High noon in Syria

High noon in Syria

by Don Hank

Fox News is between a rock and a hard place. They have always generally been anti-Putin because they have a lot of Neocon supporters. But now Putin has scored big at the UN. Even the British PM is cautiously inching over to his side and Merkel stated last week that she thinks Assad must be included in negotiations over the fate of Syria. Most European countries are taking a wait and see position and will bolt the US monopoly if such is appropriate. Putin has a plan and clearly wants to stop ISIS. Obama sorta has a, well, you know, maybe a plan or something and has been pretending to fight ISIS for years now. Judging by his actions, his plan is to lose the war on ISIS and allow them to romp freely, slicing throats to their hearts content until Assad – the only leader who has been sincerely fighting ISIS for 4.5 years – is gone. While Obama’s position is incomprehensible and confusing, Putin’s position is clear and easily understood. One could articulate it in part as follows:

Syrian Christians overwhelmingly support Assad because they know that if he leaves power, their life expectancy is considerably shorter.

Assad is not a dictator (though Fox still calls him that in the article below). He was duly elected (unlike the Saudis whom we support – NO Neocon voices are calling for the unelected dictator king to step down. How phony and hypocritical can you get?)

Since the popular Assad is still the president, anyone entering Syria without his permission – including the US military in its pretend fight against ISIS – is there illegally per international law. Putin and his coalition have been invited by the Syrian people via their elected leader to fight ISIS and are there legally and legitimately.

In a court of law, no fair-minded judge would hand a victory to the US or find against Putin, but the US, as the “exceptional” and “indispensable” world manipulator, has in the past bought all the judges so to speak. That is changing. I had pointed out before that the accession of almost all US allies to the AIIB was a signal that the hegemon has lost his support in the world community. And without that, he cannot stand. I had also pointed out that Russia is now selling oil to China for yuan (RMB) as part of a larger campaign to dedollarize world trade. The less the USD is used in international transactions, the less it is worth internationally, as one can deduce from my commentary and translation here. Dollar hegemony (which gives the US government and FRB the extravagant ability to print unlimited dollars for its military adventures) is being fought successfully, a step at a time. We are witnessing the changing of the guard. The good news is that, as I pointed out here, the Eurasianism of Putin, China, the BRICS and other Eurasian partners strictly pursues the multipolar principle whereby there shall not be a hegemon. (BTW, if the countries that joined the AIIB had had any reason whatsoever to believe that the AIIB would enable a hegemon – world dictator in the image of the US – to emerge, they would not have rushed en masse to join it and turn their backs on the US-led World Bank and IMF).

I have added comments to the biased Fox report below.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/30/boots-on-ground-russian-lawmakers-back-putin-sending-troops-to-syria/

Russia launches airstrikes in northern Syria, senior military official says

Published September 30, 2015

FoxNews.com

 

EXCLUSIVE: Russian warplanes have begun bombarding Syrian opposition [FOX USES THE WORD “OPPOSITION” TO SUGGEST TO UNWARY READERS THAT THESE ARE GOOD FOLKS WHO RECEIVED ARMS FROM THE US TO FIGHT A DICTATOR. HOWEVER, THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN TERRORISTS AND “OPPOSITION” HAS LONG BEEN BLURRED. IT IS COMMONLY KNOWN THAT THE US GOVERNMENT ROUTINELY GIVES ARMS TO ANYONE FIGHTING ASSAD AND THESE PEOPLE THEN ROUTINELY TURN AROUND AND JOIN ISIS OR ANOTHER TERROR ORGANIZATION–DON] targets in the war torn nation’s north, working on behalf of dictator [NEOCON FOX IS OBLIGED TO PRETENT THAT ASSAD IS A DICTATOR BECAUSE THEY ARE BEHOLDEN TO THEIR RICH SUPPORTERS TO KEEP UP THIS CHARADE. BUT AS I POINTED OUT ABOVE, ASSAD IS NOT ONLY POPULAR, HE IS DULY ELECTED. THE WEST HAS CONDEMNED HIM FOR KILLING PEOPLE, BUT THE WEST KILLS ALL THE PEOPLE IT WANTS, INTERFERES IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF NATIONS, STARTS AND FUNDS COLOR REVOLUTIONS AND ARAB SPRING-LIKE UPRISINGS AND IN SO DOING PLUNGES NATION AFTER NATION INTO ANARCHY, CREATIG A VACUUM THAT IS PREDICTABLY FILLED BY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, TRIGGERING A MASS MIGRATION THAT IS OUT OF CONTROL. THE KEY US ALLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS A TRUE DICTATOR, THE SAUDI KING WHO IS UNELECTED. THERE IS NO GREATER HYPOCRISY THAN FOX CALLING ASSAD A DICTATOR WHILE GIVING THE SAUDI ROYALS A PASS—DON HANK] Bashar al Assad, according to a senior military official.

