August 9, 2015 by Al Cronkrite
Barging Into The Future On A Platform of Lies…
I hasten to explain
That having once been to the University of Oxford
You can never really again
Believe anything that anyone says and that of course is an asset
In a world like ours;
Why bother to water a garden
That is planted with paper flowers?*
Many U. S. citizens ignore the decimation of their country. No nation can long endure while its substance is drained by constant war. No economy can flourish by making hamburgers for each other. History has confirmed that deterioration in moral standards often precedes the fall of nations. The United States is ripe and will fall when the artificial creation of wealth ceases – when the Bramble men who control the flow of money stop providing it and instead demand that the debts be paid.
Some argue that while our debts now amount to over $50m per person our assets are over $300m per person – not to worry. What are the assets? Do our assets involve private wealth and public property? Do we have gold reserves? What would happen to life in the United States when the Bramble men demanded payment?
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_wealth defines National Wealth as the aggregate of household wealth less liabilities. That means the $300m figure does include private family assets! Though over ten years of war have resulted in little or no inconvenienced to the American people it is their assets that are being mortgaged. When the Bramble men demand an accounting it will not be the upper 1 percent who will be destroyed (they have accumulated most of the wealth); instead, the middle classes will be saddled with a debt that will wipe out the remainder of their wealth and force them into slave labor.
The Bramble men control our press, our media, our money, and our government they make the decisions that determine the course of our nation but we, the citizens, are responsible for what our nation does. Most of us would rather ignore the cloud of tyranny that hovers over us, the deaths of millions of innocent civilians in far off nations, the constant creation of dangerous phantoms that rob our freedoms, militarized police, the installation of a legal code that will create martial law, and the impending enslavement of the nation. We ignore this progressing danger at the risk of our health, our wealth and our freedom.
It is us, Mr. and Mrs. America, you and I who must bear the responsibility for the disaster that is coming. We have voted for the rascals who have allowed our nation to be destroyed. We have voted for the men and women who have passed the trade legislation that has robbed us of our industry. Year after year we have returned to the polls and voted for individuals who have lied to us and used their office to extend the claws of tyranny. Our vote amounts to an endorsement of the policies of the men and women we elect to rule us.
It appears that our 2016 choices for national leadership will be Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Jeb Bush was a contributor to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This neocon drafted document was largely responsible for the rise of empire which has been the ruination of America. He is an insider who will continue to allow our nation to be hijacked by the Bramble men. Hillary Clinton will lie more frequently and be less civil but the policies will not change. She and her husband, Bill, are longtime tools of the Bramble men. Either candidate will continue the war and the bankruptcy of our nation saddling its citizens with debt that will eventually enslave them.
Voting in the election of 2016 will be like watering paper flowers.
The United States of America is a ghost nation. Its manufacturing base has been hollowed out, its culture has been decimated, its Constitution is ignored, its moral standards have been shoved into the gutter, its press and media are propaganda centers that censor and distort reality, its government no longer represents its people, its reputation in the world has gone from respected to feared and distrusted, it is led by men and women who live and act as if lies are truth, it is controlled by forces that hate its citizens and their dominant religion, and it is accumulating a debt that will by itself eventually enslave its citizens.
If he is sincere and not just another pawn in the deception game Vladimir Putin said it well: “This position is not related in any way to anti-Americanism; we have a great deal of respect and love for the United States, and especially for the American people. I feel that these are simply unilateral actions and the expansion of jurisdiction by one nation beyond the territory of its borders, to the rest of the world, is unacceptable and destructive for international relations.”
I, too, have great love and respect for the United States and her people. Born in 1929 I grew up in the clutches of the Great Depression. It was a time when the goodness of the American people could be seen in action; her people willing to share even when they, themselves, were in need.
In the small mid-western town where I was raised everyone struggled to make their limited resources stretch and to live on the severe reduction in income that was universal. Neighbors shared with each other. Visiting was a form of entertainment and everyone knew not only their neighbors but most of the people that lived in the town. If someone died food and sympathy were quick at their door. Families with sickness were helped and grief was shared. It was a time when love was defined by actions and when those actions defined the culture.
Yes, there were exceptions, Al Capone was powerful in Chicago and his tentacles were apparent in the slot machines that were seen in most drug stores and soda fountains. There were gangsters who robbed banks and thieves who robbed people but our home was seldom locked and as children we played outside, often all day, without supervision.
We were poor but we were free; we could associate with whomever we choose, we could do whatever we wanted, we could exclude those we did not want, we could experiment with danger and learn how to control and evade it. Children owned guns and learned how to use them safely. They lit firecrackers that were two inches long and ¾ “ diameter – they could blow the bottom out a tin can and sent is 30 feet in the air. It was dangerous but it was exciting and wisdom building.
There were fights that no one broke up but there were rules. Guns were never considered but occasionally someone would pull a knife. Knives were considered unfair and anyone who resorted to them was ostracized. Bare fists were acceptable and bloody noses and chipped teeth were occasionally inflicted. There were some bullies but winning a fight did not give the winner license. Cruelty and serious injuries were extremely rare.
At times most of us were afraid. Someone challenged us to a fight that we knew we could not win. We learned to handle fear and to live with danger. Life provided us with a wonderful, realistic education.
Ironically, it was this era of freedom and poverty that allowed the government to gain powers that have changed the culture of our nation from one of liberty and benevolence to tyranny and avarice. The idea that local schools should consolidate was afloat and congress passed Federal programs designed to relieve poverty. The greedy fingers of the government began to clutch at our culture.
In Jon Stallworthy’s biography of Louis MacNeice he refers to the 1930s culture at Oxford in England. To MacNeice’s dismay homosexuality was coupled with intelligence and heterosexuality with brawn (Pg. 218). The seeds that began the deterioration of our culture were watered and cultivated over the years and are now bearing fruit in the Twenty-First Century. (MacNeice was educated at Oxford but uncomfortable with the culture.)
It was Christian morality – the Law God gave to Moses – that brought prosperity and order to the civilized world. Good and evil were determined by His immutable Law and that yardstick guided Western culture for centuries. It was never perfect and was often not even acknowledged but its sublime influence guided life.
Now the Bramble men from Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford have risen above good and evil. In “Our Threatened Freedom” R. J. Rushdoony cites Princeton Professor Walter Kaufman’s contention in his book “Without Guilt and Justice” that there is no God and therefore there is no justice and since there is no justice there is no guilt. Rushdoony’s response, (Pg. 122) “If God is meaningless to us, then justice and freedom will be meaningless also, and finally life itself. The course we are on is suicidal. The wages of sin have always been death.”
As we approach the presidential election of 2016 our nation is on a road that leads to suicide. We are being led by the same Pharisaical spirit the Jesus vehemently condemned.
Voters should refuse to vote for paper flowers and instead boycott the election.
*Louis MacNeice, “Autumn Journal” 1938
August 9, 2015 by Chuck Baldwin
While the propaganda media and their friends in animal rights extremism are going bonkers over the apparent accidental harvesting of a lion in Zimbabwe, the video evidence of Planned Parenthood doctors selling aborted baby parts barely rates a mention. In this absolutely convoluted, confused, and crazy society in which we find ourselves, timeless, tested, and traditional values have been turned completely upside down.
It is no hyperbole to say that when a nation loses the moral conscience that serves to protect the lives of its own children, that nation cannot long endure. It has been over 42 years since the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand was rendered. Think of it: no American under the age of 42 can even remember a time when their country protected the lives of unborn babies. This has resulted in a society whose conscience has been seared and whose values have been skewed.
In the minds of multiplied millions of Americans (including many lawmakers, journalists, television pundits, college professors, high school teachers, judges, and even pastors and ministers), an animal’s life has more value than a baby’s. Truly, did the Apostle Paul warn, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” (Romans 1:22, 23)
Only human beings are made in the image of God. Only human beings have eternal souls that will live forever in either Heaven or Hell. Only human beings have a God-consciousness and moral makeup in their hearts. Only human beings live together under a moral code of conduct.
Find two people copulating in public and they will be summarily arrested. Find a man who kills his fellow man and he will be summarily taken by authorities to face a court of law. Find a maniacal murderer like Jeffrey Dahmer, who kills and then eats his victims, and the outrage of human justice will be swift. Yet, these behaviors are daily occurrences in the animal kingdom. What’s the difference? One group is comprised of people made in the image of their Creator; the other group is comprised of beasts.
In fact, both Natural and Revealed Law teaches us that our Creator intended that man have dominion over the animal kingdom. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26)
Animals have served the needs of mankind since man was first created. In the Garden of Eden, God killed animals for the purpose of clothing a spiritually-fallen Adam and Eve. Animals have been used to clothe man, feed man, prosper man, protect man, please man, sustain man, ad infinitum, ever since the dawn of human history.
Our grocery stores are filled with the flesh of animals, which are bought and sold for one man’s profit and another man’s sustenance. The furs of animals have both adorned and warmed the bodies of human beings from time immemorial. Animals (along with fish and fowl) have plowed our fields, provided our milk and eggs, eased our journeys, and assisted our medicinal needs ever since God created them. Indeed, they were created specifically for that very purpose.
Even hunting animals serves a meaningful purpose: not only does hunting bring self-sufficiency and sustenance to man, but it greatly helps to preserve the animal species being hunted. Every State in the Union has game management programs that allow citizens to harvest animals in such a way that preserves the animal species being hunted. If suddenly men were unable to hunt wildlife, many of those species would soon disappear. Hunting and harvesting animals is just one way in which mankind exercises his God-ordained dominion over the animal kingdom.
Would we condone or authorize men to hunt and kill their fellow man? Would we authorize men to take the skin off of slain human beings and sell them? Would we condone barbaric men who would kill their fellow man for the express purpose of harvesting and selling their organs? Such a thought is repulsive beyond description to any sane, rational human being. Yet, that is exactly what the abortion industry is doing to the most innocent and helpless human beings of all: unborn babies in the wombs of their mothers.
All of us are now aware of the videos showing Planned Parenthood abortion doctors bargaining over the sale of aborted baby parts–like an auctioneer would bargain over the sale of cattle. This is NOT a recent development. I remember talking about these-type news stories on my radio talk show during the Clinton years. How long before that it has been taking place, we can only guess. Probably from the inception of legalized abortion.
Currently a variety of products commonly consumed in the United States contain aborted fetal material, including spices and seasonings from the Ajinomoto Company; refrigerated coffee creamers from the Nestle Company; and Maggi brand instant soups, bouillon cubes, ketchups, sauces, seasoning, and instant noodles. The Neocutis Company uses aborted baby material in their anti-aging skin creams.
