Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Ann Barnhardt -- a brave Catholic soldier -- Colista Gingrich: USA Ambassador to Vatican?

It is difficult to observe the New Age Movement for as long as I have --since 1981 -- and not see that the climate in the Vatican has changed in the past 31 years (since 1988) to one against the New Age Movement to one sympathetic to at least its political agenda.  Moreover, recent developments tell me that it appears that Pope Francis (Bergoglio) is clearly not hostile to New World Religion developments.

Friends have alerted me to the incredible work of Ann Barnhardt speaking bravely out on Vatican developments.  I am still sorting through her material, but her arguments clearly deserve consideration.  Interestingly, I think she must be about the age I was when I discovered the existence of the New Age Movement and its ramifications to Christianity.  I would dearly love to talk with her.  I would also appreciate knowing our forum participant Susanna's perspective on recent Vatican developments.  You may reach Ann Barnhardt's website by clicking here.

For 37 of the 38 years I have tracked the New Age Movement, I have tracked one of its major proponents:  NEWT GINGRICH.  I first opened my file on him in 1982.  Marilyn Ferguson wrote enthusiastically about the brave Georgian Congressman working so hard to advance the New Age agenda.  I opened a file on him the day that arrived and have kept tabs on him since.

One tab I didn't follow but should have was the career of his current wife, Colista Gingrich.  The Gingrich couple collaborated on one of his Toffler style books:   (he was mentored, inter alia, by Alvin and Heidi Toffler)

Newt Gingrich has never tried to hide his New Age affiliations and propensity.  Too many Christians, Evangelicals included, fail to see them.  I have written frequently on Newt Gingrich in the past.  Now that I realize that his current wife, Colista, is the United States Ambassador to the Vatican, I have reviewed and thought about the situation again.

I have many of Newt Gingrich's books in my library.  Some titles include:


  • Breakout:  Pioneers of the Future, Prison Guards of the Past, and the Epic Battle That Will Decide America's Fate (2013);
  • Contract with America (1995);
  • Contract with the Earth (2007);
  • NEWT GINGRICH:  Lessons learned the Hard Way (1998);
  • To Renew America (1995)
  • Window of Opportunity:  A Blueprint for the Future (1984);
  • Winning the Future:  A 21st Century Contract with America (2005);

Well, Pope Francis has for all practical purposes endorsed Agenda 21 lock, stock, and barrel; he has now apparently blessed and endorsed religious syncretism.  And the USA Ambassador to the Vatican is the current wife of an open New Ager vigorously working the circles of those considering themselves "conservative" with the same propaganda Al Gore (another Toffler protege) spreads on the "liberal" side.

What's next?

Stay tuned!

CONSTANCE

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Rush To A 'One World Religion' Is All Part And Parcel Of The Move Towards A 'One World Government'

http://allnewspipeline.com/Prophetic_Picture_Of_Coming_Judgement.php

Constance Cumbey said...

To 8:14 am -- link didn't work for me. Do you have another?

Thanks!
Constance

Anonymous said...

Constance,

You're very welcome!

That link address is correct though, I just tried it again.

Nonetheless if necessary you can also access it at either of these links:

http://censored.news/allnewspipeline.com.htm

http://censored.news

8:14 AM

Dan Bryan said...

Susanna is this the view of the traditional catholic?
So what is the faithful catholic to do?

The Pope & the One World Religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj-X8HevNqE

I noticed the commentator in like manner of most catholic, do not condemn outright, this shift of the church, but only attempts to bring light to the syncretism?
Are the faithful catholic sanctioned to not speak out against such mixture?


Isn't the Pontifex Maximus just fulfilling his role as bridge builder?
But really, hasn't this been the church's modus operandi since Constantine?
Hasn't the Roman Bishop and Vatican symbolism been telling us this in plain sight?

The Jesuit Vatican New World Order
http://vaticannewworldorder.blogspot.com/2012/03/r-eligious-symbols-religion-false.html


Constance Cumbey said...

This is a response to Ann Barnhardt I just found on the internet. I would like to learn a lot more about her. Any experts on her out there? Susanna?

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/aresponse-to-ann-barnhardt-by-paul.html

Constance

Marko said...

Ann is a unique person, to be sure!

I've watched many of her videos and have been reading her on and off for several years now. As an evangelical, I find her musings quite interesting, and even challenging.

She speaks truth to power, that's for sure! I don't agree with her theology on some major points, obviously, but there are other aspects of her beliefs that both Catholics and Protestants could take to heart. Especially her no-compromise stance on what she believes.

Anonymous said...

https://www.duckduckgo.com/ann-barnhardt

RayB said...

I first became aware of Ann Barnhardt probably 7 or 8 years ago. As I recall, she came across as a VERY tough, full of anger, pro-gun, traditional Catholic militant. She seemed to me to be more of a "man" than most of the men of today. I distinctly recall in one of her videos making threatening remarks regarding Muslim terrorists, going so far as to give out her home address (to prove she wasn't afraid of them), but warning them that she was "heavily armed" and "knows how to shoot, etc."