The official said airstrikes targeted fighters in the vicinity of Homs, located roughly 60 miles east of a Russian naval facility in Tartus, and were carried out by a “couple” of Russian bombers. It was not clear if the strikes targeted ISIS, Al Qaeda or other forces opposed to Assad, who Moscow is aiding [ANOTHER DECEITFUL SUGGESTION THAT PUTIN IS KILLING US APPROVED FORCES OPPOSED TO ASSAD, ALTHOUGH OBAMA HAS ADMITTED HIS ADMINISTRATION HAD ONLY MANAGED TO TRAIN A HANDFUL AT A PRICE OF SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS PER CAPITA AND THAT THESE MEN HAD MOSTLY DISAPPEARED].  According to a Twitter handle belonging to the Syrian government, the Russian strikes were initiated at the request of Assad. [AGAIN, AS I POINTED OUT ABOVE, THE FACT THAT THE OFFICIAL DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF SYRIA GAVE THE RUSSIANS PERMISSION TO BE THERE SHOWS THAT NO INTERNATIONAL LAWS OR TREATIES HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY PUTIN, WHO, AS A EURASIAN (AS EXPLAINED here), ADHERES TO THE PRINCIPLE OF HONORING NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES—SOMETHING THE US HAS NOT DONE FOR OVER A HALF-CENTURY, FALSELY TELLING ITS PEOPLE THAT IT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO INTERFERE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ANY NATION IT DISAGREES WITH. BY REPORTING THIS, FOX IS ALSO UNWITTINGLY HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT THAT THE US AND ITS ALLIES IN SYRIA ARE THERE ILLEGALLY AND AGAINST THE WILL OF THE SYRIAN PEOPLE. FOX, OF COURSE, WANTS US TO THINK RUSSIA IS THE VIOLATOR HERE BUT JUST THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. THE CASE IS CLEAR CUT AND ONLY THE BRAIN DEAD COULD FAIL TO SEE WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING—DON]

The development came after Pentagon officials brushed aside an official request from Russia to clear air space over northern Syria, where Moscow intends to conduct airstrikes against ISIS on behalf of Syrian dictator [NO, FOX. HE IS NOT A DICTATOR, AS I HAVE SHOWN ABOVE. THE SAUDI KING IS INDEED A DICTATOR (WHO RECENTLY BOMBED A WEDDING PARTY AND KILLED DOZENS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE) BUT YOU WOULD NEVER CALL HIM THAT. WHY? —DON] Bashar al-Assad, according to sources who spoke to Fox News.

The request was made by a Russian three-star general who spoke with U.S. officials at the American embassy in Baghdad, sources said. The general, who was not identified, used the word “please” when delivering the verbal request, known as a “demarche,” according to the written transcript of the exchange.

“If you have forces in the area we request they leave,” the general said.

A senior Pentagon official said the U.S., which has also been conducting air strikes against ISIS, but does not support Assad, said the request was not honored.