A host of vaccines contain aborted baby material, including MMR II for measles, mumps, and rubella (Merck); ProQuad: MMR plus Chickenpox (Merck); Varivax for Chickenpox (Merck); Havrix for Hepatitis A (Glaxo SmithKline); Twinrix for Hepatitis A and B combo (Glaxo); Zostavax for shingles (Merck); Imovax for rabies (Sanofi Pasteur); Acambis 1000 for Smallpox (Acambis); etc.
See the report here:
Also see this report:
Those who choose to donate their organs to medical science after their natural death are certainly morally justified. If a baby dies from natural causes and the parents decide to donate the baby’s organs to medical science, they, too, are morally justified–but to purposely murder a human being (born or unborn) for the intention of financial profit must be placed among the most evil and wicked of crimes.
The ancient pagan nations of the Canaanites, Ammonites, and Baalites would take their own children and burn them to death as sacrifices to the god Molech. Have you ever researched what a saline abortion does? Using this method of abortion, the unborn baby is chemically burned to death. And what is the god that these precious babies are being sacrificed to? The god of convenience, maybe? Oh, yes, and the god of money, for sure!
Dr. Joseph Mengele was the notorious Nazi doctor who is reputed to have superintended over the deaths of more than 400,000 people at Auschwitz. He also reportedly kept thousands of people alive so as to perform merciless and tortuous experiments on them. And all of this was done in the name of “medical research.” Eyewitnesses said that during his experiments, he would often cut living babies out of their mothers’ wombs and simply toss them into the oven.
To this, Matt Barber writes, “Cryin’ shame. Were he [Mengele] alive today and working for Planned Parenthood, Mengele’s abortion could have easily yielded an extra $300 for this ‘intact specimen.’”
See Matt’s column here:
But even after the video evidence of Planned Parenthood abortionists bargaining over the sale of aborted baby parts, our U.S. Senate cannot even muster enough votes to defund this sadistic organization. And the House of Representatives decided that taking a recess was more important than even voting on the matter. Yes, folks, your tax dollars and mine are supporting the abortion doctors at Planned Parenthood.
And lest my devout Republican friends immediately argue that the majority of senators that voted to not defund PP were Democrats, let me remind you that for half of G.W. Bush’s eight years in office, the Republican Party controlled the entire federal government: the White House and both houses of Congress. Yet, the GOP made absolutely NO ATTEMPT to defund Planned Parenthood. Republicans had plenty of opportunity to defund these baby killers, but they chose to do NOTHING. In truth, both parties in Washington, D.C., are dripping with the innocent blood of millions of innocent unborn babies.
Legalized abortion has seared the conscience of America. Is it any wonder that SCOTUS recently legalized same-sex marriage? Over four decades of the callous slaughter of unborn babies has warped our country’s entire value system.
Right after the verses in Romans chapter one that I quoted earlier come these verses: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Vss. 26, 27)
The legalization and social promotion of sodomy is the direct judgment of God upon a people whose value system places the lives and worth of beasts above the lives and worth of human beings who are created in the image of God.
Certainly, no man filled with the love of God will deliberately and purposely mistreat a family pet or even a wild animal. “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.” (Proverbs 12:10)
Ethical hunters desire a clean kill. Follow-up shots on a downed, wounded animal are for the intent of ending its misery. I’m sure this was the case for the dentist who accidentally killed a protected lion in Zimbabwe.
In my mind, the doctor is telling the truth when he says he didn’t realize that the lion was protected. Remember, the man had paid over $50,000 for his lion hunt in Zimbabwe. Big game hunting is a major industry there. Remember, too, that he had a local guide. It was the guide’s responsibility to make sure that his hunter/guest followed all of the regulations and protocols relative to the animal he was hunting. If we are going to be outraged at the killing of this beast, we should be outraged with the Zimbabwean guide. On a guided hunt, no hunter takes a trophy without the express permission of his or her guide. To think that this dentist would pay that kind of money and submit himself to the instruction and supervision of a local guide and then turn around and deliberately defy his guide and harvest an illegal animal is ludicrous. Truly, if the American hunter failed to realize the animal was protected, it was positively the guide’s fault.
As it is, this dentist is in hiding for fear of his life and is the subject of just about every type of verbal, emotional, and personal abuse possible. At the same time, however, the baby killers at Planned Parenthood receive the approbation, and even federal funding, of the U.S. government, and enjoy the politically-correct protection of the mainstream media–as well as many celebrities, entertainers, college professors, and even State governors, legislators, and attorney generals.
Folks, we are watching a nation die in front of our very eyes. People who cannot tell the difference between human life and animal life, people who value animal life above human life, and people who are outraged over the accidental killing of a lion, but who, at the same time, condone the wanton and deliberate murder of innocent unborn babies, are people who are void of any semblance of a civilized mind.
America is following the path of condemned nations before us. Meanwhile, the churches of America continue their fun, frolicking, and frivolity. So, tell me again who is really to blame.
August 9, 2015 by Marsha West
In 2013 Francis Chan spoke at the International House of Prayer (IHOP) apostasy fest Onething: Until the Fame of Jesus Fills the Earth annual event brought to us by false prophet Mike Bickle. Many well intentioned bloggers alerted Chan to the bizarre goings on at IHOP but, sadly, their warnings went unheeded.
In 2014 I penned a piece entitled The Prosperity Priestess and the Pied Piper of IHOP to inform readers that Word of Faith/Prosperity Preacher Joyce Meyer intended to join forces with Mike Bickle at Onething 2014. (Meyer ended up pulling out of the event at the last minute because of “unforeseen personal circumstances.”) In the referenced article I included a bit about Francis Chan’s professed love for Mike Bickle:
It’s important to note that last year Reformed pastor; author; conference speaker Francis Chan spoke at Onething where he declared “I love Mike Bickle.” Chan took a lot of heat for agreeing to speak at the conference. When friends and fans urged him to decline the invite, he admitted that he didn’t know much about Mike Bickle and IHOP so,
I kinda went on the Internet and started looking things up.
Whatever he found caused him to fall in love:
I go, man, there’s a lot of great things going on [at IHOP]. And today was the first time I ever met Mike Bickle. And, I love that guy. I do. And Mike knows – we talked about this – you know, there’s people who told me not to hang out with him.
Like, you know, words like “creepy” came up. And yet, I get to know this guy and I’m going, “Man, I love his heart. And I just want to publicly say I love Mike Bickle. (Source)
As you can see, Chan professed his love for the sort of person Jesus referred to as a ravenous wolf. (Mat. 7:15)
What Francis Chan failed to turn up in his investigation is that Mike Bickle has led countless young people astray. He’s a sort of a Pied Piper to those who journey to Kansas City from all over the globe to be a part of something “significant.” Once there, they stay for days, months…even years. You’ll find them in the prayer room praying. Prayer “led from a stage full of musicians and readers chanting repetitive phrasings of faith” goes on ’round the clock.
The false prophet has filled the young sojourners’ heads with untruths such as “an elite end-time church defeats God’s enemies, and Jesus is ‘held in the heavens’ until it happens.” So they most “go forth and make ready.”
Now I learn from John Lanagan that Francis Chan will be speaking at Onething 2015. He’ll be there with several IHOP apostates as well as evangelist Reinhard Bonnke, and one of Bethel Church’s music family, Amanda Cook. More speakers will be added.
Even after receiving a lot of flak for speaking at the 2013 event, Chan once again failed to do a background check on IHOP. Either that or he checked it out and has no problem with IHOP’s affiliation with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) aka Dominionism and Bickle’s affinity for unbiblical contemplative/centering prayer.
Over the years what is deemed the “signs and wonders” movement has had many names to include Third Wave; Kingdom Now; Latter Rain; Joel’s Army; and Manifest Sons of God. It matters not what they call themselves; what matters is what they believe and teach – their theology. I’ve provided several links for those who wish to know more about the NAR’s warped theology, as I don’t have the space to do that here. As you become acquainted with the dominionist movers and shakers (literally) and learn of their plans for this planet, you’ll understand why discernment bloggers have been sounding the alarm.
In a nutshell, the NAR has been working non-stop and pretty much unhindered for decades in their effort to transform society into their vision of the kingdom of God on earth. Their aim is control. In order to accomplish what they’ve set out to do, they must first gain control of the “Seven Mountains,” or “Seven Spheres” of society. These spheres are: 1) Arts and Entertainment; 2) Business/Economy; 3) Education; 4) Family; 5) Government; 6) Media; 7) Religion. Its leaders teach that as the anointed ones rid the world of evil, things will get better and better and then Jesus Christ will return to rule and reign over His earthly kingdom.
In the early years, when it was known as the Latter Rain, it was a fringe movement that most Christians didn’t know about and those who did paid little attention to. But the NAR is no longer on the fringe. In recent years its leaders have wormed their way into the seven mountains of society. Through their worldwide mission outreach, the movement that introduced us to breaking down demonic strongholds, casting out demons, healing the sick and raising the dead and other so-called “signs and wonders” has become mainstream. Who’s to blame for the mainstreaming of NAR apostasy? The blame lies squarely with our Christian leaders, clergy, authors, entertainers, so-called Christian media outlets, blogs, and last but not least, pro-family leaders who profess a belief in Jesus Christ. Many of the people Christians look to for leadership and guidance are not Bible believers and a large number of them are involved in outright apostasy, even heresy. So how can they possibly have spiritual discernment?
What exactly is discernment? According to blogger Tim Challies:
Discernment is the ability to properly discriminate or make determinations. It is related to wisdom. The Word of God itself is said to discern the thoughts and intentions of one’s heart (Hebrews 4:12).
A discerning mind demonstrates wisdom and insight that go beyond what is seen and heard. For example, God’s Word is “spiritually discerned.” To the human mind without the Spirit, the things of God are “foolishness” (1 Corinthians 2:14). The Spirit, then, gives us spiritual discernment. (Source)
Getting back to addressing Pastor Chan’s participation in Onething 2015. Many in the Christian community wondered about his discernment or lack thereof, when he spoke at the 2013 event — there was a big brouhaha over it. Even so he has agreed to return to the scene of the crime, so to speak. It seems impossible that researching the NAR and Mike Bickle would result in anything other than an ample understanding of the highly unbiblical nature of the movement. So it’s obvious that he hasn’t done the research…. or perhaps he has. Inquiring minds want to know. Finally, it’s concerning that during his talk in 2013 he joked about warnings from friends and discernment bloggers when he snickered, “there’s people who told me not to hang out with him [Bickle]” But even worse than that, hearing a highly regarded Christian leader proclaim his love for a false prophet was upsetting, to say the least.
Hopefully Pastor Chan will do as Joyce Meyer did in 2014 and cancel his speaking gig.
Deception in the Church
My Word Like Fire
Former IHOP Member Explains Why IHOP (International House of Prayer) Is A Cult
CARM lists some of the main offenses of IHOP:
1. Cultic origin, worship style, and goals
5. The IHOP dilemma
6. False Prophecies
7. Effective Denial of Sola Scriptura
8. Opposition by multiple Godly Christian Groups
August 9, 2015 by Mike Whitney
Here’s your US foreign policy puzzler for the day: When is regime change not regime change?
