Friday, August 31, 2012

Does God communicate with Christians through dreams today? Do my dreams have spiritual significance?

An interesting article from  about dream interpretation. This follows this post about the continuing menace of drug use. .  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Does God communicate with Christians through dreams today? Do my dreams have spiritual significance?

Many people attach spiritual significance to disturbing dreams, but that's not the normal means by which God communicates with us.


It's true that God spoke through dreams to some people in the past, but even then, it was a rare occurrence. Hebrews 1:1-2 [1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

See All... indicates that the principal way in which God communicates with people today is through Christ via the written Word that God inspired, not through visions or dreams. Additionally, the Scripture advises Christians to be on guard against spirits (fallen angels or demons) that attempt to mislead (1 John 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

See All...). One of the ways that they deceive people is through paranormal activities.

The Bible talks of some dreams that are deceptive (Jeremiah 23:25-27 [25] I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.

[26] How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;

[27] Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.

See All...). Most dreams are a natural part of the sleeping state. The Bible talks about the fleeting and unreal nature of dreams (Psalm 126:1(A Song of degrees.) When the LORD turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream.

See All...; Isaiah 29:8It shall even be as when an hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold, he drinketh; but he awaketh, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite: so shall the multitude of all the nations be, that fight against mount Zion.

See All...).

Ecclesiastes 5:3For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

See All... says, "A dream comes through much activity," implying that normal dreams are natural outgrowths of the stimuli we receive in our waking hours. Dreams could come as a result of our own thoughts, what we hear others say, as well as from material we read or watch (movies or videos).

As Christians, we must guard the information that comes into our minds. If we expose our minds to violence or sexually oriented material, for example, these stimuli can cause unwanted dreams. Paul gives us excellent guidelines on how to orient our thinking in Philippians 4:8: "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things."

Having done all that we can to ensure that we have a healthy environment and that we think positive thoughts, we can also ask God to bless us with peaceful and restful sleep. Psalm 127:2It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.

See All... says, "He gives His beloved sleep."

Joel did prophesy of a future time, before Jesus Christ's return, when there would be heavenly signs and "your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions" (Joel 2:28-31 [28] And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

[29] And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

[30] And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

[31] The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

See All...). The apostle Peter used this prophecy to help explain the special miracles that accompanied the giving of God's Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 15-17). But it is clear from the New Testament example that Christians are to seek God's Word from the inspired Scriptures and sound biblical teaching, not private interpretations (2 Timothy 3:15-17 [15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

See All...; 4:2-4; 2 Peter 1:20-21 [20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

See All...).


Voice your support for the Keystone XL pipeline

A very interesting post from about the Keystone XL pipeline. This follows this post about a singer named Taylor Swift.  This follows this post about some of the music that was poplular during 2011. This follows THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!

Tell Secretary Clinton to say “YES” to American jobs and “NO” to dependence on overseas oil. Sign our petition and voice your support for the Keystone XL Pipeline to Secretary Clinton.

Myth vs. Reality

Myth: The Keystone XL Pipeline will hurt the environment.

Reality: After over three years of environmental review, the Department of State concluded in its Final Environmental Impact Statement that “no significant environmental concerns exist” that should preclude the permitting of the pipeline. Furthermore, to ensure the pipeline operates safely, the operator, TransCanada, has agreed to construct the pipeline with an additional 57 safety requirements and has agreed to re-route the pipeline to avoid any potentially environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska. In the United States, over 170,000 miles of liquid pipelines help transport 11.3 billion barrels of petroleum each year. American pipelines maintain, by far, the lowest spill rate per volume than any other transport method available.


Myth: Building the Keystone XL pipeline will lead to higher gasoline and diesel prices for American consumers.

Reality: Keystone XL will provide U.S. refineries with upwards of 700,000 barrels of crude oil each day and will increase the overall supply of oil. This stable, long-term supply will give us greater energy security and help mitigate the impact that supply disruptions, like those caused by storms or political turmoil, have on prices. This ultimately means greater price stability for American consumers.


Myth: Oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline will be exported to China.

Reality: The United States imported over four billion barrels of oil in 2010; a 700,000 barrel per day pipeline will make a real impact on American energy security, but it will not make America a net oil exporter. In addition, there is already spare pipeline capacity from the oil sands to the Pacific coast, a distance of only about 500 miles. Why would companies choose instead to ship the oil 1,700 miles in the opposite direction, load it onto tankers in the Gulf of Mexico, and then ship it south and through the Panama Canal toward Asian markets, incurring additional and avoidable costs at each step?


Myth: Oil from Canada is more dangerous and more corrosive than other forms of crude oil.

Reality: Keystone XL will ship a wide variety of crude oil types including conventional oil, shale oil, partially upgraded synthetic oil and oil sands derived bitumen blends. None of these crude types create a significant risk of destroying the pipeline from within and causing leaks. These products have shipped and are currently being shipped across to the United States via other cross‐border pipelines from Canada. It would be an uneconomic business proposition to spend billions of dollars constructing a pipeline system that would be destroyed by the product it transported.


Myth: Keystone XL pipeline will lead to greater GHG emissions resulting in climate change.

Reality: Canada’s oil sands resources will be developed regardless of whether the Keystone XL pipeline is built. Canada is a stable, democratic country with strict environmental oversight – the same cannot be said about other countries from which we purchase oil. Furthermore, much of the crude oil that currently supplies the Gulf Coast refineries is transported on barges from faraway regions of the world, which requires significantly more energy to transport; pipelines, on the other hand, require the least amount of energy to move crude.


Myth: The Keystone XL pipeline will harm the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sandhills.

Reality: The State of Nebraska in concert with the U.S. Department of State and TransCanada are currently evaluating an alternative route through Nebraska. The new route will avoid the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region. Regardless, the full route of the pipeline will be constructed and maintained with an additional 57 safety requirements, making this pipeline one of the safest every constructed in the United States.

Ask Your Governor to Issue Executive Order Precluding Benefits for Deferred-Action Recipients

A very interesting post from  about convincing the nation's governors to fight the president's Unconstitutional Executive Order Amnesty. This follows this post about high immigration during a time of unemployment.  This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE.

