Making sense of the Turkish coup attempt

Making sense of the Turkish coup attempt

 

Incirlik, pron. In-jeer-lik in Turkish but generally mispronounced as In-ser-lik by US TV anchors.

 

It has been reported by various sources that US forces in Incirlik have been surrounded by Turkish troops, although some reports now say that the standoff has been resolved.

The reason for this is that apparently, the recent failed coup against Erdogan has been attributed to the US, although this is a source of speculation. Some think Erdogan (pron. Er-do-an) himself staged the coup to consolidate his power and make himself a full-fledged dictator.

But all of this is secondary to the nitty-gritty fact that the US, via the CIA, USAID, the State Department, Soros foundations linked to the government, etc, has a long and sordid history of interference in other countries in an attempt to manipulate or overthrow governments and replace them with leaders willing to kowtow to Washington and spread senseless revolutions (which essentially started with the “Enlightenment,” as discussed here). The latest example of such US meddling may be the recent Brazil “legal” coup but no one can be sure. The latest documented example is the Ukraine debacle, with Asst. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland proudly announcing that the US had spent $5 billion of your money to overthrow a stable duly elected government and replace it with fascist-friendly “leaders” loyal to the US and EU. The net effect was chaos, with Ukraine now enjoying a standard of living that has been compared to that of Haiti.

Libya was another example. Further, the war in Syria can be traced back to the Arab Spring, a project sponsored by Washington and the EU that aimed to replace the stable democratic government of Bashar al-Assad with “moderate” Islamists and wound up spawning ISIS. Though the uprising has been portrayed as homegrown, numerous foreign fighters are involved. The US-sponsored and armed Islamist “rebels” recently beheaded a young boy. That is the new “democracy” sponsored by the US. Not the best publicity for US foreign policy, although good publicity is hard to come by.

This history of disastrous US-led interference goes back at least as far as the CIA-induced coup in Iran in 1954 that unseated a very popular secularist president, had him killed and replaced with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a very unpopular man famous for torture and murder of his opposition. In 2013 the CIA admitted its involvement. Pahlavi was eventually overthrown by rebels loyal to the Khomeini, an Islamic fundamentalist and Iran has been a thorn in Washington’s side ever since. Without our interference, Iran could be under secular rule instead of being dominated by Islamic fanatics. Only the Wahhabist Saudi Rat Pack is happy about this situation, which makes Iran an outcast.

Other admissions by the CIA include its admission, in 2000, of involvement in the Chilean coup to overthrow President Salvador Allende in 1973. The barbaric Augusto Pinochet, who replaced him, was subsequently tried for human rights abuses.

Kosovo is another example of US meddling and has produced a Muslim state where historic churches have been razed or damaged and no Christian cemetery has been left unscathed. The story is completely covered up, perhaps because the truth would be too much of an embarrassment to the Clintons, who made the decision to invade this once-Christian country and carve out a caliphate. By a twist of fate, I seem to be the only Western blogger who has uncovered these uncomfortable facts, as reported here.

All of this horrible embarrassment owes to the geniuses in the US State Department, who think they can control the world but keep winding up with unintended consequences that badly damage US relations with other countries. They are godless manipulators who keep proving the existence of God, the only thing standing between them and success in their Satanic plans.

What is happening now in Incirlik, Turkey, is another unintended consequence of US policies, in this case, the policy of “isolating” Russia. In truth, we are isolating the US, slowly but surely, as one ally after the other turns away from Washington in horror and disgust (as when almost every US ally in the world joined the

Chinese investment bank AIIB against vociferous warnings from Washington—it was a soft coup that went virtually unnoticed in the msm).

Finally, since Russia seems to have at least some involvement in the counter-coup, it is highly relevant that the US, mostly via the CIA, was deeply involved in coups and subversion against Russia, because this meddling provides a motive for the Russians to help counter this Turkish coup. Thus, even if it turns out the US was not involved, the blatant, counterproductive interference in governments throughout the world for at least 60 years, much of it aimed at countering Russian influence, has made the world justifiably suspicious of US involvement in all coups and terror events everywhere.

