Friday, July 31, 2015


There is NO DOUBT in my mind that the biggest failure in America is the establishment church. It's a bigger failure than even the federal government. Now that's saying something.

No people in Church history had been given the rich heritage of the churches of America. The Church of America was birthed by the courage and sacrifice of men such as Jonas Clark, John Peter Muhlenberg, James Caldwell, Joab Houghton, et al. These men stood in the gap and rallied the Christians in Colonial America to dispose of a tyrannical British Crown and to help create a land of liberty such as the world had never before seen.

Alas, the courage of the patriot pastors of Colonial America has been forgotten; their sacrifice wasted. Everything they purchased with their dynamic and powerful preaching has been squandered by generations of gutless, ear-tickling men-pleasers in these entertainment playgrounds known as churches. What a waste!

However, as far gone as we are, if even a significant percentage of the 300,000-plus evangelical churches (not to mention Catholic, Episcopalian, etc.) would stand up NOW and begin sounding the clarion call of national repentance and constitutional liberty, the ship of state could yet be turned around. But there is NO SIGN of that happening. NONE!

What would it take to get the pastors of America to take a stand? One would have thought that expunging prayer and Bible reading from our schools back in 1962 and 1963 would have done it. It didn’t. One would have thought that copying the Nazi playbook for gun control back in 1968 would have done it. It didn’t. One would have thought that legalizing the cold-blooded killing of unborn babies back in 1973 would have done it. It didn’t. One would have thought that beginning the construction of a Police State back in 2001 would have done it. It didn’t. And one would have thought that the legalization of same-sex marriage would have done it. It hasn’t.

Read the entire article

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Saudi Arabia to allow Israel use of its airspace to strike Iran

Saudi Arabia has reportedly agreed to let Israel use its airspace to attack Iran if necessary, in exchange for “some kind of progress” on the Palestinian issue, Israel’s Channel 2 TV station quoted an unnamed European official as saying.

“The Saudis have declared their readiness for the Israeli Air Force to overfly Saudi air space en route to attack Iran if an attack is necessary,” the report stated. In return for cooperation, Saudi Arabia wants to see some “progress” on the Palestinian issue.

The move will reportedly allow Israel to bomb targets in Iran by offering a shortcut, which will save fuel and time.

The Saudi position was confirmed during multiple diplomatic talks, according to the TV report. “The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” the European official from Brussels was quoted as saying.

Read the entire article

Monday, July 27, 2015

Keep Pollard in Jail

The Wall Street Journal report that jailed Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard will be released on the thirtieth anniversary of his conviction – November 21 – is clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to quiet Israeli opposition to the Iran deal. And it is just as clearly not working for the simple reason that the Israelis cannot be appeased, as this New York Times story makes all too clear:

“‘If this is the motive, it’s naïve,’ said Amnon Rubinstein, a law professor at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, who joined the growing movement calling for Mr. Pollard’s release in recent years. ‘The two things are totally separate. One is a human consideration, and one is a strategic issue, which most Israelis, including myself, regard as existential.’

Aaron David Miller, a State Department veteran on Middle East affairs who is now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said any such move would look bad for President Obama, given that Americans remain in Iranian prisons. And he added that it would probably make Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel ‘fight harder’ against the Iran deal ‘so he’s not thought to have colluded.’

“‘Pollard is apples and the Iran deal is oranges,’ Mr. Miller said. ‘The Pollard card is not just of limited value, but potentially damaging.'”

On this last point, at least, Miller is on target: Pollard’s release would underscore the adversarial relationship underlying the “special relationship,” i.e. the fact that, beneath the surface, beyond the declarations of undying friendship and “no daylight,” the Israelis have treated us like an enemy. As The Intercept reported

Read the entire article

Thursday, July 23, 2015

The Intellectual Roots Of The American Left’s Emerging Totalitarianism

A recent incident in Wallingford, Connecticut, not far from where I grew up, caused Editor Peter Brimelow to comment: “Cultural Marxist totalitarianism is coming to an America near you.” A complaint was lodged with the local police that “hate” merchandise— Nazi and Confederate memorabilia—was being publicly exhibited and sold at a popular flea market. [PICTURED ABOVE] Following a police investigation, an Anti-Defamation League official named Joshua Sayles expressed the view that “It’s unfortunate that under the law people have the right to sell these things; but it doesn’t mean they should sell these things. It’s not a crime but I would call it hate…”[Wallingford police look into complaint about Nazi, Confederate items sold at flea market, by Mary Ellen Godin, Record-Journal, July 10, 2015].

