Sunday, 29 November 2015


Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS

Instead he argued, “The goal has to be to dismantle them.”
Just before the Paris massacre, Obama shifted back to containment. “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” he said.
Pay no attention to what he said last year. There’s a new message now. Last year Obama was vowing to destroy ISIS. Now he had settled for containing them. And he couldn’t even manage that.
ISIS has expanded into Libya and Yemen. It struck deep into the heart of Europe as one of its refugee suicide bombers appeared to have targeted the President of France and the Foreign Minister of Germany. That’s the opposite of a terrorist organization that had been successfully contained.
Obama has been playing tactical word games over ISIS all along. He would “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Or perhaps dismantle the Islamic State. Or maybe just contain it.
Containment is closest to the truth. Obama has no plan for defeating ISIS. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. There will be talk of multilateral coalitions. Drone strikes will take out key figures. And then when this impressive war theater has died down, ISIS will suddenly pull off another attack.
And everyone will be baffled at how the “defeated” terrorist group is still on the march.
The White House version of reality says that ISIS attacked Paris because it’s losing. Obama also claimed that Putin’s growing strength in Syria is a sign of weakness. Never mind that Putin has all but succeeded in getting countries that were determined to overthrow Assad to agree to let him stay.
Weakness is strength. Strength is weakness.
Obama’s failed wars occupy a space of unreality that most Americans associate with Baghdad Bob bellowing that there are no American soldiers in Iraq. (There are, according to the White House, still no American ground forces in Iraq. Only American forces in firefights on the ground in Iraq.)
There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.
The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.
And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.
Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.
Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.
When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.
Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.
In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.
The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.
Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.
Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.
He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.
Just like in Afghanistan.
Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.
And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity so horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.
Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.
Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.
Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.
This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.
That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.
The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America.
Reprinted with author’s permission from Sultan Knish Blog

