Salvation is the Good News

I have come to believe many years ago that we are guided through life by the Hand of God as He puts us into our experiences which He uses to shape us into what He would have us to be, some unto honor other for destruction, He is the Potter, we are the clay as Paul said. It matters not if you believe or not, God’s will will be done. He may lead some of us deep down on the path to perdition before we accept the path that we are on only leads to destruction.

Our free will did not put us on that path, for many of us are born on it to parents who have sunken so far into depravity their children see no other path. The fact id, accept it or not, we are all born into that sin, even the children of the most righteous of parents for as Isaiah said, “For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.”

Indeed, the gospel is good news because we are saved not by what we have done, but by what Christ has done. We are accepted by God not because of our works, but in spite of them.

Advertisements
Published in: on November 11, 2017 at 06:40  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

The Cuban Missile Crisis at 55 As Remembered by a Marine in the Blockade

The other day I ran across this article that reprinted by the “History News Network“, and having lived through the Cuban Blockade as a member of the 6th Marines aboard the USS Boxer I had to respond, which in return brought a response from Mariano Torrespico, to which I to rebut.

“James G. Blight and Janet M. Lang are the authors of six previous books on the Cuban missile crisis. Their new book, “Dark Beyond Darkness: The Cuban Missile Crisis as History, Warning and Catalyst” will be published in December 2017. They teach at the University of Waterloo.”

Picture this image in your mind’s eye: a thumb and forefinger brought so near to each other that they almost, but don’t quite, touch. As the thumb and forefinger nearly touch, a voice says, “We came that close to nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis.”

In January 1992, top-level decision-makers of the Cuban missile crisis—former Cuban leader Fidel Castro and former US defense secretary Robert McNamara—used this image to convey how close the world had been to nuclear annihilation on October 26-27, 1962. As they spoke, the pupils in their eyes dilated, their voices cracked, heavy with barely managed emotion. That was their remembered reality of that moment: a world on the brink of Armageddon. Both would go to their graves haunted by what they learned from each other in the 1992 conference on the crisis that we organized in Havana, almost 30 years after the most dangerous moment in recorded history.

Are we being hyperbolic? Were they? We don’t think so. In the case of the Cuban missile crisis, what could in many other contexts be brushed aside as hyperbole is often just unvarnished fact. Consider what McNamara and Castro learned in the course of those epochal exchanges at the 1992 Havana conference.

McNamara had already believed in October 1962 that the crisis was dangerous. In military affairs, McNamara was President John F. Kennedy’s designated principal worrier. He worried about a panicky Russian second lieutenant who might launch a nuke at the United States without authorization. He worried about a Russian move against West Berlin. In these instances, a nuclear response would be required, and after that, probable escalation to all-out nuclear war. Subsequent research by us and by others has shown that he was right to worry about all these possibilities.

But what he learned in January 1992, 30 years later, was far more horrifying to him. He learned that the Russians on the island were ready and willing to nuke any invading US force with tactical nuclear weapons—something McNamara had never dreamed was possible. He also learned later that the Russians were ready and willing, with Cuban logistical assistance, to strike the US base at Guantánamo Bay with tactical nukes that, by October 27, had been moved into battle positions in eastern Cuba—another eventuality that had never appeared on his scope. If either of these scenarios had materialized, a nuclear US counterattack would have followed immediately, killing millions of Cubans and thousands of Russians on the island. Cuba would have been destroyed. And that would have been only the beginning—of the end of the world, as we know it. Again: fact, not hyperbole. Essentially, McNamara learned that he was monumentally wrong about the basic assumptions on which any US attack on Cuba would have been based. …

My first response:

I was a with the 6th Marine Regiment, a B.A.R. Man, aboard the USS Boxer, a helicopter landing platform (HPL), sailing around Cat Island during the Cuban Blockade. The W44 was a tactical nuke of the time which could fit in a 155mm howitzer, and had the explosive power of 72 tons of TNT, 32 2,000 pound bombs. Yes, they could have taken out Gitmo, but then the Phantom Jets in Homestead would have taken out the artillery as the 2nd Marine Division would have invaded both by sea and the air. The helicopter would have carried the 6th Marine far inland, and we would have fought our way back to the main forces coming from the sea. This maneuver was called an envelopment, and we practiced it the whole time I was in the 2nd Division. We would not have had to use nuclear weapons to take Cuba and loved doing it.

