Hillary aide talks about animal sacrifice to demon Moloch in WikiLeaks email

Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks‘ streaming release of the hacked Hillary Clinton emails is a gift that keeps on giving.

The latest is a very strange email from one of Hillary’s State Department Foreign Service officers named W. Lewis Amselem, in which he, jokingly or not, made mention of “sacrificing a chicken in the backyard to Moloch” — a demon to whom child sacrifices are offered. (Amselem is a Sephardic Jewish surname.)

Note: In the Old Testament, Gehenna was a valley by Jerusalem, where apostate Israelites and followers of various pagan gods sacrificed their children by fire (2 Chr. 28:3, 33:6; Jer. 7:31, 19:2–6). One of those gods was Moloch (aka Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, Moloc, Melech, Milcom or Molcom), an ancient Ammonite god who demanded a particular kind of propitiatory child sacrifice from parents.

Lewis AmselemW. Lewis Amselem is now a retired senior U.S. Foreign Service officer. In 2009 when he wrote that email, Amselem was the head of the U.S. delegation to the Organization of American States (OAS). It is said that Amselem had concealed the identities of individuals, one of whom was a U.S. national, who in 1989 kidnapped, tortured and raped Diana Ortiz, an American nun in Guatemala.

Amselem’s email was forwarded by Cheryl D. Mills to Hillary Clinton.

Cheryl D. MillsCheryl Mills was Hillary’s chief of staff throughout Hillary’s 4 years as secretary of state. In June 2016, Mills was deposed as part of the discovery granted to Judicial Watch by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in response to JW’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecured, non-government email system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

Below is a screenshot I took of the WikiLeaks email (you can see the email for yourself here). The email from Amselem with the reference to animal sacrifice to Moloch is at the end of a series of forwarded email exchanges. (I painted a red bracket around the animal sacrifice phrase.)

Hillary Wikileaks1See also:

~Eowyn

Advertisements

95 responses to “Hillary aide talks about animal sacrifice to demon Moloch in WikiLeaks email

  1. Why would people even joke about stuff like that, as humans it is beneath our dignity in doing so. Going back in time, there were tens of thousands of children who were sacrificed thusly. Hardly a joking matter. It just goes to show that liberalism really is mental illness.

    Liked by 2 people

    • These NWO crazies are drunk with power. But, I wonder if they really know how pathetic they really look? A chicken? How lame. The guy doesn’t realize that once sattan has no use for you, he throws you away.

      Like

    • Frankly, why would anyone even know about the demon, moloch, unless he was extremely familiar with the occult and names of demons. He must be familiar with the devil and his demons.

      Like

      • Well, that “could” be a matter of context. Certainly, THIS BUNCH, in this situation, would have no need of that. The Church actually knows quite a lot (maybe more than anyone else) about “demonology”.

        I find it fascinating. Having said that, there are MULTIPLE caveats that go with that. No one should “dabble” in this that doesn’t have a legitimate reason and and adequate training. While Christians have nothing to fear from the evil forces unless they invite them, invitations are not always that easy to understand.

        Nobody in the Church suggests that people should “play” with this or make light of it. All attempts to “use” the occult are attempts to influence things outside of God’s will. That’s essentially what makes it sinful.

        In helping those fools who have opened themselves to these forces, it is often necessary to know who one is dealing with. It is no joke.

        Many people continue to have doubts about these mutts being Satanists. I don’t. Lord knows, there’s enough evidence of it out there.

        Like

  2. Although it seems intended as humor, I can’t be at ease with a guy who can make that joke. Very troubling stuff. Thank you for making it public on FOTM, Dr. Eowyn.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Yes, at the time (1989) they were deeply involved in Latin American destabilization. Of course, that was blamed on a “conservative” U.S. policy. This should go some way to dispelling the myth that there is a shred of difference between either titular political party.

    They were very busy facilitating the murder of priests and nuns who were involved with a socialist experiment called “Liberation Theology”. Basically, it was a land redistribution scheme. TPTB were fascist and not keen on contributing to the peasant’s welfare.

    One has to understand that, regardless of what “party” claims power, neither of them cares one whit about the stated agenda. They were after resources and power and wanted to install government that would cooperate with their owner’s wishes.

    The fact that this guy is a Jew is perfect. He’s obviously familiar with Talmudic and cabalistic references. They do this like Freemasons give the “secret sign” to let others know of their affiliations.

    Gehenna was actually the dump. It burned continuously and became the visual representation of “Hell”. All of these dark deeds done in secret reek of Gehenna. I suppose that is why we find rats in sewers.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: Hillary aide talks about animal sacrifice to demon Moloch in WikiLeaks email — Fellowship of the Minds | kommonsentsjane

  5. I’m taking it that this is not a joke. After all, ordinary Orthodox Jews have no problem abusing and killing chickens to for other rituals seen here in all it’s disgusting barbarity… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpEsbOXdrdQ
    Couple that with Larry Nicholson’s assertion that Bill told him that Hitlery flew to California each month to participate in some kind of witchcraft ritual

    and the fact that Hitlery is more than likely a Crypto Jew herself..
    http://henrymakow.com/2016/03/is-hillary-clinton-a-crypto.html

    Liked by 1 person

  6. At the risk of being misunderstood, my take goes something like this: We all have a fundamental choice to make. Those who are Christian should know that, those who are not are at a “disadvantage”.

    In order to commit a mortal sin, one must understand that one is doing that and choose to do it anyway. So, depending on whether one subscribes to the psychological model and says she is a psychopath or the religious model, and says she is possessed, may determine whether her behavior is “willful” or not.

    I have no problem seeing her either way. I, of course, do not know when this behavior of hers first began. It has obviously progressed to a point where she is totally consumed. I would not have any problem believing that she belonged to a coven. It may not be necessary, but she would do that if she believed there was some advantage for her in it.

    As Lana points out, she “may” be a crypto-Jew, to be honest I know very little about her background. A good example of that would be Nancy Pelosi.