Saturday, 28 November 2015


Devious Doctrines of Diabolic Deception - Part 2 - By Gene Lawley -
Several years ago I heard a Baptist pastor, who had ministered in the Salt Lake region as a church pastor describe the Mormon religion as Satan's greatest counterfeit. And as I have indicated in the first part on this topic, he had justifiable reason for that identification.
However, Joseph Smith only showed up in the early 1800s, and Satan would not have held back his deceptions for so many centuries just for that so-called "latter-day revelation" of God's failure to initiate a workable plan of salvation for mankind in the beginning.
Like that garden plot you spent so much time getting ready for the spring planting, the first thing that shows up are those devilish weeds that are trying to choke out anything desirable and worthwhile. 
In that Matthew 16 passage where Jesus declared the beginning of His Church we find the beginning, also, of a parallel religious body that springs out of a humanistic foundation based on Peter, the pebble or stone (petras), and not the Rock or boulder (petra) of the deity of Jesus Christ as identified to Peter by the Spirit of God. Here is that passage:
 "He said to them,   'But who do you say that I am?'
 Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
 "Jesus answered and said to him,   'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed  this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.   And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven'" (Matthew 16:15-19).
It is interesting that the Holy Spirit led Matthew to precede this context with Jesus warning the disciples to beware of the "leaven" of the  Pharisees and Sadducees, meaning their doctrine, which basically was the binding legalism of the law. That is, the human efforts, the performance of "flesh and blood" instead of faith as the means of pleasing God.  
Then He shows that His deity cannot be known by human effort but only by revelation from God. That distinction is then made between the Rock of His true identification and Peter, a mere human of flesh and blood limitations. Yet, He puts in this mere human the keys to the kingdom of heaven and certain authority along with it. The meaning of this authority deserves a more lengthy discussion at a later time, and I will deal with it again in Part 3 of this series.
Before discussing my observations of doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church and their comparison with the Scriptures, I must say clearly that there are many, many beautiful and wonderful people in the Catholic Church.
The deceptions they are exposed to come from a higher spiritual order, from Satan himself. I mean no harm, no offense to innocent believers in that arena, but my intent is to highlight the Scriptures in comparison with that church's doctrines and traditions that are claimed as equal to the Word of God.
I must also add that I am a layman, not a theologian, and one who is on the outside, looking into an organization that is centuries old. But, I might add, the Scriptures are even older, and I, as an outsider, can make an objective comparison and analysis of the issues.
Shortly after the Matthew 16 conversations about the identity of Jesus and the establishment of His church, He began to teach the disciples that He was going to Jerusalem where He would be killed and would rise again the third day. Peter did not like that idea and told Him so. Here is that passage:
 "From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
 "Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, 'Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!'
 "But He turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men'" (Matthew 16:21-23).
When man injects his "flesh and blood" opinions and ideas into God's plans and methods, God sees them as directly from Satan. And here, He says so, even as He looked into the face of Peter!
So when Jesus established His Church on the foundation of His deity, Satan also established his greatest counterfeit, based on the man, Peter. But the apostle Peter was not a party to it. The Roman Catholic Church apparently had no specific beginning date unless it began as the church at Rome, to which Paul wrote his epistle about the year A.D. 58.
If that entity was the roots of the later organization, then it became the Roman Catholic Church about A.D. 310 when Constantine incorporated it into the Roman government as its State Church. He allegedly had the Pope "baptize" the soldiers as they rode out to war by sprinkling them with a leafy branch as they rode under it. 
When I walk into a Catholic Church, I see two things that are most prominent. One is a statue of a woman holding a baby, and the other is a cross with a figure of a person hanging in death upon it. It just recently came clear to me the subtle message thus presented: Both are silent witnesses of the dominance of mankind over deity, the deity of the son of God. 
Satan has always wanted to display dominance over God in every way that he can-by displaying Jesus, the Christ child, in the care of a physical being, and Jesus, the man, dead at the hands of mankind. But God knows Satan's time is coming, soon!
Some of the false doctrines and practices of the Roman Church and Scriptures to the contrary:
 1. Worship of Mary as Co-redeemer and Deity. In Luke 1:38, after the angel had told Mary of God's plan for her to bear the Holy One, she said,   "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." And in her song of joy, beginning at Luke 1:46, she exclaims this: "My soul magnifies the Lord,  and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." (Mary also needed a savior.)
 2. The perpetuity of Mary's virginity. That is, she had no other children. Mark 3:32, however, says this: "And a multitude was sitting around Him,  and they said to Him, 'Look,  Your  mother and Your  brothers are outside seeking You.'" Those who deny this to be a family seeking Him, say they were His "brothers in faith." 
However, they were distinguished from the multitude around Him. The clincher, though, is the apostle Paul, who called James "the Lord's brother" in Galatians 1:19, where Paul also identified James as an apostle: "But I saw none  of  the other apostles except James,  the Lord's brother."
 3. The doctrine of transubstantiation. This was invented by Augustine (A.D. 354-430), who also was the early proponent of the worship of Mary and her continual virginity. The practice maintains that in Communion (the Mass), the wafer mysteriously turns into the actual body of Christ and the wine into His blood, thus solving the problem found in John 6:54 where Jesus says, "Whoever  eats My flesh  and drinks My  blood has eternal life,  and I will raise him up at the last day." 
This statement, for the Catholics, is the basis for the belief that if the wafer and the drink are not taken regularly, the member loses his salvation. Jesus expands on it in the context, and in John 6:63, He says this: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and  they are life."
 By this clarification from the Lord, Himself, even if the wafer and drink did become the flesh and blood of Christ, it would not transfer any spiritual benefit to the partaker (i.e. "the flesh profits nothing"). The only truly spiritual thing we have, which is also physical, is the inspired Word of God, the living Word. Augustine again injected "flesh and blood" into God's business and produced a corrupted and false doctrine.
 4. Salvation is accomplished by baptism (sprinkled) and joining the Catholic Church, and maintained by regularly partaking of the communion sacrament described above. They maintain that baptism in the church is essential for eternal life. However, for example, when the Philippian jailer cried out, "What must I do to be saved?," 
 Paul answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved..." (Acts 16:31). He and his family, who also believed, and so, they were baptized. Many other verses and passages make no mention of baptism when discussing the way of salvation. (See John 5:24, John 6:37-38, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 10:9-10, and 1 John 5:11-13.)  
5. Purgatory, the doctrine of "half-way house" purging of sins before getting to heaven. Payments to priests for prayers to speed up the purging process have brought millions into the church over the centuries. 
However, the sins of true believers have already been purged by the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, followed by His resurrection. This doctrine negates the truth of that one sacrifice. For the unsaved person, Hebrews 9:27 tells us, "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment...." No stopping off place there at all! There is a judgment for the believer, but it is not regarding salvation. See 2 Corinthians 5:10 and 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.  
 Also, in the account of the rich man and Lazarus, in Luke 16:19-31, Jesus said there was a "certain" rich man and a "certain" beggar (named Lazarus), indicating real people. The rich man died and went directly to a place of torment without hope of deliverance, while the beggar, being pictured as with favor from God, went to the Paradise of "Abraham's bosom." No "half-way houses" here, either!
 Remember that the Roman Catholic Church is founded on Peter, the pebble, not Jesus Christ-the Rock, or boulder of truth that "favors the things of God and does not favor the things of men," as Matthew 16:23 tells us.
 There are more "devious doctrines" to uncover in this list as well as in other man-made religious practices, and we will continue the process in Part 3.
 Contact email:


