EZEKIEL
and YHWH’s
Judgment
for the
Good News
PEOPLE
VOLUME XXXVI
The Ending
EZEKIEL and YHWH’s
Judgment for the
Good News People
Volume XXXVI--The Ending
by
an unworthy servant
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth will make you free.
(John 8:32)
Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.AgeEnd.Com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.
Contents
Volume XXXVI--The Ending
APPENDIX PAGE
- Cover Page 1
- Title Page 2
- Contents 3
- Publisher’s Preface 5
Part JJJJJ--Still Further Addendum
F Clinton, Gone? 6
G Clinton Evil 13
H Clinton Plans 25
I Clinton and the Amalekites 34
J Clinton and Survival 46
K More Views on Clinton 56
L The 666 Clintons 60
M Clinton Comes Back 75
N Clinton and Custer 81
O Corrupt Leaders and Corrupt People 89
Part KKKKK--The Terminus
- Epilogue 99
- Bibliography 117
SHEERIT YISRAEL
PO Box 473
Calder, Idaho 83808, USA
Publisher’s Preface
Greetings! The following presentation is volume thirty-six of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.AgeEnd.com web site.
This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.
Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!
The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).
For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.
With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!
an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE
Appendix F--Clinton, Gone?
US Politics, Revisited
This publication has presented what may seem to be an inordinate amount of data on oppression and wrong being committed by the “liberal” federal government against its own citizens. Some readers may try to second guess this outline on the assumption that it has little or nothing to do with the subject of Ezekiel or the people of the Good News. At least, much of Christendom sees no connection.
The inclusion decision was made on the premise that the present US government is a Christian government; and in particular, a Christian, sun worship government, which is precisely what one finds in much of the so-called, Christian West (as first promulgated centuries ago by Greek sun worshippers).
After all, the US Supreme Court ruled that the “United States of America” is a “Christian Nation” in 1892--the first and only nation ever founded as a Christian nation (“The 11th Hour Remnant Messenger,” newsletter, p. 6, undated). This reality is relevant and especially so for people in the very elect classification.
While the American nation and its government will assuredly not last long into the future (because world enemies and events are now in process to terminate this nation and the status quo, per YHWH’s judgment--as outlined herein), it is prudent for believers to draw a parallel between the present US government (now organizing for the New World Order) and the world government which will ultimately succeed it.
The New World Order government will be effectively a religious, sun worship government--similar to the present one in Washington, but far more dictatorial and oppressive. It’s not too far fetched to see the parallels and understand the coming similarities. The very elect need to be informed on such tactics and operations for their own benefit.
Beyond the obvious in the above comments, it should likewise be noted that this whole theme plays a role in the question of the pride of life possessed by sun worshipping Christians (as described in preceding chapters). The pride of life is a bad thing which the very elect particularly need to address and deal with in their focus upon carnality and the flesh.
As believers deal with this pride of life feature in their lives and conduct, it is inevitable that they will become politically incorrect; at least, in terms of beliefs, opinions and thinking.
There is just no way that a believing person of faith can stand by and approve of what has been occurring in the Western, Christian, sun worship culture since WWII with the government approved gods of racial amalgamation, feminism, homosexuality, etc.
Assuredly, honest persons living by the Scriptures will quickly disapprove of what has been happening, although quietly/passively since the Word teaches them to be apolitical. This is not to say that the very elect will, all of a sudden, become political and involved in politics, as they become politically incorrect in the secular state.
The Opposition is to Sin
Of course, the apolitical believers become politically incorrect by being opposed to the sin and wickedness present in the politically correct culture and society with the worship of state approved social gods (feminism, racial integration and amalgamation, homosexuality, etc) and not because they are active in politics.
In other words, if a religious person takes a stand, in contrast to the blatant immorality, wickedness and sin prevailing and present in the politically correct culture and civilization, that person is immediately adjudged to be a politically incorrect enemy of the state. Thus, people are being forced to believe in, worship and serve government approved, social gods (just as Parmenides, Hegel and others have espoused).
To refuse this worship means becoming an enemy of the state. Since the very elect will be judged, condemned and persecuted by the secular sun worship society, as being politically incorrect for their religious beliefs, it is clear then that they need to have a good understanding of government and what all is going on in terms of oppression toward politically incorrect people, like themselves.
Based just upon the actions of the Tanakh prophets, it is manifest that people who are totally apolitical must righteously speak out and condemn the evil and wickedness present in the secular state and culture, even though it is being controlled and promoted by government. The OT is full of such examples.
Perhaps Dr Stan Monteith put it best when he said that the person who fails to oppose evil and wrong becomes an accomplice to it (per video, “Secrets of the Illuminati”). This is a far reaching conclusion and one which each of us should keep in mind. However, that factor alone has not been the only reason for the direction chartered herein.
The Current American Perspective
This backdrop on politics then suggests a further clarification over the many critical remarks herein against so-called liberal leaders (who are often Democrats) and liberal government actions, as opposed to the few comments condemning conservatives (supposedly Republicans).
This writer is no fan of Democrats or Republicans alike, nor of Liberals or Conservatives, and has maintained a stance of being apolitical in continental US elections since 1968. But in the need to speak out and condemn sin and wretchedness, it has been necessary to particularly focus upon the evils of the modern liberals and their humanist colleagues (who tend to be Democrats).
It is true that Republican conservatives are bad and evil, as well as liberal Democrats. But there is a difference in degrees. The liberal Democrats lead the pack in depravity. Perhaps the primary reason for this is the basic philosophy underlying liberal thinking, as opposed to conservative thinking. As pointed out previously, liberals believe that there is inherent good in man, while conservatives are not quite so sure about it.
This reality was illustrated in “The Washington Times” of Jan 24-30, 2000 (p. 12), which quoted Republican House Majority Whip Tom DeLay as issuing a call to arms that only conservatives can guide the nation from the cultural abyss to which it is headed. Going on, DeLay said that the “presidency has been debased and the political dialogue has been poisoned.”
Liberals tend to more quickly follow the Amalekite leadership into permissiveness and wretchedness, while conservatives are more likely to be more serious Christians (especially fundamentalist Christians) and truly religious Jews who are not quite so apt to jump into the moral degeneracy being advocated and pushed by the Amalek-Edomite bankers/masters.