[SO IF THE US ENTERS SYRIA IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND IS FIRED UPON BY A NATION THAT IS THERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, THEN THE US HAS NO MORAL RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ANY DAMAGE IT SUFFERS AS A RESULT OF THIS TRESPASSING. (THE PENTAGON MUST ALSO EXPLAIN WHY IT ENDANGERED ITS PERSONNEL BY FORCING THEM TO ENTER TERRITORY ILLEGALLY). THE US HAS BEEN IGNORING INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR DECADES AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE IT WAS CLEARLY THE STRONGEST NATION. BUT NOW WE HAVE A COALITION OF RUSSIA WITH CHINA (THE LATTER MAY OR MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUSSIAN LED COALITION). TOGETHER IT IS LIKELY THAT THEIR POWER IS GREATER THAN THAT OF THE US. FURTHER, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, OUR ALLIES ARE NO LONGER SOLIDLY BEHIND US. THIS CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE US IN ITS ROLE AS A VIOLATOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RUSSIA IN ITS ROLE OF THE PARTY REQUESTED BY THE SYRIAN PEOPLE TO ENTER SYRIA, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SMASH WHAT IS LEFT OF US PRESTIGE AND POWER. IT DIDN’T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY BUT A COALITION OF THE TWO MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES RELENTLESSLY AND RECKLESSLY PURSUING INEXPLICABLE NEOCON POLICIES (WITH THE TACIT PERMISSION OF A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC THAT HAS BEEN TAUGHT TO FOLLOW THE LEADER AND NOT TO THINK FOR ITSELF) CAN’T BE EXPECTED TO WIN FRIENDS OR WARS. WE CAN ONLY HOPE AND PRAY THAT THE ABOVE-CITED PENTAGON OFFICIAL IS BLUFFING – DON]

 

Just as I told you: Sharia law coming to Libya

You can’t say I didn’t warn you: Libya’s new leader wants sharia law.

 

Don Hank

Newsmax just now reported that the new unelected leader of Libya is a strong proponent of Sharia law – in contradistinction to the moderate Ghadaffi whom we just murdered.

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the favorite of NATO, the EU, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and most other European leaders, as well as of Obama, “laid out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying Islamic Sharia law would be the ‘basic source’ of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.”

Why was this no surprise to me?

I had just recently researched Mustafa Abdul Jalil’s background and learned :

After graduating from the department of Shari’a and Law in the Arabic Language and Islamic Studies faculty of University of Libya in 1975, Abdul Jalil was initially “assistant to the Secretary of the Public Prosecutor” in Bayda, before being appointed a judge in 1978.[6]
Abdul Jalil was a judge “known for ruling consistently against the regime,…”

 I had looked this up in response to naïve comments from a reader who has the misfortune to be addicted to the MSM and apparently has not yet seen the extent to which modern “journalists” are in fact propagandists and little else.

This reader quoted a prediction that if the war were to continue, a half-million Libyans would die.

I read the article this reader linked to and was astonished to find the quote was attributed to none other than the leader of the transition government, Mustafa Abdul Jalil.

So I researched his background and sure enough, he is a proponent of Sharia law.

Now, go ahead and tell me the EU, NATO, Sarkozy and Obama didn’t know this.

We just murdered a man who was a moderate and Western-friendly in order to install a radical Islamist who will rule the same way they rule in Iran and Saudi Arabia. That can only mean the cruelest possible punishments. Just for reference, a Saudi court recently ordered a migrant worker’s eye gouged out.

Ghadaffi had tried Sharia law and found it did not work well in the real world; further, while the Western propaganda bleated that Ghadaffi was a ruthless dictator who swept aside all opposition, he obviously had kept Abdul Jalil alive and in power despite their major differences. If he was so ruthless, why is Abdul Jalil still alive?

OUR money paid for Ghadaffi’s brutal murder. OUR American and British and French blood was spilled to murder a friendly moderate and install a hostile Islamist in Libya.

