Monday, August 31, 2015

SOS To Pope Francis: It's Souls That Need Saving Not The Environment




SOS to Pope Francis: It’s souls that need saving, not the environment

In a surrealistic world the pope’s coming to America is somewhat like Cleopatra coming to Mark Antony.

Protocol and pomp and ceremony aside, why would Christ’s Vicar on Earth come to pay homage to a president who is unabashedly the world’s top champion of abortions, including partial birth abortions;  whose party refuses to defund Planned Parenthood whose organization sells body parts of aborted babies on the black market;  and whose presidency is driven by a soul-corroding hatred of the country he was elected to serve?

The prayer for the pontiff’s visit to the den of iniquity known as the White House should be along the lines of:  “Please God let it be naivete and a secret soul saving mission and not Obama boosting bringing Pope Francis to American shores.”

“A Gallup poll released last month showed Francis losing support among conservative Catholics. It found his favorable rating among them fell from 72 percent last year to 45 percent in July. His favorable rating among all Catholics dropped from 89 percent to 71 percent.” (NewsDay, Aug. 24, 2015)

A drop from 89 percent to 71 percent is hardly a dramatic one.


Are any among the 71 percent even a teensy bit concerned that the wishy-washy style of the current crop of blow-with-any-wind Catholic leaders and their fawning media attendants are making it appear as if everything’s more than hunky-dory with Pope Francis so openly paying allegiance to President Barack Hussein Obama?

“Sweeping into office in 2009, President Barack Obama captured near rock-star status around the world among millions who saw him as the embodiment of a new sense of social purpose. Now, that baton has largely been passed to Pope Francis, whose visit to the White House next month will put his common cause with Obama on vivid display. (AP, August 26, 2015)


“Obama has made no secret of his affection for the outspoken pope, calling him a “transformative leader” whose influence has transcended the Roman Catholic community. The pope has embraced many of the issues Obama has sought to advance, including global warming, poverty and diplomacy with Iran and Cuba.”


Obama, who started off by getting his way at having all religious symbols covered at Georgetown, is now coming on as if he owns the Catholic Church, and the way things are looking, who can say he doesn’t?

Is it only protocol that keeps the Pope from confronting Obama for being the Number One World Champion of abortion and the leader of a party that refuses to defund Planned Parenthood?

Surely the will of the Almighty and the scripture of the Bible outstrip man-made protocol.
“Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, said the pope’s Sept. 23 visit will mark an important moment not only for Catholics but for all Americans. (USNews. Aug. 26, 2015)


“Pope Francis has breathed new life into what I believe is the central mission of our faith: Catholic social doctrine,” Biden said in a statement to The Associated Press. Invoking key elements of Obama’s agenda, Biden added that Francis “has become a moral rudder for the world on some of the most important issues of our time, from inequality to climate change.”


How did “the most important issues of our time”, “from inequality to climate change” trump soul saving?


Michael Wear, a former White House official who led faith outreach for Obama’s 2012 campaign says “It’s going to be a come-to-Jesus moment.” (AP)
For whom, Mr. Wear.?”


“Coming to Jesus” should have nothing to do with politics but everything to do with an individual and their Creator.

“For Obama, the visit offers a chance to imbue his remaining goals with a sense of moral authority as he approaches the end of his presidency.” (AP)


Millions saw the hype and hoopla when Obama swept into office with Democrat-designed “rock star status”.

The DNC introduced to a reality TV trained world, a messiah with a bogus message of Hope and Change.

But Obama was and is, in essence, only a false god.

“The first commandment of God is: I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” 

The world will need to remember that when Barack Obama and Pope Francis celebrate their highly touted, school boy-like “reunion” on September 23, 2015.











In my last article, I discussed the U.N. Small Arms Treaty and many of the provisions contained therein, which may have serious repercussions for our Second Amendment. The left is on a serious mission to accomplish their gun control objectives, as they are calling for confiscation laws similar to those enacted in Australia. If you are an avid gun rights supporter, then you know the actual statisticsprove that guns are used for legitimate self-defense far more often than for murder. 


These facts, however, do little to calm the consistent cry for stricter gun control laws--laws that would do little to prevent any tragedy simply because criminals willfullyignore the law

In the twentieth century, more people were killed by their own governments in a time of peace than were killed by foreign armies in a time of war.

Today, it is through the climate change agenda that the left seeks to impose its visions of population control, in order to save the planet. In order to easily accomplish this, people must first be disarmed.