Action Alert

Van Esser

Ask Your Governor to Issue Executive Order Precluding Benefits for Deferred-Action Recipients

Dear NumbersUSA activist,

The Obama Administration’s deferred action amnesty, which offers illegal aliens under the age of 31 a two-year stay from deportation, is producing fallout in the states. That’s because states must decide if deferred action recipients are eligible for driver’s licenses and other public benefits.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles issued a written statement saying, "It appears that young people who receive federal deferrals will be eligible for California driver’s licenses…But it remains uncertain whether clarifying legislation or regulations will be necessary." State law and regulations allow only certain types of federal immigration documents to support the issuance of licenses, so if recipients get "new or different immigration documents," then legislation or regulatory clarification may be needed, the DMV said.

Every state will have to decide whether deferred-action recipients get driver’s licenses, and more are weighing in each day. Georgia, Michigan, Oregon and Virginia officials, thus far, are leaning toward California’s stance. Governors in Arizona, Mississippi, Nebraska and Texas have said that deferred-action recipients will not be entitled to any benefits, including driver’s licenses.

On the day that the deferred-action amnesty took effect, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order re-affirming that amnesty recipients are not eligible for driver’s licenses and other public benefits under state law. Her press aide said, "What President Obama has done confers neither lawful status nor authorized presence. All they've done is defer these individuals' prosecution and deportation…It's up to states to try to do all they can to enforce their existing laws. " Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant issued a similar executive order on August 23rd.

Driver’s licenses aren’t the only issue under debate. Many who qualify for deferred action are high-school graduates who are in college or want to attend. A number of states give illegal aliens access to taxpayer subsidized, in-state tuition rates but most do not. Pro-illegal alien university administrators and state legislators are now making the case for extending in-state tuition to recipients. Other public benefits are at stake, too.

Please click here to send your governor a fax that asks him/her to follow the lead of the Arizona and Mississippi governors in issuing an executive order that precludes driver’s licenses or other benefits for deferred-action recipients.

Also, please call your governor with the following message:

“I am an active voter who strongly opposes the Obama Administration’s effort to give illegal aliens deferred action status. Please issue an executive order, like the Arizona and Mississippi governors, that prevents deferred-action recipients from getting state driver’s licenses or other public benefits.”

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

In Brief...Wolrd News Review One More Cheap Drug Problem

An interesting article from  about the continuing menace of drug use. This follows this post about sex outside of marriage.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

article by Cecil Maranville, John Ross Schroeder

Young adults have found another substance to give them a rush, but it's rushing some to their graves. Ever vulnerable to the unscrupulous pushers of potions, young people in their late teens and early 20s are buying laughing gas to get high.

Young adults have found another substance to give them a rush, but it's rushing some to their graves. Ever vulnerable to the unscrupulous pushers of potions, young people in their late teens and early 20s are buying laughing gas to get high.

Known on the street as "hippie crack," the gas is attractive in part because it is non-addictive and inexpensive. Laughing gas (nitrous oxide) is not a controlled substance, which means that it's legal to sell or possess it. Small gas canisters called whippets cost as little as 50 cents apiece and are sold with a tool and balloons. The tool is for cracking open the canister and dispensing its contents into the balloons for inhaling, called "huffing."

Despite the obvious intended use of these items, distributors have skirted the law by labeling their packages, "for food use only." (Nitrous oxide is the propellant in cans of whipping cream.) However, the death of a 20-year-old Virginia Tech student enabled prosecutors to successfully convict a Phoenix distributor on the technical charge of mislabeling the product.

About a dozen states have attempted to combat misuse of nitrous oxide by legislating stricter labeling and distribution guidelines.

A U.S. federal survey conducted in 1999 showed that its use as a recreational drug had increased 20 percent over the previous year. Nationwide, 6.6 million people had used it at least once. Further, the largest age group among new users was those 35 and older. A number of vendors blatantly sold balloons full of laughing gas at a professional football game tailgate party last fall.

Some readers will recall traveling carnivals that would sell a minute's worth of laughing gas for a few cents to the public. Users would laugh and act silly until the drug wore off, leaving them confused. Even that was probably irresponsible, but today's use is far from humorous.

Today's users sometimes mix it with marijuana and other drugs, seeking to enhance the impact of each. They also will tie a bag around their heads to increase the amount of gas they inhale, which is how the Virginia Tech student died. Nitrous oxide replaces the oxygen in the blood, and a person asphyxiates. Because it is an anesthetic, users are not aware that they are in danger.

The gas can cause people to lose motor control so rapidly that they fall over. A Dateline NBC segment on nitrous oxide huffing showed a Phoenix teenage girl passing out and falling to the ground at a rave party.

Scientists have found that regular use can cause reproductive problems. A 1992 New England Journal of Medicine study revealed that women exposed to high levels of nitrous oxide in their jobs as dental assistants faced a greater risk of infertility. Prolonged use is also believed to damage the bone marrow and the nervous system, due to a diminished ability to process vitamin B-12.

Sources: The Arizona Republic ;


Qatar Buys Great Britain’s Airports – Muslims Now Own London Heathrow

A very interesting post from about London's Heathrow airport. This follows this post about U.S. troops in Afghanistan being betrayed by their own country!  This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE.

Qatar Buys Great Britain’s Airports – Muslims Now Own London Heathrow

By Debbie Schlussel

When I saw the story, last week, that the Muslim emirate of Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund was buying into ownership of the UK’s major airports, I was reminded of President Bush’s attempt to quietly transfer control of America’s major ports to Dubai’s sovereign wealth fund. Fortunately, outrage ensued and President Bush was forced to cancel the deal, despite loud defenders in Rush Limbaugh and other misguided conservatives (who supported it for ridiculous partisan reasons–to oppose Democrats and unions and stand up for that fool, George W. Bush).

Heathrow Now Muslim-Owned

On the other hand, my view is that most of England is already bought up and controlled by Muslims. Federal Air Marshals I know tell me that they wonder how safe flights from Heathrow are when they see that many of the employees and a good deal of the passengers there are devout Muslims in full faux-modesty regalia. The deal, in which Qatar bought 20% of BAA–the company that runs Heathrow, Europe’s busiest airport, as well as other major UK airports–is scary, but only a little more scary than any of the other deals in which a Saudi Prince, Al-Waleed Bin Talal–controls a good deal of a large bank, Citi, and so on. The security at Heathrow is already lax, as a number of those with terrorist ties are regularly allowed to fly from the airport to various points elsewhere, and Muslims run the show there. What’s frightening is that Qataris in control will have access to information regarding what little airport security there is and how to get around it. As I’ve noted before, Air Marshals tell me that often airlines refuse to inform the TSA of passenger manifests until U.S.-bound planes are in mid-air. That’s already the case. Don’t expect that to change under Qatari rule of Heathrow.