In my opinion, she goes out of her way to "shock" her audience, whether she is speaking or in her writing. The article link below is classic Barnhardt:

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/08/

Here is just one Barnhardt illustration of her "over the top, shock speech" that she employs:

"With regards to Bergoglio himself, yeah, he’s not only a faggot, but one of his number one boyfriends from Buenos Aires is a notorious CHILD PROSTITUTE PIMP."

NOTE: while the case can easily be made that PF is VERY friendly to homosexuals, to state that he is in fact one himself without proof (as in "the testimony of 2 or more witnesses") is a sin in itself.

Thomas Dahlheimer said...

Excerpts from an article located at https://blavatskytheosophy.com/lucifer-the-lightbringer/

What H. P. Blavatsky has to say about Lucifer is entirely esoteric, symbolical, and philosophical. Those four excerpts quoted above are virtually the only specific statements and explanations she ever made about Lucifer, although fanatical Christians and half-crazed conspiracy theorists like to give the impression that she spent almost all her time ranting and raving about Lucifer, which is simply not true.

As for the reason her magazine was named “Lucifer,” she wrote in its very first article – titled “What’s in a Name?” – that “the first and most important, if not the sole object of the magazine, is expressed in the line from the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, on its title page. It is to bring light to “the hidden things of darkness,” (iv. 5); to show in their true aspect and their original real meaning things and names, men and their doings and customs; it is finally to fight prejudice, hypocrisy and shams in every nation, in every class of Society, as in every department of life. The task is a laborious one but it is neither impracticable nor useless, if even as an experiment. Thus, for an attempt of such nature, no better title could ever be found than the one chosen. … No fitter symbol exists for the proposed work – that of throwing a ray of truth on everything hidden by the darkness of prejudice, by social or religious misconceptions; especially by that idiotic routine in life, which, once that a certain action, a thing, a name, has been branded by slanderous inventions, however unjust, makes respectable people, so called, turn away shiveringly, refusing to even look at it from any other aspect than the one sanctioned by public opinion. Such an endeavour then, to force the weak-hearted to look truth straight in the face, is helped most efficaciously by a title belonging to the category of branded names.”

But as she was later to remark, the ignorant and erroneous belief that Lucifer = Satan “has struck its roots too deep in the soil of blind faith” to allow many people to bravely, boldly, and unashamedly reveal the true origins and true nature of what the so-called Lucifer actually is. Those who attempt to do so are always bound to be immediately labelled as “satanists” and “devil worshippers” by a certain class of Christian, those whose trademark characteristics invariably tend to be wilful ignorance and mental laziness. It has indeed become a “branded name,” one which still automatically conjures up the image of an anthropomorphic devil even in the minds of the most hardened atheists.

Yet who can deny that even Jesus is portrayed as boldly proclaiming his identity with Venus the Lightbringer in Revelation 22:16, where he says “I, Jesus, am the bright and morning star.” If the translators had chosen to translate this verse using Latin just as they did with Isaiah 14:12, it would read “I, Jesus, am Lucifer.”

RayB said...


(more)

In the link provided above, Barnhardt repeatedly uses the term "faggot." Such language appeals to the base nature of human beings. She uses this sane type of "manly" gutter language and tactic repeatedly on a variety of subjects ... all designed to set her apart via her "I am tough shock talk," similar to that of secular "shock jocks." It is Barnhardt herself that benefits from all of this, because she becomes the focus of attention.

What's interesting about all this is that her use of such tactics negates the very message that she seems to be attempting to convey. I remember the feeling I had after watching several of her videos, and that was, I sure wouldn't want to spend much time with her.

Homosexuality is a grievous sin, as is adultery, fornication, drunkeness, idolatry, heresy, being effeminate, etc. However, once a person uses such offensive slang language against such sins, the message is completely lost, because it will rightfully be interpreted as a PERSONAL attack, rather than a sincere warning about the ramifications of sinning against our Holy God.

Aside from all that, Barnhardt is a rabid promoter of "traditional Catholicism," which predates Vatican II, which proclaimed that, outside of the Roman Catholic Church, there WAS NO SALVATION, because it was only through the Sacraments, administered by the Church, that one could obtain salvation. This was the type of "Catholicism" that was the persecutor of Bible believing Christians through out history. Make no mistake about this; Barnhardt is completely intolerant towards Biblical Christianity.

NOTE: although Vatican II APPEARS to have changed that dogma, it hasn't. What changed was that they changed to a positive view from a negative regarding Judaism and Islam. HOWEVER, their "anathemas" remain in full force and effect against Christians that base their faith upon the Scriptures Alone, Grace Alone and Faith alone.

Anonymous said...

Per usual the blog is communicating information that Constance deems pertinent to current events and right in the middle of it is another one of Dahlheimer's "droppings", mere fly stains upon it.

Actually makes me chuckle to see how out of place it is...
Who gives a rip what your dead idol Blat the vat of fly stains ever said, TD?

Not even worth a "shoo fly" LOL but funny, nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

RayB,

Prophets of the OT were known to use coarse and shocking language sometimes. Just a thought to consider. I feel ambivalent, myself.

Marko said...

Ray,

I'll take one "over the top" more-manly-than-most-men loudmouth over ten mamby-pamby go-clong-to-get-along spiritual geldings any day.

