Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Dare One Call It Treason?

WesternJournalism

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see – Ayn Rand
Many Americans believe that the US Government, the Democrat and Republican Parties, and the media are deliberately misleading the American people, hiding the most heinous fraud and Constitutional crisis in the history of the United States.
Individuals at the highest levels of the federal government may have aided and abetted a deception, which included willful ignorance, misinformation, false interpretations of the Constitution, outright lies, and the creation of fraudulent documents and computer records to protect an ineligible, ill-prepared ,and unworthy candidate for the office of President of the United States.
In the age of Obama, we have witnessed the complete metamorphosis of the media, no longer objective journalists but partisan liberal activists who control, manipulate, and even create news to support a left-wing political agenda.
On April 27, 2011, Barack Obama presented as his official birth certificate a digital image so riddled with anomalies that only counterfeiters or the complicit could vouch for its authenticity.
Evidence has been reported claiming that Barack Obama has been using a fraudulent Connecticut Social Security Number (SSN) since at least 1986. That number, 042-68-4425, issued in 1977, was set aside exclusively for Connecticut residents, a state in which he never lived nor did any member of his immediate family. In addition, SSN Verifier Plus showed the birth year 1890 linked to that number. Because SSNs are not re-issued, multiple birth dates for one card suggest a stolen number.
The data and documents associated with Obama’s Selective Service registration also contain inconsistencies. Most noticeably, Obama’s registration card has a two digit year ‘80″ on the postal stamp, unlike the four digit year stamp “1980″ found on all other registration cards completed at the same time in Hawaii and other states. It appears that a 2008 postal stamp was cut, the 08 inverted and reinserted into the stamp to mimic a 1980 registration. Interestingly, Obama’s SSN 042-68-4425 appears on his 1980 Selective Service registration, which is six years before that number can be found in personal background databases.
I believe that Barack Obama did not register with the Selective Service in 1980 because he was attending Occidental College with a foreign student status and in 1981 traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. According to the law, failure to register with the Selective Service would forever prevent Obama from working in the executive branch of the US government.
One could readily conclude that Obama lied and flouted the law to get elected. It should come as no surprise then, that he would lie and flout the law to implement his policies.
I believe Obama succeeded in 2008 because the Republicans struck a deal with the Democrats not to question Obama’s eligibility for office and his personal history. Furthermore, the liberal media took radical steps to protect their favored candidate, killing negative stories about Obama and even threatening to accuse his opponents of racism in order to make them “sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”

In addition to the apparent creation of fraudulent documents and the doctoring of computer records by Obama supporters, then- Democratic National Chair Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) prepared two different Certifications of Nomination, an action unprecedented in US history, presumably to hide Obama’s ineligibility for office.
And so committed has the liberal media been to protect their investment in Obama, they continue to dispense with gusto misinformation, disinformation, or no information.
The conspiracy of silence continues out of complicity or fear. The political-media establishment realizes that if the truth is told about Barack Obama, the system from which they accrue enormous personal power and profit will collapse.
Republicans will oppose Obama; but they will not expose him because by doing so, it will reveal their own dereliction of duty. Many believe, and with reasonable cause, that all the hearings and lawsuits conducted by the Republicans are a subterfuge meant to run out the clock.
It doesn’t matter if Obama thinks he is right or if he thinks he is being virtuous. The policies he is pursuing are destroying the country. Even if one rejects treachery or treason as motives, the unrealistic and impractical far-left liberalism promoted by Obama and his acolytes is an inevitable march from altruistic dreams to coercion, oppression, and, ultimately, failure.
You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality – Ayn Rand




Monday, July 21, 2014

Shocking Number Unsure Obama U.S. Citizen

WND

Six years after the first lawsuits were filed alleging Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president, a new poll indicates nearly one-quarter of American adults don’t even believe he’s a U.S. citizen, let alone a “natural-born citizen,” and another 17 percent are unsure.