To which Mariano Torrespico had this to say:

Fortunately, you people did not have to re-take Cuba, a land that was not and is not yours; fortunately, you people did not have to re-enslave the “non-white nation” of the Cubans, because they fight back (like the Viet Cong); fortunately, Men were in charge, and they decided not to End the World over hillbilly racism. Fortunately, the Russians spared your life and those of us alive at that time, because their leaders were combat veterans, and not frat-boy fakes.

Which of course racked up my ire invoking this response:

Si vis pacem, para bellum, to each of your points in order given:

“Fortunately, you people did not have to re-take Cuba”

America has never taken Cuba to have to re-take it. Cuba was taken by the Spanish. The Spanish-American War in 1898, which lasted only a few months, and when it was over Spain signed a peace treaty giving the United States control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands, and Guam. Cuba, however, became an independent country rather than a U.S. territory. Earlier in the 1800s there was the Filibuster Movement which was attempts to take over Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Mexico from 1830 to 1860. Famous filibusters were larger than life characters such as Narciso Lopez, a Venezuelan-born soldier who, aided by sympathetic Southern money, liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule. He then attempted three times to free Cuba.

http://www.pbs.org/opb/hist…

“…you people did not have to re-enslave the ‘non-white nation’ of the Cubans, because they fight back (like the Viet Cong)”

The Cuba’s people are of a mixed race, not a “non-white nation”, the Spanish took the island and the first three centuries after the conquest, the island remained a neglected stopping point for the Spanish fleet, which visited the New World and returned to Spain with the mineral wealth of continental America. It was the growth of the U.S. as an independent nation, and the collapse of Haiti as a sugar-producing colony, Spanish protective policies, and the ingenuity of Cuba’s Creole business class all converged to produce a sugar revolution on the island. In a scant few years, Cuba was transformed from a sleepy, unimportant island into the major sugar producer in the world. Slaves arrived in increasing numbers; large estates squeezed out smaller ones; sugar supplanted tobacco, agriculture, and cattle as the main occupation; prosperity replaced poverty; and Spain’s attention replaced neglect. These factors, especially the latter two, delayed a move toward independence in the early nineteenth century. While most of Latin America was breaking with Spain, Cuba remained loyal.

http://www.nationsonline.or…

For the other half of that sentence, “they fight back (like the Viet Cong)”:

America did not lose the Vietnam War on the ground in Vietnam, it was lost on the streets of America and the Halls of Congress. It was the Russian sponsored Peace Movement and the Liberal Press that led to our leaving the South Vietnamese to the purge that the Communists exacted upon them, not the fighting powers of the Viet Cong. They, the Vietcong, were pretty much destroyed after the 1968 Tet Offensive. Militarily, Tet was an utter failure. Upwards of 30,000 VC were killed or captured and their units destroyed. The NVA lost approx. another 20,000 men, however, they could replenish much, much faster then the VC. After Tet, the NVA became the primary enemy in South Vietnam and Laos. They controlled the Ho Chi Min trail and took politcal and military control for the rest of the war. The remaining VC became more delighted to support and intelligence operations than anything else. Some have pointed out that this destruction was done on purpose, as they knew they did not stand a chance against the Americas, to remove them as a political force after the war was over.

“…fortunately, Men were in charge, and they decided not to End the World over hillbilly racism. Fortunately, the Russians spared your life and those of us alive at that time, because their leaders were combat veterans, and not frat-boy fakes.”

We were not “frat-boy fakes” we were highly trained Marines, the Marines are the point of the spear; the Army  and other seraves are its shaft. The spear does not decide where it is thrown, but once released will do the destruction it is trained to do. However, both the Korean War, the Cubin Blockade, the Vietnam War did have this in common, and it was not to re-enslave “non-white nation”, the policy was an extension of the “Containment Policy” which was designed to stop the spread of Communism in the world. It was called the Cold War, and had nothing to do with enslaving people, quite the opposite in fact, to keep people free from the enslavement of Communism.