    So, she is either possessed or insane or both. Luckily for me I don’t have to sort this out. Her behavior is obvious. How she got there is a little muddy.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I have read elsewhere that Hillary Clinton is Jewish, that she is a Crypto-Jew. That being said, I also know that some Jews do a ritual with a live chicken, in which they swing a live chicken around their heads in a circular fashion, thus transferring their moral guilt to the bird.
    That being said, it sure seems to me that this woman is not a believer; or, if she believes at all, that her “god” is LUCIFER. And if what I have read recently is true, a very large chunk of the Washington Establishment is involved in the Clinton Foundation. So we’re stuck with this She-Devil until nature takes its course, as it were.

    You know, a large number of unbelievers reject belief, stating they need some sort of empirical “proof.” Yet how many of them resort to tarot cards, palm readers, channeling, or some other New Age nonsense. So they really don’t care about God, Whomever He may be; They want that Glory for themselves!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Steven, that’s a good explanation about the chicken. I guess you could say that they’re a “carefree lot”. As the Freemasons say “the Jewes are the ones who will not be blamed for anything”. That message was scrawled in blood at the scene of one of Jack the Rippers victim’s.

      It is true that “faith” is difficult for many. That was one of the side lures of “science”. In reality they don’t have to be at odds. Faith at least delivers on its promises.

      People are selfish. If they choose to revel in their selfishness they become of this world. They do not see themselves as destined for anything greater. As a result, they aren’t.

      That has always been a theological dilemma. In the early days it was necessary that people be made aware that they must choose. Later, it was assumed that they know this. It is simple enough. Those of my generation all know this. I’m not so sure beyond that point.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lophatt: About two or three years ago, Dr. Makow ran a post, in which his source(s) identify Jack the Ripper as Winston Churchill’s father or grandfather.

        Like

        • Hmmm? I haven’t heard that one. I’ve heard others. There is one that has Prince Edward and his illegitimate child with a prostitute causing the Queen to send her physician after her. I can’t remember his name at the moment. It’s plausible.

          There’s another that has a crazy American. That has a lot of anecdotal evidence as well. For me the Masonic references were interesting. It was clearly done by someone who knew the rituals. Clues were also left so that the police, who were heavily into Freemasonry, would recognize the work of brother masons.

          So, whoever “Jack” was, he was a mason.

          Like

      • “the Jewes are the ones who will not be blamed for anything”.

        It’s years since I last saw a film called ‘Murder by Decree’, starring Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes ‘investigating’ the Ripper murders.

        The quote above was used. BUT – I’m certain it was along the lines of “the Jewes are not the ones who will be blamed for nothing”.

        It was deduced by Holmes (yes, I know, I’m just passing on info) that “Jewes” did NOT refer to Jews. It referred to the Masons. Namely, three ‘gods’ that they allegedly worship – Jahbulon (iirc) & 2 others I don’t remember.

        Also note it doesn’t end with “anything”, the word used is “nothing”.
        This was not meant to be taken as a ‘Hollywood style’ double negative (ie: a film character saying “I don’t know nuthin” when they mean “I know nothing”).
        In other words. The message was stating that it was indeed the Masons that were responsible….

        I am not taking a position, I just (vaguely) remember that part of the film & thought it may be of interest….

        Like

        • It is a double-entendre. The word “Jewes” comes from the Masonic initiation ceremony. In this case there are “three ruffians”, Jubilo, jubil (I can’t remember, but you get the idea), collectively known as “The Jewes”.

          Also associated with the ceremony are the “penalties” for divulging the ceremony. They list gruesome tortures such as disembowelment, etc.. The “Jack the Ripper” murders are thought to emulate those.

          As far as my quote goes, I’m doing it from memory so I could be wrong. What difference does it make?

          The point I was attempting to make is that these various groups have common sources. Doing dark deeds in private are their stock and trade. They also like to signal to their “initiates’ that they are involved.

          So, what appears to be an “off the cuff remark” may not be. It is the same for hand signals and other symbolism. They are telling their members “you are part of a great undertaking in the service of your father, Satan”. Believe it or not, many are excited by things like that and love to belong. They are useful idiots.

          Like

    • Some of the ultra-orthodox Hasidim can be a bit strange (if not OCD)… most orthodox Jews even don’t get like that, so take it for what you will.

      Like

  8. I doubt the “chicken” is the kind that has feathers and clucks.

    Liked by 1 person

    • OMG, I didn’t think of that meaning: “chicken” as in “chicken hawk,” i.e., homosexual males who prey on young boys. 😦

      Liked by 2 people

      • I’m not aware of that usage. I’ve always thought of “chicken hawk” as being someone with no military service who’s always pushing for war.

        I’ll take your word for the other meaning. I doubt, however, that it is what he was discussing in the email. Steven’s reference is true. They do that as sort of a “sin offering”. Very primitive. Like the “Judas Goat”.

        Preying on young boys, however, is a shared pass time for them. It sort of “binds” them together in sinful behavior. That’s part of the mystique of lying in a coffin while other men masturbate on you. That’s what they do for Skull and Bones. Nice, huh?

        Satan is a deceiver. Some of these mutts choose him willingly, others are tricked. Either way, their rewards are gathered in this world.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Actually, while the catholic church seems to lead the pack on the matter of priestly pedophilia, there is quite a lot of information available to reflect that that peculiar and evil desire is rampant among Jewish Rabbis but because activities of the Jews isn’t broadcasted like that of other “faiths”, little to nothing is reported.

        I have always believed in the Lord’s admonition that He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and in obedience to the words of Jesus I have heeded it and stood with and for her even when others curse her like she’s a monster.

        Jesus proclaimed openly that children sacred and blessed in the eyes of God and I despise anyone and everyone when I learn of child abuse in any form but when I learn of things like Rabbinical abuse of children, I immediately wonder…Ok God, just how far are us worthless gentiles supposed to go in our support of a nation who is no better than one who sacrifices children in Your Name?

        Like

        • Jack, as a Catholic of of course resent the implication that pedophiliac behavior is an “article of faith” of the Church. It is not. I’m not certain what the real statistics of that are between protestants and Catholics, but there has never been an absence of Catholic-bashing.

