July 26In the previous update, Obama's globalism was inspected briefly, and while his foreign affairs advisor was put under the microscope, I didn't mention Obama's economic advisor...which is something to be stressed if Obama is the False Prophet destined to push a global skincode system. It turns out that Omama has very recently chosen a new economic advisor, but pro-isolation Democrats don't like it:
"Labor union officials and some liberal activists were seething Tuesday over Barack Obama’s choice of centrist economist Jason Furman as the top economic advisor for the campaign. The critics say Furman, who was appointed to the post Monday, has overstated the potential benefits of globalization...'It's a pure back-stab...Democrats take note, and prepare for more.
I now know that Obama did not come this far on his own, but has the backing of the Trilateral Commission and (no doubt) related organizations, for his foreign affairs advisor (Zbigniew Brzezinski) was a principle architect of that group. The Trilateral Commission was formed, so it is said, to glue together three economic giants: Japan, Europe and the United States. The point is, it's an economy-based alliance, and the skincode is all about a global economy. In my skincode chapter, I had written that bankers would be the ones most likely to push the skincode, and it so happens (not surprisingly) that the Trilateral Commission has the world's top bankers as members.
Obama had no choice; he was made anything by this globalist machine, and he must therefore abide by its orders, if he wants success. The Trilateral-Commission membership is made up also of industy bosses and large multi-national corporations, and Obama, as their servant, must dance to their tunes. You get it. Obama is confident because he has a huge org behind him. You get it. He's happy because he likes what he's doing.
None of this is God's work. God's work is in Iran, and in Gog. God's work is to cut the globalist machine down using the least-likely agents: the poor working-class Muslims. The West is aiming its sites at Iran as it rises and looms larger. Said one article earlier this week: "The United States plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by the U.S. President George W. Bush, a British newspaper said on Thursday." Then I read this: "...Washington said on Wednesday it was sending Senior U.S. diplomat William Burns to join atomic talks with Iran this weekend to signal to Tehran and others that Washington wanted a diplomatic solution to their nuclear impasse." (Article here)
What's wrong with that picture? It's too unbelievable. It's a ruse, a trick. I predict that it's to make Iran put down its guard immediately before a military strike against it. I'm more confident of this position due to an article in the Debka File sharing the claim (July 19) of an Israeli military official that Bush will attack Iran before he's out of office. But even if this report doesn't hold true, we found this past week a huge explosion in Tehran (at least 15 people killed) that blew up an arms shipment slated for Hezbolah. Although I haven't yet read who might have been behind it, it's possible that, just for starters, the U.S. and/or Israel are doing a little "terrorism" of their own. (Tehran-explosion article here)
An Asia-Times article out yesterday tells that high-level Americans are urging Bush to change his hard-line stance on Iran. It reads: "...Zbigniew Brzezinski...urged Bush to go further by offering immediate rewards to Tehran in exchange for such a [nuclear] freeze." That's exactly Obama's position on Iran (!), to bribe the country...which will only give Ahmadinejad more money to build nuclear weapons. The purpose is desperate; Bush is being warned by these Americans (including Brent Scowcroft) not to invade Iran. (Article here)
The Hezbolah is suffering a setback at this time. Earlier this week, the question came up among Lebanese officials as to the arming of Hezbolah. The Daily Star (Lebanon) reported that "The Cabinet decided on Thursday night to postpone talks on the issue of Hizbullah's arms." This promises a rift because Hezbolah is not about to put down its arms, while Lebanon knows that Israel, if it attacks again, will seek to wipe Hezbolah out this time, doing major damage to Lebanon in the meantime. There can be little doubt that Israel has been in contact with the non-Hezbolah portion of the Lebanese government with threats of an invasion if something is not done about Hezbolah's stock-piling of weapons over the past two years. As we can see, the situation is coming to a head. Iran knows that it must use those weapons soon.
No doubt angry at the Tehran explosion, Ahmadinejad came out today and claimed to have 6,000 centrifuges. The Associated Press comments:
"The assertion that Iran has reached that goal is certain to further rankle the United States and other world powers....A total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that is past the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough enriched material for dozens of nuclear weapons."