New post on Now The End Begins

Right In Time For Chicago Riots, Another ‘Spontaneous’ Mass Shooting Takes Place

by Trick Dicky 

At least three dead, including cop, after mass shooting gunman opens fire at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs; five police officers shot, 9 people still hospitalized

EDITOR'S NOTE: It has become as predictable as the rising of the sun or the waves that lap against the sandy shoreline. Whenever there is a racially-motivated incident in the country like FergusonBaltimore and now in Chicago, a "spontaneous" mass shooter comes up out of nowhere and kills people. This time they rigged it to cover both pro-abortion and anti-Second Amendment issues. Tomorrow it will 'be revealed' that the shooter was on doctor prescribed antidepressants. Shocker. 
Three people, including a police officer, were killed and a gunman is in custody after he opened fire and shot at least five cops and several other civilians at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs,  authorities say.
The murdered police officer was identified as 44-year-old Garrett Swasey, a six-year veteran of the force at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, the college said.
There is a "huge crime scene that has to be processed," the city's mayor, John Suthers, told reporters. The Friday incident began around noon and didn't end with the suspect in cuffs into approximately 5 p.m. local time.
The shackled suspect was a white man who wore white T-shirt, a graying beard and glasses, pictures of the arrest show.


New post on Now The End Begins

Russia Cuts All Military And Diplomatic Ties With Turkey As War Looms

by Geoffrey Grider

All military contacts with Turkey have been cut following the downing of Russia's Su-24 military jet, the Russian Defense Ministry said Thursday

"Today, in accordance with a previously made decision, all cooperation channels have been cut between the Russian Defense Ministry and the Turkish Armed Forces," ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov told reporters.
"This concerns all ties, not just the so-called hotline that was launched in order to avoid possible air incidents during the destruction of terrorist infrastructure in Syria," he added.
The decision has been made after Turkish fighter jets on Tuesday had shot down a Russian Su-24 bomber, which had been taking part in Russia's anti-terror campaign in Syria.
Ankara claims it downed the Russian plane because it violated Turkish airspace. Contrary to Turkey’s allegations, the Russian General Staff and the Syrian Air Defense Command confirmed that the Su-24 never crossed into Turkish airspace, citing precise objective control data.
Russian President Vladimir Putin described the incident as a "stab in the back, carried out against us by accomplices of terrorists."
Following the downing of the Su-24 bomber, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that the incident would negatively affect all aspects of relations between Moscow and Ankara and recommended Russians to refrain from visiting Turkey. Cooperation in the tourism industry between Moscow and Ankara may be stopped, the Russian Federal Tourism Agency said.
Russia may also restrict or even ban Turkish vessels and aircraft from entering Russian ports and airspace, according to Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev. source

