Category Archives: Middle East

Vote-rigging in referendum on independence for Scotland; 1 in 4 Americans favor secession

On September 18, 2014, in a record voter turnout of 84.59%, the people of Scotland seemingly rejected independence from the United Kingdom by a whopping 55% “no” vs. 45% “yes”.

Scottish unionists won by a wider-than-expected 10-percentage-point margin, to the surprise of everyone because right up to the actual referendum, polls had shown a neck-to-neck race between “yes” and “no”.

It is, therefore, sobering that clear and visual evidence of vote fraud has been uncovered, as shown in this video, where a vote counter is seen periodically moving ballot sheets from the “yes” to the “no” pile, and where stacks of ballots are piled up in the “no” section when the top ballots can be seen to have the “yes” box checked off.

[H/t FOTM's Gingercake for the video]

So who/what is thwarting Scotland’s independence?

How about TPTB of the European Union, for one?

Two days before the Scottish referendum, Dina Spector reports for Business Insider:

The Scottish independence movement will embolden other active separatist groups in Europe to win their freedom, whether or not Scotland votes to secede from the UK on Thursday. From Catalonia and Basque Country in Spain to Veneto, South Tyrol, and the island of Sardinia in Italy to Flanders in Belgium, ‘the precedent of the vote on self-determination will reverberate around the Continent,’ The New York Times writes. If you want a rough idea of how European borders would have to be redrawn if regions with a separatist agenda got their way, you can look at the map below, put together by the European Free Alliance [EFA], to which “40 progressive nationalist, regionalist and autonomous parties throughout the European Union” belong.

Click map to enlarge

Map of Europe's secessionist movements
Meanwhile, back in the good ol’ U. S. of A., a new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that as many as a quarter of Americans, or 1 in 4, are open to their states leaving the union — a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.

Some 23.9% of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly support or tend to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3% of the 8,952 respondents strongly oppose or tend to oppose secession.

Some other findings of the poll:

  • The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states generally favor the idea more than Democrats and Northeasterners. By region, the idea was least popular in New England, the cradle of the Revolutionary War, with just 17.4% of respondents open to pulling their state out. It was most popular in the Southwest, where 34.1% of respondents back the idea. That region includes Texas, where an activist group is calling the state’s legislature to put the secession question on a statewide ballot.
  • Anger with Obama‘s handling of issues ranging from Obamacare to the Islamic State (aka ISIL) jihidasts drives some of the secessionist feeling. Mordecai Lee, professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements, said interest in secession “seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama.” Brittany Royal, a 31-year-old nurse from Wilkesboro, North Carolina, said anger over Obamacare made her wonder if her state would be better off on its own, “That has really hurt a lot of people here, myself included. My insurance went from $40 a week for a family of four up to over $600 a month for a family of four. The North Carolina government itself is sustainable. Governor (Pat) McCrory, I think he has a better healthcare plan than President Obama.”
  • Others say long-running Washington gridlock prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own. Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who (ironically) lives on disability payments from the federal government, said, “I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done. The state would be better off handling things on its own.”

~Eowyn

U.S. military does not support Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama

Dr. Eowyn:

Active and retired U.S. military officers are openly disagreeing with Obama’s policy toward the Islamic State (ISIL) jihadists, including none other than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

That means the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military does not have the respect and support of the troops.

The implications are troubling, not the least of which is that this will be exploited by America’s enemies, unless they are terminally stupid.

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

On September 10, 2014, 13 days after he had admitted not having a strategy on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, aka ISIS or IS), President Barack Obama finally spelled out the U.S. policy toward ISIL. (Watch and read his speech here.)

________________

Note: Levant consists of the island of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and southern Turkey.

________________

Vowing the U.S. will increase its support to the Iraqi government fighting ISIL, Obama proclaimed an additional 475 servicemembers will be sent to Iraq. But he emphasized that “these American forces will not have a combat mission –- we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.

As reported by The Washington Post, Obama had ignored the advice of the military on how to deal with ISIL. 

Gen. Lloyd Austin III

Gen. Lloyd Austin III

Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S…

View original 671 more words

President Lucifer on ISIS threat: More Toyota trucks on the ground

Obama doctrine: More white sneakers and Toyota trucks on the ground

Obama Doctrine: More white sneakers and Toyota trucks on the ground

Obama doubles down on the Benghazi error and Congress helps

House approves Obama’s Iraq-Syria military strategy amid skepticism

In answer to Obama and Congress, I would ask,
“Have you forgotten Benghazi?”

We were funneling arms and support to jihadists in Benghazi, when things went sideways, leading to the murder of several Americans. Fearing political backlash, Obama worked to silence the people who were knowledgeable, by issuing gag orders.

We have people in Turkey, supporting islamist terrorists, and sending them into Syria to destabilize Assad’s government. Sounds okay, right? But these are the same people who have been beheading Christians in the historic Christian towns of Syria; the same ones who are terrorizing Iraq and Syria, and threatening European, Russian and American citizens; the same ones who were caught red-handed, gassing Syrian towns and trying to blame Assad’s army for the atrocity.

The destruction of governments across North Africa by the Muslim Brotherhood has Obama’s fingerprints all over it. In case you haven’t read it, the result was the ruin of the economy of Egypt, and the beginning of genocides all over the African continent. Did you know that, under Obama, our tax dollars are rebuilding mosques and islamic schools? Did you know that Obama’s family members in Africa are deeply embedded in the Muslim Brotherhood?

Just today, there was a bust in Australia, arresting ISIS members who were planning “random beheadings” in the that country. We have islamist militias training in compounds all over America, with nobody in our government shutting them down. We know that jihadists are pouring over our Mexican border, while our border patrol agents have been forced by our government to let them in.

At a time like this, any sane and moral leader would muster the Police, Army, Navy, and Air Force. Orders would be given to take down jihadists wherever they are found, to kill them if they show any sign of resistance. Unmistakable messages would be sent throughout the world, “America is coming after the islamic radicals, and you had better support us or at least get out of our way.”

So, Obama’s response to the outrageous beheadings of western journalists and overt threats to our own country was…

wait for it…

More of the same. Support more “good” jihadists

Congress agrees to fund more terrorists

Congress agrees to fund more terrorists

And Congress is okay with this?!!!

murderer_and_victim

What time is it?

Did you know that prophecies account for nearly one third of the Bible?

Revelation 1:3 says, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.”

Two recent essays point to the unsettling and troubling times we live in. Is the time near?

~Eowyn

Helm's Deep

Victor Davis Hanson, “Are the Orcs Winning?,” PJMedia, Sept. 7, 2014:

J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings was sometimes faulted by literary critics for caricaturing the evil orcs as uniformly bad.  All of them were as unpleasant to look as they were deadly to encounter. There is not a single good orc or even a reformed orc in the trilogy. The apparent one-dimensional assumption of men, hobbits, dwarves, and elves is that the only good orc is a dead orc. So the absolutist Tolkien tried to teach us about the enduring nature of absolute good and evil. Apparently he did not think that anything from his contemporary experience might allow him to imagine reforming or rehabilitating such fictive folk.

Tolkien’s literary purpose with orcs was not to explore the many shades of evil or the struggle within oneself to avoid the dark side; he did that well enough in dozens of once good but weak characters who went bad such as the turncoat Saruman the wizard, his sidekick Wormtongue, a few of the hobbits who had ruined the Shire, and, best of all, the multifaceted Gollum. Orcs, on the other hand, are unredeemable. Orcs, goblins, and trolls exist as the tools of the even more sinister in proud towers to destroy civilization, and know nothing other than killing and destruction. Their reward is to feed on the crumbs of what they have ruined.

In the 21st century we are often lectured that such simplistic, one-dimensional evil is long gone. A ubiquitous civilization has so permeated the globe that even the worst sorts must absorb some mitigating popular culture from the Internet, Twitter, and Facebook, as if the sheer speed of transmitting thoughts ensures their moral improvement.

Even where democracy is absent, the “world community” and a “global consciousness” are such that billions supposedly won’t let Attila, Tamerlane, and Genghis Khan reappear in our postmodern lives. To deal with a Major Hasan, Americans cannot cite his environment as the cause, at least not poverty, racism, religious bigotry, nativism, xenophobia, or any of the more popular –isms and-ologies in our politically correct tool box that we customarily use to excuse and contextualize evil behavior. So exasperated, we shrug and call his murdering “workplace violence” — an apparent understandable psychological condition attributable to the boredom and monotony of the bleak, postmodern office.

But then suddenly along comes the limb-lopping, child-snatching, and mutilating Nigerian-based Boko Haram. What conceivable Dark Age atrocity have they omitted? Not suicide bombing, mass murder, or random torture. They are absolutely unapologetic for their barbarity. They are ready to convert or kill preteens as their mood determines for the crime of being Christian. In response, the Nigerian government is powerless, while the United States is reduced to our first lady holding up Twitter hashtags, begging for the release of the latest batch of girls.

Is the Somalia-based Al-Shabaab worse? It likes the idea that it is premodern. In addition to the usual radical Islamic horrors of beheadings, rape, and mutilation, Al-Shabaab even kills protected elephants, perhaps thousands of them, to saw off tusks and fund their killing spree. They seem to make the medieval Taliban look tame in comparison.

Roger Cohen, “The Great Unraveling,” New York Times, Sept. 15, 2014:

(Note: my words are colored teal)

It was the time of unraveling. Long afterward, in the ruins, people asked: How could it happen?

It was a time of beheadings (ISIS). With a left-handed sawing motion, against a desert backdrop, in bright sunlight, a Muslim with a British accent cut off the heads of two American journalists and a British aid worker. The jihadi seemed comfortable in his work, unhurried. His victims were broken. Terror is theater. Burning skyscrapers, severed heads: The terrorist takes movie images of unbearable lightness and gives them weight enough to embed themselves in the psyche.

It was a time of aggression. The leader of the largest nation (in land mass) on earth (Russia) pronounced his country encircled, even humiliated. He annexed part (Crimea) of a neighboring country (Ukraine), the first such act in Europe since 1945, and stirred up a war on further land he coveted. His surrogates shot down a civilian passenger plane (MH17). The victims, many of them Europeans, were left to rot in the sun for days. He denied any part in the violence, like a puppeteer denying that his puppets’ movements have any connection to his. He invoked the law the better to trample on it. He invoked history the better to turn it into farce. He reminded humankind that the idiom fascism knows best is untruth so grotesque it begets unreason.

(See “Was it really a Russian INVASION of Crimea?” )

It was a time of breakup. The most successful union (United Kingdom) in history, forged on an island in the North Sea in 1707, headed toward possible dissolution — not because it had failed (refugees from across the seas still clamored to get into it), nor even because of new hatreds between its peoples. The northernmost citizens (Scotland) were bored. They were disgruntled. They were irked, in some insidious way, by the south and its moneyed capital, an emblem to them of globalization and inequality. They imagined they had to control their National Health Service in order to save it even though they already controlled it through devolution and might well have less money for its preservation (not that it was threatened in the first place) as an independent state. The fact that the currency, the debt, the revenue, the defense, the solvency and the European Union membership of such a newborn state were all in doubt did not appear to weigh much on a decision driven by emotion, by urges, by a longing to be heard in the modern cacophony — and to heck with the day after. If all else failed, oil would come to the rescue (unless somebody else owned it or it just ran out).

It was a time of weakness. The most powerful nation on earth (USA) was tired of far-flung wars, its will and treasury depleted by absence of victory. An ungrateful world could damn well police itself. The nation had bridges to build and education systems to fix. Civil wars between Arabs could fester. Enemies might even kill other enemies, a low-cost gain. Middle Eastern borders could fade; they were artificial colonial lines on a map. Shiite could battle Sunni, and Sunni Shiite, there was no stopping them. Like Europe’s decades-long religious wars, these wars had to run their course. The nation’s leader (POS) mockingly derided his own “wan, diffident, professorial” approach to the world, implying he was none of these things, even if he gave that appearance. He set objectives for which he had no plan. He made commitments he did not keep. In the way of the world these things were noticed. Enemies probed. Allies were neglected, until they were needed to face the decapitators who talked of a Caliphate and called themselves a state. Words like “strength” and “resolve” returned to the leader’s vocabulary. But the world was already adrift, unmoored by the retreat of its ordering power. The rule book had been ripped up.

It was a time of hatred. Anti-Semitic slogans were heard in the land that invented industrialized mass murder for Europe’s Jews. Frightened European Jews removed mezuzahs from their homes. Europe’s Muslims felt the ugly backlash from the depravity of the decapitators, who were adept at Facebooking their message. The fabric of society frayed. Democracy looked quaint or outmoded beside new authoritarianisms. Politicians, haunted by their incapacity, played on the fears of their populations, who were device-distracted or under device-driven stress. Dystopia was a vogue word, like utopia in the 20th century. The great rising nations of vast populations held the fate of the world in their hands but hardly seemed to care.

It was a time of fever (Ebola). People in West Africa bled from the eyes.

It was a time of disorientation. Nobody connected the dots or read Kipling on life’s few certainties: “The Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire / And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.”

Until it was too late and people could see the Great Unraveling for what it was and what it had wrought.

2 US troops, 1 Polish sergeant killed in bombing near US Embassy in Kabul

taliban

Stars and Stripes: Two U.S. servicemembers and a Polish soldier were killed Tuesday when a suicide bomber struck a convoy of vehicles near the heavily guarded U.S. Embassy compound in Kabul, officials said.

The International Security Assistance Force said three of its servicemembers died “as a result of an enemy attack” in Kabul, but did not disclose the nationalities. Five ISAF members were reported wounded.

In Washington a defense official said two of the three fatalities were Americans. The third was a Polish sergeant, the Poland’s Defense Ministry said.

Separately, another coalition soldier was killed on Monday in an apparent insider attack in western Afghanistan, an ISAF statement said. A Pentagon official said the victim was an American.

Taliban insurgents claimed responsibility for the attack.