Rough around the edges, turning many away with his "inappropriate" talk - wasn't that what our Lord was at times? I'm thinking especially of the time when he said people had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. John 6:55-59; and then verse 66: "After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him."

Sometimes you have to overstate your case to make a point, even at the risk of "losing your audience". I've always found it interesting that Jesus didn't go running after them and try to explain himself, or show any other signs of being upset at losing a bunch of followers.

Constance Cumbey said...

To Thomas Dahlheimer,

Perhaps not all of HPB's writings and deeds were ABOUT Lucifer, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the vast bulk of it was done FOR Lucifer!

Constance

Anonymous said...

Regarding 'strong' language, just FYI:

Ezekiel 23:20 - NET

"She lusted after their genitals--as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions."

https://biblehub.com/net/ezekiel/23.htm

Anonymous said...

One more point to consider: God usually used men as His prophets. When he chose to use women as prophets, it usually coincided with the nation of Israel being under judgement.

Anonymous said...

Final Example:

2 Kings 18:27 - KJV

"Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"

https://biblehub.com/kjv/2_kings/18.htm

RayB said...

Marko,

The reason, as you state "many disciples quit walking with him" was due to the fact that Jesus was speaking of "spiritual" manna as stated in verse 58 in John 6: "This that bread with came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: HE THAT EATETH OF THIS BREAD SHALL IVE FOR EVER." This is VERY important, and a verse the Roman Catholics NEVER quote:

"It is the SPIRIT THAT QUICKENTH; the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UINTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE." verse 63 In other words, eating the bread (eucharist) is not profitable at all, because life must be obtained through God's sovereign spirit.

In verse 65, Jesus further explains to them ... "And he said, Therefor said I unto you, that NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME, EXCEPT IT WERE GIVEN UNTO HIM OF MY FATHER."

So, it was not His "harsh words" that caused them to no longer follow Him, it WAS THE TRUTH!

RayB said...

How does using ugly, offensive language comport with God's Word?? You be the judge:

"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves from the snare of the devil, who are TAKEN CAPTIVE BY HIM AT HIS WILL." II Timothy 2: 25

Who is it that causes one to repent?

"Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" Romans 2:4

Actual physical violence is not a long step away from verbal personal attacks. While a Christian certainly has the mandate to oppose sin, we do not have the mandate to do so in any other way than to do so with the attitude of "there go I but by the grace of God."

Referring to Homosexuals by names such as "faggots" is not in compliance with what the Scriptures teach.

RayB said...

To Anon @ 2:50 PM ...

If you want to find our guidelines for faith and practice, you'll need to stick to the New Testament, instead of relying upon the actions and words of Old Testament prophets. You will not find a single instance anywhere in the New Testament where we are instructed to follow the actions of OT prophets.

Do I understand you to say that Ann Barnhardt is a "prophet?"

RayB said...

Ann Barnhardt on Martin Luther:

"Luther, a priest, was a filthy pervert, looking to ratify and excuse his disgusting, sick perversions and in doing so dragging as many souls into hell with him as possible."

"This is Luther. This is the piece of s*** that they are all celebrating as the “great reformer”.

"Martin Luther was a diabolical narcissist, and, after years of shameless sacrilegious fornication with his concubine, a nun, Katrina von Bora, while a priest – descended into full-blown psychopathy."

NOTE: Not only is her assertions an unprovable pack of lies, it is completely over the top. In other words, CLASSIC BARNHARDT !

paul said...

C'mon!
That II Kings statement is spoken by a representative of the King of Assyria, who himself is probably the number one type of the Antichrist. It's a quote from an extremely evil man, and it's an accurate quote.
Anonymous, what is your point?

Anonymous said...

Nothing more or less than to illustrate that it's okay to use 'strong' language when necessary as long as discretion is used. In the example you cited, it was perfectly okay to repeat what he said to, in that case, show the type of person who the Israelites had to deal with at the time, as you say: "an extremely evil man"!

Anonymous said...

Some Reservations: Thinking about Native American Spirituality

By Mischa Willett / FPR
March 1, 2019

...Contrary to facile narratives of progress and oppression, the fact is that much of what we know as native culture, we owe to the Christians who preserved it and to the Christians those natives became. Many natives owe some measure of their family’s cultural assimilation, but also writing skill, wealth, stories, and in the cases of inter-tribal marriages, their existence to the Indian schools. And however much they may have been wandering in error prior to hearing and accepting the gospel, however hungry they might have been for that bread of life, many Indians are thankful to acknowledge that Christianity itself has been—in my experience and in many others’—not an eradicator, but the full flower of native culture.

https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2019/03/some-reservations-thinking-about-native-american-spirituality/

Anonymous said...

Grand Jury Filing Over Use of Explosives on 9/11 'Names Names' of Who May Have Blown Up Towers!

Published: March 13, 2019

Source: Matt Agorist @ The Free Thought Project

(Support Free Thought) - As TFTP reported, a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11 truth took place in December when a United States Attorney agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Centers. Now, the group behind the submission, the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, announced the filing of a “petition supplement” naming persons who may have information related to the use of said explosives.

