Saturday, September 28, 2013

The shutdown blame game: Why aren’t Democratic Socialists (and the Communist president) blamed for shutdown?

If the President VETOs the House Bill, HE must be blamed for government shutdown, not the conservatives in Congress.  But here he is again, blaming conservatives in Congress.  New name for Obama – “Blamer-in-Chief”

“They’re the ones who did it!”

I do not understand why the Conservatives, those who desire our country to be fiscally responsible, the “adults” in the room, need to be blamed for any shutdown.  Any why does the democrat controlled Senate and the president himself escape any responsibility for s shutdown if they refuse to jam useless socialist crap down America’s throat?”

It is the “something for nothing” socialists and Democrats, the “children” in the room who will be shutting down government (if it ever really happens.)

The modus operandi nowadays has become “blame the parent.”  And liberal socialists and the media are doing a great job at blaming those who are trying their darndest to be fiscally responsible.

Face it, not only is Obamacare not ready for prime time due to its innumerable technical glitches, but it is a socialist program we cannot afford.  It has been built on a foundation of Obama lies from its very inception.

Personally, I’ve heard more than enough of Obama’s snide and condescending mockery of those in Congress trying to be the adults in the room.  Obama is playing the role of the brat in the hoodie mocking the cops.

No, despite the bad reporting as exemplified below, it is NOT the Conservative who will “shut down” government – it will be the tantrum-throwing socialists who insist on spending money we don’t have and foisting a massive health care program on us that won’t work.

Here is one of many examples of ignorant, leftist-pandering reporting, and, of course, from the New York Times:   (Items underlined for emphasis; my comments in [bracktets] )

WASHINGTON — The federal government careened [hyperbole?]Saturday toward its first shutdown in 17 years, as the White House and Congress pointed fingers at each other and as Republicans in the House sought to shape their response to a Senate bill that removed a House provision tying further government financing to a gutting [like the “gutting” of a dead animl] of President Obama’s health care law [“health care law” is too kind; how about President Obama’s boondoggle?].

Fiscal Crisis Updates [scare tactic headline]

Developments in the potential government shutdown and looming [looming, as in “looming darkness and dread” – oooh] debt ceiling fight.

Obama on the Looming Shutdown

Graphic [misrepresents Senate option to prevent a shutdown by accepting defunding of Obamacrap.]

Doug Mills/The New York Times

House Speaker John A. Boehner arrived at the Capitol for a meeting on Saturday with Republicans over the budget negotiations.

House Republicans prepared to meet in a rare Saturday session to plot their next move [another loaded word; how about “plan” their next step] , which would effectively decide whether much of the government will be shuttered as of Tuesday. [House Republicans don’t “effectively decide.”  The Senate “effectively decides” when they get the House bill back again]  If Republican leaders relent [i.e. “cave”] and accept a stopgap bill passed by the Senate on Friday to keep the government running [why is this a good thing?] through Nov. 15 without the health care provisions, the shutdown could be averted. But if that happens, House Speaker John A. Boehner will face a revolt from the conservative side of his caucus.  [and Boehner will hopefully be out of a job]

And this is Harry Reid lieing his ass off, blaming the House:

…the only way to avert a looming government shutdown would be to pass the Senate’s continuing resolution bill that fully funds Obamacare.

“I want everyone to listen and to hear: The United States Senate has acted,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “This is the only legislation that can avert a government shutdown, and that time is ticking as we speak.”

Reid added that the Senate is “going to accept nothing as it related to Obamacare.”

Reid gives Mormons a bad name every bit as much as Joy Behar gives Catholics a bad name.

The next time you hear a Democrat accuse us of “shutting down the government” tell them that their socialist spenders – their elected irresponsible “children” were the cause.  They have a new defective toy, Obamacare, they wanted to play with and their responsible parents didn’t let them.  So they are blaming their parents as children are prone to do.

Monday, September 23, 2013

Belief without faith is tolerant…of anything

You’ve heard the passage from James that reads: 

“Faith without works is dead.”

It is also true that belief without faith is tolerant – of just about anything, including everyone else’s faith. 

Here is a book that clearly illustrates this truth: 

Honoring Our Neighbor’s Faith

This book is written from the perspective of a liberal main line church, in this case the apostatizing Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), the liberal Lutheran denomination that believes the Bible is not reliable and homosexuality, abortions and gay priests are all fine. 

The book’s premise is that all faiths are worth “honoring”, meaning, I suppose, that there is good in all of them and nothing really bad to worry about.

It is true that there is “good” in all of them.  Among the differences between all faiths, there is good in each one.  For example the good in Jehovah’s Witnesses is their dogged dedication to door to door evangelism and their superior Bible knowledge, as misguided as it may be.  Their dedication and Bible knowledge would put most orthodox Christians to shame.

Another example, Mormons.  Their good is their strong family values, their faithfulness to their Church, and their sense of morality and work ethic, despite their beliefs that add views of God and salvation that are not in the Bible.

And here is the toughest nut to swallow, Islam.  Their good is their prayer life and their devotion to their faith, even to the point of giving up their lives for Allah in violent jihad, killing many innocents along the way whom they believe guilty of being opposed to Allah.  Now THAT is faith!

So as in the author’s likely view of the plan of salvation, he apparently uses a balance scale that weights the “good and evil” in each religion and determined that the “bad” isn’t even worth mentioning.  Is this why he concludes they are all worthy of “honor?”

This is not to say we should treat those with whom we disagree unkindly.  Of course they should be treated in a friendly manner.  But that does not mean their contrary beliefs should be “honored.”  Honor should be reserved for people and ideas that reflect the truth as we know it.  Error, mistake, ignorance, and willful disobedience do not deserve “honor.”

So what’s wrong with this book?  Here it is:  It only mentions the good and a handful of doctrinal differences from Lutheranism in the several dozen world religions that it considers .  It fails to mention any error or weakness or evil in any other religion, as if they are all equally valid and truthful.  It fails to mention why the author’s own faith is superior to any other faiths he compares his to. 

There can only be one reason for that omission:  He has little faith in his own claimed belief system.

Here is an example from one person who reviewed this book on Amazon:

“I remember when I was growing up (not Lutheran) in church, "learning" about other denominations/religions meant learning why THEY were wrong, and WE were right- why THEY were going to "Hell" and WE were going to Heaven.

Each denomination and religion is treated with utmost respect. Beliefs are stated without being ridiculed. Yes, there is a comparison between each religion and (ELCA) Lutheran beliefs, but even here, neither side is pre-supposed to be "right" or "wrong."

“…-the writer of this review is a lay Episcopalian who is interested in theology, but has no formal academic study on the subject. This book is not just for clergy!”

Yes, indeed, the writer of the above review is from another apostatizing liberal denomination, the Episcopal Church in America.

These people represent those of the various liberal, apostatizing “Christian” denominations who don’t have enough faith in their own religion to understand the deadly error in competing religions.  It is all about tolerance.  When you lack belief in your own faith system, of course anyone else’s faith system seems tolerable and “worthy of honor.”

Consequently a "tolerate and respect everything" approach is taken. It is quite natural for those who don't feel strongly about their own faith and doctrine to have an easy time honoring, accepting, and respecting the religion of others. Many among the more liberal Christian persuasion tend to believe that one religion is just as good as another - it is just a matter of taste and personal preference, such as "there are many ways to heaven" - pick one you feel comfortable with. Even the Pope has given the media (and the world) the impression that our works and conscience enable even the unbeliever to go to heaven.

This is a common view among the “feel good” churches that pretty much remain Christian in name only.  They reflect our “honor and respect everything” culture – even the religion that vows to eradicate the Church as Islam has promised.

Another way to put it is having so little faith in your own beliefs that you honor just about anything.  Can you say that?  I hope not.

These liberal churches have “belief without faith” and apparently have a death wish.

Religious oxymoron: Atheists will go to heaven…

“You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart.”

Pope Francis, September 2013

The media has interpreted the Pope’s recent statements about atheists  as meaning that people don’t need to know or trust Christ to go to heaven.

Progressives and atheists feel a sense of victory and relief.

Good grief, those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith don’t even believe in heaven, or hell or God, and certainly not the Bible and certainly wouldn’t even recognize Christ, never mind “trust” Him.

While Catholic Church apologists are attempting to clarify the Pope’s intended meaning, whatever that may be, his statement as interpreted by the media is consistent with 50 year old Vatican II doctrinal statements.

Regardless of attempts of Papal apologists to modify the Popes words to avoid making the Catholic Church look like a useless institution, the Catholic hierarchy believe it is time to trot out their doctrine that a person does not need to know, never mind TRUST, Christ to be reconciled to God in eternity.  This doctrine is contained in their “dogmatic constitution”, Section 16 of Lumen Gentium approved by Catholic hierarchy in 1964, which is quoted at the end of this blog.

This doctrine requires people to ignore numerous clear pronouncements of Scripture that say, in numerous ways and from numerous sources, that “trust in Jesus Christ alone” is required for our eternal salvation.

But the Pope insists…

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.” 

The conscience of a great proportion of the world’s population is shaped by evil, hateful, warped, even Satanic cultures, religions, nations, or families.  Such conscience would not know what is pleasing to God if it was staring him in the face.  If my conscience was shaped by evil, doing good would go against my conscience and be interpreted as “sin.” 

Devout Muslims are one example.  To such Muslim it would be sin to refuse to strap on a suicide bomb vest to kill a dozen women and children who, while innocent, are not believed to be so because of his conscience shaped by his faith.  Conversely, would the donning of a suicide vest, giving him a clear conscience, be his ticket to the Christian heaven?  Hardly.

Assuming that conscience determines what is sin is the height of moral relativity.  “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” is not the most edifying verse of the Bible, but it sounds like it may be edifying to the Pope.

In fact, the above Papal quote is inconsistent with even the Catholic doctrine of original sin, not to mention many clear Biblical declarations such as:

“…both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
    no one understands;
    no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
    no one does good,
    not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
    they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
  in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Apparently Catholicism is in such dire decline that their leaders feel a desperate need to appeal to the masses by ignoring the foundations of the Christian faith.

Apparently Catholicism now believes that the remnant of faithful Christians who believe that trust in Christ is essential to eternal life are narrow minded and bigoted for believing what the Bible has clearly taught for 2,000 years.

I understand that Catholic doctrine holds their tradition to be in some cases superior in authority over the Bible.  But I thought that pertained to methods and patterns of worship as well as their salvation requirement of “works”, i.e., following the dictates of the Catholic hierarchy. 

This new papal twist now even contradicts their unbiblical “works” requirement.  Now not only Protestants have additional reason to be leary of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, but Christian Catholics, too.   This and other recent Catholic edicts have now made it plain that there are “Christian Catholics” and as well as the now official “non-Christian Catholic Church.”

Further nailing another thesis to the Catholic wall of shame is this additional papal pronouncement:

The Catholic Church must shake off an obsession with teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuality and become more merciful or risk the collapse of its entire moral edifice "like a house of cards".

That sums up the motive.  In today’s corrupt culture, the Catholic Church believes in order to survive it must sacrifice its moral teachings and be open to all sorts of un-Biblical pandering to the masses.

Here is the little known Vatican II doctrine that has been dragged out of obscurity to make the Church more popular at the expense of Biblical faithfulness and truth:


Section 16

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. 

Here is a critique of the Pope’s anti-Christian decrees from “A Cleansing Fire”, a website of a conservative lay-run Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester.  Conservative Catholics are not happy.

Somehow many in the Church (both clergy and laity) have moved to the extreme interpretation that if God can lead those ignorant of the Gospel to find pleasing faith, God has led those who are ignorant of the Gospel to pleasing faith. And somehow, many in the Church (both clergy and laity) have moved to the extreme interpretation that if Men and Women can gain salvation in other ways known to God alone, they have gained salvation even though they do not know the Gospel.

A study of the primary Second Vatican Council text (LG 16) upon which the two above quotes are based is the same primary text used by many in the Church to promote consequent extreme and erroneous interpretations that all are saved whether they heard the Gospel or not.

In fact instead of emphasizing what is actually taught (…without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized…..[see CCC 1281 1997 edition], many in the Church (both clergy and laity) incorrectly teach “are saved”.

The jump from possibility to certainty about the salvation of people (who have not heard the Gospel through no fault of their own) to certainty about their salvation is not warranted by the text upon which all of these statements are based. (LG 16)

An analysis of the last three sentences of Lumen Gentium 16 is particularly essential to understanding what Vatican II actually teaches; the same three sentences that virtually always are ignored or if they are ever mentioned at all, are mentioned only very briefly, and without significant comment.

“But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. (LG 16)

Those are three very significant sentences which should neither be ignored nor given only brief attention without significant comment. Why should sustained attention be paid to these neglected last three sentences of LG 16?

Why these last three sentences are ignored indeed.  Why?  The Catholic Church is desperate.  They need to staunch the outflow of their members.    Or perhaps even more accurate, they need to sacrifice the faith of their existing members to attract a whole new set of people who don’t believe in anything.  With what hope does this Church have of leading these new comers to anything of value if they have given up the truth to attract them in the first place?

They have stooped to even more radical apostasy to do it.  It is no wonder why some faithful Christian denominations refer to the Papacy as The Anti-Christ.

Egypt bans Muslim Brotherhood (again) –while US Muslims join Kenyan atrocities…

Muslims from Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, Maine, and Arizona join Kenya mall jihad murderers

The Muslim Brotherhood was banned by a court in Egypt this week, reinstituting a decades-long ban by prior Egyptian administrations.  This action resulted from continued Brotherhood sedition inside Egypt that brought about the Brotherhood-controlled Morsi government.  That government imposed Brotherhood supported Islamic Sharia on Egypt’s residents, eliminating many of that nation’s former freedoms.

This action is likely to prove displeasing to President Obama.  He has promoted Brotherhood efforts throughout the past two years of “Arab Spring”, using his rhetoric along with taxpayer dollars to do so.

In the meantime there is strong evidence that Muslims from Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, Maine, and Arizona joined the Al-Shabab Islamic jihadi’s in their slaughter of innocents in the Kenyan mall.

From USA Today:

“Al-Shabab is inspired by the Saudi Arabian Wahabi version of Islam though most Somalis belong to the more moderate Sufi strain.”

Most mosques in the US are or were initially funded by Saudi Wahhabis. 

This confirms what many in our government and media still deny – that mosques throughout the United States teach and promote violent Islamic supremacy through jihad.  There is little doubt what Islamic doctrine, prayers and speeches in many if not most mosques promote.  And our FBI and State Department are told to refrain from implicating Islam with violence and atrocities committed by Muslims on behalf of Islam.

While the Brotherhood and the Wahhabi’s are on the opposite sides of Islamic politics, they both represent and promote the most militant jihad that Islamic doctrine preaches. 

What is the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and these dozens of jihad terror groups?  The Brotherhood is the political arm of Islam that promotes, spawns and provides the ideological underpinnings that creates and motivates these terror groups.  And our federal government overtly supports this group.  I guess the Wahhabi’s could be called the “spiritual arm” which do pretty much the same as the Brotherhood.

This from Jihad Watch:

"Illinois, Maine, Arizona Muslims among Kenyan Mall Massacre killers," from Creeping Sharia, September 23:

According to a post by Jean-Patrick Grumberg at, Muslims from Illinois, Maine, and Arizona were listed by al Shabaab along with the Muslims from Minnesota & Kansas City as being among the Islamic killers that perpetraded the Kenyan Mall Massacre.

We re-arranged the list putting the Muslims that were living in America at the top of the list.

  • Ahmed Mohamed Isse, 22 ans, de Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Abdifatah Osman Keenadiid. 24 ans de Minneapolis [Minnesota]
  • Gen Mustafe Noorudiin. 27 ans, de Kansas City. MO
  • Abdelkarem Ali Mohamed, 21 ans, d’Illinois
  • Abdishakur Sheikh Hassan 22 ans, du Maine
  • Shafie Die 25 ans, de Tucson Arizona


  • Abdirizak Mouled, 24 ans, d’Ontario Canada
  • Ahmed Nasir Shirdoon, 24 ans, de Londres GB
  • Sayid Nuh, 25 ans, de Kismayu, Somalie
  • Sa’d Daud 23 ans, Damas Syrie
  • Mohammed Bader 25 ans, d’Aleppo Syrie
  • Ismael Guled, 23 ans, Helsinky Finlande
  • Zaki Jama Caraale, 20 ans, d’Hargeisa, Somalie
  • Qasim Said Mussa, 22 ans, Garissa, Kenya
  • Eliko Mamedoff, 27 ans, Dagestan
  • Moulid Ahmed 24 ans, Gävleborgs Län, Sweden

He posted a screen shot from Twitter – the account now suspended – however the names of those living in the U.S. were not in the screen shot.

Please note that the source is al Shabaab and the Islamic principle of striking fear into the hearts of the unbelievers is in play. This has not been confirmed by U.S. authorities as of this posting.

Apparently not much has changed since this 2011 post, Somali-Americans from Minnesota Leave US to Wage Jihad, FBI Unaware.

The “’peace’ of Islam”, coming to a mall near you.

Friday, September 20, 2013

Our national security is compromised…

Out-sourcing our security clearances to a Muslim infested culture in Falls Church, VA

UPDATE October 30, 2013:  DOJ sues USIS.

It has been revealed that the security clearance investigations for both Edward Snowden (and I suppose for all those among their 26,000 employees of his military contractor employer Booz Allen Hamilton who require a security clearance) as well as the security investigations for Aaron Alexis, aka Muhammad Salem, and all the employees of that military contractor, have been conducted by the same firm located in Falls Church, VA.  That firm is USIS.

From USIS’s web site:

“Of course, USIS is well known as the largest commercial supplier of background investigations to the federal government, but we also provide customized records, information, and document management solutions for the federal government, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to name a few.”

Aren’t we lucky.

Why is Falls Church a concern?  While the senior management of the firm appear to be squeaky clean Anglo-American types, their employees are likely to be quite different.  USIS has 6,000 employees, 2,300 credentialed field investigators and performed nearly 2 million invistigations for government agencies in 2011, according to their web site.

What their web site does not explain is who investigates the employees of USIS?  Who conducts the background checks of their employees that qualifies them to investigate others?  What are the ideological preferences and religious affiliations of USIS investigators and managers who vet our military contractor’s security clearances?  These all have a critical impact on the accuracy and honesty of the investigations they are called upon to conduct.  They obviously have a bearing on the FAILED investigations they conducted on Snowden and Alexis, and who knows on how many thousands more.

Here is the kicker:

Falls Church has nearly twice the proportion of foreign born persons and those whose primary language is other than English as the State of Virginia.

Of Falls Church’s population, 20.2% are foreign born and 24.7% speak a foreign language at home (non-English as primary language).   While there is a significant Hispanic component reported (which may be less than forthcoming), other indicators tell a more accurate story.

Northern Virginia Yellow Pages “boast” 162 Middle East restaurants, the majority located within Falls Church (a town of  only 13,000) or in communities adjacent to Falls Church.

The Falls Church area is home to one of the largest Islamic Mosques in the nation and the largest in the Washington DC area: The Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center (meaning Land of Migration).  This mosque is located in Culmore, Lake Barcroft area of Seven Corners, a stone’s throw from Falls Church in unincorporated Fairfax County, Virginia. It is said to be one of the most influential mosques in the nation.

From Wikipedia:

The Saudi-backed North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) purchased the mosque's grounds on June 19, 1983.[7]  The current building, on a 3.4 acre plot, was finished for $5 million in 1991 ($8,427,804 today) with financial help from the Saudi Embassy's Islamic Affairs Department.[5]

The mosque sits at the corner of Virginia State Route 7 (Leesburg Pike) and Row Street, near a number of apartment units and single-family homes in which many Muslim families live.[citation needed] Numerous halal restaurants, grocery stores, and other Muslim businesses are also located nearby.

Anwar al-Awlaki was Imam at the mosque between January 2001 and April 2002.[16] Fluent in English, known for giving eloquent talks on Islam, and with a mandate to attract young non-Arabic speakers, al-Awlaki "was the magic bullet," according to mosque spokesman Johari Abdul-Malik; "he had everything all in a box."[5] "He had an allure. He was charming."[17]

This is the same Anwar al-Awlaki who was a senior al-Qaeda recruiter and motivator linked to various terrorists, including three 9/11 hijackers, the accused Fort Hood shooter, and the accused Christmas Day 2009 bomber.

The Investigative Project gives more bad news about this mosque HERE.

Also located nearby is the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS).  Over the past two decades it has grown to be one of the largest Muslim Community organizations in the Washington metropolitan area.

What sort of Islamic influence is likely to infiltrate the thought and policies of our security investigators?  Most likely such influence will be similar to the “see, hear, and speak” no Islam when vetting for security clearances that our FBI, CIA, State Department and other Federal agencies are subject to, except worse.  The entire security vetting culture may be one to not only ignore but to favor Islamic influences and interests at the expense of our national security.   The evidence is mounting.

Bottom line:  Falls Church is occupied if not significantly influenced by an anti-American Islamic culture, Islam.  This also being home to the nation’s primary source for investigations of security clearances for our government and its security contractors does not bode well for integrity and US interests.

Is this “guilt by association?”   More than that.  It is guilt by logic and a reason to be very concerned with the influences on the outcome of our national security vetting procedures and integrity. 

Drawing the line on truth being hate speech…

A homosexual terrorist, Floyd Lee Corkins, claimed “insanity” as his defense for his attempt to carry out mass-murder at a conservative Christian organization that promotes Biblical morality.  That problem is discussed HERE.  What motivated him to do that?  Was it “insanity” or was it his failure to resist acting on the  slander promoted by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center?

As over-used and mis-used the defense of “insanity” may be, even worse are liberal, racist organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that label organizations like the Family Research Council (FRC) a “hate group.”  Why did they do that?  Because the FRC promotes millennia-old moral standards, one of which happens to be that there is such a thing as sin, and the other being that homosexual behavior is one of those sins.  Apparently the SPLC has given up on the concept of morality.  Many of our cultures organizations are doing the same thing, including many of our churches.  

Behaviors that were universally proclaimed immoral only a few decades ago and thousands of years prior have now been declared “off-limits” from criticism.

In fact, the Catholic Church itself is in the process of a huge public transition from speaking out against immorality to a call from the Pope to ignore immorality.  Privately they have been ignoring morality for a long time, but now they have apparently succumbed to their inner turmoil and given up their pro-morality scam.  Now, even with that institution, it is all about “tolerate everything” in the name of “love.”  “Love the sinner but hate the sin” does not mean “ignore the sin.”  And there is a point when the sinner is so entrenched in and committed to the sin that they become one and the same – inseparably merged and indistinguishable.  The sinner becomes his sin.

This is the way of our US culture.  And, unfortunately, this is also a sign of cultural decline and failure.  As these trends continue and accelerate, expect everything to deteriorate in our nation:  The economy, poverty, corruption, disease, and any other evil that you can imagine.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Drawing the line on insanity as an excuse…

The “personal responsibility” and “self control” line is fast eroding.  No one seems to care much about the consequences of the line on insanity disappearing.

Is the Muslim that blows himself up, or tries to, insane?  Some will say he is.   So should the Muslim who tries but fails be excused with an insanity plea?

Hell no!

Should the homo who tries to commit a mass shooting but fails be given a lessor sentence because of a plead of insanity?  Hell no!

But HERE is another damned attorney who tried the very thing with his pervert client.

There is a psychological excuse for every anti-social evil humanity can commit.  The psychiatric profession is capable of pandering to every crime imaginable.  Let the profession have its way and no one would feel a need to be responsible for any behavior.  All of society would plead “insanity.”  And probably get Obamacare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation to help make them feel better.

There is a time for mercy and a time for justice.  Our society is on the extreme “tolerate everything” side of the equation in the name of “mercy” and at the expense of “justice.”  I suppose this is fitting of a culture that couldn’t care less about morality or the God who established moral standards so that we could have a just and peace-loving society.

Monday, September 16, 2013

Aaron Alexis motive still uncertain? Ask Mohammad Salem

arrest unlawful discharge firearm tarrant county texas httpwww justmugshots comtexasfort-worth814064

The motive of 34-year old Aaron Alexis (aka Mohammad Salem) in the Navy Yard massacre remains uncertain.  There is continuing speculation that he snapped as a consequence of his prior record of mental instability.  But other possibilities must not be ignored.

Who he is and what he believes will reveal his motive.  As of late Monday afternoon, we don’t know enough to establish a motive, but here is what we are told so far:

Where he lived:  Latest residence was 8149 White Settlement Rd. Fort Worth,TX 76108-1602  Originally from Brooklyn. His landlord was Somsak Srisan.  Alexis was a native of Queens, New York City and also lived in Illinois.

Where he worked:   Alexis served in the Navy Reserves from 2007 and discharged in 2011,  stationed at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base.  Customers at Happy Bowl Thai, a restaurant owned by Suthamtewakul in Fort Worth said that Alexis occasionally worked there as a waiter.

While with the Navy,  officials said he was an avionics electrician.  Friends say he left because he didn't like waking up early – others say he was terminated. Recently hired as a civilian contractor by the Navy (3 months ago), reportedly worked for a computer contractor at the Navy Yard.  Defense officials say he was currently working as a defense department contractor, but it's not clear if he was assigned at the military base in southeast D.C.  One source indicates he worked at some point as a network technician at SnglePoint Technoligies.

He worked for a company called The Experts, a subcontractor to Hewlett Packard on a federal contract to work on the Navy Marine Corps Intranet network, according to a statement from Hewlett Packard. It was unclear if Alexis was still employed by that subcontractor, or if his work took him to the Navy Yard.  He had a pass contractor pass to the Navy Yard.

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University also says Alexis was an online student pursuing a bachelor's degree in aeronautics. He started classes in July 2012.

Criminal record:  He had been arrested at least twice previously:  Once in Seattle for malicious mischief, and once in Fort Worth in 2010 for discharging a firearm in public.

Behavioral problems:  The Seattle Police Department published the details surrounding Aaron Alexis' shooting out the tire of another man's car in 2004:

At about 8 am that morning, two construction workers had parked their 1986 Honda Accord in the driveway of their worksite, next to a home where Alexis was staying in the Beacon Hill neighborhood.

The victims reported seeing a man, later identified by police as Alexis, walk out of the home next to their worksite, pull a gun from his waistband and fire three shots into the two rear tires of their Honda before he walked slowly back to his home north of the construction site. ...

Following his arrest, Alexis told detectives he perceived he had been “mocked” by construction workers the morning of the incident and said they had “disrespected him.” Alexis also claimed he had an anger-fueled “blackout,” and could not remember firing his gun at the victims’ vehicle until an hour after the incident.

Alexis also told police he was present during “the tragic events of September 11, 2001″ and described “how those events had disturbed him.”

Detectives later spoke with Alexis’ father, who lived in New York at the time, who told police Alexis had anger management problems associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and that Alexis had been an active participant in rescue attempts on September 11th, 2001.

U.S. law enforcement officials stated Alexis suffered a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder. He also had been hearing voices in his head, the officials said.  He was also obsessed with violent video games.

Over the past year Alexis felt increasingly entitled and discriminated against; over the last few months he began to express he was not happy with America.

His religion:  A former friend described Alexis as a devout Buddhist. “He loved to go to temple, go to meditate in Thai and English,” the friend said. “He could do both of them.”  One landlord claimed Alexis liked to meditate, and other friends said he recently traveled to Thailand.  However Buddhism is known as one of the most NON-violent religions in the world.  One of his Buddhist mentors indicated he was “tightly wound” but was more likely to commit suicide than kill others.  When he visited Thailand for several weeks in 2012, he was not really interested in Buddhism, but was there primarily to connect with a Thai woman  who rejected him saying “she had a boyfriend and ‘doesn’t like black guys,’ according to Suthamtewakul.”  What else did he do; who else did he spend time with while in Thailand?

How he entered the Navy Yard:  It was initially reported that Alexis was carrying an ID card belonging to Rollie Chance, who was placed on administrative leave last October.  Chance told officials he does not know Alexis.  Navy Yard security failed to void that old ID over a 9 month period, a serious security faux pas.  Other reports suggest Alexis had his own ID.

People who knew himNutpisit Suthamtewakul claims to be Alexis's former roommate. “He lived with me three years [in Fort Worth],” Nutpisit Suthamtewakul said. “I don’t think he’d do this. He has a gun but I don’t think he’s that stupid. He didn’t seem aggressive to me.”  He called Alexis his “best friend”.  He said Alexis had been working for a computer contractor. "I don't think he'd do this," said Suthamtewakul.  That seems to be a common refrain from those covering for terror acts of their “best friends.”

"Oh boy, I can't believe this," said Somsak Srisan, the landlord at Alexis's last known address in Texas. "He was always very polite to me ... My feeling is if he was angry about anything, he didn't show that to me." Alexis has not lived at the Fort Worth address for six to eight months, he said.

Analysis of above information:

Here are several things that make little sense and draw suspicion:

  • Alexis relgion:  Buddhist?  Makes little sense, unless a) he very recently had an attraction to a different religion, or b) his friends misrepresented his beliefs, c) even Buddhists can snap.
  • The names, origins and beliefs of those who knew him:  Nutpisit Suthamtewakul and Somsak Srisan.  What nationalities are these?  Thai?  Was Alexis influenced by those living in foreign enclaves and by foreign interests?  From Wikipedia:

    Islam, while a minority faith in Thailand, with recent statistics suggesting a population from around 4 million.[1][2] Most Thai Muslims belong to the Sunni branch….[3][4]

  • Those who knew him best did not mention Alexis anger management problems.  Wouldn’t his “best friend” know or say if he had an “anger management” problem? It is difficult to believe that Alexis friends wouldn’t reveal such problems.  Was Alexis sworn to secrecy about his proposed acts? 

Tentative conclusion:

Given that Buddhism is on the opposite end of the “peace/violence” spectrum from Islam, Buddhism is possibly Alexis former religion.  Alexis recently visited Thailand.  Given that Sunni Islam is a growing presence in Thailand, it is possible that Alexis was influenced or recruited by Thai Islamic interests to carry out his acts.  HERE and HERE is what Muslims have begun doing in Thailand.  Violence as committed by Alexis is much more in keeping with Islam than Buddhism.

