Raw Freedom Community  

Go Back   Raw Freedom Community > Economy and Finance In Crisis > Economy, Finance & Investing

Economy, Finance & Investing Dedicated to assisting each other weather grow and profit from the coming crisis.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2008, 05:24 PM
FirstGarden's Avatar
FirstGarden FirstGarden is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,697
Writing On The Wall?

Posted at: 04/09/2008
By: Nicole Muehlhausen, Web Producer

Metro charter school accused of teaching Islam A Star Tribune newspaper column has prompted a state investigation into a charter school. A substitute teacher said a school in Inver Grove Heights is blurring the line of separation of church and state.

Being a charter school Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, or TIZA, is supported by tax dollars. The teacher told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS the presence of religion she observed at the school took her by surprise.
TIZA Executive Director Azad Zaman insisted the school follows with state and federal laws.
"TIZA does not endorse any religion," he said.

However, TIZA Academy is sponsored by Islamic Relief USA, based in California.
The questions came after substitute teacher Amanda Getz taught at TIZA last month and told the Star Tribune about things she observed that day that shocked her.

"I've been in a lot of schools and I've never been in a school where they had washing rituals, or they had prayer, or where they had a room where you had to take your shoes off," Getz said.
"It is most likely that this substitute teacher was sadly mistaken," said Zaman.
He said the school follows state and federal guidelines when it comes to religion.
"We're required under the federal guidelines to allow students to pray when they wish to do so. And as Muslim students, they're allowed to pray around 1:30 p.m., so we allow them to do that," Zaman explained.

The State Department of Education said they would conduct more site visits and write to the State Department to find out more about the school’s sponsor.
TIZA requires all students to learn Arabic as a second language English.

State law requires the school to fly an American flag during school hours, however no flag flies outside of TIZA Academy.

Zaman told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS he didn’t know how to work the flagpole.
How long can you tread water?
How long can you print money?

Last edited by FirstGarden : 04-12-2008 at 05:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 05:32 PM
Don's Avatar
Don Don is offline
Hummingbird - Caretaker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Here and Now
Posts: 852
Sign of Armageddon


one of the signs that 'Armageddon' is close that we are watching for is when the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (the third Muslim most holy place) which is built over ancient Solomon's Temple, is torn down by Israel in order that a new Jewish temple can be erected there.
Loves, Buy Physical Gold NOW Feel Your Pain
Ready Or Not - Freegold

Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 07:24 PM
FirstGarden's Avatar
FirstGarden FirstGarden is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,697
Originally Posted by Don View Post

one of the signs that 'Armageddon' is close that we are watching for is when the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (the third Muslim most holy place) which is built over ancient Solomon's Temple, is torn down by Israel in order that a new Jewish temple can be erected there.
This is true. There has even been some speculation that the original temple was located elsewhere. It is said, and I believe well documented, that the Jews are all ready to bring back animal sacrifice according to Levitical law, that they have priests who are all schooled and trained in it. Then there was the issue of the red heifer. That has been supposedly found. I'll see if I can find the info on it. (Not that I'm personally excited about animal sacrifice - that was intended to be but a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Messiah for all mankind.)


Last edited by FirstGarden : 04-13-2008 at 07:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 07:29 PM
FirstGarden's Avatar
FirstGarden FirstGarden is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,697
Oh, The red heifer article was already posted here:

How long can you tread water?
How long can you print money?

Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 07:52 PM
Posts: n/a

There have been reports of a suitable red heifer being born starting in 1997 I believe. Apparently a true red heifer has been unknown for a couple of thousand years and was believed extinct and so the reappearance of red heifers was deemed an end-time miracle by many.

Edit: Sorry, in the middle of posting I was called away for about an hour and so just continued when I returned. I think the link is worthy so I will leave it even though somewhat a duplicate of your post FG.

Last edited by luckitri : 04-13-2008 at 07:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 09:36 PM
wyjoz's Avatar
wyjoz wyjoz is offline
Bad Mumble Jumble Dodo Bird
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,929
***the last red heifer was found to have a spot and rejected. The 'Jews' are getting impatient now and are going ahead with their plans without the 'red heifer' !

The red heifer was to purify the people so that they could be found worthy to initiate/officiate in the temple! Can you imagine???now???the people will enter to officiate without being 'purified' what's the hurry? end day anxciousness??? SOOOOOOOOOOOOo will this be unacceptable to GOD? 'unclean' people sacrificing to 'HIM" or will it be to a 'fake' 'god' so it won't matter???? I'm thinking outloud ! And will this make it ABOMINATION, DESELATION of Daniel 12:11 ??? WOW!

Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 11:24 PM
FirstGarden's Avatar
FirstGarden FirstGarden is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,697
Originally Posted by wyjoz View Post
SOOOOOOOOOOOOo will this be unacceptable to GOD? 'unclean' people sacrificing to 'HIM" or will it be to a 'fake' 'god' so it won't matter???? I'm thinking outloud ! And will this make it ABOMINATION, DESELATION of Daniel 12:11 ??? WOW! Joz
Joz I doubt it. A number of scholars believe that it is the antiChrist himself who will commit the abomination of desolation in the final days.

Here's an interesting article on it..

Last edited by FirstGarden : 04-13-2008 at 11:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 11:42 PM
FirstGarden's Avatar
FirstGarden FirstGarden is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,697
Hanukkah Prophetically:

The Final ''Week''
by Chuck Missler

How did the birthday of Antiochus Epiphanes result in a celebration that is still honored throughout the entire world today?

December 8th on our calendar is the 25th of Kislev on the Hebrew calendar, the first day of Hanukkah. Many Christians have no idea why this is also significant for them and that it was even validated by the Holy Spirit by a reference in the New Testament. We thought this reminder might bring some additional appreciation over the coming holiday period.

