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.
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!
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.
“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.
“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.
Maverick Republican, Donald Trump, has been under intense pressure from the GOP establishment for his off-the-cuff remark about Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). In a televised interview, Trump said, “[John McCain] is a hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
Predictably, establishment Republicans immediately called Trump just about every dirty name in the book. Lindsey Graham called him a “jackass.” Rick Perry said the comment made him “unfit” to be President. Mitt Romney said Trump “shot himself down.” (Not hardly! Trump is the clear front runner of all the GOP presidential candidates in most polls.) But, clearly, the Republican establishment is frustrated with Trump’s popularity–and for good reason.
Donald Trump is scorching the GOP for its support of illegal immigration, and he is scorching it for its support of incessant foreign wars. Trump said, “We spent $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion. We lost thousands of lives, thousands in Iraq. We have wounded soldiers all over the place, thousands and thousands of wounded soldiers. And we have nothing. We can’t even go there. We have nothing. And every time we give Iraq equipment, the first time a bullet goes off in the air, they leave it.” Amen!
See the report here:
And he is scorching them BIG TIME by calling into question the GOP’s 2008 standard bearer. Specifically, he has dared to tell the truth about the miserable record of John McCain’s treatment of America’s veterans.
See this report:
In refusing to apologize for his remarks about Senator McCain, Trump rightly said, “The reality is that John McCain the politician has made America less safe, sent our brave soldiers into wrong-headed foreign adventures, covered up for President Obama with the VA scandal and has spent most of his time in the Senate pushing amnesty. He would rather protect the Iraqi border than Arizona’s.”
See the report here:
While most everyone has criticized the second part of Trump’s statement (“I like people who weren’t captured”), hardly anyone has dared to broach the first part of the statement: “[John McCain] is a hero because he was captured.” That statement is an absolute fact.
John McCain rose to become one of America’s most powerful senators and became the Republican Party’s nominee for President in 2008 mostly on his Prisoner of War (POW) status. Absent his POW history, McCain would no doubt have lived his entire life in relative obscurity. It usually takes more than simply being a veteran or being the son of a Navy admiral or even being a POW to make one obtain famous hero status. How many other POWs do you know that have achieved McCain’s political power and influence?
Alabama’s Jeremiah Denton was a POW who truly endured intense torture at the hands of the enemy and who became one of our finest U.S. senators. And there was never the first hint of dishonorable conduct or scandal or accusations that Denton used his war record for personal profit. I had the privilege of meeting Senator Denton a couple of times, and the thing that struck me most about the man was his deep and genuine humility. The same cannot be said of John McCain.
John McCain’s POW record has been shrouded in controversy from the very beginning. Many independent journalists and military veterans have accused McCain of being America’s version of “Tokyo Rose.” They offer convincing evidence (or at least credible postulations) that McCain was NEVER tortured, that he received special treatment by his captors, and that he actually willingly participated in anti-America propaganda, in much the same way that Tokyo Rose did in the Pacific during World War II.
One Vietnam veteran who was publicly critical of John McCain was my friend Jack McLamb. McLamb served nine years in secret operations in Cambodia and other nations before going on to become one of the most highly decorated police officers in Phoenix, Arizona history, winning Police Officer of the Year twice before taking a role as a hostage negotiator for the FBI.
McLamb said of McCain, “I know a lot of Vietnam veterans and a few POW’s and all the POW’s that I’ve talked to over the years say that John McCain is a lying skunk.
“He never was tortured–they were there in the camp with him and then when he came in….he immediately started spilling his guts about everything because he didn’t want to get tortured,” said McLamb, contradicting the official story that McCain only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth.
“The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that’s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.”
McLamb also said, “The POW’s said that McCain made 32 propaganda videos for the communist North Vietnamese in which he denounced America for what they were doing in Vietnam.
“They have these sealed now, our government has these sealed, we can’t get to it, they have it classified. In truth the POW’s hate John McCain.”
See the report here:
There are many similar reports about John McCain. I suspect that Donald Trump is familiar with these reports. Here are a few of them:
Reports note that former American POWs such as Col. Ted Guy and Gordon “Swede” Larson, who were held in the same communist prison as McCain, have gone on record saying that they are very skeptical about McCain’s claims of torture.
See this report:
Another former POW, Philip Butler, a man who was also imprisoned with McCain, is more sympathetic to the man, saying that he had probably been tortured early on in his captivity and made no reference to McCain’s alleged anti-America propaganda charges–but was emphatic that McCain was unqualified to be President. Butler firmly said that he would NOT vote for McCain because McCain was a hot-tempered man who had become a Bush-like warmonger and who had used his POW status for personal and political gain. Remember, this is from a fellow POW who actually likes McCain.
See the report here:
Regardless of McCain’s real war record (the U.S. government has sealed the record, so we will likely never know the truth about the matter), it is a fact that, as one of the most powerful senators in Washington, D.C., John McCain has done little to assist America’s veterans. In fact, McCain is commonly regarded as being one of the strongest opponents to the investigation and rescue of POWs left behind in Indochina following the Vietnam War.
While a member of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (1991-1993), McCain referred to POW/MIA family members and activists as “whiners,” “vultures,” and “the lunatic fringe.” Although the committee concluded that there were indeed American POWs left behind in Indochina, McCain voted to normalize relations with Vietnam without any accountability for America’s missing servicemen. In so doing, McCain ignored a letter written by fellow POW Captain Eugene “Red” McDaniel and co-signed by 50 former POWs which asked him to not support normalized relations with Vietnam until the POW issue had been resolved.
In 1996, McCain opposed the Missing Service Personnel Act (MSPA) as being “unnecessary” and “burdensome.” He also helped to amend the MSPA to remove criminal liability, which POW/MIA families knew was a serious blow to obtaining meaningful accountability on behalf their loved ones still languishing in Southeast Asia.
See the report here:
And this report:
John McCain has spent most of his senatorial career promoting an open border with Mexico, a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, and incessant foreign wars; facilitating the miserable performance of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA); and covering up evidence of Americans left behind in Indochina. No wonder so many people have referred to McCain as “The Manchurian Candidate.”
Read this report:
By telling the truth about John McCain, Donald Trump has hit the rawest of nerves within the Washington establishment (and New World Order globalist elite). Without a doubt, John McCain is one of the globalist elite’s political darlings. A favored son of globalist puppet-masters such as Henry Kissinger, John McCain has been a water boy for the New World Order from the time he entered politics. Guilty of corruption as one of the infamous “Keating Five,” John McCain was given a mere “slap-on-the-wrist” and allowed to continue his pernicious ways.
See the report here:
And McCain’s “war hero” status has made him virtually untouchable–until now.
My mind is far from made up in regards to supporting Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. But, so far, Donald Trump has been willing to courageously confront the Washington establishment in an in-your-face, no-holds-barred manner that we have not seen in a long, long time. And if Trump accomplishes nothing else in his presidential bid except exposing establishment sycophants like John McCain, I, for one, am excited that he has entered the race.
The results of mixing government and religion so terrified the men who crafted the United States Constitution that they created a document allowing the forces of evil to enter with ease; among these men were power hungry elitists who sought a powerful state. The result was a government of the people by the people and for the people, complete with checks and balances; but the door to manipulation of the people was left unlocked.
President Andrew Jackson succeeded in stalling the usury mongers and their Second National Bank for several decades. But the avaricious Bramble men (Judges 9:8-15) returned and found enough traitorous enemies of freedom in high places to steal control. Policies that were already aggressive and belligerent now strayed into an arena that was clearly inimical to the interests of the United States.
WWI and WWII dragged us into European conflicts where we had no vested interest. Unfortunately our citizens never understood that hidden forces were controlling our nation pushing it into illegitimate conflicts that were costly and murderous.
Behind this bloodthirsty mass murder was a quest for world government. Following WWI the League of Nations was paraded out for American approval. It was rejected. The Bramble men, noted for being stiff necked, soon maneuvered hapless Americans into another European war and following WWII the push for a United Nations enamored enough avaricious politicians to get the United States involved in the U. N.’s sovereignty-robbing centralization.
The assault on the United States progressed slowly during the latter half of the Twentieth Century. It involved draining wealth from the United States and transferring it to third world nations. This was accomplished by bribing congress to pass trade legislation that damaged American businesses and American workers. Costly mendacious propaganda programs accompanied these bills and by the beginning of the Twenty- First Century millions of high paying manufacturing jobs had been moved overseas, many of them to Japan and China; it was one of the largest transfers of wealth in the history of the world.