Meanwhile Hamas-based Palestinians in Gaza are claiming that the Fatah group of Palestinian president (Mahmoud Abbas) was responsible for a bombing targeting key Hamas military men yesterday. As over 100 Fatah members have been arrested by Hamas, it doesn't look like a whimsical accusation. However, it's possible that Hamas is blaming Fatah because Hamas wants an excuse to take over Abbas' West Bank. The fundamental difference between Gaza and West-Bank Palestinians is that Abbas wants a peace settlement with Israel, while Hamas wants Israel's complete destruction. (Article here)
I equate the Philistia of Isaiah 14:28-32 with Palestinians ("Palestine" was named after Philistines who anciently lived in what is now Gaza). For one reason, Isaiah 14 is among many end-time prophecies (including the destruction of Iraq, of Isaiah 13), and secondly, the Philistine prophecy ends (in verse 32) with the declaration that YHWH is in Zion (= Jerusalem) as if to say to the Palestinians, "Zion is mine, not yours." The prophecy implies (to me, anyway) that some viprous aftermath of the anti-Christ (= the serpent of verse 29) will knock out Palestinians as he first knocks out as Israel. Where verse 29 reads, "Do not rejoice, O Philistia, that the rod of your striking is broken," I interpret the "rod" as Israel striking down the Palestinians (already occurred), but afterward being defeated by the serpent (of verse 29). In verse 31, the army coming against Philistines is described as "a smoke from the north," sounding like the Gog of Ezekiel 38. My present position is that pro-terrorist Palestinians will yet join Gog even if it means the downfall of the Palestinian government(s). See Modern Map of East Jerusalem (in dotted lines).
A microphone was left on in England today, near enough Obama to catch his conversation. He said that his team pushed him too much, wherefore "...well, and you start making mistakes, or you lose the big picture....And the truth is that we've got a bunch of smart people [on the team], I think, who know ten times more than we do about the specifics of the topics. And so if what you're trying to do is micromanage and solve everything then you end up being a dilettante but you have to have enough knowledge to make good judgments about the choices that are presented to you." In other words, a presidential wannabe doesn't need to know it all, just enough to look like he does, and Obama thinks he has succeeded in this art. (Article here)
I had to look up the definition of "dilettante": "one who interests himself in a subject superficially or merely for amusement; a dabbler." says my dictionary. I'm wondering if Obama arranged for this mic-mishap to take place, or, if not, whether he (by these words) is blaming his team for a failed world tour. After all, the Herald Tribune features an article today saying that Obama thinks he failed to increase the American vote. Actually, it's worse: "Barack Obama said Saturday [today] that he would not be surprised if there were a dip in domestic opinion polls in the week since he left home" (underscore mine). (Article here)
Perhaps he's being modest, but in any case he said something altogether stupid, "that problems encountered by Americans at home are often best dealt with by working with allies overseas." That's a world-trade statement if ever I heard one.
God is not into world trade. Settle down on your own land; grow a garden; invite the neighbors over for a corn roast; enjoy the sunsets; help your neighbor when it's needed. Be happy. This is not difficult, folks. The super-rich are not happy enough until they become the trade peacocks of the world. These are the men who control your presidents (and prime ministers). Was it a coincidence that the world-trade building was hit on 9/11? Was it a sign of things to come? Go for it, Obama, be as stupid as you can, and seek world trade to all your delight. Make your superiors happy, go ahead, make God's Day!
A thing conspicuously absent in the Obama's post-Hillary rhetoric is his position on Russia. Although Putin knows that Obama's foreign affairs advisor (Brezezinski) is anti-Communist and therefore opposed to Putin's KGBish side, it's hard to estimate Obama's personal position on how he'll deal with Putin (or Medvedev). It's ironic because I'm waiting most of all on a Russian to make the next big political move in Iraq, and meanwhile expecting that Obama has some eagerness toward an American pact with Russia. As we know, Obama has high hopes.
The logical thing to do is to Google "Obama" and "Russia." In doing so, I learned just now that he has been avoiding negative comments about Russia -- just what I had been thinking. In the course of this search, I found someone stating that Obama's Russian policy is set by Michael McFaul. Upon researching McFaul, I learned that he was a man of Stanford (California), a high-tech organization founded by 19th-century British Illuminatists with ties to Oxford, very likely the Cecil-Rhodes people who founded the Rhodes-Schalarship globalist program.