According to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the 33-page document contains 15 different categories of persons who may have information material to the investigation, including contractors and security companies that had access to the WTC Towers before 9/11, persons and entities who benefited financially from the WTC demolitions, and persons arrested after being observed celebrating the WTC attacks.

A names-redacted version of the petition supplement, which was filed with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York on February 14, 2019, has been made available to the public. The un-redacted version filed with the U.S. Attorney today will remain undisclosed in the interest of maintaining the secrecy, security, and integrity of the grand jury proceeding.

As TFTP reported in December, for the first time since 9/11 the federal government is taking steps to prosecute the the use of explosives to destroy the world trade centers.

The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).

After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that they will comply with the law.

“We have received and reviewed The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman stated.

According to the petition, dozens of exhibits were presented as evidence that explosives were, in fact, used to destroy all three world trade centers...

https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/71587/grand-jury-filing-over-use-of-explosives-on-911-names-names-of-who-may-have-blown-up.html

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/911-bombshell-explosives-names-names/

Anonymous said...

>This is a response to Ann Barnhardt I just found on the internet. I would like to learn a lot more about her. Any experts on her out >there? Susanna?

Constance, have you sent Ann an email? She lists her email on her webpage. Maybe she would call you and the two of you could talk?

I have emailed her in the past, but have been unable to "teach" her anything such as your findings or my own research findings. She seems stubborn, but on the other hand I have witnessed her change some of her own beliefs and practices based on new learning she acquired. Some of her writings on Diabolical Narcissism go a bit beyond her expertise level in psychology, though she clearly has identified severe problems in the Catholic hierarchy and priesthood.

She is also not a legal expert, but she is trying to prove that the current Pope is not legitimate, and that further, that he could be the false prophet as spoken by Revelations.

My opinion: She's wrong on Islam (the Koran book burning gave her fame), she doesn't understand the importance or significance of the Jews or the return of the Jews to the Holy Land. She is slowly becoming more extreme in her Trad-Catholic views vis-a-vis Protestants and non-Catholics although she is not yet a Feeneyite. She might be right on the status of Pope Francis, and she is trying to prove things logically and legally without the benefit of formal legal training.

She doesn't understand about the New Age Movement. She has said certain things on her podcast that indicate she may believe that the end times are very close, which is an unusually belief for Catholics as they tend to not worry about it or be dominionists in a de facto manner.

Anonymous said...

Thus sayeth Blavatsky from one who back peddled and claimed "I am not a theosophist". Sure, sure. It makes no difference what you say Dahlheimer. You continue to rely on Blavatsky's word for your salvation. I'll continue with the Lord the one and only God.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that Dahlheimer, he's a worn out record.

Anonymous said...

Must see video (over 1.3 million views)

Exposing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU

paul said...

Anon. 11:14,
That's good news. I've never believed the 9-11 report.
They buried the eyewitness accounts of numerous Firefighters who agreed that they all saw and heard the tell-tale pop-pop-pops of timed explosions which characterize controlled demolition.
I've listened to hours of testimony by PhD Physicists who have been tirelessly trying to educate the public ever since the false flag event.
Just the simple fact that jet airplanes, all jetliners, run on, believe it or not, Kerosene. Yup just good old Kerosene. The only difference is that it includes a mixture which keeps it from jelling in extreme cold conditions. There's no magic super-high octane fuel in a jet airliner other than kerosene.
And kerosene doesn't burn anywhere near hot enough to buckle the steel superstructure of any skyscraper, like the twin towers, which was designed to withstand a plane hit!
And even if all that weren't true, what the hell brought down that third tower, which wasn't even hit by a plane? Was it ashes falling all over it? Was it wind? That tower was standing solid and normal at noon time when it came straight down; in it's own footprint, miraculously, at freefall speed, (just like the other two, which at least got hit by a plane).

If you believe that official report, then you probably also believe that Ilhan Omar has no ulterior motives, only a love for America, devoid of any Muslim Brotherhood influence at all.
And A.O.C. only wants what's best for America as well. They're both a couple of patriots who just want to uphold the Constitution and defend this country.

Anonymous said...

•9/11 IN PLANE SITE

https://youtu.be/igX7Z8VstN4b

•ZEITGEIST ON 9/11

https://youtu.be/1ETFprVKi2g

•FROM JFK TO 9/11

https://youtu.be/jiHm2S0w3_Q

•FROM JFK TO 9/11 - The SEQUEL

https://youtu.be/A7TGIyV-UEg

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

A nonprofit organization that represents more than 3,000 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11...

https://www.ae911truth.org/

paul said...

By the way
If you ever asked yourself who was the insurer of the WTC, the answer is Lloyds of London.

Anonymous said...

Horrific mass shooting at Mosque in New Zealand. The video footage shows a man almost taking the shooter down before the potential hero is shot point blank.

Anonymous said...

https://www.scribd.com/document/401945007/Brenton-Tarrant-Great-Replacement-Manifesto

Manifesto of shooter - pure New Age

Anonymous said...

Shooter says goal is to remove gun rights from the US, thus causing a civil war in the US.

Anonymous said...