          I make no more excuse for it than anyone should but I’m not going to agree that Catholicism has more of them than others. It certainly gets more negative attention which is par for the course in this country.

          In fact, I don’t believe that pedophile behavior is encouraged or condoned in any Christian church. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. I am quite content in my choice of faith and will remain so. There is much that needs to be done to eliminate pedophiles but I suspect that they will be with us for a long time to come.

          I wouldn’t want any confession to become sanctimonious about this issue. I don’t know of one that hasn’t had episodes of it. I doubt that the sins of any group are ameliorated by the renunciation of another.

          Like

        • To begin, I’m baffled as to how your response is relevant to my comment.

          “the catholic church seems to lead the pack on the matter of priestly pedophilia”

          The data we have are that the incidence of pedophilia among Catholic priests is the same as in any other group, including Protestant sects, Jewish synagogues, and secular school teachers, but the MSM decided to highlight pedo priests because the Catholic Church has fought the fiercest against abortion.

          “the Lord’s admonition that He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel”

          That all depends on what “Israel” and “Jews” mean. Do you really think God would insist on blessing an Israel that denies the divinity of His only Son? What would be the point of that? “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father.” 1 John 2:22-23. See also Revelation 3:9: “I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars”.

          Liked by 5 people

          • Precisely! “Israel” is “The People of God”, (wherever they exist). It is not a “place” (other than in an historical sense). In that sense it only existed for about 200 years. Then we were left with little Judah. The national name “Israel” is political, not religious.

            Any Christian, regardless of their confession and despite what I may think of it, should be able to recognize that Christ’s earthly ministry was largely about condemning that “Synagog of Satan”. Nothing has changed in that regard. It is still there and people still have their freewill to embrace it or reject it.

            All of the word trickery and fancy footwork will not obviate the facts. The Catholic Church is always singled out because it is the one that scares them the most. It is the oldest and has been stedfast in its opposition until very recently. I would offer that the whole “Reformation” is the result of this conflict. But that’s another discussion.

            Christians, of ALL people should be able to see this. I’m going to do this again. Read Douglas Reed “The Controversy of Zion”, it is available for free on the internet. I can’t recommend this enough. it is written by an English protestant in the 1950’s so you needn’t concern yourselves with “Catholic propaganda”.

            Like

  9. That sentences sounds cryptic like a code, the elites likes using codes among themselves.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. If Hillary is into,.. ‘animal sacrifice’,..You can bet that the creatures, in question, to be sacrificed, would be a whole lot higher up on the food chain than chickens,..
    If you get my drift,..

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I must lead a shelter life or because I don’t run in those circles, but I have no idea who or what moloch is, nor care to know.
    But staying on Hillary, her actions and treatment to other people has always led me to believe, she is not the Christian she wants us to believe while they were in the White House and we were fed those staged “go to church” photos on the Sunday News. What other President had their photos taken every Sunday.
    Heck, the guy we have now, his trips can be counted on one hand. Pretty amazing since he insisted on going to Wright’s church weekly.

    Like

    • Well, Glenn47,..whether or not you want to know,..Moloch was a Canaanite Demon/Diety to whom his devote’s sacrificed their infant children by burning them alive, in hopes of gaining some benefit or other,.

      Which is not all that different from the mindset of people people who patronise Planned Parenthood, except, at planned Parenthood, they don’t need to deal with the sounds of screams and/or the smell of burning flesh..

      Liked by 2 people

  12. The Canaanites also sacrificed their first born children to Baal and ate human flesh. in fact the word cannibal comes from Canaan and Baal. I think Baal and Molech and Dagan and Sargon were probably pretty much the same god- type, and the Israelites were justified in killing them. Elijah killed 450 priests of Baa — good for him.l

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well, the Israelites also killed the infants & children, so, what does that tell you about Jews,.,.?
      And, they haven’t changed, all that much, since biblical times, what with the carnage they visit on the Palestinians & Lebanon, on a regular basis.

      And don’t get me started on who,..really,..did the deed in New York City on 9-11-2001

      Liked by 1 person

    • The early “Hebiru” (from which the word “Hebrew” is derived), practiced sacrifice of the first-born as well. In fact, the priestly class imposed this “duty” on their flock for quite sometime after their return from the first Diaspora.

      Their (often unwilling) “followers” lived in fear of its imposition by the priests. When Christ railed against the sacrifices of the temple cult, he wasn’t only referring to animal sacrifices.

      Most of us have a grossly inadequate understanding of the practices of the region over time and how they developed. By Christ’s time the concept of the one universal God was quite far along among the various peoples of the region. The Pharisees “return” from the Diaspora and its imposition of the priest and temple cult was a major step backward.

      The stories of the Bible must be taken with an understanding that they use these numbers to signify more than the actual numbers involved or the historical accuracy of the events portrayed. The Hebrew Scriptures were “edited” in their transliteration from oral traditions with much editorializing to support the temple cult.

      The “Judahites” (who would later be called “Jews”) were the virtually imprisoned population of the tiny province of Judah. “Israel” (as a nation) having dissolved many centuries earlier. Those mystical descendants of Abraham had long-since joined the other peoples of the region through marriage and were themselves evolving their own ideas of religion.

      We have it from the later priestly class that their early ancestors were prone to fall back on the worship of Baal-Peor. By the time of the return from the first “diaspora” those practices had largely died out. That doesn’t mean that the priests themselves didn’t demand human sacrifice. It simply was not directed to Baal.

      All of this is easily available for study. Jerome didn’t do us any favors by including the Hebrew Scriptures without a lot of disclaimer information. Scholars know these things, they just aren’t discussed much outside of teaching scenarios.

      Like

      • lophatt:

        What are your thoughts on the ancient Hebrews equating Baal with the God they won’t name, YHWH?

        Like

        • I’m not sure they “equated” YHWH to Baal. I think they would have assumed that YHWH was probably like Baal only more powerful. They obviously believed in Baal’s existence.

          Again, it is important to fix these things in time. Nothing was “frozen” in time. What I’m trying to get at is that we have assumptions about the inhabitants of this area and their practices that are probably not as we generally think of them.