Last month we summarized the first 69 "weeks" of Gabriel's famous prophecy to Daniel, which still remains as one of the most powerful apologetics demonstrating the deity of Jesus Christ and authenticating His identity as the Machiach Nagid of Israel. And we also summarized the interval which intervenes between the 69 "weeks" and the final 70th "week."

However, we left off detailing the final - and pivotal - verse that is still future and one we may be approaching more quickly than most people realize. In fact, it was this very verse (Daniel 9:27) that Jesus specifically pointed to in His confidential briefing on His Second Coming to His disciples.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Daniel 9:27
The Personal Identity

The first thing to clearly identify in this remarkable verse is just who is referred to as "he," the one confirming (or enforcing) the covenant. The grammatical antecedent of the pronoun is "the Prince that shall come" in the preceding verse, whose people destroy the city and the sanctuary. (Some try to identify him with the Messiah also mentioned earlier in that verse, but that is grammatically incorrect, and also ascribes the abominations to him, etc.)

After the death of Nero, General Galba was recalled to become emperor. A conspiracy had him assassinated. After Galba, Otho was made emperor; but he was unfit and committed suicide. After revolution and political instability, the general-in-command of the Roman- Israeli expedition was recalled to restore order and to become emperor: General Vespasian. His son, Titus, remained the general in charge of the siege in A.D. 70. Just a few days before the final assault on Jerusalem, Vespasian was crowned Emperor of the Roman Empire, thus making Titus, literally, a prince.
Since it was the Roman legions that "destroyed the city and the sanctuary," and thus, the "people of the prince that shall come," scholars have long anticipated that the final world leader would ultimately emerge from the Roman Empire-somehow revived in the end times. It is, however, myopic to assume this necessarily implies that he will emerge from Western Europe. The eastern leg of the Roman Empire outlasted the western leg by 1,000 years; and Micah, Isaiah, and other passages indicate that this final world leader will be an Assyrian .

We believe that "the Prince that shall come" is one of 33 designations in the Old Testament (and 13 in the New Testament) for the Coming World Leader, commonly called the Antichrist.

The Week Defined

This "70th Week" of this prophecy is defined by the duration of time - seven years - during which this coming world leader commits to confirming (or enforcing) a covenant. (He doesn't necessarily "sign a treaty"; he may simply enforce what is commonly called the Palestinian Covenant: Israel's right to the land.

In the middle of that seven-year period he apparently violates that commitment and "causes the sacrifice and oblation to cease," implying that his commitment had included (but was not limited to) Temple worship. (This is one of the several reasons we know that the Temple will have been rebuilt by then: Jesus, John, and Paul all make reference to it in this context.)

The Pivotal Event

A major event divides the seven-year period into two halves and is the most specifically documented period of time in both the Old and New Testaments. Each half is referred to as a half-week, 3 ½ years, 42 months, and 1260 days.

Jesus Himself points to "the Abomination of Desolation" as the key event in His briefing to His disciples. This allusion had a specific history two centuries earlier when Antiochus IV ("Epiphanes") desecrated the Temple in 167 B.C. In his zeal to offend the Jews, he made reading the Torah a capital crime and slaughtered a sow on the brazen altar in the Temple. (If you know how the Jews feel about pork, and how they venerate that altar, you can imagine how that went over.) But that was not the coup d'gras. On his birthday he erected an idol in the Holy of Holies .

Any form of idol worship is, in the Bible, referred to as an "abomination." However, the ultimate insult is to erect that idol on the most holy spot on the Planet Earth: in Jerusalem, in the sacred Temple, in fact, in the Holy of Holies. That event so incensed the Jews that a priest named Mattathias, and his son Judas "the Macabbe" ("the Hammer"), led a revolt that ultimately threw off the yoke of the Seleucid Empire and ushered in the period of the Hasmoneans.

On the third anniversary of the desecration of the Temple, they destroyed the contaminated vessels and made new ones and then rededicated the Temple. This rededication is celebrated every year on the 25th of Kislev and is also alluded to in the New Testament.

The Great Tribulation

It is from this background that, two centuries later, Jesus warned His disciples that:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Matthew 24:15-21

There is a technological prediction in this: if the Holy of Holies is a place that only the high priest can enter-and only once a year after great ceremonial preparations-how can "them which be in Judea" see an event going on inside? (On CNN, of course!) This apparently will be a major political event and this remark assumes global television. Paul also alludes to this pivotal event:

…that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4

Both Daniel and the Lord Jesus warn that "then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." (Notice that this period is 3 ½ years, not seven. Many assume the "Great Tribulation" is seven years - referring, of course, to the "70th Week" of Daniel. But Jesus Himself labels the last half of the week with this quote from Daniel 12.)

This period is also called "the time of Jacob's trouble," as it is the very focus of their repentance predicted by God in Hosea:
I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me earnestly.
Hosea 5:15
(In order for God to "return to His place," He must have left it!)

Differing Views

There are many who have different views of what we have presented here. We have discovered that a person's views of eschatology (study of the last things) will derive directly from his hermeneutics (theories of interpretation).

There are many who don't anticipate a literal rule of Christ on the earth (despite Gabriel's prediction to Mary and many clear promises in both the Old and New Testaments). These are known as "amillennialists." There are also many who believe that the church will also go through the Great Tribulation, known as "post-tribulationalists," etc.

However, the more strict your rules of interpretation, the more likely you will be driven toward the "literal" side of the chart. To hold many of these other popular views one has to be quite willing to treat the many texts as only allegorical, or symbolic, rather than literal, etc.