Moreover, Stanford is at the forefront of the United State's fire-in-the-sky military program, and also promises to be in the thick of the technological side of the mark-of-the-beast program. McFaul is Stanford's director of "Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law." Wikipedia reports that "He serves on the Board of Directors of the Eurasia Foundation," the Brzezinski front line. Moreover, just as Brzezinski was/is involved in the US-government funded Freedom Foundation, so with McFaul. These organizations have global democracies as their goal...so that Obama promises to be another Bush, essentially. Indeed, tell me whether you don't see Bush in McFaul's words:
"...Rather, the United States must become once again a revisionist power -- a country that seeks to change the international system as a means of enhancing its own national security. Moreover, this mission must be offensive in nature. The United States cannot afford to wait and react to the next attack. Rather, we must seek to isolate and destroy our enemies by eliminating their regimes and safe havens. The ultimate purpose of American power is the creation of an international community of democratic states that encompasses every region of the planet."The article goes on to say that "[McFaul] was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford where he completed his Ph.D. in international relations in 1991." Am I beginning to believe that the Rhodes people are the anti-Israeli Illuminatists??? It is said that Cecil Rhodes and the Rothschilds of England were united (late 19th century) in England's socialist (i.e. Fabian) secret societies, but could the two groups have split over Palestine? I'll explore this question later. I am confident at this point that Obama belongs to, or is at least fed by, the Rhodes Illuminati.
The point is, McFaul has emphasized Russia: "He is an advisor on matters of democracy and Russia." There can be no doubt that he and his team seek a Russian leader willing to implement democracy in Russia on their behalf. Interestingy, Vladimir Zhirinovsky founded the "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia." Hmm, did these liberal Americans raise Zhirinovsky in Russia? Is this why Zhirinovsky has lately turned 180 degrees in saying he loves America? Is there something shaking between he and the Obama team??? Come on, Obama, don't gimme me no jive talk. Give it to me square. You doin biz with a Commie?
When McFaul was invited to get his fingers into the Yeltsin government, "he was denounced by Russian neo-fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky in the Russian parliament, and days later someone shot a bullet through his office window." Does the reader know how intelligencia plays the globalist game? It creates the impression that its alliances are at war, in order to cover up the alliances. One just never knows, easily anyway, who is for who. It is known that Stanford has had special relationships with the CIA. (Stanford article here)
McFaul is now a foreign policy advisor of Obama, wherefore we can assume that Obama will take a tack similar to his. In McFaul's own words:
"...it is obvious that President Putin is building a more autocratic regime, an internal process that in turn has strained Russia's relations with the West. The appropriate policy response to these new developments is not a return to containment or isolation of Russia. Rather, a more substantial agenda between the Russian and American governments would create more permissive conditions for democratic renewal inside Russia."(Exchange here with Robert Dreyfuss) In other words, Obama will want to talk with, and engage, Russia, in yet another act of national prostitution. In fact, McFaul goes on to say (in the exchange above) that "Obama is a fervent believer in engagement and diplomacy even with our enemies let alone with countries like Russia." If we as Christians resist the Revelation harlot riding the beast, do we then favor America's riding on the beast? Obama knows not what he is doing because he has not understood God's will through prophecy.
A long but insightful webpage on the topic of Russia-America relations, with the Obama team intermixed into the topic, can be found in this webpage. Here's just one quote: "[McFaul] is well regarded by most Western specialists on Russia. On a personal level, he has a history of friendships and good working relations with Russian nationals." Again, could Obama's advisors know Gog? Could they be working with him, now, somewhere? In the heated exchange above, McFaul says:
"My Russian friends have not succeeded yet in creating a democracy to replace Soviet dictatorship, but the end of communism did create the necessary conditions for the extraordinary economic growth that most Russians now enjoy."I would dearly like to have a list of those friends. Does any reader here have one??? A recent Stanford news release says: "In fact, [McFaul] not only watched the Soviet Union become a republic but saw his Russian friends and contacts make it happen sometimes with McFaul's help." I'm not sure if I want to push the idea that Russian friends of McFaul and Brzezinski include Gog, but this can go a long way to explaining how Gog could become the head of the European harlot (and thereby fulfill the little horn's Roman rule of Daniel 7). I'm still open to a non-Democratic Gog that the Obama team doesn't yet know on a personal level, and that will at first be in conflict with Obama. As time passes and events continue to unfold, I hope to run with one or the other scenario.