Since liberals themselves are fairly immoral and dishonest in philosophy, they have no problem with the Amalek-Edomite wretchedness being pushed upon the generic, American population. In this sense, liberals lean more in the direction of immorality and depravity, as opposed to conservatives. Both groups are evil. It’s just that one is far more wicked than the other one.
In the “Come Lord Jesus” video, Catholic priest John O’Connor makes the case that the Ashkenazi Jews are in total control of the US Democrat party. While O’Connor made his reference in the vein of Ashkenazi Jews, the truth is that his words really focused upon degenerate, Ashkenazi, Amalekite Jews. Truly, they own and control the Democrat party and even the Republican party to some extent.
In previous comments, the need to watch and be alert was assessed to show that the person of faith can and indeed must have some perception about what all is going on around him, without jumping in to participate in the depravity and evil.
In order to watch and be alert, the student of truth is obligated to have some perception about current politics, politicians and government operations--not because of any interest in those subjects, per se; but rather, because of the need to evaluate, measure and judge how those actions are occurring to impact upon a believer and his family and the fulfillment of prophecy (as discussed earlier).
Getting Elected
The modern American political process requires large sums of money--which comes from the plutocrat bankers and masters (mainly Amalekites, who are committed to the destruction of Israelite believers and who, secretly, behind the scenes, call the shots). With these large gifts of money, the politicians can go out and influence voters (through media power); and if necessary, buy votes (as can be done with Blacks).
Once in power in the democratic society, the elected politicians take control of the government--to use it for their own selfish purposes and to further advance their causes. It is manifest that with the assumption of political power over the government (which possesses power), the elected politician typically will pay back those who elected him and put him into power.
The pay back can come in many, many different forms. If it does not come back in direct payments and benefits, it can come back to family members or to corporations controlled by the person putting up the money. A good illustration of this occurred in 1992 in the presidential election involving George H. W. Bush of the Republicans, Bill Clinton of the Democrats and Ross Perot of the Reform party.
Almost all observers on the sidelines agree that the presence of Perot and the Reform party hurt the Republicans most of all and probably insured the election of Clinton. The same thing can be said for 1996.
But 1992 was unique for still one more reason. Perot entered the race and was doing real well in the polls. All of a sudden, he withdrew, claiming that his family was under some kind of threat (presumably from George H. W. Bush and the Republicans). Still later, Perot reentered the race; but bombed out, in comparison with how well he was doing before he flip-flopped.
Now, the above is what is commonly known or believed about the 1992 election. But there are some fascinating peculiarities associated with the 1992 election that are not commonly known. For example, Larry Patterson, one of Slick Clinton’s Arkansas state police guards, has confirmed that Clinton held two or more secret meetings with Perot in 1992. This is strange for two men opposing each other in an election.
Doing Business
Next, it is fascinating that much of Ross Perot’s business in his controlled computer corporation has been coming from the US government. This “doing business” continued under Clinton (or in fact, it went up substantially under Clinton?).
Perot was out millions of dollars from his own pocket to set up and establish the Reform party in 1992. Is it possible that Clinton paid him back with huge government contracts to his computer corporation after the election? This is one of the prime methods used to pay off big contributors or supporters in an election. It comes back in government contracts to a corporation controlled by the contributor or his colleagues.
This election phenomenon means assuredly that the politician must deliver whatever the plutocrats want who put up the money and effectively put him into power (since money buys votes). Therefore, when the chips are down, the plutocrats ultimately have their way, not only in American elections; but more importantly, in using the government as their own, private, puppet agency after the election.
It goes without saying that bloc voters, like the Blacks and Hispanics, must be provided for in some things--to include a lot of words of support (from the politicians) for their part in delivering the votes. Thus, the whole philosophy of politicians has become a support first of the plutocrats and their needs and second a support of bloc voters and special interest groups.
Accordingly, as was known in former days, whenever the voting population in a democracy discover that they can vote themselves a largess of benefits from the government (via the politicians), they will do so. Therefore, politicians in a democracy deliver and so use their governmental powers--to pay off their benefactors.
The point of this is that it matters not one whit whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House. The ruling plutocrats behind the scenes will continue to call the shots--regardless of the political profile of the leaders, Republican or Democrat. Therefore, the election of George W. Bush changes little or nothing in terms of the coming New World Order. It will come with Bush, Clinton or whomever.
Thus, Have Things Changed?
The above presentation on the political dilemma in the United States necessitates a more careful look at Bill “Slick” Clinton and his possible future.
Now that Bill Clinton is no longer president (in early 2003), there is an assumption that all of the evil and depravity of the president in the Oval Office at the White House is now over. Supposedly, America survived Bill Clinton and the nation can go about its business with a much more honorable George W. Bush. But have things really changed?
“The Week” of Jun 22, 2001 (p. 16), had a short news item on how Clinton has been conducting himself--now that he is “retired.” According to “New York Daily News” reporter Mitchell Fink, Bill was attending game three of the NBA finals/play offs in New York. Slick had brought his binoculars and was sitting in his skybox (while Hillary was politicking in Washington).
The story that Fink told was that Slick never used his binoculars at all to watch any of the basketball play on the court. But he did use them on two other occasions. During one of the time outs, the scantily clad girls of the Sixers Dance Team were performing. Bill raised his binoculars and took a careful look at the girls. At one more time when the girls were strutting around, Bill again raised his binoculars to survey the court.
On a summer 2001 speaking engagement in Scandinavia, an attractive, 19-year-old girl presented Slick with a tulip as a gesture of hospitality. The Jul 2001 “Internet Vortex” (p. 6) had a news report that noted that Slick put his arms around the teenager and told her “You’re too beautiful to only get a hug” (suggesting that he’d like to do more).
Now, the latest news following the former president around is that he broke up the lesbian marriage of Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher (Aug 3, 2001, “The Week,” p. 10). Per the story, Bill Clinton broke the queer lovers apart when he moved in on Melissa’s turf and started courting Julie (by sending her flowers, e-mails and surely engaging in sex with her).
For sure, Slick Clinton has not changed one iota since he left the White House. Bill is a politician and a power hungry politician. He is not finished on the global or US political scenes. He is still a man to be concerned about--as mentioned in the Prologue.
Does Truth Matter?
By trying to be apolitical and yet be watching and focusing upon government evils (particularly against her own citizens), there has to be a recognition of the importance of truth. As the Word says, let YHWH The ELOHIM be true, though every man be a liar (Rom 3:4). Or as noted earlier, YHWH YESHUA is the personification of TRUTH.