We treat all the texts with profound seriousness and believe that God means what He says and says what He means, and that He expresses it with great precision and attention to detail:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17

(A "jot" is one of the 22 Hebrew alphabet characters that you and I might mistake for an apostrophe or a blemish on the paper. A "tittle" is one of the little decorative hooks on some of the Hebrew characters. The phrase Jesus used is the Hebrew equivalent of our saying "the dotting of an 'i' or the crossing of a 't.'" We feel that Jesus' admonition is a call to take the text very seriously and very precisely.)

So these differing views of eschatology should not be a basis of division or lack of fellowship, but it is exciting to see world events clearly heading to the ultimate climax. I believe we are heading into a period of time about which the Bible says more than it does about any other period of time of history - including the Gospel period of the New Testament! To challenge that preposterous statement you must do two things:

1) Find out what the Bible says about these things (not what any popular teacher might happen to believe); and then...

2) Find out what is really going on around the world. (That used to be difficult, because you won't find out on the 10 PM news! But with the resources available today it is a must.)

The more you know about both of these things the more it will become apparent that a climax is coming!

How long can you tread water?
How long can you print money?

Last edited by FirstGarden : 04-13-2008 at 11:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 09:54 AM
wyjoz's Avatar
wyjoz wyjoz is offline
Bad Mumble Jumble Dodo Bird
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by FirstGarden View Post
Joz I doubt it. A number of scholars believe that it is the antiChrist himself who will commit the abomination of desolation in the final days..

FG; that's a given! there is 'Jesus Christ' and 'antichrist' two contenders! that's it ! it's about antichrist taking over!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 02:52 PM
FirstGarden's Avatar
FirstGarden FirstGarden is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,697
Whatever Happened To Good Old-Fashioned Equality?


District bans 'John 3:16,' promotes demonic leer
Court filing seeks elimination of penalties for Christian art
Posted: April 17, 2008
9:20 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

A court in Wisconsin has been asked to suspend immediately a policy in the Tomah Area School District that bans Christian symbols in students' artwork, but allows Hindu, Buddhist and satanic representations.

The motion was filed yesterday by the Alliance Defense Fund, which has taken on the case of a student identified by the initials A.P.

The ADF launched a lawsuit on the student's behalf after a teacher refused to give him a grade on a project because his work included "John 3:16" as well as "As sign of love."

Artwork banned because of the inclusion of a biblical reference and the message: "A sign of love"

The school district, however, openly acknowledged and publicized various pieces of art representing Buddhism, and Hinduism as well as several demon faces that appeared satanic.

The school defended its actions:

"Respect for the beliefs of a diverse student population … requires that the district treat all students equitable and fairly regardless of their faith," it said in a website statement.

"To meet our responsibilities, students are required to follow the rules of conduct for their classrooms and the instructions that their teachers give them for class assignments. While the district respects all students' religious freedoms, those freedoms are not a license for students to force the school to display religious messages of their choosing…"

The ADF said the teacher's grading policy banned depictions of "blood, violence, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs."

A "demon" mask that was allowed

But in practice it was a discriminatory policy, the ADF said in a court motion seeking an immediate injunction against the school.

"Allowing demonic depictions by some students while prohibiting Christian religious expression in artwork by others is a blatant violation of the Constitution," said David Cortman, senior ADF legal counsel.
The lawsuit was filed late last month after the student's artwork was rejected, then he was told he had signed away his First Amendment rights at the beginning of the semester in order to participate in the class.

The ADF's motion noted: "While penalizing A.P.'s religious express, defendants prominently display[ed] in the school's hallway a large painting of a six-limbed Hindu woman riding a swan figure. … Elsewhere, on a hallway bulletin board, there hangs a drawing of a robed sorcerer."

A Buddha fountain that also was allowed

The law firm said the district displays artwork reflecting Hindu, Buddhist and satanic themes all over.
"It is displayed in classrooms (including the very classroom where district officials met to reiterate to A.P. that his Christian religious expression warranted no constitutional protection)," the law firm said.
The lawsuit names as defendants the school district, administrator Robert Fasbender, assistant principal Cale Jackson, and faculty members Julie Millin and Margi Genrich.

"The fact that the student was not only refused a grade on the project, but given two detentions creates "a draconian atmosphere … [that] evinces a manifest hostility toward Christianity," ADF said.
No such "waiver" of the student's First Amendment rights is applicable, either, the firm said.
"A waiver for First Amendment rights will be found only on the basis of clear and compelling evidence that the party understood his rights and intentionally relinquished or abandoned them," the law firm argued.

"At the time he signed the policy, A.P. had no idea that it would be so restriction of religious expression in the class … And the facts show that at the time that A.P. signed the policy, he did not think that including something like a small cross, or a simple scripture verse reference, would be subject to censorship…"

Further, the student is a minor and was denied the opportunity "to seek advice from counsel" before being required to sign, ADF said.
"An incredible fact in this case is that in the very same room in which defendants Jackson, Millin, and Genrich conducted their parent-teacher conference with A.P. and his family – and reiterated their policies banning student religious express in class assignments – defendants displayed student drawings of the Greek goddess Medusa; a demonic figure with horns, scales, and protruding tongue; several demonic masks; and a drawing of the Grim Reaper, holding a scythe," ADF said.

The injunction is needed immediately because of the passing of time and loss of grades for the student, the law firm said.

"Here, the school permits some religious expression in its classrooms and hallways, so long as it is not Christian religious expression," the ADF said.
How long can you tread water?
How long can you print money?

Last edited by FirstGarden : 04-18-2008 at 03:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2008, 02:11 AM
FirstGarden's Avatar
FirstGarden FirstGarden is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,697
Day of Infamy: The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran

by John McGlynn

Global Research, March 24, 2008

March 20, 2008, destined to be another day of infamy. On this date the US officially declared war on Iran. But it's not going to be the kind of war many have been expecting.

