- In recent days, I was able to speak with some people
known to me who support President Bush and know my position otherwise on
the president. I thought you could benefit from my notes from the meeting.
-
- These people argue that President Bush is the only one
willing to tackle regimes throughout the world likely and inclined to use
WMD. Kerry, they believe, will not succeed in neutralizing a threat that
they see as ultimately nuclear.
-
- My first response is that if you build a platform for
just action for the President you have to see if that platform is on a
just foundation. I thus offered that Saddam Hussein was a man this country
could have eliminated without the need of sending 300,000 troops overseas.
The intent from Bush 41 leaving Saddam alive in the early 90s was to ultimately
secure, after global media control was in place, global oil resources as
the predicate for ultimate world domination and control. I reminded them
that Clinton wanted to move against Saddam and Osama bin-Laden but shadow
government interests always impeded any such intent by President Clinton.
I reminded them that this was because these shadow government interests
didn't want Clinton and his cronies securing a stranglehold on Iraqi oil.
Thus, my point was that Saddam was kept around for many years until the
environment was such that Bush 43 could move against him to secure the
oil interest for Bush cronies.
-
- I then asked the key question: did they think that the
Bush administration would have moved against Iraq and taken the confrontational
stance against Syria and Iran if Iraq and Iran were not major global oil
producers?
-
- Their answer was truthful. They said no.
-
- I then said that then you can't justify the agenda when
you acknowledge that the true motivation behind the seemingly just action
of effectuating regime change is the oil. Then you know the agenda is pursued
with unclean hands.
-
- This group wanted Bush to win re-election because right
after it he would pursue Syria, Iran and North Korea. I pointed out that
first let's look at Iraq and remember that Bush's original agenda was to
go into Syria and Iran had Saddam either used or possessed WMD. What I
wanted these men to know is that if Bush was pursuing an agenda for good
and G-d as some in the group truly believed that Bush would not have stumbled
and failed as he did. Moreover, the US would not face the type of obstacles
it now faces in the Middle East and throughout the world.
-
- I said from the narrow one-dimensional plane it was
a slam-dunk that leaderships willing to approve or covertly support WMD
are wrong and should be removed. But I reminded them that in the Middle
East the dynamics were anything but one-dimensional. If Bush was really
bowing to G-d in the pursuit of the agenda, he would not have failed and
I asserted that he would fail in obtaining re-election. I then pointed
out the answer to why the polls were close.
-
- I said look you guys believe that Bush will win handsomely
over Kerry. That's great because if he didn't believe it himself, if he
thought he were ten points plus behind Kerry into the Republican National
Convention, then New York City may have experienced another bout of terrorism.
But Bush believes he can win and that you do yourselves makes it legitimate.
That had to be the intent of those behind Kerry wanting to remove the Bush
danger and threat to this country. If I am right, I said, then you will
now see a new Kerry, one that weekly encroaches on Bush until election
eve 2004, where it will be Kerry over Bush.
-
- So I made a wager Kerry over Bush. Moreover, they really
believed that because of Bush's strength and commitment against terrorists,
that this was the true dynamic behind why we faced no new terrorism. I
asked them if they could deduce that with any further terrorism that Bush
would then further militarily intercede in the Middle East. I said that
was the basis of my highlighting that there would be no terrorism. I changed
my mind in March 2004 and especially believed it was forthcoming in May
2004 when the White House agreed that there would be terrorism before the
November elections. If you would remember this was when Kerry was strong
against Bush (Abu Ghraib surfacing). Thus, since then, Kerry weakened,
Bush strengthened, and now we were able to see a RNC without any terrorism.
It is hard to prove that it would have occurred if the polls were negative
against Bush, but what is not hard to prove is that gnawing reality that
Bush even came to lead over Kerry as we moved in the RNC. It either proved
Kerry an incompetent candidate, or it proved our point.
-
- So what we have are Bush people believing that regimes
in the Middle East are evil and likely to use and support WMD against American
and global NWO interests. They believe that Bush is willing to take an
unwavering stance to remove them while someone like Kerry will only result
in these regimes gaining in power and confidence to ultimately invoke the
use of nuclear weapons or other actions in contravention to US interests.
They see the corruption of Bush and Cheney on other matters as a lesser
evil and collateral consequence to Bush eliminating leaderships that pose
such a serious danger.
-
- Of course this secular position giving support and thus
legitimacy to the Bush/N.W.O. agenda misses addressing the other dimensional
dynamics that we all should be aware of at this point in history. Thus,
I offered some truly important postulates to them. The first one was whether
they had any feelings that Bush/N.W.O. control of oil contravened the idea
that they were gifted with the oil by G-d? Secondly, and equally important,
whether the Bush/N.W.O. intent to secularize the Middle Eastern oil nations,
taking G-d and religion from its central role there, suggested that the
Bush/N.W.O. agenda opposed G-d and thereby was likely to fail.
-
- Here is where man gets muddied up. It calls into question
the dynamic of Jacob in bible bowing to Pharaoh when approaching him and
bowing again when leaving him and unlike his son, Joseph, never bringing
up G-d in between, albeit without G-d both the descendants of Jacob and
Egypt would have faltered, one worse than the other. Further complicating
it is that man refuses or finds it impossible to see that what is seen
as perceived enemies are messages parallel in time that man is pursuing
the wrong course in the Middle East.