When the regime stays in power but loses its ability to rule. This is the current objective of US policy in Syria, to undermine Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s ability to govern the country without physically removing him from office. The idea is simple: Deploy US-backed “jihadi” proxies to capture-and-hold vast sections of the country thereby making it impossible for the central government to control the state. This is how the Obama administration plans to deal with Assad, by making him irrelevant. The strategy is explained in great detail in a piece by Michael E. O’Hanlon at the Brookings Institute titled “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”. Here’s an excerpt:
“…the only realistic path forward may be a plan that in effect deconstructs Syria….the international community should work to create pockets with more viable security and governance within Syria over time… The idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via special forces. The approach would benefit from Syria’s open desert terrain which could allow creation of buffer zones that could be monitored for possible signs of enemy attack. Western forces themselves would remain in more secure positions in general—within the safe zones but back from the front lines—at least until the reliability of such defenses, and also local allied forces, made it practical to deploy and live in more forward locations.
Creation of these sanctuaries would produce autonomous zones that would never again have to face the prospect of rule by either Assad or ISIL….
The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones… The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force….to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded.”
(“Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war“, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institute)
Isn’t this the basic gameplan that is unfolding in Syria today?
Notice how O’ Hanlon never considers the moral implications of obliterating a sovereign nation, killing tens of thousands of civilians, and displacing millions of others. Those kinds of things simply don’t matter to the pundits who concoct these imperial strategies. It’s just grist for the mill. Notice, also, how the author refers to “buffer zones and “safe zones”, the same terms which have been used repeatedly in relation to Turkey’s agreement with the US for the use of Turkey’s Incirlik air base. Turkey wants the US to assist in the creation of these safe zones along Syria’s northern border to protect it from attack and to create a sanctuary for the training so called “moderate” militants to be used in the war against ISIS. As it happens, these prospective safe zones are a vital part of O’Hanlon’s broader plan to break the state into a million disconnected enclaves ruled by armed mercenaries, al Qaida affiliates, and local warlords. This is Obama’s dream of a “liberated Syria”, an anarchic failed state sprinkled with US military bases where massive resource extraction can take place unimpeded. What Obama wants to avoid at all costs, is another embarrassment like Iraq where the removal of Saddam created a security vacuum that led to a violent and protracted revolt that cost the US dearly in terms of blood, treasure and international credibility. That’s why he’s settled on the present strategy which he thinks is a smarter way to achieve the same objectives. In other words, the goals haven’t changed. The only difference is the methods. Here’s more from O’Hanlon:
“The plan would be directed not only against ISIL but in part against Assad as well. In a bow to reality, however, it would not explicitly seek to overthrow him, so much as deny him control of territory that he might still aspire to govern again. The autonomous zones would be liberated with the clear understanding that there was no going back to rule by Assad or a successor. In any case, Assad would not be a military target under this concept, but areas he currently controls (and cruelly bombs) would be. And if Assad delayed too long in accepting a deal for exile, he could inevitably face direct dangers to his rule and even his person.”
(“Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institute)
What does this mean?
It means that Syria is going to be the testing ground for O’Hanlon’s new regime change strategy, a strategy in which Assad is going to be the number one guinea pig. And just so there isn’t any misunderstanding about the real aim of the operation, O’ Hanlon makes this rather stunning admission:
“This plan would differ from current strategy in three main ways. First, the idea would be plainly stated as the avowed goal of the United States….. It would also help dispel the lurking suspicion that Washington was content to tolerate the Assad government now as the lesser of two evils.”
(“Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institute)
So the administration should abandon the pretense that the US is conducting a war on ISIS and just admit openly that ‘Assad’s got to go.’ According to O’ Hanlon that would help to smooth things over with other members of coalition who are confused about Washington’s real intentions. Here’s more from O’ Hanlon:
“…multilateral support teams, grounded in special forces detachments and air-defense capabilities as needed, would be prepared for deployment into parts of Syria once opposition elements were able to seize and reliably hold strong points…..This last part would of course be the most challenging, and the actual deployment of any such teams the most fraught. It need not be rushed….But it’s a necessary part of the effort.” (“Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institute)
Translation: There’s going to be US boots on the ground in Syria. You can bet on it. While it’s okay to deploy the jihadi cannon fodder to lead the charge and “soften up” the enemy; eventually, you have to send in the A Team to seal the deal. That means special forces, a countrywide no-fly zone, forward operating bases, and a ginned-up propaganda campaign aimed at convincing the sheeple that Syria must be destroyed in order to defend US national security. All of this will unfold in Phase 2 of the Syria war fiasco which is about to intensify by many orders of magnitude.
Finally, here’s O’ Hanlon making one last spirited pitch for his spanking-new regime change strategy:
“This type of plan may be the only realistic path forward… Moreover, while it is not without risks for the United States, the scale of military involvement envisioned is not substantially greater than what we have been doing the last year or so in Afghanistan. President Obama…. should not view Syria as a problem to hand to his successor, but rather a crisis that demands his attention and a new strategy now.”
So there you have it; the plan to rip Syria to shreds, precipitate an even bigger humanitarian crisis, and topple Assad without physically removing him from office. All that carnage and destruction in one-short 1,100 word essay. How’s that for brevity?
Do you ever wonder if these policy brainiacs, like O’ Hanlon, ever think about the suffering they cause with their grand strategies, or does it even matter to them?
August 4, 2015 by Sartre
With every new day the depths of societal disintegration deepens. With the systemic dismantling of the value of individual life, the total dissolution of a moral existence hastens. What better example of this pattern of out-and-out evil is more evident than the recent expressions of selling body parts of aborted babies? Yes, conception and development in the womb already has a soul and deserves all the natural rights of life and protection from state approved murder. Permitting a chop shop body parts business to thrive is the ultimate admission that mass insanity is institutionalized among cannibalistic savages that find nothing wrong about eating their young.
The mental disease that permeates the feminist movement of death and carnage known as “pro choice” is an insult to all of humanity and a direct assault on the meaning of language. The alternative to this insanity is en pro de vida. Yet, the popular culture would have you believe that the release of the Planned Parenthood videos: No sign of political issue fading, will not hurt the organization of Margaret Sanger eugenicist partisans.
Illustrating this point is the deceitful public relations effort to counter the gross reality from the Planned Parenthood official mindset of President of PPFA Medical Directors’ Council Mary Gatter. The video, Second Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices, Changes Abortion Methods, is a painful condemnation that provides evidence of total moral decay.
Now observe the response from the mainstream progressive media and the politically correct establishment to the exposure of the profiteers from abortive body parts.
“The Life News piece also goes into detail about what else may be coming down the line, noting that undercover reporters were able to infiltrate the abortion industry at its highest levels and gain access to conferences and meetings that require written recommendation from senior officials.
The piece notes that ‘Biomax’ managed to set up exhibition booths at two Planned Parenthood conferences as well as sponsoring events held by the National Abortion Federation and the national association for abortion providers in America.
While Republicans in Congress and several states have called for investigations into Planned Parenthood’s actions, Democrats are ignoring the scandal and actually calling for the Center for Medical Progress to be investigated for conducting a sting operation.
The leftist corporate media also continues to shill for Planned Parenthood, with the New York Times the latest outlet to get behind the damage control spin.”
Note that the political defenders for selective population genocide fear the backlash from normal and decent citizens so much that the mere notion of investigating their pet extermination pals requires striking back at the journalists, who videotaped the Planned Parenthood admission.
The double standard when Department of Justice videos a sting probe is fine if the target is on the “enemy of the state” list; but protecting the criminal trafficking of aborted body organs is perfectly acceptable in the disturbed world of selective application for arbitrary justice.
“JUSTICE TO PROBE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS — While congressional committees investigate Planned Parenthood’s practices, the Justice Department agreed to look into whether the group that released the sting videos obtained the footage legally. In response to a request by House Democrats, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday afternoon that Justice would “review all of the information and determine what the appropriate steps moving forward would be.” Planned Parenthood has staunchly defended its practices and claims that the Center for Medical Progress illegally obtained its footage, then excessively edited it to misrepresent what the organization does.”
As valid as it is to express disgust with the political and justice careerists, the focus of authentic moral outrage needs to be directed at a sick culture that minimizes life and the gutless bystanders, who allow the diabolic mutilation and butchery of the unborn. The delusional mentality of the proponents of Planned Parenthood needs to repent and face up to their own transgressions.
Carole Novielli writes a deeply heart provoking account and asks the question, When it comes to Planned Parenthood’s ghoulish crimes, are we all guilty?
“I think about what is happening in this nation. Of 42 years of legalized abortion on demand.
As I ponder what has taken place this last week, I am not shocked that babies are being chopped up and sold for parts as if an old car in a junkyard. Sadly I write this sentence.
I am not shocked because, every day, over 3000 beautifully formed, innocent babies are snuffed out in their mother’s wombs by abortion.
What shocks me more than hearing what groups like Planned Parenthood are doing with their remains, is the lack of concern for these tiny humans on a daily basis. Yes, this shocks me.”
Being traumatized over sanctioned slaughter should be the response and vital concern of every decent American. However, the lunacy of denial has taken over the frame of mind for situation ethics exponents.
Ms. Novielli continues:
“Is the harvesting of aborted baby body parts so horrific that we are now awakened to the pain and suffering of these tiny babies?
Are we not moved to tears by the mere ripping apart of their innocent arms, legs, and yes lungs and kidneys on a daily basis in an early suction abortion?
Can we not envision the horror of the abortionist’s knife grasping the limbs, torso, and head of the second trimester unborn child in a D+E abortion?”
It should be ubiquitously accepted that condemning the trade in body parts is the correct principled value. However, the entire and complete life affirming position is to end the practice of mass murder of the conceived unborn.
Lastly, Carole Novielli puts forth the moral imperative.
We have to ask the tough questions.
I ask you this: Who is more evil?
The abortionist who figured out a way to profit off every aspect of the bloody procedure or those of us on the sidelines who scold him/her for his business savvy but not for his murderous actions?
Let me clarify, I wholeheartedly condemn Planned Parenthood for their Mengele-like conduct, but I also refute them for the taking of that same human life just seconds earlier.
Have we become so accustomed to abortion that the real crime of it, the taking of a valuable human life, created in the image of God, is not the overall cause of our outrage?
How do you answer this question?
America is sinking into the pit of homicidal madness. Foreign adventures eradicate mythical foes. Domestic violence kills neighborhood rivals and the corner clinic rips out the tissue of disposable fetuses. Dehumanizing anyone brutalizes all of us.
The end result of this vicious death cycle is that ‘A New Dark Age’ has arrived.
