Charles E. Carlson
WHTT

Judeo-Christians were Zionists Before Israel was a State

Harold Camping is the latest in a long line of Pastors who have made themselves prosperous and famous by predicting the end of the world. He says, based on his own numerology studies, that God will commence the physical destruction of Earth on May 21, 2011, at about 6:00 PM, brought on, as I understand it, by world wide earthquakes. He has a well-funded national campaign to sell this idea.

Camping is not an ignorant nor insignificant person, being founder and de facto owner of The Family Radio Network. According to research done by the UK Independent, the 89-year old Camping has built a tax-free "religious broadcasting organization funded entirely by donations from listeners, and with assets totaling $120 million, owning 65 radio stations." This is at least the third time he has predicted the end of planet earth.

While many Americans, who are self-professing Judeo-Christians, might not be ready to quit their jobs and stop paying their mortgage while waiting for the apocalypse of May 21, 2011, most of some 70 million share various end time shades of beliefs not so different from Camping's. Together they make up the most powerful and coveted voting bloc in America, recently referred to as "Christian Zionists. This author's repeatedly theme is supported by ongoing research by the Pew Foundation and its many polls on religious life.

The question that demands an answer is: why do millions, many of them otherwise logical, thinking Americans continue to follow men like Camping, who are not only illogical but who refute and alter the traditional Christian interpretation of the New Testament of Jesus Christ? Why do they adhere to a neo-religion that was unheard of 200 years ago and that has been proven to be wrong by failed prophets including Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsay, "Left Behind" Tim LaHaye, and the late Jerry Falwell and may more?

Because it is very profitable for Judeo-Christians leaders, who enjoys enormous Jewish and Israeli Zionist support because Christian Zionism is the glue that keeps present day state of Israel alive on the US taxpayer's dole.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Perhaps one way to view Obama's speech is saying you can please all the people some of the time, some of them all the time, but not all of them all the time. World reactions were indeed mixed, though policies, not posturing, are key.

Obama's, in fact, have no ambiguity, including imperial wars and rock-solid support for Israel. However, not everyone believes it, including the Zionist Organization of America, the oldest American one, founded in 1897.

On May 19, its press release headlined, "ZOA: AIPAC Should Rescind Invitation for Obama to Speak," saying:

ZOA "strongly condemned President Obama's Mideast speech (favoring) the establishment of a Hamas/Fatah/Iran state on the Auschwitz 1967 indefensible armistice lines. This would almost surely become a Hamas/Iran terror state threatening Israel and further destabilizing the Mideast. President Obama has dealt Israel a severe diplomatic blow, which harms all those who care about peace and fighting terrorism."

The statement's bigoted absurdity requires no comment. Its contempt for truth and justice is self-explanatory.

In contrast, the Anti-Defamation League, no paragon of virtue, applauded Obama's Israeli support, saying:

The ADL "commended (Obama) for his statement of US priorities in the Middle East, his strong affirmation of the deep and 'unshakeable' relationship between the United States and Israel, and expressed support for his vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel and a non-militarized Palestinian state."

On May 22, Obama will address AIPAC at its annual Washington conference, affirming America's commitment to Israel, as will other top US officials. They include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker John Boehner, and other congressional members, genuflecting to the Israeli Lobby's power in their annual pilgrimage to AIPAC.

More »

Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research

[Photo: A group of Chinese citizens evacuated from Libya arrive at the Beijing Capital Airport Feburary 24. China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) said that some of its facilities were attacked in unrest-hit Libya and that the company is evacuating its Chinese employees out of the country.]

Press TV has interviewed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury from Panama City, who gives his insight on the revolution in Libya and why US President Barack Obama needs to overthrow Qaddafi when no other US presidents did.

Press TV: Russia has criticized NATO for going far beyond its UN mandate. In other news a joint Op Ed is going to be written by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy who have said that “leaving Qaddafi in power would be an unconscionable betrayal to the Libyan people”.

We do know that the mandate does not call for regime change; the Obama administration has been saying they are not in there for regime change; but things seem a little different now don't they?

Roberts: Yes they do. First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.

There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion.

In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.

The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.

And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it's not in American hands.

More »