It is a self-replicating pattern of what was done in Iran, Kosovo, Iraq, Egypt and Ivory Coast: support for rigid, radical Islamists over moderates who tolerated Jews and Christians.

YOUR government did not do it. You do not have a government. You have, in lieu of a legitimate government, a clique of usurpers with superior mind control methods, led by bankers, corporations, media moguls and assorted government agencies and officials in league with each other, who despise you, your values and your Western way of life and, using the language of moderation and tolerance, are stealthily installing leaders in the Middle East to destroy the last traces of Western influence, except for heavily guarded ties to the Western Ruling Class and the banking system (Ghadaffi had made the mistake of establishing an independent Libyan banking system). Nothing has changed since the late 1880s when a small group of rich radicals met at a private home in a banking area of London for the purpose of accomplishing two heinous goals throughout the world: 1) Install socialism, and 2) eliminate Western (particularly Christian) culture. They later took the name “Fabian Society” and are still quite active today, both in the open, and more importantly, under a cloak of secrecy. Mild-mannered Tony Blair is a member.

Things are going swimmingly for them, what with millions of Muslims imported against the will of the people and wars in the Middle East that tend to strangle Christian influence there.

People don’t get it. They say “these leaders must be crazy” and “if only we could make them understand what they are doing to us.”

But they know exactly what they are doing to us. And they are far from crazy. But so far we have been docile little toadies bowing and scraping before them and dutifully taking notes as they instruct us in the most efficient means of self destruction.

That must stop or we are doomed.

Pray for Israel. Pray for the Middle East Christians.

Pray that others will wake up and see the evil shadow government behind the mask and behind weasel words like peace, sustainable development, green energy, wealth redistribution, quantitative easing

The Ruling Elites also speak out of both sides of their mouths on Israel and the Jews, subtly promoting anti-Jewish sentiment eerily reminiscent of Germany in the 30s and 40s, while pretending to honor holocaust victims. As a result of their anti-Jewish whispering campaign, I find that even some of my freedom advocating correspondents in Europe, who properly grasp that the EU is a dictatorship, show decidedly anti-Jewish sentiments, failing to understand that in so doing, they are, tragically, supporting the people they think they are opposing.

The words of Western “leaders” mean just the opposite of what they say and suggest.

Open your eyes.

You can’t fight an invisible enemy, and you can’t survive if you don’t fight back.

 

I tried to warn you before:

http://laiglesforum.com/ghadaffi-dies-of-propaganda-overdose/2772.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/i-told-you-so-again/2697.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/my-government-is-killing-me/2159.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/spare-me-the-crocodile-tears-when-northern-africa-explodes/2215.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/how-western-powers-abet-christian-persecution/2513.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/us-media-cover-up-ivory-coast-massacre-details/2398.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/why-i-am-not-on-our-side-any-more/2174.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-far-left-connection-to-the-near-east-rebellion/2224.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/2286/2286.htm

 

The Fabian society:

http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/the-city-of-london-and-the-fabian-society-2/

 

Prime Minister Cameron trapped by his own words

Prime Minister Cameron trapped by his own words

by Don Hank

Late in February, David Cameron held a televised press conference (see video) reporting a number of severe sanctions by his government against the Gadaffi regime, which is considered illegitimate by all European nations and by NATO based on the “use of military force against its own people.”
Cameron said himself in a televised speech:

“We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people.” [my emphasis]

He ended his heroic speech by saying to Gadaffi:

“GO NOW.”

Such a brave freedom fighter, that David Cameron!