          “Gods” were thought of tribally (including YHWH). This is the “Covenant” idea that was edited into Scripture by the scribes during their stay in Babylon. This was the “quid pro quo” God. It should not be confused with the Christian concept of a universal “loving” God.

          So, it is likely that we are not discussing the “identity” of God, but God’s nature. The development of the temple cult depended upon maintaining the priestly authority over the people. It wasn’t interested in helping the people establish personal relationships with God.

          To the Baal worshipers, “God” was a distant, inhuman entity. One didn’t develop a relationship, one petitioned. Again, “quid pro quo”. Jesus taught that God was “Abba” (Father). The priests taught that YHWH was “terrible” and to be feared. “Salvation” came through adherence to priestly regulation. The human sacrifice was always maintained as a possibility should the people become too independent.

          It’s a big subject, I don’t know if I’ve answered your question.

          Like

          • “I don’t know if I’ve answered your question.”
            Hmm, not really. I was referring to this, from HenryMakow.com — Will Newman, “Even Jews ask: Is Judaism a Satanic cult?“:

            The Jewish Encyclopedia (“Adonai and Ba’al”) reveals: “The name Ba’al , apparently as an equivalent for Yhwh.”
            Since the days of Jeremiah, the Jews have forgotten their god’s name and replaced it with the title “Baal” or “YHVH”: The lying prophets “Which think to cause my people to forget my [God’s]name…as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.” (Jer 23:27)…. However, Jews claim that this name (YHVH) is not to be spoken aloud, despite God’s command to declare His name throughout the earth (Exo 9:16). Why ignore this commandment? Judaism claims to be the authority on the Old Testament; however they do not practice what they preach. They dress in black, the color of death, in spite of the scriptural precept to wear white (Ecc 9:8), reject Christ as Messiah (who is prophesied throughout the Old Testament) and refuse to speak “God’s name” in violation of the scriptures…. The name YHVH was injected into the text of the Old Testament by the Pharisees and others who practiced Babylonian Satanism (the precursor to Cabalism and Talmudism). For those who don’t believe the Talmud is Satanic it proclaims that Christ is in Hell boiling in excrement and semen (Gittin, 56b,57a)…. The wise Solomon asks, “what is [God’s] name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?” (Pro 30:4). God’s name is אהיה AHAYAH (sometimes transliterated Ehyeh) meaning I AM. This is the name given to Moses along with the Law. “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you…this is my memorial unto all generations.”(Ex 3:14-15). “I AM the Lord thy God…thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exo 32:4-5).

            Liked by 1 person

            • Where to begin? I am not a big fan of quoting Scripture word for word as immutable fact. Often the verbiage used was used quite intentionally to suggest concepts that are now alien to us. I think it is much more important to understand what is “meant”, rather that “said”.

              YHWH indeed means: “I am who am”. Hebrew, having no vowels, produces this rendering (if we use the “W”). Is that important. Not in my view. For Jews (or Judahites), speaking this name was forbidden. This is obviously meant to reinforce the notion of God’s power.

              Remember that, as Christians, God is “Abba”. That may not be frightening, or awe inspiring, but it is WONDERFUL. Baal-Peor is an ancient Canaanite deity. The Hebiru (sp?) meant “nomad” and this group wandered through Canaan as well as Egypt and surrounds.

              Usually through marriage, people became aware of other tribe’s religions. We should also remember that even the early oral traditions were designed to hold the group together against all others. It was only later that people began to see themselves as members of a larger community.

              So again, as a Christian, I’m not big on dredging up Old Testament wrath and proscriptions. There is much that can be learned in the Hebrew Scriptures from a “wisdom” standpoint. I continue to see God as Abba.

              I see that we have a fundamental (I hate that word!), choice. All things that lead away from “Abba” are to be avoided. That’s the message. The rest is icing. This law is written on our hearts. When we retreat into Old Testament outrage we turn our backs on the law of our hearts. The Holy Spirit has written it there. We should pay attention to it.

              God doesn’t require us to defend Him. He doesn’t need that. He only requires us to believe and follow the Holy Spirit. If we do that we will be pleasing to God. Religion is there to help us find ways to improve our relationship.

              So again, as Christians, we have no reason to fear Baal-Peor or any other “deity”. We should simply recognize its existence and turn away from it. It, or any of the others, have no power over us. We cannot be converted or led astray without our cooperation.

              We should be ready to help others but our primary concern is ourselves. We each have our cross to bear. I might help you with yours but, ultimately, it is yours and yours alone. Once someone understands that there is little else to be said.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Lop (you’ll always be Lop to me), this is beautifully said, and it touched my heart: “Religion is there to help us find ways to improve our relationship [with God].” That’s how I see it, too. I like the idea that my religion helps me to practice my faith. Honestly, I doubt Heavenly Father (“Abba”) cares one whit which denomination we join, or if we join one at all (although acceptance of Jesus as Savior, repentance, and baptism is crucial). What I think He wants is for each of us to find our way back to Him, and, of course, to follow His commandments (love Him and love each other).

                Dr. Eowyn, I am always impressed by extensive Biblical knowledge and the ability remember relevant Scripture (never mind being able to quote them!). That is a real blessing, and I love when it is shared. I recently completed an intensive self-study of the Old Testament, in chronological order, utilizing supplemental texts including a variety of commentaries, apocryphal texts (like the “Book of Joseph” and others), and Josephus’s “Antiquity of the Jews”. I read and took notes and compiled genealogical graphs for three hours a day, every day, for three years. What a task! And after all that, I can hardly recall a thing. Anyway, I can’t imagine the study you’ve done to know all you know!

                Liked by 1 person

                • Thank you, Recynd. I know you’re right in your belief. Some things are impossible to convey adequately. Faith can be one of them.

                  I undertook several years of study quite a few years ago and became certified as a Master Catechist. I did that because I wanted to learn more about theology. It was grueling, but fascinating. I loved it.

                  I have quite a library now. I do it to better understand. With faith, simple is better. It is better, however, not to trade ignorance.