Suffice to say, there must be some concern, appreciation for and ascertaining of truth in the vein of politics. Ultimately, there has to be a question of truth and whether or not a believer should be informed on truth. Hence, how relevant is truth in today’s world?
On this, popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh posed the question “does truth matter any more” in his program on December 12, 1996. Limbaugh was agonizing over the American electorate who stupidly had supported Bill Clinton, irrespective of Clinton’s character and morals (or rather lack of them, since it is doubtful that Slick has any character or morals).
While Limbaugh has had and does have several things wrong on his program (like his constant support for the super rich), he generally has had it right on Clinton. Truly, Clinton is a deliberate, pathological liar; dishonest, immoral philander; cheat; sodomite; pot smoker; cocaine sniffer; draft dodger; and an outright crook of the worst kind (to certainly include murder), as pointed out in this work.
This writer does not want to be the pot calling the kettle black, since i, too, have lied, cheated and abused a number of innocent young girls over forty years ago when i was a teenager and evil young man. Too often, i was a philander after marriage and an immoral sinner who brought abuse, hurt and pain on my loved ones because of the presence of wicked pride and vanity in my evil heart (as noted in prior chapters).
It worked out that i sinfully destroyed my family and hurt the wife of my youth and my son greatly. And i am immensely sorry, humbled and ashamed for my great sins and wickedness. As it has worked out over the years, i have paid a terrible price for my wretchedness. The ELOHIM, blessed be His name, has seemingly punished me severely for my sins over most of the last 60 years or so.
YHWH never let me get away with my wickedness (and i thank Him and praise Him for His mercy to me). Sin exacts a terrible price, if and when The HIGHEST commences His corrective punishment (and i pray and hope that my punishment has been corrective and has come from Him).
However, i was not president of anything, nor in any position of influence or power over anyone beyond my immediate family and myself. Clinton was in a different position. It isn’t only that his sexual immorality, dishonesty, lying, cheating and sinning hurt his wife and daughter. They have. His family has paid and will pay a terrible price for his wickedness.
But more importantly, he is also a mature fifty year old man (and not a foolish young boy) and was/is the leader and role model for 280 million Americans, including something over 100 million children and young people. His wretchedness was far reaching in terms of moral damage to the United States. As i destroyed my family of three persons, Slick was destroying this nation of 280 million people.
In a sense, my lying and womanizing was in the minor leagues compared to Clinton--who seems to have been in the major leagues on depravity for his entire, adult life. This is no justification for my evil and wickedness. But it does put his lying and womanizing wickedness in a far more reaching perspective for America.
Appendix G--Clinton Evil
Clinton--A Professional Liar and Cheat, Revisited
Actually, in truth, Bill Clinton seems to act with foreknowledge and deliberate intent to deceive and mislead others in many, many areas of his life which make his evil and depravity even worse than if it was an isolated occurrence.
He is the classic spin-master who manipulates the gullible, American, sun worshipping public for his own purposes. He deliberately obstructed justice in the US courts and has used his power and influence to have other persons lie and obstruct justice for him.
He lied as he spied upon his political enemies (as in file-gate). He lied as he falsely accused staff people in order to have them fired (as in travel-gate). He lied as he sold out the national interests of the United States to the Chinese and other foreign powers for donations to his political campaigns (with treason). He lied about selling plots in Arlington Cemetery. He lied about his sexual immorality and on and on.
Clinton is so smooth and so committed to lying, he not only has lied to the gullible American public, but he has lied to members of Congress in official statements. For example, in Slick’s State of the Union address to Congress and the nation in January 2000, he repeatedly lied.
Mike Blair on Clinton
The “Spotlight” paper of Mar 6, 2000 (p. b-8), had a story by Mike Blair on “Clinton Lies to Push Anti-Gun Agenda,” which focused upon the lies told by Bill in his 2000 state of the union speech to Congress about guns and crime. This story outlined a number of precise lies and distortions emanating from the evil Clinton. Without attempting to cover all of them, a few will be highlighted to prove the point.
He claimed that the Brady Act had kept firearms out of the hands of 500,000 criminals, while ignoring the fact that half of the Brady Act gun purchase denials was because of administrative errors (plus the fact that the Clinton Administration prosecuted almost none of these alleged criminals for anything). In other words, Slick’s words were all lies designed to fool his gullible listeners.
Anyway, any criminals unable to buy guns legally in a gun store can obtain them in a thousand other ways. In fact, Slick, himself, signed an exemption allowing Chinese assault rifles into the US, which reached gangs on the West coast. So Slick has helped criminals get guns--rather than hindering them in any fashion.
More Clinton Lies
In going on to Congress, Clinton claimed that he was able to put 100,000 new cops on the streets and asked Congress for funds for 50,000 more.
The truth is no one knows for sure if any new police were hired from the granted federal funds (evidently few, if any, American police were hired; but some foreign police were brought here with this federal money). Some estimates were that there could have been 40,000 new ones (and this includes the foreign policemen brought in with federal funds). But most agencies receiving the money used it for other purposes.
In another matter, Slick lied and deceived the public regularly with his economic and monetary statistics. This reality has been discussed in former chapters herein. He consistently painted a rosy picture of good that simply was not out there in the real world. When the truth of his lies eventually becomes manifest, there will be an utter crisis in America beyond description.
On Nov 8, 1999, Clinton told the “Washington Post,” in a White House interview, that he had always been interested in and supportive of the US military. He added that he wished that he would have been a part of it (Nov 15-21, 1999, “Washington Times,” p. 4). In view of Clinton’s former hate and opposition to the military and his draft dodging and anti-war acts during the Vietnam war, his remarks were obvious lies.
Clinton Lies in Order to Kill
Some of Slick’s most fantastic and successful lies were carried out in 1999 when he repeatedly lied and deceived the American public about what all was happening in the Balkans (specifically Kosovo) to try to get America into a war there on almost any pretext.
As discussed on the Rush Limbaugh program on July 1, 1999, Clinton used exaggerated and misleading statistics and alleged facts to build a case that the Serbs were murdering almost the entire Albanian population in the vein of genocide.
For instance, Clinton told a veterans group that 100,000 male Albanians had been murdered and another 600,000 Albanians were stranded in Kosovo without food as they fled from the evil Serbs--rather than be captured and murdered and have to dig their own graves.