In reality, rebels reportedly committed atrocities and destroyed public property in Libya, things all rebels do. Should the Gadaffi government sit idly by and watch the country destroyed?
Apparently, European leaders unanimously think so.
It occurred to many thinking people at the time of Cameron’s straighforward speech that such violence might occur in Europe at some point.
Then what would Cameron do?
How could he defend his own people if he took his own advice to Gadaffi and applied it to the UK, refraining from the use of force to stop violence?
Well, now that rebels are doing to Britain just a fraction of what Libyan rebels are doing there, it seems as if the Cameron government is considering doing just what he spanked Gadaffi for doing under vastly more desperate circumstances. Indeed, there are no reports of widespread atrocities by rebels coming out of the UK – only reports of looting and burning.
Yet Cameron, since the mobs have taken over the streets, is sounding tough as usual:

“People should be in no doubt that we will do everything necessary to restore order to Britain’s streets and to make them safe for the law-abiding.”

Everything necessary? You mean, like what Gadaffi did in Libya?
Well, yes, as it turns out.
According to BBC News:

“…[Home Secretary Theresa] May declined to rule out a host of options, including the use of water cannon, military support for the police, or a curfew.” [my emphasis]

For many years, British activists have warned that Cameron – along with everyone else in government – is nothing but a quisling, or puppet of a foreign illegitimate government, namely, the EU, which was founded by a stealth movement that started in the 1920s and was never approved by the European people, only by their “leaders.” (Set aside a half hour for this must-see video on that subject).
Despite Cameron’s (and the EU’s) description of the Gadaffi (and Mubarak) government as illegitimate simply because a group of vociferous rebels opposed them, Cameron’s government and the EU he answers to meet that very same description, and in spades!
A growing number of disenfranchised UK citizens have been longing for the day when the UK is back in their own hands and their nation’s ties with the autocratic EU severed forever.
The general mood in England is that the rebels have gone far enough in ripping apart their nation, and there is talk of vigilante action if the Cameron government continues to make ineffectual speeches while refusing to get really tough with the rioters.
Yet, David Cameron has trapped himself with the above-cited tough words against Gadaffi. Deploying troops on UK streets would make his (and other Western leaders’ including Obama’s) stern warnings to the Libyan leader sound extremely hypocritical. In turn, the EU has trapped itself by importing – against the will of the people — millions of foreign immigrants who are not required in any way to integrate, to accept any aspect of the local culture or way of life, or to even work to support themselves. Crime has risen in proportion to the number of these new immigrants.
In view of the government’s ineffective response, whether or not Cameron eventually employs military force to quell the riots – and he may have no other choice — he need not be surprised if millions of British subjects say to him:

Mr. Cameron, GO NOW

and take your stinking EU with you!

Further reading:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12601851

http://www.wat.tv/video/libya-skynews-rebel-atrocities-3wh3b_31wod_.html

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201108090402dowjonesdjonline000097&title=uk-ministerwill-consider-new-tacticsresources-to-end-riots

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/sweden-soaring-crime-rates-directly-related-to-rampant-muslim-immigration/

The far-left connection to the Near-East rebellion

The far-left connection to the near-east rebellion

by Don Hank

It is now well known that Obama pals and Marxists Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Jody Evans were instrumental in instigating the rebellion in Egypt:

Without this far-left intervention and the blessings of the White House there may well have been no rebellion in Egypt, and a stable (though imperfect) regime would still be in place, friendly to the US and tolerant of Israel.

Since then the rebellion has spread to Libya, and this too is arguably part of the Egyptian-Islamic / Western leftist-inspired revolution. Indeed there are reportedly at least 100 Egyptian operatives there, as well as US and British commandos.

A reader objected to my latest column critical of the Coalition’s Operation Odyssey Dawn, and this is my response to his objections.

You are free to support with heart, mind, propaganda and even finances whomever you please, but excuse me if I decline to be part of a rebellion instigated by the far left and strongly supported by friends of Islamic terror who deny Israel’s right to exist. Excuse me if I see gross hypocrisy in supporting an all-out attack on a Middle East dictator who has long been cooperative with the West, while turning a blind eye to more egregious dictatorships like China (where a Noble prize winner is now in jail for speaking his mind) and North Korea (where dissidents and their families are routinely jailed and it is a crime to own a radio with unlimited tuning).  You say I want to soft-pedal on Ghadaffi. Yet you are perfectly content to soft pedal on the undemocratic rogue regimes of China and North Korea that also kill their own people at times (eg, Tiananmen Square).