In any event, it’s not a good thing. We know that the Gulf States made it easier for Al-Qaeda’s hijackers to carry out the 9/11 attacks. And Qatar is home to Al-Jazeera, where the Qatari royal family finances propaganda for anti-Western Islamic terrorists to the Muslim world. Turning over the West’s infrastructure and safety and security to this nation is a giant misstep, one of many that will lead to the end of the West and Western freedoms in future generations. The sale is simply jihad by firesale.

Qatar Holding LLC, the investment arm of the Middle East country’s sovereign-wealth fund, agreed to pay 900 million pounds ($1.4 billion) for a 20 percent stake in BAA Ltd., which owns London’s Heathrow airport, Europe’s busiest hub.

Qatar Holding will acquire a 10.62 percent stake in FGP Topco Ltd., BAA’s parent company, from Ferrovial SA (FER) for 478 million pounds, the Spanish infrastructure company said in a statement today. Qatar Holding also agreed to buy a 5.63 percent stake from Britannia Airport Partners and 3.75 percent from GIC Special Investments Pte Ltd., according to the statement.

“The sale of this stake in BAA is part of Ferrovial’s strategy of establishing a market valuation of our assets and improving the structure of our investment portfolio,” Ferrovial Chief Executive Officer Inigo Meiras said in the statement.

Qatar uses wealth accumulated from the world’s third- largest gas reserves to acquire regional and European assets. Qatar Holding bought Harrods Ltd. in 2010, and the sovereign wealth fund has taken an 11.6 percent stake in Swiss miner Xstrata Plc. (XTA)

The deal is pending regulatory approval and is expected to be closed by year end, Ferrovial said. The transaction will help the Madrid-based company boost liquidity and gain “flexibility to undertake investments in infrastructure and services projects,” it said. Barclays Plc advised Qatar on the deal, a spokesman for the London-based bank said via e-mail.

As I always say, remember the good old days . . . when the Japanese owned everything.

Poland's Strategy

A very interesting post from about Poland's problems. This follows this post about Russia continuing the Cold War of the Soviet Union. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read a very interesting book HERE.

Poland's Strategy


By George Friedman

Polish national strategy pivots around a single, existential issue: how to preserve its national identity and independence. Located on the oft-invaded North European Plain, Poland's existence is heavily susceptible to the moves of major Eurasian powers. Therefore, Polish history has been erratic, with Poland moving from independence -- even regional dominance -- to simply disappearing from the map, surviving only in language and memory before emerging once again.

.For some countries, geopolitics is a marginal issue. Win or lose, life goes on. But for Poland, geopolitics is an existential issue; losing begets national catastrophe. Therefore, Poland's national strategy inevitably is designed with an underlying sense of fear and desperation. Nothing in Polish history would indicate that disaster is impossible.

To begin thinking about Poland's strategy, we must consider that in the 17th century, Poland, aligned with Lithuania, was one of the major European powers. It stretched from the Baltic Sea almost to the Black Sea, from western Ukraine into the Germanic regions. By 1795, it had ceased to exist as an independent country, divided among three emerging powers: Prussia, Russia and Austria.

.It did not regain independence until after World War I -- it was created by the Treaty of Versailles (1919) -- after which it had to fight the Soviets for its existence. Poland again was brought under the power of a foreign nation when Germany invaded in 1939. Its statehood was formalized in 1945, but it was dominated by the Soviets until 1989.

Informed by its history, Poland understands that it must retain its independence and avoid foreign occupation -- an issue that transcends all others psychologically and practically. Economic, institutional and cultural issues are important, but the analysis of its position must always return to this root issue.

Poland's Elusive Security

Poland has two strategic problems. The first problem is its geography. The Carpathian Mountains and the Tatra Mountains provide some security to Poland's south. But the lands to the east, west and southwest are flat plains with only rivers that provide limited protection. This plain was the natural line of attack of great powers, including Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany.

.During the 17th century, the Germans were fragmented in the Holy Roman Empire, while Russia was still emerging as a coherent power. The North European Plain was an opportunity for Poland. Poland could establish itself on the plain. It could protect itself against a challenge from any direction. But Poland becomes extremely difficult to defend when multiple powers converge from different directions. If Poland is facing three adversaries, as it did in the late 18th century with Prussia, Russia and Austria, it is in an impossible position.

For Poland, the existence of a powerful Germany and Russia poses an existential problem, the ideal solution to which is to become a buffer that Berlin and Moscow respect. A secondary solution is an alliance with one for protection. The latter solution is extremely difficult because dependence on Russia or Germany invites the possibility of absorption or occupation. Poland's third solution is to find an outside power to guarantee its interests.

This is what Poland did in the 1930s with Britain and France. This strategy's shortcomings are obvious. First, it may not be in the interests of the security guarantor to come to Poland's assistance. Second, it may not be possible at the time of danger for them to help Poland. The value of a third-party guarantee is only in deterring attack and, failing that, in the willingness and ability to honor the commitment.

Since 1991, Poland has sought a unique solution that was not available previously: membership in multilateral organizations such as the European Union and NATO. Such memberships are meant to provide protection outside the bilateral system. Most important, these memberships bring Germany and Poland into the same political entity. Ostensibly, they guarantee Polish security and remove the potential threat of Germany.

This solution was quite effective while Russia was weak and inwardly focused. But Polish history teaches that Russian dynamics change periodically and that Poland cannot assume Russia will remain weak or benign in perpetuity. Like all nations, Poland must base its strategy on the worst-case scenario.

The solution also is problematic in that it assumes NATO and the European Union are reliable institutions. Should Russia become aggressive, NATO's ability to field a force to resist Russia would depend less on the Europeans than on the Americans. The heart of the Cold War was a struggle of influence across the North European Plain, and it involved 40 years of risk and expense. Whether the Americans are prepared to do this again is not something Poland can count on, at least in the context of NATO.

Moreover, the European Union is not a military organization; it is an economic free trade zone. As such, it has some real value to Poland in the area of economic development. That isn't trivial. But the extent to which it contains Germany is now questionable. The European Union is extremely stressed, and its future is unclear. There are scenarios under which Germany, not wanting to shoulder the cost of maintaining the European Union, may loosen its ties with the bloc and move closer to the Russians. The emergence of a Germany not intimately tied to a multinational European entity but with increasing economic ties with Russia is Poland's worst-case scenario.

