Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll. And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits. Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it. I will bring it forth, saith the LORD of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof. Zechariah 5:1-4
When one enters into the employ of the U. S. government, various oaths are required, depending on the nature of the position held. Underlying such employment are also laws designed to protect the integrity of the lawful records and documentation of communications of government operations. For example, the following screenshot is taken from the United States Code, Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, on Public Officers and Employees, Section 1924, on Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material. This code was used as a basis for investigating General Petraeus for mishandling classified documents.
(In the paragraphs below, I have added bold print to highlight certain points noted in the articles written by others, which I find interesting.)
On February 24, 2016, The Washington Post published an article by Michelle Lee He Lee, called Why the Clinton email scandal and Petraeus leak are not really alike, giving various facts which display the differences between the two cases. This well written article remarks in its introduction, “Petraeus, a respected four-star general who many believed would run for President one day, resigned as CIA Director in 2012 amid a criminal investigation. He faced potential felony charges and imprisonment, after the FBI discovered he had provided classified information to Broadwell, and lied to the FBI about it, enraging agents”.
Paula Broadwell was at that time, Petraeus’ mistress and biographer. An update to this article gives this added twist to the story, saying, “Broadwell had bad-mouthed socialite Jill Kelly in anonymous e-mails to military officials, which prompted the FBI’s investigation.”
Michelle Lee continues, “In his plea agreement, Petraeus admitted to mishandling classified information that was contained in personal notebooks. Petraeus told Broadwell that his notebooks contained “highly classified” information, yet gave them to her. The information didn’t appear in the biography. Petraeus lied to the FBI during the investigation..”. In the end, The Justice Department accepted a plea agreement, and Michelle Lee notes that the statement of facts accompanying this agreement, had stated that “Petraeus’s actions, including lying to the FBI, ‘were in all respects knowing and deliberate, and were not committed by mistake, accident or another innocent reason’.”
With regard to the Clinton emails, the Washington Post article notes that there was “a dispute over whether some of the information sent through Clinton’s private email server was classified when it was designed to handle unclassified communications….A federal judge in a public records case against the State Department over Clinton emails has ruled that State Department officials and top Clinton aides should be deposed about whether they knowingly thwarted federal open records laws through Clinton’s private email arrangement. The emails were not marked “classified” at the time they were sent. But officials found “top secret” information in her emails because of a process called “retroactive classification”. That means if there is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information sent on an unclassified system, the State Department can retroactively deem it classified instead of making it public.”
Finally, author Michelle Lee observes, “Clinton signed a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement, in which she pledged to safeguard classified information whether marked or unmarked classified. But interestingly, Clinton also had authority under an executive order to classify or declassify information at the “top secret” level. (Petraeus had the same classification authority as CIA director.)”
Subsequent to the above observations made by the Washington Post, on July 6, 2016 ABC News published an internet article called Clinton Emails: DOJ Will Not File Charges Against Former Secretary of State, written by Pierre Thomas and Margaret Chadbourn, saying, “The Justice Department will not file any charges against Hillary Clinton or anyone ‘within the scope of the investigation’ into her use of personal email while Secretary of State. On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey called Clinton ‘extremely careless” in her use of private email to conduct State Department business, but recommended to not file charges against Clinton.”
So here we have a rather curious system of authorizations involving the classification of information. Government employees may be required to sign a Classified Information Non Disclosure Agreement. But there are certain overriding authorities given, which may be granted by Executive Orders, which allow a government official to declassify top secret information to a lesser classification; or conversely, retroactively reclassify unclassified information to a higher designation in order to prevent making public information which had been requested by a FOIA request.
As Zechariah 5:1-4 observes, a flying roll is envisioned, as a curse going over the face of the whole earth. For purposes of analogy, let us envision this scroll as being a two-sided written document which is flying through our beloved cyberspace. The LORD of hosts, declares that this curse shall enter into the house of the thief and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name. Oaths of government are usually made in the name of God, for reasons described in Hebrews 6:16, For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. And while many do not believe in the LORD, or Jehovah as such, we must remember that this particular name in the form of the Tetragrammaton, is the foundation for the Sephiroth and the Tarot. This would represent swearing falsely by my name, as revealed in the Old Testament. (This concept is briefly explained in my Introduction “In The Name of God” to my blog, Mouni Sadhu Unmasked which is a book review of Mouni Sadhu’s tarot book)
In our analogy, we find the house of him that sweareth falsely, whereby the definition of perjury is made of none effect. This is done via a system which can (one) reclassify documents, not merely for the sake of correcting classification errors, but also to release top secret information to those who do not hold that level of permission, and (two) retroactively reclassify documents to prevent the public from reading what had been unclassified information prior to a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request being filed.