The left has consistently proven that they have little regard for the sanctity of human life. This is most evident not only in their incessant support for abortion, but also in the way they have allowed black Americans to adopt the victim mentality that has destroyed so many of their lives. Through the constant race baiting and deliberate, but subtle, attempts to whip up anger among the black communities, the left has done little but alienate these people, push back racial relations, and turn many young men into hate-filled, cold-blooded murderers. 

A racial conflict is the necessary crisis that would give the U.N. the needed excuse to implement its treaty and do away with the second amendment.

 All Americans should be alarmed by this because the U.N., in order to combat "Climate Change," has called for a massive reduction in the world's population

In fact, U.N. Climate Secretary Christine Figueres has stated, for the record, that global communism would be the best way to combat climate change.

The fundamental lie fueling this agenda is that human beings, through consumption, are causing climate change, and the only way to stop it would be to decrease the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. For all of those people who support the climate change agenda, let me remind you that you exhale carbon dioxide; the number one gas the left claims contributes to climate change. Do you think you will be safe because you supported them? Communists always kill their supporters first.

The perceived social enemy can be almost anything that causes people to make the necessary sacrifices of their freedom in order to combat it. Global warming and the deliberate instigation of racial conflict are both good examples, but the creation of ISIS and the use of mass shooting episodes are definitely possible options for the social engineers pulling the strings.

Paragraph two, for example, cites the "environmental-pollution" model as a means of scaring the public into believing that there is an immediate danger to their safety. Climate change is something constantly being shoved down our throats and, as mentioned earlier, the Global elite are trying to convince you that global communism is the only way to deal with it.
There is another element to this that needs to be considered. It is the Democrat Party that has the racist past in this country. It is the Democrat Party that supports abortions and places Planned Parenthood clinics in minority neighborhoods. It is the Democrat party that consistently tells black Americans that they are incapable and in need of their assistance. And it is the Democrat Party that governs the inner city ghettos, where blacks are killing one another on a continuous basis. It is also the Democrat Party pushing the global warming agenda. I guess the appropriate question would be which population of people do the global elite seek to reduce?





Ukraine is hosting naval military exercise in the Black Sea with NATO forces, involving 2,500 troops and some 150 military vehicles, from warships and helicopters to armored cars.
The host nation of Sea Breeze 2015 has deployed 1,000 troops, nine warships and eight aircraft for the drill. The US has sent 1,000 troops as well as five warships, two submarines and six aircraft.
The remaining 500 troops, six warships, three submarines and 6six aircraft were provided by Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Turkey, the UK and the non-NATO nations Moldova and Sweden.
“The exercise is meant to boost trust and security in the region, [and to increase] the compatibility between the Ukrainian Navy and the navies of NATO members and partner countries,” the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said in a statement.
Sea Breeze is held in Ukraine's Odessa and Nikolaevsk region not far from Russia’s Crimea, which Kiev and its foreign sponsors consider to be Ukrainian. It will last till mid-September. Ukraine will participating in a total of 11 NATO drills in 2015.
NATO is also currently conducting another war game, called Swift Response, in Germany, Italy, Bulgaria and Romania. It is one of the largest such events since the Cold War and is planned to last until September 13. A separate exercise, called Simple Strike, is under way in the Baltic.






Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko, who won no votes from anyone in the breakaway Donbass former region of Ukraine, and who is widely hated there for bombing them, persistently asserts that he will ultimately succeed at retaking that region. He said on Saturday, August 29th, “I was elected by people to protect the integrity of Ukraine, and will do everything in my power to return the land to Ukraine.” 
But his claim to be doing what the people of Ukraine want him to do on this is a lie. Here is the actual polling regarding the matter:
On 6-18 May 2015, the Ukrainian polling organization Sofia reported their poll of the Ukrainian public, as follows:
The majority (61.8%) of respondents believe that the main thing is to stop the war, even if you have to give up the occupied territories. The share of those who favor the continuation of hostilities until complete liberation of the occupied territories was 22.9%. (15.3% could not answer.)
Almost half (45.2%) of respondents consider it possible to make certain concessions in the negotiations to end the war in Donbass and normalize relations with the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, 38.6% of respondents are of the opinion that concessions must not be made. (16.2% could not answer.)
Poroshenko is doing this because Barack Obama, the man who installed the present regime in Ukraine, during a violent February 2014 coup, wants Poroshenko to continue bombing that area.
Furthermore, not only congressional Republicans but congressional Democrats, and the entire U.S. aristocracy, are united in this demand to slaughter the residents in Donbass. The pro-regime Kyiv Postheadlined on August 29th, “Daschle: Obama should visit, US should supply arms to Ukraine,” and reported that the lobbyist, and former Democratic Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate, Tom Daschle, was urging: “supplying Ukraine with $3 billion in military aid, including a mix of lethal and non-lethal weapons, a step thus far opposed by Obama as potentially prompting Russia to escalate its war against Ukraine. …

Daschle thinks a $3 billion package of lethal and non-lethal assistance, touted by the Atlantic Council and Brookings Institution, is the way to go.” In other words: If the earlier bombings weren’t enough, America’s aristocracy have organized a PR campaign to do it more. As I headlined on 3 February 2015, “Brookings Wants More Villages Firebombed in Ukraine’s ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’.”

