in the Angolan capital, Luanda, for Florida-based Aerospace Sales and Leasing. On May 25, 2003, shortly before sunset, Padilla boarded the company’s Boeing 727-223, tail number N844AA. With him was a helper he had recently hired, John Mikel Mutantu, from the Republic of the Congo. The two had been working with Angolan mechanics to return the 727 to flight-ready status so they could reclaim it from a business deal gone bad, but neither could fly it. Mutantu was not a pilot, and Padilla had only a private pilot’s license. A 727 ordinarily requires three trained aircrew.

According to press reports, the aircraft began taxiing with no communication between the crew and the tower; maneuvering erratically, it entered a runway without clearance. With its lights off and its transponder not transmitting, 844AA took off to the southwest, and headed out over the Atlantic Ocean. The 727 and the two men have not been seen since.

Who was flying 844AA? Had something happened to make Padilla take that desperate chance? Or was someone waiting inside the airplane? Leased to deliver diesel fuel to diamond mines, the 727 carried 10 500-gallon fuel tanks and a few passenger seats in its cabin. Less than two years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the 727’s freakish departure triggered a frantic search by U.S. security organizations for what intelligence sources said could have been a flying bomb.

Retired U.S. Marine General Mastin Robeson, commander of U.S. forces in the Horn of Africa when 844AA went missing, says word of the 727 “came up through the intelligence network.” According to Robeson, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) considered moving U.S. fighter aircraft to Djibouti on the Red Sea coast, where the Combined Joint Task Force shares a base with the French military. Robeson continues: “It was never [clear] whether it was stolen for insurance purposes…by the owners, or whether it was stolen with the intent to make it available to unsavory characters, or whether it was a deliberate concerted terrorist attempt. There was speculation of all three.”

Speculation that the theft of 844AA posed a terrorist threat ended, though it’s unclear why. Perhaps National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency technicians saw signs of a crash in satellite imagery—debris or an oil slick in the Atlantic, for example—or evidence that a large aircraft had landed on one of a half-dozen unpaved, 8,000-foot runways in the Congo, north of Angola. Agency spokesperson Susan Meisner would not comment, saying that the NGIA was not the lead agency in the case. (A CIA spokesperson also declined comment, as did a spokesperson from the Department of Homeland Security. FBI agents also refused comment, citing national security concerns.) Perhaps the speculation ended more gradually, after weeks without clues or sightings stretched into months. The disturbed hornet’s nest of a global security alert—the searches, bulletins, and interrogations—quieted, and in 2005, the FBI closed its case. I have filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the CIA and FBI and have followed in at least some of the FBI’s footsteps, interviewing the people who flew 844AA to Angola and worked with it there, hoping to understand how a 727 could just disappear.

“It really was in beautiful condition,” Keith Irwin says of the airliner he acquired in Miami in February 2002. Irwin, 57, a South African entrepreneur who ran a series of information technology companies and, until 2000, a small tourist airline with flights from South Africa to Mozambique, had come to Miami to pick up a different aircraft altogether. Representing a joint venture with a South African company called Cargo Air Transport Systems, Irwin had arranged to lease a 727 and two flight crews—pilot, first officer, and flight engineer—for a year. The air transport company had signed a contract to supply fuel to diamond mines in Angola, where a long civil war had made transporting goods by road almost impossible. The 727, therefore, was to have been delivered with fuel tanks installed in the cabin. The joint venture was backed by a single investor, who had deposited $450,000 in a U.S. bank. Irwin’s job was to manage the flight operations, but the deal for the airplane fell through. Irwin ended up with fuel tanks and no airplane.