Chillingly, the assistant regional director of the Connecticut ADL thus unmistakably indicated he was deeply disturbed that a “right” to deal in what he considered “hate” was still allowed. Presumably, in a more sensitive world, no one would be allowed to exhibit or sell either Nazi or Confederate memorabilia. Needless to say, no moral distinction was made between Nazi Germany and the Confederate States of America. They both stood, or so the ADL official implied, for pure “hate.”

Peter properly suggests if such hate-inspectors get their way, we will be living in a condition of almost Stalinist oppression. We might not be shipped off to gulags (yet), but the control of speech and thought that these professional sensitizers would impose would be reminiscent of the worst examples of Leftist tyranny. I say “Leftist” intentionally—because rightist or non-leftist regimes have never tried to control their subjects’ minds as systematically as the Left.

Even Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime largely lost interest in mind reconstruction. It closed up universities as an unnecessary expense by the early 1940s, left the economy in private hands except for those businesses it expropriated, and tolerated a surprisingly wide range of intellectual dissenters.(For example, Karl Jaspers, Hans-Georg Gadamer and other dissenters and critics of the Nazi regime were left untouched in their academic positions. See Die deutsche Universitatsphilosophie In der Weimarer Republik und im Dritten Reich, by Christian Tilitzki. ) Of course, this had nothing to do with being nice. It was simply that the Nazis, aggressive thugs as they were, had no interest in the worldwide indoctrination program dreamed of by the universalist, conversionary and egalitarian zealots of the true Left.

Read the entire article

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

A Mideast Game of Thrones

As President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is compared to Richard Nixon’s opening to China, Bibi Netanyahu must know how Chiang Kai-shek felt as he watched his old friend Nixon toasting Mao in Peking.

The Iran nuclear deal is not on the same geostrategic level. Yet both moves, seen as betrayals by old U.S. allies, were born of a cold assessment in Washington of a need to shift policy to reflect new threats and new opportunities.

Several events contributed to the U.S. move toward Tehran.

First was the stunning victory in June 2013 of President Hassan Rouhani, who rode to power on the votes of the Green Revolution that had sought unsuccessfully to oust Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009.

Rouhani then won the Ayatollah’s authorization to negotiate a cutting and curtailing of Iran’s nuclear program, in return for a U.S.-U.N. lifting of sanctions. As preventing an Iranian bomb had long been a U.S. objective, the Americans could not spurn such an offer.

Came then the Islamic State’s seizure of Raqqa in Syria, and Mosul and Anbar in Iraq. Viciously anti-Shiite as well as anti-American, ISIS made the U.S. and Iran de facto allies in preventing the fall of Baghdad.

Read the entire article

Friday, July 17, 2015

MH17: The Blaming Putin Game Goes On

Once upon a time CIA Stations overseas received what was referred to as an “Operating Directive” which prioritized intelligence targets for the upcoming year based on their importance vis-à-vis national security. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, penetrating Moscow and preventing the KGB’s repaying the favor in kind loomed large as Russia and its allies represented the only genuine threat that could in fact destroy much of the United States. Today’s Russia retains much of that military capability but somehow the perception that you have to deal with what is important first has been lost on our policymakers, possibly due to a false impression inside the beltway that Moscow no longer matters.

A working relationship with Moscow that seeks to mitigate potential areas of conflict is not just important, it is essential. Russian willingness to cooperate with the west in key areas to include the Middle East is highly desirable in and of itself but the bottom line continues to be Moscow’s capability to go nuclear against Washington if it is backed into a corner. Unfortunately, U.S. administrations since Bill Clinton have done their best to do just that, placing Russia on the defensive by encroaching on its legitimate sphere of influence through the expansion of NATO. Washington’s meddling has also led to interfering in Russia’s domestic politics as part of a misguided policy of “democracy building” as well as second guessing its judiciary and imposing sanctions through the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. The damage to relations has been aggravated by the ill-advised commentary from American politicians on the make, including Senator John McCain’s dismissal of Russia as “a gas station masquerading as a country.”