“Nucatola is describing how an unborn baby should be killed and cut up to preserve its most valuable organs for sale by its butchers.
Welcome to God’s Country, 2015.
Planned Parenthood’s image — a progressive organization that provides free birth control to women who seek to space pregnancies as they plan their families — will not easily survive these tapes.”
Hopefully, these remarks by Pat Buchanan foretells of a pouring out of legitimate indignation towards Planned Parenthood. Nonetheless, the prospects of defunding federal resources from the PP Murder, Inc. crime family are not likely.
The killing asylum has a serious thinking disorder. This condition will not be alleviated as long as the secular culture holds firm to the psychopathic attitude that a woman has a right to choose. Choose to slay their own child is not an option in a civilized society.
The Slattern Single Mother helps explain the cognitive dissonance that leads to the abortion syndrome.
“Since the act of procreation is an action of choice, any woman who enters into that union with the satisfaction that if she becomes pregnant, she can handle the decision all on her own, has become the quintessential gender plunder. Cognitive dissonance never enters into the equation of moral responsibility, since the selfishness for emotional relief drives the behavior. Feminism is the moral enemy of women. Men clearly understand the destructive consequence it has brought upon society. But far too many females still cling to this disturbed valueless hoax, that the humiliation of their own dignity escapes them.”
Combating the scourge of Planned Parenthood requires the moral fortitude to confront the Abandoning Morality with Irrationality viewpoint head on. This is no place or time for the timid.
The malady that contaminates the body politic rests upon the demented Culture of Death Under the Law. Aborting the unborn with insouciant ease facilitates the acceptance to pull the plug on the sick and elderly. As long as the citizenry is willing to rationalize their serious thinking disorder, the unborn will be terminated and no stash of body parts will ever adopt the life that was prevented from coming to term. This is the brave new world of a terminal psychosis.
August 4, 2015 by Selwyn Duke
There has been much written about the Boy Scouts of America’s recent acceptance of openly homosexual scout masters. The organization has been raked over the coals by the right and accused of offering only a half-measure by the left. But few appreciate what the BSA has actually done — and the BSA has no idea what it has done to itself.
Scouting has never been just about tying knots and learning survival skills, but about instilling virtue and building character. And part of having character means standing up for what you believe is right.
Insofar as this goes, no boy will find the “reformed” BSA organization a good role model.
Whether or not you agree with the BSA’s recent policy change, this is indisputable. Note that when BSA president (and ex-defense secretary) Robert Gates defended the decision, he spoke of how the ban on homosexual adults was “unsustainable,” said that he had “fear” it would mean the BSA’s demise, and spoke about how one couldn’t ignore the changing legal landscape and culture (we can only imagine what kinds of policies he’d have felt compelled to adopt in 1936 Germany or the 1925 USSR). There wasn’t even a pretense at a moral argument. “Instead, he argues from organizational self-interest — never mind if it is right or wrong…. Duty to God and country? To heck with that — management always has its own priorities,” as National Review put it in a scathing editorial.
Of course, it isn’t hard to figure out that, much like the leper character in Braveheart, Gates is a perhaps proud compromiser; he wants to mollify the sexual fascists while tacitly saying to traditionalists, “I don’t want to do it, you see; we have to — to survive.” Well, there’s a new scout survival skill for you. Perhaps now they’ll have courses in political expediency and realpolitik and merit badges in waving white flags and lying prostrate.
It’s not that Gates is wrong about the culture’s trajectory, the legal challenges or what they portend for the BSA. But the organization was being sued six ways to Sunday 15 years ago and bravely held the line. What’s different today? Sure, the wider culture has degraded further — but so has the BSA’s internal culture.
Lost in this whole debate is that allowing openly homosexual BSA leaders is not movement toward equality — that notion is marketing — but away from it. After all, there have always been homosexual scout leaders, just as there have been those who were adulterers or fornicators. But they generally “kept up appearances,” which, while paling in comparison to actual virtue, is the next best thing. But while the last two groups are still presumably expected to keep it in the closet, the group that always feels compelled to wear its sexuality on its shirtsleeve will be out and “proud” in the bush.
And, really, it wouldn’t even matter now if adulterers and fornicators followed suit. It is certainly true that being “morally straight” (part of the BSA oath) involves more than just sexuality; it is also true that sexuality is an integral part of it. And, obviously, the BSA’s sexuality model was always Christendom’s traditional one: sexuality is to be confined to a married couple (man and woman, by definition), period. Some will now protest, saying that the BSA never dealt with sexuality at all. No, not explicitly, but it isn’t only what’s mentioned explicitly that matters. There’s no such thing as a value-neutral environment. “Values are caught more than they’re taught,” and it is what is assumed that is learned best. If an “out” adulterer, fornicator or homosexual is a scout leader, he’s teaching the legitimacy of the behavior in question in the most powerful way possible: by living it — as someone who is a role model. Moreover, that the BSA allows him to “serve openly” relates a message of organizational acceptance.
So the issue here is the validating of homosexuality in young boys’ minds? Actually, it’s worse than that. Question, how effective is the following message: adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, polygamy is a sin, but homosexuality? That’s just a lifestyle choice, junior, sorta’ like living on a houseboat.
It’s a what’s-wrong-with-this-picture scenario the dullest student could figure out in a second. Once Scout Master Ken can arrive in camp all joyous and gay talking about the new knot — the one he fancies he’s tied with his “significant other” Lloyd — it’s clear that basically anything goes sexually. Hey, if he can indulge his passions, why can’t I indulge mine? In other words, the acceptance of homosexuality means the complete collapse of the traditional sexual model.
What does this mean for being “morally straight” in general? C.S. Lewis once noted (I’m paraphrasing), “Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.” And opening that stuffed closet messes everything else up. Similar to how you can’t compartmentalize accepted homosexuality and keep the traditionalist sexual model intact, it’s essentially impossible to compartmentalize widespread sexual vice and keep general virtue intact. It’s as how cancer metastasizing unfettered cannot be kept confined to one organ: vice corrupts the heart, weakens the mind, clouds judgment and creates desire for the justification of relativism (e.g., who’s to say what right and wrong is, anyway? Don’t impose your “values” on me!). This leads to more vice. This is not to say, lest I be misunderstood, that a sexually corrupt people can’t have its virtues. It is to say they can’t be virtuous.
And that is the issue. None of this would be happening if the BSA’s leadership, reflecting moderns in general, weren’t lacking in virtue themselves and hadn’t descended into vice-enabling relativism. Even years ago I fully expected their surrender because I understood that, as Lewis also said, you cannot “make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.” Robert Gates and most of the rest of the BSA leadership are men without chests; they have no heart for the fight because they have no principles, and they have no principles because they started believing not in principles but provisional values.
As far as the BSA’s mandate of creating boys with chests, the organization long had to fight the corruptive wider culture. But now it has collapsed, completely and likely irrevocably, its own internal culture. And for what? A slight reprieve? A stay of execution? Gates has said he didn’t foresee the rapid cultural changes (a tipping point, really) of the last several years. What he also doesn’t see is that he has merely “traded the Sudetenland for peace in our time.” And he will learn that this peace is fleeting with people whose “truth” changes with time, people who tolerate no dissent, honor no compromise and take no prisoners.
The BSA decided that it profited the organization to lose its soul so it could gain the world. Its punishment will be, I suspect, that it will end up without either.
August 2, 2015 by Shamus Cooke
The road to war is paved with a thousand lies. A fresh fib was tossed on the lie-cluttered warpath to Syria, when it was announced that the U.S. and Turkey would create a “safe zone” inside of Syria — supposedly to be aimed against ISIS.
This “safe zone” is a major escalation of war, but it was described in soft tones by the media, sounding almost cuddly. In reality, however, a “safe zone” is a “no-fly zone,” meaning that a nation is planning to implement military air superiority inside the boundaries of another nation. It’s long recognized by the international community and U.S. military personnel as a major act of war. In a war zone an area is made “safe” by destroying anything in it or around that appears threatening.
Turkey has been demanding this no-fly zone from Obama since the Syrian war started. It’s been discussed throughout the conflict and even in recent months, though the intended goal was always the Syrian government.
And suddenly the no-fly zone is happening — right where Turkey always wanted it — but it’s being labeled an “anti-ISIS” safe zone, instead of its proper name: “Anti Kurdish and anti-Syrian government” safe zone.
The U.S. media swallowed the name change without blinking, but many international media outlets knew better.
For instance, the International Business Times reported “ [the safe zone deal]…could mark the end of [Syrian President] Assad…”
And The Middle East Eye reported:
“…[the safe zone] marks a breakthrough for Turkey in its confrontation with the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria. If the no-fly zone does come into being it will be a body blow for Assad and his supporters”
Even U.S. media outlets acknowledged that the primary goal of Obama’s safe zone ally, Turkey, was defeating the Kurdish fighters and the Syrian government, both of whom have been the most effective fighters against ISIS.
Syrian regime change is also the goal of the ground troops who will be filling the void left by ISIS, who The New York Times labeled “relatively moderate Syrian insurgents,” a telling euphemism.
The New York Times confirmed the goals of the safe zone allies:
“…both the Turks and the Syrian insurgents see defeating President Bashar al-Assad of Syria as their first priority…”
If the Syrian government wasn’t the target of the safe zone, then Syrian government troops would be the ones to control the safe zone post ISIS, as they did before ISIS. And if regime change wasn’t the target, then the Syrian government would have been consulted and coordinated with to attack ISIS, since Syria is involved with heavy fighting against ISIS in the same region that the safe zone is being carved out.
These steps weren’t taken because the “safe zone” plan is much bigger than ISIS.
Obama hasn’t detailed who the “relatively moderate” fighters are that will control the safe zone, but it’s easy to guess. We only have to look at the Syrian rebels on the ground who are effective fighters and control nearby territory.
The most powerful non-ISIS group in the region recently re-branded itself as the “Conquest Army,”a coalition of Islamic extremists led by Jabhat al-Nusra — the official al-Qaeda affiliate — and the group Ahrar al-Sham, whose leader previously stated that his group was “the real al Qaeda.” The Conquest Army actively coordinates with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and is also populated with U.S.-trained fighters.
These groups share the ideology and tactics of ISIS, the only difference being their willingness to work with the United States and Turkey. It’s entirely likely that once the “safe zone” operation starts, many ISIS troops will simply change shirts and join Jabhat al-Nusra, since there is no principled difference.
Obama knows that the foreign ground troops controlling the “safe zone” are targeting the Syrian government; consequently, U.S. military planes will be acting as the de-facto air force for Al-Qaeda against the Syrian government.
Thus, direct military confrontation with the Syrian government is inevitable. President Assad is already attacking ISIS in the area that the U.S.-Turkey alliance wants to make “safe” via its coordinated military operation. Syrian fighter jets will eventually be targeted, since the goal is to allow extremist groups a “safe zone” to continue their attacks on the Syrian government after ISIS is dealt with.