Rasmussen Reports found 41 percent of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, a belief shared by 21 percent of those who are unaffiliated and 11 percent of Democrats.
“Just over 20 percent of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only 7 percent of those in the president’s party share that doubt,” the polling organization said in a report titled “Have We Got A Conspiracy for You – 9/11? JFK? Obama’s Citizenship?”
Overall, 23 percent said the theory that Obama is not an American citizen is true, and another 17 percent said they weren’t sure. Sixty percent reject the theory as false.
The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural-born citizen” but does not define the term. Scholarly works cited by the Founders defined it as a citizen at birth by virtue of being born in the country to two citizens of the country, or merely the offspring of two citizens of the country. The birth certificate Obama displayed on the White House website, which declares he was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father, has been found to be fraudulent by an investigation authorized by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted July 16-17 with a sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points and a 95 percent level of confidence.
The survey ask for responses regarding “the world’s best-known conspiracy theories” regarding JFK’s assassination, the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Princess Diana, UFOs in Roswell, Paul McCartney and the AIDS virus.
While no state or federal judge allowed the presidential eligibility issue to be resolved in court, rejecting most cases out of hand, two members of the Alabama Supreme Court asserted it needs to be addressed.
While the majority in a 7-2 decision on a dispute over Obama’s eligibility issued “no opinion,” Justice Tom Parker and Chief Justice Roy Moore concluded the allegations have serious constitutional significance warranting an investigation of the qualifications of 2012 presidential candidates by Alabama’s secretary of state.
Moore wrote in his dissent that the circuit court should have granted the plaintiffs’ request to order the state secretary of state “to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in future elections.”
“Although the removal of a president-elect or a president who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function,” Moore argued.
He said the case was of “great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land.”
“Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, (Hugh) McInnish and (Virgil) Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.”
Parker agreed with Moore’s reasoning, except that he would call for the secretary of state to investigate eligibility issues once she “has received notice that a potential candidate may lack the necessary qualifications to be placed on an Alabama election ballot.”
Both justices had expressed concern about the issue.
Parker had filed a special, unpublished concurrence in an earlier court ruling, arguing that plaintiff Hugh McInnish’s charge of “forgery” was legitimate cause for concern.
“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public,” he wrote.
Moore, in an interview with WND in 2010, defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
Lakin was stripped of his rank and removed from the military when he demanded to see evidence that Obama was a legitimate commander in chief of the military before carrying out deployment orders. He reasoned the orders would be illegal if Obama was not eligible to be president.
At the time, Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
Read all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.
In the 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and considerable evidence that suggests he is not.
“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”
Moore explained that the Alabama case did not request a judicial determination of Obama’s eligibility but an order that the elections officials in the state assure voters that candidates were eligible under the law.

He explained state law calls for candidates “who qualify for placement on the ballot in a presidential-preference primary … are ‘entitled to have their names printed on the appropriate ballot for the general election, provided they are otherwise qualified for the office they seek.’”
“Under Alabama law, therefore, the Secretary of State, as the chief elections official, has a legal duty to determine that presidential-convention nominees who have run in the presidential primary are duly ‘qualified for the office they seek’ before placing their names on the general-election ballot,” he continued.
The case raised some of the same arguments that appeared earlier in dozens of local, state and federal court cases in Obama’s first term.
They all argued in some fashion that because of the lack of verifiable facts about Obama’s birthplace, he might be constitutionally ineligible. Some say a person must be born in the U.S. to be a “natural-born citizen,” others say it depends on a father’s citizenship.
If the parents’ citizenship is a qualifier, Obama by his own admission fails, since he reports his father was a Kenyan student who came to study in the U.S. but never was a U.S. citizen. The senior Obama already was married in Kenya before he met and married Obama Jr.’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
This case is brought on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are asking Alabama’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.
Get Judge Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.”
Attorney Larry Klayman in a brief, argued that the secretary of state, “having the power to certify candidates, can surely decertify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible.”
He pointed out that, for example, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen rejected Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires that the president be at least 35.
Certain documentation
The “certain documentation” to which Parker referred comes from a Cold Case Posse investigation launched by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Arpaio’s investigation has concluded that based on the evidence, the birth certificate documentation presented by the White House as “proof positive” of Obama’s eligibility actually is fraudulent, created on a computer and not representative of any official document.
Arpaio’s investigator have raised the possibility of fraud and forgery committed against American voters.
Citing the Arpaio investigation, Klayman says state officials “gained knowledge from an official source that there was probable cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying qualification.”
“It would be paradoxical beyond measure if the real and grave question of the legitimacy of the de facto president, a question which lies at the very heart of our American constitutional government, were left unresolved for want of the simplest of documents, a birth certificate,” Klayman said in an earlier filing.
Arpaio’s lead investigator, Mike Zullo, said, “When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering. This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine.”
Zullo explained that because it’s an active investigation that could produce criminal charges, he’s unable to reveal details at the moment.
But the allegations, he said, which go far beyond a fraudulent birth certificate.
Zullo has testified that the White House computer image of Obama’s birth certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.