One should legitimately be concerned over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inflicting damage on his country’s fledgling democracy through fraud, corruption, media clampdowns and exploitation of a malleable legal system. One might also object to exactly how Russia asserted its interests using force against neighboring states Georgia and Ukraine. But that does not change the bottom line, which continues to be that functional relations between Moscow and Washington are a sine qua non. Russia’s domestic politics are none of our business and the alleged grievances of Georgia and Ukraine are undeniably a lot less purely attributable to Russian actions than the White House and Congress would have us believe, with U.S. interference in both countries clearly a major contributing factor to the resulting instability.

Assuming that one accepts that lessening bilateral tension over the Ukraine is a desirable objective, the White House might soon have a good opportunity to demonstrate that it is willing to deal fairly with the Russian leadership in Moscow. The Dutch Government’s Safety Board will in October make public its long awaited report detailing its assessment of last year’s downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17 over Ukraine. The investigation was conducted with the cooperation of the Ukrainian and Malaysian authorities, but did not include a thorough survey of the crash site, which was and still is considered too dangerous. According to leaks of its conclusions, the report will admit that there is no conclusive evidence regarding who is responsible for the shoot down but it will nevertheless make a circumstantial case that the pro-Russian separatists are the most likely suspects in spite of the fact that there is no hard technical or intelligence related evidence supporting that judgment. Blaming the separatists will, by implication, also blame Moscow.

Read the entire article

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Victory in Vienna

The historic agreement signed by the P5+1 and the government of Iran marks a turning point in America’s relations with the world. It reverses the momentum of nearly fifteen years of constant warfare and puts us on a path to peace.

In terms of our relations in the Middle East, the agreement means the United States government has finally decided to pursue an independent foreign policy: Washington is no longer taking its marching orders from Tel Aviv. The Vienna accord is, in effect, our declaration of independence – and it came not a moment too soon.

As the Obama administration packs up shop in Washington, and the reform regime of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani weathers attacks from Iranian hardliners, the window of opportunity was beginning to close: this was the last chance for peace in the Middle East.

The more than one hundred pages of the agreement outline an accord rich in technical complexity – which none of its critics have had time or inclination to examine. That hasn’t stopped them from denouncing it as a “bad deal,” and a “sell out,” echoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost word for word. Practically frothing at the mouth, presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said the deal is “akin to declaring war on Israel.”

Graham is right that war has been declared, but he has the aggressor all wrong: it is Israel that has declared war on the United States. This conflict has been ongoing for many months: we have seen it played out in the headlines, from Joe Biden’s ambush in Jerusalem to Bibi’s and John Boehner’s ambush of the President in going behind the White House’s back to arrange the Prime Minister’s speech to a joint session of Congress. Now, finally, an American President has said “Enough!” – and fired back. From all indications, he’s scored a direct hit.

Read the entire article

Monday, July 13, 2015

FBI Director Comey Demands “Backdoor” Access to Encrypted Data

In a stepped up effort to provide government spies with “backdoor” access to privately encrypted information, FBI Director James B. Comey gave testimony on July 8 to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and—along with Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates—to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a prepared speech titled “Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence and the Challenges of Going Dark,” Comey argued that US laws should be updated to give the FBI, NSA and CIA special access mechanisms into all forms of data and electronic communication. “Going dark” refers to the inability of the state to monitor the communications of those who use encryption or other modern Internet privacy protection techniques.

In his joint statement with Yates to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey said, “Our goal at the Department is to work collaboratively and in good faith with interested stakeholders to explore approaches that protect the integrity of technology and promote strong encryption to protect privacy, while still allowing lawful access to information in order to protect public safety and national security.” In other words, the FBI and Obama administration want to establish a legal and technical framework—with the support of Congress and powerful corporate interests—to further undermine democratic rights by breaking into widely used security methods with special access technologies.