THE 9/11 INSURANCE BONANZA 

“An Insurance Policy that had been set up for the WTC Complex only weeks before the Twin Towers went down” says Investigative Journalist Laurence De Mello.

***Larry Silverstein – “The Harder I Worked The Luckier I Became”***

De Mello continues, “In 1980...real estate tycoon Silverstein won a bid from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to construct 7 World Trade Center to the north of the WTC. Building 7 World Trade Center was situated above a (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints.”

When the building first opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building.

But this building was also losing money. Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. (he had waited over 20 years for this!).

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was initially outbid by $50 million by Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties with Vornado Realty, who were also competing for the lease”. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial lease applicant and the Port Authority fell through, Silverstein signed the lease on July 24, 2001, only weeks (48 days) before the towers were destroyed on 11th September of the same year.

Larry Silverstein had acquired what was considered a very expensive ”white elephant”. Here comes a Red Flag; After Silverstein closed his deal he stated; “This is a dream come true,” “We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights.” Yet this was a comment that was meant to make the public think this was a good investment. He didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that he was buying the dead asset which the WTC was immediately before 9/11. Why ? Because he already knew what was going to happen!
This was written in “‘Business week” with regard to the WTC before 9/11. From an economic standpoint, the Trade Center — subsidized since its inception — has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.

Anonymous said...

The Port Authority had made several attempts over the years to get the permits required to demolish the entire site but were always refused because of the “asbestos problem” and the serious danger that “asbestos” would cause to the local community should the buildings be “demolished” in the conventional manner.

His only consent to get around that risk to health was that the building could be literally dismantled “‘floor by floor”, which could never have been a viable operation. Other New York developers had apparently been driven to bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations and the prospect of $200 million to plug those losses, which represented an entire year’s worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers at full rental capacity.

So even after Larry Silverstein’s multi billion dollar acquisition in July of 2001 the Towers still required further funds of some $200 million in renovations and improvements to make the buildings rentable. Most of the 200 million renovation funds related to the removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.

Here we see a Red Flag; Where would that money have come from if Silverstein already had to invest 14 million of his own money to close the deal? This 14 million of Silverstein’s personal funds being used in the deal tells us there was no more investors money available when he bought the lease in July 2002, so how would Silverstein have found another 200 million dollars to bring the WTC up to the standard for it to start to pay its own way?

Red Flag; One has to ask why would the biggest real estate developer in the USA acquire a group of buildings that were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars per month? Especially as this new lease did not give him the right to redevelop the WTC site to make it a viable investment.

Anonymous said...

Now here’s the interesting clause to the 99 year lease that was “‘turning Silverstein on”; although Silverstein was not permitted to redevelop the site, HE DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURES SHOULD THEY BE DESTROYED.

Now remember, Silverstein invested not only 3.2 billion dollars of other people’s money into the deal, but also 14 million dollars of his own money! Now that’s a very unusual investment step to take by a real estate genius, putting all that money into a site that was continuously a monumental financial loss.

A site that can never be developed in a way that was financially feasible! How does one justify that move to ones 3.2 billion dollar investors? I would love to have seen the Business Plan for that! We should certainly ask for those!

After closing the WTC deal in late July 2001, Silverstein immediately insured his “‘white elephant” buildings. The insurance coverage on the property ‘fortuitously’ covered acts of terrorism.

And more curiously, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein’s view, separate attacks.

The total potential payout was $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

From Forbes.com 6th Dec 2004, “A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes”.

Anonymous said...

The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. “That means Silverstein got his buildings demolished in hours, he gets his insurance payments giving him 1.3 billion dollars more than he paid for the WTC 99 year lease, he gets free rein to build a state of the art, healthy, cost effective complex in the centre of Manhatten.

And all only 48 days after he signed the contracts! No wonder he used his own 14 million dollars, he KNEW he was getting it back!

Here we also start to think, hold on, if so many BIG people knew that the buildings were not permitted to be demolished due to health risks from asbestos, why were the locals told the air was “safe to breath” immediately after the 9/11 collapse?

The Port authority had applied for years for permits and had been refused yet they lied saying the air was safe. Why?

Then we have those famous words of Silvestein days after the 9/11 horror, “I remember getting a call from the, uh, Fire Department Commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, uh…and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.” ~ Larry Silverstein, owner of New York’s World Trade Center Building 7, which was demolished on 9/11/2001.

So they just pulled it, in just a couple of hours, just like that!

Hmmm, go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and our very qualified friends will tell you just how many weeks of planning it takes to just “pull it”.

Infowars OpEd News
March 26, 2010

https://www.infowars.com/the-great-911-insurance-bonanza/

Anonymous said...

Tonight I came across a very dear brother in Christ's sermons on YouTube. The Rev Canon Gerald Kaye is a retired Anglican clergyman who previously worked (and flew) in Canada among the North American Indian communities. Although retired now for a good few years, Gerald continues to serve the Lord's different denomination churches in Fort William and a weekly Bible study group.

Listen to him as he leads a service at the Fort William Free Church of Scotland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwIU3B0jj8

2 Kings 6:1-23; Ephesians 2:1-10 ~ Open Your Eyes

Enjoy and be blessed.