This danger was also acknowledged by The New York Times:
“Whatever the goal, the plan [safe zone] will put American and allied warplanes closer than ever to areas that Syrian aircraft regularly bomb, raising the question of what they will do if Syrian warplanes attack their partners [“relatively moderate rebels”] on the ground.”
The answer is obvious: U.S. and Turkish fighter jets will engage with Syrian aircraft, broadening and deepening the war until the intended aim of regime change has been accomplished.
This is exactly how events developed in Libya, when the U.S.-NATO led a “no-fly zone” that was supposedly created to allow a “humanitarian corridor,” but quickly snowballed into its real goal: regime change and assassination of Libya’s president. This epic war crime is still celebrated by Obama and Hillary Clinton as a “victory,” while Libyans drown in the Mediterranean to escape their once-modern but now obliterated country.
If Obama’s goal in Syria was actually defeating ISIS, this could have been achieved at any time, in a matter of weeks. It would simply take a serious and coordinated effort with U.S. regional allies, while coordinating with the non-allies already fighting ISIS: Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah.
If Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Jordan were involved in the fight on ISIS it would be quickly strangled of cash, guns, and troops, and be massively out-powered. War over.
The only reason this hasn’t happened is that the U.S. and its allies have always viewed ISIS as a convenient proxy against Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran, not to mention leverage against the Iran-friendly government of Iraq.
Turkey remains the biggest obstacle to defeating ISIS, since it’s been helping it for years. ISIS has long used the Turkish border to escape Syrian government attacks, seek medical assistance, and get supplies and reinforcements. ISIS is so welcomed inside Turkey that ISIS promotes Turkey on social media as the international transit hub for jihadis wanting to join ISIS. Turkish immigration and customs looks the other way, as does the Turkish border control.
In discussing the “safe zone,” the U.S. media always ignore the concept of national sovereignty — the basis for international law. The boundaries of countries are sacred from the standpoint of international law. The only just war is a defensive one. When one country implements a no-fly zone in another country, national boundaries are violated and international law is broken by an act of war.
The Obama administration is aware of the above dynamics, but has again tossed caution to the wind as he did in 2013, during the ramp up to its aborted bombing campaign against the Syrian government.
A U.S.-Turkish no-fly zone will deepen an already regional war: Iran and Hezbollah have recently ramped up direct support of the Syrian government. As Turkish and the U.S. military enter the war space for the first time, confrontation is inevitable. Confrontation is the plan.
August 1, 2015 by Chuck Baldwin
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that the biggest failure in America is the establishment church. It’s a bigger failure than even the federal government. Now that’s saying something.
No people in Church history had been given the rich heritage of the churches of America. The Church of America was birthed by the courage and sacrifice of men such as Jonas Clark, John Peter Muhlenberg, James Caldwell, Joab Houghton, et al. These men stood in the gap and rallied the Christians in Colonial America to dispose of a tyrannical British Crown and to help create a land of liberty such as the world had never before seen.
Alas, the courage of the patriot pastors of Colonial America has been forgotten; their sacrifice wasted. Everything they purchased with their dynamic and powerful preaching has been squandered by generations of gutless, ear-tickling men-pleasers in these entertainment playgrounds known as churches. What a waste!
However, as far gone as we are, if even a significant percentage of the 300,000-plus evangelical churches (not to mention Catholic, Episcopalian, etc.) would stand up NOW and begin sounding the clarion call of national repentance and constitutional liberty, the ship of state could yet be turned around. But there is NO SIGN of that happening. NONE!
What would it take to get the pastors of America to take a stand? One would have thought that expunging prayer and Bible reading from our schools back in 1962 and 1963 would have done it. It didn’t. One would have thought that copying the Nazi playbook for gun control back in 1968 would have done it. It didn’t. One would have thought that legalizing the cold-blooded killing of unborn babies back in 1973 would have done it. It didn’t. One would have thought that beginning the construction of a Police State back in 2001 would have done it. It didn’t. And one would have thought that the legalization of same-sex marriage would have done it. It hasn’t.
At this point, it does seem obvious that the vast majority of pastors in America are content to allow this country to nose-dive into destruction without as much as a whimper. Again, what a waste!
It is one thing to be born in an enslaved country with the weight of the state forbidding public dissent or freedom of assembly, worship, and speech. It is one thing to be born with the shackles of bondage firmly fastened around your neck from the time of your entrance into the world. It is another thing altogether to be born in a land of liberty where one’s ancestors broke the shackles of tyranny at the cost of their very lives–thus allowing us to live in a land where the freedom of dissent, the freedom to elect our civil magistrates, the freedom of speech, assembly, and worship (not to mention the freedom to keep and bear arms) are sacrosanct–only to then turn around and squander our liberty and to allow would-be tyrants to take it from us without a fight. What a waste! What a horrible, terrible, awful waste! And that is exactly what the last few generations of so-called “preachers” have done.
Think what these pussyfooting preachers have lost: they failed to preserve the sanctity of life; they failed to preserve the sanctity of marriage; they failed to preserve the sanctity of the Holy Scriptures; they failed to preserve the sanctity of liberty; they failed to preserve the sanctity of honesty and decency; they even failed to preserve the sanctity of the Church itself.
Truly, “Ichabod” is written over the establishment church in America. And, as a result, “Anathema” is being written over the entire nation. I am convinced that any spiritual renewal that might still come will mostly bypass America’s establishment churches and will be carried by nontraditional, non-aligned, unincorporated, unaffiliated–maybe even underground–fellowships. This is what is currently happening in communist–and other–oppressed countries. And America is fast becoming an oppressed country.
In fact, if the pastors in America had even a fraction of the man-stuff that the pastors in Colonial America had, they, too, would be sounding the clarion call of independence and secession. Like King George’s England, Washington, D.C., has become a corrupt cesspool of wickedness that is using every means possible to wrap its tyrannical tentacles around every State, city, hamlet, and village in the entire country. At some point, the only options freedom-loving people in this country will have are slavery or secession. And that point may come a whole lot sooner than most of us expect.
So, what has happened to the Church? How did our pastors become so timid? How could the direct descendants of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Patriots become so cowardly? Here are the reasons:
1. The Church, which is the Bride of Christ, entered into an adulterous relationship with Caesar when it put on the state’s official wedding band: otherwise known as the 501c3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization status. At that moment, it became a “creature of the state” and left the sanctity of its spiritual wedding to Christ. That happened in 1954. In just a little over a short half-century later, the Church has lost, not only the virtue of its own spiritual institution, but also the virtue of the most fundamental institution of all: Holy Matrimony.
Yet, instead of sounding forth the message of truth regarding this attack against Western Civilization itself, our pastors stand mute and apathetic, holding onto their precious tax-exempt status with their last waning breath. In practice, our pastors are saying exactly what the Pharisees said in Jesus’ time: “We have no king but Caesar.”
2. The heretical misinterpretation of Romans 13 that teaches Christians must submit to civil government “no-matter-what.”
This fallacious doctrine has damned America. Our pastors and churches are following the Nazi playbook verbatim. True resistance to evil must, by nature, come mostly from spiritual sources, because the battle between good and evil is mostly a spiritual battle. Therefore, it is obligatory that our spiritual leaders be the ones leading this battle. Alas, for the most part, this is not happening.
In the name of Romans 13, our spiritual leaders have abandoned the battlefield. They have sounded retreat. They have waved the white flag. They have capitulated. They have surrendered. And the enemy has taken the field.
I submit that at the judgment bar of God, these squeamish milquetoast preachers are going to have to apologize, not only to Clark, Muhlenberg, Caldwell, and Houghton, but also to every courageous man and woman throughout history. Think of Gideon and Samson and Samuel and David and Vashti and Esther and Daniel and Micaiah and Jeremiah and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Think of Simon Peter and James and John, and even Paul, the man who penned Romans 13. Think of the Anabaptists, the Waldensians, the Protestant Reformers, and the martyrs of the Dark Ages. Think of the Scots and Irishmen and Americans. Think of the persecuted people of Tibet and Burma and Sudan and Saudi Arabia and China and Palestine. Think of the millions of people throughout the centuries who stood against oppressors and tyrants of all stripes and types–be they political, religious, or military–and said, “No!”
I say again: what a waste!
3. The heretical “feel-good,” entertainment-oriented Prosperity Theology that has infested America’s churches.
Men such as Joel Osteen are Pied Pipers of a sleep-walking church whose music is only serving to march these unsuspecting souls into the gulags of a modern inquisition. Yet, these sycophants lead the largest churches in the country.
“Like priest, like people.” People have heaped to themselves teachers having itching ears. They have sown to the wind, and they are reaping a whirlwind. They are like the Israelites of old who refused to listen to God’s prophets and, instead, gave heed to the hireling-prophets of Ahab.
4. Then, there are the folks who think they must help God fulfill Bible prophecy.
First, there is Mr. Warmonger himself: John Hagee. This man, and thousands like him, have convinced their churches that they must help God establish His Kingdom on the earth. They have appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner of all things pertaining to the Middle East. Their loyalty does not reside in America; it resides in the modern state of Israel–a nation that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Biblical Israel. Their erroneous interpretation of Genesis 12 has created a climate of war and hatred that is tearing the soul out of America. All of these perpetual wars that are being fomented in the Middle East are done in the name of Genesis 12, in much the same way that our domestic internment is being facilitated in the name of Romans 13.
Folks, God didn’t need anyone’s help when He sent His Son to earth the first time, and He doesn’t need anyone’s help when He decides to send His Son to earth the second time.
Secondly, there are those well-meaning Christians (I think) who actually believe it is their God-ordained duty to do nothing to resist evil.
I received this post on my Facebook page just this week: “None of these things [the evil, calamitous things happening to our country] could have been prevented, nor should they have been. All these things must come to pass before the Lord returns. In this world, nations rise and nations fall, and this one just happens to be falling right now. Praise God! I praise God for the destruction of this evil nation! I wish the Lord would return right now! But unfortunately, he will not return until ‘everything that must happen, has happened.’ The sooner these things happen, the sooner the Lord can return.”
I wonder if this Christian gentleman is going to be praising God when his children or grandchildren are put to the rack or his mother and father are tortured or his wife and sisters are molested and ravaged.
Yes, I realize that our sainted forebears often endured the most hideous treatment with spiritual and moral courage, but no one in their right mind would wish such treatment on their loved ones–especially if they had the power to prevent it. This man rejoices over his country’s destruction? This man is NOT in his right mind. The prophets of old wept over the destruction of their beloved nation. Jesus wept over the impending destruction of the city of Jerusalem.
But this is the kind of rationale one gets from these pastors and churches who use the Scripture to brainwash people into attitudes of fatalism. They are the ones who become nothing more than their own self-fulfilling prophecies. They stand back and do nothing and then claim to praise God when their own indifference grows into their own destruction. Such people are NOT in their right minds.