Most or all of the reports told by Clinton and his Secretary of Defense Cohen were lies or exaggerations at best--exaggerated to the tune of over 900%, per an article by Ben Barber on “U.S. inflated casualties in Kosovo, E. Timor, officials say” in the Nov 15-21, 1999, “Washington Times” (p. 24).
The “Spotlight” of Dec 6, 1999 (p. 6), said that only a total of 2,100 grave-sites had been found in Kosovo. Since these graves included people dying from natural deaths and the multitudes murdered by Slick Clinton’s air assaults in the Balkans, it is apparent that the Serbs killed very, very few Kosovars (and these deaths seem to have largely occurred in the Serb military action against the terrorist Kosovars).
The most accurate final count of dead Kosovar Muslims seems to be less than 200, based upon autopsies and examinations of the dead bodies by the FBI. A Spanish investigation team only found 187 deaths which might have been due to the military actions of the Serbs in their war against the Kosovo Liberation Army (“The Birth of World Government,” p. 45).
Regardless of the actual count of Muslim deaths, the case can be made that Clinton’s air attacks killed more Albanians than the Serbs.
Even the ultra liberal “Washington Post” got into the act on Jan 17, 2000, in a story by Peter Finn, which acknowledged that the Western reported stories of Serb atrocities, rape camps, mutilations of the dead and living, etc were all “bunk” (Jan 31, 2000, “Spotlight,” p. 2).
The Lies Were Needed
But the lies were needed to justify Clinton’s bombing of the Serbs. So they were told to the public, who believed them. As Dr Stan Monteith mentioned in his video on the “Secrets of the Illuminati,” alleged atrocity stories have been used several times to get America into a war planned by the plutocrats. Monteith said that it happened in WWI, in WWII, in Desert Storm (the Gulf War) and in Clinton’s war against the Serbs.
When the controlled media starts telling the atrocity stories and bombarding the people daily with them, the public finally cries out for war and vengeance. The same thing happened in prior wars and other conflicts as well. As Monteith noted, a lie told often enough is finally believed. And this is what has happened regularly with the atrocity stories.
The Serbs were engaged in a civil war in Kosovo with the revolutionary Kosovo Liberation Army of 100,000 fighters, armed with the latest weapons (as described and profiled elsewhere herein).
Per “Spotlight” (p. 2, Mar 27, 2000), it is true that the Serbs may have killed up to 10,000 of these armed fighters in open warfare between the two armies in a raging civil war (although less than 200 possible Muslims were killed by the Serbs, per the FBI and Spanish investigators, as noted above).
But Clinton’s spin operation of lies and deceits reported an alleged 100,000 Serb murders. This was all false. Moreover, the story about the 600,000 stranded Albanians in Kosovo was totally a fabrication.
Microsoft and Bill Gates
Most of the first several months of 2000 were obsessed with Bill Gates and the Clinton Administration’s efforts to break up Microsoft. It seems that the controlled media loves to promote stories of little importance for days, weeks and months on end. They bombarded the public for months about O. J. Simpson. In 1999, the situation with the Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez totally took over the US media.
After months and months of Elian, all of a sudden Microsoft was placed in the spotlight by the controlled media. Of course, the idea was to mesmerize and further zombiize the American population with frivolous remarks about little or nothing. In the case of Microsoft and its breakup, it seems that no one in the media or in US leadership understood the essence of the problem (if there was one).
“Newsweek” of June 19, 2000, typified the controlled media approach. That issue had Bill Gates’ picture on the cover and several lead stories about Microsoft and the breakup. One article, by Jared Sandberg, was on “Microsoft’s Six Fatal Errors” (p. 23). The only thing about this story was that it talked on and on about a lot of things. But it never addressed the problem.
The story behind Microsoft seems fairly obvious. First, there were apparently some grounds for the monopoly charges against Microsoft. Actually, this is a common condition in many of the large, multi-national corporations of today. And when one looks at the owners and rulers of these corporate giants from behind the scenes, the collusion and conspiracies of corruption and dishonesty are very manifest.
Since the plutocrats own or at least control this maze of corporate powers, no politician will dare take a stand against them. After all, the plutocrats elect and control the politicians in both parties. Thus, there is no independent force to question their operations. So, why did the classic liar, crook, cheat and manipulator Bill Clinton decide to destroy the Microsoft force?
The Missing Reasons
There seems to be two primary reasons on Microsoft which have escaped being discussed in present times (although some few people have skirted around one of the reasons). Perhaps the most important reason of all is the one missed by almost everybody.
Bill Gates and a handful of his close colleagues built the Microsoft empire and became extremely wealthy because of it. Apparently, none of the founders of this giant were Amalekites (though Christian preacher Texe Marrs claims that Gates is a Jew). Or at least, they didn’t seem to be the Amalekites who pull most of the strings in modern America.
Obviously, the breakup of Microsoft would benefit the Amalekite run computer companies and put a serious hole in the goyim influence at Microsoft. Who knows, the breakup might even be pulled off in such a way that conniving Amalekite masters and bankers could move in on the broken up pieces and exploit and plunder them for profit reasons (particularly, when crooked politicians will oversee the breakup).
While Gates and many of his senior colleagues were probably not Amalekites, in Microsoft’s early days, this profile may have changed since Slick Clinton went after Microsoft. In January 2000, Microsoft appointed a Jew named Steve Ballmer as its president. Possibly this move was prompted by the troubles that Gates and company had with Clinton. With Ballmer on board, Microsoft may be able to survive the Amalekite assault.
The Second Reason
There is a second reason which has whet the appetite of a few people. Some persons understand that Bill Gates and his colleagues did not donate enough money to Bill Clinton or the Democrat National Committee. Certainly, Slick Willy was unhappy with this situation from day one. He had his sights set upon this empire.
Though “Newsweek” focused upon six alleged errors, some persons perceptively note that the initial Clinton attack on Microsoft was a shake-down operation. If Gates would have laid out some money in the right places early on in 1999, the whole Clinton assault would have been avoided. Slick would have called off his attack dogs at the US Justice Department. But Gates balked.
Since Gates and company failed to put up some money in the right places, he was doomed. All Clinton had to do was coordinate his thinking and wishes with his ruling plutocrat Amalekites. Since they too didn’t like the Washington state enterprise, Slick got the green light to proceed.