Obviously, close ties with NATO and the European Union are Poland's first strategic solution, but the viability of NATO as a military force is less than clear and the future of the European Union is clouded. This is at the heart of Poland's strategic problem. When it was independent in the 20th century, Poland sought multilateral alliances to protect itself from Russia and Germany. Among these alliances was the Intermarium, an interwar concept promoted by Polish Gen. Jozef Pilsudski that called for an alignment comprising Central European countries from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea that together could resist Germany and Russia. The Intermarium concept never took hold, and none of these multilateral alliances has proved sufficient to address Polish concerns.

A Matter of Time

Poland has three strategies available to it. The first is to do everything it can to keep NATO and the European Union viable and Germany contained within them. Poland doesn't have the power to ensure this. The second is to create a relationship with Germany or Russia that guarantees its interests. Obviously, the ability to maintain those relationships is limited. The third strategy is to find an outside power prepared to guarantee its interests.

That power is currently the United States. But the United States, after the experiences in the Islamic world, is moving toward a more distant, balance-of-power approach to the world. This does not mean the United States is indifferent to what happens in northern Europe. The growth of Russian power and potential Russian expansionism that would upset the European balance of power obviously would not be in Washington's interest. But as the United States matures as a global power, it will allow the regional balance of power to stabilize naturally rather than intervene if the threat appears manageable.

In the 1930s, Poland's strategy was to find a guarantor as a first resort. It assumed correctly that its own military capability was insufficient to protect itself from the Germans or the Soviets, and certainly insufficient to protect itself from both. Therefore, it assumed that it would succumb to these powers without a security guarantor. Under these circumstances, no matter how much it increased its military power, Poland could not survive by itself.

The Polish analysis of the situation was not incorrect, but it missed an essential component of intervention: time. Whether an intervention on Poland's behalf consisted of an attack in the west or a direct intervention in Poland, the act of mounting such an intervention would take more time than the Polish army was able to buy in 1939.

This points to two aspects of any Polish relationship to the United States. On one hand, the collapse of Poland as Russia resurges would deprive the United States of a critical bulwark against Moscow on the North European Plain. On the other hand, intervention is inconceivable without time. The Polish military's ability to deter or delay a Russian attack sufficiently to give the United States -- and whatever European allies might have the resources and intent to join the coalition -- time to evaluate the situation, plan a response and then respond must be the key element of Polish strategy.

Poland may not be able to defend itself in perpetuity. It needs guarantors whose interests align with its own. But even if it has such guarantors, the historical experience of Poland is that it must, on its own, conduct a delaying operation of at least several months to buy time for intervention. A joint Russo-German attack, of course, simply cannot be survived, and such multifront attacks are not exceptional in Polish history. That cannot be dealt with. A single-front attack could be, but it will fall on Poland to mount it.

This is a question of economics and national will. The economic situation in Poland has improved dramatically over recent years, but building an effective force takes time and money. The Poles have time, since the Russian threat at this point is more theoretical than real, and their economy is sufficiently robust to support a significant capability.

The primary issue is national will. In the 18th century, the fall of Polish power had as much to do with internal disunity among the Polish nobility as it had to do with a multifront threat. In the interwar period, there was will to resist, but it did not always include the will to absorb the costs of defense, preferring to believe that the situation was not as dire as it was becoming. Today, the will to believe in the European Union and in NATO, rather than to recognize that nations ultimately must guarantee their own national security, is an issue for Poland to settle.

Some diplomatic moves are possible. Polish involvement in Ukraine and Belarus is strategically sound -- the two countries provide a buffer that secures Poland's eastern border. Poland likely would not win a duel with the Russians in these countries, but it is a sound maneuver in the context of a broader strategy.

Poland can readily adopt a strategy that assumes permanent alignment with Germany and permanent weakness and lack of aggressiveness of Russia. They might well be right, but it is a gamble. As the Poles know, Germany and Russia can change regimes and strategies with startling speed. A conservative strategy requires a bilateral relationship with the United States, founded on the understanding that the United States is relying on the balance of power and not the direct intervention of its own forces except as a last resort. That means that Poland must be in a position to maintain a balance of power and resist aggression, buying enough time for the United States to make decisions and deploy. The United States can secure the North European Plain well to the west of Poland and align with stronger powers to the west. A defense to the east requires Polish power, which costs a great deal of money. That money is hard to spend when the threat might never materialize.


Print 2621 307 3179 Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.

"Poland's Strategy is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Sex Outside of Marriage: What's the Big Deal?

An interesting article from  about sex outside of marriage. This follows this post about prayers to saints.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Sex Outside of Marriage: What's the Big Deal?

article by Noel Hornor

The sexual revolution of the '60s encouraged us to liberate ourselves from old sexual taboos. Millions did. What have we learned?

Of all the gifts God has given mankind, one of the most beautiful and meaningful is the gift of sexuality. Yet it's also one of the most abused.

Sex plays a vital part in God's plan for human beings. The first command recorded in the Bible that God gave to Adam and Eve was to have sexual relations (Genesis 1:28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

See All...). He essentially repeated the command in Genesis 2:24-25 [24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

[25] And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

See All...: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

One aspect that should leap out at us from verse 24 is that God created sex for marriage. But the 20th century brought dramatic changes in attitudes toward what is considered to be proper sexual behavior.

The sexual revolution of the '60s resulted in a drastic relaxation of sexual mores and—aided by easy availability of birth-control pills—created the notion that freewheeling sex had practically no consequences. The idea of sex with no repercussions led to slogans such as "If it feels good, do it!"

Advocates of sexual freedom said that, since sex is enjoyable, we should shed our inhibitions and jump in. What they didn't say, however, is that sex is never consequence-free, and sex outside of marriage is heavily laden with negative repercussions, especially for girls and women.

The audible furor that accompanied the sexual experimentation of the '60s is no longer as loud, but the revolution was successful in that to a considerable extent the extreme behaviors of that time are now commonplace.

The results have been monumental—and devastating in many countries. As former Harvard University professor Pitirim Sorokin observed about changes in sexual standards: "Any considerable change in marriage behavior, any increase in sexual promiscuity, and illicit relations, is pregnant with momentous consequences. A sex revolution drastically affects the lives of millions, deeply disturbs the community, and decisively influences the future of society" ( The American Sex Revolution, 1956, p. 7).

The sexual revolution was not just an American phenomenon. Europe experienced its own upheaval. In fact, much of the world joined in throwing off sexual restraint. Why are millions of Africans infected with the AIDS virus? "The sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s in the West spread globally and penetrated Africa ... We know of many cases where young people, children really, are already sexually active" ( Christianity Today, Feb. 7, 2000).