                  If you never told me this, I would know you to be blessed by your attitude and actions. It is a pleasure and an honor to know you.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • P.S., I forgot. God doesn’t care about religion. That much I know. I care, for my own reasons. Never put limits on God. God is, indeed, Love. Love is all that matters.

                  Liked by 1 person

        • Dr. E, in re-reading your question, to keep it simple, I’ll say this: I have read many pieces wherein the author tries to say that the “God of the Israelites” (meaning YHWH), is, in fact “Baal”.

          This presupposes that, if the Israelites practiced human sacrifice, and they did, they could not have been worshipping YHWH. The other, well-known entity at the time was Baal-Peor, so the assumption is that they must have been worshiping Baal.

          The truth is that no, had you asked a priest at the time, they would have assured you they were worshipping YHWH by sacrificing the first-born.

          If the real question is; “did YHWH wish to be worshipped in this manner?”, I think the obvious answer is “no, he did not”. These ideas represent a development in understanding, over time, of the nature of God. It helps me if I know in what context the question is being asked.

          So, again to answer what I think is your question, the ancient Hebrews DID NOT “equate” Baal with YHWH but they DID offer human sacrifices to Him.

          Liked by 1 person

          • “The truth is that no…”

            Really? How do you know that? I marvel at your certainty.

            From Wikipedia‘s entry on Baal:

            “The Hebrew Bible, compiled and curated over a span of centuries, includes early use of the term in reference to their God Yahweh, generic use in reference to various Levantine deities, and finally pointed application towards Hadad, who was decried as a false god…. The title baʿal was a synonym in some contexts of the Hebrew adon (“Lord”) and adonai (“My Lord”) still used as aliases of the Lord of Israel Yahweh. According to some scholars, the early Hebrews did use the names Baʿal (“Lord”) and Baʿali (“My Lord”) in reference to the Lord of Israel…. However, according to others it is not certain that the name Baal was definitely applied to Yahweh in early Israelite history…. Brad E. Kelle has suggested that references to cultic sexual practices in the worship of Baal, in Hosea 2, are evidence of an historical situation in which Israelites were either giving up Yahweh worship for Baal, or blending the two.”

            What I got from the above very confusing passage is that at some times in ancient Hebrew history, they did equate Baal with Yahweh, but at other times, they distinguished between the two.

            Like

            • P.S. It is fascinating that Jesus never once used the word/name YHWH or Yahweh. Instead He used the word “Abba,” meaning Father, and “El” — the Aramaic word for “God” — when He was on the cross.

              Like

              • Well, “Abba” is more accurately rendered as “Daddy” which would have been totally shocking to the Pharisees in light of their proscription about even naming God. Christ’s intent (or so its believed) was to demonstrate the type of relationship that God the Father wants with His children.

                So, like most things in Scripture, this too is a lesson. It is not simply part of a story. He is chastising the Judaite priesthood.

                Like

            • Well, feel free to “marvel”. If you don’t believe what I’ve said, that’s fine. I can certainly see how some would want their actions portrayed that way. One could even stretch the answer to mean that, “when the people strayed……etc.”.

              As I said, I’m not sure what you’re driving at and if you are really looking for my opinion, it would help if I knew that. If you are just asking a specific question, you have my answer.

              I’m not even sure who “they” are in this context. Are we talking about the priesthood or the subjects? And, more importantly, what difference does it make?

              I do know that, even after the establishment of Judaism, there were occasions of human sacrifice. Some don’t believe that, that’s ok with me. When they did this, were they sacrificing to “Baal”? I don’t think so, unless one subscribes to the theory that they are secret Baal-worshippers. I suppose I could buy that, to a point, but again, what difference does it make?

              I’ve said that God isn’t particularly interested in religion, people are. I am, as a matter of fact. I do not believe that God (YHWH) wants sacrifice, at least not in this form.

              Again, if you don’t like my answer that’s OK with me. It is still my answer. If I’ve misunderstood your question, please clarify what you’re trying to get to.

              Liked by 1 person

              • All fair questions. And yes, I am interested in your thoughts on this. As for me, my modus operandus is mostly one of questioning and asking questions, and the question I’m increasingly asking (from the stuff I read) is whether — as ecumenicals like to say — Jews and Christians actually worship the same God of the Old Testament (God the Father, for Christians). The same is said about Muslims — that they also worship Christians’ God the Father — which I also doubt.

                Like

                • Ah…., now we’re getting somewhere and I can answer that…..NO! My personal belief, based on years of reading, is that it has always been so. The “Synagog of Satan” analogy is a good and valid one.

                  The idea of “YHWH” worship is for the rubes. It’s rather like the Freemasons. If you’re an “Entered Apprentice”, you’re told one thing, as you “progress” you’re told another……..

                  The larger question as far as “do their rabbis and priests know this?”, is more difficult to understand. Judaism being a legalistic, authoritarian institution that claims itself a religion it depends on one’s definition of “religion”.

                  For me it simply is not. It does not encourage personal relationships with God and does not seek to assist its members in improving themselves. It is more than happy to utilize all of the privileges afforded religions. It does this ad nauseum.

                  When the Pharisees returned from their first visit to Babylon, after completing Deuteronomy, they assembled the Judaites at the point of a sword and proceeded to dissolve marriages and enforce isolation. It became known as “The Day the People Wept”.

                  If there is a birthday for what is known now as “Judaism”, this is it. From that point forward the Priests and “Scribes” would rule absolutely. They would use their host’s armies to impose their rule. It has been that way ever since.

                  This is what Christ railed against. It has not changed since then. Christians do not do themselves any favors to ignore this fact.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • P.S., It should be understood that originally, in the “oral tradition” times, YHWH worship was the focus. Later, the “God of the Covenant” was invented. This was during the conversion of oral traditions to written form in Babylon. ALL of that had a political agenda. It was intended to sell the idea that the priests had the exclusive right to intercede with God. “God” (at least in my opinion) was Satan.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  • Ah, we are finally on the same page. 🙂

                    Liked by 2 people

                    • Yes indeed, we were talking past each other. IMO the Talmud is in response to Christ, “Judaism” began with Deuteronomy (about 521 B.C.). I could be wrong on the date, but not by much.