Famed Nineteenth Century revivalist Charles Finney is widely reported as saying, “If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discernment, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in Christianity, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.”
The Church is to blame for legalized abortion on demand; the Church is to blame for the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage”; the Church is to blame for the growing Police State in this country; the Church is to blame for America’s war-mongering abroad; the Church is to blame for the growing influence of false religions in America.
When America is lying in the graveyard of history, the epitaph on its tombstone will read, “Here lies the United States of America: killed by the apathy and indifference of its pastors and churches.”
As I again reflect on the giants who thundered forth liberty from the pulpits of Colonial America, and I see the behavior of so many of our pastors today, I can only repeat: What a waste!
August 1, 2015 by Mike Whitney
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan lost his bid to become Turkey’s supreme leader in last month’s elections. So he’s taken the country to war to increase his popularity and improve his chances of victory in snap elections in November.
Turkish bombers continued to pound Kurdish positions in Northern Iraq early Thursday after killing an estimated 100 Kurds a day earlier. Erdogan broke off peace talks with the Kurdish militias and launched this latest assault after failing to win enough seats in Parliament to change the constitution. The ambitious Erdogan needed 330 deputies to make sweeping changes to the constitution that would give the president unlimited executive power making Erdogan de facto emperor of Turkey. His plan was frustrated by the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) that won an unprecedented 13 percent of the vote. The HDP is determined to prevent Erdogan from realizing his dream of becoming Turkey’s imperial sultan . The current war against the Kurds in Syria and Iraq is designed to whip up nationalist sentiment in order to put Erdogan “over the top” in elections that could come as early as this Fall.
Here’s more from Huffington Post:
“Last month, only after losing his party’s parliamentary majority, President Erdogan realized that there are dangerous terrorists in neighboring Syria who are a threat to Turkey’s security … Rather than intending to fight ISIS terrorists or cooperate with United States military operations in Syria and Iraq, Erdogan’s real purpose is to consolidate his own hold on power and accomplish the following self-serving objectives:
1) Turkey’s President realizes that should his ruling party fail to form a coalition government by the end of August, he would be obliged to call a new round of parliamentary elections in November. Therefore, by taking bold actions against ISIS and Kurdish fighters, Erdogan hopes that Turkish voters would give his party the few extra seats needed to regain a majority in Parliament.
…The Turkish President’s self-serving fake war against terrorism could have the tragic consequence of escalating the violence throughout Turkey and neighboring countries. If Ankara is truly interested in countering the Jihadists, it should have done that long ago, instead of arming and abetting ISIS and other terror groups.” (Erdogan Is Pursuing Turkish Self-Interests, Under the Guise of Fighting ISIS, Harut Sassounian, Huffington Post)
Here’s more from Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights, David L. Phillips:
“Erdogan is angling for new elections. He is trying to discredit the People’s Democratic Party (HDP), a pro-Kurdish party which received 13.1% of the votes and will be seated in parliament for the first time. Erdogan is furious with the HDP for its strong showing, which denied the AKP enough support to change the constitution and establish an executive imperial presidency. In retaliation, Erdogan is threatening to lift the parliamentary immunity of HDP legislators. He’s even intimated at closing the HDP for supporting the PKK.” (Turkey’s Dark Future, David L. Phillips, Huffington Post)
Are we saying that Erdogan has started a war with the Kurds with the sole intention of enhancing his own political power?
Yes, that’s exactly what we’re saying. This is a story about a power-hungry megalomaniac, not a struggle against Kurdish militias and certainly not a war against ISIS. In fact, Erdogan has been ISIS greatest friend as this blurb from the UK Independent points out:
“There is no doubt that ability to move backwards and forwards across the 550-mile long Syrian-Turkish border has been crucial to the growth of the jihadi movements in Syria since 2011. The thousands of foreign volunteers who have flooded into Syria have almost all come from Turkey. Even those unable to speak Turkish or Arabic have had little difficulty in making their way across. In many respects, Turkey has provided a safe sanctuary for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra, playing a similar role as Pakistan does in support of providing safe haven for the Taliban in Afghanistan.” “A Syrian rebel offensive led by Jabhat al-Nusra was allegedly masterminded from an operational headquarters inside Turkey and was the outcome of a closer understanding between Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.” (Suruc suicide attack: Bombing shows Turkey is being sucked into the violence in Syria, Patrick Cockburn, Independent)
And then there’s this from the Front Page:
“Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s claim that “Turkey and AKP governments have never had any direct or indirect connection with any terrorist organization” flies in the face of last November’s report from the U.N. Security Council’s Analytical Support and Monitoring Team, which identifies Turkey as the primary route for weaponry smuggled to ISIL and the Al-Nusrah Front.
The State Department’s briefing at the beginning of June also stated Turkey is the main route for more than 22,000 fighters who have flocked to Syria to join extremist organizations, mainly ISIL. There are numerous other sources” (Turkey into the Abyss, Robert Ellis, Front Page)
Erdogan has pulled out all the stops in his attempt to consolidate his power and become Turkey’s supreme leader, which is why he’s trying to have pro-Kurdish members of parliament (HDP) stripped of immunity and prosecuted as criminals under Turkey’s stringent terrorism laws. (So far, more than 1,300 mostly Kurdish nationalist supporters and leftists have been swept up in a massive government dragnet since the bombing in Suruc two weeks ago. None of these people have yet been charged with a crime. The government has dropped all pretense that it is carrying out a war on ISIS. The roundup is clearly politically motivated.)
In an article that appeared in the Turkish daily, Hurriyet, statistician Emer Deliveli asks “Is Erdogan warmongering for political power?” Here’s what he says:
“After showing that “political stability indicators at an all-time low”, Deliveli says, “my analyses showed that, indeed, support for the AKP (Erdogan’s party) increased after episodes of rising political violence.”… “one cannot prove that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is warmongering for political power … However, both conspiracy theories are in fact variants of the same theme- Erdogan doing all it takes to become an all-powerful president. And when evidence piles up like this, one cannot help but think, “what if.” (Is Erdogan warmongering for political power?, Hurriyet)
Erdogan wouldn’t be the first leader to start a war to boost his popularity at home, or the last. But it’s a risky strategy all the same, especially since his erratic and self-serving policies have already alienated a broad cross-section of the electorate that used to comprise his base. Check out this blurb from Foreign Policy magazine:
“Erdogan’s weakness in perceiving and acting on the militant Islamist threat has not won him extra friends on the security-first right. His autocratic Islamist style is losing him support on the left. And as for the Kurdish vote, well, he can just forget about it. History has also shown that seemingly invincible leaders can be forced to go gently — or not so gently — into that good night. The mighty Ottomans, after all, did not last forever. There’s no reason why a neo-Ottoman would either.” (The Sultan of Swing’s Dangerous Gamble, Leela Jacinto, Foreign Policy)
The biggest threat facing Erdogan in the short-term is that the Turkish people will see what he’s up to and cast their ballots accordingly in the November elections. But that will require restraint on the part of the Kurdish militias who will have to silence their guns to win the support of the people.
The only way the Kurds can beat a power-drunk, right-wing fanatic like Erdogan, is by giving peace a chance. Until the votes are counted, that is.
July 26, 2015 by Sartre
With the approval vote in the United Nation Security Council of the P5 + 1 Iranian agreement, a smorgasbord of eager trading partners claw themselves out of the woodwork. The liquid black gold rush is on. With the rescinding of sanctions put into motion, over time the wheels of commerce will be put back on track. No matter what the U.S. Congress does, the flood from international trade will start making deals with Iran.
A sample of some of these activities follows:
“Multinational mobile phone companies, car makers and hospitality firms are seen as the most primed to benefit from the lifting of sanctions.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch said it sees Turkey and the United Arab Emirates as likely beneficiaries from Iranian foreign trade, which could increase to $200 billion by 2020 from $80 billion now.”
“Citi Research analyst Chris Wetherbee said the opening of Iran is a “net positive” for international tanker firms, because Iran’s aging fleet won’t be able to compete, and more energy supplies will be on the market.”
“All of the major banking institutions in the industrial world will try to finance and facilitate increased trade with Iran,” Christopher Whalen, senior managing director at Kroll Bond Rating Agency, told CNBC. “It’s a big country, (and) they are very Western-focused. Iranians are consumers of everything. You can anticipate anything from industrial equipment to consumer products will definitely be bought, and will definitely be financed.”
“Lower crude oil prices following the Iran nuclear deal will contribute positively to the Indian economy, across the oil and gas value chain barring domestic upstream players, India Ratings and Research has said.
A decline in oil prices could lower LNG (liquefied natural gas) prices and this is likely to benefit end-consumer industries such as fertilizer and petrochemicals, it said.”
“Now, with the prospect of sanctions on Iran lifting in the near future, Pakistan is hoping to become one of the early beneficiaries of a nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers by finally completing the Iran-Pakistan pipeline.
But funding for the expensive project, expected to cost about $2 billion, is another problem for cash-strapped Pakistan. That is why it is trying to piggyback this project on another one funded mostly by its rich neighbor, China.
China will provide 85 percent of the $2 billion required to build a liquid natural gas terminal at Pakistan’s southern port city Gwadar. The project includes a 700 kilometer long pipeline to other areas of the country.”
“Washington will live to regret this decision as its once greatest allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, as well as Egypt and even Turkey, start to feel as though they were betrayed by the United States.
Looking to counter what the Gulf Arabs perceive as a genuine threat, logic dictates they are likely to turn to Russia for a fresh alliance and to help them counter the Iranian threat.”
“Trapped in isolation with outdated planes, Iran Air – a carrier dragged down by decades of economic restrictions – finally felt a gust of hope last week thanks to the international nuclear accord and a potential lifting of sanctions.
Once the deal is implemented, the Islamic republic will be able to replace its vintage aircraft, some of which are almost 30 years old.”
All these examples share in a common interest that comes from commerce. Nonetheless, buying and selling is seldom a strict barter arrangement. The banking system and currency conversion for payment and settlement becomes a necessary component. The lifting of sanctions is really reducible to reestablishing the financial clearing function.
While the creation of the BRICS trading block provides a workable competing opportunity for Iran to engage, the necessity to transact with Western companies becomes obvious.
Replacement of an airline fleet means buying from Western companies like Boeing and Airbus. Hoping that Russia or China would be able to construct an alternative is just not practical.
The Asian ship builders like South Korea may be looking for future tanker orders, since competitive fabrication companies are producing the most functional naval transports.
Finally, the consumer electronic sector sees the Iranian market as a prime target long restricted from all the gadgets that facilitate global communication.
The United States will lag behind most other countries from trading with Iran for a simple reason. Iranian unwelcoming attitudes towards America will translate into doing business with anyone but the Yankee devil, whenever possible.