The CIA has not yet admitted to its involvement in the troubles in Chechnya that led to war in that Russian region, but this story is well documented and has been reported in minute detail by Zero Hedge. There are few pertinent reports in the Establishment msm, but a few have appeared, for example, here, here and here, which support the Zero Hedge report (I say that because the rabid Neocons who run the lying US media keep pretending ZH is unreliable).

Again, there is no telling whether the US was involved in the coup against Erdogan, and that is not the point I want to make.

I think it is clear that the Russians warned Erdogan of the coup attempt. You will recall that a Turkish fighter plane had shot down a Russian jet over Syria and this had led to a catastrophic rift in Turkish-Russian relations. But there was too much at stake for both parties to allow this contention to continue. Russia had agreed to lay a gas pipeline across Turkey that would supply Europe. Turkey would have had a steady income from the profits of gas sales. That deal is back on the table now thanks to Putin’s willingness to forgive.

Almost miraculously, the Russo-Turkish relationship may have been saved by some stories, whether true or false, including the report that the pilot who shot down the Russian plane over Syria was not following Erdogan’s orders in so doing but had perhaps followed orders from the US. That pilot has meanwhile been arrested, suspected of complicity with the coup. The story that the pilot was working against Erdogan is possible if far-fetched. But truth is not what matters in this case to the parties involved, which are eager to mend fences.

Like so much of what has happened in world affairs, this renewed Russian-Turkish rapport can be classified as payback for US meddling. And it could change the geopolitical landscape in ways that Washington will regret. US ally and NATO member Germany is already feeling the bite, as reported here.

The lesson, again, is that attempts to manipulate geopolitical events will always fail.

But don’t expect the Neocon maniacs in Washington to learn it.

 

 

Shifting the blame from Left to greed

Blaming greed for failed leftist policies

Donald Hank

The Pope has said, over the Christmas holiday, that the world must overcome greed to get through the current economic crisis.

With all due respect for the Pope, whose stance on social issues are to be applauded, both Protestantism and Catholicism, while blaming greed, have failed to grasp the nature of the Left and its role in crises such as the financial and economic crises gripping the world.

The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act, passed under Jimmy Carter) and the way it was enforced, including the role of ACORN, played a major role in bringing down the banks. Generally, the trend to lend money, particularly mortgages, to people with no down payment and even without proof of employment, goes against all common sense and good banking practice, which has been in place since the beginning of time and throughout the world, and has proved disastrous. And yet so many are in denial, even to the utterly absurd point of casting all the blame on conservative policies and seeing the Democrats as being more economically astute and hence capable of pulling us out of the current crisis of their own making — sort of like Clinton “reforming” the failed welfare created by his party. Anyone paying attention in the years since 1995, when Clinton ordered the banks to lend a trillion dollars to “underserved communities,” would have been able to foresee this collapse. Some actually did, including a New York Times writer in 1999.

I suppose it could be argued that the Left, in its own way, represents greed, but it is probably more appropriate to call it ideologically motivated rather than greedy. Ideological motivation, rather than common sense, has caused the greatest destruction known to man — under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

None of these men’s political actions were greed-motivated in the accepted sense of the word. In their decisions that led to the murder and starvation of millions, they were, however, blinded by leftist utopian (revolutionary) ideology — a desire for a better world, for change, and ironically, for a world with less greed.

Ideology killed 100 million innocent people in the last century (see “The Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois). No other factor, including greed, has ever done anywhere near that much harm.

French mainstream press confirms our assessment of the financial crisis

French mainstream press confirms our assessment of the financial crisis

 

Some American news consumers insist that anything not based on mainstream reports is not worth their while reading. In fact, I just heard Alan Colmes attacking Jerome Corsi on his book The Obama Nation and one of his chief criticisms was that Corsi uses conservative media as factual support.

