The Modern State of Israel

The most consequential move ever made by the U.S. Federal Government was its political, economic and military commitment to the apartheid state of Israel. In this context, it is actually the Modern State of Israel (MSI) that is joined at the hip with the United States, not the biblical Israelites of 2000 years ago. From this point forward, Israel will be referred to as the MSI so as to distinguish it completely from the 12 ancient tribes of pre-Christian Israel.

The critical point here is that the year 2017 reigns supreme in the history of both the Jewish people and the Modern State of Israel. As a matter of calendrical fact, September 20, 2017 marks the end of year 5777 according to the Hebrew calendar. Nevertheless, this discussion will primarily focus on the creation of the MSI which began in earnest in 1897 with the First Zionist Congress.

First Zionist Congress (Hebrew: הקונגרס הציוני הראשון‎‎) was the inaugural congress of the Zionist Organization (ZO) (to become the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in 1960) held in Basel (Basle), Switzerland, from August 29 to August 31, 1897. 208 delegates and 26 press correspondents attended the event.[1]

It was convened[2] and chaired[3] by Theodor Herzl, the founder of the modern Zionism movement. The Congress formulated a Zionist platform, known as the Basel program, and founded the Zionist Organization. It also adopted the Hatikvah as its anthem (already the anthem of Hovevei Zion and later to become the national anthem of the State of Israel).[1]

There is no more fateful a day throughout the modern era than the First Zionist Congress. If ever there is a day that will live in infamy, it is this defining moment in 1897 when the worldwide Zionist movement became organized under one umbrella. Some have even written that Zionism was directly accountable for both World Wars as they ask: Did 70 Million Die So The Jews Could Have Palestine?

What follows is a general timeline of the development of the MSI from 1897 onward. If there is one thing that stands out it is that the most significant years end with the number “7”. This is by purposeful design, just as the Shemitah year occurs every 7 years within the modern and ancient Judaic tradition.

1897 + 50 years (jubilee) = 1947 (U.N. Mandate to establish the State of Israel)

1897 + 70 years (that number is found many places in the Bible) = 1967 (Israel captured E. Jerusalem and the temple mount) + 120 = 2017

1897 — (World Zionist Conference) + 120 years = 2017

1917 — (Balfour Declaration by the British allowing Jewish immigration into Palestine) + 100 years = 2017

1947 — (UN Mandate for Palestine allowing Israel to come into existence) + 70 years = 2017

1967 — (Israel captures East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount) + 50 years (jubilee) = 2017

1977 — (Anwar Sadat of Egypt flies to Israel and the “peace process” begins) + 40 years (a classic biblical generation) = 2017

1987 — (first Palestinian uprising [Intifadah]) + 30 years (used many places in the Bible-Jesus began his ministry at 30, David became king at 30) = 2017

2017 — 3 remaining Fall Feasts of the Hebrew Calendar yet to be fulfilled (aka the MOEDIM—Trumpets, Atonement & Tabernacles)

Extract from http://cosmicconvergence.org/?p=22277

The FBI Poses the “National Security Threat”, Not Trump

The FBI’s Investigation of Trump as a “National Security Threat” is Itself a Serious Danger. But J. Edgar Hoover Pioneered the Tactic

LAST WEEK, the New York Times reported that the FBI, in 2017, launched an investigation of President Trump “to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security” and specifically “whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests.” The story was predictably treated as the latest in an endless line of Beginning-of-the-End disasters for the Trump presidency, though – as usual – this melodrama was accomplished by steadfastly ignoring the now-standard, always-buried paragraph pointing out the boring fact that no actual evidence of guilt has yet emerged:

The lack of any evidence of guilt has never dampened the excitement over Trump/Russia innuendo, and it certainly did not do so here. Beyond being construed as some sort of vindication for the most deranged version of Manchurian Candidate fantasies – because, after all, the FBI would never investigate anyone unless they were guilty – the FBI’s investigation of the President as a national security threat was also treated as some sort of unprecedented event in U.S. history. “This is, without exception, the worst scandal in the history of the United States,” pronounced NBC News’ resident ex-CIA operative, who – along with a large staple of former security state agents employed by that network – is now paid to “analyze” and shape the news.

The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of Trump is far from the first time that the FBI has monitored, surveilled and investigated U.S. elected officials who the agency had decided harboerd suspect loyalties and were harming national security. The FBI specialized in such conduct for decades under J. Edgar Hoover, who ran the agency for 48 years and whose name the agency’s Washington headquarters continues to feature in its name.

Perhaps the most notable case was the Hoover-led FBI’s lengthy counterintelligence investigation of the progressive Henry Wallace, both when he served in multiple cabinet positions in the Franklin Roosevelt administration and then as FDR’s elected Vice President. The FBI long suspected that Wallace harbored allegiances to the Kremlin and used his government positions to undermine what the FBI determined were “U.S. interests” for the benefit of Moscow and, as a result, subjected Wallace to extensive investigation and surveillance.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/14/the-fbis-investigation-of-trump-as-a-national-security-threat-is-itself-a-serious-danger-but-j-edgar-hoover-pioneered-the-tactic/

Part 1

>>4766638

Part 2

Cont. from image 2:

Even decades later, the FBI still refuses to release all of its investigative files on Wallace; as FOIA warrior Emma Best noted last night, the FBI “is still fighting to not release the files.” But many of the files are now declassified and online, and one can read the voluminous tracking by FBI agents of Wallace’s movements during the time he was the elected Vice President of the United States – all because his dissenting, pro-peace views on Russia made his patriotism suspect in the eyes of Hoover and his agents.

>>4766664

Part 3

If Trump’s foreign policy is misguided or “threatening,” that’s a matter for the Congress and/or the American public, not the FBI. However “threatening” one regards Trump’s foreign policy relating to Russia, the FBI’s abuse of its powers to investigate an elected official due to disagreement with his ideology or foreign policy views is at least as dangerous, it not more so, and the fact that those policy disagreements are characterized as “national security threats” does not make those actions any less threatening or abusive – whether for Trump, Henry Wallace or George McGovern.

It’s certainly possible, as the always-smart Harvard Law Professor and former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith wrote at Lawfare, that the FBI had far more grounds that is currently known for opening this investigation. But based on what we do know, Goldsmith adeptly argues, there is a potentially disturbing incident of serious overreach of the FBI’s role and grave abuse of its vast investigative powers. While Goldsmith is clear that he is not yet adopting this view – in part because some facts are unknown and in part because the Constitutional issues are murky – he lays out what the potential dangers are (emphasis added):

The reason the FBI step might have been imprudent is that it was premised on an inversion of the normal assumptions of Article II of the Constitution. . . .

It is not unusual for a president to make controversial policy decisions that could, in some quarters, be viewed as causing harm to the national security interests of the United States. For example, many saw George W. Bush’s decisions in the war on terrorism, or Barack Obama’s rapprochement with Iran and Cuba, as harming U.S. national security. Many believe that most of Trump’s foreign policy constitutes a similar threat—his attacks on allies and international institutions, his lies and erratic behavior, and the like. But the FBI obviously would not open a counterintelligence investigation for these matters.

They would not do so because these actions—and indeed the very determination of the U.S. interest in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy—are presidential prerogatives. . . . Because the president determines the U.S. national security interest and threats against it, at least for the executive branch, there is an argument that it makes no sense for the FBI to open a counterintelligence case against the president premised on his being a threat to the national security. The president defines what a national security threat is, and thus any action by him cannot be such a threat, at least not for purposes of opening a counterintelligence investigation. . . .

End