No, there was no dramatic televised announcement by President George W. Bush from the White House oval office. In fact on this day, reports the Washington Post, Bush spent some time communicating directly with Iranians, telling them via Radio Farda (the US-financed broadcaster that transmits to Iran in Farsi, Iran's native language) that their government has "declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people." But not to worry, he told his listeners in Farsi-translated Bushspeak: Tehran would not get the bomb because the US would be "firm."

Over at the US Congress, no war resolution was passed, no debate transpired, no last-minute hearing on the Iran "threat" was held. The Pentagon did not put its forces on red alert and cancel all leave. The top story on the Pentagon's website (on March 20) was: "Bush Lauds Military's Performance in Terror War," a feel-good piece about the president's appearance on the US military's TV channel to praise "the performance and courage of U.S. troops engaged in the global war on terrorism." Bush discussed Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa but not Iran.

But make no mistake. As of Thursday, March 20 the US is at war with Iran.

So who made it official?

A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world's financial institutions under the title: "Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity."

FinCEN, though part of the chain of command, is better known to bankers and lawyers than to students of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, when the history of this newly declared war is someday written (assuming the war is allowed to proceed) FinCEN's role will be as important as that played by US Central Command (Centcom) in directing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In its March 20 advisory FinCEN reminds the global banking community that United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 1803 (passed on March 3, 2008) "calls on member states to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, and their branches and subsidiaries abroad."

UNSC 1803 specifically mentions two Iranian state-owned banks: Bank Melli and Bank Saderat. These two banks (plus their overseas branches and certain subsidiaries), along with a third state-owned bank, Bank Sepah, were also unilaterally sanctioned by the US in 2007 under anti-proliferation and anti-terrorism presidential executive orders 13382 and 13224.

As of March 20, however, the US, speaking through FinCEN, is now telling all banks around the world "to take into account the risk arising from the deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT [anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism] regime, as well as all applicable U.S. and international sanctions programs, with regard to any possible transactions" with – and this is important – not just the above three banks but every remaining state-owned, private and special government bank in Iran. In other words, FinCEN charges, all of Iran's banks – including the central bank (also on FinCEN's list) – represent a risk to the international financial system, no exceptions. Confirmation is possible by comparing FinCEN's list of risky Iranian banks with the listing of Iranian banks provided by Iran's central bank.

The "deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT" is important because it provides the rationale FinCEN will now use to deliver the ultimate death blow to Iran's ability to participate in the international banking system. The language is borrowed from Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a group of 32 countries and two territories set up by the G-7 in 1989 to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. As the FinCEN advisory describes, in October 2007 the FATF stated "that Iran's lack of a comprehensive anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime represents a significant vulnerability in the international financial system. In response to the FATF statement, Iran passed its first AML law in February 2008. The FATF, however, reiterated its concern about continuing deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT system in a statement on February 28, 2008."

Actually, the February 28 FATF statement does not comment on Iran's new anti-money laundering law. The statement does say, however, that the FATF has been working with Iran since the October 2007 FATF statement was issued and "welcomes the commitment made by Iran to improve its AML/CFT regime." Moreover, the February 28 statement, for whatever reason, drops the "significant vulnerability" wording, opting instead to reaffirm that financial authorities around the world should "advise" their domestic banks to exercise "enhanced due diligence" concerning Iran's AML/CFT "deficiencies." In linking its March 20 advisory to the recent FATF statements, apparently FinCEN cannot wait for FATF or anyone else to evaluate the effectiveness of Iran's brand new anti-financial crime laws.

Anyway, the "deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT" is probably the main wording FinCEN will use to justify application of one its most powerful sanctions tools, a USA Patriot Act Section 311 designation (see below).

Hammering away at Iran's state-owned banks is central to US efforts to raise an international hue and cry. Through its state-owned banks, FinCEN states, "the Government of Iran disguises its involvement in proliferation and terrorism activities through an array of deceptive practices specifically designed to evade detection." By managing to get inserted the names of two state-owned banks in the most recent UN Security Council resolution on Iran, the US can now portray the cream of Iran's financial establishment (Bank Melli and Bank Saderat are Iran's two largest banks) as directly integrated into alleged regime involvement in a secret nuclear weaponization program and acts of terrorism.

To inject further alarm, FinCEN accuses Iran's central bank of "facilitating transactions for sanctioned Iranian banks" based on evidence (which for various reasons appears true) gathered by Treasury and other US agencies that the central bank has facilitated erasure of the names of Iranian banks "from global transactions in order to make it more difficult for intermediary financial institutions to determine the true parties in the transaction." The central bank is also charged with continuing to "provide financial services to Iranian entities" (government agencies, business firms and individuals) named in two earlier UN Security Council resolutions, 1737 and 1747. In defense, Iran's central bank governor recently said: "The central bank assists Iranian private and state-owned banks to do their commitments regardless of the pressure on them" and charged the US with "financial terrorism."

So what does all this bureaucratic financial rigmarole mean?

What it really means is that the US, again through FinCEN, has declared two acts of war: one against Iran's banks and one against any financial institution anywhere in the world that tries to do business with an Iranian bank.

To understand how this works requires understanding what FinCEN does. This means going back in history to September 2005, when the US Treasury Department, based on the investigatory work of FinCEN, sanctioned a small bank in Macau, which in turn got North Korea really upset.

FinCEN's mission "is to safeguard the financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity" (FinCEN website).

Under Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act the US Treasury Department, acting through FinCEN, has been provided with "a range of options that can be adapted to target specific money laundering and terrorist financing concerns." Specifically, Section 311 contains six "special measures" to significantly increase the powers of the Treasury (and other US government agencies) to block alleged terrorist financing activities. As explained by a Treasury official during April 2006 testimony before Congress, the most punitive measure requires:

"U.S. financial institutions to terminate correspondent relationships with the designated entity. Such a defensive measure effectively cuts that entity off from the U.S. financial system. It has a profound effect, not only in insulating the U.S. financial system from abuse, but also in notifying financial institutions and jurisdictions globally of an illicit finance risk."