Friday, 27 November 2015


A Turkish-American Ambush
On November 24th, Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 over Syrian territory. It wasn’t a mistake. They didn’t think that it was a Syrian jet.
It was deliberate.
It was an ambush.
The question that we must now ask ourselves is why, and then we must ask where this is taking us. And, I’m afraid that I have the answer, and you won’t like it.
Welcome to the next stage, in the run-up to World War III.
America started it. Turkey completed it, and I REALLY hope that you will be ready for what comes next.
Subscribe to The Shock Letter and receive my articles in your inbox:

A Turkish-American Ambush

I had other things to write about and think about this week. I wanted to talk about the fact that I have finished the second edit of Ezekiel’s Fire – and that a new PDF will be ready, soon. I wanted to talk about the Chinese translation of Ezekiel’s Fire that will begin next week. I wanted to get into the news that PRIVATE DEBT will destroy our financial system LONG before GOVERNMENT DEBT does. I wanted to examine Islam, and I even wanted to talk about the wave of comments that I got from last week’s article about the Flat Earth Society – which was NOT about the Flat Earth Society.
However, I won’t be talking about all that, because Turkey chose to shoot down a Russian fighter-bomber over Syria.
Those of you who would have liked to hear what I have to say on those other topics will need to console yourselves with the research that I will provide at the end of this article. Unfortunately, you’ll see that I haven’t provided as much commentary on those articles as I normally do. It’s hard to know for sure, but it seems like Turkey’s attack took the wind out of my sails.
So, let’s get into an analysis of this attack.

This Was An Ambush

First of all, let’s examine why it was deliberate.
No, actually let’s examine why it was an ambush.
Here’s the map of what Turkey said was the flight path of this airplane:
Turkey Version of Flight Path
Turkey Version
How long would it take for the Su-24 to traverse two miles?
Well, Turkey said 17 seconds.
I doubt that it was even THAT much. But, let’s roll with the Turkey version. And, the Turkey version says that they warned the Su-24 pilot ten times before shooting it down.
How long would it take for an F-16 aircraft to give the Su-24 ten warnings, illuminate the Su-24 with fire-control radar, obtain a lock-on and then fire the missile that shot down the plane?
A lot more than 17 seconds.
Of course, the Russians said that the plane was NEVER in Turkey’s territory, and there were no warnings. The pilot verifies this, and the flight data appears to verify the Russian side of this story.
In fact, here’s a comparison of the two stories about the ‘flight path’:
Comparison of Russian/Turkish 'flight path' stories
Comparison of Russian/Turkish ‘flight path’ stories
Furthermore, we find that Russia gave the intended flight and the timing of that flight path to the US to avoid this exact situation. And, it is obvious to me that the US passed on this information to Turkey, to set up this ambush:
US knew flight path of plane downed by Turkey: Putin
‘They knew the exact time and the exact place’: Putin accuses US of leaking flight path of doomed jet to Turkey… as his fearsome anti-aircraft missiles roll into Syria
So, this wasn’t just a Turkish ambush of the Su-24, it was an American ambush, as well.
And yes, this is EXACTLY how the Russians will see this.