~ K ~

Anonymous said...

Paul 6:49 PM wrote:

"And even if all that weren't true, what the hell brought down that third tower, which wasn't even hit by a plane? Was it ashes falling all over it? Was it wind? That tower was standing solid and normal at noon time when it came straight down; in it's own footprint, miraculously, at freefall speed, (just like the other two, which at least got hit by a plane)."

When I first became aware of this issue I immediately realized that the 'puppet-masters' would NEVER have wanted this to happen.

Therefore...

THERE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE THREE PLANES CRASHING INTO THOSE THREE BUILDINGS!!!

The missing third plane of the planned trio was the one that 'uselessly' (supposedly) crashed in the relative nowheresville of Shanksville. (Something had gone awry with that part of the plan and so they HAD to set off the numerous planted charges* in Building 7 WITHOUT the planned plane impact occurring FIRST.)

*Aside from whatever other 'benefits' they had thought that they would get from the destruction of Building 7 they now had a MAJOR ONE IN JEOPARDY:

DESTROYING THE EVIDENCE!!!

Anonymous said...

I read through the shooter's manifesto, or at least skimmed through it. He wants the US to be destroyed and the manifesto ends with "Europa Rising".

paul said...

And by the way,
The "crash site in Shanksville, PA was a big hole in the ground with nothing in it. There were no plane engine parts or debris of any kind.
Nor was there any jet engine debris at the Pentagon.
We're supposed to believe that even though every other plane crash in history has been a debris field, including of course the engine parts, (just like we see in the photos of that plane that just crashed in Ethiopia), but in these two cases the plane completely "vaporized".

GrantNZ said...

Hi guys New Zealand just had a terrorism attack but aimed at muslims.
Christchurch City went into lockdown due shooter went into two Mosques and shot people also explosive devices were found.
Four arrests so far.
Now in Auckland the Cities main train station is closed under bomb alert.
Will be interesting to see what our very socialist leaders do in response.



GrantNZ said...

49 dead and 47 wounded.
Shooter filmed what he was doing and posted it in the web.
Spoke with person who saw the footage and he said each person was shoot multiple times (approx 4x each).


Anonymous said...

Twitter Hosted Violent Hate Rants And Photos Of New Zealand Mass Shooter Who Live-Streamed The Killing Of Muslim Churchgoers

Thursday, March 14, 2019 By Mike Adams / Natural News

Because Twitter has now repeatedly violated Sec. 230 of the CDA (Communications Decency Act), the dishonest, unethical tech giant can now be sued by victims of the mass shooting involving two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, where the murder of innocent Muslim churchgoers just took place in the last few hours.

The two mosques where shootings took place, according to Radio NZ, are the Masjid Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Masjid Mosque.

At least one of the shooters obtained what almost certainly appear to be illegal weapons in New Zealand, then posted his intentions to kill Muslims on Twitter. He even posted deranged photos with revenge messages scrawled across firearm magazines. Twitter did not remove his account, even as Twitter banned Natural News (@HealthRanger) from posting stories about nutrition and natural health.

Yes, you read that correctly: Twitter banned one of the most prominent online channels on natural health and nutrition but didn’t ban an insane, deranged mass shooter’s channel that clearly contained disturbing visual proof of an intent to carry out mass murder. As you’ll see below, Twitter may be complicit in this carefully planned, staged event that took the lives of innocent people for the purpose of causing cultural chaos and violence.

Here’s one of the photos that Twitter carried on behalf of the mass shooter, who went on to murder an unknown number of churchgoers:

Twitter and Facebook can both be sued for publishing this killer’s photos and videos, since they have forfeit any liability protection under Sec. 230 of the CDA

The facts of this horrific event seem to point toward huge legal liability for Twitter, which is now functioning as an editorial publisher by selectively banning channels for political speech or health freedom speech.

Twitter can now be sued by all the families of the victims of these violent shootings, for Twitter has forfeited Sec. 230 legal immunity by selectively banning pro-America, pro-Trump channels as part of its agenda to assert strong editorial control over its platform. This puts Twitter in the position of being legally liable for all the content posted on Twitter, including the content posted by this mass shooter.

The shooter also live-streamed the entire mass killing on Facebook, posting a video that looks eerily like a first-person shooter video game… except these were real casualties and real deaths, not imaginary video game scores. By the same legal reasoning, this also makes Facebook legally liable for potentially billions of dollars in damages stemming from lawsuits of the families whose loved ones were murdered while Facebook used a video stream of the mass murder to increase its corporate profits.

Both Twitter and Facebook, accurately stated, are complicit in these New Zealand murders.

Here’s a screen grab of the video the shooter live-streamed on Facebook. Note the bizarre scrawling in white marker on this shotgun which was used at the beginning of the shooting. The fact that this event was carefully scripted, video recorded and published on social media proves that this real violence was staged as a global media event to achieve a specific political purpose (see below).

Anonymous said...

