(Ashkenazi Zionist Jews) are Children of Satan

[rwederfoort]

My new TOPIC, i was just learning about the Jews, because if they were the Children of SATAN I have to find out.

JESUS Said.
"Jesus said unto them, If God were your father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Then answered the Jews..." John 8:42 - 8:48

Revlation 3:9 “See I am giving up those of congregation of shata (adversary) who say they are Yahudim (Judah) and are not, but Lie. See , I am making them come and and Workship before your feet, and to know that I have ahabah (LOVE) you, Amein.

WHO ARE THEY, WHERE THEY FROM.
740: In 740 A.D. in a land locked between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, known as Khazaria, a land which today is predominantly occupied by Georgia, but also reaches into Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and Romania, the modern Jewish race is born. A modern Jewish race that incidentally is not Jewish. How can this be, you ask? Well at that time, the
Khazarian people felt a vulnerable people as they had Muslims one side of them and Christians the other side of them, and thus constantly feared attack from either side. Furthermore, the Khazarian people were of neither faith and instead practiced idol worship, which made them ripe for invasion by a people who wished to convert them to an established faith. The Khazarian King, King Bulan, decided in order to protect themselves against attack, the Khazarian people must convert to one of these faiths, but which one? If they converted to the Muslim faith they would risk attack by the Christians and if they converted to the Christian faith they would risk attack by the Muslims.

He had an idea. There was another race that he was aware were able to deal with both the Muslims and the Christians either side of him, predominantly in matters of trade. A race which also dealt with Khazarians in the same manner. That race was the Jews. King Bulan decided if he instructed his people to convert to Judaism he could keep both the Muslims
and the Christians happy, as they were both already willing to trade with the Jews, so this is what he did.


The majority of Yisrea’elites have black skin, according to the Scripture, with woolly hair. The Isrealis have white skin, most blue eyes, long straight hair. The Ysra’elites Spoke Egyptian, Hebrew, Aramaic and later Greek, Roman Spanish, Various West African languages and today the various languages of the Americas. The Israelis (KHAZARS) spoke a language called “Yiddish" which many of the still speak.

Who are the people in the land of Yisra'el Known as Jews? - YouTube

Who are the people in the land of Yisra'el Known as Jews? - YouTube

New York Times reveal that European Descended Jews are Counterfeits and have no Blood Line to Abraham. The 1948 re-establishment of NATION OF ISRAEL is not full fulfillment of Prophecy. These people are the Khazars “Not “ the Children of Yisrael


NAMASTE

[rwederfoort]

If Americans Knew What Israel Is Doing! VIDEO WAS CENSORED! - YouTube

If Americans Knew What Israel Is Doing! VIDEO WAS CENSORED! - YouTube

[lightgiver]

Architects of Deception a 600-page history of Freemasonry by Estonian writer Juri Lina offers profound insight into the true character of modern history.

Essentially, a dominant segment of Western society has joined the Jewish financial elite in embracing Freemasonry, a satanic philosophy that represents a death wish for civilization. They imagine somehow they will profit from the carnage and suffering caused by their "New World Order."

Incredible, bizarre and depressing as it sounds, Lina writes that 300 mainly Jewish banking families have used Freemasonry as an instrument to subvert, control and degrade the Western world.

This view is consistent with the 1938 NKVD interrogation of an illuminati member who names many of these banking families and confirms that Freemasons are expendable tools. (See my two-part "Rothschild Conducts Red Symphony" and "Terminated! Freemasonry's Final Revelation")

Based on the archives of the powerful French Grand Orient Lodge, captured in June 1940 and later made public by the Russians, Lina details how Freemasonry has conspired for world domination and orchestrated all major revolutions and wars in the modern era. (Lina, p.332)

Masons, often Jewish, are responsible for Communism, Zionism, Socialism, Liberalism (and Feminism.) They love big government because it is the ultimate monopoly. "World government" (dictatorship) is the final trophy. This is the vision behind 9-11 and the "War on Terror."

These "world revolutionary" "progressive" movements all mirror Lucifer's rebellion against God and nature which is at the heart of Freemasonry. They ensnare millions of gullible idealists by promising a utopia based on materialism and "reason" and dedicated to "liberty, equality and fraternity," "public ownership" or some other idealistic sounding claptrap. It's called bait-and-switch.