The shocking numbers

The level of premarital sexual activity in Western nations is extraordinary. Establishing exact data can be elusive, but one report states that the "median age of first intercourse for American boys [is] 15.5" and "for American girls [it is] 16" (S.I. McMillen, M.D., and David Stern, M.D., None of These Diseases, 2000, p. 141).

Circumstances are similar in Britain, where "the average age for both sexes to lose their virginity is 16" ( The Observer, Dec. 2, 2001).

Premarital sexual activity among French girls is also extremely high. "Whereas it used to be the case that for 50 per cent of French women their first sexual partner would be the man they would marry, by the 1990s it was only true for 10 per cent" (Angus McLaren, Twentieth-Century Sexuality: A History, 1999, p. 212).

Although these figures are bad enough, even more shocking is the rampant promiscuity among so many. For example, among Britain's 16- to 24-year-olds, "19.7 percent of men and 14.6 percent of women have already had 10 or more partners" ( The Guardian, Nov. 30, 2001).

The telling consequences

The consequences of premarital sexual involvement are damaging on many levels. On an emotional level they often include a profound sense of guilt, shame and regret.

During the '60s and '70s many young people were "liberated" to believe that one-night stands were not only acceptable but desirable. This dogma was badly flawed. Wendy Shalit describes how such an encounter can affect many a young woman: "A young girl spends 'the rest of the night crying and bleeding' after she loses her virginity to a guy she barely knew" ( A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue, 1999, p. 57).

In recent years a new term, "hooking up," has sprouted on American college campuses for what used to be called "quickie" sexual interaction. A hookup may involve a range of intimate activities from kissing to forms of sex and usually involves alcohol. It is sex without commitment or emotional involvement, usually between people who know little if anything about each other and expect nothing more from each other than the gratification of that lone encounter.

According to a survey by the Institute for American Values, "40 percent of college women have hooked up at least once, and 10 percent more than six times" ( Christian Century, Aug. 15, 2001). The empty ritual leaves many young women feeling used, disillusioned and burdened with emotional confusion.

Different motivations for sex

Whether the setting is a one-night stand or sex within a relationship, the pressure on young women to engage in illicit sex relations is intense. Premarital sexual involvement is perhaps most apt to occur when a couple begins dating steadily. Couples use various rationales to justify sex, such as "It's okay if you're in love," "Everybody's doing it" or "We need to sleep together before we get married so we can know if we are sexually compatible."

None of these rationalizations is realistic. It's important for young women to realize that their motives for having sex are often quite different from those of a man. Women often consider that intercourse will solidify a relationship with their partner, but to a young man it often represents something different—a coming of age or, in too many cases, simply another conquest. Males are constructed differently emotionally and psychologically and often pursue sex purely for pleasure's sake, with no thought to a relationship.

When a woman has a casual sexual relationship, later she will often regret it, especially when hopes for an enduring relationship are dashed. Her male partner may feel like a victor, but she often feels like a victim.

And indeed she is. If a girl dates someone whom she thinks is "the one," she usually does not enhance her chances of maintaining a relationship by giving in sexually.

Often, after he has had his way, he will simply discard her. Such an action demonstrates that he was not the one after all. If a man jilts a woman because she will not surrender sexually, she is not losing much. Such men are interested in using a woman's body for their own gratification rather than being interested in her as a person or pursuing a lifelong relationship.

Girls who take a stand and refuse to consent to sexual relations before marriage are wise. When they surrender their bodies in premarital sex, they lose a precious part of themselves that they can never regain.

By holding fast to her virginity, a girl will, in the long run, win the respect of many males. As a university student explained, "... In the real world, the more casual that women allow their physical relationships with men to become, the less respect they earn" (Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us, 2000, p. 33).

Less-obvious consequences

Though in some respects a girl who experiments with premarital or extramarital sex may suffer more severely than a male who does so, men are also damaged by illicit sex. In addition to their own later feelings of guilt for having used young women, they often find it hard to build and maintain a long-term relationship with one other person.

Any sexual experimentation outside of marriage is a mistake. A man will never be the same in the sense that he has surrendered a part of himself that he should have reserved for his bride. Premarital sex may provide momentary gratification, but the result is a loss of the purity that God intended. Each conquest robs him of some of the care and tenderness he should be cultivating for just the right girl.

Much of the attraction of sex outside of marriage is based on its illicit nature. The attitude that "stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant" (Proverbs 9:17Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.

See All...) has been around for a long time.

Sometimes couples find sex to be intense and gratifying before they marry but after marriage discover it is not as exciting to them. Once they have devalued their respect for each other through premarital sex before marriage, rarely can they find the same attraction and respect shared by couples who marry without premarital sex.

Many couples who have sex before marriage find that it actually dampens the feelings they have for each other and, as a result, dampens their long-term sexual enjoyment. Their violation of God's law in succumbing to premarital sexual activity removes some of the beauty and splendor their married sexual relations could have had.

There is another danger in succumbing to sexual temptation, even if getting married is your intent. The possibility always exists that you may for some reason decide against marrying this person. When this happens you have, through sexual involvement, given a part of yourself to someone other than your spouse, a part you should have saved for your future wife or husband.

When two people become "one flesh" in a sexual relationship (see 1 Corinthians 6:16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

See All...), a bonding occurs between them. If, after they become sexually involved, one partner severs the relationship against the wishes of the other, the separation has a wrenching effect, especially for the jilted person, who is left feeling mentally and emotionally burned.

Sex counselors and schools push contraceptive devices as a means of assuring "safe sex," but no device can protect a person's heart. When the heart is assaulted, defensive patterns develop that will affect any future relationship.

Permanent injury

The hazards and negative consequences of adultery are numerous. Extramarital affairs also generally bring intense feelings of guilt and shame. When discovered—as affairs often are—the result is often permanent injury or destruction of the marriage, with severe damage to relationships between other family members and friends.

Some couples can put their marriages back together when one mate has had an affair, yet the infidelity inflicts a wound that is difficult if not impossible to heal. The betrayed wife or husband will likely never feel completely secure again. The quality of the marriage will suffer because trust has been violated. Even if the wound can heal, the scars remain.

Divorce proceedings are rarely cordial, but those that occur because of marital infidelity are among the most hostile. When sexual betrayal from one whose love was expected to last for life occurs, it creates bitterness and resentment that may never heal.