As he has done in the past, Comey stated that “going dark” was a life and death matter. He also specifically said that access to encrypted data was needed to monitor the communications of US citizens. This was the case because “upwards of 200 Americans have travelled or attempted to travel to Syria” and join the ranks of ISIL and “homegrown violent extremists who may aspire to attack the United States from within.”

Read the entire article

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Breeding Mental Illness To Further American Empire

There is a mental sickness which has permeated America, and quite possibly other western countries. This sickness to love killing is not normal behavior for a civilized society. A recent assault in Cincinnati took place where bystanders stood and laughed as a tourist is beaten unconscious.

That event in Cincinnati shows more of the same mental sickness afflicting the country. No longer are films portraying real acting and drama. It's just kill, kill, kill. Like the sick fascination everyone has with zombies - more death.

I went to see the film Inglorious Bastards a few years ago with a friend when it was in the theater. It was the film he wanted to see. If I had known what this film was about I would have refused. Full screen, bloody head bashing with a baseball bat, knife killings and more. I was appalled by a group of young adults were laughing at the violence in the seats behind us. Would anyone want this done to them? Of course not. Yet another double standard.

This Cincinnati event shows the distortion that has happened to America's minds; no wonder bystanders laughed at this. It is yet another symptom of America that has gone from bad - to evil. Parents have allowed kill-kill-kill video games and phone apps to dominate children's lives, and parents are no longer doing the role they must do. These are idiot parents and will reap what they sow.

Families shape the next generation of Americans, but few parents fully realize that. Children's minds are like a farm field. Cultivated with love, care and discipline their minds have a chance at developing properly, and becoming good members of society. Parents that neglect this responsibility, perform no discipline and care not what their children say and do, are creating minds which are like a untended farm field - all types of weeds grow out of control. 

Read the entire article

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Rasmussen: 'Disturbing' Rise in Support for Ignoring Supreme Court

In what Rasmussen is calling a "disturbing" trend, support for the states "turn[ing] their backs on the federal courts" has increased in the last few months.
Rasmussen's new survey found that now a third (33%) of likely U.S. voters support the rights of states to ignore federal court rulings, a 9-point increase from February. The number opposing states' rights to override the federal courts fell by six points to 52 percent, while 15 percent remain undecided. 

Rasmussen declares that what is "even more disturbing" about the findings is that those who support the states are Republicans and conservatives, those who "traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and the separation of powers." During the Obama presidency, Rasmussen says ominously, "these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government."

A breakdown of the findings: 

Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.

Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.

Read the entire article 

Friday, July 3, 2015

Europe’s Real Existential Crisis

However the Greek crisis ends, whether with Athens leaving the eurozone, or submitting and accepting austerity at the dictates of its creditors, the European Union appears headed for an existential crisis.

Greece borrowed and spent beyond its means, like New York City in the ’70s, and Detroit, Illinois, and Puerto Rico today. But the crisis of Europe is about more than budget deficits and bad debts.

All the momentum toward One Europe — the dream of the generation of Jean Monnet that drove Europeans toward ever-deeper union — seems to have dissipated. The momentum is now toward separation and dissolution.

The Greek crisis exposed one fault line in the union, the desire of the Mediterranean nations to build welfare states that their economies could not sustain without huge borrowing abroad.

Paying these debts is going to force ever-greater austerity on those nations. Eventually, their peoples may choose, as debtors do, to walk away, rather than pay.

But not only economics imperils the EU. There is the call of tribe and nation that has often before torn the Old Continent apart.

Read the entire article

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech

How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use. 

In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind. 

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism. 

It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite. 

As a society, we’ve become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. The result is a nation where no one says what they really think anymore, at least if it runs counter to the prevailing views. Intolerance is the new scarlet letter of our day, a badge to be worn in shame and humiliation, deserving of society’s fear, loathing and utter banishment from society. 

For those “haters” who dare to voice a different opinion, retribution is swift: they will be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes.” 

Read the entire article