-
- Thus, to simplify these complex dynamics addressed in
full by me over the years on these web pages and within the bounds of this
Website, I simply asked why then would the President and others with secular
agendas under an umbrella of good find out time and time again that they
stumble and fail. I then reminded them what I said in 1998: that this N.W.O.
campaign highlighted by me in 1998 and 1999, before anyone could imagine
it, would by design fail despite all the resources put forth to assure
its success.
-
- The bottom line is that this group reflects what man
repeatedly does: make the same errors and fail to accept what he well knows
but wants to forget: that by putting G-d in the background, the result
will be the same. If Bush wins re-election, he will surely move to finish
his original agenda, one he cannot win. I agreed that he would pursue it
and I highlighted that if they thought there was no terrorism because the
Middle East leaders feared Bush, they were going to see terrorism and that
their predicate was the wrong one. Terrorism, the only response to superior
militarily power, was in check to allow the people of the USA to bring
in someone not subscribing to the agenda in pursuit by Bush and his oil
cabal. If Bush wins re-election holding back terrorism serves no purpose
because it is a given that Bush will move against, Syria, Iran and North
Korea - in that order.
-
- If Kerry wins, it would be a serious sign that Bush
invokes G-d's name wrongfully, carrying forth policies for oil under the
banner of good and G-d when seizing the oil contravenes its status and
gift for the Arab/Islamic nations and the foundation for an effort to distance
the world further from G-d. Thus, if Kerry wins, I trust that it will be
a sign for the USA and Israel and others that Bush's agenda was wrong.
While the N.W.O. group opposed to Bush winning a second term will believe
that they deftly manipulated Kerry's win while containing Bush as the danger
he and Rove and his cabal represent, the truth of it is that Bush would
succeed without G-d's intervention, the N.W.O. design and effort to stop
him putatively successful only because of it.
-
- G-d has patience. He sees that Israel let the Rabin
assassination pass and we in the USA let 9-11 pass. Evil succeeds without
G-d's intervention. I also pointed out to the group that the N.W.O. building
up China contravened G-d's agenda as well. China without G-d's intervention
would have probably ruled the world. They are outstanding achievers on
plateaus we admire, especially business, where they and Asia would control
global commerce. But G-d made it that China and Asia were economically
weak and secondary to the USA, but the N.W.O. reflective of their distance
from G-d, failed to recognize the ultimate implications of making China
and Asia strong. Ultimately they would undermine the N.W.O. single world
government itself, and establish a little recognized historical fact that
those from the Caucasian race are subject to defeat by the other races
in the world. However, Caucasians who compromise a large segment of monotheism,
who resided by necessity in the colder regions of the planet, received
G-d intervention, and ironically the N.W.O., who today cause so many to
turn their backs on G-d and promote hedonism, are replatforming China and
Asia back into the place they would have otherwise held but for G-d's intervention.
You may have to pause and think about this exclusive SenderBerl postulate,
but in doing so, you come to recognize that the scope of the issues are
multi-dimensional.
-
- This postulate exhausted this group of men. While they
stood by their position, I made them again aware that the issues before
their noses were made by them to be as simplistic as the time when Israel
said that G-d would help them destroy the evil Romans who wanted to destroy
their connection with G-d. Biblical history attests that man must understand
why Israel did not receive G-d's support against the Romans and why they
lost big time and were expelled altogether from the land. Without such
an understanding, man today has little chance of undertaking the correct
course. If this group of men who know my position still only see it from
one dimension, a narrow secular one, it seems more and more apparent that
but for G-d's intervention, man will never see it, yet to say accept it.
-
- Again, nations under monotheism throughout history either
move to or away from G-d. When they move away from G-d they enter a portal
to a dark and dire future. We are doing that and what personally upsets
me is that Bush like Israel after the destruction of the two temples invokes
war, battle, and mayhem, in G-d's name, to justify actions for good. The
people of Israel when they waged war against Rome had very good reason
to wage the war and believe that G-d would be on their side (even better
reason than Bush does). However, they lost big and were thrown out of Israel.
-
- G-d would never intervene for any nation following an
agenda to dilute His name to nations declared by man to be worthy of attack
and occupation. He surely will not allow them to enrich themselves from
such an effort and endeavor and here demean His gift to nations continuing
to make His name central to their government and lifestyle. This we knew
in 1997 and 1998 (we knew it before then, but only published it in 97 and
98) and thus why Bush pounds the table in frustration. It is not that G-d
is not with George Bush but George Bush opposes G-d. Between us, we know
that Bush does not really believe in G-d. While he may pay homage at times
to Him, no one who can order shock and awe and no one who could close down
hospitals to wounded children, not to say allow troops to push buttons
that kill and maim countless faceless children and innocents, can believe
in G-d or truly desire to honor His name in the decisions he makes. Those
decisions serve himself, his family and his cronies, first, second and
third. G-d is nowhere to be found except where His name proves politically
helpful.
-
- Joseph Ehrlich
- Sender, Berl & Sons Inc
-
-
- P.S. Comments to the above article are solicited. Send
them to senderberl@aol.com.
|