When children are involved, the two parties' lives generally remain interlocked because of visitation rights. In such cases there is no escaping the continuing hard feelings. When children sense the tensions and animosities, they are often emotionally scarred as a result (see "Divorce's Devastating Impact on Children," page 10).

The Bible states that premarital and extramarital sex are sin and therefore to be avoided completely. Why is God so adamant on this point? To protect us from the inevitable harmful consequences. Notice Paul's warning to Christians in the sex-saturated city of Corinth: "Run away from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body" (1 Corinthians 6:18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

See All..., New Living Translation).

God created sex to be a blessing and benefit of a committed marriage. When you cheapen your body by giving it freely outside of marriage, you treat your body with disrespect.

In the King James and New King James versions of the Bible, sexual intercourse in the Old Testament is referred to as "knowing." Sexual relations within the context of a loving, committed marriage enable two people to know each other in the most intimate and personal way.

Loving sex in this context is deeply satisfying and creates a unifying of two lives. It is much more than simply the coupling of two bodies. The couple becomes one flesh as God intended (Genesis 2:24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

See All...). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia describes this kind of knowledge as "not just cognitive, but always experiential and deeply personal; and sexual intercourse is never just physiological, but always involves mystery and touches the whole person" (1988, Vol. 4, "Sex," p. 433).

It is partially the mystery about the opposite sex that makes relating to one another so special. That mystery is destroyed and lost forever when human beings hook up as casually as many species of animals do. Our sexuality is a gift God gave us. It is so special that it should be protected and saved for marriage as God intended. GN


New TV Ad Asks 'Why Admit More Immigrant Workers When Recent College Grads Can't Find Jobs'

A very interesting post from  about high immigration during a time of unemployment. This follows this post about immigration treason during the president's term. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE.

New TV Ad Asks 'Why Admit More Immigrant Workers When Recent College Grads Can't Find Jobs'

- posted on NumbersUSA

On Tuesday, NumbersUSA will launch a national TV ad in cable network news coverage of the Republican National Convention and of next week's Democratic National Convention. The TV ad calls attention to the high unemployment rate of America’s recent college graduates and asks why our government will admit another million immigrant workers next year despite the low percentage of recent college grads finding a job in their field or at all. The TV ad will air on several networks including MSNBC, CNN and FOX News Channel.

To watch the ad, click here.

About 1.5 million or 53.6% of American bachelor’s degree holders under the age of twenty-five were jobless or underemployed last year according to a recent Associated Press report. At the same time, the U.S. government has continued to admit more than one million legal immigrants a year to take jobs in places like Tampa, Florida and Charlotte, North Carolina.

Both political parties have had a tin ear to the plight of America's kids -- and their parents -- who have gone to the effort and expense to gain a college education but encountered an economy unable to use them," commented Roy Beck, President of NumbersUSA, a non-partisan grassroots organization with more than 1.3 million participants. "The job picture is even worse for young Americans with only a high school degree. The last thing our graduates need right now is more job competition."

Beck said he is pleased that some politicians this year have pledged to increase immigration enforcement to reduce the number of illegal immigrants taking U.S. jobs sought by unemployed Americans. But the greater job threat to most Americans is the government's program that automatically gives out around one million permanent work permits to new immigrants each year, he said.

Few politicians understand how jobless and underemployed young Americans must feel to see Washington refuse to reduce immigration numbers during this time of high unemployment," Beck said. "And it shows how out of touch many of our political leaders are with average American families that they don't realize the insult to young Americans when they hear talk of some kind of desperate need for actually increasing the number of immigrant workers each year."

The “College Kid” TV ad was designed with younger audiences in mind. It was shot with a stutter camera and features a recent college grad belting out light, humorous rap lyrics about his jobless predicament while watching the government admit a million immigrant workers each year. Included in the many visual sequences is a shot of the jobless graduate with his less than hip parents at their home, emphasizing the strain put on both generations as record numbers of college graduates move back with “mom and dad.”

To watch the ad, click here.

Saudi Arabia: Calls for monitoring of mosques after mosque found manufacturing explosives

A very interesting post from about terrorism from mosques in Saudi Arabia. This follows this post about women in Saudi Arabia.  This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE.

Saudi Arabia: Calls for monitoring of mosques after mosque found manufacturing explosives

Mosques can be monitored in Saudi Arabia, but there cannot be any monitoring of mosques in the U.S. Oh, no. That would be "Islamophobic." Maybe the Obama Administration could bring in some Saudi mosque inspectors to assure them that everything is on the up-and-up in mosques stateside.

"Misuse of mosque for manufacturing explosives condemned," from Arab News, August 28 (thanks to Twostellas):

JEDDAH: A number of religious scholars and academics have stressed the need for the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowment, Call and Guidance to beef up monitoring of places of worship. It followed the recent report of a Riyadh mosque serving as a facade for manufacturing explosives.

This is nothing that will especially catch anyone's notice. As we have documented over the years here at Jihad Watch, mosques all over the world have been used as bases for attacks against Infidels, to stockpile weapons, etc. In this case there will be nothing like the world outcry that would ensue if a church were found manufacturing explosives. That would be a true man-bites-dog story.

The Interior Ministry said in a statement on Sunday that it discovered explosive substances and devices at a lean-to of a quiet mosque in Riyadh. Mosques normally use attached rooms to accommodate workers or for library service.

The scholars also demanded deterrent punishments to those who exploit the spiritual atmosphere in mosques to promote chaos in the country, Al-Madinah daily reported on Monday.

“Those who seek to destabilize the country and fight against security forces come under the category of ‘those who rebel against Allah and His Messenger’ and a country’s legitimate government and hence should be punished severely,” said Sheikh Abdullah Al-Manie, who is a member of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars and adviser at the Royal Court.

"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment..." -- Qur'an 5:33

The scholar also congratulated the Interior Ministry for its successful preemptive strike against the Riyadh cell and protecting the people from such heinous deeds.

“The Islamic Affairs Ministry should ensure that imams and muezzins inspect the mosque premises regularly and thoroughly, so that the facilities are not misused for subversive activities. The sacred houses of worship should not be converted into dens of destructive acts,” he said.

Member of the Fiqh Academy Muhammad Al-Nojaimi stressed the duty of the worshipers and residents in nearby buildings apart from imams and muezzins to see that mosques are not exploited for subversive activities. “Officials concerned should also investigate why some expatriates are unofficially undertaking duties at mosques. They should also launch campaigns and raids at such mosques,” he said....