In Vietnam we failed to stop the Communist which lead to the rise of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which took control of the country in 1975. During its reign, which ended in 1979, Pol Pot oversaw the deaths of an estimated one to two million people from starvation, overwork or execution. The mass graves he commanded his people to dig were often referred to as “the killing fields.” Pol Pot was arrested in 1997 and died under house arrest on April 15, 1998.

You go ahead and live in your dream world where everything is seen thought the eyes of racism, “…the Russians spared your life and those of us alive at that time, because their leaders were combat veterans, and not frat-boy fakes.” While we were posed to hit the beaches in Cuba a deal was made to take our missiles out of Turkey in return for Russia taking theirs out of Cuba, had the deal not been reached we would have taken the missiles out, for we would not have allowed them to stay had they refused. And we would have taken them without the use of Nucks.

“…the president [Kennedy] recognized that, for Chairman Khrushchev to withdraw the missiles from Cuba, it would be undoubtedly helpful to him if he could say at the same time to his colleagues on the Presidium, “And we have been assured that the missiles will be coming out of Turkey.” And so, after the ExComm meeting [on the evening of 27 October 1962], as I’m sure almost all of you know, a small group met in President Kennedy’s office, and he instructed Robert Kennedy—at the suggestion of Secretary of State [Dean] Rusk—to deliver the letter to Ambassador Dobrynin for referral to Chairman Khrushchev, but to add orally what was not in the letter: that the missiles would come out of Turkey.”

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/…

 

Published in: on November 6, 2017 at 07:11  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,

Artificial Intelligence is not Intelligence, Its Capability

Just read, “That’s according to SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son. The Japanese billionaire spoke from the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on Wednesday. In about 30 years, artificial intelligence will have an IQ of 10,000, Son says. By comparison, the average human IQ is 100 and genius is (sic) 200, according to Son. Mensa, “the High IQ society,” starts accepting members with an IQ score of 130.”

The reason the average human IQ is 100 is that the IQ test is designed to give an average score of 100. IQ tests are tests in which you cannot study for; this means that the test measures the general intellect of a person of any age. To do this, researchers in the early 1900s developed a concept known as “Mental age” vs “chronological age.” The rationale is as follows, if a child is six years old, but can only perform tasks as well as a three-year-old, that child is said to have a “mental age” of three years. One then takes the “mental age” and divides that by the child’s “chronological age” to determine a “mental quotient.” The six-year-old child performing at a three-year-old’s rate would be said to have a mental quotient of .5 (three divided by six), This number is now multiplied by 100 to get rid of the decimal, so we end up with an IQ of 50.

That a machine can perform better on an IQ test it does not measure its intelligence, what it measures is its capability. The machine will have a higher capability to perform certain tasks and the number of tasks that the machine (robot) can do will increase. Though I doubt that it will ever be able to train a horse without being taught how.

Published in: on October 26, 2017 at 06:27  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

No, You’re wrong about Second Amendment rights I’m not

Mr. Gene Yoon wrote in medium.com that “You’re wrong about Second Amendment rights” in it, among other things he said, “The problem is that the disparity of destructive power between the weaponry of the government and the weaponry that people can own has become too great. Even if all citizens were armed with fully automatic assault rifles, this arsenal would pale in comparison to the firepower available to state and local police forces, never mind the world-ending power of the national armed forces. Private gun ownership might be a problem in many ways, but it is not at all a problem for the government’s power over the people.” Of course, he does not see the Second Amendment in the same light as I do so I asked “Does not the American’s fight in Vietnam and the Russian’s in Afghanistan point to the fallaciousness of this argument?’

He goes on to say “So ‘a little rebellion’ based on guns is a laughably ineffective tool in today’s society. Government power is no longer truly threatened by private gun ownership, and hasn’t been for about a century.”

It was not the guns that the Vet Cong carried into battle that defeated my beloved Corps, it was the press you alluded to in your opening analogy that led us to abandon the South Vietnamese and giving Cambodia to Pol Pot, do you think that the Federal government could wage a war against its citizens, like Lincoln did in his total war, and escape the power of the pin? There are oath keepers that would not fire upon fellow citizens, not drop bombs upon them.

Also you neglect all of the weapons stored in National Guard building and compounds all over America, Texas’ National Guard alone would count as the wold fifth largest army I have read, how had would it be for a few armed citizens to take over a National Guard depot and use those arms in an armed rebellion? There are many of us Veterans spread out all across the land that knows how to use those weapons and are able to teach others.