Work place violence?  It was “violence at a place where people work”, but was it a place where Alexis ever worked?  Therefore it is not confirmed that this is “work place violence.”  Anger management problem and retribution?  Anger at what and retribution for what?  Another Islamic-hate-America inspired terror attack?   Possibly.  This cannot yet be ruled out, either.

One thing IS certain:  Security on the Navy Yard was sorely lacking.  How did a person with the offences and mental health issues this man had maintain a Secret Clearance? How did he maintain a pass to a secure facility?  If someone else’s month’s old expired security pass was used, why was it still valid on the rolls?  How is anyone able to approach the gates with a shotgun?  Why wouldn’t there be better security, e.g. more than one or two guards, at the gates? 

HERE is a current report of unauthorized people, in this case felons, entering US Military bases.  It would seem that folks carrying shotguns would be much more obvious.

UPDATE Sept. 19: 

The Navy Yard gunman self-styled “Mohammed Salem”

DEBKAfile September 19, 2013, 5:52 PM (GMT+02:00)

NBC News quoting law enforcement officials revealed Thursday that Aaron Alexis, who murdered 12 people in the Washington Navy Yard this week, created a webpage in the name of “Mohammed Salem.” The officials said “he never did anything with it” and they found nothing else that “might indicate any interest in violent jihad or even Islam.” So how would they describe the deadly attack on the Navy facility - if not “violent jihad?”


Related issues:

No, I do not attribute this attack to a government conspiracy to promote more gun regulation or records snooping, although it is being used for that purpose by the president and others who disrespect our 2nd amendment.  And no, just because the insane or terrorists use guns to kill does not in any logical way justify restricting guns used by the rest of us to defend ourselves.

In fact, rather than more gun control, employees in government facilities, especially military facilities, ought to either be allowed or required to carry firearms.  Fort Hood and the Navy Yard would have experienced many fewer casualties.

Sunday, September 15, 2013

What churches are missing…

Can we get too much of a “good thing?”

As essential as water is, too much will drown us or make us weak and gaunt.

As essential as bread is, an exclusive diet of bread will make us fat and have vitamin deficiencies.

Is it possible to have too much “good news?"  Or too many reminders of how sinful we are?  Or even too much of how great God is?  Conventional churchy wisdom says these are all impossible, but I believe these are all possible.  Too much of any good thing leaves little room for other essentials.

Some church sermons preach Sunday after Sunday, month after month the “good news” at the exclusion of anything else.  We need to hear the “bad news” too.

Other churches will preach, Sunday after Sunday, different self improvement nuggets as if church was a perpetual Dale Carnegie course.   How to be happy one week; how not to be grumpy another week, and how to be a good friend another.  That strikes me as the orchestra playing on a sinking Titanic.  Yikes!

Still others recite the Bible as a sterile history class, with endless detail of the topography, language, eating habits, and bad habits of its ancient population without making any connection with the world today.  Yuck!  A pastor wanting to let everyone know how well versed he is in ancient Biblical history.

Amidst that amalgamation of mindless repetition of good news, endless guilt tripping, self improvement lectures or ancient history lies a huge void of missing ecclesiastical content.

Just as there is a time for war and a time for peace, there is a time to lighten up on the repetitious preaching diet and get occasional doses of other essentials.

So, what is missing from our churches preaching, especially in today’s world?

Discussion of cultural and political challenges to our faith, that’s what’s missing.  Yes, that is relevant.  No, not the kind of “relevance” that mentions Islam or homosexuality only to tell us how we should not judge others.  That is not preaching the Bible but preaching from the pits of hell.

Most pastors appear to live in a bubble.   Most appear to know or care very little about what is going on in the world around them.  Most seem to be oblivious to the challenges and threats to Christianity around the world.  Not only around the world, but even in our own nation, from our own government, and even from the evils being promoted by churches right next door such as those that preach Chrislam and embrace homosexuality.

How about the rampant persecutions of Christians and church burnings by Muslims in the Middle East, North Africa, and Indonesia?  How about the Islamic ideology itself declaring its disdain of the Christian “infidel”, promoting anti-Semitism, mal-treatment of women, using their doctrine of lying to promote themselves, and doing all in its power to impose its version of dark ages culture and law called “Sharia”  on the rest of us?   How about the apostasy rampant in virtually all of the churches of mainline denominations of Christianity that reinvent the moral pronouncements of the Bible as if they never existed?  How about the churches that don’t care if the beliefs of their church leaders and fellow so-called “believers” are so dismissive of Biblical truths, events, miracles, and morals that they are allowed to spread within the congregation like a cancer?

There is a place for bad news.  Not for the sake of mindless fear-mongering to motivate new converts, but for informing and reminding us how fragile our Christian freedoms really are.

Is there a secret prohibition against churches speaking the truth about the errors, dangers, and even the evils of other religions?  The recent ridiculous pronouncements of the Pope come to mind.  Does the Church have an agreement with the devil to remain quiet?   Is this the church’s version of political correctness?  Is “do not offend evil” the new highest moral value?  Some could use offending.  Since when has the church been called to “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?”  The church has become too “nice” for its own good.

These topics, from my experience visiting dozens of churches in the area over the past several years, are totally missing from sermon content.  And shame on pastors for ignoring these assaults on their professed faith that they are charged with defending.  It is obvious that things have not gotten quite bad enough within their bubble that motivates them out of their one-note comfort zones.  But the way things are going, it won’t be long before they do.

Where I do hear hear a significantly greater amount of relevant preaching is from radio shows like those from the Moody Bible Institute and from web sites of Hal Lindsey, Truth in Action, Avi Lipkin, and Atlas Shrugs among many others.  That reminds me.   Even WorldNet Daily has more relevant Christian preaching than many churches.  Here is their latest on No Joke:  Is the Pope Catholic?

What’s going on with local pastors?  I don’t get it.  Can someone explain this to me?  I feel like I’m on a death watch of the local church.  No, I’m not talking about numbers.  Some very apostatizing and useless churches boast large and growing numbers.  I’m talking about faithful, orthodox, Bible-based churches that have the kahoonas to defend themselves against this corrupt and threatening, Christian-hating culture.  Not many exist.  It appears to be bubble business as usual until persecution is at their door.  I guess it has to get much worse – and personal. 

Monday, September 09, 2013

Assad is an Alawite. What are Alawites?

Muslim vs. Muslim

Remember Mad Magazine’s “Spy vs. Spy?”

Well, we have the personification of that in Syria, all of the Middle East, North Africa, and, if the truth be told, throughout the entire Muslim world.

After all, there is no such thing in Islam as “the Golden Rule.”  Islam’s rule continues to remain “an eye for an eye” by any means possible and through whatever deceptive practices are most expedient.

Syria’s President Assad is an Alawite, a sect of Islam that most of us have never heard of.  Assad is known as a “secularist Alawite.”  Hmmm.  What does that mean, exactly?

Here is an overview of Alawites from Wikipedia:

The Alawites, also known as Alawis (ʿAlawīyyah Arabic: علوية‎) are a prominent mystical religious group centred in Syria who follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam.

Note carefully what the “Twelver School” is all about.  Iran is also dominated by “Twelvers.”  The Twelvers is the common link between Shia’s and Alawites.   Continuing…

Today, Alawites represent 12% of the Syrian population and are a significant minority in Turkey and northern Lebanon. There is also a population living in the village of Ghajar in the disputed Golan Heights. They are often confused with the Alevis of Turkey, another Shia sect.