See some of Zullo’s evidence:

More recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.
“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.
“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”
The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.
“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes said.
Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”
“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the report.
Investigator Douglas J. Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network reported that in October an affidavit was filed in a court case, under seal, that purportedly identifies the creator of the Obama birth certificate.
He said Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years in an investigation of the authenticity of document.
Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted “exhaustive research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011 – not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood,” Hagmann said.
“Using their combined experience of 80 years in this realm, they conducted extensive examinations of the ‘copy’ that was used as the basis for the PDF document. They acquired the same type of equipment that was used back in the late 1950s and early 1960s in an attempt to recreate the document presented as an ‘authenticated copy’ proving the legitimacy of Barack Obama. Instead, they found 20 points of forgery on that document and detail each point of forgery in the affidavit,” wrote Hagmann.
“Even more interesting, Mr. Vogt claims to have identified the ‘signature’ of the perpetrator, or the woman who created the forged document, hidden within the document itself. Her identity, in addition to the identity of other conspirators and their precise methods are contained in a sealed document supplementing the public affidavit.”
Grounds for impeachment
Recently, WND columnist Christopher Monckton wrote that the controversy he calls “Hawaiigate” should be “the central ground of impeachment.”
“First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama’s advisers, once they realized the ‘birth certificate’ was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally crucial respect, the ‘president’ has no clothes,” Monckton wrote.
“Secondly, not one of the numerous agencies of state, as well as federal government, whose duty was and is to investigate the Mickey-Mouse ‘birth certificate’ has bothered even to respond to the thousands of requests for investigation put forward by U.S. citizens.
He said that in Hawaii last year, he watched “as a senior former state senator called the police and, when they came, handed over to them compelling evidence that the ‘birth certificate’ had been forged.”
“The police, correctly, passed the file to the state’s attorney general, a ‘Democrat,’ who did nothing about it,” he said.
“In Washington, D.C., I watched as a concerned citizen from Texas telephoned the FBI and reported the ‘birth certificate’ as being a forgery. They said they would send two agents to see him within the hour. No one came.”
‘You tell me about eligibility’
One of the highest profile skeptics has been billionaire Donald Trump.


Trump said he can’t be certain that Obama is eligible to be president, and he pointedly noted that a reporter who was poking fun at the issue admitted he can’t, either.
Trump repeatedly has insisted Obama has not documented his eligibility. At one point, he offered $5 million to the charity or charities of Obama’s choice if he would release his passport records and authorize the colleges he attended to release his applications and other records.
Trump argues that those documents would show whether or not Obama ever accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student, which could preclude him from being a “natural-born citizen.”
Trump’s conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl started with Karl noting that Trump took on the “not serious” issue of eligibility.
“Why does that make me not serious?” Trump demanded. “I think that resonated with a lot of people.”
Karl replied: “You don’t still question he was[n't] born in the United States, do you?”
“I have no idea,” Trump said. “I don’t know. Was there a birth certificate? You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth certificate. I’m saying I don’t know. Nobody knows, and you don’t know either. Jonathan you’re a smart guy, and you don’t know.”
When Karl admitted he was “pretty sure,” Trump jumped on the statement.
“You just said you’re pretty sure … you have to be 100 percent sure,” he said. “Jonathan, you said you’re pretty convinced, so let’s just see what happens over time.”
Read all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.
Among the many records the Obama camp has refused to release are the marriage license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records, records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia, baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, record with Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois state senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.