While Iranian youth may be far more open to reinstituting commercial relations with America, the political regime holds fast to fighting the imperial globalization of Western corporatism.
In order to grease the gears of advantageous international commerce, the energy sector will still lead an Iranian economic reintegration. Marking the difference between mutually beneficial business transactions from corporatist exploration and plunder of natural resources, should be the task for going forward.
Set aside the politics of the neo-feudalism version of 21st colonialism and reopen the prospects of reducing tension and hatred by abolishing sanctions as a destructive tool for foreign policy.
All sincere parties benefit and profit from cordial business relations. Iran’s desire to have sanctions eliminated offers hope that better relationships and positive interaction can progress.
The overwhelming approval of foreign nations to break the embargo of NeoCon “axis of evil” propaganda demonstrates that promoting “good business” is preferable to detrimental isolation and damaging hostilities.
The proper standard to adopt was established by George Washington in his Farewell Address.
“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.”
Sanctions violate “conventional rules of intercourse”. International affairs never remain constant. Notwithstanding, the wisdom of President Washington, the current political and economic culture is hell bent on breaking the rules for favorable commerce. Resumed trade with Iran will offer a positive opportunity to lower the antagonistic tension and restart rehabilitative dialogue.
July 26, 2015 by Dr. Srdja Trifkovic
“Truth and reason are eternal,” Thomas Jefferson wrote to Rev. Samuel Knox in 1810. “They have prevailed. And they will eternally prevail…” Jefferson was wrong. As the current media pack coverage of the 20th anniversary of the “Srebrenica massacre” indicates, his belief that “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it” was somewhat naive.
It is noteworthy that “Srebrenica” in the mainstream media discourse is no longer a geographic location that needs to be preceded by a noun (“the massacre in…”). It has been developed into a stand-alone term that denotes horror, on par with “Auschwitz,” “Katyn,” or “Hiroshima.” In reality, unlike those very real horrors, it is a postmodern myth based on a distortion of facts and their willful omission.
In a Jeffersonian paradigm, two decades later we would have a reasonable, factually based debate on what happened in and around Srebrenica in July 1995, how and why; but the very term “debate” is rejected by an elite class in the West that treats “Srebrenica” as a metaphysical concept. Its luminaries deny as a matter of principle that there is anything to debate. They claim that eight thousand prisoners were executed in cold blood and that a UN-established judicial forum of unquestioned authority has found it to constitute “genocide.”
As it happens, many authoritative and reasonable people with no ethnic, religious or personal axe to grind in the Balkan quagmire disagree. They have spoken and written as if a Jeffersonian debate existed, only to be dismissed as “genocide deniers.”
The fact beyond dispute is that during the Bosnian war thousands of Muslim men were killed in the region of Srebrenica. Most of them died in July of 1995 when the enclave fell almost without a fight to the Bosnian Serb Army and the Muslim garrison—the 28th division of the (Muslim) Bosnia-Herzegovina Army—attempted a breakthrough. A significant number reached safety at the Muslim-held town of Tuzla, 40 miles to the north; some found shelter in Serbia, across the Drina River to the east. An unknown were killed while fighting their way through; and many others—numbers remain disputed—were taken prisoner and executed by the Bosnian Serb army.
The numbers remain unknown and misrepresented. With “8,000 executed” and thousands more killed in the fighting while trying to reach the Muslim lines, the column attempting to break out should have counted 15,000 men—an impossibly large number. There should have been huge gravesites and satellite evidence of executions, burials, and body removals. The UN searches in the Srebrenica vicinity, breathlessly frantic at times, still falls far short of the sanctified figure of 8,000. The Islamic shrine at Potocari, where the supposed victims are buried, includes those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died of natural causes, Muslim and Serb, between May 1992 and July 1995.
The Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague (ICTY) never came up with a conclusive breakdown of casualties. That a war crime did take place is undeniable: many Muslim prisoners were killed. The number of actual victims remains forensically and demographically unproven. According to the former BBC reporter Jonathan Rooper, “from the outset the numbers were used and abused” for political purposes. The number of likely casualties from all causes corresponds closely to the ‘missing’ list of 7,300 compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Rooper says. But the early estimates were based on nothing more than the simple combination of an estimated 3,000 men last seen at the UN base at Potocari and an estimated 5,000 people reported “to have left the enclave before it fell,” Rooper says:
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the 7-8,000 figure is that it has always been represented as synonymous with the number of people executed. This was never a possibility: numerous contemporary accounts noted that UN and other independent observers had witnessed fierce fighting with significant casualties on both sides. It was also known that others had fled to Muslim-held territory around Tuzla and Zepa, that some had made their way westwards and northwards, and that some had fled into Serbia. It is therefore certain that nowhere near all the missing could have been executed.
The Red Cross reported at the time that some 3,000 Bosnian Army soldiers managed to reach Muslim lines near Tuzla and were redeployed by the Bosnian Army “without their families being informed.” The number of military survivors was also confirmed by Muslim General Enver Hadzihasanovic in his testimony at The Hague.
The last census results, from 1991, counted 37,211 inhabitants in Srebrenica and the surrounding villages, of which 27,118 were Muslims (72.8 percent) and 9,381 Serbs (25.2 percent). Displaced persons from Srebrenica registered with the World Health Organization and Bosnian government in early August 1995 totaled 35,632. With 3,000 Muslim men who reached Tuzla “without their families being informed” we come to the figure of over 38,000 survivors. The Hague Tribunal’s own estimates of the total population of the Srebrenica enclave before July 1995—notably that made by Judge Patricia Wald—give 40,000 as the maximum figure. It simply does not add up to support the sanctified figure of “8,000.”.
Having spent five days interviewing over 20,000 Srebrenica survivors at Tuzla a week after the fall of the enclave, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Henry Wieland declared urbi et orbi, “we have not found anyone who saw with their own eyes an atrocity taking place.” A decade later a Dutch field investigator, Dr Dick Schoonoord, confirmed Wieland’s verdict: “It has been impossible during our investigations in Bosnia to find any people who witnessed the mass murder or would talk about the fate of the missing men.”
A “PROTECTED ZONE”?—It is often pointed out that Srebrenica was an UN “protected zone,” but it is seldom noted that the enclave was simultaneously an armed camp used for attacks against Serb villages in the surrounding areas. Muslim General Sefer Halilovic confirmed in his testimony at the Hague Tribunal that there were at least 5,500 Bosnian Muslim Army soldiers in Srebrenica after it had obtained the “safe haven” status, and that he had personally arranged numerous deliveries of sophisticated weapons by helicopter.
French General Philippe Morillon, the UNPROFOR commander who first called international attention to the Srebrenica enclave, was adamant that the crimes committed by those Muslim soldiers made the Serbs’ desire for revenge inevitable. He testified at The Hague Tribunal on February 12, 2004, that the Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, “engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.” Asked by the ICTY prosecutor how Oric treated his Serb prisoners, General Morillon, who knew him well, replied that “Naser Oric was a warlord who reigned by terror in his area and over the population itself… he didn’t even look for an excuse… One can’t be bothered with prisoners.”
Cees Wiebes, who wrote the intelligence section of the Dutch Government report on Srebrenica, has noted that despite signing the demilitarization agreement, Bosnian Muslim forces in Srebrenica were heavily armed and engaged in provocations (“sabotage operations”) against Serbian forces. Professor Wiebes caused a storm with his book Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992-1995, detailing the role of the Clinton administration in allowing Iran to arm the Bosnian Muslims.
On 11 July, 1995, the Muslim garrison was ordered to evacuate the town which the Serbs entered unopposed. Local Deputy Director of UN Monitors, Carlos Martins Branco, wrote in 2004 a hugely important study based on his experiences and additional documents (“Was Srebrenica a Hoax?”). Branco asserts that Muslim forces did not even try to take advantage of their heavy artillery because “military resistance would jeopardize the image of ‘victim,’ which had been so carefully constructed, and which the Muslims considered vital to maintain.” His findings have been ignored by the mainstream media and the Western political class.
POLITICAL BACKGROUND—Two prominent local supporters of the late Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, his Srebrenica SDA party chairman Ibran Mustafic and police commander Hakija Meholjic, have subsequently accused Izetbegovic of deliberately sacrificing the enclave in order to trigger NATO intervention. Meholjic is explicit: in his presence, Izetbegovic quoted President Bill Clinton as saying that 5,000 dead Muslims would be sufficient to provide the political basis for an American-led intervention on the side of the Muslims.
Testifying at The Hague Tribunal, Muslim Generals Halilovic and Hadzihasanovic confirmed this theory by describing how 18 top officers of the Srebrenica garrison were abruptly removed in May 1995. Ibran Mustafic, the former head of the Muslim SDA party in Srebrenica, is adamant that the scenario for the sacrifice of Srebrenica was carefully prepared:
Unfortunately, the Bosnian presidency and the Army command were involved in this business … Had I received orders to attack the Serb army from the demilitarized zone, I would have rejected to carry out that order. I would have asked the person who had issued that order to bring his family to Srebrenica, so that I can give him a gun let him stage attacks from the demilitarized zone. I knew that such shameful, calculated moves were leading my people to catastrophe. The order came from Sarajevo.
Military analyst Tim Ripley agrees that Srebrenica was deliberately sacrificed by the Muslim political leaders for more lucrative purposes. He noted that Dutch UN soldiers “saw Bosnian troops escaping from Srebrenica past their observation points, carrying brand new anti-tank weapons [which] made many UN officers and international journalists suspicious.”
The term “genocide” is even more contentious than the exact circumstances of Srebrenica’s fall. Local chief of UN Monitors, Carlos Martins Branco, noted that if there had been a premeditated plan of genocide, instead of attacking in only one direction, from the south to the north—which left open escape routes to the north and west, the Serbs would have established a siege in order to ensure that no one escaped:
The UN observation posts to the north of the enclave were never disturbed and remained in activity after the end of the military operations. There are obviously mass graves in the outskirts of Srebrenica as in the rest of ex-Yugoslavia where combat has occurred, but there are no grounds for the campaign which was mounted, nor the numbers advanced by CNN. The mass graves are filled by a limited number of corpses from both sides, the consequence of heated battle and combat and not the result of a premeditated plan of genocide, as occurred against the Serbian populations in Krajina, in the Summer of 1995, when the Croatian army implemented the mass murder of all Serbians found there.
The fact that The Hague Tribunal called the massacre in Srebrenica “genocide” does not make it so. How can a “genocide” happen within a single municipality? What plan for genocide includes offering safe passage to women and children? And if this was all part of a Serb plot to eliminate Muslims, what about hundreds of thousands of Muslims living peacefully in Serbia itself, including thousands of refugees who fled there from Srebrenica and other parts of Bosnia? Or the Muslims in the neighboring enclave of Žepa, who were unharmed when the Serbs captured that town a few days after capturing Srebrenica?