Alawite beliefs are kept secret for outsiders, even for non initiated Alawites. Therefore many rumours about their religious beliefs have arisen. Alawites were historically persecuted for their beliefs by the various Sunni Muslim rulers of the area. The establishment of the French Mandate of Syria, marks a turning point in Alawi history. It gave the French the power to recruit Syrian civilians into their armed forces for indefinite periods of time and created exclusive areas for minorities (including an Alawite State). The Alawite State was later dismantled, but Alawites continued to have significant representation in the Syrian army. Since Hafez al-Assad took power in 1970, the government has been dominated by a political elite led by the secular Alawite Assad family. During the Islamic uprising in Syria in the '70s and '80s, this establishment came under tremendous pressure. The conflict continues today as a function of the Syrian civil war.

The infidel is not the only hated group among Muslims.  Other Muslim Sects are equally reviled and are the current targets of death.  Avi Lipkin recently noted that Islam is an ideology that virtually requires every last Muslim to kill the very last Muslim – the ultimate Satanic “Spy vs. Spy” scenario.

So remember when discussing religion with Muslims, Islam is the religion of death; Christianity the religion of life.

On US Attacking Syria: A blog from a Christian in the Middle East

The Christian Middle Easterner who wrote the following blog agrees with the great majority of Americans on this topic.  US:  Stay out!  Provide tents for women and children, perhaps.  But don’t’ resettle any Syrians in North America or Europe.

That doesn’t sound “Christian” but it sure sounds wise.


How the US attacking Syria could plunge the region into war

So 90% of the American people want NO military action in Syria, but President Obama, it seems, is intent on doing just this. This will be very bad for the whole region, though. Here is a likely scenario:

In fact, it is being reported that cruise missile strikes could begin "as early as Thursday".  The Obama administration is pledging that the strikes will be "limited", but what happens when the Syrians fight back?  What happens if they sink a U.S. naval vessel or they have agents start hitting targets inside the United States?  Then we would have a full-blown war on our hands.  And what happens if the Syrians decide to retaliate by hitting Israel?  If Syrian missiles start raining down on Tel Aviv, Israel will be extremely tempted to absolutely flatten Damascus, and they are more than capable of doing precisely that.  And of course Hezbollah and Iran are not likely to just sit idly by as their close ally Syria is battered into oblivion. 

We are looking at a scenario where the entire Middle East could be set aflame, and that might only be just the beginning.  Russia and China are sternly warning the U.S. government not to get involved in Syria, and by starting a war with Syria we will do an extraordinary amount of damage to our relationships with those two global superpowers. (From HERE)

Grim stuff. Instability is already spilling from Syria into Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. But that can be contained. This, however, would be a game changer, and certainly not in a good way. America needs to stay out of Syria. Totally and completely. Just send tents and food for women and children refugees (not men), and don't resettle ANY of them in North America or Europe. That is my advice.

Posted by Abu Daoud at 12:37 AM 0 Comments

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Labels: China, clash, future, jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, politics, Russia, Syria, USA, violence, War

Saturday, September 07, 2013

Insight into Syria, Obama, and Putin…


Here are two articles that are worth reading that shed light on what might really be behind Obama’s fetish with attacking Syria (Article 1), and why Russia supports the Syrian government over the rebels (Article 2).


Article 1:

Report implicating the Obama Administration in planning the gas attack on Syria.


Article 2:

Alleged “Letter from Russian President Putin to the American People”…

The analysis in this reports tracks with the US Administrations tactics in Benghazi and comports with Obama’s unbridled support of the Muslim Brotherhood.


I don’t know if this is a legitimate letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin or if it is merely a gag. But I am certain it represents Putin’s views on most topics addressed.

Read on and see what you might agree with.


Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

By Yossef Bodansky

Global Research, September 01, 2013

Defense and Foreign Affairs and

Region: Middle East & North Africa

Theme: Intelligence, US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?

There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.

On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.

The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the US-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad Government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive.

Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on August 21-23, 2013. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machineguns. The weapons were distributed from store-houses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of US Intelligence.

These weapons were loaded on more than 20 trailer-trucks which crossed into northern Syria and distributed the weapons to several depots. Follow-up weapon shipments, also several hundred tons, took place over the weekend of August 24-25, 2013, and included mainly sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles and rockets. Opposition officials in Hatay said that these weapon shipments were “the biggest” they had received “since the beginning of the turmoil more than two years ago”. The deliveries from Hatay went to all the rebel forces operating in the Idlib-to-Aleppo area, including the al-Qaida affiliated jihadists (who constitute the largest rebel forces in the area).

Several senior officials from both the Syrian opposition and sponsoring Arab states stressed that these weapon deliveries were specifically in anticipation for exploiting the impact of imminent bombing of Syria by the US and the Western allies. The latest strategy formulation and coordination meetings took place on August 26, 2013. The political coordination meeting took place in Istanbul and was attended by US Amb. Robert Ford.

More important were the military and operational coordination meetings at the Antakya garrison. Senior Turkish, Qatari, and US Intelligence officials attended in addition to the Syrian senior (opposition) commanders. The Syrians were informed that bombing would start in a few days.

“The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days,” a Syrian participant in the meeting said. Another Syrian participant said that he was convinced US bombing was scheduled to begin on Thursday, August 29, 2013. Several participants — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that the assurances of forthcoming bombing were most explicit even as formally Obama is still undecided.

The descriptions of these meetings raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of US Intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House. All the sources consulted — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that officials of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey. Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating “a war-changing development”: that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a US-led military intervention.

The mere fact that weapon storage sites under the tight supervision of US Intelligence were opened up and about a thousand tons of high-quality weapons were distributed to the opposition indicates that US Intelligence anticipated such a provocation and the opportunity for the Syrian opposition to exploit the impact of the ensuing US and allied bombing. Hence, even if the Obama White House did not know in advance of the chemical provocation, they should have concluded, or at the very least suspected, that the chemical attack was most likely the “war-changing development” anticipated by the opposition leaders as provocation of US-led bombing. Under such circumstances, the Obama White House should have refrained from rushing head-on to accuse Assad’s Damascus and threaten retaliation, thus making the Obama White House at the very least complicit after the act.

Meanwhile, additional data from Damascus about the actual chemical attack increases the doubts about Washington’s version of events. Immediately after the attack, three hospitals of Doctors Without Borders (MSF: médecins sans frontières) in the greater Damascus area treated more than 3,600 Syrians affected by the chemical attack, and 355 of them died. MSF performed tests on the vast majority of those treated.

MSF director of operations Bart Janssens summed up the findings: “MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack. However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events — characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers — strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.” Simply put, even after testing some 3,600 patients, MSF failed to confirm that sarin was the cause of the injuries. According to MSF, the cause could have been nerve agents like sarin, concentrated riot control gas, or even high-concentration pesticides. Moreover, opposition reports that there was distinct stench during the attack suggest that it could have come from the “kitchen sarin” used by jihadist groups (as distinct from the odorless military-type sarin) or improvised agents like pesticides.

Some of the evidence touted by the Obama White House is questionable at best.

A small incident in Beirut raises big questions. A day after the chemical attack, Lebanese fixers working for the “Mukhabarat Amriki” succeeded to convince a Syrian male who claimed to have been injured in the chemical attack to seek medical aid in Beirut in return for a hefty sum that would effectively settle him for life. The man was put into an ambulance and transferred overnight to the Farhat Hospital in Jib Janine, Beirut. The Obama White House immediately leaked friendly media that “the Lebanese Red Cross announced that test results found traces of sarin gas in his blood.” However, this was news to Lebanese intelligence and Red Cross officials.
According to senior intelligence officials, “Red Cross Operations Director George Kettaneh told [them] that the injured Syrian fled the hospital before doctors were able to test for traces of toxic gas in his blood.” Apparently, the patient declared that he had recovered from his nausea and no longer needed medical treatment. The Lebanese security forces are still searching for the Syrian patient and his honorarium.