Join in support of the investigation.


In a brief asking that the Alabama case be dismissed, Democrats quoted late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel.
The party insisted: “In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery [and that he is ineligible], one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”
The brief scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes Kimmel saying: “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.”

Friday, July 18, 2014

C-SPAN Caller: SCOTUS Confirms Obama Not Natural Born Citizen



Yes, I am still talking about the illegal Presidency of Barack Obama.  Yes, I am still talking about his ineligibility to be POTUS.  Here is why:  

He could not possibly have done this alone.  Whether he was put into power by our own CIA, by Saudi Arabia, by Russia or by some other means is debatable.   Nevertheless, the point is he had (and has) help and he has it on a massive scale.   
They did not bring him to power to be sure Americans had Obamacare.  They didn't bring him it power because they are blue collar Democrats.  They didn't bring him to power because they thought America needed a Community Organizer.  
It is quite clear they brought him to power to fulfill their agenda.  Their agenda is his agenda.  That agenda, veiled by smoke and mirrors, is to transform America to a third world nation in order that a New Order could come to power. A new global political system.
They could not beat us militarily.  They could not beat us philosophically.  They could not beat us honestly.  No, they have to subvert the constitution and infiltrate America's power centers to win.  And while the fight is not over, they are winning, if only because the genius of subversion is that the enemy does not even know there is a war until it is over, and they are soundly defeated. 

Yes, I am still talking about the subversive coup and subsequent takeover of America fostered by a shadow government that started long ago, but took a giant leap forward with the illegal Presidency of Barrack Hussein Soetoro Obama.

-W.E.

BirtherReportDotCom

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

The Emerging New World Order

This excellent article is just as relevant today as when Berit Kjos wrote it in 2006 -W.E.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis...and the nations will accept the New World Order.."[1] 
-David Rockefeller

"I see a world of open borders, open trade and, most importantly, open minds; a world that celebrates the common heritage that belongs to all the world's people.... I see a world building on the emerging new model of European unity. ... [T]he United Nations is the place to build international support and consensus for meeting the other challenges we face.... the threats to the environment, terrorism... international drug trafficking... refugees.... [W]e must join together in a new compact -- all of us -- to bring the United Nations into the 21st century."[2] 
-Former President George H. W. Bush

 "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. 'This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." 
-President Obama's Chief of Staff,  Rahm Emanuel

"Globalization is not a random-walk process. It moves forward according to a tangible, coherent and well-planned strategy." 

Why won’t our leaders enforce a simple, straight-forward immigration policy? Why doesn't our government pull out of the United Nations? Why not abandon the  planned US merger with Mexico and Canada? Why not...?  
In light of our American heritage, the questions all make sense!
But logical answers often ignore the grandiose dreams of the elite revolutionaries who drive the UN agenda. To them, it makes more sense to open our borders, invite illegal immigration, and risk rising lawlessness and terrorism. In fact, each such crisis becomes a potential instrument for change -- a stepping stone toward Lord Tennyson's envisioned "Federation of the world."

Former President George H. W. Bush echoed that goal. "Out of these troubled times... a NEW WORLD ORDER can emerge,"[4] he told Congress in a 1990 message aptly titled "Toward a New World Order." Back then, the opportune crisis was the Gulf War. It helped build public acceptance for the global management system, which had already begun to replace American "rights" with global rules.
The pace of change has quickened since then. As you saw in Part 1, our current president (like his two predecessors) has willingly surrendered Americans to a spreading web of UN declarations, treaties and policies that undermine our constitution. And America's "human resources" are now molded, measured and monitored according to global standards for educational outcomes, "mental health," "service learning," and training for a global workforce.[5]

Legal or not, migration is vital to this transformational process! Let's look at some of its goals:

1. Replace national boundaries with open borders in a unified world
Ancient monarchs understood the transformational power of mass migration. When the mighty Assyrians conquered Israel back in 722 BC, they resettled the land with people who had never heard the truths of God. Soon the blend of new settlers and local residents shifted the people's collective loyalties to new gods and rulers.
This strategy still works! It helps explain why globalist politician John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State in the Eisenhower administration) called for freedom to migrate anywhere in the world. As chairman of a national conference held by the liberal Federal Council of Churches (precursor to the World Council of Churches) in 1942, he introduced these goals: 