As an aside on the subject of oaths, the Hebrew word “shaba” or seven is translated as “to adjure or take an oath”. Therefore “to seven oneself” would be to make a declaration seven times, which emphasizes the importance of the oath. This matter of confirming a vow by an oath is seen in Hebrews 6:17-18a, Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation…
God has ordained Government for purposes of the lawful use of power over a nation. Psalm 50, which was written by Asaph, speaks of Zion as the perfection of beauty, but ends with a warning in verse 16, saying But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind me. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.
So here we also have the house of the thief, wherein specified government documents which are top secret are stolen and illegally given to someone without the proper clearance; and vice versa, documents which are permitted to be read by the public are stolen by reclassifying them as secret. This presents an interesting scenario when considering the case of Hillary Clinton who set up a private email server which involved transferring government documents outside of secure authorized government mechanisms. The other scenario of interest involved the methods used to steal government documents which were later revealed by WikiLeaks.
I have been casually going over some of the WikiLeak documents of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and finding some interesting curiosities. WikiLeaks, whose slogan is, We open governments, has been written up by Wikipedia, in case you need a quick review of their history. Also recently they created an archive of Hillary Clinton’s Emails. On the opening page of this archive, WikiLeaks says, “On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hilary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.”
So I entered the word WikiLeaks into the search box of the WikiLeaks archive of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Within some of these emails, whether revealing or concealing secrets, is that curse going throughout all the earth of the two sides of a flying roll; one side representing the house of the thief, and the other side, the house of the false swearer. Proverbs 29:24 declares, Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not. The Hebrew word for cursing in this verse holds a peculiar irony, for the Strong’s Concordance word #423 is spelled alah. Now there is something to ponder.
I am linking two emails involving WikiLeaks. The first is the Hillary Clinton email denoted #1054 which discusses The Right Response to WikiLeaks, dated November 30, 2010, stating, “Many of the State Department documents released so far by WikiLeaks are embarrassing to their authors or subjects, but otherwise harmless. Some might even be helpful: ….. Still, there is little doubt that the release of the cables will damage the State Department and its diplomacy. Sensitive reactions with countries such as Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia might be impaired; foreign leaders everywhere may consider carefully, at least for awhile, before speaking frankly to U. S. diplomats.”
“Some in Washington are calling on the Obama administration to respond to the leak with drastic measures, such as a cyberattack on the WikiLeaks Internet site or the prosecution of its Australian-born leader, Julian Assange. That would be an overreaction. There is apparently no top-secret material in the WikiLeaks documents; the U. S. cyberwar capacity should not be deployed for less-than-critical interests. Mr. Assangels(sp) arrest and prosecution would turn a man now widely perceived as a self-promoting sex crimes suspect into an international martyr.”
“There is a much more immediate and sensible task for Congress and the administration – starting with the Defense Department. That is to thoroughly plumb how a 22-year-old Army private at a remote Iraqi base could have gotten access to 250,000 State Department cables, as well as tens of thousands more military reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, and how he could have downloaded them onto CDs without being detected. The chief suspect in the deliveries to WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, was a disconsolate man who had been reprimanded for assaulting an officer and believed he might be discharged for his misconduct. Why was he allowed to retain access to classified information? How could he have stolen such a large amount of material without triggering any alarms?”
In response to the questions posed above in Hillary Clinton Email # 1054, may I suggest that an insider with a private email server could be positioned to be a middle man in such revealing and concealing of secrets? I am not saying that Hillary Clinton was the middle person, but certainly she displays a method by which this scenario might play out.
In another email, shown here, https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/7226, dated November 28, 2010, Bloomberg is quoted: “The Pentagon said yesterday it will take action to prevent future reoccurrences, such as monitoring user behavior in a way similar to steps taken by credit-card companies to detect fraud. The military will also conduct security oversight inspections at forward bases and remove the ability of classified computers to download information onto removable disks.”
Quoting Politico in this email, we read, “The Pentagon on Sunday announced new approaches for how it would safeguard information in the wake of the leak of documents from Wiki-Leaks, amid allegations that the Obama administration went too far in improving information-sharing across the government.”
Further down in this email, we read, “Associated Press: The online website WikiLeaks on Sunday blamed the temporary outage of its site on a denial-of-service attack by unknown hackers trying to prevent its release of hundreds of thousands of classified U. S. State Department documents…James Lewis, a cyber security expert and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it’s unlikely the U. S. or some other government would use denial-of-service attacks against WikiLeaks.”
Perhaps some of you might want to search out some of Hillary Clinton’s emails out of curiosity. Who knows what has been revealed and concealed in these flying scrolls through cyberspace.
Proverbs 5:6 declares one of several warnings against the Strange Woman, Lest thou should ponder the path of life, her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them.