Archive for February, 2008


February 28, 2008

International troops headed for Gaza?
Olmert weighs allowing NATO to protect Israel

Posted: February 27, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s government is debating asking the international community or NATO to send troops to the Gaza Strip, according to Israeli defense officials speaking to WND.

The officials said Olmert is considering allowing the Israel Defense Forces to launch a large-scale ground operation in Gaza to counter the Hamas terrorist group’s advanced military infrastructure in the territory and to halt the regular onslaught of rockets from Gaza fired at nearby Jewish communities.

According to the defense officials, after a prolonged ground operation, Olmert would threaten that Israeli troops would remain in Gaza unless the international community deploys forces to serve as a buffer between Israel and Gaza-based militants and to assist Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah forces, which would re-enter Gaza.

U.S. and Israeli policy considers Fatah moderate. Fatah’s declared military wing, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, is the most active West Bank Palestinian terror group and is classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization. Hamas forces last summer overran all U.S.-backed Fatah security compounds in Gaza and took over the territory, reportedly seizing large stockpiles of Fatah weapons.

Olmert has been under pressure from IDF leaders to approve a ground onslaught in Gaza, where terrorists have been firing rockets into Israel at an exponentially increasing rate. Military sources also warn Hamas has transported mass quantities of weapons into Gaza and built army units with some commanders trained by Iran.

Yesterday, one civilian was killed and several were wounded after more than 30 rockets slammed in and near Sderot, a town of 25,000 residents about three miles from the Gaza border.

Residents of Sderot and surrounding communities have been protesting against Olmert in recent weeks, setting up camp and leading marches outside the Knesset, Olmert’s Jerusalem residence and at the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv.

Defense officials speaking to WND said most senior IDF officials strongly oppose the idea of NATO or international troop deployment in Gaza. They said they fear international forces would not be motivated to protect Israel and would impede any further necessary Israeli ground operations in Gaza.

“Can you imagine if Israel needs to take out a terror crew firing rockets into Sderot and mistakenly bombs a German or French tank?” asked one defense official.

“Does anyone believe France or Belgium would protect Israel?” the official asked sarcastically.

The official pointed to international troops deployed in south Lebanon following Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah there. According to reports, Hezbollah rearmed, regrouped and transferred rockets and anti-tank missiles to the area the international forces were supposed to maintain as an arms-free zone.

According to the defense officials speaking to WND, Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni support the deployment of international forces in Gaza while Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF officials have voiced reservations.

In December at a speech in Brussels before NATO officials, Livni hinted at allowing international troops to be stationed in Gaza, setting of a firestorm of opposition from many Knesset members.

“We are now in a process that is expected to strengthen the capabilities of the Palestinian Authority – so they would fight terror instead of Israel. However, one cannot exclude the possibility that we will need to discuss what can be the role of NATO in supporting the need for a change, a real change, on the ground,” Livni said.

Some world leaders in recent months spoke openly about joining a force in the Palestinian territories. In December, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the media he would be supportive of the “deployment, when the time and conditions are right, of an international force to assist the Palestinian security services.”

In an interview in December with the Jerusalem Post, European Union Middle East envoy Marc Otte said he heard from Israeli and Palestinian leaders there was “definitely more interest than in the past” for the deployment of international forces.

“After the [Second] Lebanon War, the sides see the merit in an international security presence,” he said.


February 27, 2008

Alarmed rabbis: Prime minister dividing Jerusalem
Prominent Jewish leaders urge Israeli PM’s partners to bolt government

Posted: February 26, 2008
8:46 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – A group of hundreds of prominent Israeli rabbis this week urged a religious partner of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s government to immediately bolt the Israeli leader’s coalition amid rampant media reports Jerusalem is up for negotiations.

The rabbis warned that if the Orthodox Shas party remains in Olmert’s government, they will urge Jews against supporting Shas. If the party bolts, Olmert’s coalition government could fall apart, precipitating new elections.

“We are seriously considering issuing a statement signed by the hundreds of rabbis of the organization declaring it is absolutely forbidden for any observant Jew to vote for a party that lent its support to a government that negotiated the division of Jerusalem, a move that will place the entire population in Israel in mortal danger,” Rabbi Avrohom Shmuel Lewin, director general of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, told WND.

The Congress is a coalition of more than 350 Israeli rabbinic leaders and pulpit rabbis.

Olmert repeatedly has insisted Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are not dealing with the status of Jerusalem, while Palestinian leaders, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abba, and many Israeli officials, including Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, stated in recent weeks negotiations are covering all core issues, including Jerusalem.

The Israeli Shas party has stated it would bolt the prime minister’s coalition if it becomes clear the Israeli government is negotiating the ceding of any part of Jerusalem. Shas’ departure could collapse Olmert’s government.

Olmert must maintain a majority of the Knesset’s 120 seats to continue ruling. He currently rules with a slight plurality. If Shas, with its 12 seats, bolts the government, Olmert would be forced to forge a new coalition or face new elections. Most analysts here believe if Shas does bolt, Olmert could only stay in power if he invites Arab parties to his government, a move that would be considered highly controversial.

Shas denies Jerusalem is being discussed during weekly Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which commenced after last November’s U.S.-sponsored Annapolis summit.

“Nobody is talking about Jerusalem. The moment Jerusalem is being discussed, Shas will leave the government – period,” Shas Spokesman Roi Lachmanovitch told Israel National News.

A Rabbinical Congress for Peace statement issued after an emergency meeting yesterday countered: “Every novice journalist and anyone listening to the news in Israel knows that giving up large chunks of Jerusalem has been on the negotiating table for quite some time and is in its advanced stages. Only the representatives of Shas are burying their heads in the ground and pretend they know of nothing.”

“They are lying to themselves and deceiving their electorate. The Shas ministers know that Olmert and Abbas have agreed not to make public any agreement on Jerusalem until after the final signature in order to keep Shas in the government,” said the RCP statement.