According to Lina: "The primary aim of modern freemasonry is to build the New World Order, a spiritual Temple of Solomon, where non-members are nothing but slaves [and] ...where human beings would be sacrificed to Yahweh." (52)

Lina cites numerous Jewish sources that claim Freemasonry is based on Judaism and is "the executive political organ of the Jewish financial elite." (81-83)

The common goal of these Masonic inspired movements is to undermine race, religion, nation and family ("all collective forces except our own") by promoting social division, self indulgence and "tolerance" i.e. miscegenation, atheism, nihilism, global-ism, sexual "liberation" etc etc, thereby reducing humanity to a uniform dysfunctional and malleable mush.

Lina and others who attempt to alert humanity to its real condition are routinely slandered as anti-Semitic, fascist, and right wing "haters" by people indirectly employed by the bankers.

This tactic shields the conspirators from scrutiny and makes discussion of our grim predicament impossible.

I am a Jew. I am not part of this banking monopoly, nor is the majority of Jews. By way of analogy, the mafia is considered mostly Italian but most Italians do not belong to the mafia.

Italians don't viciously attack opponents of organized crime and call them "racists" and "hate mongers". That would look awfully suspicious. Jews compromise themselves by their defence of the Masonic bankers and their perverse vision for humanity.

My four grandparents perished in the Jewish holocaust. I demand to know the real reason they were murdered. London-based Masonic bankers and their cronies brought Hitler to power in order to provoke war, control Stalin, and justify the creation of Israel. They betrayed non-Zionist Jews and let them perish. They are using the Jewish people in the same way they use the Masons.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3862

http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-hitler.html

John F. Kennedy's 1961 speech:

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings."

[grandsecretary]

Lmao. What utter cobblers. Kennedy the mafiosi truth seeker. You are joking. I wish I had your name and address because I would love to press charges against you for incitement to racial hatred. You really are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

[revolutionary_jam]

you're sick

[keystone]

Nice to see how this thread has developed into a sensible discussion in, oh, just 5 posts.

[meksar]

Well according to the bible they are bastards and referred to as the synagogue of Satan, does that mean all of them are bad?, of course not. The problem is that they, the Zionist mafia know they can pull of the most horrific crimes and come out smelling like roses. Anyone who exposes them is branded Anti-Semitic and has a smear campaign launched against them, it is a simple defense mechanism.

If we go deep enough into it we can identify these people as the 13th tribe of Israel, they are really Khazar's/Ashkenazi's who went into Jerusalem and adopted the ways of the tribe of Judah. Unfortunately anyone who has tried to help them in the past has been stabbed in the back, the real Israelites have been and also Arabs have.

[lightgiver]

Originally Posted by grandsecretary

Lmao. What utter cobblers. Kennedy the mafiosi truth seeker. You are joking. I wish I had your name and address because I would love to press charges against you for incitement to racial hatred. You really are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

Press charges,you have been watching to much TV Gs.

So where is your Incitement to racial incitement evidence,you truly are an actor of deception.

John F. Kennedy's 1961 speech:

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings."

Assassination by the Masons.

"President Kennedy was wounded in the exact three same spots as Hiram Abif, who was murdered in the Masonic initiation, representing the persecution of the Templars on Friday, the 13th, in the year 1307, where Hiram Abif is struck in the back, and in the throat, and in the head. Dealey Plaza is just a very few short miles from the 33rd parallel. The highest degree of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, the Meritorious Degree, the Degree of the Illuminati, whose motto is "Ordo Ab Chao" or "Out of Chaos Comes Order"--which literally means if they break down the existing structure and cause the population to cry out for order, they will emerge as the rulers and will have the world that they seek.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

O, treachery!
--Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act III, scene iii AKA Francis Bacon.