On September 20, 2005 FinCEN issued a finding under Section 311 that Banco Delta Asia (BDA), a small bank in the Chinese territory of Macau, was a "primary money laundering concern." BDA was alleged to have knowingly allowed its North Korean clients to use the bank to engage in deceptive financial practices and a variety of financial crimes (such as money laundering of profits from drug trafficking and counterfeit US $100 "supernotes").

By publicizing its allegations, FinCEN let the world know that BDA was now at risk of having all "correspondent relationships" with US banks severed, a disaster for any bank wanting to remain networked to the largest financial market in the world. Frightened BDA customers reacted by staging a run on the bank's assets.

In the interest of self-preservation, BDA was forced to act. After a quick conference with Macau financial authorities the bank decided to freeze North Korean funds on deposit.

It just so happened that the day before the FinCEN finding was made public the US and North Korea, working through the Six-Party talks process (also involving host China, Russia, South Korea and Japan), had formally agreed on a new diplomatic roadmap that promised to lead to a denuclearized and permanently peaceful Northeast Asia. But because of Treasury's BDA sanctions, North Korea was now labeled an international financial outlaw and the Six Party process stalled.

Other banks began severing their business ties with North Korea, leaving the country more isolated than ever from global commerce and finance. These other banks had no choice. Treasury repeatedly made clear that any bank that continued to do business with North Korea was another potential Patriot Act Section 311 target.

In anger, North Korea withdrew from the Six-Party process. It required 18 months of negotiations before a diplomatic and financial approach was devised that left BDA blacklisted but allowed North Korea to regain access to its frozen funds and rejoin Six Party negotiations.

Neither FinCEN nor anyone else at Treasury has ever publicly produced any evidence in support of the financial crime allegations against BDA and North Korea (articles by this author on BDA, North Korea and Treasury's lack of proof can be found at the Japan Focus website).

If Treasury was eventually forced to back off in the BDA case (apparently because the Bush administration changed its policy priorities), it had discovered that Patriot Act Section 311 could really shake things up.

The "real impact" of the BDA-North Korea sanctions, as Treasury undersecretary Stuart Levey told members of the American Bar Association in early March 2008, was that "many private financial institutions worldwide responded by terminating their business relationships not only with [BDA], but with North Korean clients altogether." Levey and his Treasury colleagues had come up with a way to go beyond governments to use the global banking sector to privatize banking sector sanctions against an entire country (this, by the way, is presidential candidate John McCain's proposed strategy for dealing with Iran as described in the Nov/Dec 2007 issue of the journal Foreign Affairs ). This "key difference" in the "reaction by the private sector" was an exciting revelation. Through a little extraterritorial legal arm-twisting of the international banking community the US was able to put "enormous pressure on the [North Korean] regime – even the most reclusive government depends on access to the international financial system," said Levey. Washington now had "a great deal of leverage in its diplomacy over the nuclear issue with North Korea." Turning to the present, Levey informed the gathering of US lawyers that "we are currently in the midst of an effort to apply these same lessons to the very real threat posed by Iran." However, "Iran presents a more complex challenge than North Korea because of its greater integration into the international financial community."

Stuart Levey

Over the past two years Levey and other Treasury officials have been crisscrossing the globe to make it abundantly clear in meetings (described by Treasury as opportunities to "share information") with banking and government officials in the world's key financial centers that dealing with Iran is risky business. Levey frequently claims that major European and Asia banks, once they hear the US pitch, freely decided to cooperate with anti-Iran banking sanctions for reasons of "good corporate citizenship" and a "desire to protect their institutions' reputations."

But these meetings include quite a bit of browbeating. This can be deduced from some of Levey's public statements, such as his testimony to Congress. On March 21, 2007 Levey told the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs that unilateral US financial sanctions "warn people and businesses not to deal with the designated target. And those who might still be tempted to work with targeted high risk actors get the message loud and clear: if they do so, they may be next." Also, the possibility of becoming a Patriot Act Section 311 sanctions victim (which means exclusion from the US market) probably comes up at the meetings, as this part of his testimony indirectly suggests: "Our list of targeted proliferators is incorporated into the compliance systems at major financial institutions worldwide, who have little appetite for the business of proliferation firms and who also need to be mindful of U.S. measures given their ties to the U.S. financial system."

Reportedly, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has also been involved in high-level meetings around the world concerning Iran, which presumably includes presentations on the arsenal of US financial sanctions. The message he imparts is unknown, but hints of the likely content can be found in public statements. Among Treasury officials Paulson has used the most dramatic language by making the argument that not only is Iran a danger to the international community but that this danger permeates virtually all of Iranian society. In a June 14, 2007 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations he first makes the point that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is a "paramilitary" organization "directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts, as well as funding and training other terrorist groups." Then he offers the alarming revelation that the IRGC "is so deeply entrenched in Iran's economy and commercial enterprises, it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran, you are somehow doing business with the IRGC." With such language, Treasury lays the groundwork for applying financial sanctions against the entirety of Iran. All this makes clear that the growing coalition of bankers against Iran the US likes to trumpet may not be such a willing group.

Some indication of how unwilling can be found in the pages of Der Spiegel (English edition). In July 2007 the German news magazine reported that "anyone wishing to do business in the United States or hoping to attract US investors had best tread softly when it comes to Iran. Germany's Commerzbank stopped financing trade with Iran in US dollars in January, after the Americans piled on the pressure." One German banker interviewed said: "German financial institutions feel the United States government has been engaging in 'downright blackmail'." The magazine goes on to report: "Anti-terror officials from the US Treasury are constantly showing up to demand they cut their traditionally good relations with Iran. The underlying threat from the men from Washington is that they wouldn't want to support terrorism, would they?"