Neocon globalists planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 years ago. Robert Parry correctly points out that the Neocons have successfully “weathered the storm” of disdain after their Iraq war fiasco. But the truth is that Obama has long done his best to try to implement those globalist plans. Similarly, ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. has pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like Iran. In 1997, Obama’s former foreign affairs adviser, and president Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser – Zbigniew Brzezinski – wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard arguing arguing that the U.S. had to take control of Ukraine (as well as Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran) because they were “critically important geopolitical pivots”. Regarding Ukraine, Brzezinski said, “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.” And now Obama is pushing us into a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and the Crimea. Late last year when Ukraine’s now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych surprisingly canceled plans for Ukrainian integration into the European Union in favor of stronger ties with Russia, the US may have viewed Ukraine as slipping even further out of its reach. At that point, with the pieces already in place, the US moved to support the ousting of Yanukovych, as evidenced by the leaked phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland [arch-Neocon Robert Kagan's wife]  and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.  When peaceful protests were not effective in unseating Yanukovych, the violence of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party and Right Sector was embraced, if not supported by the west. In today’s Ukraine, the US runs the risk of being affiliated with anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, a prospect it probably feels can be controlled via a friendly western media. But even if the risk is high, the US likely views it as necessary given the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, as Brzezinski mapped out in 1997. In other words, Obama is following the same old playbook that the globalists have been pushing for more than a decade.

Detroit, Michigan houses over 400,000 Muslims in 2014. During the public comment time at the Dearborn, Michigan city council meeting this month, a Muslim stood to demand that the city institute Sharia patrols to keep young people out of parks and to prevent the sale of “offensive” magazines in stores.

Mr. Hassan took his place in line during the public comments and chanted Islamic prayers. He demanded that the city begin patrols of the parks because people used them for “sexual activities.” (Example: kissing)

As reported, “Hassan also stated that there were magazines and newspapers at the public libraries and civic center that can cause colossal damage to a child’s health, asking the city to review and monitor literature before they are distributed.”

Mr. Hassan demanded Sharia compliant patrols to prevent people from using parks and he wants the city to perpetrate Sharia compliant censorship at libraries.

He wants Americans to suspend their First Amendment rights in order to engage his “Sharia Law” from his native Saudi Arabia, one of the most brutal dictatorships of the Middle East. What he escaped in his own country, he wants instituted in our country.

Bill Gates ... says–like bioethicist Daniel Callahan–that we have to be careful about making technological improvements in medicine because we won’t want to make them available to all. If you accelerate certain things but aren’t careful about whether you want to make those innovations available to everyone, then you’re intensifying the cost in such a way that you’ll overwhelm all the resources.

In a typical New Age manner, Bill Gates reduces talking about human life and death issues to a more sterile subject of "resources" and of "trade offs". This change in terminology allows the perpetrator to more easily condemn a sick person to death without raising the issue of the human conscience.

But they do want to have the government or bioethics committees decide “when to pull the plug on grandma.” Moreover, 'trade offs' is a code term in this context for death panels.

The Nazi genocide could not have functioned without its death panels. Members of these panels usually numbered three and consisted of one doctor, one bioethicist/psychiatrist, and a lawyer.

These panel members would discuss the human life they had in their hands in a most dispassionate manner. They would discuss "available resources", the age and medical condition of the patient and whether they could be expected to live long enough and with a high enough 'quality of life" after the operation that would make the procedure "worthwhile".

History records that these Nazi death panels turned down the vast majority of patients that came before their review.

As the New World Order has the goal of dramatic population reduction, these death panels will also deny medical services to the vast majority of people who come to them for authorization of treatment.

What is the New World Order goal regarding population reduction?

The only alternative left to the world's ruling elite was to increase the death rate. Dr. Aurelio Peccei of the Club of Rome advocated that a plague be introduced that would have the same effect as the Black Death of history." (See Bill Cooper’s book, "Behold A Pale Horse", p. 49, 167)

Increase the death rate is the clarion call of the Illuminati! It is benevolent and needed in their view. It is the inevitable progress of humanity. Premature death is inevitable, good, and necessary.

Let’s hear from Defense Secretary William Cohen, speaking to an anti-terrorism conference in 1997. "... scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific (the aids virus) so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races". (Defense Secretary William Cohen, addressing the Conference on Terrorism, "Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy Sam Nunn Policy Forum", on 4/28/1997)

Welcome to the hellish attitudes toward human life in New World Order leaders, coming straight from the Pit of Hell.