I pray that it never comes to it, but the inability of the government to take our arms gives us the power to fight back should the government actions become so egregious that a rebellion was called for. If you think that we would be content to fight a tank with a rifle when we can steal a M72 LAW and MANPATS you are living in a world that never trained to fight with what you have to get more. I assure you Americans can make Improvise Explosive Devices as well as the Afghans.

Open your eyes to see just how important the 2nd Amendment is for the threat of an armed rebellion to keep our government in the bounds of the Constitution. When you light a fuse, it is not the fuse that explodes, but what it sets off.

Published in: on October 15, 2017 at 09:02  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Charlottesville, Virginia Hell

“President Trump condemned the ‘egregious,” racially-charged clashes in Charlottesville, Va. on Saturday, but avoided putting more blame on any particular group, saying hatred by “many sides’ was to blame.” Trump got it right saying “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides,”

But, Lord Good God Almighty he did not put the blame completely on the White Nationalist, Altright, et al., But laid equal amount of blame on Antifa, BLM, et al… See, here is the thing, the White Nationalist had a permit to hold their rally, and the fact that Charlottesville would allow such a hated group to assemble and speak enraged Antifa, BLM, et al., causing them to descend in mass upon Charlottesville. Instead of the police protecting the permit holders they stood aside and let the Antifa have at the White Nationalist, then canceled their permit calling it an unlawful assembly, but let the Antifa, BLM, et al. group march through town unhindered. This, in turn, enraged James Alex Fields Jr. so much that he rammed his car into the marchers killing a woman.

I am not excusing James Alex Fields Jr.’s actions; I am pointing out that it did not happen in a vacuum, but you will not hear the officials of Charlottesville accepting any blame for what went down, nor will you hear any blame being cast upon Antifa, BLM, et al., no! Oh hell no! It is all the White Nationalist’s fault for having the audacity to actually make use of their First Amendment rights!

Published in: on August 13, 2017 at 08:18  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Trump Did Not Curtsey to King Salman

Jesus Christ Almighty!!!

A curtsey is a traditional gesture of greeting, in which a girl or woman bends her knees while bowing her head. It is the female equivalent of male bowing in Western cultures, not a tall man lowering his head to allow a shorter man to put a chain with his country’s highest honor around his neck!

Trump is a head taller that King Salman.

Note they do not run the full clip of Trump receiving the medal, just show screen grabs of the images they wish to project. Propaganda techniques, show what you want seen, don’t show what would belie your assertions..

Published in: on May 21, 2017 at 14:18  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,

Concerning the Trade Deficit: Reagan v. Trump

This would be President Reagan from a press conference on September 17th, 1985.

Q. For the first time in 70 years, we have become a deficit nation—since 1914. Does this disturb you? Throughout your political life, you have decried deficit spending and our secondary posture in the world of trade. Do you have a solution for this?

The President. You used the word “deficit”; you mean our trade imbalance?

Q. Yes, the fact that we have become a debtor nation for the first time since 1914.

The President. Are we? I think this false impression that’s being given that a trade imbalance means debtor nation. This isn’t our government that is expending more than it is for imports than it is getting back in exports. These are the people of our country and the businesses and the corporations and the individual entrepreneurs.

On one hand, the American people are buying more than the American people are selling. Incidentally, those figures of export and import have some failings in them, some weak spots. They don’t include on exports anything that we’re getting back for services. There’s a lot of technical things I won’t get into, because they get too complicated here, about the difference in the two figures.

But let me point something out about this. The deficit that I’m concerned about, that is the most important, and that can be the biggest problem for us and that must be solved, is the deficit in Federal spending-here, our domestic spending. This is the threat to everything that we hold dear.

But the trade imbalance—from 1890—or 1790 to 1875, this country, all that 85 years, ran a trade imbalance. And in those years, we were becoming the great economic power that we are in the world today. Now, we come up to the present. And in the last 33 months, we have seen more than 8 million new jobs created.

Yes, we’ve lost since 1979 1.6 million jobs in manufacturing, but we’ve added 9 million new jobs in travel and service industries. We’ve had this great recovery; we’ve brought inflation down; the interest rate is coming down—all of these things that we want.