On August 24, 2013, Syrian Commando forces acted on intelligence about the possible perpetrators of the chemical attack and raided a cluster of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. Canisters of toxic material were hit in the fierce fire-fight as several Syrian soldiers suffered from suffocation and “some of the injured are in a critical condition”.

The Commando eventually seized an opposition warehouse containing barrels full of chemicals required for mixing “kitchen sarin”, laboratory equipment, as well as a large number of protective masks. The Syrian Commando also captured several improvised explosive devices, RPG rounds, and mortar shells. The same day, at least four HizbAllah fighters operating in Damascus near Ghouta were hit by chemical agents at the very same time the Syrian Commando unit was hit while searching a group of rebel tunnels in Jobar. Both the Syrian and the HizbAllah forces were acting on intelligence information about the real perpetrators of the chemical attack. Damascus told Moscow the Syrian troops were hit by some form of a nerve agent and sent samples (blood, tissues, and soil) and captured equipment to Russia.

Several Syrian leaders, many of whom are not Bashar al-Assad supporters and are even his sworn enemies, are now convinced that the Syrian opposition is responsible for the August 21, 2013, chemical attack in the Damascus area in order to provoke the US and the allies into bombing Assad’s Syria. Most explicit and eloquent is Saleh Muslim, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) which has been fighting the Syrian Government. Muslim doubts Assad would have used chemical weapons when he was winning the civil war.

“The regime in Syria … has chemical weapons, but they wouldn’t use them around Damascus, five km from the [UN] committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so,” Muslim told Reuters on August 27, 2013. He believes the attack was “aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction”. Muslim is convinced that “some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action” is responsible for the chemical attack. The US was exploiting the attack to further its own anti-Assad policies and should the UN inspectors find evidence that the rebels were behind the attack, then “everybody would forget it”, Muslim shrugged. “Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr Erdo?an of Turkey?”

And there remain the questions: Given the extent of the involvement of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” in opposition activities, how is that US Intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus?

It is a colossal failure.

And if they did know and warned the Obama White House, why then the sanctimonious rush to blame the Assad Administration?

Moreover, how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians in order to provoke a US military intervention?

Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs

Copyright Defense and Foreign Affairs and 2013

Let’s Join One Another to Crush the Unholy, Unruly, Jihadi Muslims

by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

3 Sep 2013

832 post a comment

How do I put this politely? You Americans are dumb.

Today, Russia and America are fighting each other over fighting the Muslim radicals. Instead, we should be uniting to crush these violent Islamists, once and for all. 

You Americans want to remove my ally, the Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. To borrow a phrase from your John F. Kennedy, Assad may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s my son-of-a-bitch.

So if you want to destroy him, what are you going to give me in return? If your answer is, “We will give you nothing,” well, why would I ever agree to that? That’s not negotiation, that’s dictation; it’s a return to the bad Yeltsin days, when Holy Mother Russia was pushed into the mud like a used whore.

Look, I’ll be the first to say that Obama’s “red line” comment was dumb. It’s obvious he hadn’t thought it through; one can see it in the words he used to express his policy. He said that the “red line” would be crossed if “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons were used. What kind of language is that? How does one quantify a “whole bunch”? This is the President of the High-and-Mighty United States, and he’s talking like a schoolboy? All for this silliness over sarin in Syria?

Do I think that Assad did it? Gassed those people? I don’t know; I’ve never asked him. He’s certainly capable of it, and yet only the Americans think that the case against Assad is a “slam dunk.” Everyone else agrees that the case is murky. Everyone else follows the first rule of intelligence-gathering: Consider the source--namely, the pro-rebel media. In this instance, the rebels were losing, and then they got “gassed”--and now Uncle Sam is rushing to their side. How convenient.

The Romans, who knew something about both imperialism and trickery, always asked, cui bono--who benefits? Well, the beneficiaries in this episode are the rebels--also known as Al Qaeda. Way to go, Americans!

So let’s check some other news items: Here’s a June 6 item from a Turkish newspaper reporting on “the case of Syrian rebels who were seized on the Turkish-Syrian border with two kilograms of sarin.” And it’s not just the Turks: Carla Del Ponte, the Swiss-born former UN Prosecutor for War Crime Tribunals, has echoed those same charges against the rebels. They’re the bad guys!

Yet could this evidence against the rebels all be Russian disinformation? Hey, we’re good, but not that good.

Meanwhile, go ahead: Look for this information in your mainstream American media--your so-called “free press.” You can barely find it. Yankee lapdog reporters will cover everything that Obama says, and everything that John McCain says, but they won’t send reporters to warzones to go and actually figure out what happened.

Nor will American “presstitutes” remind their people of their own country’s history of helping the Iraqis use poison gas, all the time, in the 80s.

Yes, American reporters are sheep. They try to figure out what Obama wants them to write, and then they write it. Or if Obama doesn’t have a clear line on some topic--which is often--they look over the shoulder of the reporter next to them and copy that. Like I said, sheep.

The result is a herd mentality, showing no understanding of what true necessity truly looks like.

Here’s an example of a real “red line”: It’s June 24, 1812, and Napoleon Bonaparte, having conquered all of continental Europe, is now leading a half-million soldiers across the Neman River, invading Russia, heading straight for Moscow. Six months later, Napoleon retreats in disastrous defeat, but only after he burns our sacred capital and leaves 200,000 Russians dead in battle. Now that’s a red-line situation.

But even the Czars, those blockheads, weren’t dumb enough to send Russian forces halfway around the world because someone wasn’t being nice to someone else.

So in my time, I can hardly get worked up over Assad using poison gas--if he did. Dead is dead, I say. In any case, Assad is adhering to the first rule of a leader: Stay in power. And so you do what it takes.

In fact, I’m not against gas warfare; I’m for gas warfare, if that’s what it takes. For example, I would love to gas the Chechens--all 1.2 million of them. They are like cockroaches, murderous Muslim cockroaches, and if the Chechens had done to Americans what they have done to Russians, maybe the US public would want to join with us. Oh wait, they have: The Boston Bombers, those Tsarnaev brothers, were Chechens. You took them in--against our advice. You put them on welfare for a decade, ignored our intelligence warnings, and then they terror-bomb you. The Chechens deserve to be fumigated. As an aside, what's wrong with your media? They seem like "useful idiots"--to borrow Lenin's phrase--for the terrorists. That Rolling Stone cover? Really? That would never happen in Russia.

In addition, there are another billion or more Muslims to the south of Russia--and a lot of them are trouble, too. Indeed, Russia has been fighting Muslims all across Central Asia for centuries. It’s not easy.

But the American leaders don’t seem to understand any of this. They are lost in their silly theories about liberation, human rights--all that nonsense. They don’t see that the struggle with radical Islam is a war, pure and simple. It’s a war that should unite all the civilized countries of the world. I didn’t say “democratic,” I said “civilized.”

One Western journalist who at least begins to understand where I’m coming from is The New York TimesSteven Lee Myers. In his report of August 28, Myers accurately describes the Putin view of what’s been going on in the Middle East:

“In his view, the United States and its partners have unleashed the forces of extremism in country after country in the Middle East by forcing or advocating change in leadership — from Iraq to Libya, Egypt to Syria.”

That’s right. Over the last 15 years, from Clinton to Bush 43 to Obama, America has stirred up all the hornet-nests in the Middle East. For the most part, those angry hornets are far away from the US, but those insects are on Russia’s southern border--starting with those lousy Chechens.