There is no question about it whatsoever. This whole Justice Department undertaking was a Clinton operation from day one. It went forward on his word. Obviously, with Bush, things changed (Bush backed off and dropped the pursuit of Microsoft). After all, Bush and his liberal Republican colleagues do like big businesses--like Microsoft.
All Americans by now must understand that Bill Clinton is not interested in US laws, justice or what’s right. His decision to attack Microsoft was not fueled by his integrity, honesty, character or truthfulness (since he has none of these qualities). He had only one goal in his presidency. It was to use the US government and US government forces and powers to further his own political plans for the future.
Slick Gets Away With His Evil
Furthermore, it is manifest that Clinton is so smooth about lying, cheating and deceiving that he largely gets away with it--with his family, with the media, with the Congress (which had a moral duty to remove him) and with the gullible, American public which continued to vote for him knowing full well that he is dishonest and an immoral crook.
In the 1992 election campaign, Clinton repeatedly lied to the voting public with his constant denials about an affair with Gennifer Flowers (and many others). Then on Jan 17, 1998, in a deposition in the Paula Jones case, he finally admitted the Flowers affair which conclusively established that he lied to the public in 1992.
He followed up with more lies about Monica Lewinsky which he eventually admitted on August 17, 1998. He lied to the public about the sale of Arlington Cemetery plots. And when his lies were later exposed, he still got away with them.
One big Clinton contributor (an Amalekite named Larry Lawrence) was even dug up and moved to another cemetery, when his illegal Arlington burial was exposed. Slick also promised (and later was forced to cancel) former Surgeon General Koop an Arlington plot for help on the Clinton health care plan.
Slick Lied to Bibi
Clinton even lied to former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu which is most interesting. Netanyahu is writing his memoirs and will reportedly tell how Slick lied to him and used a classic bait and switch technique to get him to sign the Wye Peace Accord with PLO leader Yasser Arafat (Nov 1999 “Internet Vortex,” p. 15).
According to Bibi, Clinton promised to free the apparent Amalekite Jonathan Pollard, who was caught stealing US secrets some years ago and giving them to Israel. Pollard was convicted and went to jail in the 1980s. Ever since then, Israeli officials have tried to persuade various American presidents to pardon Pollard and release him.
Netanyahu and Clinton agreed that Pollard would be released and allowed to immigrate to Israel. Clinton then double crossed Netanyahu at the last minute and said that he would not release Pollard. Reportedly, Netanyahu turned pale. But he was already committed to the peace accord and couldn’t back out.
Since Netanyahu was a conservative and at some odds from Clinton’s liberal, internationalist ideology, Clinton conspired with the Amalekite bankers/masters and his army of liberal Amalekite aides to get rid of Netanyahu. This paved the way for the election of Ehud Barak, a man who would be more in tune with the powerful Amalekite internationalists calling the shots in America.
The role of Slick Clinton and his Amalekite aides has been commented upon in a former chapter herein on the ruling plutocrats. There is no need to repeat what has already been said, in the context that Clinton rushed a team of evil people into Israel (all Amalekites or Amalekite janissary robots) to be sure that Netanyahu was defeated.
While it was true that these media manipulators and crooks were able to con the Israeli people, it came with trouble for Barak. A former chapter discussed how the Barak administration had been caught with their hands in the cookie jar for dishonest and crooked election practices. Heavy fines have been imposed and some members of the Barak team may go to jail. Truly, it is dangerous to get too close to Bill Clinton.
The Hypocrite
Slick gets away with his lies because the media and his political cronies act to cover them up, coupled with the fact that most of the immoral and depraved, American, sun worshipping people simply don’t care (but they will be judged accordingly by YHWH for not caring. In other words, they should have cared when they voted for Slick and allowed him to remain in office).
Clinton cannot ever be depended upon to tell the truth or be honest in virtually any situation. At the Ron Brown funeral in 1997, a television cameraman caught Slick and some aides leaving the building from a side door. As mentioned in a previous chapter, he was laughing and cutting up with his assistants.
Upon spotting the photographer, he completely changed his demeanor to a sad, depressed appearance with tears coming from his eyes, though his aides were still laughing. The camera picked upon this immediate change, accomplished by Slick in less than one step, while never losing his stride. Later, that same day, Slick had a sodomite encounter with his girl friend Monica Lewinsky.
Three months before he told a Washington grand jury that he and Monica did not have sex (as he defined it), Clinton issued an executive order which blatantly contradicted his own definition of sex (Nov 1999 “Internet Vortex,” p. 9).
On May 27, 1998, Slick issued EO 13086 to amend the Manual for Courts Martial for the military services. In this order, a definition of sex was included which plainly took in all forms of sodomy, plus natural sex. The definition specifically covered so-called oral sex. Lewinsky’s statement about the affair included some four of the eight precise situations covered in the EO.
Yet, on Aug 17, 1998, Clinton appeared before the grand jury and said that his acts with Monica did not constitute sexual acts. He called his sodomy with the girl an “inappropriate relationship.” In the Paula Jones case, he categorically denied having sex with Monica.
The Hypocrite and the Blacks
From day one of his political career, Clinton has used and has manipulated the Black vote. For him, it has paid off since most Negroes routinely support him and his depravity without question or concern. As discussed in former chapters, he doled out a few benefits and payoffs to the many Africans who blindly followed him (but not much in comparison with what he bestowed upon the Amalekite Jews).
This then becomes one more illustration of the gigantic hypocrisy associated with this man (just as was true with the segregationist Abraham Lincoln, who hypocritically supported Negroes in political actions, per a discussion heretofore). Slick publicly cries, moans and groans about the poor Blacks and how they have been discriminated against, oppressed and hurt by the White majority.
Yet, in private, Slick routinely laughs at them and refers to many of them as “Niggers.” Former Arkansas State Trooper Larry Patterson has confirmed Clinton’s use of the “n” word on more than one occasion. One of the classic illustrations of Clinton’s hypocrisy is over the Black leader Jesse Jackson.
When the heat built upon Slick in 1998 and 1999 over Monica Lewinsky, the hypocrite Clinton brought Jackson into the White House to ostensibly “pray” with him. This choice of Jackson to pray with him is interesting in view of the fact that in 1992, Slick called Jackson a “Nigger” --as he especially uses the “n” word to refer to Negroes he doesn’t like (Oct 1999 “Internet Vortex,” p. 20).