A Polish military spokesman identified the dead Polish servicemember as Sgt. Rafal Celebudzki. The spokesman told The Associated Press that Celebudzki was driving one of the vehicles that was struck in the bombing. He said two other Polish soldiers were among the wounded.

Hashmat Stanikzai, spokesman for the Kabul police, said that 13 civilians were wounded in the blast and that 17 civilian vehicles were damaged. An Interior Ministry statement condemned the attack and said it was carried out by the “enemies of peace.”

The attack occurred on the busy airport road, which is frequently jammed with rush-hour traffic early in the morning. Roads around the scene of the attack were blocked by security personnel. Windows on nearby government ministries and other buildings were broken.

A Taliban spokesman said a guerrilla named Bilal had driven an explosives-laden Toyota Corolla into the convoy driving through the capital.

“Bilal waited for this attack for a couple of days, watching the same road to make sure it would be accurate,” spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a telephone interview. “He targeted the middle of the convoy in order to avoid civilian casualties.”

The attack came amid a prolonged political crisis stemming from accusations of irregularities in the presidential election. A U.N.-supervised audit of the 8 million ballots cast was completed last week, but the results have still not been announced because the two candidates, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah and former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani, disagree on the count.

The impasse and the resulting delay in the transfer of power from current President Hamid Karzai has raised concerns about Afghanistan’s political stability at a time of increased insurgent activity ahead of the coming withdrawal of all foreign combat troops at the end of this year.

RIP Soldiers.

DCG

God loves muslims – part 03

God loves Muslims – part 02,” August 27, 2014.
God loves Muslims – part 01,” August 25, 2014.

Breitbart: BRITISH FEMALE JIHADIST MEDIC PICTURED HOLDING SEVERED HEAD

Mujahidah-Bint-Usama_Twitter

A 21-year-old woman who was British medical student before fleeing to Syria has posted an image on Twitter of herself holding up a severed head.

 15 Sep 2014

In the picture, which has since been taken down from the site, she can be seen in her white medical coat and full burka clearly holding up the head as children look on in the background. She wrote alongside the image, “Dream job, terrorist doc,” followed by love hearts and smilie faces.

Read the whole article here: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/15/British-Female-Jihadist-Medic-Pictured-Holding-Severed-Head


It’s true. God loves muslims, but hates islam. And we are seeing many stories of brave people who trusted Jesus, and escaped the satanic false religion of islam. But today, confronted by the disgusting picture (above), my thoughts drift toward the wry humor of Lyle Lovett, in his song, “God will.”

“God does… But I don’t.
God will… But I won’t
And that’s the difference
Between God and me.”

– H/t Lyle Lovet


Peace

 

Reaction to Obama’s ISIL counterterrorism policy speech

Dr. Eowyn:

Critical views on the POS’s policy regarding the jihadist Islamic State include:

1. Derision at his calling the ISLAMIC STATE neither Islamic nor a state. Just as medical doctors can’t hope to cure an illness if they can’t even properly name it, how is America to defeat IS if the Obama administration can’t even properly identify what it is?

2. Obama’s arrogance in saying, once again, he’ll do it alone with or without Congress.

3. Pointing out that Obama, once again, ignored U.S. military leaders’ expert judgment, this time on the futility of air strikes on IS without ground troops.

4. Pointing out that there is no “coalition” behind Obama’s new policy — not from our European allies, nor from any of the Arabic states. Notice the total silence emanating from Egypt.

The above 1-4 mean certain failure for the POS’s announced strategy in dealing with the Islamic State. That in turn means (a) More millions of taxpayer dollars spent on air strikes will be wasted; and (b) IS’s slaughter and persecution of Christians in Iraq and Syria will continue.

The one exception from the critical analyses is David Brooks of the New York Times and PBS News Hour pundit. Obsequious Brooks actually compared Obama to Moses. It would be funny if Brooks isn’t such a revolting brown-noser. That this man is still given credibility and prestige is a sad commentary on the media and the gullibility of the American people.

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

On Sept. 10, 2014, thirteen days after admitting he had no strategy to deal with the Islamic Caliphate or State (IS, aka ISIL, aka ISIS), President Barack Obama finally unveiled his “counterterrorism” policy against the IS from the State Floor of the White House.

(For a summary and video of his speech, see “Obama announces U.S. ‘counterterrorism’ policy against ISIL“.)

Below is a sample of reaction to his speech. Note that my words are colored green.

~StMA

obama-horns

writes in the Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2014:

[...] Although Obama promised a “steady, relentless effort” in a nationally televised address Wednesday night, he also said that “it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL,” using a common acronym for the Islamic State.

Such a mission was not the U.S. military’s preferred option.Responding to a White House request for options to confront the Islamic State,

View original 2,826 more words