Now, I have previously refuted at this site the leftist view that our current financial crisis is due to rampant laissez-faire free-market finance. I have shown, based on various sources, that in fact, the blame lies squarely with the government, and particularly with the CRA and its beefed up enforcement under Clinton, and unfortunately, under second-term George W. Bush as well. Certainly, some readers who think like Alan Colmes were skeptical and dismissive of my facts, even though most come from neutral sources.

That is why I was delighted when a French colleague recently sent me an article from the online version of the daily newspaper Figaro confirming my assessment of the financial crisis and its origins.

Now, while the Left in France does classify Figaro as right of center, you need to understand that this is a highly respected century-old publication that enjoys a very large hardcopy readership, with over 400,000 copies distributed and with an amazing 4.224 million unique on-line visitors, making it the number one news site in France today.

By contrast, the newspaper at the other end of the political spectrum, Libération, has a hardcopy readership of only 160,000 and claims only 150,000 visitors to its web site.

Clearly, French readers on both the Left and Right trust and prefer Le Figaro.

 This is why I took the pains to translate Figaro’s recent article “Subprime accused, State guilty” by Vincent Bénard.

This translation is one item you can safely forward to your most skeptical friends.

Donald Hank

 

 

Translation  of :

Subprime: market accused, State Guilty

 
09/09/2008 | Updated : 10:43 |

 

Vincent Bénard, President of the Hayek Institute of Brussels, author of “Le Logement, crise publique, remèdes privés” (Romillat), reviews the subprime lending crisis and takes the side of the free economy when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two mortgage refinancing agencies, are placed under the conservatorship of the United States government.

The cause is understood by many observers: the subprime financial crisis is due to the madness of the markets and shows the limits of unbridled finance.  And they urge more public regulation of financial institutions.

Free enterprise is the whipping boy again, because there is no market more perverted by the intervention of the federal government than that of mortgage credit in the United States.

The two institutions with the cute nicknames Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC) bear a heavy weight of responsibility in the financial unmooring of the American banking system.  The former was initially a government agency created in 1938 by the FDR administration to issue low interest mortgages thanks to federal guarantees, which supplied liquidity to a home loan market at low rates accessible to lower-income families.

In 1968, the Johnson Administration, realizing that the State-guaranteed commitments of Fannie Mae were becoming broader and would be subject to the lending capacity of a treasury department mired in financing the Vietnam War, arranged for it to be privatized.  Then in 1970, the Nixon administration created Freddie Mac to provide a semblance of competitiveness in this mortgage credit refinancing market.

This background provided Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a hybrid status of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE).  Thus, they were private but legally bound to deal exclusively in home loan refinancing under federal control in exchange for tax breaks.  Worse yet, while being officially private, the two agencies have always been considered – thanks to their public sponsorship and their social role, to benefit from an implicit guarantee on the part of the American Treasury!

Privatized benefits, collectivized losses: such a cocktail was bound to prompt the executives of the GSEs to take excessive risks if the state sponsorship came up short.  This is exactly what happened in the 1990s.  It was reminiscent of a famous French scandal…[The author is referring to the Credit Lyonnais scandal in which the French government bailed out that bank]

The sponsorship of these two enterprises was transferred to the US Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) in 1992, because that agency wanted to influence GSE-financed loans to satisfy a major objective of any self-respecting politician in America, namely, increasing the home ownership rate among low-income populations, notably minorities.

Thus, the HUD forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase both the volume and the proportion of refinanced subprime credits (up to 56% in 2004).  To make matters worse, one of the HUD bosses, fearing that the declaration of risks taken by the two GSEs in order to satisfy these rules, would cause the markets to lose confidence in them, solved the problem by making it perfectly legal for them not to disclose too many details about their exposures.