  • a world government of delegated powers 
  • immediate limitations on national sovereignty
  • international control of all armies and navies
  • a universal system of money [Revelation 13:17]
  • worldwide freedom of immigration
  • even distribution of the world’s natural wealth."[6]
Even Time magazine seemed shocked by this blatant one-world socialism: "Some of the conference’s economic opinions were almost as sensational as the extreme internationalism of its political program. It held that a ‘new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative.... [T]he church must demand economic arrangements measured by human welfare.'”[7]
 
Alger Hiss, the most infamous leader within the Federal Council of Churches, was an active Communist and the publisher of the socialist magazine International Conciliation. That didn’t keep him from serving President Roosevelt in the State Department. Nor did it hinder his assignments as the Secretary General of the United Nations organizing conference (San Francisco, 1945) -- or as president of the multimillion dollar Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

2.  Replace individual thinking with collective thinking  (i.e. propaganda, not unwanted facts)
Western individualism has been thoroughly mocked and maligned by today's leading change agents. No wonder, since free, factual thinking would slow their revolution. They can't win their war unless they modify our minds. John Dewey, father of progressive education in America, described this psycho-social battle in his book, Democracy and Education.
"There is always a danger that increased personal independence will decrease the social capacity of an individual.... It often makes an individual so insensitive in his relations to others as to develop an illusion of being really able to stand and act alone -- an unnamed form of insanity which is responsible for a large part of the remedial suffering of the world."[8]
Equating independent thinking with insanity, Dewey's fighting words illustrate the heartless tactics of his totalitarian contemporaries. Stalin, Hitler and Mao didn't hesitate to remediate or incarcerate resisters as mentally ill. And with the rise of the UN, these views were legitimized among the ruling elite.  
For example, Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm became the first head of the World Health Organization (WHO). Notice how he presented "mental health" as a useful crisis in the following message, which would later be published by Alger Hiss:

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
     "For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents.... 
     "There is something to be said... for gently putting aside the mistaken old ways of our elders if that is possible. If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently."[9]

Half a century later, the same ideology was cloaked in less threatening language. In 1995, UNESCO issued a report titled, Our Creative Diversity. I read this book on my flight back from the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul. It stated:

“The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living."[10]

This message is staggering. Everything must be changed! Students must learn to embrace the "systems" view of reality. The entire human race must be considered our family! And the key to success would be countless small groups around the world -- all following occultist Georg Hegel's dialectic process.

Migration -- especially from non-Western nations would be encouraged, for the dialectic process required social and spiritual diversity. Led by trained facilitators toward a pre-planned consensus, the group members must agree to seek "common ground" -- an evolving "unity in diversity". They must share their feelings, listen respectfully, respect all contrary views, and bend their own views to group opinion. Offensive facts and the Bible's "poisonous certainties" would be banned, for these hinder group manipulation. [See Three kinds of group relationships]
Notice that diversity itself is not the problem. Andy and I tramped around the world in our younger days -- paddling up the Nile on the mail boat, trucking through parts of Africa, sleeping on 4th class trains rumbling through India at night. Sometimes we were invited into homes -- Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian. We shared our beliefs, and they shared theirs, but no one tried to merge the two.
That's not UNESCO's style. Its ways are best described by Peter Senge, an MIT guru to corporate managers and church leaders around the world. In his celebrated book, The Fifth Discipline, Dr. Senge writes, "...it should come as no surprise that the unhealthiness of our world today is in direct proportion to our inability to see it as a whole." With that revealing introduction, he goes on to define "systems thinking." Notice the reference to the psycho-social strategies needed for change:

"Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationship rather than things.'... It is also a set of specific tools and techniques.... [T]hese tools have been applied to understand a wide range of corporate, urban, regional, economic, political, ecological and even psychological systems. [11]

Dr. Senge also co-authored the report, "Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations." It highlights the crisis of "fragmentation" that keeps people from trading "divisive" Biblical views for a more systemic or holistic perspective.:
"Fragmentation, competition, and reactiveness are not problems to be solved -- they are frozen patterns of thought to be dissolved. The solvent we propose is a new way of thinking, feeling, and being....  In the new systems worldview, we move from the primacy of pieces to the primacy of the whole, from absolute truths to coherent interpretations, from self to community."[12]
From absolute truth" to what? A global community that bans God's Word?