Slick’s brother Roger Clinton has also confirmed that Bill uses the “n” word in private to refer to Black people (in the “New Clinton Chronicles” video). Dolly Kaye Browning of Dallas, Texas, another one of the many reported Clinton girl friends, also confirmed that Slick has used the “n” word to refer to Black people in her presence (Nov 1999 “Internet Vortex,” p. 7).
Slick and Al Sharpton
While Slick has had the Blacks in his back pocket for years, the point must be made here that in 2002-2003 some of that automatic Negro support came under trouble--primarily from “the reverend” Al Sharpton, a New York Black preacher/leader of some notoriety (as was told in the Apr 2003 “NewsMax.com,” p. 1-28, formerly the “Internet Vortex”).
Somehow and someway, “the reverend” discovered that the Black support for the Democrats for over a half-century had netted them practically nothing. Accordingly, Al decided to become a wild card to supposedly teach the Democrats “a lesson.”
In the New York City Mayor’s election in 2002, Al bolted the party and refused to endorse or support the Democrat mayoral candidate Mark Green (who also just happened to be the Clintons’ man). Bill “Slick Clinton tried to repair the damage and get Sharpton on board by promising nothing of substance. Al refused to budge. Green lost the mayor’s contest to the Republicans.
Thereupon, Al wrote a book outlining his problems with the Democrats. Sharpton was particularly critical of Bill Clinton. Al said that Clinton’s “style ingratiated him with blacks and the media. But in many ways his style betrayed black America because his substance and his policies really did not serve our needs.” Al added that Black people were duped by Clinton.
“The reverend” entered the 2004 presidential race--not particularly to win the White House (because Al understands that this was not possible), but to teach the Democrats that they automatically cannot count on the Black vote.
Since Al did choose to speak out, he became an enemy of the Clintons. At once, the Democrat National Committee (which is controlled by the Clintons) persuaded the Black woman Carol Mosely-Braun to also enter the presidential race in order to try to offset and oppose Sharpton. Actually, this Clinton tactic may backfire and cause a split in the Black vote.
In any case, it is clear that all of a sudden Bill Clinton does not have the total Black vote in his pocket--or at least, that portion of the vote which can be influenced by Al Sharpton.
He is Totally Corrupt
In any case, the evidence is most convincing that Slick does not have an ounce of honor or integrity in his entire character. He appears to be totally corrupt and sorry. Of most significance, he is an absolute hypocrite of the worst kind.
As unbelievable as it is, Clinton issued a presidential proclamation that the week of Oct 17-23, 1999, would be known as “National Character Counts Week” (Nov 1999 “Internet Vortex,” p. 2).
Slick’s statement started by saying “The character of our citizens has enriched every aspect of our national life and has set an example of civic responsibility for people around the world.” Yes, Clinton proclaimed those words. And this has to be one of the most incredible things he has done or could do. The man with no character talked about character.
But Slick is Smart
As commented upon elsewhere in this study, it would be easy to get entrapped into believing that Slick Clinton is a stupid, Arkansas hick--only interested in snorting cocaine and sodomizing young girls. But that’s not the true Bill Clinton (despite the appearance). Slick is really a man of some intelligence, cunning and conniving (of evil).
The “Spotlight” newspaper (p. 19) of Feb 28, 2000, had a reader’s letter which perceptively noted that the letter writer had finally figured out why “our beloved president” bites his lip so often. The solution--he bites his lip to keep from laughing on camera in the faces of the American people
Assuredly, the Christian Israelite Americans are extremely ignorant, uninformed, mesmerized and gullible. It takes no particular skill to fool and deceive the American electorate (as has been proven many times over in US elections). Perhaps this “Spotlight” reader has it right.
While most of us thought that Slick was biting his lip because he was lying, the truth may be that he does it to keep from laughing at the gullible, goyim public. There is no question but that Clinton and his Amalekite aides and colleagues laughed behind the backs of the American voting public.
Chuck Youngbrandt, Revisited
In his Apr 20, 2000, “Staff and Sword” newsletter, the previously discussed Christian spokesman Chuck Youngbrandt offered his assessment of Bill Clinton in several comments.
He noted that his mind understood on Nov 5, 1992, that Clinton is “considered a suitable vessel by Lucifer, one he preferred over Bush and Perot. This man is weak in moral character and easily swayed by what is expedient in any situation. Clinton will be more than a disaster for this nation, he will lead America to destruction.” Youngbrandt claimed that this word came from his Gee-Zeus.
In a focus upon Clinton on Jan 4, 1994, Youngbrandt said that he tried to pray for Clinton, but was unable to do so. In any case, an idea popped into Youngbrandt’s head (that he thought was another message from The MOST HIGH), which told him that many pray for Clinton in a way that they become accomplices with him in his sin and rebellion.
Finally, in an April 2000 assessment, Youngbrandt indicated that “The anti-Christ spirit that directed Hitler is the same one driving-leading Clinton and it will just move from one vessel to the next, the names change but the spirit behind the actions of those men will not change.”
The Most Evil People of All
The writer of this study at hand has repeatedly made reference to the great evil and wretchedness of Bill Clinton. While diabolical Amalekites (like Franklin Roosevelt, Adolf Schicklgruber, Adam Weishaupt and Karl Marx) have been some of the most vile and corrupt men in history, Slick Clinton must be put into the same class (or rather, at the top of the list). He, too, is profoundly evil and rates right up there with the others.
Of course, this writer has repeatedly expressed this reality about Slick, who is so incredibly depraved and wicked. But in fairness, it must be observed that many other people share an almost similar view that this writer has expressed.
Per an article by Mike Blair on “Bill Clinton’s Theme Song: Hail to the Creep,” appearing in the December 6, 1999, “Spotlight” (p. 7), the “New York Post” newspaper conducted an Internet generated survey of its readers to determine the 25 most evil persons in the ending millennium (the last 1,000 years). Some 19,184 people responded.
As might be expected, Adolf Hitler (correctly Schicklgruber) was number one. Guess who number two was? Yes, Bill “Slick” Clinton was number two in the poll (not far behind Adolf). Josef Stalin was three; Cambodian killer of millions Pol Pot was four; and Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele was five. Now, another surprise is in order. Hillary Rodham Clinton came in number six.