Why They Did This

Now, you need to ask yourself another question:
Why did Turkey and the United States do this?
Well, Turkey and the US have different reasons for why they did this, and Turkey’s reason is easier to find. So, let’s look Turkey, first.
Please understand that fighter pilots are chosen for more than their technical skill and aggressiveness. Both of those qualities are necessary, but there’s something else that’s needed:
Obedience To Orders
Fighter pilots fly extremely expensive machines that can start wars and be used to assassinate politicians. We occasionally find pilots rebelling against their orders, but it is extremely rare. They are also the elite of the armed forces of their country.
In Israel, for example, fighter pilots go through the most rigorous special forces training possible. Their identities are protected, and they are exceptionally dependable.
Also, did you notice that Turkey did NOT blame the pilot?
Right. The downing of the Su-24 was a decision made at the highest levels. And, when I say ‘highest’, I mean:
President Erdogan
This was the deliberate decision of Recep Tayyip Erdo─čan. This wasn’t the decision of some two-bit general wanting to start his own war. This was deliberate. This was political.
Oh, and notice that the military is firmly behind this decision. Turkey has had a history of military coups, and have traditionally been seen as a protector of the Turkish Republic. Many have been hoping that the Turkish military was sufficiently secular to keep Erdogan from leading Turkey into Islamism.
So, if you thought like that…
…think again.

Why Turkey Did This

Okay, so this brings us to a question about Erdogan:
Why did the President of Turkey authorize a shoot-down of this Su-24?
I’m not sure that we can be completely certain, but we have some clues. First of all, Erdogan’s son – Bilal – is making a lot of money selling the oil that he’s been buying from ISIS. Those had to have been extremely big profits, and Erdogan would have been interested in keeping the money flowing.
Unfortunately for Erdogan, Russia has been destroying those profits by blowing up ISIS refineries and oil tanker trucks.
You will notice that the US and NATO were very careful to NOT attack those targets.
But, was this JUST about money?
I don’t think so. I think that the bigger reason revolves around Erdogan’s desire to restart the Ottoman Empire. He has been interested in doing that for a very long time, and has spared no effort in attempting to reach that goal. And, he must have felt confident of achieving that goal, until just before the Russians entered the game, in Syria.
Syria was always going to be Turkey’s first step in achieving her imperial goals. The conflict between Syria and Turkey goes all the way back to the founding of Turkey and the splitting of the Alawite region, northeast of Syria. And, the conflict inside of Syria was Turkey’s big chance to settle scores and launch her empire.
How bitter Erdogan must have felt to see Russia dash his imperial dreams.

Why The US Did This

I’m not sure what other elements there are on Turkey’s side, so I’ll turn this analysis to America.
Vladimir Putin specifically accused the United States for making this ambush happen. Russia gave the details of the flight path and other mission details to the United States last week. And, Russia did this to make sure that there were no misunderstandings. And of course, there weren’t.
This also means that the IFF would have been turned on, to make sure that everyone knew who and what this Su-24 was.
What is an IFF?
IFF stands for Identification Friend or Foe. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
Identification, friend or foe (IFF) is an identification system designed for command and control. It enables military and national (civilian air traffic control) interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF may be used by both military and civilian aircraft.
IFF was first developed during World War II. The term is a misnomer, as IFF can only positively identify friendly targets, not hostile ones. If an IFF interrogation receives no reply or an invalid reply, the object cannot be identified as friendly, but is not positively identified as foe. There are many reasons that friendly aircraft may not properly reply to IFF.
IFF is a tool within the broader military action of “Combat Identification (CID), the process of attaining an accurate characterization of detected objects in the operational environment sufficient to support an engagement decision.” The broadest characterization is that of friend, enemy, neutral, or unknown. CID not only can reduce friendly fire incidents, but also contributes to overall tactical decision-making.
And, there’s no reason why Russia would have turned off their IFF transponders. And, they would have shared the transponder codes with the US and Turkey, to make sure that there were no ‘misunderstandings’.
So again, why did America do this?
For the same reason why America overthrew the government in Kiev, Ukraine. It was also the same reason why the United States encouraged Mikheil Saakashvili to launch theRusso-Georgian War of 2008. It is the same reason why the US has expanded NATO right up to Russia’s borders. It is why Russia has been subject to every dirty trick in America’s big bag of dirty tricks.
America wants Russia broken up into little pieces.
Why would America want to do that?
Well, the answer is quite simple:
Russia’s existence is a threat to America’s Empire.
The people of uncertain parentage who rule America from Washington, D.C., do not want ANY threat to US hegemony. In fact, they don’t want anyone to be able to limit the expansion of that hegemony.