The violence is real, but the entire shooting appears to be an elaborate staging of events to provoke more war and hatred… and Twitter just helped the killers achieve their ultimate goal

Notably, as much as the violence in this event appears to be genuine, it also appears that the shooter was setting up an elaborate narrative to blame conservatives such as Candace Owens, who is for some reason named in a post that was reportedly authored by the shooter. (Candace Owens is a brilliant, African-American conservative commentator who abhors the use of violence, by the way.) Other parts of the post containing hate-filled rants against Islam and a desire to carry out violence against Muslims.

The narrative that this shooter was “radicalized” by intelligent conservative voices like Candace Owens is obviously contrived, and it points to larger questions about who might really be behind this event (and who benefits from the narrative that emerges from the carefully scripted, video-documented violence).

According to the shooter’s own manifesto which was apparently posted to social media, the shooter specifically chose to use firearms to escalate mass media coverage and cause a civil war in the United States. The rantings read like a CIA “divide and conquer” blueprint, or a “problem-reaction-solution” approach to sowing dissent and sparking even more violence.

See TheGatewayPundit.com for rapid coverage of tweets and videos, as we are refusing to publish the videos here, since they are too graphic.

Another suspicious fact that’s emerging from this event concerns reports that there may have been three shooters at two locations, meaning this may have been a coordinated, carefully planned (i.e. staged) event.

Notably, New Zealand is already an extremely restrictive nation when it comes to civilian ownership of firearms. The rifle that has been shown in photos that appear to be linked to this shooting are firearms which are extremely difficult to obtain in New Zealand and require multiple levels of government permitting, background checks and home inspections. Although it is too early to know yet, it seems almost certain that at least one of these weapons was acquired illegally.

We mourn the loss of innocent life and reiterate that no person — not Muslims, not Christians, not Hindus, Sikhs or Jews — deserves to be subjected to violence merely because of their religion.

Since President Trump was elected in 2016, however, Leftists in America have been escalating their hate-filled attacks on Christians in America, all while labeling Bible scripture “hate speech” and censoring Christians from social media. The same tech giants that censor Christians who preach the word of God, it turns out, are more than happy to live-stream mass murder by a deranged lunatic whose rantings just happen to perfectly fit the globalist narrative that would foment worldwide violence and hatred.

How convenient.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-03-14-twitter-hosted-violent-hate-rants-and-photos-of-new-zealand-mass-shooter.html

------------

Radio New Zealand:

https://www.radionz.co.nz/

paul said...

What is a "Muslim churchgoer"?
What an ignorant thing to call anyone! It only goes to show how uninformed the general public has become in this dumbed-down age. A mosque is not a church and a church is no kind of mosque, unless they all just seem like the same thing to some uneducated college graduate with a modern degree in journalism.
The fact that so many people don't know the difference these days is a good part of the reason why this will all end up becoming a new law that no religion can claim that its views are necessarily correct.
I really wouldn't be surprised if this massacre in NZ weren't in fact perpetrated by the Islamists in order to establish some kind of equivalency between their murderous, bloodthirsty ways and all Christianity, which in turn would help bring about the desired effect of the aforementioned new laws.
We all know that that's exactly what's coming, despite the clear Biblical commandments not only to not commit murder, but also to actually follow Christ all the way to the cross, rather that retaliate for wrongdoings. We are to turn the other cheek and love our enemies, per order of Jesus Christ himself.
No such commandments are found in the Koran. Quite the contrary.

Anonymous said...

Interesting and important point, Paul (although I must confess that I myself have never heard the term 'mosquegoers' so perhaps Mike can be forgiven his erroneous use of the term 'churchgoers').

------------

"Difference between Synagogue, Temple, Church, Mosque, Shul and Tabernacle

"Key Difference: A Synagogue is a place where Jewish people worship God, known to them as Yaweh. A Temple is the place of worship for those belonging to a number of religions. A church is a term that refers to Christian houses of worship. Mosque or Masjid is the place of worship in Islam; it is where the Islamic people directly pray to Allah, known as salah. Shul is the other name for Synagogue. Tabernacle is another place of worship for Christian people.

"The terms Synagogue, Temple, Church, Mosque, Shul and Tabernacle are six terms that have become confusing for many people who are not avid followers of Islam, Hindism, Judism or Christianity..."

http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-synagogue-temple-church-mosque-shul-and-tabernacle

Anonymous said...

http://www.infowars.com/manifesto-of-an-eco-terrorist-monster-meet-the-new-zealand-mosque-killer/

paul said...

Well, if Mike is that uninformed about the subject, it's God that will have to forgive him, not me. I don't condemn him, but I would doubt that he has any faith at all, which would of course make him the perfect tool for the Islamic jihad which he has now witnessed in action.
His term "innocent Muslim churchgoers" just screams ignorance.
Just so he knows, there is no Christian equivalent to Islamic Jihad. We don't do murder, even if some liars say they, or we, do.
Islam on the other hand has been accurately described a slow motion genocide against Christians since its very inception by its murderous founder Mumitt, ( may he rot in hell ) around the fifth century after the Lord and Saviour of the world Jesus Christ arose from the dead and ascended into heaven where he now sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and from where he will return to judge the world.
To put it in a nutshell; Jesus is alive. Mummid is very dead. Jesus healed, and continues to heal, thousands, and saved, and continues to save millions and millions_ whereas Muhamit, murdered thousands and stole and raped many.
The slow-motion genocide has, and will continue to, pick up speed these days however. It's pretty much daily now.
Whatever the perpetrators of this most recent mass murder say or said, about themselves, they could not possibly be Christians.

