White Men to Return
To The Cold
Conversation With Bush Supporters Familiar
With SenderBerl's position
By Joseph B. Ehrlich
© 2004, Joseph B. Ehrlich
All Rights Reserved.
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



This Site Served by TheHostPros