How Russia Will Respond

The other side of this is Russia. Vladimir Putin is one of the most talented leaders that I have ever seen. Margaret Thatcher might have come close, but I’m not sure that even SHE had the talent that Vladimir has. And no, Ronald Reagan wasn’t in the same league as Vlad.
I liked Ronnie, and I still revere his memory. But, he wasn’t as smart or as ruthless as Vladimir Putin.
I’m trying to think of someone comparable to Putin. Maybe Lincoln? Washington? Jefferson?
Don’t get me wrong. Putin is still a thug. But, he’s a very talented and patriotic thug. And, I would not want to be on the wrong side of such a thug.
So, what is Vladimir ‘the thug’ Putin going to do to Turkey?
Well, he’s already brought in S-400 Triumf anti-aircraft missile system. So, you can expect that Russia will shoot down some Turkish planes, if he gets the chance. He might even shoot one down over Turkish territory.
But, he won’t stop there.

The Rise Of Assyria

If I were Vlad, I’d build up the Kurds and do my best to bring down Turkey. And, we have some indication from the Bible that this is exactly what Russia will do.
Here’s the reference:
In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:
Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.
I see that you have a question, so I will ask it for you:
What do the Kurds have to do with the Assyrians?
Well, that’s because the Kurds ARE THE ASSYRIANS. That’s right. If you are looking for the Assyrians, look no further than the Kurds.
They are not Arabs.
They have their own language.
They have their own culture.
And, they are a HUGE threat to the Turks.
Of course, I’ve been telling you about Isaiah 19 for a while.
What was it that Isaiah 19 is connected to?
Right. The drying up of the Nile River – at least, temporarily – and THAT is on its way via:
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam – or, GERD.
I hope that you are getting the feeling that the Middle East is about to undergo a HUGE change. Nations have already fallen. Others will also join them. Israel will come out on top.
Unfortunately, that is not the only change that will happen.


Islamic males are so bound up with lust. They are ruled by their groins insomuch as they can't trust themselves around unveiled women.
We know this.
However, their filth knows no bounds as many of us know from reports that I wouldn't put up here - including raping young boys and girls and worse. Dirty, disgusting, degenerates. I KNOW not all moslems think like that - but below is what is taught in mosque. From the koran.
Compare the effluence being spouted by this 'man' - a...
See More

Thursday, 26 November 2015


RE lessons will have to cover atheism after High Court ruling that Education Secretary Nicky Morgan's move to omit non-religious views was unlawful

  • High Court rules atheism should be included on national school syllabus
  • Mr Justice Warby said Education Secretary Nicky Morgan made 'error of law' in omitting non-religious views from the RE curriculum 
  • The minister had argued pupils should only study religious beliefs
  • But families and British Humanist Association appealed against the move
Atheism will go on the school syllabus for RE lessons after the High Court ruled Education Secretary Nicky Morgan's move to omit non-religious views from lessons was unlawful. 
The ruling in London was a victory for three families, supported by the British Humanist Association, who claimed Nicky Morgan had taken a 'skewed' approach and was failing to reflect the diverse nature of the UK in schools.
The government minister had previously defended the omission, arguing students should focus on studying religious beliefs because of the nature of the subject. 
Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, pictured, argued RE should focus on teaching students about religious beliefs due to the nature of the subject when she omitted non-religious views from the syllabus earlier this year
Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, pictured, argued RE should focus on teaching students about religious beliefs due to the nature of the subject when she omitted non-religious views from the syllabus earlier this year
Lawyers for the Government minister had argued no laws in the UK or Europe required equal weight to be given to both religious and non-religious views in a school curriculum.
But, allowing the families' application for judicial review, Mr Justice Warby, sitting in London, ruled there had been 'a breach of the duty to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in a pluralistic manner'.
Changes to RE GCSE subject content were announced last February, leading to complaints over the priority given to religious views - in particular Buddhism, Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism. 
Earlier this year, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was among 28 religious leaders who urged the Government to rethink plans to leave out humanism in the new qualification.
The families seeking judicial review included one from Cumbria and one from Kent who cannot be identified.
The third family is Kate Bielby, of Frome, Somerset, and her daughter Daisy.
David Wolfe QC, for the families, told the judge at a recent hearing there was widespread concern 'about the Secretary of State's failure to comply with her duty of neutrality and impartiality as between religious and other beliefs'. 
They argued that, although some schools rely on the RE GCSE to discharge their duty to provide religious education at key stage 4 for 14 to 16-year-olds, provision has been made for non-religious beliefs to be studied and what is in a school's curriculum is a matter 'for local determination' by individual school authorities.
Ruling in favour of the humanists, the judge said: 'It is not of itself unlawful to permit an RE GCSE to be created which is wholly devoted to the study of religion.'
But when the February 15 2015 decision was made to issue new subject content an assertion was made that such a GCSE 'will fulfil the entirety of the state's RE duties'.
The judge said that was an assertion likely to be accepted and acted on by schools and their governing authorities.
'The assertion thus represents a breach of the duty to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in a pluralistic manner.'
As a result, the Education Secretary 'has made an error of law in her interpretation of the education statutes'. 
The assertion contained 'a false and misleading statement of law which encourages others to act unlawfully'.
The judge made clear that his conclusions related to schools or academies which did not have a religious character.
Different provisions were made under the 1998 Schools Standards and Framework Act for schools that did have a religious character.