Thus, using increasingly complex mortgage products, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refinanced more than five trillion dollars in credits, or 40% of American homes, including more than half of subprime credits even though they did not have enough of their own funds to commit to such amounts.  As a result, the banks issuing these credits could afford not to be too particular about the loans they authorized, because there were two refinancers on the stock market to back them up.  Countrywide, the bank whose lending policies to lower-income families is now vilified, was incensed only three years ago by the executives of Fannie Mae for their brash subprime lending policies.

But the downturn in the economic boom multiplied borrower defaults, and the two GSEs are threatened with not being able to meet their obligations, which could spread to all institutional investors.  Now the State is urgently calling for their rescue, which will cost the taxpayer several hundred billion dollars.

A second public intervention expanded bank excesses in granting credits to insolvent families.  In the 1990s, studies showed that members of black and Hispanic communities had loan applications turned down somewhat more than whites or Asians, although these refusals only amounted to one application out of four.  Certain lobbies saw in this not a logical reflection of less wealth in these communities but rather proof of purported racism in the financial world.   

An antidiscrimination law of 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), was thus strengthened in 1995 to crack down on banks refusing credit to minorities under penalty of greater sanctions.  The banks were thus obliged to partially relinquish the precautionary role they normally play when refusing a loan to a person who is objectively less solvent.  No big deal: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to refinance these shaky loans!

Today, many experts believe that, without the CRA, and without the GSEs, minorities would have more access to property than they now do, less quickly but more soundly.  By trying to artificially accelerate what the free economy accomplished at its own rate, it was the State that, through both regulations and legislation, led the actors in the credit chain to behave irresponsibly, causing a serious financial crisis and resulting in the failure of many families it purported to help.

Translated by Donald Hank

 


[1]

Help McCain avert a fatal scandal

Help McCain avert a fatal scandal

 

By Donald Hank

Ladies and Gentlemen, you have been recently treated here at Laigle’s Forum to a well-rounded smorgasbord of information about the causes of this latest financial crash. You have been regaled with information and insights not seen at any other web site, not mentioned in the “conservative” media or, much less, in the mainstream media. And now you will learn about one of the biggest scoundrels of all time, namely, that one of the authors of the biggest financial crisis in US history, has been chosen by John McCain as his new SEC chair. No, this is not going to happen. You are going to stop this insanity and we will tell you how. Keep reading.

First let’s review the time line of our financial crisis:

1-1977, Jimmy Carter proposes and gets a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which calls for more mortgages for minorities. It was pretty harmless at first, so Reagan didn’t bother to challenge it.

2- In 1995, Clinton put the CRA into overdrive, ordering the Treasury Department to rewrite the lending rules, thereby bypassing the Republican congress. The main criterion for getting a loan was race, and many loans required no income and no money down. In other words, bad credit risks got the lion’s share of the loans and still do. Clinton’s HUD secretary helped mightily to create this crisis. We’ll tell you about this guy shortly.

3-Bush protested these practices in his first term, when he was still a Republican, but later caved and increased the required percentage of loans to minorities and pushed for a “zero down-payment initiative.”

Bush now wants to pay for this with $700 billion of hard earned money from you, good hardworking people who do not renege on their loans. (Remember when people with good credit histories were rewarded and deadbeats were punished? We’re going to bring those times back by not agreeing to a bailout of any kind – BTW, gas prices are going down as a result of the crunch.)

ACORN, which the first version of the failed Democrat-authored bailout bill wanted to reward, was the group that agitated and lobbied hardest for the policies that brought down the lending market!  Obama worked hand in hand with ACORN and received huge donations from the associated criminal enterprises Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.

Here’s where it really gets interesting. Please pay attention:

Andrew Cuomo, whom McCain has picked as his SEC Chairman, was Clinton’s HUD secretary when the new regulations were forcing banks to lend at ridiculous rates and under dangerous confitions, and according to the Village Voice, made “a series of decisions that… gave birth to the present crisis.”

Writes Village Voice correspondent Wayne Barrett:

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that – in combination with many other factors – helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded “kickbacks” to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Did you get that? McCain has picked one of the authors of the present crisis, one of the most heinous scoundrels in American history, to head his Securities and Exchange Commission!