Cecil Rhodes was a pro-Aryan Illuminatist. As was the purpose of the Fabian societies to undermine the United States, so Cecil's goal was to make Briatin the ruler of the earth, requiring the weakening of America. And so we find Wikipedia saying:
"Rhodes included Americans in the Rhodes scholarships and said that he wanted to breed an American elite of philosopher-kings who would have the USA rejoin the British Empire. Rhodes also respected the Germans and admired the Kaiser, and allowed Germans to be included in the Rhodes scholarships. He believed that eventually Great Britain, the USA and Germany together would dominate the world and ensure peace together."Germany? Isn't that where Obama chose to make his speech? Haven't the Republicans accused Democrats of being unpatriotic? Isn't it true that Democrat globalists want to sweep America under the rug for their global re-positioning? Can anyone imagine an Aryan versus Zionist conflct developing under an Obama team steeped in Rhodes scholars? The article above tells that the Rothchild bankers of England raised Cecil Rhodes from rags to riches, for which reason we can take the position that the Rothschild Illuminati became Cecil's agenda...for a time. In the end, he started his own global movement on his diamond fortunes, a movement still much alive in the leading Democrats of this generation.
July 27In the July 26 comments, I missed a small part in the Stanford article above that may just tend to prove an association between McFaul and Zhirinovsky. Let me share the quote here:
"Nevertheless, these 'crazy' [anti-Comminist] activists [in Russia] captured McFaul's attention. He went so far as to help members of a group called Democratic Russia get in touch with Western agencies and foundations who gave them money to support their activities. McFaul got funding to spend more time in Moscow, where he attended mass meetings and got to know the opposition leaders better....One way [McFaul] helped his [Russian] friends was to facilitate their discussions with the Hoover Institution, which made a deal to obtain the archives of Democratic Russia. The group needed the money badly. 'Stanford, in a kind of very small way that was actually quite important, [helped] in terms of financial assistance,' McFaul says.
At the end of 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and the people he'd met in 1988 nobodies at the time suddenly were leaders of a new state. 'Many of my friends then went on to become senior government officials after the collapse, and that sort of sucked me into Russia for the next decade,' McFaul says. 'I haven't been able to cut my ties since'"
(underscore mine).Note that McFaul doesn't give names, just clues, of his "friends" who went on to become political somebodys. Compare his "Democratic Russia" organization with Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia," and that the latter was founded in 1989, one year after McFaul met his political nobodys...that became political somebodys after 1991. Zhirinovsky's party became a something in 1993, and he became the deputy speaker of the Duma. Moreover, Zhirinovky portrayed himself as the opponent of the Communist Party of Russia, which jibes with the McFaul-Brzezinski position. Understand that a political party that called itself "Democratic"as early as 1989 was a brave, strange thing.
If I were a gambling man, I bet my chips that McFaul and Zhirinovsky are not associated, not even close. But the clues above are compelling to the contrary. If Zhirinovsky's political party did not come to fit the McFaul team's democratic hopes for Russia, the reason is easily explained in the party's betrayal of McFaul/Stanford once the party found some significant success in 1993. After it's subsequent failure thereafter, we find Zhirinovsky in love with America again, which may indicate a renewal of ties with the McFaul team. This is pure speculation on my part, to be sure, but perhaps worth the expenditure of a few paragraphs.
In an online work on Democratic Russia's history, we find that, upon the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Democratic Russia movement split into 15 basic parts (i.e. so to speak, one for every Soviet satellite nation), and then into dozens of competing splinter groups that could not be united again. To the disappointment of the initial movement, the blocks became nationalistic in form rather than democratic (see page 2); Zhirinovsky has himself been an ultra- nationlist, and it's not inconceivable that he was a part of the initial movement, though nothing is said about him in the article. This is as far as I'm going with this, for now anyway.
The main thing is that, two days ago, I hadn't known about Obama's potential Russia connections through two of his Russia-centered foreign policy advisors. I had no idea how he could come to form an alliance with Gog, and to raise him to global heights. Suddenly, I find the pavement already laid down. There is in Russia a splintered Democratic movement, waiting for it's day in politics, and it's tied to the Obama team. Should I/we view this as coincidental? Is it not readily foreseeable that, as Gog seizes Iraq during Obama's presidency (or sooner), the Obama team will engage him for to make him a pro-democratic ally, which to the West (including Europe) will seem like the makings of a great political breakthrough, great enough to warrant the honoring of the "image of the beast"?
Zhirinovsky aside, I should stress Brzezinski's ties to Chechnya's terrorists, as it wouldn't surprise me if Gog turned out to be a Chechen. While "Chech" may be an evolution of "Cauc," the latter is thought to be an evolution of "Gog." As the Chechen Caucasians adopted Islam, the idea of a Chechen Gog fits my scenario excellently, for in my scenario Gog rises up with Muslim terrorists. As I expect Gog to rise up with al-Qaeda forces, keep in mind that Brzezinski supported the Taliban three decades ago and could have residual Taliban ties to this day.