Where were the noble contenders for democracy when China was holding Liu Xiaobao? Oh, that’s right, democracy champion Barack Obama was fêting him at the White House. Further, China is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which decided to attack Ghadaffi because he was behaving like a Chinese dictator. As for North Korea, we have sent them free food for years, and China, our “ally,” runs interference for that country. Apparently, the Koreans don’t need democracy.

But isn’t Iran also a dictatorship that suppresses democracy? Should we be soft pedaling on Iran? Well, judging by the silent consent of Western leaders, Iran is perfectly democratic. There was an uprising there during the one in Egypt, but Obama didn’t think it would be appropriate to demand that Ahmadinejad step down. After all, that dictator, who has reportedly been executing people at the rate of one every 9 hours, is anti-Israel.  No need to get rid of him.  He’s on “our” side.  A few years back, the US Energy Department even subsidized 2 Russian institutes that helped build parts of reactors for Iran.

So if the true motives of the Fabian leaders for the attack on Libya are not the noble ones they enunciate, what is the motivation? The Left never starts anything that will not likely further their cause of world domination or that will have the outcome expected and intended by the public. That explains Obama’s role in opposing a regime that in recent years has been forthcoming toward Western interests, while ignoring regimes antagonistic to our interests. Sarkozy has an additional motive: he is up for re-election soon and needs a good war at his back.

It is more than obvious that replacing regimes that support the US and Israel with our enemies (like the street mobs of Egypt — dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood; and of Libya — strongly allied with terror) will help the Left, as led by Obama and socialist Europe, to undermine Western culture and values.

The Fabian Socialists (of which Tony Blair is a member) were founded in the 1880s for the express purpose of spreading socialism and eliminating Christianity by stealth.

They believed that they could get away with anything as long as they pretended to be supporting worthy-sounding causes, and it is going swimmingly (Tony even has a religious foundation aimed at uniting all religions — that goes nicely with the Christian teaching: I [Jesus] am the way). They have managed to pretty much take over the West. You see, it wasn’t only Tony Blair. The entire power structure, top to bottom, is infested with globalist New World Order operatives, and “conservative” parties are in no way exempt. David Cameron used stealth to get elected, in keeping with the West’s trademark Fabian tactics. As head of the Conservative Party, he promised that, if elected, he would allow a referendum as to whether the UK should stay in the EU. Even though everyone now knows that was a lie, many see Dave acting like a “conservative” now, helping with a war effort in the tradition of “conservative” GW Bush (reminder: Blair’s staunchest ally). Yet starting wars whose predicted outcome is to undermine Christianity and our relations with the Middle East and endanger Israel is not necessarily a conservative thing to do, though it can certainly be deemed within the scope of Fabian stealth activities. It is hard to believe that any true conservative could support this cheap and transparent stealth tactic of starting wars for the apparent purpose of strengthening our enemies and weakening our friends. In fact, judging by the popularity of my last column on this topic (which has been reposted at several sites) and also the next-to-last (which shocked even me with the boldness of its conclusions), I seriously doubt any true conservatives do fall for this.

There is no excuse for Europeans to believe in the sincerity of the Western coalition. The Western powers that now support the attack on Ghadaffi, replete as it is with abundant collateral civilian casualties, are essentially the same leaders who insist on importing millions of hostile Muslims to Europe who refuse to assimilate and who not infrequently kill Westerners (like the people who bombed Madrid and London, like the killer of Theo van Gogh, and like so many other Islamic terrorists and violent criminals who had enjoyed Western hospitality or claimed the West as their home) or deliberately configure the Southern US border as a welcome mat for terrorists (eg, some of the 911 attackers) or promote rabidly anti-US soldiers to high ranks (eg, the Fort Hood shooter).