According to a Newsday article, here is what McCain says about Cuomo:

Cuomo would be a good replacement because he is respected and “did a good job” as secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Democratic Clinton administration, McCain said.”I think he is somebody who could restore some credibility, lend some bipartisanship to this effort,” the senator said on CBS’ “60 Minutes” program.

Has McCain been on another planet for the last few years? Is bringing down American banks “doing a good job”?

Neither the “conservative” press (is there one any more?) nor the liberals have made the embarrassing connection between Cuomo’s pivotal role in creating the financial crisis and the fact that McCain wants this tarnished politician as his SEC chairman. Each side has decided to give you only the news that will help their side get elected. But the trouble with that approach is, it doesn’t put you, the new Ron Reagan, in the position to avert scandals and bad decisions of the kind McCain wants to make. Laigle’s Forum does not subscribe to the philosophy that presentation of news must be tailored to propagandistic agendas. You can’t change what you don’t know about.

So now that you do know, what can you do about this scandalous, potentially fatal situation for the McCain campaign?

Well, we Americans are usually seen by government as those little bugs out there that were made to squash, but that come in handy at election time.

But, Ladies and Gentlemen, you and I know we’re a lot more than that. We are the new Ronald Reagan. Last year, in the spirit of Reagan, we stopped the Amnesty bill dead in its tracks. Yesterday, in the same patriotic spirit, we stopped the bailout. The Bush-McCain-Obama steam roller can’t squash us after all. The Wizard of Oz is not all-powerful.

So what to do next?

Write to the McCain Campaign

http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/

and then call the campaign HQ at

1-703-418-2008

Tell them McCain had better walk away from Andrew Cuomo fast because Cuomo is at the center of a scandal in the financial crash, was a pivotal player and will mar the campaign with a scandal McCain can’t afford right now when he is already losing. Send them a link to the Village Voice article, tell them this is all over the internet, and then make sure it is (send it to your list with a link to this Laigle’s Forum article)! Tell them McCain can’t rely on a conservative VP pick to lend him credibility. He has to actually talk the talk and walk the walk himself. We’re not buying the wishy-washy weasel words any more. And tell him for gosh sake, stop sounding like illegal immigration is A-ok. It’s not.

Then get in touch with your radio talk show hosts, including Rush (don’t bother with Hannity. He won’t jump on the band wagon until the scandal is too big to contain).

Link:

http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234

John McCain likes to brag about how he made people “famous” for doing things that cost the American people money.

Well, now it is our turn.  Tell his campaign we’ll make John McCain famous if he fails to walk away from this awful choice.

Why even help  the campaign of a guy who seems not to want to be president at times?

There is one very good reason to help McCain: Obama.

 

Obama can’t fix what his party broke

Obama can’t fix what his party broke

 

by Donald Hank

Before reading further, make sure you see this amazing video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o

 

Did you see the debate last night?

Despite his relaxed exterior,and his pontifications on the economy, Obama was on the defensive, as well he should have been. McCain knew stuff he didn’t know, like the difference between a strategy and a tactic, or the names of presidents in Eastern Europe. After McCain rattled off these names and associated facts, Obama could only say “I agree with Senator McCain on this.” It was obviously all he could say. And then there was the gaffe about “taking out” Pakistan. And the misquote of Kissinger. Not a good night for Barack.

McCain was like a father lecturing to a son who hadn’t done his homework.

Again, Obama tried to make the claim that McCain is a laissez-faire capitalist who wants no regulation of the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and, unfortunately, McCain muffed his chance to really explain the crash mechanism as well as Barack’s (and the Democrats’) primary role in the crash. Republican politicians seems to have little understanding of this mechanism, but it is all important for voters to know.