I reported on 30 August 2015, that, “U.S. Publicly Splits v. EU on Ukraine War.” EU leaders do not want yet another invasion of Donbass by Ukraine, but Obama now clearly does want it; and Poroshenko is doing what Obama says. Thus, for example, on August 27th,“Obama’s Ukrainian Forces Break Minsk Agreement: Resume Invasion.”

France’s Francois Hollande, and Germany’s Angela Merkel, are again trying to stop Obama’s war in Ukraine. But Poroshenko is taking his instructions from Obama, not from anyone in the EU. And probably the EU will, too.




Also see:
















Sunday, August 30, 2015

Iran Nuclear Deal - What Now?





This review article in American Thinker provides a nice summary of the Iran deal and what we may expect from Israel:





In summary, there are many in Congress, certainly all of the Republicans, who would like to weaken the White House.  So this autumn is going to be a busy time for both Parties; debates will cover not only the Iran Deal, but also the CPP and the Paris climate conference.  In these disputes, any actions by Iran and its Middle East neighbors will be of great consequence, and there could be many surprises.


Iran Reaction
There has been a certain amount of speculation on whether Iran would accept the Deal.  To many, approval would seem obvious in that it gives Iran much of what it wants: a lifting of sanctions, the unfreezing of about $150 billion, and the possibility of freely exporting its oil.  However, “ideological correctness” may interfere with approval.  
Iran’s leaders are oriented to enmity towards the United States (“Great Satan”) and Western countries generally; some commentators think theological purity may affect their view of the Deal.  Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum has pointed to this possible decision by supreme leader Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khameini and recommends preparing for such a possibility.
The Administration has not only failed to integrate the ballistic-missile issue into the talks, it derided the claim that paying attention to delivery platforms was a worthwhile endeavor.  

In her February 2014 testimony to Congress, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs -- and chief US negotiator -- Wendy Sherman, likened such platforms to being “almost irrelevant.”  By contrast, Iranian negotiators defined the negotiating parameters in their favor.  By late August 2014, Iran’s Minister of Defense boasted: “The missile issue has not been raised in the negotiations and Iran's missile power will never be an issue for negotiations with anyone.”  Instead, after numerous extensions to the talks, Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif raised the matter of ballistic-missile sanctions at the eleventh hour -- and won.

The missiles concession went directly against the advice of General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.” 


Reaction by Israel

There has been overwhelming opposition to the Deal by the Israeli public.  This is understandable since Iran's leaders have consistently advocated the elimination of Israel -- presumably with missiles carrying nuclear warheads.  But well before then, Iran can make use of its proxies, like Hezb’allah, which is said to have close to 100,000 rockets with conventional explosive warheads; many of these have precise targeting and could hit vital infrastructure in Israel.  
All this is known and widely discussed.  But Israel has important countermeasures also.  It can target Hezb’allah forces currently fighting in Syria and add to the 1000 or so casualties that have been reported so far -- perhaps increasing them to 5,000 or even more.  Israel can weaken Hezb’allah in other ways as well by making use of allies in the Lebanese Christian, Druze, and Sunni communities.

Will Israel Attack Iran and Pre-empt Iran’s Nuclear Development?
Israeli military action may become more likely once Obama leaves office in February 2017 -- but perhaps even as soon as the November 2016 elections.  
In the past, Israel has pre-emptively destroyed nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria -- garnering some immediate criticism, but much gratitude later on.  Pre-emption against Iran is not as difficult as it looks; three matters need to be taken care of: 
1.  Neutralizing the anti-aircraft system should not present an insuperable problem.  The S-300 system being sold by Russia to Iran has its limitations; there are at least two ways it can be neutralized -- and probably more.  

2.  Planes flying from Israel to Iran will have to rely on refueling -- unless Israel makes an arrangement with Saudi Arabia.  Published reports tell us that Israel is updating tanker aircraft and not waiting for a modified Boeing 747 to do the job.  

3.  Destroying the Arak nuclear installation is relatively easy.  It is in the open, located in the western part of Iran near the Persian Gulf, and presents an attractive target.  It is built to produce weapons-grade plutonium; the Deal calls for dismantling that option.  The world will be watching.  