Democracy sounds like a worthy cause and the vast hordes of politically unsophisticated (whose study of history – or even current events — is next to non-existent) and the spiritually blind are liable to fall for this ruse.

However, the rest of us generally realize that if democracy were really a cause worth the shedding of blood, then Iran, for example, would be a nation marked by justice and protection of the weak — now that Carter has gotten rid of the cruel dictatorial Shah and paved the way for democracy there.

But the dirty open secret of democracy (as distinct from the republican form of government our founders founded) is that it neither protects the weak nor promotes justice. Invariably, it eventually winds up protecting the majority or a very powerful group of oligarchs, just as it did in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, N Korea, and just as it is now doing increasingly in the Americas and Europe.

And as for Christianity, by supporting the Coalition, we are contributing mightily – knowingly or unwittingly — to the demise of Judeo-Christianity in the world.

By supporting the Iraq war, we indirectly eliminated the Assyrian Christians in Iraq by toppling a dictatorship that protected them, and are now witnessing the genocide of  the Egyptian Copts, who were at least allowed to exist under Mubarak. Within a week after Mubarak stepped down, at Obama’s behest, the democratic activist military that replaced him attacked a monastery and shot a monk and six church workers, and they’re just getting warmed up.

Behold democracy, a foul fruit with a noble-sounding name.

Remember these fruits of past Western adventures in the Middle East when the conflagration starts in earnest in North Africa and the torrent of crocodile tears from the instigators and participants from our own democracy movement starts to drown the West.

In the end, we all believe what we choose to – whether out of dangerously naïve or false altruism or because we are sympathetic to the far-left Fabian New World Order.

In either case, we reap the consequences.

Obama is already reaping some of his, both at home and abroad.

The terrorists fighting Qadaffi (he’s too moderate for them):

http://emperors-clothes.com/libya.htm

Further reading by a readers and friends:

http://www.ravenhill.org/prophet.htm

Is “gay marriage” a historical imperative?

by Don Hank

According to expert testimony before the House in 1963, the 26th of the “Current Communist Goals” was:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

My recent response to the court decision by a homosexual judge in California supposedly making any ban on “gay marriage” unconstitutional received a deluge of of responses, including some expressing gay rage at my refusal to accept the use of the word “marriage” appied to same-sex relationships. (Check out the comments section under the article “Same-sex marriage? There’s no such thing”).

Some suggested I was a Nazi, others a bigot, still others a hater. It was the same old Gramscian tactics that the Left has used for over 100 years, showing an almost complete lack of reflection and no palpable originality.

In the last comment, a poster, who calls himself a “Christian” and apparently wants to pass as a “conservative,” said:

“Of course, the rest of society has moved on [emphasis added], and we pretty much look at them [anyone opposing ‘gay marriage’] with a mixture of pity and revulsion, but hey, it is their right.”

So the work of a single judge activist is proof that “society has moved on”?

In fact the people of California, arguably the most liberal state in the nation, voted for Proposition 8, which makes “gay marriage” illegal. So what is going on?

Let me try to explain.

This activist is portraying “gay” marriage as a historical imperative.

Hegel’s concept of the historical imperative found its first application in communism by the founders of that ideology. It is an example of the Left’s inversion of all things. If you are an ordinary person, you look at history objectively in logical chronological sequence, from past to present. Not the Leftist. He sees history’s starting point in the future utopia that he imagines. For him, all recorded history must meet one criterion: It must show unequivocally that all of history is marching toward a great egalitarian revolution, where all are equal. It is inevitable and the history books must be revised to reflect this “fact.” “Gay marriage” is an important stepping stone in the quest for this revolutionary “equality” or “social justice.”

But do utopians really ever bring about equality and social justice?