Folks, I had written a column on Bush’s role in the bank crashes that some thought was blasphemous, but what I said had to be said and no one else was willing to say it (that’s what Laigle’s Forum is all about, you know). And now we know the role Bush played in bringing down the banks. So is the bank crash all about Bush?

Not by a long shot, although he aided and abetted. It is more about Obama, his pals and his party. Much more.

I believe Bush’s role is related to his blind belief in New Age Christianity. As I have shown in various columns, evangelical Christians have been brainwashed by the Left into accepting what we might call “Christian socialism,” which includes teachings of globalism and surrender of sovereignty. Mainstream pastors now talk as though God had added an eleventh commandment: Thou shalt share the wealth. Indeed, my Brazilian colleague Olavo de Carvalho showed that the revolutionary mindset, which we now call the Left, started as a Christian heresy in the 13th century. Strangely, this heresy, which teaches that Christians must build the kingdom of God by eliminating social injustice, is now becoming the dominant doctrine in America, to our great peril, and the latest financial crash is its spawn. This heresy was first introduced into the American church by way of the far Christian Left (Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo) and was mainstreamed by preachers like Robert Schuller and later his protégées such as Rick Warren as well as supposedly “conservative” church leaders. If this sounds like blasphemy to you, you are no doubt a true believer in the emergent church’s New Age teachings. Beware.

But yes, the crash is really mostly about Obama and his party, which sabotaged American business.  Characteristically of the Left, they behaved like naughty school kids who made the spitballs and let other kids throw them. That’s how it works. There are always some smart aleck troublemakers who are highly popular and the other, shy kids with a good upbringing, want to imitate them. Pretty soon the kids with the good upbringing are the worst offenders in the schoolyard and the smart alecks are posing as angels, laughing up their sleeves as the poor suckers get punished.

Naughty boy Jimmy Carter (another Christian leftist, by the way) started things off by introducing the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, which the Democrats passed. This was a typical Carter goody-goody initiative to bring housing to people who would only get housing if you twisted their arms and made them pay no more than they would pay to rent. You know, the group we used to be called poor credit risks. Now we call them the “underserved.”

The program was modestly dimensioned at first and ran with no major glitches until Clinton took it into high gear, demanding $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages, with the semi-government bureaucracies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac leading the charge. Banks that could not or would not comply were punished. Punished for implementing nothing other than good business practice, mind you! (Remember that government-business partnerships are a feature of fascism, hardly the American way).

Then Bush morphed into Clinton on steroids and all but doubled the percentage of subprime loans, but added the cherry to the sundae with his “zero down payment initiative.”

There were a few futile attempts to put the brakes on, notably Senator McCain’s attempt in 2005 to enact the Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act. The Democrats blocked it. Obama doesn’t want you to know any of this, and the networks and mainstream media are helping him hide it and sell his fiction.

In all fairness to Bush, he too had tried to rein in Fanny and Freddy, back in 2003, but ran up against the Democrats.

So while Bush must take some of the blame, because he did push for higher percentages of sub-prime mortgages and his administration did write the disgraceful “Zero-Downpayment Initiative,” he was, after all, just following the Democrats’ lead and, I believed, trying, in a bungling way, to be a good little Christian, guided, unfortunately, by principles of the Christian Left, which had subtly and gradually become the mainstream in America.

Bottom line: while Obama claims regulation is necessary and accuses McCain of not wanting it, it was McCain himself who tried to introduce regulatory legislation that would help remedy the damage done by the Democrats through over-regulation of the socialist kind.

Keep that in mind when you go to the polls.

 

 

Another video on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Dems a shining beacon of darkness

Dem’s Divas Destiny and Darkness

By Rev. Michael Bresciani

The battle between Democratic hopefuls Obama and Clinton has held the spotlight in American politics for the past year and has been upstaged only slightly by the occasional antics of a few divas like Hilton, Madonna or Aguilera.

In the 19th century many towns in America employed a lamplighter. Besides being somewhat of a watchman, his job was to light the oil wicks or candles in the street lights each evening and quench the flame early each morning. The lamplighter has dissolved into history; sadly it seems some of the light has gone with him.