To destroy the centrifuges producing Uranium-235 requires a different approach.  Since they are well protected by being located underground, Israel’s planes would need special “bunker-buster” bombs that can penetrate the defense.  Israel could rely on the US to supply such bombs -- after 2016.  It can purchase them elsewhere, or it can design and build its own bombs.  Israel is likely to pursue all three approaches in order to maximize the psychological impact on Iran.  But it will probably not take any action unless and until it is established that Iran is cheating on the Deal. 



Iran Cheating and Inspection


A crucial part of the JCPOA, and by far the weakest, is the proposed inspection scheme.  Iran will probably offer little cooperation to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is charged to do the inspection job.  Under the Deal, Iran requires a 24-day notice, which will make cheating very difficult to prove.  Then there are political problems: the IAEA is a political organization as much as a scientific one; and its report has to be agreeable to the UN Security Council (UNSC), which would then have to decide whether cheating did in fact occur.  One can expect that there will be attempts at whitewashing -- at least while the Obama administration is still in power.  

“Arguments against new nuclear sanctions will include questions about the credibility of evidence, the seriousness of the infractions, the appropriate level of response, and likely Iranian retaliation,” predicts Mark Dubowitz  of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.  Similarly, the U.S. would not unilaterally impose new biting sanctions, even if Iran is found to have reneged on its commitments, in the face of European opposition, which would be galvanized by “pressure from European business lobbies.”


Secret Side Deals: Trust but Don’t Verify
The AP has confirmed a secret side deal between the IAEA and Iran on Parchin, a military test site whose existence Iran had tried to hide.  The Iranians have used Parchin for tests relevant to the detonation of nuclear warheads. (The IAEA needs to know how far they got, so the Agency can set up a verification regime against future violations.)  The White House had consistently promised Congress that the issue of Parchin would be resolved before any final deal; the JCPOA was nonetheless announced without that resolution.
AP has published a copy of that side deal: instead of allowing IAEA inspectors to collect evidence from Parchin, samples will be collected by Iranians using Iranian equipment; instead of allowing the IAEA to collect everything it wants, only seven samples will be handed over from mutually agreed-upon areas; instead of giving inspectors access to facilities, photos and videos will be taken by the Iranians themselves.  The JCPOA is built entirely on trust, but without “verify” any “trust” may be misplaced.

To sum up: Israeli pre-emption, though feasible, is much in doubt -- partly because Iranian cheating has to be internationally established, and partly because Iranian proxy actions through Hezb’ allah may take center stage sooner.  Technically, however, the pre-emption operation should be well within Israel's capabilities and may indeed become necessary.







NATO's Strategy Towards Russia 'Extremely Dangerous', Is Europe Being Marginalized By Russia?


 





The North Atlantic Alliance could have well been inspired by the words of House Lannister in its policy with regard to Russia. The bloc's recent moves, including Washington's F-22 deployment to Germany, are an apparent show of strength, a German political analyst asserted, calling this strategy "extremely dangerous."

It has not always been this way. NATO's strategy during the Cold War was "wiser," Horst Teltschik noted.
These days NATO is apparently all about confrontation, not dialogue with Moscow. The North Atlantic Alliance is currently engaged in the largest airborne war-games since the end of the Cold War. The bloc has recently decided to open additional command centers in the Eastern European countries and the Baltics. Earlier, in June, the US elected to preposition heavy military hardware close to Russia's borders.

These other steps contributed to the lack of trust between the two parties, according to the expert. Moreover, NATO's saber rattling, which Russia perceives as dangerous to the European security, forced Moscow to bolster its defense capabilities.



"These moves should be viewed as mutual threats. Russia is trying to intimidate NATO and vice versa," Focus magazine quoted the former national security advisor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl as saying. NATO has always been engaged in these activities, he added.



"I think this is a huge mistake," Teltschik asserted referring to NATO's stance on Russia. "Only dialogue [with Moscow] can prevent confrontation."


Although the situation appears to be grim at the moment, there is a silver lining. The war between the two parties is "impossible" since neither want the conflict to take place, the expert is convinced. Moreover, the tensions could ease in the foreseeable future, he added.
Teltschik views NATO's decision to scale back its Baltic air mission from 16 to eight aircraft as a positive sign. This is "a step in the right direction," just like the reestablishment of a direct line to Russia's military, he noted.









France should put itself at the forefront of an effort to forge a close alliance between an independent EU and the BRICS nations, above all Russia and China, the French ex-Premier wrote on Friday.

Feeling alienated by the growing wave of western criticism and sanctions, Russia is turning towards China.