The rest of the runner ups, in sequence, were: Saddam Hussein, Adolf Eichmann, Charles Manson, Idi Amin, Genghis Khan, Jeffrey Dahmer, Benito Mussolini, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Ivan the Terrible, Fidel Castro, Jim Jones, Vlad the Impaler, Tim McVeigh, Slobodan Milosevic, the Marquis de Sade, Mommar Khadafy and Jack the Ripper.
Hillary had the honors of being the only woman on the list of the 25 most evil people in the last 1,000 years. Please understand that this was a New York poll in a very liberal state. And Hillary was elected a senator from New York (reportedly, with the help of Bill Clinton and Democrat generated vote fraud).
Interestingly, the “New York Post” provided a list of candidates for the 25 most evil people of all. All of the vote getters were on this list but Bill and Hillary Clinton. Thus, all of the votes cast for Bill and Hillary came from write-in voters. This makes the whole exercise most astounding. If they would have been on the list, they would have received even more votes--perhaps enough to allow Slick to be in first place.
Tom and Daisy Buchanan
Back in the roaring 20s, and in the quieter 30s, one of the great American authors was a man named F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940). Perhaps Fitzgerald’s most notable work was a book on “The Great Gatsby.” It was so well known and acclaimed that Hollywood made at least two film versions of the book (first with Alan Ladd and later with Robert Redford) and a more recent TV miniseries.
“The Great Gatsby” had a couple of characters named Tom and Daisy Buchanan who lived out on Long Island in New York. There was some wealth in the family. So apparently, Tom never worked, but liked to pass his time playing polo.
The one word which describes this pair of characters is “evil.” They were incredibly wicked, deceitful, abusive, inconsiderate, immoral, adulterous and on and on.
The writer of this study at hand often thinks of the characters Tom and Daisy Buchanan in the context of the two Clintons. They are so much alike. If there is one paramount difference between the two pairs, it is only that Fitzgerald’s Tom and Daisy are too petty and low keyed in their depravity. After all, Tom was not into politics as Bill is. Clearly, the Clintons are substantially more depraved and pathetic.
Achav and Jezebel
But there is another interesting observation about the two Clintons. A former chapter outlined the enormous parallel between Bill and Hillary Clinton and the incredibly corrupt and evil Achav and Jezebel in the ancient House of Yisrael (I Kg 21:25). In terms of evil and depravity, it is hard to match Achav and his Edomite wife Jezebel (although the Clintons correctly are a match).
Many people reading the Scriptures lose sight of the fact that the books of Kings are prophetic books. People and events described in them in the historic vein can be ante-types of later people and events which will be even more profound than the Scriptural accounts.
Certainly, the Clintons’ duplication of Achav and Jezebel is totally prophetic. Much of the life of Achav and Jezebel has been and is being fulfilled in the modern pair of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Of the two couples, it is questionable which pair is the more evil and wretched.
In any case, one must ask if the terrible deaths of Achav and Jezebel (in the form of YHWH’s curse and judgment) will be repeated in some manner with the Clintons? Were those historic deaths prophetic of what will ultimately happen to the diabolical Clintons?
Appendix H--Clinton Plans
The Coming Clinton Dictatorship
But there is still more on the liar and crook Slick Clinton. Even now, there is every evidential reason to believe that he is making plans and preparations presently to either regain power in America or achieve power in the UN (which will grant him a renewed source of power over the US). This will really be a shock to gullible Americans who have stood by him repeatedly.
The ignorant American voters have thought that they would have a shot at being rid of Slick when they installed a Clinton presidential successor. But this option looks out of the question from the Scriptural perspective. Not only is Slick the type of person who would plan and scheme on how he can gain power as a dictator, but the world situation will also contribute to it (as the confused 2000 elections demonstrated).
Back in 2000, former Clinton friend, Larry Nichols, told the “Spotlight” in an interview that Clinton “has no intention of leaving the oval office when his term is over” (Jun 26, 2000, “Spotlight,” p. 6). Another former Clinton ally, Dick Morris, has expressed similar sentiments that Bill and Hillary would do anything to stay in the White House.
These “Spotlight” remarks came from a story on “Will Slick Bill & Hill Leave the White House?” (p. 6), by Mike Blair, which concluded that indeed the Clintons were planning on staying in power past January 2001. Blair quoted several scenarios which were outlined by Nichols, as allowing for this eventuality. Nichols said that one option was a martial law takeover by Clinton (in a situation that would not truly warrant marital law).
Nichols charged that Hillary Clinton’s run for the US Senate in New York (which she won) was nothing but a cleverly designed ruse--because her real target was and is the presidency. He added that the Federal Election Commission had Hillary listed as a presidential candidate (despite Al Gore’s run). By running for the Senate, Hillary would keep her name in the headlines to eclipse Gore.
A Double Cross on Gore?
Larry Nichols furthermore suggested that a scandal could have erupted to force Gore out at the last moment (which would have allowed Hillary to take over the Democratic nomination).
On this option, it is interesting that in June 2000, the Justice Department (under Clinton’s supervision) did announce that there were some problems with Gore’s actions of raising money in 1996 (like from the Buddhist monks and nuns, discussed earlier).
Furthermore, the controlled media began to talk about Gore’s sleazy campaign practices in 1996 (clearly, this motion was fueled by Amalekite Jew bankers/masters who controlled Bill Clinton). There was even talk coming from various Democrats that an independent prosecutor might be needed to investigate Gore.
It was always possible that something could have knocked Gore out and Hillary could have stepped in to become the presidential nominee (but things never fell into place for her in 2000--perhaps because the Amalekite Jew bankers/masters were in no mood for a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2001. After all, they may have wanted Bush to win, so he could be blamed for a crisis which they would set up and implement.
Actually, unbeknown to a lot of people, the tension and confrontation between Clinton and Gore built-up, particularly in 2000, during Gore’s run for the presidency. Actually, Al went to great efforts to try to distance himself from Slick Clinton and the Clinton administration. This separation manifested itself regularly in that Gore purposely seemed to go out of his way to not even be seen in the presence of Clinton.
Many people speculated that Gore was trying to break all ties with Bill Clinton--because of fears that too much association or contact with Clinton would act detrimentally in Gore’s campaign. The view of many was that Clinton’s sexual depravity in the White House would upset a lot of potential Gore voters.