As despotic free trade agreements forced American workers into competition with Chinese workers (who entered the world market at $.25 an hour) high paying jobs migrated overseas like migrant birds flying south for the winter. A higher standard of living in the U. S. made it impossible for our workers to compete. We were told that our economy would become a service economy and that we needed to educate our people to work in high tech industries.
As the high tech industry boomed, labor intensive parts were moved overseas and instead of producing wealth for Americans they added to the success of foreign manufacturers. The United States became a debt producing, consumer entity no longer creating tangible wealth. The futility of trying to create high paying jobs in an alien marketplace was glaringly apparent.
The Twenty-First Century has seen a more vigorous push to bring a reluctant America into a new world order. Under the Obama Administration Congress passed The Trans-Pacific Partnership which was touted as a trade friendly, wealth producing bill that would benefit American workers. The bill was fast tracked through congress where our treasonous elected representatives voted for it without reading or understood its contents. It will add to the plundering of the U. S. economy.
The gross inefficiency involved in shipping goods across the Pacific Ocean and trucking them around the United States is another of the many dissonances in the tyrannical agenda of the Bramble men. We are constantly regaled with the need to conserve energy while the economic order being imposed consumes more than any nation could possibly save.
The final results of the injurious trade agreements have not yet been fully realized. American workers will not become productive until the standard of living reaches parity with the lowest wage nations of the world. That will take time; wages in the U. S. will go down and wages in Asia will rise. As parity is realized the flow of immigration into the United States will diminish and a semblance of stability will be realized. As a poorer and less powerful nation Americans will work for lower wages and live without the luxuries they formerly enjoyed. In the meantime the remaining wealth accumulated by the older, retired generation will be slowly siphoned off to higher taxes and inflation.
Signs of the new economy can be seen in shopping malls where stores are beginning to close leaving empty spaces that will remain unrented. These unrented units are a result of a declining standard of living. As this decline continues America’s market will shrink and nations that depend on exports into it will suffer a serious drop in revenue. The U.S. market has been the engine of economic progression for third world nations; their standard of living has risen as the U. S. standard declined.
Efforts to conquer and enslave the world’s population are not new. History is replete with empires that have had various amounts of success. However, there has never before been a technology that would allow the amount of individual control that is now in the hands of the Bramble men nor have the people of the world ever been more self-absorbed and less aware of the danger.
During the past few decades United States has seen an astounding deterioration in public moral standards and a brazen willingness of our courts to erode existing concepts of righteousness. The two party system has been compromised almost from the inception of the nation. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is an idea that placates the masses but in reality has failed to sustain freedom.
The Bramble men who own and control our press and media are currently busy obliterating the Confederate flag. When they activate their massive propaganda machine it soon creates enough support for an array of evil agendas to cause serious conflicts in our society. They have supported abortion, feminism, homosexuality, open borders, restrictions on speech, Black militancy, special rights, social immorality, pornography, anti-Christianity, open borders and more.
The Bramble men seek historic revisionism as an additional means of destroying our Nation. As I write this essay there is very little left of the free and righteous nation in which I grew up. The Bramble men have succeeded in destroying our Constitution, our religion, our culture, our morality, our compassion, our money, our educational system, our food supply, our reputation and more.
Vice- President Biden claims the Bramble men have been responsible for legislation in favor of homosexual marriage.
While our insouciant citizens wallow in the mud of evil, the inexorable demolition of our nation continues. They watch as the Bramble men select and properly endow the 2016 presidential candidates and line up to support one or the other of which will continue to ruin what used to be a free and prosperous nation. It is a charade that has gone on for decades and will undoubtedly continue.
In “Our Threatened Freedom” R. J. Rushdoony writes, “If a civil government is a terror not to evildoers, but to the law abiding, then it has lost its main reason for existence. Such a civil government has then become a self-serving power. It collects taxes to support itself, grow bigger and richer, and to increase its power and control over us.” Pg. 236
America has become a large plantation where citizens work while the Bramble men skim the monetary cream from the operation leaving citizens, whose ancestors founded and built the nation, poor and disenfranchised. It is a money energized rape that few of the victims recognize.
We are in the midst of the Battle of the Ages; a battle against “good” and “evil” – a war between the One True God and the Devil. Few of our citizens know or care about the conflict. Our churches have become useless, humanistic entertainment centers chosen by their parishioners as one would choose a good movie. Propaganda is pandemic. We live in a sea of lies that distort reality and create a make believe world.
Humanists quickly lose their ability to discern truth and begin to avoid and denigrate those that tell them. Elizabeth White, a Seventh Day Adventist writer, describes it this way: “Satan is seeking to deceive men and lead them to call sin righteousness, and righteousness sin. How successful has been his world! How often censure and reproof are cast upon God’s faithful servants because they will stand fearlessly in defense of the truth! Men who are but agents of Satan are praised and flattered, and even looked upon as martyrs, while those who should be respected and sustained for their fidelity to God, are left to stand alone, under suspicion and distrust.” The Great Controversy, Pg. 98
Gay marriage defies God, It defies reason, and it defies nature. It accurately represents the insanity that grips the evil Bramble men that American citizens have helped to acquire powerful positions in God’s creation. The Bible burners are on the precipice with their torches aflame. They will try again to destroy the Word of God, but they will not succeed for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not allow it. Out of this dark time will come a new and vital righteousness that will bring a different new world order built on the peace and prosperity of God’s immutable Law
”The question is: By adhering to its highest principles and ideals, will America continue to have the moral authority to lead all people of goodwill? The answer remains to be seen. And that answer will have much to do with whether we have the courage to drive the money changers from the temple of democracy and recapture government of the people, for the people, and by the people”. Gary Hart
I was born and raised in a Christian home. I accepted Christ as my Savior at the age of five. I surrendered to the Gospel ministry at the age of eighteen. I attended or have diplomas and degrees from four Bible colleges. I started pastoring when I was twenty-three years of age. And I just observed my fortieth year of continuous pastoral ministry. As Paul said to his son in the faith, Timothy, so I can say, “And that from a child [I have] known the holy scriptures.” (II Tim. 3:15)
Obviously, I am no stranger to the work of God. I have been in church all of my life. Though my dad was not a full-time minister (even though he was ordained), his best friends were pastors. As a result, I have been around pastors and Christian workers all of my life. So, I am not speaking as an outsider. I know church work from the inside out. I’ve seen it; I’ve been taught it; and I’ve experienced it. The good, the bad, and the ugly: I’ve seen it all.
We pastors and Christians are never going to agree on every nuance of scriptural interpretation or method of ministry. But the vast majority of us will agree that Christ alone is our Sovereign and the Bible is the rule for our faith and practice.
SO, WHAT WILL WE DO NOW?
Caesar has demanded that we recognize the legal “right” of homosexuals and lesbians to “marry.” It will not be long before each and every one of us pastors and ministers will, first, be ASKED to “marry” same-sex couples, and, then, be REQUIRED to “marry” same-sex couples.
WHAT WILL WE DO?
Some pastors are waiting to hear from their denominational superiors for instructions. Some are, no doubt, trying to keep quiet about the subject and hope they can somehow avoid dealing with it. Some are now counseling with attorneys for guidance. But, in truth, our guidance and instruction do not come from denominational officers or lawyers; and it is a cold, hard fact that there is NO avoiding the issue. Sooner or later (probably sooner), each of us will have to make a conscientious decision that is based solely on our moral and scriptural convictions.
AGAIN, WHAT WILL WE DO?
For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom of religion and conscience became a matter of state licensure in 1954 when churches were included in the Internal Revenue Code, section 501c3, as mere non-profit organizations. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom to pray and read the Bible was removed from our public schools in 1962 and ’63. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom of God-ordained self-defense became a state-sanctioned license and privilege in 1968. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the God-ordained right to life of unborn babies was expunged in 1973. For the most part, our pulpits have been silent as our Natural rights of privacy and local autonomy began being stripped from us in 2001. And, now, the most important institution in human history, Holy Matrimony, has been “redefined” by Caesar’s court.
Will we pastors remain silent? Will we sheepishly submit to this egregious and tyrannical assault against the most fundamental institution created by God? Will we become willing accomplices to the formalization of egregiously unnatural perversion?
WHAT WILL WE DO?
Can we not see that what is at stake is the preservation of religious liberty and Christian conscience in our land? Radical secularists (and even some anti-Christian religionists) desire to expunge every semblance of Christian thought and ideology from our nation. The purge has already begun.
All over America, lawsuits against pastors who refuse to marry same-sex couples have already been filed. The same is true for Christians in various service industries that refuse to cater to homosexual “marriages.” Militant homosexuals have brought a $70 million lawsuit against the two largest publishers of the Bible (Zondervan and Tyndale), demanding that the Scriptures condemning sodomy be eviscerated.
It will not be long and cultural Marxists will see to it that the homosexual lifestyle will be promoted in every conceivable public venue. Movies, television (even children’s programs), books, music, magazines, etc., will openly promote the sodomite lifestyle. Common Core curriculum will certainly advocate for homosexual conduct in America’s public schools. Homosexuals will demand the right to flaunt their romantic proclivities in public. Restaurants, concert houses, theaters, meeting places, even churches, will be sued if they do not allow homosexuals to openly display their perversity. Again, this is already beginning.
And for pastors and churches specifically, the big intimidation factor is the IRS tax-exempt status. Already, some of the largest and most notable newspapers, periodicals, and newscasts are calling for the removal of tax-exempt churches that refuse to “marry” same-sex couples. Some are even calling for the removal of tax-exempt status of ALL churches.
If the “great recession” of 2008 and ’09 was the natural “correction” of a manipulated economic “bubble,” I submit that the Hodges decision is the natural (or maybe divine) correction of a manipulated spiritual bubble. For over a half-century, churches have been intoxicated with “success.” The Joel Osteen-brand of Christianity has obfuscated the true purpose of the church. Pleasing Caesar and maintaining tax-exempt status (at all costs) have supplanted pleasing God and maintaining Biblical status. The result is a church that is “increased with goods” but that is spiritually “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Rev. 3:17)
In reality, the Hodges Supreme Court decision was inevitable. It was the result of the spiritually polygamous marriage between the church and state in 1954. It was the result of a church that, like the Jewish Pharisees of old, said, “We have no king but Caesar,” while pretending to be married to Christ.
Well, now God has forced his pastors and churches to take a stand. There is no beating around the bush anymore. There is no avoiding the issue. Pastors and churches will either submit to Christ or they will submit to Caesar. There is no middle ground. There is no more fence-straddling.
Again, the root cause of all of this is the church’s acceptance of state licensure, and, therefore, state authority. Churches committed spiritual adultery when they allowed themselves to take the 501c3 wedding band. By doing so, they became “creatures of the state” and ceased to be the “bride” of Christ. And, remember, our God is a jealous God. “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)
Since the state has decided to repudiate the Natural authority of marriage as given by our Creator, it behooves us, as Christian ministers, to repudiate state authority over marriage. That means we should immediately cease and desist from officiating over any marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, that includes a license from the state. That is exactly what I will do.
In terms of the history of the Church, as well as Western Civilization, state-licensure of marriages is very recent. For over 1,800 years, almost no marriages (if any) required state-licensure. A certificate of marriage or declaration of marriage or church approbation–or other such recognition–was all that was needed. I don’t know about all of the 50 states, of course, but in my home State of Montana, marriages do NOT require a State license. And that’s exactly the way it should be.
WHAT ABOUT IT, PREACHER? WHAT WILL YOU DO?
Is a state-created tax-exempt license more important than fidelity to Christ and the Scriptures? Let me speak plainly: so what if we lose our tax-exempt status?
I hear my brethren exclaim, “But, Brother Chuck, we will lose tithing members. If they cannot claim their contributions on their tax forms, they will stop giving to the church.” My response is: SO BE IT.
Our churches are filled with careless, insincere, half-hearted Christians. God promised to separate the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the chaff; I believe He is doing just that in the United States right now. America’s churches have been living in a manipulated spiritual “bubble.” The bubble is bursting. It’s long overdue.
Churches in oppressed countries around the world are not worrying about some kind of tax-exempt status. They are not creatures of the state. Many of them are not even recognized as being legal in their states. Many of them are “unofficial,” “unregistered,” “unlawful,” etc. But they are true to Christ and His Word–and their numbers are flourishing.
In just a few years, there will be more Christians in Communist China than in so-called “Christian” America–a first since America came into existence. And there is no tax-exempt status afforded them. At the same time here in America, Christianity is in steep decline. What’s the difference? In China, churches do not seek, nor will they accept, state recognition and endorsement, while here in America churches enthusiastically embrace state recognition and endorsement (licensure).
It’s time we find out who is real and who isn’t.
And a question for those church members out there: What are you going to do if your pastor agrees to marry same-sex couples? If your pastor will not take a stand on this, he won’t take a stand on ANYTHING. And, if he hasn’t said anything from the pulpit already, why are you still there?
Are you not willing to give your tithes and offerings to a church even if those financial gifts are NOT tax deductible? If not, what is your real motivation for giving to begin with? Are you not willing to sit under the preaching of a courageous man of God who is the servant of God and not the servant of men–even men in government? If not, why are you even attending church?
Christians have been flocking to these “feel-good” churches for decades. They continued to support spineless pastors, who refused to take a stand for the God-ordained duty of self-defense; who refused to take a stand against the killing of unborn babies; who refused to speak out for religious liberty; and who are currently refusing to take a stand against an Orwellian Police State being created in front of our very eyes. Will they now continue to stay inside those churches whose pastors refuse to take a stand for God-ordained marriage?
I submit that either the Church in America repents and does the “first works” or it will quickly lose its “candlestick.” Truly, “the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God.” (I Peter 4:17)
AGAIN, WHAT WILL WE DO NOW?
I love Russia’s vetoes. Sparse, strong, hard hits, they mark the limits of the Empire’s power. They said “No”, and Zimbabwe remained at peace, its old maverick Robert Mugabe still alive and kicking and proposing Obama his hand in marriage. They said “No”, and Burma could grow at its own pace. They said “No”, and Syria… well, Syria still suffers immensely, but it was not destroyed by the Sixth Fleet. All US vetoes are similar, – usually for Israel; Russia’s vetoes are fewer and evenly spread. The recent Russian veto (last week) stopped misuse of this terrible cliché “genocide”, and this is a good thing. It would be good to ban this word altogether.
‘Genocide’ is a nasty invention. Just think of it: mankind lived for thousands of years, through raids of Genghis Khan and Crusades, through extermination of Native Americans, slave trade and WWI, happily butchering each other in millions, without being encumbered by the G word. This term was invented (or updated from Jewish traditional thought) by a Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, in the wake of Holocaust, in order to stress the difference between murdering Jews and killing lesser breeds. The word is quite meaningless otherwise.
The best flower of Europe, a million of the youngest and brightest were killed at Verdun – sad, but that’s not G. Young and old, women and men were incinerated in millions in the fiery furnaces of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima – sorry, old chum, that’s not G. Millions starved to death in the brutal siege of Leningrad – well, you understand by now, that’s not G. It goes without saying that killing of five million Vietnamese or a million Iraqis were just “war is hell” business as usual.
In Israel, killing of five Jews by Palestinians has been qualified as G: the poor soldiers were murdered just because they were Jews. But killing of Palestinians by Jews is collateral damage. They were in the wrong place, in the wrong time, bad luck!
If so, why should one bother with G? This term was, and is a chosen weapon of war propaganda. Not surprisingly, Lemkin was a Cold War warrior, and he accused the USSR of multiple genocides: by providing Russian language education to natives of the Baltic states or by serving alcohol in a Muslim republic. No American misdeed would amount to G according to Lemkin, and according to the US reading of the G Convention, unless in an unlikely case of the US agreeing that it is guilty. European states say the US is not a participant to the G convention, for its many caveats amount to non-participation. However, the US speaks of G more often than most participants, usually in order to justify its intervention. The Big G became a mighty stick to unseat rulers and undermine regimes.
The G word is likely to cause more bloodshed, for a sad, rarely stated reason. If a victim of the crime is a nation, a tribe or an ethnic group, so is the criminal. Germans killed Jews, Turks killed Armenians, Hutu killed Tutsi etc. The moment you recognise G, you encourage the G of revenge. As the Jews considered themselves being the victims of G (this is an idea deeply ingrained in the Jewish tradition, though quite foreign to Christian thought) they tried to take revenge by poisoningmillions of Germans. (They failed but never apologised).
Armenians provide another example of people seriously disturbed by G politics. Lemkin used the 1915 atrocities to dissimulate the purely Jewish idea of G, and the Armenians eventually embraced it. As the idea of G took its place in the law of the nations, the Armenian fighters began to seek and extract revenge from Turks – after fifty years at peace. G propaganda produced a terrible fruit in 1990-1992, when tens of thousands of Azeri (deemed “Turks” by their Armenian neighbours) were massacred and exiled “in revenge for the 1915 G”. A new generation of Armenians was poisoned by victimhood and revenge feelings, thanks to Lemkin and his followers.
A Genocide is not about past. It is about future. Innocent people will die, and die, and die, whenever this term is applied. Without the term, the Lethe will cover all. A good example is provided by Greeks. They suffered probably more than Armenians during the WWI, but as nobody applied the term G to “their” atrocities, they are not obsessed with revenge and live rather peaceably with their Turkish neighbours.
In Africa the concept of G was applied most vigorously by the Western neo-colonisers. You will not be surprised that no Westerner has ever been tried for G despite impressive results. Millions of chopped off hands and heads, but like in Raymond Chandler’s LA, “only darkies are tried.” Now Africa prepares to leave the ICC, the main dealer of the G politics. “Despite having received almost 9,000 formal complaints about alleged war crimes in at least 139 countries, the ICC has chosen to indict 36 black Africans in eight African countries.” – wrote David Hoille, a leading international lawyer.
No less authority than Christopher Black, the eminent international lawyer, proved beyond a shade of doubt that the familiar story of Ruanda genocide of Tutsi by Hutu was not only false, but had led to terrible revenge massacres of Hutu by Tutsi. And this story was utilised by Samantha Power and the interventionists of her ilk to bomb all over the world.
It is good that the nasty concept of genocide took a hit from the Russian veto. And now we can consider the particular case of Srebrenica.
The last thing I want and shall do it to tire you, my reader, with tedious Balkan stories of who slaughtered whom and where. If you want to know the gruesome details, read Diana Johnstone. I am sure they all tried their beastly best.
There is no reason to single out one party – that is, no good reason. The Yugoslav war, the war fought by Clinton against the Serbs, was a large social experiment: how do you sow discord among brothers (Proverbs, 6) and turn a multi-ethnic state into a warren of quarrelling communities. The result was satisfactory, for Clintons. The biggest US military base in Europe came into existence. A wealthy independent socialist state was broken into many miserable statelets; all of them applied for a place in the EU; Russia has lost its potential foothold on the Balkans.
The politics of genocide were played to its utmost extent in the Balkans, deligitimising one of the sides in the internal conflict. The Slavs were subjected to an international tribunal of total dishonesty and bias. Their leaders died in jail. No accusation of real genocide has ever been proven, but the West’s right to judge and decide has been affirmed.
There was a nice extra profit. The West asserted that its will for justice is stronger than its religious solidarity with Christians, right? Now every Muslim should remember that the West will side with Muslims, if they are persecuted, right? Wrong. The Eastern Orthodox Christians (such as Serbs, Russians, Bulgarians, Greeks) do not belong to the Western civilisation. They are as foreign to the Westerners as the Muslims are. Indeed, when the Crusaders fought for the Holy Land, they killed the local Christians, too, saying: “Kill them all and let God sort them out.” So there was no hindrance to side with Muslims against Christians as long as they are Eastern Christians, but by sleigh of hand, the Muslims could be tricked into believing in the Western objectivity.
This feature has been used now. The vetoed draft was a clever and mischievous trap. Such drafts rarely get to the stage of a vote, as the powers (P5, the Big Five, or Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, choose the name) usually do not use the unique power of UNSC resolutions for propaganda purposes. Otherwise, they could vex the US with drafts calling for Gaza freedom. Being prudent, P5 avoid such brownie points. Now they did it, anyway. The result was predictable: Russia could not let the Christian Serbs being singled out in the “You are the Villain” competition. This Russian veto has been presented as “Russia is the enemy of Islam”, with the explicit intention to send the Daesh beasts down the Russian trail and undermine internal Russian cohesiveness.
Russia is not an enemy of Islam. Muslim steppe riders were the co-founders of Russia, together with Viking warriors, Slav ploughmen, Finn forest dwellers. The Muslim Kazan gave its title to the Russian crown. Tatars and Kazakhs are the mainstay of Russia. Russians proved themselves as benevolent rulers, good advisers, reliable friends to Muslims of Central Asia and Caucasus. They had build schools, educated native engineers, modernised these countries.
However, Russia considers its duty to protect the Eastern Christians. In a way, they inherited this responsibility from the Byzantines. For this reason Russia heavily invested in the Holy Land and in Greece, liberated Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia from the Turkish yoke.
In the terms of realpolitik, this policy has been extremely disappointing. Almost all the “liberated Eastern Christian” states eventually sided with Russia’s enemies, while the once-conquered Muslim states remained loyal to Moscow. Muslim Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and once-rebellious Chechnya are friends of Russians; so are Turkey and Iran.
The veto in the UNSC was supposed to protect Serbia from Western pressure, not to poke the Muslims. Remember that during the war, Russia was too weak to interfere and save Yugoslavia. Now Russia made its amends for 1999.
Hopefully, the Muslims will understand the Russian point. After all, the Turks and Azeris understood the Russian position on Armenia. In the recent commemoration of 1915 in Yerevan, Armenia, Putin was the only important guest – his French counterpart M Hollande made a brief appearance and flew away to Baku (to “Azeri Turks”, in Armenian parlance). Putin went there soon after an important and fruitful visit to Turkey, after an agreement with Erdogan. Visit to Armenia jeopardised this achievement, but Putin still did not shrink from the trip. Armenia for Russia is like Israel for the US. There is a very important Armenian diaspora in Russia, and the neighbours accept this reality like Israeli Arab neighbours accept the reality and inevitability of American support for Israel.
The Armenians and the Azeri soldiers marched together, one after another, on the Red Square on May 9 this year, approving the Russian position of the mediator and protector in the area. Perhaps it is a liability for Russia, but nobody promised them a rose garden.
ative of Novosibirsk, Siberia, a grandson of a professor of mathematics and a descendant of a Rabbi from Tiberias, Palestine, he studied at the prestigious School of the Academy of Sciences, and read Math and Law at Novosibirsk University. In 1969, he moved to Israel, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war.
After his military service he resumed his study of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but abandoned the legal profession in pursuit of a career as a journalist and writer. He got his first taste of journalism with Israel Radio, and later went freelance. His varied assignments included covering Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the last stages of the war in South East Asia.
In 1975, Shamir joined the BBC and moved to London. In 1977-79 he wrote for the Israeli daily Maariv and other papers from Japan. While in Tokyo, he wrote Travels with My Son, his first book, and translated a number of Japanese classics.
Email at: email@example.com
Israel Shamir is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice
There’s been a virtual blackout of news from this year’s seventh annual BRICS summit in Ufa, Russia. None of the mainstream media organizations are covering the meetings or making any attempt to explain what’s going on. As a result, the American people remain largely in the dark about a powerful coalition of nations that are putting in place an alternate system that will greatly reduce US influence in the world and end the current era of superpower rule.
Let’s cut to the chase: Leaders of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) realize that global security cannot be entrusted to a country that sees war as a acceptable means for achieving its geopolitical objectives. They also realize that they won’t be able to achieve financial stability as long as Washington dictates the rules, issues the de facto “international” currency, and controls the main levers of global financial power. This is why the BRICS have decided to chart a different course, to gradually break free from the existing Bretton Woods system, and to create parallel system that better serves their own interests. Logically, they have focused on the foundation blocks which support the current US-led system, that is, the institutions from which the United States derives its extraordinary power; the dollar, the US Treasury market, and the IMF. Replace these, the thinking goes, and the indispensable nation becomes just another country struggling to get by. This is from the Asia Times:
“Leaders of the BRICS… launched the New Development Bank, which has taken three years of negotiations to bring to fruition. With about $50 billion in starting capital, the bank is expected to start issuing debt to fund infrastructure projects next year. They also launched a foreign-exchange currency fund of $100 billion.
The two new endeavors are statements that the five largest emerging markets are both looking out for each other and, simultaneously, moving away from the western financing institutions of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
“The BRICS states intend to actively use their own resources and internal resources for development,” Putin said, according to Reuters. “The New (Development) Bank will help finance joint, large-scale projects in transport and energy infrastructure, industrial development.”…..Birthing the two initiatives in Russia had been Putin’s top priorities.”
(“Russia’s Putin scores points at Ufa BRICS summit“, Asia Times)
Can you see what’s going on? Putin has figured out the empire’s vulnerabilities and he’s going straight for the jugular. He’s saying: ‘We’re going to issue our own debt, we’re going to run our own system, we’re going to fund our own projects, and we’re going to do it all in our own currency. Kaboom. The only thing you’re going to be doing, is managing your own accelerating economic decline. Have a good day.’ Isn’t that the gist of what he’s saying?
So can you see, dear reader, why none of this is appearing on the pages of US newspapers or on US television. Washington would rather you didn’t know how they’ve bungled everything by alienating the fastest growing countries in the world.
The Ufa conference is a watershed moment. While the Pentagon is rapidly moving troops and military hardware to Russia’s borders, and one bigwig after another is bloviating about the “Russian threat”; the BRICS have moved out of Washington’s orbit altogether. They are following the leadership of men who, frankly speaking, are acting exactly like US leaders acted when the US was on the upswing. These are guys who “think big”; who want to connect continents with high-speed rail, lift living standards across the board, and transform themselves into manufacturing dynamos. What do America’s leaders dream about: Drone warfare? Balancing the budget? Banning the Confederate flag?
It’s a joke. No one in Washington has a plan for the future. It’s all just political opportunism and posturing. Check this out from The Hindu:
“China and Russia have described BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as the core of a new international order…
Russian President Vladimir Putin said… “There is no doubt — we have all necessary premises to expand the horizons of mutually beneficial cooperation, to join together our raw material resources, human capital and huge consumer markets for a powerful economic spurt.”
Russia’s Tass news agency also quoted Mr. Putin as saying that the Eurasian continent had vast transit potential. He pointed to “the construction of new efficient transport and logistics chains, in particular, the implementation of the initiative of the Silk Road economic belt and the development of transportation in the eastern part of Russia and Siberia. This may link the rapidly growing markets in Asia and Europe’s economies, mature, rich in industrial and technological achievements. At the same time, this will allow our countries to become more commercially viable in the competition for investors, for creating new jobs, for advanced enterprises,” he observed.”….
The summit also acknowledged “the potential for expanding the use of our national currencies in transactions between the BRICS countries.” (“BRICS, SCO, EAEU can define new world order: China, Russia“, The Hindu)
The dollar is toast. The IMF is toast. The US debt market (US Treasuries) is toast. The institutions that support US power are crumbling before our very eyes. The BRICS have had enough; enough war, enough Wall Street, enough meddling and hypocrisy and austerity and lecturing. This is farewell. Sure, it will take time, but Ufa marks a fundamental change in thinking, a fundamental change in approach, and a fundamental change in strategic orientation.
The BRICS are not coming back, they’re gone for good, just as Washington’s “pivot to Asia” is gone for good. There’s just too much resistance. Washington has simply overplayed its hand, worn out its welcome. People are sick of us.
Can you blame them?
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.
In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.
History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.
Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!
In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.
And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.
People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.
People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.
Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.
One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”
The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.
Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”
You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”
Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!
The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.
This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!
In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”
What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.
Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.
Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”
Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.
Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”
The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.
On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”
Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.
Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”
Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?
It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.
By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.
I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?
That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”
Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.
In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.
Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.
If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!
By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”
And look at what is happening now: in one instant–after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag–the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.
The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.
In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.
Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”
Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:
The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag
Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.
Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.
One of the main reasons I hate Wall Street and War Street is that they are usually lying through their teeth to us. Fortunately, however, there are usually actual eye-witnesses to what really happened as well, and these actual eye-witnesses are always calling Wall Street and War Street out for their lies — but none of that even seems to matter. Remember all the lies we were told about Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Palestine? Bosnia? Ukraine? Panama? Guatemala? Granada? And how we were always warned about these lies? And yet all those “wars” went on anyway.
And here is just one more example of the kind of pretty lies that we are constantly being told — this time about Syria. An internet friend of mine who I met after visiting Damascus last year is now living in Aleppo and he sent me the following eye-witness 411 about what is really going on in his town.
So you read this. And you have been told. By an actual eye-witness. But does that mean that the unjust and mendacious “war” on the Syrian people will now stop, now that you actually know the actual truth? Obviously not.
“We didn’t sleep at all last night,” my friend Waheed (not his real name) wrote me today from his home in Aleppo. “Attacks by the so-called ‘moderate rebels’ started in the afternoon yesterday and continued constantly up until this morning. The news here said that three or four civilians died and that 87 civilians were injured. But the ambulance sirens didn’t stop all night long.”
Hey, Waheed, are you okay? Apparently yes, but just barely.
“I’m sure that you have heard time and again in the American media,” said Waheed, “that Syrians support the so-called ‘moderate rebels’. But every single one of the people I know over here do not — and aren’t they the real Syrians? And after all these years and after all these attacks on them and after they have lost their income sources and family members, they are still asking the Syrian army to fight on their behalf, to terminate these vicious attackers and their nests, which have become like cancer in our body.”
But what about the barrel bombs we hear so much about? I asked.
“At this point in time,” said Waheed, “the Syrian people no longer even care if the termination of these terrorist who are invading our homes is by chemical weapons, bombs or whatever. All we want is for the killing of Syrians to stop. Yet, around the world and in the mainstream media, they still dare to demonize the so-called ‘barrel bombs’ of the Syrian army and they talk about the loss of lives of ISIS terrorists as if it was the loss of lives of some mythological Syrian peaceful moderate opposition who had been killed by a dictator!”
Waheed is totally pissed off that all these lies are being spread around. Barrel bombs? Really? When the terrorists’ ISIS version of Freddie Kruger is being armed, trained and paid for by US, Saudi, Israeli and Turkish neo-colonialists who are only after capturing Syria’s land and oil? Barrel bombs are the bad guys here? I think not.
“I don’t swear, and I’m fasting this month,” Waheed said next, “but this injustice is unlimited and it makes me and many others here feel like we are going to explode with cursing and swearing against all that nonsense of people lecturing in some conference in Britain this week or people at the UN who are telling nothing but lies and hypocrisy.”
Part of Waheed’s family spent last night huddled in the bathroom of their house because it was the safest room. “Everyone there was crying and terrified by the ‘moderate peaceful opposition’ as their house is located close to one of the conflicts lines. But the Syrian army can’t bomb these ISIS and foreign-fighter terrorists because then the ‘international community’ will accuse the Syrian army of using this unprecedented super-ultra-modern weapon that is way stronger than a nuclear bomb: Barrel bombs!”
Yeah, right. And next the Syrian army will probably be accused of illegally using fire crackers or cap guns to protect themselves.
“The terrorists are using mortars, explosive bullets, cooking-gas-cylinder bombs and bombs made out of water-heater cylinders; filled up with explosives and shrapnel and nails, and fired by what they call “Hell Canons”. Just Google these weapons or see their YouTube clips.” Yes, they still do have Google in Aleppo — but not for long if Obama and Bibi and Turkish hard-liners and the House of Saud have their way.
To quote certain Israeli generals who are finally coming to their senses, “According to General Azer Tsfrir, for example, allowing the Assad regime to fall would mean turning Syria into a ‘black hole’ in which the border areas could become launch pads for operations against Israel. Writing in Haaretz, the former military intelligence officer suggested that the fall of Assad would subject Syria to the hegemony of extremist Muslim groups which have declared their desire to destroy the Zionist state. They would, he claimed, become a first degree strategic threat.” https://www.middleeastmonitor.
But we all know that Bibi is pretty much crazy to support ISIS — so let’s get back to Waheed.
“The cooking-gas cylinder is made of steel, and it weighs around 25 kg. Imagine it thrown by a canon to hit civilians? And imagine knowing that it is full with explosives? And yet, the mainstream media in America is all busy with the legendary weapon of ‘barrel bombs’! And also filled up with how these terrorist ISIS ‘moderate rebels’ came to spread ‘freedom’ among Syrians! How dare they say that Syrian army shouldn’t fight them back?”
And meanwhile the fighting just keeps getting closer to Waheed’s house. “For the first time last night, we smelled gunpowder. The shelling was so extreme and so close as to leave the smell gunpowder in the air.” Yet no one at the UN complains about the American-backed terrorists.
“The results of last night’s shelling was nothing but more new innocent civilian victims,” said Waheed. At this point I’m almost ready to cry.
“I mean, the terrorists failed in gaining new land or occupying new buildings or quarters. They lost many of their foreign-fighter cannon-fodder ‘zombies’ here of course but their zombies don’t count because they are being paid to fight and have no families or friends here to weep over their mangled bodies like is the case with our civilians.”
Waheed then apologizes for being so upset — as if he didn’t have a legitimate reason. I know if it was my family and neighbors who were being blown up by terrorist death machines, I’d be too hysterical to even put words on a page!
“Mostly I’m not so much upset by the attackers and whoever is supporting them in Turkey over here (and Israel and Jordan in the south); but mainly from the liars in that conference in Britain or at the UN, who keep lying and lying, telling piles and tons of lies, about ‘freedom’ and ‘barrel bombs’ — and they live in their perfumed and ironed suits and ties, happy with their Ph.D degrees in stupidity and fooling the world, having no problem in obtaining clean water, electricity, hot food and the rest of the services that we are suffering over here to obtain, even a part of them.
“Those people travel in 1st class airlines and live in 5-star hotels, and are ready to come on TV to weep over the fate of the ‘Syrian people’ and blame the ‘regime’ — while giving a blind eye upon all the terrorists they are funding and supporting. I wish these people, whether they are Arabs or Western, Muslims or Christians, Syrians or others… I wish them Hell! And to taste and suffer the same pain they are causing to the innocent Syrian people.” Me too!
These pond-scum should be evicted from their 5-star hotels and forced to go live out the reality that they now happily force millions of others to endure.
“The Syrian army has defended our city, and all the lies on the media claiming terrorists’ victories are nothing but rumors and gossip. But that’s all for today. Take care.” You too, Waheed.
Greece is the pearl of Mediterranean, the place generations of foreigners from Lord Byron to Graves to Fowles have fallen in love with. From philosophy to feta, from history to yoghurt, from poetry to honey they provided the example to follow. Their priests preserve the pristine faith; their fighters defeated Mussolini; their Helen is the epitome of female beauty. They also make lousy wine called retsina and listen to loud dreadful music called bouzouki so we would temper our Hellenophilia.
Now they have given us another example to follow: how to beat banksters at their own game. The spectacular victory of the Syriza government in Greece at the national referendum was quite unexpected: the polls wavered between an indecisive result and straightforward support of the EU plans around 51:49. However, the Greeks strongly confirmed the mandate of the government. The main problem was and remains the Syriza’s resolve and determination.
The ruling party took an unnecessary risk while calling for referendum, for they had already won the elections under their own slogans just a few months ago. This implied their wobbliness, as if they would prefer to lose and pass the hot potato to somebody else. Moreover, they did not try to win the referendum: no campaign for NO, no media coverage of demos for NO. Did they wish to lose or to win with a slightest possible margin? Possibly. The Greek people rejected the stratagem and called upon them to proceed.
Now it is the business of the government to organise a smooth and fast Grexit from the Eurozone and switch to the new Drachma. A really decisive government would leave the EU and NATO, turning the tables completely. Refusing the bailout is good but not enough.
The Greeks were right to reject paying the debts, for these debts were forced upon them by the giant vampire squid, Goldman Sachs, in words of Matt Taibbi. “The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”. As we now know, Goldman Sachs (you do not have to be an anti-Semite to hate them) cooked the book,s falsely pretending Greece had a high credit rating though they knew of its huge debts. When the debts snowballed, they pulled the rug and collapsed Greece’s rating, bailing out banks at the expense of the European taxpayer.
Out of €320 billion, Greece received and used about €20 billion, while the principal sum went to the banksters. Greece could not pay it off: after five years of trying, the country is in worse shape and in deeper debt than it ever was. Austerity has destroyed lives and infrastructure. The bankers planned to sell all Greek assets: harbours, railways, lands; and you can envisage yourself who would buy it. The negotiations between the EU, IMF and Greece were dishonest, explains Ashoka Modyin widely read and technical essay. That’s why the Greeks elected the far-left party Syriza and its far-right counterpart INIL to break the rules of the rigged game.
Greece is a small country and it could not take on the whole EU banking and political establishment on its own. Fortunately, there is a country able and willing to help. That is its sister in faith, Russia. Greece for Russia is like Italy for Catholics, like England for the US: the source of culture and religion. The Greek priests had brought their faith to what was to become Russia. Greece and Russia share the same Byzantine legacy. Arnold Toynbee, the British scholar of history, spoke of few European civilisations, some abortive (Far Western and Scandinavian), and two fully developed: Western European, based on the Church of Rome, and Orthodox Christian, based on the Church of Constantinople. Russia and Greece belong to the last one.
The EU is a reincarnation of the Roman Empire and that of Charlemagne. It is at home in France and Germany, but completely foreign for Swedes and Greeks, for Letts and Bulgars, for Ukrainians and Russians. It has over-extended itself and brought huge calamities upon its people and on their neighbours.
Mind you, this is not the first time the people of the West have colonised the Orthodox Christian East: in 1204, they smashed the Byzantine Empire and established their kingdoms and duchies, eventually erased by the Turks. After Greece was restored in 1821, it went back under the Western tutelage, and remained there. In 1945, the Greeks made a heroic effort to liaise with Russia, but Churchill employed the defeated German troops to smash the Greek independence movement and installed his agents in Athens. Soviet Russia did not object much, as under the Yalta agreement Greece was going to the West, while Poland was going to the East. Now the West has both Poland and Greece. The Greeks were frog-marched to NATO and to EU, and they would have remained forever captive but for the bankers’ greed.
Russia is the only part of the Byzantine world that remained independent and adhered to its faith. Russia is a natural partner for Greece and its Balkan neighbours. Now Russia can help Greece: by buying its wine, cheese and olives that do not sell well in the West, by sending pilgrims to venerate shrines under its cruel blue sky, by encouraging its industries, by giving its youth a meaning of life beyond caring for German tourists. And the Greeks are fond of Russians, so their sympathies are mutual.
The Syriza party, and its partner ANEL were famous (some would correct it to ‘notorious’) for their pro-Russian sympathies. However, since they were elected, they began a game of playing Brussels against Moscow, like a young tease who encourages two suitors to keep both in her thrall. The Greek expert and London Lawyer Alexander Merkoulis listed the Russian attempts to help Greece. They offered five billion euros to build a gas pipeline to Greece, and Greece would be able to sell gas to Europe. Miller of Gazprom went to Athens with prepared documents, and came back empty-handed.
Tsipras promised to come to Moscow for the May 9 celebrations, and failed to show up at the last moment. He agreed to extend anti-Russia sanctions while sitting at the St Petersburg forum. This undermined Russian trust. “The Russians must be getting increasingly fed up with someone who repeatedly takes them to the Church door – and then at the last moment runs away”, said Merkoulis.
It appears that the Ukraine story has repeated itself. Russia offered huge credits to the Ukraine in 2013, it could buy its industrial output, invigorate its industry and agriculture, but the then President Yanukovych did not dare. He ended in exile, his country ruined; it will take them 20 years to regain the positions they had in 2013, say the EU experts.
Greece is not likely to go for a civil war: they had it in 1945, but the old wounds may reopen. The most pro-Russian area of 1945 insurgency – the Isle of Crete – heavily (75%) voted against the EU in the recent referendum. The Syriza government will try to renegotiate with the IMF and the EU by bluffing them with the Russian alternative. Even if they will get relief, their economy is not likely to come back to normal.
The problem is not Greece, the problem is the EU. This body has a triple purpose. It is (1) a union of bankers against people, (2) a harness with which the US can drive colonised Europe, and (3) a tool for de-industrialisation and de-education of this most developed continent. Under the EU, masses of beggars from Romania and African refugees descend on the North. Under the EU, once-industrial Latvia and Hungary became basket-cases, their high tech moved elsewhere. Under the EU, the social welfare system has been dismantled, while sexual education of children and gender games have gone into a high drive. That is why nations – from Sweden to Italy, from England to Spain – call to break up the union.
Greece would be better off out of the EU. Everybody would. Distressingly, its Minister of Finance Yanis Varoufakis, a stubborn negotiator, a son of 1945 fighter, who could lead his country to freedom, has been dismissed following the referendum. Alexis Tsipras will try to negotiate himself, and he is a smooth operator, say the Greeks.
There is just one problem, that of guts and their lack thereof. Too many leaders hesitate and contemplate instead of acting. We mentioned Yanukovych, but this is a long list of names, beginning with Allende, a man of peace killed in a coup. The leaders that stood up to the vampire squids – from Nasser to Putin – were branded “a new Hitler”, but actually managed better. The US always dares: to conquer Panama and Granada, to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, and this daring is a secret of its success.
Still it is too early for despair. The referendum was a victory, and a victory can do wonders even to wet and wobbling leaders. It would be a shame to cast the pearl of Greece to the banker swine.
With the San Francisco woman murdered by one of Barack Obama’s “new Americans,” we should ask: how much innocent blood will be spilled on the altar of the Left’s “fundamental transformation” of America? While callow and cowardly corporations are severing ties with Donald Trump because he dared speak a truth in an age of lies, the reality of far too many of the illegals invading our country is this:
They’re just committing the crimes Americans won’t commit.
Some will say, of course, that Americans sometimes do such evil as well. But it’s also true that Americans do sometimes take the menial jobs so often performed by illegals, yet we nonetheless hear the statement, “They’re just doing the jobs Americans won’t do.” So since we’re indulging rhetoric and generalizations here, turnaround is fair play.
Will people ever rise up and make that sickening agenda-facilitating suppression of truth known as political correctness exactly what it should be: a recognized vile heresy, to be stamped out with extreme prejudice? I recently heard someone take exception to the term “illegals,” making that now stale point that “no one is illegal” (cue the tiny violin). This person argued that bank robbers break the law as well, but we don’t brand them “illegals.” Point taken. We call bank robbers “criminals.”
And if the Left wants to apply the same descriptive to illegal aliens, it works for me.
(Or would “undocumented criminals” be preferable?)
It would be wholly accurate, too. Generally lost in our self-flagellating, suicidal pander-fest is that every illegal migrant is a criminal by definition. This is why the lying Left — ever engaging in language manipulation — dislikes the word “illegal”: accurate terminology relates the truth of a matter. This is intolerable when your agenda is completely contrary to Truth.
An even better adjective for illegals, however, is “invaders.” And Francisco Sanchez, the vile murderer of the San Francisco woman, Kathryn Steinle, certainly fits the bill. He repeatedly invaded our country for the purposes of destruction, dealing drugs and being convicted of felonies seven times until he finally took a life. Yet he is not the only one culpable in his malevolent act.
What do you call government officials who not only abdicate their responsibility to halt an invasion, but actually aid and abet it? Quislings? Traitors? Leftists? But I repeat myself.
These terms are not too strong. I previously reported on Obama’s plan to “seed” communities around America with foreigners who would, as the scheme goes, “navigate” and not assimilate as they “push citizens into the shadows” (that is, those they don’t push into graves). Again, what do you call such people?
It isn’t just Obama, of course. These traitors have many names, such as Jerry Brown, Jeb Bush, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Luis Gutierrez and Mark Zuckerberg. But, hey, who can blame them, right? They’re just pushing the policies Americans won’t push.
Unfortunately and as has been said before, treason today is now the norm. If you don’t drink deeply of the cup of multiculturalism, internationalism, Western demographic genocide and cultural suicide, you’re a “nativist” or, worse still, a “racist,” the latter of which has just come to mean “anything bad” to young skulls full of mush whose now putrefying gray matter endured endless sanitary spin cycles in the propaganda mills masquerading as universities. The inmates not only run the asylum, they’re numerous enough to classify the normal as abnormal. You’re a boy who’s sure he’s a girl? You’re white but identify as black? You think an invader is the equivalent of a citizen? Those people who’d cramp your style with that pesky Objective Reality are the problem. Off to re-education camps with them.
Another fancy is that Mexico isn’t a dangerous enemy. If you’re an illegal alien in Mexico, the best thing that can happen to you is that you merely get deported; also possible is that the police will beat you Pelosi-senseless or even kill you (it’s said that you can buy your way of a fatal hit-and-run in Mexico for $450; the rule of law isn’t exactly big there). And no ACLU will come running and sue the government on your behalf. None of this stops that dysfunctional cartel-ridden nation from issuing its people actual instructions on how to better invade the U.S. and game our system. Nor does it stop them from lecturing us on the humane treatment of undocumented criminals. This is why a real president would tell the Mexican regime that if it didn’t stop weaponizing its population against us, we’d demonstrate that borders can be transgressed both ways and make Black Jack Pershing look like a missionary.
Instead, people are more worried about the Confederate flag flying in America than the Mexican flag flying here. As for Obama and his ilk, they welcome invaders because, upon being naturalized, 70 to 90 percent of them vote for leftists. And our leftists truly would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
But who is really to blame? Our Hell-raisers are only in power because far too many of us are just voting for the politicians Americans wouldn’t vote for.
J. Rushdoony wrote a book about confession: “The Cure of Souls”. (CofS) His intent was to provide a Biblical foundation to a necessary Christian procedure that has been a source of frustration. As with all of his extensive writing he did it extremely well.
When confronted with the snooping that is the source of Goggle’s income C. E. O. Eric Schmidt replied that people should not mind having their internet tracks followed if they were not doing something they shouldn’t. He was partially correct.
There are a variety of practices that individuals indulge that they wish to keep secret – some are problems and some are solutions. Pornography is a serious problem in America. Many people, both men and women, become addicted to it and want to keep it private. The use of internet pornography is tracked, recorded, and shared. On the other side of the coin there are many who oppose the current course of our nation and seek to use the internet as a source of information; their journey, too, is tracked, recorded, and shared.
Recreational drug use is widespread and those who indulge often seek anonymity. Some drug use is controlled and remains recreational, other users become addicted and invariably hide their addiction. Alcohol, also a drug, is socially acceptable even though it creates similar problems.
Rushdoony writes about an early contact with Catholics who made jokes about their sessions with the priest. Biblical confession is a serious procedure between the confessor and God. For the Christian, Jesus’ death as propitiation for sin is a positive and primary confession. When confession becomes titillating or routine it is bogus.
Biblical confession petitions God to forgive violations of His Law. Violation of God’s Law is sin. Jesus died for our sins and when we confess them He forgives them. However, the Biblical pattern for confession involves restoration and repentance.
Law is a prerequisite to legitimate confession. Known breaches of human law are followed by punishments that are often arbitrary. Breaches of God’s Law are sin. In our current society the state has become sovereign and all offenses are against the state. God and His Law have been replaced by the capricious and arbitrary laws of men. Some of God’s Law has been preserved but even in those cases the penalties are humanistic.
Rushdoony believed that sin was a serious disorder that affects the “church, state, family, business, and more….. It shatters trust and communication. Non-confessional societies cease to be societies and develop a ‘communication problem’”. (CofS Pg.144)
A current article on Greece called its government a “Fantasy Government”. United States of America has had a fantasy government for several decades. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, is another voluminous, wealth robbing, globalist international agreement. All of the international trade agreements have resulted in the theft of wealth for the United States. A treasonous congress passes these bills without knowing their contents. Elected officials are oath-bound to support our Constitution. When they vote for legislation they have not read they are guilty of treason against the American people. Greece has a small fantasy government; ours, with the world’s largest stock of weapons of mass destruction, is a gargantuan chimera.
The word “sin” has become anachronistic. Right and wrong is now determined by the state with accompanying cognitive dissonances. While laws against sexual harassment in the military and in the office are being strengthened and enforced, homosexuals can parade their deviance everywhere. And, on a more dangerous note, while the Bramble men celebrating marriages that are unable to reproduce we are regularly told by our demographers that the White race is becoming extinct.
Evangelical Christians are against sin but they seldom have a proper definition. Biblical sin is disobedience to God’s Law. Antinomianism is so widespread that a true confession of sin is rare.
Bristol Palin is pregnant again. She says “I know this has been, and will be, a huge disappointment to my family, to my close friends, and to many of you”. She does not want any lectures; she and her family will be fine. She has another illegitimate child fathered by Levi Johnson. His name is Tripp. The father of the unborn child remains anonymous. Ignoring the price that was paid for her forgiveness Bristol depends on a merciful God.
Not only does the United States have a fantasy government but it is also distinctly Pharisaical. Ellen White in her book “The Great Controversy” describes the behavior of the comely and talented archangel, Lucifer. While not endorsing her religious affiliation I quote her excellent description: “Leaving his place in the immediate presence of God, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. Working with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealing his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God, he endeavored to excite dissatisfaction concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that they imposed an unnecessary restraint. Since their natures were holy, he urged that the angels should obey the dictates of their own will. He sought to create sympathy for himself by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ.”
It is hard to miss the corollary with the present leadership of the United States. We are being controlled by self-described superior beings who are mysterious and who seek to destroy the embers of devotion to the One True God. We are manipulated with lies and with events that are planned and perpetrated with intent to deceive the people. A mysterious oligarchy seeks to gain absolute control over God’s people and His creation. It is a Luciferian plot in both intent and practice.
Rushdoony writes, “A culture which is not truly Christian may plan grandly for ‘a new world order’. It may imagine that all problems are to be solved by its wisdom, and it has a great deal of self-admiration. Is there a major country in the world today which does not see itself as the earth’s true center? Each seeks to direct itself and the world in terms of its ostensible superior eminence and wisdom.” (CofS pg. 211)
Since Christianity has been banned from everyday life right and wrong are now determined by the puppeteers that control the American State. The rules that govern life are no longer immutable but are subject to change and interpretation as the power structure sees fit.
When the state becomes sovereign as it is now doing in America and has done in the past, particularly in Stalin’s Russia, confession becomes staged and coerced. Loyal Russian Communists were sometimes forced to confess erroneous sins against the state to showcase its divine nature. Actions against the state were punishable by death.
The legalization of same sex marriage by the United States Supreme Court is a leap into the arena of state divinity. This law not only plunges a knife into the heart of Christianity, the major religion of the nation, but violates the obvious tenets of Natural Law as well. It puts the engine of government on a straight track to godhood.
While this momentous evil is engulfing the world the Protestant Church remains as silent as the insouciant people in her pews. The Catholic Church has in the past produced a call to righteousness but is now supporting centralization and seems to have a soft spot for sodomy.
Humanistic churches have no vision. They cannot conceive of a world living in peaceful prosperity under the rule of a merciful God. For Evangelicals conversion is the beginning and the end. The theological hole that obedience should fill is ignored and misinformed Christians like Bristol Palin and her mother fail to properly understand the God they claim to worship.
Justice has fled and the sound for righteousness is faint and fading.
Rushdoony writes, “we live in an age when the world and its apostate cultures are dying, and they do not know it. They dream and plan in terms of a new world order. Its name is death.” CofS Pg.179)
Yes, “Its name is death”.
Many Bible believing Christians are members of the HFIB club. The acronym stands for hate, fear, ignorance and bigotry. To be inducted into HFIB all one has to do is oppose homosexual “marriage” or—gasp!—proclaim that homosexuality is a sin against a holy God.
For example, talk show host Montel Williams labeled social conservatives hateful bigots for disagreeing with the High Court’s broad interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding same-sex “marriage.” Montel has chosen sides, it seems – he’s taken the side of the totalitarian and intolerant left.
In a piece by ChristianExaminer columnist Michael Foust entitled Talk show host Montel Williams compares gay marriage opponents to ISIS, Taliban, Foust writes:
Williams made the comments Friday, hours after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. On Facebook he criticized those on the “uber-right,” which apparently is a synonym for most if not all social conservatives. In the same context he referenced Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Williams said that “hate, ignorance, fear and bigotry” had lost when the Supreme Court handed down its decision.
“In its typical fashion, the uber-right that so many of us on the center right find to be akin to the American version of ?#?ISIS or the Taliban, frezilly predicted the end of the world, including several members of Congress, who with all the style and hyperbole of an ISIS recruiting video, yes, let’s start with Louie Gohmert, proved they lacked the mental fortitude and emotional stability to hold elected office.
“Some members of this, the American Taliban known as the far-right, even threatened to move to Canada without realizing GAY MARRIAGE HAS BEEN LEGAL THERE FOR IONS. Frankly, I’d be happy to see them go, I just think it would be akin to an act of war to dump the uber-right on another country, sort of like dumping radioactive waste on a neighbor’s yard.”
Some of his fans were miffed by his remarks. One fan wrote: “Montel — the Taliban would whack the heads off of you and all gays. You have disgraced yourself in saying that any American who disagrees with YOUR opinion is the Taliban or ISIS.”
Good point. There are pictures circulating on the Internet of ISIS thugs in Raqqa throwing a man accused of being gay off a building while a crowd of people watched the atrocity. Many of them climbed buildings to get a better look.
Fouts also fills us in on Montel’s tantrum on Twitter:
“Those who went into full scale freak out today over #LoveWins threatening to leave USA ARE AMERICAN ISIS/TALIBAN,“ Williams wrote.
Later, he retweeted a Tweet from someone who agreed with him: “Montel, I agree with u completely They hate the same people ISIS hates 4 the most part & they ignore Christs words 2.”
One person, Mike McIntyre (@mcintyremike), wrote, “Montel, I have long respected you. You don’t think someone can like the outcome but hate the way it came to be?”
Another follower, TJ (@chinn_tj), replied, “WOW! I may be on the right but I’ve never threatened to blow somebody up!”
A third person, “Janilyn” (@Geckogal55), wrote, “So I see the persecution of #Christians has now started.”
Billy Hallowell of The Blaze wrote, “YOU CALLED ANGRY AMERICANS MAKING A SILLY COMMENT ISIS. I’m perplexed.” Williams retorted, “feel free to unfollow me then. Don’t let the door hit you.” (bold theirs)
When he railed against Louie Gohmert (R-Tx), what was it he said? Oh, I remember. Rep. Gohmert “proved [he] lacked … mental fortitude and emotional stability.” Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
No matter what you may think of Louie Gohmert and Tony Perkins, to compare them to Islamic terrorists that line innocent people up and behead them for the crime of professing a belief in Jesus Christ goes beyond the pale. What Williams conveniently forgets is that words have power. Words can inflame unstable people to violence. I mean, think about it. What if a Christian media personality used the same words as Montel chose to describe the five Supreme Court Justices who shredded the U.S. Constitution because they’d like to see sexual deviants marry anyone they want to. The backlash would be horrific.
It’s too late for an apology from Montel Williams, not that one will be forthcoming. The damage has already been done.
A Slap In The Face To Conservatives
After the decision came down, that same night the White House was lit up like never before. Red, blue, green and yellow lights stood out against a dark backdrop, giving the appearance of a gigantic rainbow flag. It was impressive to be sure. But we all know that the rainbow is the LGBT symbol. This celebratory display at the people’s house no doubt offended the majority of those that pay the electricity bill. For President Obama to make this sort of statement is a slap in the face to traditional Americans who support Normal Marriage. The administration is well aware that a large number of people in this country oppose redefining marriage. What struck me is that the president chose not to use his high office to unite Americans; he chose to gloat over judicial activism that ushered in counterfeit marriage.
What some Americans may not be aware of is that back in 1996 when Barack Obama was running for Illinois state senate he said he was in favor of same-gender “marriage.” (Here’s a video of Anderson Cooper taking him to task on flip-flopping on gay “marriage.”) As it turns out he supposedly “evolved” on the issue and decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Let us not forget that during a 2008 debate held at Saddleback Church he looked Rick Warren squarely in the eye and said, “For me as a Christian it’s [marriage] a sacred union.” Sacred union is a religious term that describes a union between a man and a woman. Now he’s back where he started in 1996, supporting counterfeit marriage.
Mr. President, I have news for you. You have rejected the clear teaching of Scripture on homosexuality.
You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Mr. President, you’ve made a choice to reject God’s unambiguous command not to engage in homosexual acts. Bear in mind that anyone who rejects what God expressly says is in essence calling Him a liar.
Woe to you.
Mr. President, you can instruct your staff to light up all the monuments in Washington D.C. to celebrate the left’s victories over the “uber right” but that won’t change the fact that whatever victories they achieve will be short lived. I say this with confidence because I count on the FACT that in the end, God wins.
Homosexual Agenda—Berean Research
The US Supreme Court “gay marriage” ruling – how we got to this, and what do we do now?—MassResistance