And with pretty good reason too, as the two nations are equally wary of US pressure and have shared interests in energy, security investments and a wealth of other economic cooperation projects.

And, while the US is trying to isolate Russia for its alleged role in the Ukrainian conflict, Moscow is using its leading role in the five-nation BRICS group to even the score, Jean-Pierre Raffarin wrote in Friday’s issue of Le Huffington Post.
Meanwhile, Washington’s current pivot to Asia and the Pacific is seen by Beijing as a worrying development, just as America’s active fence-mending with Iran is by Moscow.
“And all this is happening at a time when the growing instability in the world and the ongoing war with terrorism call for a closer partnership between the great powers,” the author added.
What Russia and China now need is a strong “European” Europe. Beijing’s financial policy is aimed at preventing the collapse of the Eurozone and Russia apparently wants to deal with a Europe less dependent on Washington.


Russia’s positions in the Middle East have always been strong and Paris and Moscow have a lot of shared interests in Iran. As regards to China, France should embrace its proposed partnership in the Third World.

The China-US-Russia triangle could become a triangle of prosperity as each country has impressive human, natural and financial resources as well as a strong need for new jobs, greater affluence and stability.


The speed of the ongoing rapprochement between Russia and China directly depends on how politically independent the EU countries really are and the leading role France needs to play here. Civil society should have a greater say in the process of political decision-making.









Suppose masters of surveillance know exactly what emails have been scrubbed from Hillary Clinton’s private server? Suppose they’ve had a complete collection of all her emails all along?

Suppose masters of surveillance have an enormous database of emails and phone calls from every current presidential candidate and his/her staff?

Suppose the actual details of Benghazi, Fast&Furious, the IRS-Tea Party scandal, and numerous other events are in the hands of these surveillance masters?

Suppose the secret negotiations surrounding several trade treaties, including the TPP, are known, in great detail, by the masters of surveillance?

Suppose this is not science fiction.



Suppose some of this information can (or has been) turned into blackmail operations; or conversely, has been concealed to protect the guilty?

Suppose, for example, the hundreds of millions of emails and phone calls generated within the European Union bureaucracy are in the hands of these surveillance masters.

The old saw, “Information is power,” takes on new meaning.

So does, “We’re not in Kansas anymore.”


It’s an open secret that propaganda ops contain the component of analyzing the reactions of the population to the propaganda messages. That has been true for a very long time. But now, the ability to judge and parse those reactions is increased a thousand-fold, because of surveillance.

This is a new age.

The Surveillance State has created an apparatus whose implications are staggering. It’s a different world now. And sometimes it takes a writer of fiction to flesh out the larger landscape.



We think about total surveillance as being directed at private citizens, but the capability has unlimited payoffs when it targets financial markets and the people who have intimate knowledge of them.

“Total security awareness” programs of surveillance are ideal spying ops in the financial arena, designed to suck up millions of bits of inside information, then utilizing them to make investments and suck up billions (trillions?) of dollars.

Taking the overall scheme to another level, consider this: those same heavy hitters who have unfettered access to financial information can also choose, at opportune moments, to expose certain scandals and crimes (not their own, of course).

In this way, they can, at their whim, cripple governments, banks, and corporations. They can cripple investment houses, insurance companies, and hedge funds. Or, alternatively, they can merely blackmail these organizations.


We think we know how scandals are exposed by the press, but actually we don’t. Tips are given to people who give them to other people. Usually, the first clue that starts the ball rolling comes from a source who remains in the shadows.


What we are talking about here is the creation and managing of realities on all sides, including the choice of when and where and how to provide a glimpse of a crime or scandal.

Have they discovered the truth about how close or how far away Iran is from producing a nuclear weapon?

Have they collected detailed accounts of the most private plans of Bilderberg, CFR, and Trilateral Commission leaders?

For global surveillance kings, what we think of as the future is, in many respects the present and the past.

It’s a new world. These overseers of universal information-detection can enter and probe the most secret caches of data, collect, collate, cross reference, and assemble them into vital bottom-lines. By comparison, an operation like Wikileaks is an old Model-T Ford puttering down a country road, and Julian Assange, reviled as a terrorist, is a mere piker.

Previously, we thought we needed to look over the shoulders of the men who were committing major crimes out of public view. But now, if we want to be up to date, we also have to factor in the men who are spying on those criminals, who are gathering up those secrets and using them to commit their own brand of meta-crime.

And in the financial arena, that means we think of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan as perpetrators, yes, but we also think about the men who already know everything about GS and Morgan, and are using this knowledge to steal sums that might make GS and Morgan blush with envy.






Also see: