Tag Results

The left’s plan to force Israel to her knees

The UN, Israel and Obama

The left’s plan to force Israel to her knees

By Joe Herring

In October of last year (2015) an article appeared in this space titled “The Arab Spring comes to Israel.”  In that piece, I posited that the savage knife attacks that had begun to rock the Jewish state were not, as the media was reporting, an “organic movement, born of frustration” or “an oppressed people lashing out in any way they can against their oppressors.”

These attacks had much more in common with the methodology of the Arab Spring movement – the heavy use of social media for incitement and planning, and the use of concerted targeting of propaganda to incite specific groups, even individuals to violence.

knife wounds - intifadaIt was the opinion of the Global Faith Institute, as expressed at the time in the above referenced article, that the motives of the “knife intifada” were suspect in the extreme.

Rather than being a response to perceived oppression, these attacks were timed, planned and executed to create the illusion that the security forces of Israel were losing control of first Jerusalem, then the rest of Israel.

The random nature of the attacks combined with the intimate gore and personal nature of vicious knife wounds to create a sense that no one, at any time, was safe, setting the stage for the endgame – convincing the Israeli people that their government could no longer protect them, but an independent third-party (read: United Nations) could.

For decades Palestinians, and their allies in the international Left, have sought to place Jerusalem under UN auspices, seeing in such an arrangement the ability to force the Jews from east Jerusalem at first, then all of Jerusalem later.

It is a classic “Alinsky” tactic; ruin a functioning system, declare it irretrievably broken, then demand a new system be stood up in its place.  For examples of this tactic in operation, look at the “reform” of health care and the death penalty.

The Global Faith Institute’s premise (as articulated in the October piece referenced above) was dismissed as fevered conspiracy theorism by many in the media and government.  Even staunch GFI allies in Israel thought it to be a “bridge to far.”

Now, nearly six months later, comes a piece in the Wall Street Journal describing a new initiative of the waning Obama Administration, to use a UN Security Council resolution to force Israel to accept an imposed two-state solution to be administered under the control and protection of the United Nations.

Precisely the scenario we foretold months ago.

From a report in the Israel National News:

According to the plan described by senior US officials, Obama is considering reviving the dormant Middle East Quartet, a diplomatic body including the US, UN, EU, and Russia, to apply pressure to Israel and the Palestinian Authority to resume active negotiations.

The President is also considering use of a United Nations Security Council resolution to forcibly extract concessions from Israel and the PA. The US has until now vetoed any such resolutions, though Mr. Obama has in the past threatened to allow them to pass.

A Security Council resolution would be binding upon all parties, unlike General Assembly measures which are non-obligatory recommendations. Such a resolution would remain in force even after the president leaves office next January, effectively shaping the future of American policy in the region for Mr. Obama’s successors.

The resolution would require Israel cease construction over the Green Line and would force Israel to recognize eastern Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

The resolution would permit the “international community,” to convene talks that neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli’s could abandon.  Of course, the Palestinian contingent would never wish to walk away, as the UN is dominated by a decidedly anti-Semitic mindset, providing a distinct advantage to the enemies of Israel in any negotiations.

Worse yet, because it is a Security Council resolution, the UN has the final say on the outcome, which is a foregone conclusion given that these “negotiations” will in truth be Palestinians and their UN sponsors ganging up on Israel as they re-draw the lines of sovereignty in the Palestinian’s favor.

A fair question to ask is why on earth would the Israeli government agree to such an obviously unfair arrangement?

The political dynamic in Israel is not entirely unlike that in the US.  They have a socialist left and a more conservative right, and both sides policy positions closely mirror the liberal and conservative positions that dominate here in America.  The right is far more oriented to national defense while the left is ever-eager to pursue the newest fad in search of a lasting peace.

The fad of recent hegemony among the left in Israel is the “land for peace,” movement, offering significant land concessions to the Palestinian Authority in return for a cessation of violence.

The right realized long ago that the source of Palestinian violence isn’t rooted in economics or physical ownership of this parcel, or that sector, but rather sprouts from deep roots of hatred for the Jew, inspired and fed by Islam.

Consequently, the citizens of Israel have fractured between these two camps.  The goal of the knife intifada is to discredit the right and empower the Left to demand the newest fad for peace, (a UN partition) be accepted by the Israeli government.

Israel cannot travel this path and remain a Jewish state.  Once the UN is in charge, the only means of resisting Palestinian overreach will be to fight both Palestinians and UN troops.  If Israel feels isolated now, they will be positively solitary once that shooting starts.

The Global Faith Institute has warned of this danger for quite some time, and will continue to do so whether our warnings are heeded or ignored.  It is important to anticipate your enemies next move and to prepare.

Call your Senator and make certain they understand that under no circumstances should the US be a part of this move.  Israel’s survival is at stake.


What’s the fuss about Socialism?

This is such a unique thing we possess, this free way of life. Power granted to the government by the consent of the governed, not taken by force. The default setting for societies has always been a brutal mash of exploitation, oppression and unfettered greed. Whether couched in religion, geography, or tribe, the strong have always ruled the weak, and the wily take their cut off the top.

But now we have leaders and laws chosen by process and debate, rather than the former staples of noble birth, graft, brute force, and intimidation.

To be sure, a fair measure of those same flaws remain in our politics and governance, but they are not the norm, and they’re usually driven out when discovered. This fact alone is enough to separate us from all previous attempts by man to bring order to human interaction.

So knowing this, why are so many in society willing to chuck it all in to forge ahead into a brave new world that looks and smells just like the fetid carcass of the cowardly Old World?

Why would intelligent people knowingly choose less freedom for themselves and their children?

Crudely put, it is because the idea of a fully free society with everyone making their own decisions simply chaps their asses. It is not enough for such people to be successful themselves; they must also have a hand in ordering the winners and losers amongst the rest of society.

So convinced are they of their own inestimable value, that they cannot conceive of a world that doesn’t need them. In their minds, they should be consulted before decisions are made; after all, look how successful they are.

Clearly anyone who doesn’t recognize this must be mentally defective, and we all know you don’t have to take seriously the ramblings of an imbecile.

But what happens when the self-absorbed decide that our laws and ways are really just anachronistic barriers to their progressive real-think? If you’re smart, you tremble for a moment, then gird yourself for a fight.

If you recall the puritan ethos that H.L. Mencken described as having the haunting feeling that someone, somewhere, is happy, then you easily understand the sensibility of someone who cannot be satisfied with his own success unless it involves dictating to others how they must succeed as well.

And not just any old success will do…it must be appropriate success. Success suited to one’s station and membership of an aggrieved group. (See affirmative action and virtually every other outcome-based folly of the Left.)

What sort of mind functions this way? Where do we find the bedrock of such a ego-centric philosophy?

Look first to human nature, and realize that with all our sophistication and technology, we still eat, crap, and fight much as we always have. We always will. Accept it. Madison said that if men were angels, no government would be needed.

Of course, we know men are no angels; so we must ask, who will govern the governors? Many actors have played this role. Religion has been a lodestar for our leaders for the better part of 150 years. Honor and national pride have, too.

But more than anything, the vision of our founders as evinced in the Constitution has been the greatest bulwark against both the busybody and the tyrant. Behind that magnificently crafted wall we have found refuge, and in its protective shade our nation has grown into the example that has slowly recast the world in its image.

I recall a conversation I had with a young coworker in the latter weeks of Obama’s campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My coworker then quite earnestly asked, “What’s so wrong with socialism?”

I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old man — my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his.

It eventually dawned on me that he really didn’t know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis?

He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialist collectivism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible with Socialism as the guiding principle.

In the late 1930s, the noted economist Friedrich Von Hayek wrote his landmark book (later released in abridged pamphlet form) “Road to Serfdom,” laying bare the diseased skeleton of socialist/utopian thought that had permeated academia and the salons of the day.

With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, he pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan.

How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don’t. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone.

When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced.

A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This “fatal flaw” in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical, as to require the entire ideology be scrapped as unworkable.

Von Hayek accurately foretold the fate that would befall dissenters from the plan. They simply could not be allowed to get in the way. Opposition would soon be treated as subversion, with debate shriveling to non-existence under the glare of the state.

Those who refused compliance would first be marginalized, then dehumanized, and finally (failing re-education) eliminated. Collectivism and individualism cannot long share the same bed. They are political oil and water, and neither can compromise its position without eventually succumbing to the other.

The history of the twentieth century is littered with the remains of those who became “enemies of the state” for merely drawing attention to this flaw. As Von Hayek predicted, the socialist vision would not be achieved without bloodshed.

So this is the challenge we face. My young coworker had no frame of reference by which to judge the events unfolding around him. He had been presented with only the intentions of socialism, not the inevitable results. He had been given the whitewashed fantasy of the Left, who never saw a failure that couldn’t be rationalized — or better yet, blamed on others.

Our job, then, is to teach the lessons of history to those who fail to see the danger. We have to provide that all-important perspective to a generation that has been denied it. We have to do this one at a time, conversation by conversation. Tell your friends the truth; don’t assume they know it. Become the person your friends and family consult when the subject turns to politics.

The Left will not willingly lay claim to the true legacy of socialism, so we will have to hang it around their necks. They have grown accustomed to shedding responsibility for the damage they have done, and are adept at shifting the blame. Traditional means of holding them to account are failing. Fellow travelers in the academy and media will not challenge even their most egregious lies, so howling about bias will gain us nothing.

If you doubt the effectiveness of the Left’s methods, ask any ten people under the age of forty whether Hitler and the Nazis were a product of left-wing or right-wing ideology. Their answers will reveal the frightfully high obstacle we face if we are to reclaim our national identity.

It is not enough that you know the truth. You alone are not likely to singlehandedly shape the outcome of an election. Everyone has to know the truth. We have to reclaim our younger generations from the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or it won’t be long before the wolf no longer needs the disguise. Note: This was written in late 2009. With the viable candidacy of an avowed socialist gaining steam, it is perhaps more timely now to note the wolf has indeed abandoned his disguise entirely.

Ex-Muslim Imam Confronts Obama With Question That Has Us CHEERING

Posted on January 12, 2016 by Dom the Conservative

Ex-Muslim Imam Pens Open Letter, Giving Obama A History Lesson About Islam

Dr. Mark Christian is a former Muslim imam who has exposed Barack Obama’s hypocrisy on the Syrian “refugee crisis.”

A former Muslim imam who converted to Christianity over a decade ago couldn’t wait for President Obama to speak in his hometown. So, he decided to confront the U.S. president about bringing in Syrian refugees — and the way he brilliantly exposes Obama’s hypocrisy is nothing short of embarrassing for the commander-in-chief.

Dr. Mark Christian, founder and president of the Global Faith Institute, is not only an apostate of Islam, he’s also a force to be reckoned with in the face of mass Muslim migration. Taking a stand against the Obama administration’s aggressive Islamic agenda to flood the U.S. with refugees solely from Muslim countries, the former devout Muslim imam has penned an open letter that confronts his leftist propaganda in the most incredible way.

As Barack Obama heads to Nebraska on Wednesday 13, Dr. Christian has prepared to confront the president’s hypocrisy in the “war on terrorism” with a few questions that prove the failure in his “success tour.”

With Obama coming to Omaha on the first stop of his “victory lap” following Tuesday’s State of the Union, the Global Faith Institute (GFI) feels we should prepare a proper welcome for him. He’s planning to tout his “successes.” Well, Omaha has questions for this President and we expect answers…

Is it “success” to insist on resettling Syrian refugees knowing we can’t adequately screen them?

Is it “success” to protect known front operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in America by halting a pending indictment against them in federal court?

Or perhaps it’s a “success” when he says “something must be done” to make America safer, and that “something” turns out to be making life difficult for lawful gun owners rather than dealing with Islamic supremacists and border security.

We have more than 30 separate organizations in Nebraska that have all stated a willingness to attend a counter-rally. We will help them do that by hosting that rally, where we expect to see hundreds (if not thousands) of our fellow citizens coming together to send President Obama a clear message, in terms anyone can understand… “With all due respect Sir, your Presidency is a failure.”

The city of Omaha has survived your Presidency, not benefited from it. The success of our nation has nothing to do with your socialist, pro-Islamist, pro-Muslim brotherhood, unconstitutional executive orders presidency.

We anticipate wide-ranging participation in spoiling the first stop of President Obama’s “victory lap.” This will be an entirely free event, open to the public.

We DID build that Mr. President, and you would do well to recognize that our success is in spite of your policies, not because of them.

Of course, this isn’t the first time he has outlined the obvious flaws in Obama’s leftist agenda. In a previous interview with Mad World News, Dr. Christian condemned his comparison of the Islamic State’s brutality to the Crusades, asking when he would begin equally denouncing terrorism done in the name of Islam.

“ISIS does nothing that Mohammed didn’t first do 14 centuries ago. You see, the problem isn’t a ‘radical interpretation of Islam,’ the problem is the belief in Islam that Mohammed was the ‘perfect man,’ and as such, worthy of emulation in all things.

You know Christians will bow their heads and pray for you whereas Muslims will simply take your head and celebrate.”

Having a firsthand knowledge of Islam’s inherent violence, Dr. Christian hopes to warn America of the impending Islamic war that’s reached our shore. Of course, Obama won’t answer these simple questions, but we can answer the end of his presidency by taking our nation back from the leftists who apologize for the very ideology threatening to destroy it.

Photo Credit [Global Faith Institute, The Federalist Papers]


Obama’s Magical Victory Tour Coming to Omaha

As citizens of Omaha, we will tell the president what we think of his socialist, unconstitutional and pro-Muslim Brotherhood ways.

[For info on Dr. Christian’s battle against the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the American Heartland, click here. To contact Dr. Christian, email him at Mark@globalfaith.org.]

President Obama is following his final State of the Union address with a “victory lap” beginning in Omaha.  He will be “celebrating the successes” of his policies by coming to a city that neither embraced them nor supported them, and certainly didn’t benefit from them.  His vision for the next decade outlined in the SOTU looks remarkably like the fetid carcass of a welfare state already bloated beyond our ability to maintain.

Things like “wage insurance” (where the government makes up the difference when a displaced worker has to take a lower paying job) are more of the same greased skids to chronic dependency that is the hallmark of a pliant and supine citizenry.  Hardly the stuff of soaring pride.

The occasion of President Obama’s visit has generated an organic backlash among a significant number of Omahans, the tone of which could best be described as disdain (coupled with a healthy dose of revulsion).

Omaha, Nebraska has largely avoided the economic and social paroxysms that have beset our nation in the last decade; not because we are protected by our many famous and powerful residents, but because we yet adhere to the core values of personal responsibility, rock-solid work ethic and old-fashioned Midwestern good sense.

As the rest of the nation honed their “peak and valley” skills, Omaha wisely avoided the fads, ignoring the siren songs of the economic hucksters and the job-killing fantasies of the social engineers, preferring instead to fix the road ahead rather than blindly blaze new trails to old destinations.

As a result of our collective common-sense, Omaha has enjoyed one of the lowest sustained unemployment rates in the country (averaging nearly 4% below the national average), the nation’s most affordable real estate market, a business-friendly mindset with a cost of living 19% below national average and a job growth rate nearly 10% above the national average. Not to mention a rate of crime low enough for other cities to routinely ask “What’s your secret?”

Now, after Omaha has endured seven long years of Democrat misrule in Washington DC, the leader of that mediocrity parade intends to come to our city to claim our success as his own.

Our president is unduly cognizant of his own existence and this common failing of the hopelessly self-absorbed is what animates his final-year strategy.  He’s leaving, and those of us in the hinterlands need to understand just how much we’ll miss him…or so it goes in the fevered recesses of his legacy-obsessed mind.

It would appear that Omaha – long known for pragmatism and good sense – will be offering some of each to the “boy-king.”

When word reached Omaha that Obama intends to tout the “successes” of his policies by citing Omaha as an example, the reaction was swift.  The Omaha-based Global Faith Institute immediately released a statement saying, in part:

The Global Faith Institute (GFI) believes the President ought to know the citizens of Omaha have a definition of “success” that differs greatly from his, and we have some questions…

Is it “success” to insist on resettling Syrian refugees knowing we can’t adequately screen them?

Is it “success” to protect known front operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in America by halting a pending indictment against them in federal court?

Or perhaps it’s a “success” when the [resident says that “something must be done” to make America safer, and that “something” turns out to be making life difficult for lawful gun owners, rather than dealing with Islamic supremacists and border security.

Omaha anxiously awaits the president’s arrival. We’d like to talk about all that “success.”

The statement gained traction on social media (still growing) and among conservative groups well beyond Omaha. It is now leading to plans to organize a counter-rally to the president’s visit. The way it looks now, there will likely be more protestors outside the arena where Obama is to speak than attendees inside listening.

Omaha is also the home of the Tri-Faith Initiative, a project that plans to co-locate a Mosque (with a Muslim study institute) a Church and a Synagogue on the same physical campus, about which I have written previously. The project has attracted international attention, as has the opposition to it. The opposition is led by the same Global Faith Institute and its founder, myself. I am a former Imam who converted from Islam to Christianity. I have family members who yet remain high-ranking advisors to the Muslim Brotherhood in my native Egypt. I am well aware of the dangers the Brotherhood poses and have dedicated my life to protecting America from them.

We can’t help from wondering: Is the involvement of Susan Buffett (billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s daughter) in bankrolling much of the Tri-Faith-Initiative a part of the reason for the president choosing Omaha to begin his post-SOTU tour? He is expected to visit the Tri-Faith campus, or at least discuss the project in his speech. Is this a “thank you” for Warren’s support? Regardless of reason, there are many people in Omaha who do not support the Tri-Faith Initiative because of its affiliation with Muslim Brotherhood front groups (CAIR & ISNA), Many of us in Omaha don’t wish to see the president laud a project that is likely to make our city a target for terrorism.

If the spontaneous reaction immediately following the announcement of the President’s visit is any indication, Omaha’s “unwelcoming” committee may be the real story coming out of Omaha that day. Certainly, it appears that the first stop on Obama’s magical victory tour is likely to be spoiled by a dose of Midwestern reality.

It’s about time.

And so it begins… Obama’s executive action on gun control

By Joe Herring

We are entering the final year of the Obama Presidency – or as I like to call it, “Obamageddon” – and his signature tactic of overwhelming resistance by sheer anti-constitutional hubris is certain to be ramped up to a feverish level.

His announcement of intentionally-vague and over-broad new regulations on gun ownership sets the stage for another of Obama’s trademark methods for usurping authority – enacting law by executive fiat.  As is his wont, Obama attempts to enact wildly unconstitutional proposals via the illegitimate use of executive orders.

In the end, the argument coalesces around the specific usurpations of liberty contained in the order, while the more dangerous component (the bypassing of Congress in the establishment of law and precedent) goes largely unchallenged.

Listen to his announcement at the link below.


It’s important to understand that this isn’t a legislative proposal, or a trial balloon launched to stimulate a wide-ranging debate.  This is the unconstitutional use of raw executive power to limit the applicability of a constitutional right to citizens who have neither committed a crime, nor have any real means of recourse.  As an executive order, it goes into effect immediately without review or input from the American people or their duly elected representatives.

Simply put, this is rule by edict, no different than the actions of a despot.

As this regime has repeatedly shown, when they are engaged publicly in one particularly egregious assault on our liberty, they are generally using the resulting fog and confusion to conceal other, equally or even more loathesome activities.

It is important to watch Obama’s right hand when the left one is waving something shiny in the air.

What other initiatives or regulatory crimes will be committed furing the dust-up over his gun overreach?  Broadening the scope of authority for the EPA?  Perhaps a massive expansion of the refugee program?  Or will it be the subversive proposal to criminalize as hate speech criticism of Islam?

HR569 is a proposal co-sponsored by, at the time of this writing, 82 Democrats in the House.  The text of the legislation is reproduced below.

HR 569:

Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1)   expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
(2)   steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
(3)   denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;
(4)   recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
(5)   declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6)   urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and
(7)   reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

Will the complicit and supine Republican-led Congress horse-trade passage of this bill in return for the rescinding of the worst part of Obama’s gun control order?This legislation mirrors its U.N. parent, Resolution 16/18.  Similar anti-speech legislation already enacted in Western Europe has resulted in the catastrophy of violence, rape and intimidation we see regularly on the news from the EU.

Who knows?  The important take-away from all of this is that the hits will come fast and unrelentingly now that the boy-king’s final year in office has arrived.

Pay attention.  Tell others.  Above all, don’t give up.

Change You Can Believe In…


Egypt has finalized a 2 billion dollar weapons deal with Russia. Because of U.S. (the current administration) support for radical Islam, ie; the Muslim Brotherhood, our longest and strongest ally in the Middle East is ostensibly ‘walking away’ because we support terrorists.


A Letter To Russian President Vladimir Putin


Mr. Putin – You will continue to be a dictator, the Obama presidency will eventually go away… BUT Americans will continue to be exceptional!

Dear Mr. Putin.

Though we appreciate your wise counsel as it relates to foreign policy, we do find ourselves taking issue with a few statements you’ve made.

First and foremost, you couldn’t have picked a worse day to voice your opinion about America and more specifically, Americans. As you may recall, 12 years ago we experienced what was arguably the largest terrorist attack in modern times. You seem to conveniently enjoy freedom of speech, yet lack the ‘tact’ that should accompany it.

As we mentioned above, assuming no ulterior motives, your counsel concerning Syria seems spot on. We do however find it difficult to trust the leader of a country that has practically defined the concept of negotiating in ‘bad faith’.

Are we down right now? Do we have a President who many don’t agree with? ABSOLUTELY!

Will we be back?…I wouldn’t bet your last bottle of Vodka against it.

You’ve taken your shots at us, taking issue with the idea of “American Exceptionalism”, saying…”It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation”. Mr. Putin, America and its people, ARE exceptional.

What makes us exceptional? Well, for starters, our Constitution. Because of this Constitution, Americans have, and adhere to, a system of government that guarantees us the option of new leadership after every four year term…and in this, President Obama’s second term, our system guarantees a new leader in 2016. Mr. Putin, do you know what else is unique about this system? Not only will our current President be moving out of the White House, but it will all be done peacefully, according to the constructs of our Founding Fathers.

Speaking of “Founding Fathers”…

We’re rather fond of those ‘old guys’, whose vision for what a country should look like has given rise to the greatest nation this earth has ever known. How about comparing ours to the “Founding Fathers” of modern Russia? Care to discuss the virtues of Lenin, Marx and Stalin?

You mention,”…we must not forget that God created us equal.” Agreed! There’s likely never been a country that has recognized and owned that fact like the United States of America. We’re not claiming that God has created Americans as exceptional people. It does however seem clear that we have a “nature vs nurture” argument here. Though we don’t claim to be exceptional by birth (nature), we BECOME exceptional by virtue of our uniquely American ideals (nurture). Mr. Putin, the facts are clear and they’re not on your side. Though we’ll continue to seek the Lord’s blessing on America, we’ll also be praying for you and your country…that Russia might someday embody ideals that provide freedom and liberty for its people.

In conclusion, Mr. Putin, though your advice may have been sound, next time we need some advice…don’t call us, we’ll call you.


Global Faith Institute


This letter is in response to President Putin’s op-ed in The New York Times, published 9/11/13.

A Few Timely Questions About Syria

Maher and Bashar Assad

Were the chemical weapon attacks staged by a ‘double agent’ within the Syrian Army?

Does the official ‘chemical weapon attack’ story make sense to anyone?  We’re not  trying to deny that the weapons were launched by someone within the Syrian Army, the case has been made and the evidence is compelling, clearly the rebels didn’t launch the 2:30 am August 22nd 2013  attack .

But…could this have been the work of an infiltrator within the Syrian Army’s 4th Armored Division?  Could this mole have launched the Aug. 21 attack on the eastern Ghouta suburbs of the capital, Damascus?  A captain in the unit who fired the chemical shells had his life threatened when he hesitated to fire the munitions, the threat being made by a regional commander within the Syrian army.  Who is this regional commander?

Why do we seem insistent on going to war without asking these very important questions… which are among many that remain unanswered about the source of the chemical attacks?

We need to stop trying to belabor the point of whether or not this attack was launched by the Syrian Army.  Clearly, U.S. intelligence has provided documentation of this fact, as mentioned in the Washington Post

“U.S. spy agencies recorded each step in the alleged chemical attack, from the extensive preparations to the launching of rockets to the after-action assessments by Syrian officials. Those records and intercepts would become the core of the Obama administration’s evidentiary case linking the Syrian government to what one official called an “indiscriminate, inconceivable horror” — the use of outlawed toxins to kill nearly 1,500 civilians, including at least 426 children.”