Figuratively, the greatest lamplighters in American history may have been Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi, Joseph Pulitzer and President Grover Cleveland. Together they designed, promoted and on October 28th, 1886 inaugurated the Statue of Liberty. Her flaming torch has stood as the light of freedom, truth and justice in the minds people throughout the world for over one hundred years.

Americans usually welcome the light and those who are considered to be luminaries are readily recognized and applauded in most cases. Celebrating the light seen in others is not new or something only Americans do. Over twenty centuries ago Jesus spoke of those who ‘rejoiced’ in the light of John the Baptist (Jn 5:35). Sadly, we know how that all ended.

In Barack Obama’s political rallies, audiences, as expected, have their gazes fixed on Obama’s face as they focus on his rhetoric. If someone could remain completely detached and turn to look at the faces of his audience they would discover a phenomenon that is impossible to miss; they are awed. It is as if they have seen a light.

After discovering Obama’s association with Rev. Wright, bomber William Ayers and his position on gays and abortion, his followers remain undaunted. They hang on his every word and the promise of change as if it were salvation itself. It strains the credulity of anyone with only entry level discernment. It raises and renews the wisdom of the once overused but now almost forgotten adage ‘there is none as blind as they who will not see.’

Add to Barack’s doubtful associations his aversion to saluting the flag, his opinion of people who “cling to religion and guns” and his wife’s lack of pride in the country and that raises and nearly answers yet another question. The question was also posed by Christ “…If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”  (Mt 6:23).”

Obama is certainly sincere and his convictions are firmly rooted in that sincerity but again “sincerity is no substitute for the truth.” It is possible to be sincere and very wrong at the same time. President Lincoln said that if he was right about something it wouldn’t matter in the end what all his critics said about it. Conversely, he exclaimed that if he were wrong “angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

If Americans listened a little less to her political pundits and a little more to her prophets she might see that changes are exactly what she is going to get. The inevitability of those changes is the only thing that cannot be questioned; the nature of the changes is still open.

Whenever people regard a light it usually means they are looking for direction in a dark situation. They follow the light and it brings them to their destiny whether it’s what they hoped for or not.

Too many have concluded that it is the deep divisions and polarizations that have brought unrest to the country. Some say the Democratic wins in the house in 2006 and the toppling of Hastert in Illinois and Jenkins in Louisiana are proof that America wants out of a GOP run government and conservatism is dying along with the entire Republican effort. Few are heeding the voices of those who are saying it is the moral, ethical and theological downturn that is fueling discontent, crime, confusion and darkness.

The globalization of our world is underway, with Europe leading the way with some 64 satellite nations at her side to date. America has been following the same trends as our euro-counterparts, and the leaders we choose now will determine whether we fall into the fold or stand as a bastion of freedom and what is right in the world. Such noble aspirations are more scoffed at these days than ever before and that is proof positive that we are at destiny’s door more than any other time in our history.

When people look at a presidential candidate in the same way they see a pop culture figure, we are all in a mess. Following the “light that is darkness” will get us someplace but it will not be where we want to be. All too often the negative aspect of the messenger or the prophet is all that is seen or heard but for those with a “cup is half full” mentality, the positive side is seen as well. God loves America and he does not want to see it fall or be judged. He said it like this; how do you read it? Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. (Pr 14:34)

Rev Michael Bresciani is an author and columnist for several online sites and magazines. His articles are now read throughout the world. For more articles, news, movie reviews and more visit The Website for Insight at http://www.americanprophet.org/

Keywords;

Dem’s,divas,destiny,darkness,Obama,Clinton,Hilton,Madonna,Aguilera, Bartholdi, Joseph Pulitzer,Grover Cleveland,Lady Liberty,Rev Wright,Hastert,Jenkins,Illinois,Louisiana,John Baptist,Jesus,conservative,religion,guns,religious news,Bresciani,GOP