Also, an April 2007 report from the UK's House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee states that the Confederation of British Industry indicated "strong concern" about Patriot Act provisions and other US extra-territorial sanctions. The Committee recognized the need for "vigorous action" in response to terrorist threats but also "endorse[d] the condemnation by the EU of the extra-territorial application of US sanctions legislation as a violation of international law."

Thus the US will need help from European government leaders to overcome resistance among major European financial institutions to US-led financial sanctions. Such help has already come from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. During her recent state visit to Israel, Merkel told the Knesset that Iran was global enemy number one. "What do we do when a majority says the greatest threat to the world comes from Israel and not from Iran?" she asked. "Do we bow our heads? Do we give up our efforts to combat the Iranian threat? However inconvenient and uncomfortable the alternative is, we do not do that." Iran is public enemy #1 in the world, and everyone – including the European banking establishment it would seem – has to accept that.

To summarize to this point: (1) the March 20 advisory represents a US declaration of war by sanctions on Iran and a sanctions threat to the international banking community, (2) the US has various unilateral financial sanctions measures at its command in the form of executive orders and Patriot Act Section 311 and (3) the BDA-North Korea sanctions were, at least in retrospect, a test run for Iran.

If the US succeeds, an international quarantine on Iran's banks would disrupt Iran's financial linkages with the world by blocking its ability to process cross-border payments for goods and services exported and imported. Without those linkages Iran is unlikely to be able to engage in global trade and commerce. As 30% of Iran's GDP in 2005 was imports of goods and services and 20% was non-oil exports (World Bank and other data), a large chunk of Iran's economy would shrivel up. The repercussions will be painful and extend well beyond lost business and profits. For example, treating curable illnesses will become difficult. According to an Iranian health ministry official, Iran produces 95% of its own medicines but most pharmaceutical-related raw materials are imported.

With a financial sanctions war declared, what happens next? There have been some hints.

On February 25 the Wall Street Journal reported that Treasury was considering sanctioning Iran's central bank (known as Bank Markazi). "The central bank is the keystone of Iran's financial system and its principal remaining lifeline to the international banking system," explains the Journal. "U.S. sanctions against it could have a severe impact on Iranian trade if other nations in Europe and Asia choose to go along with them." In anticipation of future events, the Journal notes: "U.S. officials have begun trying to lay the groundwork for a move against the central bank in public statements and meetings with key allies."

So look for the following to happen in the coming weeks: FinCEN will probably issue a Patriot Act Section 311 finding that Iran's central bank is a "primary laundering concern." The "deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT" wording lifted from the FATF statement will be a key reason for that finding. The finding may be accompanied by a formal decision to cut off Iran's central bank from the US financial market, or such a decision could come later. Of course, an actual or threatened cut-off has no immediate financial implications for Iran since no Iranian-flagged bank is doing business in the US, except possibly to allow shipments from the US of humanitarian provisions of food and medicine, which, if they exist, probably terminate with the March 20 FinCEN announcement.

But a Section 311 designation of Iran's central bank would have a powerful coercive effect on the world's banks. For any bank in Europe, Asia or anywhere else that goes near the central bank once the 311 blacklist is on, it would be the kiss of death for that bank's participation in the international banking community, as it was (and remains today) for BDA. Not only would that bank be barred from the US financial market, it would also be shunned by European and Japanese financial markets, as government and private banking officials in those markets are likely to cooperate with Washington's intensifying sanctions campaign.

What about China, now one of the world's major financial centers (two Chinese banks ranked among the top 25 in The Banker's 2007 survey of world banks) and a major trading partner for Iran?

China and Japan "were the top two recipients of exports from Iran, together accounting for more than one-quarter of Iran's exports in 2006," according to an analysis of International Monetary Fund (IMF) trading statistics contained in a December 2007 US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Washington's anti-Iran sanctions regime. On the import side, the GAO found that in 2006 "Germany and China were Iran's largest providers of imports, accounting for 23 percent of Iran's imports." Airtight global banking sanctions imposed on Iran would presumably make the financial administration of this trade next to impossible.

Will China bend to US sanctions wishes? Early signs suggest the answer is yes.

In December 2007 ArabianBusiness.com reported that Chinese banks were starting to decline to open letters of credit for Iranian traders. Asadollah Asgaroladi, head of the Iran-China chamber of commerce, was quoted as saying that China's banks did not explain the refusal but "if this trend continues it will harm the two countries' economic cooperation and trade exchange." In February, ArabianBusiness.com found that China's cutbacks in its banking business with Iran was affecting a joint automobile production arrangement.

Such disruptions in the Chinese-Iranian banking relationship are minor. Meanwhile, Beijing keeps insisting that peaceful diplomacy with Iran is the best policy and that the only sanctions needed are those mandated under the three UN Security Council resolutions already on the books. Thus, to make China cooperate with Washington's unilateral banking sanctions, the US and the EU, reports the Financial Times, are apparently using a tag-team strategy.

On February 12 the FT told readers that "the US believes that tighter EU sanctions will put pressure on other nations that do more business with Iran - China for example - to curb their activities." Therefore, explained an anonymous diplomat apparently from the US: "We will be pushing the EU to go further than the Security Council," a move intended, the diplomat said, to "gold plate" Security Council requirements.

To explain this move the FT provided an example of "gold plating" from 2007, when the EU implemented UN Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1747 on Iran.

In similar language to the current text on Banks Saderat and Melli, the UN had called for "vigilance and restraint" concerning the movements of individuals linked to Iran's nuclear and missile programmes and members of its Revolutionary Guard. But in implementing the resolutions, the EU subjected all the named individuals to a travel ban - a much tougher measure.