The statement was signed by scores of prominent rabbinic leaders here.

Since the Annapolis summit, which aimed to create a Palestinian state before the end of the year, senior negotiating teams including Livni and chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia have been meeting weekly while Olmert and Abbas meet biweekly.

Unlike previous Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in which both sides attended with about a dozen advisors each, Livni’s and Quereai’s teams are small, usually consisting at most of five people each. Media leaks from the current negotiations have been rare. Some momentum is highly expected before a visit Bush has scheduled to Israel in May, his second trip since Annapolis.

Olmert’s government has hinted a number of times it will divide Jerusalem and reportedly has halted all Jewish construction permits for eastern sections of the city.

In December, Israeli Vice Premier Haim Ramon said the country “must” give up sections of Jerusalem for a future Palestinian state, even conceding the Palestinians can rename Jerusalem “to whatever they want.”

“We must come today and say, friends, the Jewish neighborhoods, including Har Homa, will remain under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods will be the Palestinian capital, which they will call Jerusalem or whatever they want,” said Ramon during an interview.

Positions held by Ramon, a ranking member of Olmert’s Kadima party, are largely considered to be reflective of Israeli government policy.

Olmert himself recently questioned whether it was “really necessary” to retain Arab-majority eastern sections of Jerusalem.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War. The Palestinians have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital; the area has large Arab neighborhoods, a significant Jewish population and sites holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

About 231,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, and many reside in illegally constructed complexes. The city has an estimated total population of 724,000.

Olmert to blame for dividing Jerusalem?

Ramon listed population statistics as the reason Olmert’s government finds it necessary to split Jerusalem.

But WND broke the story that according to Jerusalem municipal employees, during 10 years as mayor of Jerusalem, Olmert instructed city workers not to take action against hundreds of illicit Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem housing over 100,000 Arabs squatting in the city illegally.

The workers and some former employees claim Olmert even instructed city officials to delete files documenting illegal Arab construction of housing units in eastern Jerusalem.

Olmert was Jerusalem mayor from 1993 to 2003. As mayor, he made repeated public statements calling Jerusalem the “eternal and undivided capital” of Israel. Jerusalem municipal employees and former workers, though, paint a starkly contrasting picture of the prime minister.

“He did nothing about rampant illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem while the government cracked down on illegal Jewish construction in the West Bank,” said one municipal employee who worked under Olmert. She spoke on condition of anonymity, because she still works for the municipality.

One former municipal worker during Olmert’s mayoral tenure told WND he was moved in 1999 to a new government posting after he tried to highlight the illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem. He also spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for his current job.

Aryeh King, chairman of the Jerusalem Forum, which promotes Jewish construction in Jerusalem, told WND an investigation by his group found Olmert’s city hall deleted files documenting hundreds of illegal Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem. He said he forwarded his findings to Israel’s state comptroller for investigation.

King also claims Olmert told senior municipal workers not to enforce a ban on illegal Arab buildings.

“Ehud Olmert gave the order not to deal with the problem and not to put Israeli security forces to the duty of taking down the illegal Arab complexes,” said King. “Senior municipal workers told me Olmert said not to bother with the illegal Arab homes, because eventually eastern Jerusalem would be given to the Palestinian Authority.”

King’s report alleges Jerusalem municipal officials erased the files, which detail over 300 cases of Arab construction in eastern Jerusalem deemed illegal starting from 1999. The illegal buildings reportedly were constructed without permits and are still standing. According to law, they must be demolished.

Local media reports investigating King’s charges alleged the files were erased by Ofir May, the head of Jerusalem’s Department of Building Permits, with the specific intention of allowing the statute of limitation on enforcing the demolition of the illegal construction to run out.

The Jerusalem municipality released a statement in response to the allegations claiming the threat of Arab violence kept it from bulldozing the illegal Arab homes.

“During the years of the intifada, the municipality had difficulty carrying out the necessary level of enforcement in the neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem due to security constraints,” the statement read.

King said the hundreds of buildings allegedly detailed in the deleted municipal files house more than 20,000 illegal units.

“We’re talking about perhaps 100,000 or more Arabs in eastern Jerusalem living in illegal homes with the government doing nothing about it,” King said.


February 26, 2008

The Holy Roman Empire Is Back

From the March 2008 Trumpet Print Edition »
By Gerald Flurry

What happened last year in Italian politics is going to shock this world—if not now, then very soon. The pope humbled and even humiliated Prime Minister Romano Prodi. It was the kind of humiliation that has been common throughout the Vatican’s history. The pope’s action was only the tip of a politico-religious iceberg, and the American Titanic is sailing right toward it. Nothing in politics and religion is more important for you to understand.

From a.d. 554 to the present, there have been six Holy Roman Empires. They have been the bloodiest church-state empires ever on Earth! These Holy Roman Empires have been comprised mainly of Germany and the Vatican (which is why the empires are called “holy”).

Now the seventh Holy Roman Empire is rising fast. It is destined to be the bloodiest one of all!

A Clash With the Vatican

In May 2007, the Trumpet reported, “On February 19, a number of senior Italian government officials met at the Vatican for a closed-door session with some of the pope’s senior advisers. The topic under discussion was a burning issue on which Pope Benedict xvi had publicly declared his stance at extreme odds with Italy’s Prime Minister Romano Prodi: the matter of state recognition of unwed and homosexual couples.

“In numerous public declarations, both the pope and senior Vatican sources had declared vehement opposition to the Prodi government’s attempt to ram legislation through the Italian parliament that would allow for the official recognition by the government of such civil unions. If passed, this legislation would allow for those involved in such unions to receive certain government benefits currently available only to those engaged in the traditional institution of marriage between man and woman as endorsed by the church.

“Upon emerging from the in-camera session at the Vatican, Prime Minister Prodi was closed-mouthed. His sole words to the press were that it went ‘well.’

“Two days later, Prodi resigned his post.”