The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, all reflect the opposite. There, the leaders pursued lifestyles of great opulence, living in palaces and feasting daily as the masses either starved or lived hand to mouth. In the Ukraine, under Stalin, for example, at least 10 million were killed, mostly by starvation. Still more were starved to death in China under Mao.

The closer any country comes to the dreamed-of “Utopia,” the further from equality it gets.

Of course, the above examples are restricted to the hardline communists, who, thanks to the unlimited power they enjoyed, had no need to use victim groups to get votes. But the same principle applies to soft Marxism of the kind that prevails in Europe and the US, where interest groups (like homosexuals) are seen as crucial to acquiring power. You need only look at Michelle Obama’s taxpayer-funded trip to Spain or Nancy Pelosi’s fabulously expensive taxpayer-funded airliner to see that the Western world is destined for an impoverishment of the middle class that may rival — or even exceed — that of hardline communist nations. You will get even poorer and the politically well-placed will get wealthy beyond measure. Our world financial and economic crises are a result of wealth distribution under “soft” Marxism. Yet our elites continue to borrow for ineffective Keynesian “stimulus” programs that transfer the wealth of the middle class to rich bankers, and will continue to do so as long as we close our eyes to the unconstitutionality of this plundering of our resources. (The elites confuse us by reminding that the “conservative” G.W. Bush also promoted such practices as lending to the insolvent and “stimulus” programs. Recruiting false conservatives into the Marxist game plays a key role in the subterfuge. “Conservative” Prime Minister David Cameron is playing this role in the UK, where he promised voters to hold a referendum on EU membership and then reneged on that promise. And in case you missed it, the “conservative”Ann Coulter has recently taken her place in the ranks of the cultural Marxist campaign, promoting “gay marriage,” thereby ensuring her place in a leftward-evolving GOP).

In other words, the “historical imperative” that the above-quoted homosexual activist alludes to, and his disdain for counter-revolutionary traditionalists like me (regarding conservatives with “pity and revulsion”), are a sign of a great inequality that is to come, one that is cynically expected to be a utopia.

Let me further clarify: The homosexual agenda we see proceeding apace before us is not, on the surface, the kind of economic Marxism we saw (or see) in Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. It is something more subtle and insidious but with the same intent – namely, Fabian Marxism, which is a stealth revolution that is intended to eventually usher in economic Marxism later on once power is consolidated in the hands of the Left. Now if this “historical imperative” – the inevitability of the Marxist revolution – were possible, then the question is: why did it not happen a long time ago?

The first known Utopian screed appeared almost 2,500 years ago. It was written by none less than Plato. The first Utopian experiment was in 4th Century Persia and it failed ignominiously for the same reason all such experiments fail: no one wanted to work.

There were utopian movements from the 13th Century on in the Dark Ages and on through the Renaissance and beyond. They played crucial roles in the great wars of the time. All of them failed.

The French Revolution touted égalité, among other things. It follows that today’s France is very accepting of same-sex “marriage.” Yet today, there is scarcely a more economically skewed society, with government employees receiving vastly  more income and perks than workers in the private economy. And, of course, as in all “egalitarian” Utopias, there is a vanishing trend in work performed by this privileged class, while the less-fortunate private-economy workers earn less and less in terms of real wages, corrected for cost of living.

It is quite possible that eventually, the masses will be dumbed-down and propagandized to the point of no return, relinquishing the little freedom that remains, and learn to accept the unacceptable. A quick look at the sociocultural reality of Europe is a glimpse of our future, barring unforeseen circumstances.

But if past revolutions are a viable indicator, then the activists themselves will be the main recipients of the unintended consequences of their own actions.

Already, the first “gay” divorces have been examples of wealth redistribution, with the richer of the 2 being forced to relinquish a significant proportion of their income and property to the other.

It is to be expected that some of these “beneficiaries” of the homosexual revolution will eventually look back longingly at the days of traditional marriage and its defenders.

I for one will be looking at them not with revulsion, but with pity.