Reading between the lines, the intention behind "gold plating" Security Council resolutions is to put pressure on China to bow to a more aggressive US-EU sanctions program. In the case of the most recent Security Council resolution on Iran, 1803, which put sanctions on two Iranian banks, FinCEN rolled two "gold plating" actions into one. It combined the Security Council's naming of the two banks with the October and February FATF statements to justify its March 20 warning to the world that Iran's entire banking system is a danger. Whether the EU will follow FinCEN's action, and how China will respond to any of this, remains to be seen.

In short, the US has in effect declared war on Iran. No bombs need fall as long as the US strategy relies solely on financial sanctions. But if the US Section 311 designates Iran's central bank as a financial criminal, the impact will be the financial equivalent to the first bombs falling on Baghdad at the start of the US-UK invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

In a 1996 publication written for the National Defense University, Harlan Ullman and James Wade introduced a military doctrine for "affecting the adversary's will to resist through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe to achieve strategic aims and military objectives."

Former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld made Shock and Awe famous by invoking it as the US strategy in the attack on Iraq in March 2003 (though weeks later Ullman was claiming Rumsfeld was misapplying the doctrine).

But Shock and Awe's authors (apparently with something like Vietnam or the 1993-1994 Somalia fiasco in mind) also envisioned that "[i]n certain circumstances, the costs of having to resort to lethal force may be too politically expensive in terms of local support as well as support in the U.S. and internationally." Consequently, they wrote:

"Economic sanctions are likely to continue to be a preferable political alternative or a necessary political prelude to an offensive military step . . . In a world in which nonlethal sanctions are a political imperative, we will continue to need the ability to shut down all commerce into and out of any country from shipping, air, rail, and roads. We ought to be able to do this in a much more thorough, decisive, and shocking way than we have in the past . . . Weapons that shock and awe, stun and paralyze, but do not kill in significant numbers may be the only ones that are politically acceptable in the future."

It was only a matter of finding a sanctions strategy systematic enough to make this more obscure portion of the Shock and Awe doctrine operational. What Ullman and Wade could not have imagined was that Washington's global planners would use extraterritorial legal powers and its financial clout to coerce the global banking industry into accepting US foreign policy diktat. North Korea was a test-run for the new strategy of Shock and Awe financial sanctions. As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius put it in February 2007, "[t]he new sanctions are toxic because they effectively limit a country's access to the global ATM. In that sense, they impose -- at last -- a real price on countries such as North Korea and Iran."

What then will the impact be of this US-Iran banking standoff? For the US, almost no impact at all. Treasury bureaucrats will spend some time and a little taxpayer money making phone calls, checking computer screens and paper trails to monitor global banking compliance with sanctions. The cost of financially ostracizing Iran will be a bargain for US taxpayers compared with the eventual $3 trillion cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars estimated by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard financial expert Linda Bilmes.

Iran, however, will become another Gaza or Iraq under the economic sanctions of the 1990s, with devastating impact on economy and society. That Iran's complete financial and economic destruction is the goal of US policy was spelled out by the State Department the day before the FinCEN announcement.

During a daily press meeting with reporters on March 19, the State Department's spokesperson was asked about a deal recently signed between Switzerland and Iran to supply Iranian natural gas to Europe. After condemning the deal, the spokesperson explained that the US is opposed to any "investing in Iran, not only in its petroleum or natural gas area but in any sector of its economy" and questioned rhetorically the wisdom of doing business with Iranian "financial institutions that are under UN sanctions or could become under sanctions if it's found that they are assisting or aiding or abetting Iran's nuclear program in any way." A clearer expression of US desires is hardly possible.

John McGlynn is an independent Tokyo-based economic and financial analyst.
How long can you tread water?
How long can you print money?

Last edited by FirstGarden : 04-19-2008 at 02:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2008, 10:19 AM
FirstGarden's Avatar
FirstGarden FirstGarden is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,697
Behold a Black Horse:
The Global Food Crisis

Chuck Missler
from the April 15, 2008 eNews issue
In recent weeks you might have noticed your grocery bill go up. If so, you're not alone. Food prices are soaring worldwide. Consumers in many western nations are just beginning to notice the change, however in many parts of the world the rising cost of food has already reached crisis levels.

According to the United Nations, global food prices rose 35 percent in the last year. Since the new year prices have continued to rise. This year corn prices have hit a 12-year high and the price of wheat has jumped almost 90 percent. Likewise, in just the past few weeks the cost of rice has gone from $580 a ton to $760 a ton. Rice is the staple food for more than three billion people around the world. Most of these live in poorer nations, and some already spend 50 to 70 percent of their incomes on food.

Experts are describing the problem as "the perfect storm." Its cause is said to be a combination of various factors: Growing populations means growing demand. Also, the growing middle class in places like China means growing demand for more varieties of food. For example, the demand for beef has increased in China, which in turn effects the price of corn and other crops used to feed cattle.

Unusual weather conditions and drought have also been a factor. In Australia prolonged drought has reduced wheat exports by half and the rice crop this year will be the smallest in history. In Bangladesh a cyclone last summer destroyed 600 million dollars worth of its rice crop. Events such as these have decreased the overall food supply.

Rising oil prices have also had caused food prices to rise. Oil prices effect not only the cost of transporting food, but also the cost of fertilizers which are made with oil-derivatives. Government mandates and subsidies for biofuels have also had an impact. In the US it is estimated that almost thirty percent of the grain harvest is being diverted to make ethanol. Likewise, the European Union plans to start producing enough biofuels to meet at least 10 percent of its transportation needs by 2010.

This situation has not received enough media attention, prompting some to label it the "silent famine." Malnutrition and hunger are growing problems, and charitable organizations are having trouble keeping up with the growing demand. The black horseman of the Book of Revelation speaks of a condition wherein a man's daily wages are so poor, he can barely support himself, much less his family (Revelation 6:5-6). Could it be that we are getting close?
How long can you tread water?
How long can you print money?

Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2008, 11:18 AM
FirstGarden's Avatar
FirstGarden FirstGarden is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,697
Thank you Wyjoz for sharing this article!

IV. The world is suddenly facing a huge food crisis -- Third World nations almost certainly will have to succumb to a Global Food Authority in order to eat.

NEWS BRIEF: "Food Crisis Is Depicted As 'Silent Tsunami':

Sharp Price Hikes Leave Many Millions in Hunger,
The Washington Post, April 23, 2008

"LONDON, April 22 -- More than 100 million people are being driven deeper into poverty by a 'silent tsunami' of sharply rising food prices, which have sparked riots around the world and threaten U.N.-backed feeding programs for 20 million children, the top U.N. food official said Tuesday."

" 'This is the new face of hunger -- the millions of people who were not in the urgent hunger category six months ago but now are', Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Program (WFP), said at a London news conference. 'The world's misery index is rising'."

Sharply rising food prices are the result of three important factors, as this next article reports. You will discover that skyrocketing food prices are being pushed by two of the factors propelling oil prices.

NEWS BRIEF: "Rice, Death and the Dollar", Asia Times, April 22, 2008
"The global food crisis is a monetary phenomenon, an unintended consequence of America's attempt to inflate its way out of a market failure ... the unprecedented spike in grain prices during the past year stems from the weakness of the American dollar ... Washington has weakened the value of the dollar as a palliative for the credit crisis, so much so that 'nobody seems to doubt that the US dollar will lose its status as the world's reserve currency', as journalist Amity Shlaes wrote in an April 9 Bloomberg News column ..."

Therefore, the weakening American Dollar is a very big reason global food prices are spiking, just as it is with oil. We have long stated that the Plan calls for a deliberate weakening of the American Dollar so that the stable AMERO can be introduced and widely accepted.

But, there is another reason global food prices are skyrocketing. Foreign investors -- particularly China -- are suddenly bidding up food prices.

"China is exchanging its depreciating reserves of US dollars for things of value, notably rice, with frightening consequences for dependent countries, and deadly consequences for American foreign policy."
Even though the world's supply of rice is adequate to meet demands, Chinese purchases have caused the price of food to more than double in just the past 12 months. China's insatiable appetite for oil is also cited as a major reason that oil prices have risen so steeply.

Chinese purchases of crude oil to feed her exploding economy is often cited as one of the major factors driving up oil prices. Therefore, two of the three factors which are cited to explain high oil prices are also supposedly driving up global food prices.

This next segment reveals the depth of the problem.
"For developing countries whose currencies track the American dollar and whose purchasing power declines along with the American unit, this is a catastrophe, as World Bank president Robert Zoellick warned the Group of Seven industrial nations in Washington last week. Food security suddenly has become the top item on the strategic agenda."

"Never before in history has hunger become a global threat in a period of plentiful harvests."
What are Third World countries, whose economies are pegged to the American Dollar, to do? Since the major warnings of this impending disaster are being voiced by global authorities -- the United Nations, World Bank and the G-7 Nations -- one can only conclude that the "answer" will come globally.

In my opinion, one of the major reasons for this deliberate spike in world food prices is to force Third World nations to accept a Global Food Authority. Of course, such an authority would presage the coming global government, and would virtually enslave these very hungry nations.

The current food pricing crisis may also overcome objections to genetically created foods.
NEWS BRIEF: "In lean times, biotech grains are less taboo", International Herald Tribune, April 21, 2008
"Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops."

Genetically Modified food has long been an Illuminati priority, both to engineer substantial profits and to tightly control all food supplies throughout all regions of the world at the same time. Many people believe that such a control over food will be one of the factors in the tremendous death toll from famine in Revelation 6, where a person has to spend an entire day's wages to buy one day's supply of food.

Listen to the prophecy:
"And I heard what seemed to be a voice from the midst of the four living creatures, saying, A quart of wheat for a denarius [a whole day's wages], and three quarts of barley for a denarius; but do not harm the oil and the wine!" (Revelation 6:6; Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified Bible Commentary)
Tight Illuminati control over genetically modified foods might just set the stage for this fulfillment, as people have to spend a whole day's wages to buy one day's worth of food.

Now, we return to our featured article:
"With food riots in some countries focusing attention on how the world will feed itself, biotechnology proponents see their chance. They argue that while genetic engineering might have been deemed unnecessary when food was abundant, it will be essential for helping the world cope with the demand for food and biofuels in the decades ahead."

We can now count one more factor propelling the world into the One World Government prophesied in Scripture and planned in the Illuminati scheme to produce their Antichrist.
How long can you tread water?
How long can you print money?

Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008, 09:39 PM
FirstGarden's Avatar
FirstGarden FirstGarden is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,697
Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2008, 04:42 AM
misotrue's Avatar
misotrue misotrue is offline
White Bird
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Green Mountains & NJ
Posts: 907
Originally Posted by FirstGarden View Post
This looks like a bad Mad Max movie!!!
Reply With Quote

  Raw Freedom Community > Economy and Finance In Crisis > Economy, Finance & Investing

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Favorite/current juicer? Danny_banany Living 'In The Raw' 12 12-25-2007 03:04 PM
Raw Food Events Calendar Raw Vegan Mama What's Happening on the Raw Scene? 0 08-17-2007 02:35 PM
What anniversary are you coming up on? sherahtaylor Living 'In The Raw' 5 08-13-2007 10:47 AM
The Celestine Prophecy Movie Carmella Growth and Self-Knowledge Book and Video Reviews 5 07-20-2007 02:56 PM
what is current lindsay Journeys 0 05-23-2007 10:48 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.