RayB said...

Rick Wiles' recent video on the teaching of the "Secret Rapture" doctrine.

Have you been taught to believe in a 7 year Great Tribulation period?

Do you believe that Jesus will return in two stages? Once to "secretly" remove his church, and another 7 years later?

Do you believe that the final Judgment occurs AFTER the "1,000 Year (Millennium) reign of Christ" upon the earth from Jerusalem, or does it occur immediately upon Christ's return?

Do you believe that during the "Millennium," BLOOD sacrifices as per the OT will be re-instituted?

What does the Bible REALLY teach regarding these subjects, and more? Have you been deceived by "men" to believe something that is NOT taught by God's word?

You can skip the first 30+ minutes of news, etc. and go right to where the discussion begins re: the Rapture, etc. at the 33 minute mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUa5cS03ia8

RayB said...

Paul,

I've been marginally aware of Mike Adams and his site for years. Personally, I think his use of the term "Muslim church goers" was a mental misstep. I feel certain that if this was pointed out to him he would immediately correct it.

Sometimes, in our haste to write something and "get it out," a proper self-editing is not done. I think this is what happened.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting what the media worldwide is reporting about this event leaning towards blaming conservative far right ideology when it's actually the new extreme leftist movement at play.
If you read the gunman Brenton Tarrant's manifesto he says that he wanted “no part of” conservatism, describing himself as an “eco-fascist” and expressing admiration for Communist China.
When asked “Were/are you a conservative?”, Brenton writes “No, conservatism is corporatism in disguise, “I want no part of it.
He talks about his political beliefs ...
“When I was young I was a communist, then an anarchist and finally a libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist.”
He writes that he considers himself an “eco-fascist by nature.”
And he writes “The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China” .

From my own observations the extreme leftist eco movement has been building for sometime now but very few people have any awareness of it because it doesn't fit traditional boundaries.

Anonymous said...

"Ecofascism is a theoretical political model in which a totalitarian government would require individuals to sacrifice their own interests to the 'organic whole of nature' and which would rely on militarism, expansionism, and possibly racism to defend the land."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism

https://www.duckduckgo.com/eco-fascist

https://www.duckduckgo.com/eco-fascist

Anonymous said...

CORRECTION:

https://www.duckduckgo.com/eco-fascism

Anonymous said...

New age globalism is a the political model in which a totalitarian one world government requires individuals to sacrifice their own interests and worship the 'organic whole of nature' and would rely on militarism, expansionism, and possibly the excuse of racism and hate speech to eradicate all opposition.

Anonymous said...

www.duckduckwon'tgo/antifa

Anonymous said...

Sure it will!

Where no duck has ever gone before...

STAR DUCK

www.duckduckgo/antifa

Anonymous said...

Constance,

Ann Barnhardt became well known overnight in 2011 when, in response to Senator Lindsey Graham suggesting that burning the Quran should be made a criminal offence, she uploaded to YouTube a video of herself bookmarking the most offensive passages in the Quran with strips of bacon, then tearing out the relevant pages and burning them, all the while excoriating Sen. Graham and Islam. In response to a resulting Muslim death threat she posted a photo of her pink-painted assault rifle and her own address with the words "I aim for the head. You won't feel a thing." She uploaded a presentation claiming that Muslims enact female 'circumcision' because the resulting sex reminds men of anal sex, which she says they prefer. (I disagree; FGM is simply an extreme form of misogyny.) She was a dealer in cattle futures and had her own business, but then closed it down when no action was taken against Jon Corzine of MF Global for raiding client accounts, telling her own clients that the financial system was wholly corrupt and unsafe to be involved with. She took menial jobs and said she was happier. She uploaded a major presentation on the financial system. She said one autumn a few years ago that the financial system would totally implode by Christmas that year. She refused to pay tax and lost her house in Colorado. She is an ultratraditionalist Roman Catholic who sees no good of any sort in any form of protestantism (she was a protestant long ago), and she managed to afford a trip to Rome, which she loved, before Pope Benedict resigned. She came out against Pope Francis and now loudly and legalistically insists that he is an antipope and that Benedict, whom she excoriates for cowardice, remains the real Pope. She understands the decay of our culture very well, as is obvious upon listening to her weekly extended podcasts. I would describe her as a woman of integrity and courage but questionable judgement.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis donates $500K to help illegal aliens reach America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rdImnJDHv0

Paula Mastop Bentes said...


Hello everyone,The blank ATM card I got from Mike Fisher's blank ATM hackers helped save my life. I was in a very terrible situation financially but then my friend told me about them. I was skeptical about it but he assured me that it worked for him so I ordered one and here I am, back on my feet. Its the best out there with multiple withdrawals up to $80000 per month, easy usage and very safe as well, it's arrival was in less than a week. If there's anyone in need of financial saving you can contact them at blankatm156@gmail.com . I cannot express how grateful i am to blankatm156@gmail.com for placing me in a better financial position. Email : blankatm156@gmail.com