Foreign central banks’ Treasury bond holdings at the Federal Reserve dropped by the most on record in the latest week. Some analysts think the crisis in Ukraine is sparking the move. Their theory: Russia is shifting its Treasury bond holdings out of the Fed and into offshore accounts. That way, Russia would be able to buy or sell its portfolio if the U.S. and its European allies impose economic sanctions amid growing geopolitical tensions in Ukraine. Also since last December China and Japan have been dumping U.S. Treasuries.

Russia has moved a huge chunk of assets out of American sanctions reach! This move could mean that Russia fully intends to act against Ukraine in a manner which would spark Western sanctions. Russia has watched carefully for a full decade as the West has imposed sanctions against Iran; therefore, she may be positioning herself in such a way as to minimize economic impact if America and the E.U. actually slap sanctions against her assets.

Then, China dropped the really big bomb: China supports Russia's actions in Ukraine and Crimea!

China's top envoy to Germany has warned the West against punishing Russia with sanctions for its intervention in Ukraine, saying such measures could lead to a dangerous chain reaction that would be difficult to control. Chinese ambassador Shi Mingde issued the strongest warning against such measures by any top Chinese official to date.

"We don't see any point in sanctions', Shi said. “Sanctions could lead to retaliatory action, and that would trigger a spiral with unforeseeable consequences. We don't want this."

China owns the morst U.S. Treasuries in the world. If she joined Russia in dropping the American Dollar as the world's reserve currency and if she started dumping her Dollars, the entire American economy could collapse. The globalist Obama will not abruptly pull away and aggravate the Chinese and the Russians.

We have always viewed economic sanctions as an empty, non-military, gutless move, designed to make it appear that a leader is doing something while, in reality, he is doing nothing. Sanctions hardly ever work. In this case, Russia has had years of studying Western sanctions against Iran, so she probably has positioned her chess pieces on the world board in order to withstand any economic shock. Certainly, Putin believes that gaining Ukraine and Crimea is worth withstanding any economic sanctions.

However, remember that the real purpose of this Illuminati crisis in Ukraine is that Russia is pulling together the nations which are planned to be part of the Club of Rome’s Kingdom #5

The United States and the European Union on Monday slapped sanctions on Russian and Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for Crimea’s effort to join Russia ... the United States is implementing a series of measures that will continue to increase the cost on Russia” of its intervention in Ukraine. Obama warned that 'further provocations' by Moscow would only isolate Russia further. What are these economic sanctions just now levied on Russia?

The sanctions ordered by the Obama administration include asset freezes and a ban on travel to the United States for seven Russian and four Ukrainian officials, including ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. The sanctions by the European Union apply to 21 officials, although those people have not yet been identified.

I do not know exactly what "assets" have been frozen, but on the surface, these sanctions seem very slight, not the kind that would force Russia to stop her actions in Ukraine and Crimea! They may be so slight that they actually encourage President Putin to push forward in his plan to bring Ukraine into the fold of Kingdom #5.

It didn’t take the gift of prophecy to tell you that Crimea would secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. That was an easy move on the part of Russia and vital for Russia's Black Sea fleet.

Putin will play his natural gas 'trump card', eventually. But, he will do it at a time and place where he gets the most benefit. And, that moment in time will probably be during the winter of 2014/2015.

Do you think that it was a coincidence that the West and Poles staged their Ukraine coup in late February?

So, what’s next?

 

Algeria

Natural Gas is an interesting commodity. It’s difficult to transport and difficult to store. It takes years and years of infrastructure development to get it from point A to point B, but there’s a lot of it, and it’s relatively easy to get out of the ground.

Unfortunately, there’s no new natural gas infrastructure getting ready to go online, anytime soon.

European Natural Gas Vulnerability

Remember when I said that Europe gets 30% of her natural gas from Russia?

The rest of Europe’s natural gas comes from Norway and Algeria – with some from the Netherlands and a few smaller sources.