3.  Replace "divisive" Biblical absolutes with "helpful" universal values
When applied to religion, the "new ways of thinking" means setting aside our old "narrow" beliefs for the sake of unity. For this to happen, Christianity must either bend or break, yet even church leaders are imposing these psycho-social strategies on their unsuspecting followers. In fact, many Christians now believe this new "systems thinking" fits God's purpose for humanity. 
Echoing the message of UNESCO and Dr. Senge, "America's pastor" Pastor Rick Warren tells us,
"It's all about the global glory of God! We intend to leverage the attention that the Purpose Driven Life has garnered to bring about a whole new way of thinking and acting in the church about our responsibility in the world."[13]
This "responsibility in the world" must focus on humanitarian service, which we will discuss in Part 3. But first, ponder Rick Warren's tone and suggestion in the recent article, "What to do when your church hits a plateau?" Apparently, he was asked how to handle obstacles to change. In his answer, he points to the new way of thinking and acting:

"...some people are going to have to die or leave. Moses had to wander around the desert for 40 years while God killed off a million people before he let them go into the Promised Land. That may be brutally blunt, but it’s true. There may be people in your church who love God sincerely, but who will never, ever change.... [Does Pastor Warren believe that he, as if like God, can simply dispose of people who question his clever marketing strategies?]
     "People ask, 'Is it easier to start new churches, or is it easier to take existing churches and turn them around?' My answer is this: 'It's always easier to have babies than to raise the dead.'...
     "...pray for an extra amount of patience. People change very slowly. They are resistant to change because they recognize that life as they’ve known it will cease to exist....
     "...move with the movers.... Find out who the legitimizers are; the ones who are willing to go for change.... Build your vision in them."[14]

Did you notice that the purpose-driven change agents are on the "good" side?  People like us who question the new marketing strategies are the ones who must "die or leave." [See Spirit-Led or Purpose-Driven: Dealing with Resisters]

Keep in mind, this mind-changing system has no tolerance for God's divisive Truth. Unless Christianity blends with other religions through diversity, dialogue and deconstruction (compromising or tearing down old beliefs) our globalist leaders will continue to face resistance. That's why Federico Mayor, former head of UNESCO used yet another crisis to fuel revolutionary fervor:
"The mission of UNESCO... is that of advancing... international peace and the common welfare.... We have witnessed... the resurgence of nationalism, the growth of fundamentalism and of religious and ethnic intolerance. The roots of exclusion and hatred have shown themselves even deeper and more tenacious than we had feared...."[15]

As hostility toward Biblical Christianity grows in America, these words of Jesus are becoming increasingly relevant:

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted Me they will persecute you... for they do not know the One who sent Me."  John 15:19-21

"...the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me." John 16:2-3

Monday, July 14, 2014

Shilling for the Jihadis: NYT and WaPo Stand With Muslim Brotherhood


Is it any wonder that the NY Times and the Washington Post, just like Barack Hussein Obama, are in support of our sworn enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood? 

Let's remember some of the things that these "publications" are about and have stood for: 

“Fidel Castro has strong ideas of liberty, democracy, social justice, the need to restore the Constitution....but it amounts to a new deal for Cuba, radical, democratic and therefore anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, New York Times, February 1957.) 

“This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term. Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, New York Times, July 1959.) 