I had previously considered a Chechen/Caucasian anti-Christ, but at the time it didn't seem feasible for such a man to become a leader in Europe, wherefore I dropped the idea in favor of a Russian politician. Now that a Chechen man might know, and be supported by, Obama's foreign affairs team, the situation changes and becomes viable. Something to watch out for.
July 28I don't recall if I mentioned it, or changed my mind about it, but I had been thinking the same as the Jerusalem Post reports today, that "Recent talks the United States held with Iran [in Geneva] are aimed at creating legitimacy for a potential attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, defense officials speculated on Sunday as Defense Minister Ehud Barak headed to Washington for talks with senior administration officials." Believing first of all that the U.S. had already planned an attack, I felt that Bush sent an official to the talks to show that the U.S. had done all that could be done to stave off a military strike. In any case, God has the last say over whatever Bush plans. (Article here)
In the article, there is some sheer lying taking place: "'There is a lot of strategic thinking concerning Iran going on right now but no one has yet to make a decision what to do,' said a top IDF officer, involved in the dialogue between Israel and the US. 'We are still far away from the point where military officers are poring over maps together planning an operation.'" Let's face it, no Israeli military officer would make this statement under the critical circumstances that have existed recently, unless it was a lying part of the attack strategy, and it sure sounds like strategy to keep Iran's guard down. The statement is so phrased that, if I were the Iranian leader, I really wouldn't know whether or not an attack was ready to go. I know exactly why the Israelis and Americans would want Iran to believe in an imminet attack, but I'm not going to say here, as it would be top secret.
Israel's Foreign Minister (Tzipi Livni) today is telling Bush to lay off with his last-leg pressure on Israel, as Clinton applied on his last leg, to finalize a peace deal with Palestinians. Hope for the peace deal is all the more set back as per Abbas' statement today on Israel's statement NOT to share a Jerusalem capital between the two peoples. Therein you have the crunch leading to Israel's great tribulation: Israel is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Israel will soon have a new leader as the present one is stepping down soon due to corruption charges. The internal squabbling that America-like democracy provides will weaken the nation, and therefore weaken the nation's resolve and ability to swim in the waters that are about to overflow into the Israeli borders.
The Obama team has shifted his topic from globalism to the American economy, to no surprise. It's all a game the team plays, doing whatever they think is needed for election purposes. I went googling just now for evidence that Obama's economic advisor was pro-skinchip, but didn't find any, though to my surprise this June 9th commentary came up, concerning the Bilderberg meeting days earlier:
"It appears Obama and Clinton secretly attended Bilderberg where microchipping the public was on the agenda....Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) authored a bill (with 11 co-sponsors, including Sen. Barack Obama) that was incorporated into a housing bill passed by the Senate Banking Committee 19-2 before the Memorial Day recess — a bill that creates a national fingerprint registry.
...Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein — a member of the globalist Trilateral Commission and also a Bilderberg attendee — parade this bill as consumer protection when in fact it is nothing of the sort...
As Bilderberg researcher and journalist Jim Tucker told Alex Jones today, the elite are itching to impose their control grid on all of us. According to Tucker’s sources inside Bilderberg — with a solid track record — there was discussion of microchipping the public like so much cattle at the 2008 Bilderberg meeting this past week in Chantilly, Virginia. It will begin with RFID tags in your underwear — I kid you not — and soon enough progress to implantable microchips."
There is a general tendency for people to ignore Bilderberg "conspiracy theories," but in the case of the build-up to the mark of the beast, we shouldn't ignore it. We should expect the skincode to crop up among the meetings that central bankers attend along with world-controlling elites. The office of the Bilderberg society is in Leyden, Netherlands, the city that has been a comfortable home to international bankers, many of them "Jewish," and to Rosicrucians, for centuries. The founding of America involved these groups, and they have only become stronger since then.
I still have the problem of 2013 being too early -- at the rate the electronic system of purchasing is now progressing -- for the enforcement of the mark of the beast system. However, with a dictatorial order by those who control the bankers, we could see a sudden implementation. I sense that globalists are frustrated with their democratic engine, and will seek a more dictatorial approach to bringing globalism about much faster. Globalism promises to become a corrupt democracy where forcing the will of membership opposition is to be exercised. The recent example of the French leader to change the will of Ireland so as to get the Lisbon Treaty passed is a small precursor to the future situation shared in Revelation 13, wherein the False Prophet forces everyone to accept the mark and the beast's image. In short, there is no other way for globalism to forge ahead apart from forcing those who do not democratically choose the will of the globalists.