CFR - Carroll Quigley - Tragedy and Hope - Council on Foreign Relations "101" - YouTube

CFR - Carroll Quigley - Tragedy and Hope - Council on Foreign Relations "101" - YouTube

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[angelthecat]

I have a deep rooted feeling that something is not quite right here, I for one feel that the real problem is that all religions are misleading. my point being that all the so called leaders of every religion are misleading us all into hatred whilst they (figuratively) break bread together and rejoice in the knowledge of the hatred we have for each other. I know many Jews personally and they are at just a bigger loss as we are as to what is going on, I even spoke to one, who i didnt know was a jew at the time, and he himself blamed a lot of the problems of the world on the Israel government. Knowing that and the attitude of western Governments backing towards Israel, even with opposition from their own nations, it is certainley not a problem of the people but a problem deliberately created by all governments to create wars that they themselves will profit from and never be shot at. It appears that the current problem in iran will not affect the leader of Iran but will most likely cause devistation for the general population, and if Saddam Hessian's wife says it was not him then who am I to argue, like Adolf Hitler whos body was never really proved to be found maybe the governmental club spirits them away to a safe haven, the conspiracy is deep and the jews believe they are what they have been told they are and so do we, remember they did not lie when they abolished black slavery because black slavery would have exclusive and they just made it inclusive by making it multi racial.

this is just me raving my feelings, what ever religion you are, or are not, you are entitled to post and disagree

[bendoon]

What would the followers of Satan do, oh thats a hard one kill Jesus or how about build a temple to Satan in Jerusalem, the Israeli supreme court.



On the main road from Egypt to Israel; you are now entering the Masonic Kingdom of Israel.



So now you know why GS and other Masons always defend Jews, they are allies against God.

[lawrence_connor]

Originally Posted by grandsecretary

Lmao. What utter cobblers. Kennedy the mafiosi truth seeker. You are joking. I wish I had your name and address because I would love to press charges against you for incitement to racial hatred. You really are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

Spiff specs.

[michael christopher]

Originally Posted by grandsecretary

Lmao. What utter cobblers. Kennedy the mafiosi truth seeker. You are joking. I wish I had your name and address because I would love to press charges against you for incitement to racial hatred. You really are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

You would not hesitate to use the force of the police to silence people with points of view that you find repugnant?

You know what a fallacy that is, right?

[gods sun]

that freemasons a sick bugger.

[astrochicken]

Originally Posted by grandsecretary

Lmao. What utter cobblers. Kennedy the mafiosi truth seeker. You are joking. I wish I had your name and address because I would love to press charges against you for incitement to racial hatred. You really are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

Originally Posted by gods sun

that freemasons a sick bugger.

Yep. You said it.

Here you go grandsecretary: Here's the speech he gave a few months before he was murdered.
For you it might all just be about "good for business" and a get together with the boys,
but have no doubts, you are being USED.

Presidential Speech about Secret Societies - YouTube

Presidential Speech about Secret Societies - YouTube

Here's the pertinent bits.. the whole thing is below

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Originally Posted by JOHN F. KENNEDY APRIL 27, 1961 SPEECH @ the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York

The President and the Press: American Newspaper Publishers Association


Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:



I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.



For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share and that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

[655321]

When the Jews rejected Jesus they became children of Satan. The gospel of christ and antichrist both come from this strange people.

[fekdemasons]

Originally Posted by grandsecretary

lmao. What utter cobblers. Kennedy the mafiosi truth seeker. You are joking. I wish i had your name and address because i would love to press charges against you for incitement to racial hatred. You really are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

ppphhhh"hhwwwwwww !!!

[purple rain]

Originally Posted by 655321

When the Jews rejected Jesus they became children of Satan. The gospel of christ and antichrist both come from this strange people.

Thanks for giving conspiracy theorists a bad name.

[astrochicken]

Originally Posted by purple rain

Thanks for giving conspiracy theorists a bad name.

Speak for yourself.

I don't have a problem with that statement.

[purple rain]

This is such bullshit, tarring a whole people because of zionists or a handful of Christ's enemies. That's retarded but then if you're a mindless racist you wouldn't see it.

[meksar]

The "Jews" are not really Jews as they seem to have a big problem with Christ, also Catholics, Protestants are not walking in the footsteps of Christ as they celebrate that pagan festival known as Christmas. The bible tells us the children of Israel would be in mourning, how many Khazar's are living in poverty?, not many i think. Also if you look at Tel-Aviv which is so rife with homosexuality and become known as pink city, this tells you these people are impostors as the real Jews and Israelites had a zero tolerance mentality towards homosexuality.