To get around these common sense obstacles, the ICTY prosecution came up with a sociologist who provided an “expert” opinion: the Srebrenica Muslims lived in a patriarchal society, therefore killing the men was enough to ensure that the widows would not remarry and there would be no more young Muslims in Srebrenica. Such psychobabble turns the term “genocide” into a gruesome joke. Yet it was on the basis of this definition that in August 2001, the Tribunal found Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic guilty of “complicity in genocide.”
Even if the unproven figure of “8,000” is assumed, it affected less than one-half of one percent of Bosnia’s Muslim population in a locality covering one percent of its territory. On such form, the term “genocide” loses all meaning and becomes a propaganda tool rather than a legal and historical concept. On that form, America’s NATO ally Turkey – a major regional player in today’s Balkans – committed genocide in northern Cyprus in 1974. On that form, no military conflict can be genocide-free.
As Diana Johnstone explained in a seminal article a decade ago, the ‘Srebrenica massacre’ is part of a dominant culture discourse that is highly relevant to a host of U.S.-led or supported interventions in the Greater Middle East:
We people in the advanced democracies have reached a new moral plateau, from which we are both able and have a duty both to judge others and to impose our ‘values’ when necessary. The others, on a lower moral plateau, must be watched carefully, because unlike us, they may commit ‘genocide.’ … The subliminal message in the official Srebrenica discourse is that because ‘we’ let that happen, ‘we’ mustn’t let ‘it’ happen again, ergo, the U.S. should preventively bomb potential perpetrators of ‘genocide’.
The accepted Srebrenica story, influenced by war propaganda and uncritical media reports, is neither historically correct nor morally satisfying. The relentless 1990’s Western campaign against the Serbs and in favor of their Muslim foes—which is what “Srebrenica” is really all about—is detrimental to the survival of our culture and civilization. It seeks to give further credence to the myth of Muslim blameless victimhood, Christian “Islamophobic” viciousness, and alleged Western indifference. The myth is calculated to weaken our resolve in the global struggle once euphemistically known as “war on terrorism.” The former is a crime; the latter, a mistake.
July 26, 2015 by Mike Whitney
“Today we know that the risk of heart attack and stroke may occur early in treatment, even in the first weeks … “There is no period of use shown to be without risk,” says Judy Racoosin, M.D., M.P.H., deputy director of FDA’s Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia, and Addiction Products.”
In case you missed it: The FDA has just issued a warning on various prescription and non-prescription drugs that Americans ingest by the boatload. As it happens, these seemingly benign pain relievers can kill you even if you scrupulously follow the recommended dosage. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a blurb from the FDA website:
“FDA is strengthening an existing warning in prescription drug labels and over-the-counter (OTC) Drug Facts labels to indicate that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can increase the chance of a heart attack or stroke, either of which can lead to death. Those serious side effects can occur as early as the first few weeks of using an NSAID, and the risk might rise the longer people take NSAIDs. (FDA Strengthens Warning of Heart Attack and Stroke Risk for Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, FDA website)
Notice how the FDA refers to “death” as “a serious side effect.” How’s that for an understatement? Here’s more from the FDA warning:
“The OTC drugs in this group are used for the temporary relief of pain and fever. The prescription drugs in this group are used to treat several kinds of arthritis and other painful conditions. Because many prescription and OTC medicines contain NSAIDs, consumers should avoid taking multiple remedies with the same active ingredient.” The New York Times includes “Motrin IB, Aleve and Celebrex” in this group of “widely used painkillers “.
Why isn’t this headline news? People take tons of these chemicals everyday thinking they’ve been thoroughly tested and are totally safe. Now we find out that’s not the case. Now we discover that you can get a heart attack or stroke “as early as the first few weeks of using” them. Doesn’t that come as a bit of a shock to you, dear reader? Doesn’t that make you suspect that the FDA is not telling the whole truth here, but is simply covering up for a profit-obsessed industry that doesn’t give a rip about its customers health?
Take a look at some of these articles I dredged up on Google News on the topic:
“Doctors issue Ibuprofen toxicity warning.” Daily Telegraph. “Warning: Runners May Be At Risk From Ibuprofen Use.” Australian Marathon Review. “Ibuprofen ‘trebles the risk of a stroke’ doctors warn”, Daily Mail Online. “Ibuprofen Side Effects Land Thousands in the Hospital”, Side-Effects. com. “The FDA’s Dilemma About Ibuprofen And Cardiovascular Risk”, Forbes. “Ibuprofen Blunts Aspirin’s Cardioprotection. FDA Issues Warning”, lexi.com. “Aspirin, Ibuprofen Warnings Advised–Health: Consumers need to be told the painkillers can cause internal bleeding and kidney damage, a panel tells the FDA.”, LA Times.
And how reliable is FDA in determining the toxicity of these medications anyway? Wasn’t the so-called “watchdog” agency implicated in pay-to-play flap just a couple years ago? Some readers might recall another incident when the FDA was caught in a “spying program on its own scientists, lawmakers, reporters and academics” to “discourage whistleblowing.” According to Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg: “top FDA managers “committed the most outrageous misconduct by ordering, coercing and intimidating FDA physicians and scientists to recommend approval, and then retaliating when the physicians and scientists refused to go along.” Review procedures at the agency (which approves stents, breast implants, MRIs, and other devices and machinery) were so faulty that unsafe devices – including those that emit excessive radiation – were approved, charged the scientists, provoking an OSC investigation … For reporting the safety risks, the scientists became targets of the now-disclosed spy program and some lost their jobs. “…
(According to FDA drug reviewer Ronald Kavanagh) “While I was at FDA, drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs. We were prevented, except in rare instances, from presenting findings at advisory committees. In 2007, formal policies were instituted so that speaking in any way that could reflect poorly on the agency could result in termination. If we asked questions that could delay or prevent a drug’s approval – which of course was our job as drug reviewers – management would reprimand us, reassign us, hold secret meetings about us, and worse. Obviously in such an environment, people will self-censor.” (Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety, Martha Rosenberg, Truthout)
Nice, eh? And this is the agency that’s supposed to protect the public from risky drugs?
Right. Does the name “Vioxx” ring a bell? If not, here’s a little refresher from an article by Fred Gardener in Counterpunch titled “Merck Pays a Pittance for Mass Deaths”:
“Merck has agreed to pay $950 million and has pleaded guilty to a criminal charge over the marketing and sales of the painkiller Vioxx,” the New York Times reported Nov. 23 …
The FDA had initially approved Vioxx (after a hasty “priority review”) in May, 1999 to treat osteoarthritis, acute pain, and menstrual cramps. By September 30, 2004, when Merck announced its “voluntary recall,” some 25 million Americans had been prescribed the widely hyped drug. Evidence that using Vioxx doubled a patient’s risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke —based on a review of 1.4 million patients’ records— was about to be published in Lancet by David Graham, MD, an FDA investigator. The FDA director’s office, devoted valet of Big PhRMA, had contacted the Lancet in a futile effort to stop publication of their own scientist’s findings.
Graham’s data indicate that 140,000 Americans suffered Vioxx-induced heart attacks and strokes; 55,000 died, and many more were permanently disabled. The Merck executives’ real crime was conspiracy to commit murder … An early clinical trial had alerted them to the fact that Vioxx caused coronary damage. Their response was to exclude from future trials anyone with a history of heart trouble!
Once Vioxx was approved, Merck spent more than $100 million a year advertising it … Sales hit $2.5 billion in 2003. And when brave Dr. Graham first presented his irrefragable evidence to an FDA advisory committee in February 2004, Merck argued that the “unique benefits” of Vioxx warranted its remaining on the market. The FDA committee voted 17-15 to keep it available with a black box warning. Ten of the 32 committee members had taken money from Merck, Pfizer or Novartis (which were pushing drugs similar to Vioxx) as consultants. If these MDs had declared their conflicts of interest, Vioxx would have been pulled from the market by a vote of 14-8. By buying an extra seven and a half months, Merck made an extra billion or two, and killed 6,000 more Americans.
Worldwide, Vioxx was used by 80 million people. Assuming their dosages were similar to the 1.4 million Kaiser Permanente patients whose records Dr. Graham analyzed, the death toll exceeds 165,000.” (Merck Pays a Pittance for Mass Deaths, Fred Gardner, CounterPunch)
Is that what’s going on? Is some prestigious organization like Lancet about to release a damning report on these dubious pain relievers, so the FDA is trying to get ahead of the story to save their own kiester? How much has the culture at the FDA really changed since the Vioxx scandal? Is the agency still owned and operated by the industries its supposed to regulate?
Do you really need to ask? The better question would be: What regulatory agency in the U.S. ISN’T owned corporate America? They own it all; lock, stock and barrel.
And, keep in mind, (according to Gardner) Vioxx killed over 165,000 people.
Now guess how many Merck executives went to jail?
I’m not saying these medications don,t help to relieve chronic pain from “debilitating conditions, including osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis?, gout and other rheumatological and painful conditions”. They do. But whether they’re useful or not doesn’t change the fact that “even small amounts” of this crap can put you at risk of a heart attack or stroke. That’s what the public needs to know, and that’s the FDA’s job. Here’s an excerpt from an article in the NYT that tries to minimize the dangers:
“The broader context is important. The relative risk of heart attack and stroke from the drugs is still far smaller than the risk from smoking, having uncontrolled high blood pressure or being obese.”
True, and it’s probably less risky that bungee-jumping off the Empire State Building, but what difference does that make. The fact is, it can kill you, the FDA KNOWS it can kill you, and yet they haven,t done anything to counter the relentless tsunami of industry generated propaganda that has convinced the American people that these medications are risk free. Here’s more on that from the Times:
“The agency said it would ask drug manufacturers to change the labels to reflect new evidence that the drugs increased the risk of heart attack and stroke soon after patients first started taking them, and that while the risk was higher for people with heart disease, it surfaced even for people who had never had heart problems.”
Let me get this straight: The FDA knows that these anti inflammatories are killing people and they’re going to “ask” the drug companies if they’ll change the labels? Is this how regulation works in the US nowadays; the agencies basically have to grovel before these cutthroat industries just to get them to do the right thing?
I have a better idea: Why not just prosecute a few of these drug-pushing executives for manslaughter?
That ought to do the trick, don’t you think?
Here’s one last blurb from the Times:
“There is great concern that people think these drugs are benign, and they are probably not,” (said Dr. Peter Wilson, a professor of medicine and public health at Emory University in Atlanta) “The thought is these are good for short-term relief, probably for your younger person with no history of cardiovascular trouble.”
There it is from the horses mouth. Do not presume that these medications are safe just because they’re hyped in the media. Do your own research and decide for yourself whether the benefits outweigh the risks.