I followed the story above and found this:
"Sources from inside the 2008 Bilderberg meeting have leaked the details of what elitists were discussing in Chantilly Virginia last week and the talking points were ominous - a plan to microchip Americans under the pretext of fighting terrorist groups...Veteran Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker relies on sources who regularly attend Bilderberg as aides and assistants but who are not Bilderberg members themselves. The information they provided this year is bone-chilling for those who have tracked the development of the plan to make the general public consider implanted microchips as a convenience as routine as credit cards.
Tucker underscored that Bilderberg were talking about subdermally implanted chips and not merely RFID chips contained in clothing. The discussion took place in a main conference hall and was part of the agenda, not an off-hand remark in the hotel bar."
It's hard to believe that someone in the Bilderberger meeting, or Jim Tucker (journalist) himself, would fabricate something like this. There is nothing in the article giving hint that it's a product of a Christian source. The same article also says, "Despite Bilderberg opposition, Tucker said that the [Bush] administration was still considering an attack [on Iran] before Bush leaves office in January." The three frogs who, in Revelation 16, come to the aid of the anti-Christ at Armageddon, have been identified by myself as entities of France and the Netherlands. In the course of that work, I realized that the False Prophet would be a priduct of the international bankers of the Netherlands. In light of the failings of American banks recently, the following could send chills up your spine...if you're a child of this world:
"Fresh off of the 2008 Bilderberg Meeting, it looks as if New York Federal Reserve president Timothy Geithner is set to push a new agenda in the world of central banking that was likely decided upon at Bilderberg. Geithner yesterday, wrote an article in the Financial Times calling for a global regulatory banking framework."This is what Obama will be involved in if he becomes the next President. I'm relieved in a way because I was starting to wonder whether the skincode might not be global, just localized to the Israeli theater. This now verifies a global system, meaning that this book (of mine) is still very relevant. A global world bank and government means that we'll need to work harder to pay taxes both to our country and to the globalist government. The globalists, furthermore, will create methods of requiring much more money from us than they truly need to run their system. I believe that nations are in debt continuously because the international bankers want it so, to collect interest from tax payers. God is about to lay this beast bare for all the world to see, on which Day its members will no longer be smug or laughing.
There can be no doubt that speaking in this year's Bilderberg meeting about the need for a skincode was intended (by the Bilderberg organization) to be leaked. Otherwise, the topic wouldn't have been dealt with at an official meeting. It signals that the skincode machinery has been finally turned on. The first order of business will be to get the issue into the public domain for publicity and debate, and of course those who promote the skincode own much media by which to steer the debate their way. Let's see how this debate progresses, for not even the Bilderberg members can know for certain.
This just out today:
"ABC News has learned that two former administration officials for President George W. Bush will appear with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, at an economic meeting today, having signed up to be Obama economic advisers.Bush administration veterans former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former Securities and Exchange Commissioner William Donaldson..."
I don't know why these two were picked. Wikipedia says that Donaldson was a Skull-and-Bones member at Yale, as was George Bush. In fact, the President has chosen several S&B members -- up to 11 according to one website -- for his administration. The question is, why would Obama choose Donaldson? Why two men of the Bush team? I'd say only the American Illuminati knows for sure.
Four or more women blew themselves up today in four separate Iraq bombings, killings dozens, showing that insane zeal for changing current political situations still remains. Shiites were targeted in Baghdad. The Debka File says: "A senior US military official blamed al Qaeda for the attacks in Baghdad."
According to Azzaman (Iraqi newspaper), Iraqi and coalition forces are set to purge the remaining al-Qaeda terrorists from Diyala province, in early August. (Article here)
The Israeli foreign minister was in Washington today; it's of course not known what details were discussed, or agreements made, as per the Iranian-Hezbolah issue. On July 30, Shaul Mofaz, the probable soon-to-be leader of Israel, will also be in Washingtom talking about Iran. I've got to say, I have no sure idea what's going on. If you don't mind a guess, I'd say Israel is visiting the Bush team so that Iran believes Israel to be the aggresive one of the two; in reality, it's the U.S. that will more-likely strike Iran, perhaps with Israeli on the defensive ready to strike Hezbolah. (Article here)
NEXT IRAQ UPDATE
Updates Index
The 2016 prediction for Armageddon (from my human intellect and therefore subject to retraction) is explained here.
If you've come to this book beginning at this webpage, see the rest of the Gog-Iraq story in PART 2, accessed from the
Table of Contents