Meanwhile, a former Saudi fighter in Afghanistan, Sheikh Siraj Al-Zahrani, warned against the dangers of Saudi youths being carried away by the temptation to be martyrs in Syria. Siraj said he joined the Afghan Taleban fighters on the assumption that they were fighting on the straight religious path, but experience made him disillusioned and prompted him to return home. “No youth should go to Syria or other war fronts without the permission from their guardians. A family should be cautious about its sons being lured to war zones for jihad,” the sheikh said.

Cautious indeed!

Posted by Robert

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Should we pray to saints?

An interesting article from about prayers to saints. This follows this post about Japan's possible nuclear plans. For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632

Should we pray to saints?

Some churches have a historic practice of praying to dead saints. Does the Bible teach that we should pray to the saints?


Jesus Christ taught His followers to pray to "our Father in heaven" (Matthew 6:9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

See All...), and the example throughout Scripture is that prayer is communication with God and part of our worship of Him.

What else does the Bible say about where prayers should be directed? Paul wanted the Roman church's "prayers to God" (Romans 15:30Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me;

See All...). Moses was to "pray to the Lord" (Numbers 21:7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

See All...), and David sang to God that "to You I will pray" (Psalm 5:2Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray.

See All...). Christians can come directly to God's throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

See All...), and the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ intercedes for us (Hebrews 7:25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

See All...). We don't need saints to do that.

Scripture shows saints (true believers) refusing to accept the worship of people (Acts 10:26But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

See All...; 14:8-18). The Bible also tells us not to worship angels (Colossians 2:18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

See All...), and it shows that angels refuse adoration and worship by humans (Revelation 19:10And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

See All...).

Notice also Revelation 22:9Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

See All..., where the apostle John saw in vision the time after the resurrection and fell down in awe at the feet of the being talking to him. "Then he said to me, 'See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.'"

Righteous created beings, whether human or angelic, refuse to be worshipped and they point us to worship the Creator. Only Satan and his followers seek others' adoration and worship (Matthew 4:9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

See All...; Acts 8:9-11 [9] But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:

[10] To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.

[11] And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.

See All...; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 [3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

[4] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

See All...).

In addition to all this, praying to dead saints today assumes the doctrine of the immortal soul, which many people are surprised to find is not taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that death is like sleep that lasts until the resurrection at Jesus Christ's second coming (1 Thessalonians 4:13-16 [13] But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

[14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

[15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

See All...).

For more information, please read our booklet Who Is God?


Drug Cartel Cops Executing Legit Cops: Today in Mexico, Tomorrow… Here?

A very interesting post from about executions in Mexico. This follows this post about Mexico as a regional power.  This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE.

Drug Cartel Cops Executing Legit Cops: Today in Mexico, Tomorrow… Here?

Mexico replaces all police at Mexico City airport

MEXICO CITY — Mexico's federal police have replaced all 348 officers assigned to security details at the Mexico City International Airport in the wake of the June 25 shooting deaths of three federal policemen killed by fellow officers believed to be involved in trafficking drugs through the terminal.

Federal Police regional security chief Luis Cardenas Palomino said the police agents have been reassigned to different states. They have been replaced by federal police who have passed double vetting and background checks.

One of the three officers sought in the shooting has been captured. Two others are still at large.

Cardenas Palomino said Sunday there is a reward of 3.4 million pesos, or $259,000, for information leading to their arrest.

The rogue officers were allegedly part of a trafficking ring that flew in cocaine from Peru.

U.S. troops punished for Qur'an-burning

A very interesting post from about U.S. troops in Afghanistan. This follows this post  about churches being attacked in the African nation of Tanzania.  This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE.

U.S. troops punished for Qur'an-burning

If any U.S. troops lose rank or pay because of the burning of the Qur'an, it would be one of the worst capitulations to Sharia of the entire Obama Administration, which has been full of them. Burning a Qur'an is not a crime in American law. And these Qur'ans weren't even burned maliciously (not that that should make a difference -- again, Qur'an-burning is not a crime): they were burned because jihadists were using them to pass messages to each other.

These troops should not be punished in any way. If they have been, that is the only criminal act in this entire sorry episode.

"U.S. troops punished over Koran burning, urination video," by Phil Stewart and David Alexander for Reuters, August 27 (thanks to David):

(Reuters) - The U.S. military said on Monday it was disciplining U.S. troops over two incidents that provoked outrage in Afghanistan early this year, one involving a video depicting Marines urinating on corpses and another over burned copies of the Koran.

But the administrative punishments fell short of criminal prosecution and it was unclear whether they would satisfy Afghan demands for justice.

No, it's quite clear: the Afghans will not be satisfied. (Not that what they want is justice.)

Afghan President Hamid Karzai branded the Marine's actions in the video as "inhuman," and he initially called for a public trial for the soldiers over the Koran incident.

The military did not disclose precise punishments for the troops but Army and Marine Corps spokesmen said they fell into a category that includes administrative sanctions, like a reduction in rank or forfeiture of pay.

The Marine Corps announced three Marines had pleaded guilty to charges over the video, which was widely seen on the Internet in January and showed Marines urinating on the corpses of what the Marine Corps said were dead Taliban fighters. One can be heard saying, "Have a nice day, buddy."...

Also on Monday, the Army announced that six soldiers received administrative punishments over an incident in which copies of the Koran and other religious material were removed from a prison library and sent to an incinerator to be destroyed. Four of the individuals involved were officers and two of them were non-commissioned officers, a spokesman said.

The incident in February touched off several days of rioting and attacks on U.S. troops after local workers found charred copies of the Koran among the trash at the incinerator at the Bagram base north of Kabul.

At least 30 people died in the violence that spread across the country after the incident. Shortly after, two American officers were shot dead in a secure area of the Afghan interior ministry, a crime that remains unsolved.

U.S. officials at the time said some of the religious material had been removed from the prison library at Bagram because of concern that it was extremist in nature and was being used to pass messages among prisoners. Details of the investigation were expected to be released later on Monday.

Reaction to the incident prompted President Barack Obama to write to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to apologize.

Posted by Robert

Monday, August 27, 2012

In Brief... Japan Rethinking Joining the Nuclear Club?

An interesting article from about Japan's possible nuclear plans. This follows this post about New Age star people.    For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

In Brief... Japan Rethinking Joining the Nuclear Club?

article by Cecil Maranville


Just when things cool down between nuclear neophytes India and Pakistan, another alarm is sounded by Japan as it contemplates arming itself with nuclear weapons. That's all Asia needs, another house with the ultimate weapon in global warfare.