This recovery, the greatest one we’ve known in decades, has been done with this same trade imbalance. Now, in the 1930’s, in that depression that I mentioned earlier in my remarks, in that depression, 25-percent unemployment—the worst depression the world has ever known—we had a trade surplus every one of those 10 years until World War II ended the depression.

So, I think this has been exaggerated, and it isn’t a case of us being a debtor nation.

Another thing we don’t count is that from abroad, that is not counted in our export figures are the billions of dollars of foreign capital that has been invested in the United States, invested in our private industries, invested in our government bonds, if you will, things of this kind, because we are the best and safest investment in the world today.

That would be the polar opposite to the position of President Trump. They can’t both be correct. One of them is right and one of them is wrong. Which is it?

This is from Trump’s speech on 1/28/2017:

Tonight, as I outline the next steps we must take as country, we must honestly acknowledge the circumstances we inherited.

Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.

Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps.

More than one in five people in their prime-working years are not working.

We have the worst financial recovery in 65 years.

In the last 8 years, the past Administration has put on more new debt than nearly all other Presidents combined.

We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, and we’ve lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

Our trade deficit in goods with the world last year was nearly $800 billion dollars.

In my opinion, they are both right considering the circumstances of their administrations. Reagan’s dragon was Stagflation, “as a political matter, the inflation hawks attribute the drop in inflation from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 3.8 percent in 1982 to Reagan’s courage in backing Volcker.

Background

Since the 1970s, inflation was a major problem. In 1980, Consumer Price Inflation was over 14%. The new president, Ronald Reagan, had to put into place policies that stimulate an inflation/recession – or stagflation – economy, something never before occurring in US economic history. In 1981, he asked Congress for a 10% tax cut so that people and businesses could put more money into the market. He wanted people to spend discretionary income to stimulate the economy so that new jobs and businesses would be needed. In the end of 1981, he saw a quickly improving market.The problem, however, was inflation. As stated by economist William Butcher: “In order to cure inflation, some recession is needed.” In 1983, Reagan allowed the second largest tax increase in history to counteract the inflation. Then, through the magic of the Laffer Curve, the recession of 1982 curbed inflation dramatically after a slight tax increase just strong enough to break the recession.

By 1984, inflation was under 4%; investments were higher; US families had higher take home pay; and, the income of the elderly rose. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won re-election by sweeping the electoral college – losing only Minnesota (his opponent’s home state) and the District of Columbia.

Reagan did not have to confront the fact that American companies were leaving America, taking their jobs with them, while still selling their products in America. If the American worker is working and making a good living by his labor then Reagan is right when he says, “On one hand, the American people are buying more than the American people are selling. Incidentally, those figures of export and import have some failings in them, some weak spots. They don’t include on exports anything that we’re getting back for services.” However, the dynamics change when all those jobs leave America for offshore locations. Now you have the government supporting American purchases with welfare payments, and while Reagan said, “Yes, we’ve lost since 1979 1.6 million jobs in manufacturing, but we’ve added 9 million new jobs in travel and service industries.” there is a large pay differential between a manufacturing job and being a travel agent or a waiter. How do those loses compare to what Trump pointed out, “We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, and we’ve lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001”?

Reagan’s Labor Force Participation Rate was 78.7% in 1980, and it climbed to 83.6% in 1988 when he left office. Today it is 81.5% the same as it was in 2012 down from the 83.3 it was when Obama took office.

Muslims and the Constitution, and Progressive in General

Vincent Tolliver, a Muslim, has the same problem understanding what the Constitution can limit and what it cannot as most Progressives. You see, political parties, regardless of their strip, are not government organizations; they are private enterprises, and as such the 1st Amendment does not apply to them, and they are as free to limit speech as they are to promote it.

Having participated in a forum for potential DNC Chair candidates on Saturday, Tolliver was consequently expelled from the race by interim chair Donna Brazile, who described his comments as “disgusting.”
However, Tolliver has now pledged to take legal action against the DNC, claiming a violation of his constitutional First Amendment rights.

Tolliver confirmed he would be taking legal action to Breitbart News, saying that the “Democratic establishment are denying me due process and are attempting to suppress my voice, in violation of my First Amendment right,” adding that he stands by his views on Islam. “The DNC and the Democratic establishment are attempting to prevent me from freely expressing known and indisputable tenets of lslamic law. Moreover, through sleight of hand tactics, interim chair Donna Brazile falsely accused me of discriminating against Mr. Ellison and cast aspersions by suggesting I was intolerant of religious freedom,” he alleged.