                      This presents a backdrop to Christ’s earthly ministry. He is basically saying, “your ancestors knew God, you know Satan”. Or, “you have morphed the love of God into a legalistic cesspool.

                      I really don’t see that Christians have acknowledged this fact. As you said, “ecumenism” is not productive if the intent is to merge with Satan worshippers. These are polar opposites.

                      Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for the link, Tim. From “21st Century Baal Worship“:

      “Jezebel had instituted Baal worship as the State religion in Israel…. Lest we think this has no relevance to us today, remember that several media outlets recently carried the report of arches to Baal being built in New York and London. Because there was such a strong backlash from the Christian community, those projects were placed on hold. However, one needs to read the fine print that said 1000 of these Baal arch/temples were scheduled to be constructed around the world. It is clear we are surrounded by 21st century Baal worship. Unrestrained, legalized, sexual immorality, abortion and extreme environmentalism called climate change is nothing more than Baal worship under a new name called progressivism.”

      Liked by 2 people

      • Well, Jezebel got it from somewhere. I suspect it was the religion of her tribe. One little trick in the written Old Testament is the recurring theme of being a separate people that needs to be kept pure and away from all others lest they be contaminated. This is done in order to support the temple cult.

        What I’m saying is, “God” didn’t command anyone to stay away from anyone else. The Priests did. God would lead everyone away from Baal worship, but the priests were not as concerned with that as they were with preserving their authority over their subjects.

        There are obviously “actions” that are sinful. Actually, the attitudes that lead to such actions are the real sins. Once someone has a relationship with God such things become easy to avoid. Even so, we are all sinners.

        People are indeed being led away from God. The methods of doing this change with the technology but it is certainly nothing new. The temptation will exist as long as Satan exists. The form it takes may change somewhat. No one can force someone to accept Christ or Satan. It must be a free choice.

        God has set it up this way. We must make good choices. It doesn’t hurt to pray about our choices. The better our relationships are with God and our communication with the Holy Spirit, the easier our choices become. His burden is light. We should laugh at Satan.

        Liked by 1 person

      • P.S., Just a note about “The state religion of Israel”. “Israel”, (the two provinces in the North and South united), lasted less than 200 years. It wasn’t a smooth running entity even when it existed. Again, scholars can pinpoint who wrote what sections of scripture. This one is another that is designed to bolster the temple cult. The author is designated “P” (for Priest).

        “Israel” is portrayed as the idealized situation. This is because it was the only, and brief time that the priests held sway in the entire area. The disintegration is, of course, attributed to Jezebel (and others who did not follow their statutes and observances).

        So, historically, I very much doubt that this was the case, or if there even was a Jezebel (or a David) for that matter. They are characters in the story. The story is designed to teach a lesson. The lesson is that of what would later be called the Pharisees. I’m not too interested in those.

        Like

  13. Would like to defend W. Lewis Amselem from the calumny displayed in this post.
    Amselem runs an erudite Conservative blog here: http://www.thediplomad.com/
    He defends the “chicken” e-mail here:
    http://www.thediplomad.com/2016/03/oh-stooooooooopidity.html
    Both this blog and Amselem deserve better.

    Dan Kurt

    Like

  14. I’d like to respond to Dan_Kurt regarding his accusation of calumny against W. Lewis Anselem.

    I call BULLSH*T.

    In the many comments on Amselem’s blog regarding this particular wikileak, Amselem replied to a commenter who asked whether or not he had a high regard for Richard Perle. Amselem states: “he [Perle] is the one Prince of Darkness I would follow….”

    That’s enough for me.

    warcriminalswatch.org/index.php/the-culpable/36-the-culprits/85-richard-perl

    And what is the image Amselem uses at his profile page?
    http://www.blogger.com/profile/02316439950882822419

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Here is what I found on Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/celtictiger101/personal-gypsy/

    Looks to me like a still from a silent movie.

    Still think Amselem is a good guy from reading his blog.

    Dan Kurt

    Like

  16. LOL at the “ghost of Vincent Price”!! 😀

    My first thought on that photo was “Simon the Sorcerer” aka “Simon the Magician” aka “Simon Magus” who supposedly got saved but hadn’t gotten rid of his greedy heart yet:

    Acts 8:9-24: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:9-24&version=KJV

    Of couse nobody knows what he looked like but there are a few graphics at google images. Here’s just one:

    Also see “Simon Magnus” at the Jewish Encyclopedia (which, among other interesting things, says Simon Magnus thought he was the “messiah” & called himself “god”): http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13747-simon-magus

    ~~~

    I believe it was lophatt who wrote: “I think it is much more important to understand what is ‘meant.’ rather than ‘said.'”

    That sounds like what the MSM constantly does to Trump. They are always interpreting what he must have MEANT rather than what he actually SAID (the latest fiasco being his socalled suggestion to have Hitlery assassinated by 2nd Amendment advocates. Ridiculous).

    ~~~

    Also, the comments negating the Old Testament as “God breathed” is disconcerting. Deuteronomy was written by Moses. The Israelites were not exiled to Babylon during that time frame, but much much later. The dissolution of the marriages was between the Israelites & pagan women (I’m fairly sure, without looking it up, that that was during the books of Eza & Nehemiah, when some of the Israelites returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the city wall & reinhabit it, that the mixed-marriages were dissolved).

    God purposely had the Israelites remain separate, not for “temple cult” purposes (pfff!), but to keep them from being enticed toward the rampant paganism that was everywhere around them (every time they played hanky-panky with the pagans, they always fell away from the Lord & He kicked their butt every time for breaking their Covenant which they agreed to at the foot of Mt. Sinai). God & the Hebrews agreed between them that they be “a holy people” & holy means separated unto the Lord for His purposes. Lophatt seems to be undermining the validity of Scripture (as it is written) at every turn. SMH.

    That is the position that the unsaved take, ie, if they can undermine the Old Testament in their minds (like Makow does) that it was written by “bad guy Jews,” then they can just boot the entire history out the window & reject the “God of the Old Testament” as if He was any different from the “God of the New Testament.” This is false reasoning, I don’t care how many “intellectual commentaries” one might read.

    ~~~

    As for why the Lord Jesus Christ never used the name YHWH, that’s because He WAS YHWH. God the Father is never given a PERSONAL name in Scripture & neither is the Holy Spirit given a PERSONAL name. The entire Scripture record, from Genesis to Revelation, is a progressive revelation of the SON to mankind, & He alone is given many names/titles/descriptions throughout Scripture.**

    It was YHWH/JESUS who stepped forward out of the Invisible Realm to deal with mankind in the Visible Realm. It was the Lord Jesus Christ/YHWH who walked/talked with Adam in the cool of the day, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush & at Mt. Sinai, who appeared before Joshua as the Captain of the Host, who visited Abraham with the two angels to tell of the future birth of Isaac, who “passed by” Elijah while he was in the cave, etc. etc. The entire “Old Testament” is the Lord Jesus Christ-pre-incarnate-as-YHWH who always was the one to deal directly with mankind. (God the Father & the Holy Spirit have not come forward from the Invisible. They remain Invisible & their personal names are not yet known.)

    [Christ] “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature…” (Colossians 1:15-KJV)

    So once YHWH(Jesus) was born in the flesh, He was named Jesus, & no longer needed to be using the name YHWH since it was then fulfilled, ie, YHWH means Salvation. Jesus was now (then) arrived to make the way of Salvation via his work on the cross.

    And He has yet another name to be revealed in the future:

    “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him MY NEW NAME.” (Revelation 3:12-KJV)

    Here’s a chart that’s been around awhile on the internet which shows scriptures to compare:

    ~~~

    **I was never much of an Oral Roberts fan, him being one of the “name it & claim it” preachers, but one time some years ago I flipped on TBN & there he was, in his late 80s no less, sitting in a little chair on the stage, as they introduced him saying he was going to recite FROM MEMORY at least ONE title/description/name of Jesus in every single book of the Bible. I really do not think he was reading a teleprompter because he went slowly, one at a time, as if he was remembering. I truly think he knew them all by heart, & I was flabberghasted, floored, amazed, in awe & wonderment because it was the most beautiful thing I’d ever seen. I couldn’t find that exact TBN version, but here’s an obviously much older one when his voice was younger (no photos of him but only with audio & the text on screen):

    For those who may not appreciate the “tent preacher” style, above, here’s another of the same info, text only with scenes & audio of ocean waves rolling in:

    ~~~

    Like

    • “As for why the Lord Jesus Christ never used the name YHWH, that’s because He WAS YHWH.”

      Then, who’s the YHWH whom Jews, having rejected Jesus Christ, worship after the Crucifixion?

      Like

      • That’s a good question! I would imagine they are still thinking “Old Testament God” since they rejected the source of salvation/wisdom when He came to finish things up with them (“in the fullness of time”).

        In other words, Jesus/YHWH was always their God (ours, too, but we weren’t included way back then, as a whole, that is, Gentiles: Ephesians 2:12).

        So, He is STILL the same “God” (OT+NT) but He has “put them ON HOLD, ON PAUSE,” so to speak, due to their rejection, while He turned His attention to the Gentiles-as-a-giant-whole:

        “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” (Romans 11:25).

        More from that same chapter > I would say they don’t really know WHO they are worshipping because they are “blinded”:
        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=KJV

        7 “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election [remnant of believing Jews] hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

        8 “(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear😉 unto this day.

        9 “And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:

        10 “Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

        11 “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
        […]
        20 “Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
        […]
        23 “And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
        […]
        26 [FUTURE]: “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

        28 “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes.
        […]
        30 “For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

        31 “Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

        32 “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.” (All > Before it’s all over, All will include believing Jews & Gentiles]

        So if Jews since the crucifixion are still praying to who they think is YHWH, it is really Jesus & always has been (since He always was the “only mediator between God & man”). That’s why He will “reveal Himself to them” in a huge way when he comes “out of Sion as the Deliverer” (like Joseph who revealed himself to his brothers).

        I think I am repeating myself, been up too long, but currently they are blinded to WHO He really is & what He is up to. He definitely has a plan for them, as Paul described above. But it’s not happening yet, except on a one-by-one basis.

        Whew! I don’t think that answers your question very well. I need to read it all again with a fresh brain.

        Liked by 1 person

    • “Moses” did not write Deuteronomy (Second Law). Moses did not write any book (that I know of). I’m pretty sure that “Moses”, if he existed, could not write at all.

      I’m not a fundamentalist and I do not subscribe to the mistaken belief that someone sat, trancelike, while “God” dictated the words of Scripture. On the other hand, if someone wants to believe that, have at it. I won’t be agreeing to anything close to that.

      I don’t know where you get your information about Deuteronomy but any mainline scripture scholar, Protestant or Catholic would agree with my version. It is what it is, not what we wish it was.

      Like

      • I’m not impressed by “scholars” (especially “liberal” ones):

        “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their own craftiness.'” (1st Corinthians 3:19).

        The Holy Spirit is our teacher:

        “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13).

        –“I do not subscribe to the mistaken belief that someone sat, trancelike, while ‘God’ dictated the words of Scripture.”

        You obviously don’t believe Scripture, period:

        “ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2nd Timothy 3:16-17)

        You don’t want to believe Moses existed, or that he ever wrote anything? And you put God in quotes means you don’t really believe in Him either. Or that He is capable of “God-breathing” (inspiring) the writing of Scripture? Be my guest, but why bother pretending to be Christian, then?

        (You don’t have to answer that as I really don’t care.)

        Like

      • You bring up a subject I really hadn’t considered before (whether ancient characters like Moses and King David actually existed). I did a very quick search, and, by golly, few really agree! I hadn’t realized Biblical scholars were so divided on the issue.

        I started to bring up that Josephus wrote quite a lot about Moses and told many interesting stories about him that the Bible doesn’t mention (or merely hints at: his first wife, for example), but while Josephus had access to extensive writings and historic accounts that most weren’t privvy to, he was still 1200 years too late to know “for sure-for sure”.

        However, if Josephus’s account is at all accurate, Moses was raised and educated amongst royalty, and was most likely literate in many languages. If you haven’t already, do take the time to read at least part of his “Antiquities of the Jews”. I thought it was fascinating, if not wholly accurate.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Recynd, if you get a chance, read Douglas Reed. It isn’t that long and its well worth it. You can find the information just about anywhere, but Reed puts it together in a way that’s completely understandable.

          These Bible stories are not unique to the descendants of Abraham. Many come from neighboring traditions. They simply swapped the “Hebiru’ name for the original.

          The Jewish Encyclopedia will support this. Many respected rabbis would agree as well. They continue to speak of the characters as if they existed, but know that they probably did not. That includes “David” (the name means “Commander”).

          It is only important in that people should understand what they are reading. There is much valuable wisdom in the Hebrew Scriptures. That doesn’t mean that every word is literally true. They are accurate in what they teach about God (with some exceptions that we’ve touched upon here).

          The Church is constantly accused of having “kept Scripture from the people”. That’s not entirely true. Scripture is not as “important” in Catholicism as it is to most Protestants. That is because the Church existed for over 400 years without an established canon of scripture. We respect and use it, but we don’t WORSHIP it. The “Word” and the Eucharist get equal billing.

          For many centuries, besides the fact that most people could not read, the Church was reluctant to have the laity reading Scripture because without the necessary training they would misinterpret what they read. I think time has definitely shown that they were correct.

          Today, the Church does not want to be accused of being paternalistic. Therefore people are encouraged to read scripture. As a result, more and more time is spent correcting people’s errors in understanding what they read.

          I used to teach classes in Scripture (among other things) and the truth is that there aren’t a large percentage of parishioners willing to invest the time. The ones that do are the same ones that love learning, period.

          So again, I’ve said too much in answer to your question. I can’t avow that they didn’t exist but, if I had to bet, I’d say many did not. The story remains just as valid from a teaching point of view.

          Like

        • P.S., re: Josephus. I’ve read it.

          Like

  17. Oops, typo, Magus, not Magnus.

    And I forgot to add John 1:1: “In the beginning the WORD was with God, & the WORD was God.” Point being that Jesus has always been the “communicator” with mankind, the Word, the speaker, the mediator, etc., in both the Old & New Testaments. It’s a thrilling thing to come to know. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Yes, but just be very careful of words. They can easily deceive. I’ve come across info about YHWH (aka the Tretragrammaton)
    Didn’t GOD say he was “I AM” and not Yahweh?
    http://remnantradio.org/Archives/articles/sacred_name.htm

    Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t know about the more “modern” Bibles of the last few decades, but the older ones, from early 20th Century & prior, the “Tetragrammaton” YHWH was originally in Scripture up to… (I forget the numbers but) something like 5,000-7,000 times.

      Some of those older Bibles used the “English” word Jehovah in places where YHWH was. And in others, such as the KJV, they only used Jehovah in seven places (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/jehovah), & put LORD in All Caps in all the other places.

      I don’t get hung up or worried about the name issues any more, been there, done that (such as Jehovah/YHWH etc., or trying to say Jesus in Hebrew, etc. I am not a Hebrew so it’s not an issue for me as a Gentile). All that matters is…

      “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:8-11)

      Like

  19. ALSO: TPR above wrote:
    “I believe it was lophatt who wrote: “I think it is much more important to understand what is ‘meant.’ rather than ‘said.’””

    Isn’t that what the MSM and all the new age apologists say about Bergoglio and all the detritus he spews?
    It’s all very Talmudic.
    But who am I to judge?

    Like

  20. A little timeline: Paul wrote Romans, further above, circa 57-58 A.D., & the events in Acts 28 (his last major recorded pleading with Jewish leaders to believe in Jesus, while he was in prison in Rome) was just a few years later, circa 60-61-62.

    “Be it known therefore unto you [Jewish leaders], that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that THEY WILL HEAR IT!” (Acts 28:28). (I love that!)

    In context vs. 16-29: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+28%3A16-29&version=KJV

    The NKJV is a little less “archaic”-sounding:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+28%3A16-29&version=NKJV

    Like

  21. Pingback: Arkancide: lawyer of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange dead

  22. Pingback: A conversation about Refugees Crisis, Voices & State Control - Digital Inquirist

  23. Pingback: Arkancide: lawyer of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange dead | Reclaim Our Republic

  24. Pingback: Breaking News: Another Clinton VICTIM! This Time Lawyer of WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange Found DEAD! -

  25. Pingback: Arkancide: lawyer of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange dead – ronaldwederfoort

  26. Pingback: WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange: murdered DNC staffer was source of leaked DNC emails

  27. Are they still sacrificing children? And is that the joke?

    Like

  28. Pingback: DEAD MEN DON’T TALK: ‘Clinton death list’, 33 most intriguing cases | RIELPOLITIK

  29. Pingback: The Clinton Legacy Series / The Bill & Hillary Clinton Dead Pool / Volume VI | Even Steven

  30. Pingback: La evidencia de que Hillary Clinton y sus asociados son satanistas, | PSOB1

  31. Pingback: Hillary aide talks about animal sacrifice to demon Moloch in WikiLeaks email – Patriot News

  32. Pingback: The ruling elite’s pedophile bloodlust for children: From antiquity to today | I am a Malaysian

  33. Pingback: Ruling Elite’s Pedophile Bloodlust for Children: From Antiquity to Today « Chemtrails: The Exotic Weapon

  34. Pingback: Ruling Elite’s Pedophile Bloodlust for Children: From Antiquity to Today | THE TRUTHSEEKER'S JOURNAL

  35. Pingback: DEAD MEN DON’T TALK: ‘Clinton death list’, 33 most intriguing cases (Archive) | RIELPOLITIK

  36. Pingback: The Ruling Elite’s Pedophile Bloodlust for Children: From Antiquity to Today   – Adam's Dream Studio & News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s