Schools will now have the option to teach non-religious views in RE lessons (picture posed by models)
The judge said: 'I have not found it necessary to address in this judgment the hypothetical question of whether the assertion might be true and lawful if and in so far as it relates to schools or academies with a religious character.'
A Department for Education (DfE) spokesman said: 'Our new RE GCSE ensures pupils understand the diversity of religious beliefs in Great Britain through the study of more than one religion, an important part of our drive to tackle segregation and ensure pupils are properly prepared for life in modern Britain.
'It is also designed to ensure pupils develop knowledge and understanding of both religious and non-religious beliefs.
'Today's judgment does not challenge the content or structure of that new GCSE and the judge has been clear it is in no way unlawful.
'His decision will also not affect the current teaching of the RS GCSE in classrooms.
'We will carefully consider the judgment before deciding on our next steps.' 
The British Humanist Association (BHA) said the judge had produced 'a landmark judgment' of fundamental importance to the teaching of religious and non-religious beliefs in schools.
The BHA said in a statement: 'While the Government will not be immediately compelled to change the GCSE, religious education syllabuses around the country will now have to include non-religious worldviews such as humanism on an equal footing, and pupils taking a GCSE will also have to learn about non-religious world views alongside the course.
'The Department for Education will now have to take action in response to the judgment against it.
'Further meetings will now take place between the parties to decide what steps must now be taken to ensure non-religious world views such as humanism are included.
Kate Bielby, one of the parents who won the ruling, said: 'My daughter and I are delighted by today's decision and the clear statement that it makes in support of equality of religion and belief.
'It is long past time that the beliefs of the non-religious were treated on an equal footing with religions in the school curriculum.
'I am confident that whatever changes are introduced on the back of this judgement, Religious Studies will be a fairer, more inclusive subject, benefiting all children whatever their religious or non-religious background.'
BHA chief executive Andrew Copson described the judgment as 'a stunning victory'.
He said: 'We have made the case for many decades that the school curriculum on religions should include major non-religious world views such as humanism. It is great news that the court has now said the law is with us.
'This is a stunning victory for the three humanist families who stood up to the Government on this issue. '
Mr Copson said BHA now wanted to work with the Government 'to ensure that the changes required by the judgement are implemented'.
He hoped the Government would use the ruling 'as an opportunity to improve the GCSE for the benefit of all children.'
Mr Copson said: 'Continuing to exclude the views of a huge number of Britons, in the face of majority public opinion and all expert advice, would only be to the detriment of education in this country and a shameful path to follow.'