Algeria is not a very stable place. Algeria has terrorist problems. The attack on the Amanas Gas facility in Algeria, in January of 2013 severely damaged gas production - when 30 terrorists attacked the facility and held foreign nationals hostage. To make matters worse, Algeria has been having problems with declining output.

Do you think that it might be possible for the Illuminati/globalists to use Algerian rebels to turn off the natural gas coming from Algeria?

You can bet that they can. Getting jihadis to run around and blow up things, isn’t very a very hard thing to do and there are big natural gas pipes going from Algeria through Tunisia.

Tunisia is not a very stable place either. Remember that the Arab Spring started in Tunisia. It wouldn’t take much of an investment on the Illuminati’s/globalists part to convince jihadis to blow up pipelines in Tunisia.

To see an example of how effective terrorists can be in shutting off the flow of natural gas, all you need to do is look at the Sinai. Terrorists have been blowing up pipelines there, several times a year.

Then, there’s the natural gas pipelines that go underwater to Italy and Spain.

What do you think would happen if someone ‘accidentally’ blew up the underwater pipes?

Accidents happen. What a coincidence. Remember the Illuminati/globalists are about making a huge profit and blowing up pipelines creates acute shortages.

Europe also has a very inadequate storage capacity for natural gas, and while this winter was mild for Europe, no one can guarantee that the same will happen next year.

All of this means that the US and Europe have about six months to deal with this natural gas vulnerability and six months cannot fix this problem.

Friends,

This is another sad day for true Christians. This action by the U.S. Air Force will add to the chastisement facing the United States.

For more than a decade new military recruits at Maxwell Air Force Base – Gunter Annex in Alabama have received a Bible from Gideons International volunteers. But that tradition has come to an end after volunteers said they were told by the military that they would no longer be allowed to personally distribute the pocket-sized Bibles to recruits.

"They kicked us out," Gideon's volunteer Michael Fredenburg told me in a telephone interview from his home in Montgomery, Ala. "They told us, 'get your Bibles out.'"

Gaylan Johnson is a public affairs officer for the Military Entrance Processing Command. He told me the Gideons' side of the story is "not strictly true."

"They can place their literature within our facility, but they are not allowed to stand there and talk with applicants or hand them (the Bibles) out," he told me.

Fredenburg said his father started the tradition of giving Bibles to new military recruits at the Military Entrance Processing Command center more than 10 years ago. He assumed leadership of the group when his father died last July.

For years the Gideons had distributed Bibles to new recruits four days a week. After they finished their paperwork, the recruits would pass by Gideon volunteers who shook their hands and offered them a pocket-sized Bible.

The Gideon volunteers had military identification cards and had been allowed to store Bibles on the base, Fredenburg said.

"It worked beautifully," he said.

But that changed last week when Fredenburg said a sergeant informed the Gideons that the Bible distribution program was about to come to an end.

"I tried to get a hold of the colonel but he would not return my call," he said.

So Fredenburg instructed the volunteers to continue distributing the Bibles until they received official orders. Those orders came on Wednesday. The Gideons would no longer be allowed to give the recruits God's Word, he said.

"I contacted one of my guys and asked him to get the Bibles out," he told me. "He went over and got all the Bibles – and we're out."
Just like that. The Gideons were never told why.

Johnson said there is a command-wide policy regulating any organization that's not a member of the federal government. Those organizations are referred to as non-federal entities.

"The policy says non-federal entities shall not be permitted to post or station a member within the premises of any MEPCS including outdoor areas under the exclusive control of the MEPCS for purposes of distributing literature," he said.

Johnson said the Gideons are allowed to have a literature display rack that they are welcome to replenish on a recurring basis.

"They were informed they couldn't stand within the premises anymore and hand them out," he said. "The Bibles are on a table. Applicants at their own free will can pick one up if they like."

Word of the ouster of the internationally known Christian community spread like wildfire among Fredenburg and his friends. All were in a state of disbelief.

"They were happy my dad wasn't alive to see it," Fredenburg said. "If he would've seen that happen, it probably would've killed him."