So Gore tried to separate his campaign totally from Clinton. This allowed Gore and his Amalekite running mate Lieberman to talk about family values and morality (though they both are basically immoral and evil men).
The 2001 Revelations
A CBS news report on the night of Feb 6, 2001, offered quite a bit of insight on an actual confrontation and increasing hostility between Gore and Clinton, starting during the presidential campaign and accelerating after the November elections.
While neither Gore nor Clinton would officially comment upon this conflict, the news was obviously leaked by someone (the best guess here is that Clinton purposely leaked the news to try to further damage and/or destroy his friend Gore for political purposes in 2001 and in later years as well).
The essence of this story is that indeed, there was conflict between the Gore campaign organization and Clinton, during the presidential campaign. After the election and after it became apparent that Gore had lost, this conflict increased and reached a state where there is now reportedly some open hostility between Gore and Clinton, on a personal basis. Gore and Clinton are virtually not even on speaking terms.
After the election, the report is that Gore blamed Clinton for his loss, while Clinton blamed Gore and Gore’s failure to link himself to the “achievements” of Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration for eight years.
Though there was no mention of the possibility that Clinton had purposely set his so-called friend Gore up to lose the election (after winning the popular vote), as was offered in a discussion in a prior chapter, this course of events must not be ruled out. If there is merit in this option, is it possible that Gore knew and understood how his buddy Clinton had double crossed him?
For sure, the Clinton-Gore feud is serious and has spilled over into the lives of their wives. The Aug 2001 “Internet Vortex” (p. 7) had a report from “Vanity Fair” magazine that called the feud between the women “a catfight.” Hillary Clinton has called Tipper Gore an “unintellectual, nice lady who doesn’t have a brain in her head.” Tipper thinks that Hillary is “an ambitious, rather uncoordinated, grasping, difficult woman.”
Gore is Now Out
Though Gore should be the theoretical head of the Democrat party (in the aftermath of the 2000 elections), this is certainly not true in 2000, 2001, 2002, or in early 2003 (as will be covered below).
As these words are being written, it seems that indeed Slick has been laying the groundwork to eliminate his friend Gore totally from the national political arena. This means that slowly Gore is being removed from the limelight and is being replaced with Hillary (who has her sights set upon the years 2004, 2008 and/or 2012, as being the Democrat candidate for president).
While Gore had been a stupid sucker, supporting Slick during the Clinton presidency (like so many others, Clinton took advantage of him for benefits and then ended up double crossing him at the first opportunity), Slick was no true friend of Gore (although he “allegedly” supported Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign). Hence, he was more than ready to double cross his supposed friend Gore when the time came for it.
As allowed above and in a prior chapter, it well could be that Slick purposely engineered the 2000 election crisis so that Gore would lose in a close election. This motion may have been prompted, in part, by promises to Hillary that he would support her in the future and with agreements with ruling Amalekite Jew bankers/masters to cause a 2000 election crisis to bring on a new constitution and the New World Order.
Historically, in US politics, the presidential candidate of a party became the titular head of the party (and irrespective of whether he won or lost the presidential election). In this context, Gore should have been and remained the visible and principle leader of the Democrat party throughout 2000 and later until 2004 (and the choice of a new Democrat leader in the form of the then presidential candidate).
However, Sick has been in the background, working to undercut his alleged ally.
Clinton is Still in Charge--Not Gore!
The Dec 13, 2000, “New York Times” set the pace for the future--when it suggested that Bill Clinton alone would continue to lead the Democrat party, which clearly was a blow to the leadership mantle that supposedly should be with Al Gore (Jan 2001, “Internet Vortex,” p. 28). This prediction soon came true!
In late December 2000, it came time for the Democrats to choose a new Democrat National Chairman. This choice has traditionally been done by the titular head of the party (the last presidential candidate). However, in 2000, Gore was shut out and Clinton made the decision alone--proving that he is still the prevailing boss of the Democrat party (and not Gore).
Though Gore tried his level best to be completely linked to the evil Amalekite bankers/masters, it really always was Clinton in the shadows who was the man most connected to the plutocratic Amalekites (the likely reasons for this tie will be covered in the succeeding appendices). For sure, Clinton is still the Amalekites’ man.
It has to be significant that when president elect Bush made his primary selections of potential cabinet people in December 2000 and early January 2001, he chose Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and majority Whites. Manifestly, he did no favors for the ruling Amalekites, as presidential nominees usually have done. For sure, both Clinton and his Amalekite handlers will be working full time to plan their take over of the US.
The Revealing Clinton
After leaving office in January 2001, Slick Clinton was at Andrews Air Force Base, where a group of admirers were assembled to greet him. One sign in the crowd read-- “Don’t Go.” He responded “I’m still here, we’re not going anywhere.” He then added-- “Now that I have left the White House, perhaps I shall be in the driver’s seat as never before” (May-Jun 2001 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 67).
A later news report from Jul 2001 said that Slick spoke to the United Federation of Teachers (the school teachers’ union). Per the Jul 2001 “Internet Vortex” (p. 8), Bill told them “Maybe someday I’ll run for something again” (which indicated that he will not stay on the sidelines forever).
A Constitutional Convention?
Since Hillary did not get on the presidential ballot in November 2000 and since 2004 or 2008 are so far away, the Clintons have always had other options on the table. Bill has already went on record that he favors an amendment to the constitution to allow a president to serve more than two terms, as is now the restriction (Jun 13, 2003, “The Week,” p. 19). Clearly, Slick would support this idea in a constitutional convention.
Certainly, if the Amalekite Jews pull the plug on George W. Bush and the US economy and financial markets, prevailing conditions can very easily pave the way for a constitutional convention (as discussed earlier).
Only 34 states need to make a call for a constitutional convention and one will be assembled. Already, 32 states have made such a call. So only two more are needed. An economic collapse could easily produce the call.
Once a convention is assembled, it could do all kinds of things--to even amend the present constitution or produce a brand new one. A new one has been on the drawing boards for years. Moreover, most of the US states have already called for a convention over the flag burning issue and other questions which could never muster Congressional support for an amendment.
The best guess is that Bill Clinton and his Amalekite handlers jointly agreed that the year 2000 was not quite ready for marital law. Accordingly, the decision reached was to produce further dissatisfaction with the present constitution that would generate discontent over the electoral college. If economic troubles surface, a constitutional conv