And it’s not just the Americans stirring things up; it’s flunky-countries, too. It still kills me to think back to what British Prime Minister Tony Blair said just a few weeks after 9-11. In a speech that made the Americans swoon, Blair chose to regard all the coming wars as a great opportunity for international do-gooding.

After talking up the importance of “freedom,” Blair cited all needy peoples of the Muslim world and declared, “They, too, are our cause.” What kind of bull is that? Radical Muslims kill you, and so you want to go help them? Put them on welfare? America put its blacks on welfare, and were they grateful? Did they become less violent? Yet in Blair’s mind, these same Muslims were supposed to be grateful for all this “help.” That was the theory.

Then Blair concluded with these lines:

“This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us.”

And of course, that’s what Blair and Bush did--they reordered the Muslim world. But not in a good way. They made it much worse!

Look, I’m a conservative. I have my imperial ambitions, to be sure, but the last thing I want to do is send all the pieces of the world-kaleidoscope fluxing around. We’ve had enough gratuitous messing things up in our own history, whether by Ivan the Terrible or Comrade Stalin. I want order--Russian Orthodox order.

So I’ve been predicting, all along, that the Bush-Blair crusade wouldn’t work--and I’ve been right, all along. A Reuters reporter quoted me as saying on September 1:

“We need to remember what's happened in the last decade, the number of times the United States has initiated armed conflicts in various parts of the world. Has it solved a single problem?”

And the answer, of course, is “no.” The US made things worse. Today, look at Syria.

Indeed, by my count, the US has led six major interventions in the Muslim Asia and Africa over the last 30 years: Reagan in Lebanon, Bush 41 and Clinton in Somalia, Bush 43 in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Obama in Libya and Egypt. None of them have worked out well. And so now, Syria!

Needless to say, I’m happy to see the Americans make fools of themselves once again. Anything that weakens Uncle Sam helps Mother Russia.

Yet even so, after all this, I could be persuaded to make a deal with Obama on Syria. Other US presidents have done just that; they have gone over the heads of the crummy little countries they were fighting in some benighted corner of the world, and reached a war-ending agreement with us Russians.

That’s what Nixon did with Brezhnev in May 1972, as Vietnam was still raging. He said, in effect, I need to get out of this stupid war, but I must look tough so I get re-elected. So you Russians, pretty please, look the other way while I bomb the crap out of the North Vietnamese. So the US can stand tall on its way out of Vietnam, secure a “decent interval,” and not obviously lose our honor. And then we’ll owe you one.

Brezhnev went along, Nixon bombed and then got out, and the result was “detente,” a notable warming of US-Soviet relations in the 1970s.

So that’s the kind of deal that Obama could make with me today on Syria. Coincidentally, he’s coming this week to St. Petersburg for the G-20 Summit; we could easily peel off some time and figure out how to solve the Syria question.

Yet once again, Obama would have to give me something in return. What would it be? A free rein in Chechyna? A blind eye toward the incremental reclaiming of lost Soviet territories, back into the Russian Motherland? Or just a simple bribe? Who knows. I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

But that rendezvous at the bridge almost certainly won’t happen, because Obama doesn’t seem to think he needs me for anything.

Indeed, he is going out of his way to stick his finger in my eye: Just on Monday, we learned that the President is going to be meeting with “gay” groups while in Russia, as a not-so-subtle statement against recent Russia’s anti-homosexuality crackdown. He is meeting with my enemies! Right in my own country! I don’t do that to him. I don’t come to America to meet with, say, the National Rifle Association.

Yes, Obama would rather cultivate the worldwide “gay” constituency than work with me to solve Syria. The Americans still think they can have it all: They think they can clobber Assad in Damascus, snub me here in Russia, and pander to their liberal sexual constituencies.

In other words, they get everything, and we get nothing. The Americans have had it so good for so long that it just doesn’t occur to them that they might have to make some tradeoffs.

We Russians know about tradeoffs. Back during the Great Patriotic War, in ’42, the Nazis were besieging both Leningrad and Stalingrad. The Red Army had to manage its resources: Do we seek to relieve Leningrad in the north and keep a million people from starving, or do we relieve Stalingrad in the south and keep the Hitlerites from capturing our oil resources? We did the latter, of course, and not only did we save the Hero City of Stalingrad, but we wiped out the entire German Sixth Army.

So yes, it was a tough tradeoff, the kind you have to make when you need to win. Hundreds of thousands in Leningrad died--including my uncle--but the tide of the war was shifted, and the USSR was saved.

Today, of course, I will make it my business to see to it that Obama gets none of what he wants. I will help Assad, I will subdue the homosexuals here in Russia, and I will be still be in power when Obama is laughed off the world stage.

Yet while I will savor the prospect of humiliating Obama, I still lament the lost opportunity--the lost opportunity to focus on the real enemy, which is Islamic radicalism. We can deal with Saudi Arabia, that’s for sure--but even they have trouble with the crazies. They would be glad to have our help. But we should do it together, so that one party doesn’t come to dominate.

The Americans, the Europeans, the Israelis, the Christian Africans, the Chinese, and the Indians all have something in common with us: The jihadis are our collective enemy. From Nigeria to Libya, from Syria to Chechnya, we see terrorism and strife.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that we can manage this problem--again, if we work together. Let’s look at the globe. The truth is that we have Islam surrounded: east, west, south and north. So we, the civilized people, should make a deal.

For starters, let Russia reoccupy the Central Asian states--the five “Stans”--that broke away during Russia’s most recent time of troubles, in the early 90s.

In return, I will turn Assad over to his fate, and so will the Chinese. Why? Because the Chinese are cursed with 50 million or so Muslims in their westernmost province, Xinjiang, which is right next to Russia. So as part of the same deal, the Chinese get to suppress--I guess that’s the nice way of putting it--their restive Muslims.

Wait, there’s more. Under this new deal, the Israelis can do what they want with the Palestinians. My fellow ex-Soviet citizen, Avigdor Lieberman, the former foreign minister of Israel--he gets this. And he’s still close to Bibi.

And together, we can all deal with those two most troublesome nations: Iran and Pakistan.

Iran is a lot closer to Russia than it is to America--I don’t want those nuts to have nuclear weapons! But I have defended Iran to keep the Americans from filling the space instead. I’d rather have the ayatollahs in Tehran than a hostile US Army, bent on still more “liberation.”

As for Pakistan, the Americans are only beginning to figure out how badly they have been played by those guys. All along, the Pakistanis have using all their US foreign-aid money to boost the Taliban.

Those Americans--they thought they were so cool for helping to push the Red Army out of Afghanistan in the 80s. And look what they got after that--Osama Bin Laden in his new home.

Now, 25 years later, the Americans are finally giving up on their missionary work in Afghanistan. If we ever have to go back to bring order there, it will be no more Mr. Nice Guy! But Pakistan is the real problem--they make Afghanistan possible.

So those are the real evil empires: Iran and Pakistan. Bringing them to heel won’t be easy, of course, but we Russians have never shied away from strong measures. The Americans could learn a lot from us.

So that’s my vision. Let’s stop worrying about silly little niceties about the right and the wrong way to fight a war. Let’s stop trying to bring democracy to barbarians. Instead, let’s bring them the only thing they understand--force.

Let’s all of us--Moscow, Washington, London, Paris, Brussels, Jerusalem, Lagos, Addis Ababa, Beijing, New Delhi--come together in a new Holy Alliance, similar to that which kept Europe safe from radicalism in the early 19th century. Let’s join one another to crush the unholy, unruly, jihadi Muslims. The good Muslims will thank us for it. And if they don’t--too bad.

Admit it: You, too, think it’s a good idea.