This is another prime example of Cultural Jihad. He can talk all he wants about bringing a court action, but the DNC did not violate his First Amendment right, because the DNC is not the government. You come into my house, and I can kick you out over anything you may say and it is not a Constitutional violation; the MCL can revoke my membership if I speak as one of their members on a political matter, and it is not a Constitutional violation.

However, he is using Alinsky’s rule #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.”

Trump: Draining The Swamp

Trump continues with his swamp draining. If you still don’t understand how our CIA under Obama’s directive orchestrated the Orange Revolution driving a duly democratically elected President out of power in Ukraine, forcing him to take refuge in Russia in fear for his life, you just don’t bother checking into the truth of the matter. It was the CIA/NATO Regime change in Ukraine that led Russia to support the Russians living in the Crimea to revolt against Ukraine and break away. Russia’s only deep water port is in the Crimea, and they were not about to let it go to NATO without a fight.

In retaliation for Russia taking back their port Obama put economic sanction on them. I hate Communism as much as I do Islam, but there is no good guy bad guy in Ukraine, there is interests at play. Obama wanted to let Qatar build a pipeline through Syria to Turkey to sell their natural gas to the Europeans. Assad and Putin are allies, so to protect Russia’s natural gas market in Europe he said no. As a result Obama and Hillary exported their created civil war in Libya, which they started because Gadhafi was going to sell his oil for gold not the petrodollar, to Syria.

I wrote this three years back in 6/28/2014:

Today I am going to discuss Libya and why the powers that be decided that Moammar Gadhafi had to go, and tie it to other recent events. It was not, as we were led to be because he was killing and peaceful demonstrates.  We read lots of headlines like this, “Libya protests: More than 100 killed as army fires on unarmed demonstrator” , but you did not read many like this, “Gaddafi under siege: Two CIA-backed groups, an al-Qaeda-linked LIFG on top of power stakes” from The Asian Tribune, or this “CIA & MI6 in Libya: U.S.-British covert operations exposed”  where it says this:

“The New York Times, the Washington Post and other corporate news sources are now openly admitting that the opposition forces fighting the Libyan government are supported and coordinated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s MI6 with in-country special forces.”

Connecting The Dots: Gadhafi, Benghazi, Syria, ISIS, Qatar, Turkey, Russian, and the Ukraine

Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was overseeing the collection of weapons that we had giving our mercenary, virtually all the so-called rebels were from outside of Libya, and putting them on a ship to Turkey to are another set of mercenary when he got killed. Qatar spent billions of dollars in their attempt to dispose of Assad in order to build their pipeline, they are sitting on one of the world’s largest supply of natural gus, but can only ship it by sea.

Russia, in appreciation of Syria’s not allowing the pipeline being built to undercut its main export product that Obama’s sanctions could not touch, started giving military support. It was Obama’s mercenary from which ISIS was spawned.

Published in: on February 5, 2017 at 06:43  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Trust a Muslim? Not me.

There are three Islamic doctrines that make trusting a Muslim impossible for me. They are: Taqiyya, Abrogation, and Cultural Jihad.

The first, Taqiyya, not only allows Muslims to lie to Infidels, but encourage it for the advancement of Islam.

The second, Abrogation, means that any saying of Mohammed which may contradict a previous saying is abrogated, that is “abolish, do away with, or annul,”. Keep in mind the Quran is not in chronological order like the Bible is.

Surah 16:101
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.

Surah 2:62 is abrogated by Surah 3:85 below,
Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians, – Any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Surah 5:69 is also abrogated by Surah 3:85 below.
If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course : but many of them follow a course that is evil.

Surah 3:85
If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

Thus when a Muslim quotes a Surah to make a point that has been abrogated they are practicing Taqiyya.

The third, Cultural Jihad is the Islamic plan to dominate non Islamic countries by stealth, by immigration and using their own laws and customs to convert the country into an Islamic country, that is what is going on in Europe now.

“What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.”  Cultural Jihad

Published in: on January 30, 2017 at 09:14  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,