What would have caused the prime minister of Italy to resign? To the public it looked like it was over Italy’s role in the nato-led force in Afghanistan. But that was only the superficial view.

Here is what we learned by some in-depth research: “Our news bureau combed the news wires during the day, and all remained silent on Prodi’s future … until Friday evening, European time.

“That February 23, 10:30 p.m. cet, Catholic World News (cwn) released a story that seemed to tell it all. It was tucked away in the midst of the normal sheaf of news that cwn releases regularly in doing its usually admirable job of keeping its subscribers aware of the latest happenings at the Vatican. It ran under the headline, ‘New Italian government would not require allies to support civil-union bill.’

“‘Romano Prodi—struggling to forge a new ruling coalition in the Italian parliament after a key foreign-policy loss prompted his resignation as prime minister—has drafted an agreement that will not require his coalition allies to support civil unions,’ the report said. ‘The 12-point agreement seemed likely to draw enough support to return Prodi to the parliamentary leadership post. Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema, a Prodi ally, told reporters that the coalition “can continue on this basis.”‘

“Now that is intriguing!

“The foreign minister made no reference to the Afghanistan issue, which is what was originally touted as the reason for Prodi’s resignation! The main issue highlighted in this statement, alluding to the prospect of the Prodi coalition being able to come together to re-form a government, was the removal of the requirement to push the civil-union bill through parliament in opposition to the pope’s powerful stand against it!” (ibid., emphasis mine throughout).

The Trumpet article continued, “On February 26, the most reliable news services were reporting the prospect of Prodi retaining the prime ministership, based on the acceptance by his coalition partners of the 12-point program, the highlight of which was not the Afghanistan issue, but Prodi’s changed stance on civil unions. ‘To lure support from moderates, Prodi watered down a 208-page program crafted during his April election campaign. The revised version is a 12-point list that drops legislation that authorizes same-sex unions, a measure opposed by some Catholics in the coalition’ (Bloomberg, February 26).

“Sure enough, following agreement to the 12-point program by Prodi’s coalition, Prodi won a confidence motion in both houses of parliament, ending the current crisis.

“So who rules now in Italy?

“It would seem that this victory for the papacy has significantly strengthened not only the Roman Catholic vote in the Italian parliament, but especially Pope Benedict’s own political authority and hence that of the Vatican State. It is a notable victory for the pope in his aggressive endeavors to claim the moral high ground for the Vatican in its quest to turn the whole of Europe away from the influence of secularism, back to that which he calls ‘Europe’s traditional roots’: its Roman Catholic roots!”

Europe’s traditional roots, of course, refers to the Holy Roman Empire.

Does the pope believe in democracy? No, he does not. The Vatican never has. Look at how he is involved in politics—exerting so much pressure over the leader of Italy.

But it goes much deeper.

At the celebrations for the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome held in Berlin last year, a document on European unity was signed called the Berlin Declaration. The pope was invited to attend. He knew that there was to be no mention of God in the declaration—so he scorned the meeting!

Later, the pope was invited to speak to the European Parliament and help solve the problem—created by his not attending in the first place.

You can begin to see the power the Vatican has over the European Parliament—the nucleus of the coming Holy Roman Empire, the world’s next great superpower! People don’t have a clue as to where Europe is headed and the impact it will have on this world.

Reuters reported on March 24, 2007, “In a speech to European bishops on Saturday, Pope Benedict accused the EU of apostasy for refusing to mention Christianity in the Berlin Declaration.” By “Christianity,” he really means Catholicism. “Asking how leaders could hope to get closer to their citizens if they denied such an essential part of European identity, the head of the Roman Catholic Church said: ‘Does not this unique form of apostasy of itself, even before God, lead it (Europe) to doubt its very identity?’”

This religious leader, with 1 billion followers, is condemning many of the European leaders as apostate. That means they have fallen away from God! The strongest kind of condemnation. This is disturbing power from the religious side of the Holy Roman Empire.

The pope says this apostasy is causing Europe “to doubt its very identity.” What identity is that? The Holy Roman Empire. If you fail to embrace this bloody and evil past of forced conversions, he labels you apostate. Extremely alarming words.

Charlemagne began his rule over the Holy Roman Empire in a.d. 800. He is Europe’s greatest hero, it seems. And yet, it is common knowledge that he waded through a sea of blood to convert people to Catholicism. This is the identity the pope is promoting! So beware!

The pope is whipping Europe into the Catholic Holy Roman Empire. And the worst is yet to come. The world is going to be shocked beyond description very soon.

This news overshadows what is happening in the Middle East. We just don’t know it yet. The people of America are too absorbed in their pleasures and lusts to even notice.

Germany’s Economic and Military Power

Here is another alarming example of the growing power of this rising European empire. The Wall Street Journal wrote on Oct. 26, 2007, “Microsoft waved the white flag this week by dropping all appeals of the European Union’s 2004 ruling against the software giant. Such defeats are a familiar sight, and not only in antitrust. Europe writes the rules for global business today across the board—unapologetically to the benefit of its own industry. American companies are learning they have little choice but to obey.

“For the past half century, Europe was supposed to be building a free market. But old habits die hard, and many Continental politicians think more and better regulation is the route to prosperity. Their control over access to a consumer market of 500 million lets them try to force the rest of the world, in particular that economic giant across the Atlantic, to play by its cumbersome rules. This is Europe’s way of staying competitive.

“The result is a quiet but concerted war on American commerce. Antitrust policy in Brussels, particularly high-tech firms, is a battlefield. Mario Monti, the former EU competition czar who issued the ruling against Microsoft’s ‘bundling’ of software on its operating system, told Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera last month that putting that company and other American giants in their place was ‘the true strength of a united Europe.’ His successor, Neelie Kroes, celebrated an EU appeals court decision last month upholding his decision by musing about how low she’d like Microsoft’s market share to fall under the weight of regulatory pressure. Next in her sights are Intel, Qualcomm, Apple and Google, among others. … In effect, Brussels wants to force its … standards on the U.S. by saying—do things our way, or your goods won’t be sold here.”

A vicious trade war is coming. America is going to be the tragic victim. The Wall Street Journal sees the “concerted war on American commerce.” However, American politicians are too divided to fight back. They just surrender. That is, if they even see the problem.

Germany has been the European power that has most resisted the U.S. policy against Iran, especially the trade sanctions. That country is the real power behind this commerce war. A little recent history should illustrate this point. Germany caused the early-1990s Yugoslavian civil war and benefited most by its outcome.

A New York Times article at the time, titled “UN Yields to Plans by Germany to Recognize Yugoslav Republics,” stated this: “The Security Council backed away from a confrontation with Germany over Yugoslavia today after Germany’s European allies on the Council decided that they did not want a major clash with Bonn” (Dec. 16, 1991).

Why did the United Nations decide not to fight against Germany’s decision? Because Germany’s European allies “did not want a major clash with Bonn.” That means Germany won this battle against the whole world!

The historical plan of the European Union was to control a dangerous Germany. But it is clear that Germany is controlling the EU! This is the political side of the Holy Roman Empire.

The New York Times article continued: “The incident underscored Germany’s growing political power within the 12-nation European Community, diplomats said. Some added that it marked the single most visible demonstration of that power since reunification of the two Germanys” in 1990.

The article continued, “Moreover, in its unusual assertiveness in moving ahead with a plan to extend diplomatic recognition to the breakaway Yugoslav republics of Croatia and Slovenia, Germany has stirred troubling historical associations …. Nazi Germany dominated the two Yugoslav regions during World War ii, absorbing Slovenia into the Third Reich and creating a puppet regime in Croatia” (ibid.). That was the sixth head of the Holy Roman Empire. (Request our free booklet Germany and the Holy Roman Empire for a full explanation of this history.)

“Germany has stirred troubling historical associations.” But just how troubled are we today? Even the New York Times doesn’t seem troubled anymore. I hear almost no discussion of that troubling history—or, more importantly, what it means for the future! That is why it is so troubling. (Read “Misreporting Kosovo” on page 14 of this issue.)

Are we afraid to face this frightening truth? America should be troubled enough to even risk a military clash with Germany. But such U.S. superpower actions are past history. After all, Germany could easily be stopped now if we had the will to use our power. But we are dangerously weak. So Germany’s power (with the EU) will grow until we can’t stop it.

A Warning Unheeded

In 1996, a shocking World War ii intelligence document was made public. The document, detailing an August 1944 meeting between top German industrialists, reveals a secret postwar plan to restore the Nazis to power. Several of Germany’s elite industries were represented, including Messerschmitt and Volkswagenwerks. These companies, the document asserts, were to “prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party which would be forced to go underground.” When the U.S. declassified this document, it received only sparse news coverage. Yet even more disturbing than the deep stupor of the media is the fact that the U.S. government did not make it public until 1996—over 50 years later! (Request our free booklet The Rising Beast.)

The Nazis said repeatedly after World War ii that America would be their number-one target next time. Why? Because our abundant resources led to their defeat in World Wars i and ii. Both of those wars were started by Germany.

Do you know who helped Nazis escape after World War ii more than any other institution? The Vatican! Mark Aarons and John Loftus, in their book Unholy Trinity, thoroughly documented the fact that the Vatican sponsored and engineered the infamous “Ratlines”—used to help many Nazi leaders escape from the Allies at the end of World War ii. Aarons and Loftus based their 1991 book on intelligence documents that had just been released. Those documents had been classified for nearly 50 years. (That massive and diabolical cover-up is another tragic story in itself.)

When World War ii concluded, it ended the sixth head of the Holy Roman Empire. But the empire did not die—it went underground. This world was warned about what was happening, but only a few people heeded. Herbert W. Armstrong warned of Germany’s postwar rise. Here is an excerpt from a radio broadcast given May 9, 1945: “We don’t understand German thoroughness. From the very start of World War ii, they have considered the possibility of losing this second round, as they did the first—and they have carefully, methodically planned, in such eventuality, the third round—World War iii! Hitler has lost. This round of war, in Europe, is over. And the Nazis have now gone underground. In France and Norway they learned how effectively an organized underground can hamper occupation and control of a country. Paris was liberated by the French underground—and Allied armies. Now a Nazi underground is methodically planned. They plan to come back and to win on the third try.”

How could Herbert W. Armstrong have known that Germany would rise to power again? It is a terrifying story, but with the most exhilarating ending you could imagine. You need to read the wonderfully good news in his free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. The bad news, followed by the good news of Jesus Christ’s return, will soon impact every person on this planet!


February 22, 2008

Turkey launches ground operation in Iraq

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer 33 minutes ago

ISTANBUL, Turkey – Turkish troops launched a ground incursion across the border into Iraq in pursuit of separatist Kurdish rebels, the military said Friday — a move that dramatically escalates Turkey’s conflict with the militants.

It is the first confirmed ground operation by the Turkish military into Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. It also raised concerns that it could trigger a wider conflict with the U.S.-backed Iraqi Kurds, despite Turkey’s assurances that its only target was the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.

The ground operation started after Turkish warplanes and artillery bombed suspected rebel targets on Thursday, the military said on its Web site. The incursion was backed by the Air Force, the statement said.

Turkey has conducted air raids against the PKK guerrillas in northern Iraq since December, with the help of U.S. intelligence, and it has periodically carried out so-called “hot pursuits” in which small units sometimes spend only a few hours inside Iraq.

The announcement of a cross-border, ground incursion of a type that Turkey carried out before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a major development in its conflict with the Kurdish rebels, which started in 1984 and has claimed as many as 40,000 lives.

Turkey staged about two-dozen incursions in Iraq during the rule of Saddam, who launched brutal campaigns against the Kurdish population. Some Turkish offensives involved tens of thousands of troops. Results were mixed, with rebels suffering blows to their ranks and supplies but regrouping after the bulk of the Turkish forces had left.

PKK spokesman Ahmad Danas said two Turkish troops were killed and eight wounded in clashes along the 240-mile border, but there was no comment from the Turkish military and no way to independently confirm the claim.

The Kurdish militants are fighting for autonomy in Turkey’s predominantly Kurdish southeast, and have carried out attacks on Turkish targets from bases in northern Iraq. The U.S. and the European Union consider the PKK a terrorist organization.

“The Turkish Armed Forces, which values Iraq’s territorial integrity and its stability, will return as soon as planned goals are achieved,” the military said. “The executed operation will prevent the region from being a permanent and safe base for the terrorists and will contribute to Iraq’s stability and internal peace.”

Private NTV television said 10,000 troops were taking part in the offensive and had penetrated six miles into Iraq, though some reports said that not all the troops had been deployed. The operation was reportedly concentrated in the Hakurk region, south of the Turkish border town of Cukurca.

The state-run Anatolia agency reported that warplanes were seen taking off from the air base in Diyarbakir in southeast Turkey. It said planes and helicopters were conducting reconnaissance flights over the border region, and that military units were deployed at the border to prevent rebel infiltration.

Dogan News Agency reported that the Habur border crossing, a major conduit for trade between Iraq and Turkey, was closed to vehicle traffic.

CNN-Turk television, however, quoted Deputy Prime Minister Hayati Yazici as saying the border gate was not closed but that priority was being given to Turkish military vehicles. Trucks routinely ferry supplies bound for U.S. military bases in Iraq through the Habur crossing.

Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a U.S. spokesman in Iraq, said the military had received assurances from its NATO ally Turkey that it would do everything possible to avoid “collateral damage” to innocent civilians or infrastructure.

“Multi-National Forces-Iraq is aware Turkish ground forces have entered into northern Iraq, for what we understand is an operation of limited duration to specifically target PKK terrorists in that region,” Smith said in a statement.

“The United States continues to support Turkey’s right to defend itself from the terrorist activities of the PKK and has encouraged Turkey to use all available means, to include diplomacy and close coordination with the Government of Iraq to ultimately resolve this issue,” he added.

Matthew Bryza, U.S. deputy assistant secretary for southeastern Europe, cited the importance of a Nov. 5 meeting in which President Bush promised Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Washington would share intelligence on the PKK.

“The land operation is a whole new level,” Bryza said in Belgium. “What I can say is that what we’ve been doing until now has been working quite well.”

The European Commission appealed to Turkey to act with restraint.

“Turkey should refrain from taking any disproportionate military action and respect human rights and the rule of law,” said Commission spokeswoman Krisztina Nagy.

“The EU understands Turkey’s need to protect its population from terrorism,” she said. “We encourage Turkey to continue to pursue dialogue with international partners.”

Turkish President Abdullah Gul spoke with his Iraqi counterpart Jalal Talabani late Thursday and gave him information about the goals of the operation, Gul’s office said. Gul also invited Talabani to visit Turkey.

The military said its target was PKK rebels and that it does not want to harm civilians “and other local groups that do not act in enmity against the Turkish Armed Forces.”

Nihat Ali Ozcan, a terrorism expert with the research center TEPAV, said the operation was likely launched to hit the group before the traditional start of the fighting season in the spring.

“I think it is aimed to keep the PKK under pressure before the group starts entering Turkey,” he said on CNN-Turk television.

Iraqi border forces officer Col. Hussein Tamer said Turkish shelling on Thursday hit several Kurdish villages in the Sedafan area, some 20 miles from the border.

Jabbar Yawar, a spokesman for Iraqi Kurdish security forces, said sporadic bombing had taken place in the border areas, but no casualties were reported.

Fouad Hussein, a spokesman for the semiautonomous Kurdish government in Iraq, said the Kurdish Peshmerga forces had been put on alert.

He said Iraqi Kurdish forces also had tightened security around bases housing Turkish military monitors operating in northern Iraq with permission from local authorities under a 1996 agreement.

“The government of Kurdistan ordered the Peshmerga forces to be on alert in fear of any Turkish incursion on Iraqi territory,” he said, claiming that Turkish military monitors had tried to leave their bases in violation of the accord.

“Those troops tried to move out, but the Peshmerga forces forced them to return to their camps within half an hour,” he said.

Turkish media reports said Friday that a total of 1,200 Turkish monitors in four camps in Iraq were helping to coordinate the ground offensive.


February 21, 2008

‘Any person’ has right to gun, state says
Montana claims 2nd Amendment questions already resolved

Posted: February 20, 2008
4:09 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment’s application, defining that “any person” has the right to bears arms.

That’s the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is “reasonable” and therefore enforceable even given the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment.

U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has asked President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the 2nd Amendment. A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned:

“If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General’s line of argument, D.C.’s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. …”

He warned such a precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions if they are considered by a judge to be “reasonable” would place those rights on the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder.

“In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by ‘compelling state interests,’ the 2nd Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail,” said Pratt.

Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson

But officials in Montana, including dozens of state lawmakers as well as Secretary of State Brad Johnson, have joined together in a statement that the U.S. already has determined the application, and 2nd Amendment rights apply to “any person.”

In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.

“The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract,” an announcement from the leaders said.

“A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana’s contract for statehood, but also Montana’s customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case,” said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

The Montana contract is archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution. At the time the then-territory’s “Compact with the United States” was agreed to by Congress, the Montana Constitution included the “right of ‘any person’ to bear arms,” the group said.

“Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the intent of the parties to the contract. A collective rights decision by the court could also call into question the sanctity of contracts, considered to have been a bedrock principle of law for centuries,” the group said.

The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.

Any other determination, they said, would “offend” the Compact, officials said.

“[That] language … simply cannot be respun to somehow mean a right of state government,” they said.

It could not have referred to the National Guard, which wasn’t created until years later, officials said.

“Some speak of a ‘living constitution,’ the meaning of which may evolve and change over time. However, the concept of a ‘living contract,’ one to be disregarded or revised at the whim of one party thereto, is unknown. A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation,” the group said.

Goode earlier wrote Bush that under the perspective being promoted in the District of Columbia, a national ban on all firearms, including hunting rifles, could be considered valid.

Paul Clemen

The government’s position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since “unrestricted” private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment,” Clement wrote in the brief.

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”


February 20, 2008

Clintons to face fraud trial
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator

Posted: February 19, 2008
11:27 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Peter Paul and President Clinton (Courtesy

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing Thursday morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul’s team hopes for a trial in October. The Clinton’s longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul’s Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife’s 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons’ legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Hillary Clinton with Peter and Andrea Paul (Courtesy

Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in “perjured testimony” during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.

Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton’s campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.

Rosen, accused of concealing Paul’s in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat. Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.

Paul contends his case will expose “the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party,” which seeks to attain “unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government.”

The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul’s donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.

“Why wouldn’t that cause someone to inquire?” Paul asked. “Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn’t take any more money from me.”

Paul has the support of a new grass-roots political action group that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation’s top lawyers

Republican activist Rod Martin says his group plans to highlight Paul’s case as it launches an organization based on the business model of the left-wing but rooted in the principles and political philosophy of former President Reagan.

Martin’s group also is assisting in Paul’s complaint to the FEC asserting that unless the agency sets aside the conciliation agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, it will “have aided and abetted in the commission” of a felony.

Paul’s case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate “home movies” of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during the period.


February 18, 2008

‘Palestinian government’ in Israel within weeks
Officially opening institutions in Jewish state’s capital city

Posted: February 17, 2008
9:31 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – The Palestinian Authority, aided by international donors, will attempt to open official institutions in Jerusalem within weeks, WND has learned.

While Israel has not officially approved the PA’s presence in Jerusalem, Palestinian diplomatic sources said there is an unwritten agreement in which Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s office has agreed not to interrupt some PA activities in Jerusalem.

Hatem Abdel Khader, a member of Palestinian Authority President Mahmad Abbas’ Fatah party and a former member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, held a meeting today with Fatah activists in Jerusalem in which he declared the PA would start officially acting in Jerusalem.

Official PA minutes of the meeting, obtained by WND, announced the launching of “practical PA activities in Jerusalem such as those that took place before the closing of Orient House in Jerusalem by Israeli Occupation Authorities.”

In line with previous Israeli-Palestinian accords, the PA has been barred from conducting political activity in Jerusalem, although it maintained an office, called Orient House, in an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood that previously functioned as a de facto PA headquarters.

Orient House was closed down by Israel in 2001 following a series of suicide bombings in Jerusalem and information Israel said indicated the House was used to plan and fund terrorism.

Thousands of documents and copies of bank certificates and checks captured by Israel from Orient House – including many documents obtained by WND – showed the offices were used to finance terrorism, including direct payments to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group.

A press release from Khader yesterday said the PA would start acting in Jerusalem on both the social and political levels “to strengthen Palestinian preservation of Jerusalem.”

Khader’s release stated the World Bank and other international donors provided $150,000 in initial seed money to launch PA activities in Jerusalem and that more aid was expected.

Palestinian diplomatic sources claimed they received tacit agreement from Israeli officials to allow some PA political activities in Jerusalem’s Old City and eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods.

David Baker, a spokesman for Olmert, did not returns a request for comment before press time.

The Palestinian sources noted Israel last week arrested Khader, as reported by WND, accusing him of setting up a Palestinian council in Jerusalem to attend to the needs of the city’s Israeli Arab population. But Khader was released after a few hours and no charges were brought against him.

Palestinian officials speaking to WND said they recently urged the U.S. to support what they said is a key demand allowing the PA to open official institutions and to reopen Orient House to serve as their Jerusalem headquarters. The U.S. brought the request to Olmert in November, but according to sources in Jerusalem, Israeli officials replied for domestic political reasons Olmert is waiting to discuss Jerusalem during biweekly negotiations held with Abbas.

Olmert is facing major opposition from the Israeli Shas party, a member of his governing coalition whose leadership has stated it would bolt Olmert’s government if he negotiated over Jerusalem.

Olmert, though, previously hinted he would be willing to divide Jerusalem, asking during a December speech whether it was “really necessary” to retain certain Arab neighborhoods in Judaism’s capital. His vice premier, Haim Ramon, a member of Olmert’s ruling Kadima party, last month reportedly mapped out a future partition of Jerusalem under a deal with the Palestinians.

But following Shas threats to bolt his coalition, Olmert has denied he is negotiating over Jerusalem, a claim strongly contested by Palestinian negotiators speaking to WND.


February 15, 2008


Obama bill: $845 billion
more for global poverty
Democrat sponsors act OK’d by Senate panel
that would cost 0.7% of gross national product

Posted: February 14, 2008
3:53 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Barak Obam

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, “We can – and must – make … a priority,” said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop “and implement” a policy to “cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief” and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

“It’s not our job to cut global poverty,” said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. “These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot.”

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could “result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States” and would make levels “of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion “over and above what the U.S. already spends.”

The plan passed the House in 2007 “because most members didn’t realize what was in it,” Kincaid reported. “Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require.”

A statement from Obama’s office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces,” Obama said. “It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America’s standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

“Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere,” he continued.

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

“It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day,” a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would “declare” that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is “required” to “develop and implement” a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be “specific and measurable.”

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as “official development assistance.”

“In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning ‘small arms and light weapons’ and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child,” he said.

Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the “Millennium Project,” confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, “is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels,” Kincaid writes.

On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.

“This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul,” the forum author wrote. “Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers.”

WND calls to Obama’s office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment.

Another forum participant said, “Yes, and we should also eliminate sickness of any kind and get rid of poverty as well. Then, too, we should make certain that everyone in the world has equal assets, equal money, a college education, etc… After that, or maybe while we are solving all of the world’s little problems, we can take care of the polar bears, eliminate the internal combustion engine, and, and, and… Oh dear, if only we would just go ahead and do all the things the dreamers want us to do. Let’s stop using oil and burning coal while we’re at it. Then we can make it illegal to be overweight and then we can. …”

One forum contributor said since the legislation doesn’t specifically demand “taxes,” but instead leaves the mandatory “implementation” up to the president, “maybe the tooth fairy will leave [this new money] under the president’s pillow.”

Kincaid reported several more budget-minded senators have put a hold on the legislation “in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.”

The legislation requires the president to do whatever is required to fulfill a strategy that would result in “the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide … who live on less than $1 per day.”

It further requires the president not only to accomplish that goal but, “not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this act,” to submit a report on “the contributions provided by the United States” toward poverty reduction.


February 14, 2008

Hillary Ordered The Final
Massacre At Waco

Robert Morrow


Hillary, not Bill, not Janet Reno, not Webb Hubbell, not Vince Foster was the one who ordered the final assault. Final death count: 76 Branch Davidians, including 21 children and two pregnant women.

“A Woman in Charge”

From Robert Morrow
Clinton expert
Austin, TX 512-306-1510

Hillary was the one who ordered the FUBAR final assault on the holed-up Branch Davidians in Waco on April 19th, 1993. The final death count from this disastrous fiasco was 76 Branch Davidians, including 21 childrene and two pregnant women. The appalling disaster at Waco was what motivated Timothy McVeigh to participate in the terroristic bombings in Oklahoma City, two years later on April 19, 1995.

Hillary was putting pressure on Vince Foster (her longtime boyfriend, sexual partner and emotional husband) and Webb Hubbell who was the #3 guy at Justice Department, to have a forceful resolution to the Waco standoff. Webb Hubbell is also probably the father of Chelsea, not Bill Clinton: Check out post #207 on this FreeRepublic web link to see a photo of the strikingly similar Webb Hubbell and Chelsea:

One big reason Hillary place Hubbell in the #3 spot at the Justice Department was so that he would not have to go through a Senate confirmation hearing where the ugly and probably true details about Hubbell being the biological father of Chelsea might be revealed in this process. Carl Bernstein in his book on Hillary gets close to this, “Foster vaguely repeated his fear that the confirmation process would hurt Hillary. He seemed to know something that Nussbaum didn’t.” [Bernstein, A Woman in Charge, p. 253] Likewise Hillary placed Vince Foster, her longtime lover and emotional husband, at the #2 spot in the office of White House counsel, although Vince (Hillary’s best friend) was really superior in power over White House counsel Bernie Nussbaum. Vince basically was the one who “vetted” Nussbaum for the spot.

“Give me a reason not to do this,” Janet Reno is said to have begged aides shortly before orders were issued in the final assault. After the complete disaster of the final assault on the Branch Davidians, Bill Clinton was refusing to face the media, and Janet Reno stepped out to take full responsibility in front of the cameras. But the real “Woman in Charge” responsible for the deaths of 76 Branch Davidians, including 21 children and two pregnant women was was Hillary, not Janet Reno, not ev
During an interview in early February 2001 the former White House aide alleged that Hillary Clinton pressured the late Vincent Foster to resolve the Waco standoff. As a resulen and children were killed. Appearing on CNN’s “Larry King Live” Tripp suggested that Foster, at Mrs Clinton’s direction, transmitted the order to move on the Branch Davidian’s Waco compound, which culminated in a military style attack on the wooden buildin

Her accusations lend weight to charges made previously by Special Forces expert and Waco investigator, Steve Barry. According to the former Special Forces member, Hillary set up a special “crises centre” in the White House to deal with Waco. Serving with her in the centre was Vincent Foster who, according to his widow was subsequently: “fuelled by horror at the carnage at Waco for which the White House had ultimately been responsible.”

Foster himself was found dead, from a gun-shot wound to the head, in a Virginia park three months later. Could he have known too much about Waco?

Journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard maintains that Foster had been “drafting a letter involving Waco” on the very day of his death. Moreover Evans-Pritchard says that Foster kept a Waco file in a locked cabinet that was off limits to everyone, including his secretary.

Prior to Waco, Foster was “dignified, decent, caring, smart” says Linda Tripp; in its aftermath though, she said: “Vince was falling apart.”

She was with the former White House deputy counsel when the news about Waco broke on television. “A special bulletin came on showing the atrocity atWaco and the children. And his face, his whole body slumped, and his face turned white, and he was absolutely crushed ­ knowing the part he had played.”

“And he had played the part at Mrs Clinton direction,” said Tripp.

Moreover, there was a marked contrast between Foster’s heartfelt emotion at the Waco tragedy and Hillary Clinton’s, Tripp insists: “Her reaction was heartless”.

Her accusations give further weight to allegations first levelled in the 1999 documentary on the deadly confrontation, “Waco: A New Revelation.” The film featured the account of former House Waco investigator T. March Bell. “One of the interesting things that happens in an investigation is that you get anonymous phone calls,” Bell explained in the film. “And we in fact received anonymous phone calls from Justice Department managers and attorneys who believe that pressure was placed on Janet Reno by Webb Hubbell, pressure that came from the first lady of the United States.”

Mrs Clinton grew more and more impatient as the Waco stand-off came to dominate the headlines [Hillary want to get so-called “heath care reform” done, and Waco was taking all the headlines in spring, 1993, so Hillary forced the Waco resolution with disastrous results and a lot of death – Robert Morrow ] during the early months of the Clinton administration, said Bell. It was she, according to Bell’s sources, who pressured a reluctant Janet Reno to act.

“Give me a reason not to do this,” Reno is said to have begged aides shortly before orders were issued for the final assault.

Sources include: The SPOTLIGHT Oct 30 1999 and, Tripp: Hillary Directed Waco. Saturday, Feb. 10, 2001

Robert Morrow


February 13, 2008


Palestinians burn Joseph’s Tomb
Judaism’s 3rd holiest site regarded as burial place of biblical patriarch

Posted: February 12, 2008
4:26 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Building at Joseph’s Tomb site after Palestinian Authority took control in 2000 .

It marks the second time the Palestinians attempted to burn down the tomb, located near Nablus, the biblical city of Shechem.

Joseph’s Tomb is the believed burial place of the biblical patriarch Joseph, the son of Jacob who was sold by his brothers into slavery and later became viceroy of Egypt.

Palestinian security officials in Nablus said yesterday they were called to the tomb to find 16 burning tires inside the sacred structure.

A Palestinian police official who inspected the site told WND today there was some fire damage to the tomb. He said the Palestinian Authority, fearing embarrassment, immediately formed a joint committee from the PA’s Force 17, Preventative Security Services and Palestinian intelligence, to find out who was behind the fire.

He said patrols were stepped up around the site.

A spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces said the IDF was not aware of the fire or any unusual activity near the tomb but that it would immediately inquire with the PA.

The move comes after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced last week he would ask Israel’s Defense Ministry to work with the PA to reconstruct and restore the tomb, parts of which were destroyed by Palestinians, including known PA security officers, in 2000.

Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, which granted nearby strategic territory to the Palestinians, Joseph’s Tomb was supposed to be accessible to Jews and Christians. But following repeated attacks against Jewish worshippers at the holy site by gunmen associated with then-Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat’s militias, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak in October 2000 ordered an Israeli unilateral retreat from the area.

Within less than an hour of the Israeli retreat, Palestinian rioters overtook Joseph’s Tomb and reportedly began to ransack the site. Palestinian mobs reportedly tore apart books, destroying prayer stands and grinding out stone carvings in the Tomb’s interior.

Palestinians hoisted a Muslim flag over the tomb. Amin Maqbul, an official from Arafat’s office, visited the tomb to deliver a speech declaring, “Today was the first step to liberate (Jerusalem).”

One BBC reporter described the scene: “The site was reduced to smoldering rubble – festooned with Palestinian and Islamic flags – cheering Arab crowd.”

Palestinians also constructed a mosque on the rubble of the tomb’s adjacent yeshiva compound. Workers painted the dome of the compound green, the Islamic color.

Third holiest site turned into mosque

The Torah describes how Jacob purchased a land plot in Shechem, which was given as an inheritance to his sons and was used to re-inter Joseph, whose bones were taken out of Egypt during the Jewish exodus. Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, are also said to be buried at the site.

As detailed in the Torah, shortly before his death, Joseph asked the Israelites to vow they would resettle his bones in the land of Canaan, biblical Israel. That oath was fulfilled when, according to the Torah, Joseph’s remains were taken by the Jews from Egypt and reburied at the plot of land Jacob had earlier purchased in Shechem, believed to be the site of the tomb. Modern archeologists confirm Nablus is the biblical city of Shechem

Yehuda Leibman, who until the Israeli retreat from Joseph’s Tomb in 2000 was director of a yeshiva constructed there, explained, “The sages tell us that there are three places which the world cannot claim were stolen by the Jewish people: the Temple Mount, the Cave of the Patriarchs and Joseph’s Tomb.”

There is evidence suggesting for more than 1,000 years Jews of various origins worshipped at Joseph’s Tomb. The Samaritans, a local tribe that follow a religion based on the Torah, say they trace their lineage back to Joseph himself and that they worshipped at the tomb site for more than 1,700 years.

Israel first gained control of Nablus and the neighboring site of Joseph’s Tomb in the 1967 Six-Day War. The Oslo Accords signed by Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin called for the area surrounding the tomb site to be placed under Palestinian jurisdiction but allowed for continued Jewish visits to the site and the construction of an Israeli military outpost at the tomb to ensure secure Jewish access.

Following the transfer of control of Nablus and the general area encompassing the tomb to the Palestinians in the early 1990s, there were a series of outbreaks of violence in which Arab rioters and gunmen from Arafat’s Fatah militias shot at Jewish worshipers and the tomb’s military outpost.

Six Israeli soldiers were killed, and many others, including yeshiva students, were wounded in September 1996 when Palestinian rioters and Fatah gunmen attempted to over take the tomb. Eventually, Israeli soldiers regained control of the site.

Gravestone at traditional burial site for biblical patriarch Joseph after it was ransacked by Palestinian mobs.

The Palestinians continued to attack Joseph’s Tomb with regular shootings and the lobbing of firebombs and Molotov cocktails. Security for Jews at the site increasingly became more difficult to maintain. Rumors circulated in 2000 that Barak would evacuate the Israeli military outpost and give the tomb to Arafat as a “peacemaking gesture.”

In early 2000, the Israeli army began denying Jewish visits to the tomb on certain days due to prospects of Arab violence. Following U.S.-mediated peace talks at Camp David in September 2000, Arafat returned to the West Bank and initiated his intifada. During one bloody week in October 2000, Fatah gunmen attacked the tomb repeatedly, killing two and injuring dozens, prompting Barak to order a complete evacuation of Judaism’s third holiest site Oct. 6.

In a WND exclusive interview, Tariq Tarawi, a Fatah lawmaker who in 2000 served as chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group in the vicinity of the tomb, said the Palestinians would “never” allow Israel to rebuild a yeshiva or synagogue at Joseph’s Tomb. The Brigades carried out most of the attacks against the tomb site.

“A yeshiva is an institution,” said Tarawi. “An institution can be the beginning of claiming rights and these claims can bring once again the Israeli army to establish a base in the place, and we can not accept this. If the Jews try to build a yeshiva, we will shoot at them.”