The question that remains at this point is, if Syrian President Assad didn’t launch this attack…who did?  Though there’s evidence that President Assad’s younger brother, Maher Assad, was in command of the unit accused of launching the attacks, this still doesn’t explain why or even provide a motive for the attack.  So, we ask, who had a motive??

Various reports claim that immediately after the attacks the commander of the chemical weapons unit had several “frantic” calls with the Syrian Defense Minister, in which the Defense Minister was apparently trying to ascertain exactly what had happened.  Why would the Defense minister have been surprised if the preparations had been taking place for 3 days, as the following statement from the Washington Post makes clear?

The preparations, as described by U.S. intelligence analysts, continued from Aug. 18 until just after midnight on Aug. 21, when the projectiles were loaded into rocket launchers behind the government’s defensive lines. Then, at 2:30 a.m., a half-dozen densely populated neighborhoods were jolted awake by a series of explosions, followed by an oozing blanket of suffocating gas.”

So, are we to believe that the President of Syria would launch a massive chemical attack (as mentioned above) on civilians and not let his own Defense Minister in on that plan?   There are those who speculate that the frantic calls were related to the Syrian Governments surprise at the effectiveness of the attack.  We have to ask, “Why would the casualty count engender frantic phone calls?”  If one were to launch such massive chemical weapons ON PURPOSE and they were effective, that’s cause for a ‘Mission accomplished’ phone call, not a frantic one (we’re not advocating this, just examining motive).  However, if one were to see that an UNAUTHORIZED chemical attack had been carried out by one’s own military (that he is supposed to be in charge of), that would indeed be cause for a ‘frantic’ phone call, to say the least.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has said that the Syrian regimes continued bombing of the affected area is a blatant attempt to keep UN inspectors out of the area and is thus another smoking gun showing that the regime is responsible for the attack.  While that might be true, couldn’t it also be true that the regime was doing whatever it could to cover up a chemical attack that they didn’t intend to launch?

Another important question…does it seem suspicious to anyone  that the Syrian regime would launch a chemical weapon attack 3 days after the U.N. inspection team arrived in Damascus?  If Assad was going to use chemical weapons, why would he wait until the folks who would identify it are in your own backyard??

And does it seem suspicious that there’d be a reporter waiting on a rooftop 3 miles from the launch location, with a video camera, at 3AM to catch the missile in flight?  This same reporter quickly posted these pictures online and commenced Skype interviews. Even in a war torn country, we’re wary to believe that reporters are pulling ‘stakeout’ duty on rooftops…just in case something happens.

If you’ve been following us for long, you’ve undoubtedly already had the opportunity to read our explanation of the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks.  If you’re not familiar with the truth behind the attacks and how the Syrian conflict has been in the works for quite some time, reading our article published in the Gateway Pundit will give you a better perspective on what you see playing out in the news today.

As we’ve mentioned multiple times, there are no ‘good guys and bad guys’ in this conflict.  When dealing with Islam and its true adherents, there’s rarely a ‘good guy’ to be found.  However, lacking a good guy doesn’t preclude us from seeking the truth, particularly if we’re attempting to use this evidence as justification to go to war.

Only a dreamer would believe that this will be a short operation, considering all the players involved. Hezbollah is fighting for its existence and Iran won’t let their progeny in Syria and Lebanon slip quietly into the night…they will protect what they see as theirs.

There’s only one path to anything resembling peace in this conflict.  In an effort to avoid the beginning of World War 3, Russian President Vladimir Putin must convince his friend Basher el Assad to step down.  Once he’s resigned, the United States and Russia can negotiate for the future of this ancient country.  This solution must provide assurances of safety and sovereignty for all ethnic and religious groups especially the Christians, Jews, Kurds and nearly 2 million Alawite Shiite’s currently residing in Syria.

Finally, in the spirit of grace and mercy, extended even for those who seem to lack it themselves, we call on President Obama to provide a 24 hour period to allow President Assad a final opportunity to resign, before bombing begins.  This stipulation needs to be included in the final resolution that Congress will vote on next week, a resolution that might otherwise be the first domino tipped in the beginning of World War 3.