"Although [NY Times writer] Duranty returned to the United States in 1934, he continued to write for The Times, and with his ample contribution, its voice was among those persuading the people of the United States that Stalin's massive purges, eliminating all of the old Bolshevik revolutionaries and beheading the leadership of the nation's military were all lawful acts against dangerous subversion. The stench might have been strong enough to drive knowledgeable American Communists like Whittaker Chambers right out of the party, but it was not enough to prevent The New York Times from continuing to protect the American public from the truth about Stalin's Russia."  -Source


"As documented by the Caller, newspapers like the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times all take their editorial cues from [George Soros'] Media Matters’ talking points." -Source
 

Breitbart

Just this week, on the same day, the New York Times and the Washington Post simultaneously decided to take sides in the current war in the Middle East. Unfortunately, they chose the Islamists.
On Thursday, as rockets were landing on Israeli suburbs, two pieces were published by the so-called "papers of record," that sided with the Muslim Brotherhood. Writing in the New York Times, Kareem Fahim focused ostensibly on the Egyptian response to the war between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas. The author focused on what he saw as the lack of Cairo's response, especially to helping those in Gaza.

Fahim, who has been in trouble in the past for his less than objective writing on the "rebels" in Syria, pushes a narrative in which the guilty party is the new democratically elected President of Egypt. Retired General Abdel Fattah el Sisi is painted as obsessed with the security threat in the Sinai when in fact he should be reprising the 2012 role of his predecessor, Mohammad Morsi, as mediator between Israel and the terrorists of Hamas. 

The fact that Morsi was the head of a theocratic Muslim Brotherhood government committed to destroying democracy in the Middle East, and that Hamas is formally a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood that the US government lists officially as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, does not come into Fahim's reasoning. The fact that Hamas' own charter makes clear both that it is part of the Brotherhood and committed to destroying Israel seems to have escaped the author too. 

At this point, just one quote from the introduction to the Hamas Charter indicates how any mediator would fail to make a honest negotiator out of Hamas, even President Sisi:

"Our battle with the Jews is long and dangerous, requiring all dedicated efforts. It is a phase which must be followed by succeeding phases, a battalion which must be supported by battalion after battalion of the divided Arab and Islamic world until the enemy is overcome, and the victory of Allah descends."

Any mediator - unless they were, like Morsi, a member of the MB - would fail to bring a lasting peace since Article Two of the charter states quite clearly that Hamas is "a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood chapter in Palestine."
Adam Taylor of the Washington Post takes us even deeper down the rabbit hole of MB propaganda with his piece entitled "The Man the Israeli Palestinian Crisis Needs Most: Egypt's Mohamed Morsi." For Taylor, it is not President Sisi who needs to step in, but Morsi himself, presumably released from prison and exonerated for trying to turn Egypt into a one-party theocratic state. 



Mr Taylor, who started his journalistic career interning for the Huffington Post and Time magazine, also seems to have failed to have read the Brotherhood's founding document. If he had, he and his NYT colleague may have had trouble imagining a scenario in which Hamas would negotiate in good faith with the Jewish state of Israel based upon the organization's own avowed goals. For as Hamas' Charter declares: 



"In the shadow of Islam it is possible for the followers of the three religions-Islam, Christianity, and Judaism-to live in peace and harmony, and this peace and harmony is possible only under Islam."


This vision of a world in which Jews and Christians live under the dominion of Islam should surprise no one who is familiar with the origins of the Brotherhood, since its founder, Hassan al Banna made it clear in his original manifesto that for perfection on Earth, all that is required "is a strong Eastern power to exert itself under the shadow of Allah's banner, with the standard of the Qur'an fluttering at its head, and backed up by the strong soldiers of unyielding faith; then you will see the World living under the tranquillity of Islam." Peace is indeed possible: as long as Islam reigns supreme over the Earth.

But you don't have to go back to the origins of the Brotherhood to understand why there will never be a negotiated settlement with the terrorists of Gaza. One last quote from the Hamas Charter makes that clear. Article 8 gives us Hamas's official motto:


Allah is our Goal. 
The Messenger is our Leader. 
The Quran is our Constitution. 
Jihad is our methodology, and 
Death for the sake of Allah is our most coveted desire. 





Only one obvious question remains. If Taylor and Fahim have read Hamas' creed of Holy War, why do they, and their papers, support it?


Sebastian Gorka Ph.D is the Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and the National Security and Foreign Affairs editor for the Breitbart News Network.