As the International Herald Tribune reports, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda recently became the most senior Tokyo official to open the door to nuclear weapons. Fukuda said Japan's "peace constitution" does not rule out nuclear weapons. The times have "changed to the point that even revising the constitution is being talked about," he noted. "Depending upon the world situation, circumstances and public opinion could require Japan to possess nuclear weapons" ("So Much for Japan's Nuclear Taboo," Robyn Lim, June 13, 2002,  ).

In 1998 North Korea tested a long-range missile over Japan. It is believed North Korea possesses nuclear capability. China has nuclear weapons targeted on Japan. All this has Japan rethinking prior commitments to abstain from the nuclear club. Japan's policy here is based on three principles, "that it cannot make or possess nuclear weapons, or allow them to be introduced into the country" (ibid.).

One of the rules of international politics is that things change. A nation must always put its own interests ahead of others if it is to survive. As long as Japan chooses to be protected under the American nuclear umbrella, it will likely not choose to arm itself with weapons of mass destruction. If Japan chooses another option, then to survive in its hostile neighborhood it may see no other alternative than to go nuclear.

Adding to potential instability is another recent report that China is negotiating to buy eight submarines from Russia. This would increase their tactical ability to blockade Taiwan and challenge U.S. naval supremacy in the seas near China ( International Herald Tribune, June 25, 2002,  ).

Such a deal would "very significantly enhance" the Chinese navy's "ability to influence events in the East China Sea," said Bernard Cole, an expert on the Chinese navy at the National War College in Washington, D.C. How? "First, by enforcing a blockade against Taiwan, if Beijing adopts that course of action, and also by posing a serious problem for opposing naval forces attempting to operate in the area. No part of naval warfare is more difficult than detecting, localizing or neutralizing submarines" (ibid.).

Since Taiwan broke with Communist China in 1949, the mainland has sought to reconnect their "lost brothers." One of the main pillars of American foreign policy has been its pledge to protect Taiwan's sovereignty. Conversely, China has sought to remove American influence from the region and will stop at nothing to accomplish this geopolitical imperative.

Despite its military deficiencies, compared to America's technological superiority, China continues to move ahead with plans to become the dominant Asian power. China's impact in this region will continue to grow in the coming years. How this will affect American interests and other international relations will be an important area to watch.


Wknd Box Office: Premium Rush, Hit and Run, Queen of Versailles

Here is an interesting article from reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post some of the movies from last weekand THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: Premium Rush, Hit and Run, Queen of Versailles

By Debbie Schlussel

I enjoyed one of the three new movie releases in theaters, this weekend. The other two, not so much. I did not review “The Apparition” or “2016: Obama’s America,” neither of which was screened for critics. And, then, there is the added fact that “2016″ maker Dinesh D’Souza is a proud apologist for Islam and its extremist spokespeople, something I’ll tell you more about, later today.

* “Premium Rush“: I enjoyed this thriller. Full of heart-pounding, edge-of-your-seat action and suspense. And just an all-around enjoyable movie filled with mindless escapism. Some of the stunts are not believable–or that the people survived them–but this is the movies. You have to suspend disbelief for a movie like this, just as you would for a James Bond or Bourne movie.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a bike messenger in Manhattan, who is given an envelope to deliver by 7:00 p.m. in New York’s Chinatown. Soon, he is being chased by a man (with an obnoxiously thick New York accent), who he discovers is an unlikely assailant (Michael Shannon). While he races to deliver the envelope and also evade a cop on a bike, he also interacts with fellow bike messengers, including one he is dating, and tries to beat, evade, and get around traffic. The Chinese mob, lots of bike messengers and well-meaning cops are also involved.

There were a few things I did not like: the villain, the main man chasing him, is also a guy who decries the degradation and coarsening of language in American civil discourse. For saying he opposes the use of words and phrases, like “suck it” and “douchebag,” that makes him “square” and an even worse person, in the movie’s point of view. It’s not enough that he’s a corrupt authority figure chasing a bike messenger down. Weak Hollywood scripts make such obvious attacks on those of us who would still like America to have some moral high ground. Also, the main character’s girlfriend has a very, very thick Puerto Rican accent that is an annoying reminder of the equally undecipherable Rosie Perez. Remember her? I’d rather not. I also note that the plot of this movie is not entirely different from another movie, “Uncertainty,” in which the same star, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is being chased all over Manhattan by an Asian mob seeking a cellphone he has.

Other than that, the movie was light and entertaining (though it might be a little too violent for young kids). This is a “better than August” movie.


* “Hit and Run“: Ugggh. I absolutely hated this movie. It features not just one, but two, scenes of full-frontal, sagging, naked senior citizens in swinging swaps in a motel room. And it just goes downhill from there. Raunchy, gratuitously violent, and absolutely stupid and pointless. I wanted like hell to walk out of this movie. And I would have, but then I’d be prohibited from reviewing it. If you waste ten dollars and almost two hours of your time on this crap, you need your head examined. Kristen Bell and her fiance Dax Shepard (who won’t get married until all gays have the legal right to be married in the U.S. . . . awwww) made and financed this utter dung heap. And it shows in spades. They invited a few of their friends, Tom Arnold, Bradley Cooper, Kristin Chenoweth, etc., to hang out and have fun for an obvious tax write-off they made in a few days. This is how the hypocritical portion of the one percent lives.

Bell plays a college professor who lives with her ex-criminal boyfriend, “Charlie Bronson,” who is in a witness protection program and is supervised by Federal Marshal Tom Arnold. But Bell gets a terrific job opportunity in Los Angeles, and Charlie decides to risk his witness protection status by going with her. A jilted cop who once dated Bell researches “Charlie,” discovers he’s a criminal and alerts the fellow drug-dealing criminal against whom he testified. And a chase by cops and the drug dealer ensues. Trust me–I’m making this sound far, far better than it is. It’s an insult to humanity.

Skip at all cost. Plenty of American dummies and lowlifes will love it, I’m sure. After all, there’s no accounting for good taste in America.


* “The Queen of Versailles“: Although this documentary is clearly made by an uber-liberal, anti-capitalist filmmaker, it’s extremely interesting in its bird’s eye view on vulgar excess. As a free market conservative, this is an obvious Occupy kind of film with the worst possible portrayal of the vilest and most unrepresentative of the one percenters. And yet, like a gawker, I just couldn’t stop watching. Sad to say, it’s that good, so long as you remember what this is all about. While I don’t hate or envy the rich, as this movie wanted me to, I definitely hated the people in this movie, David Siegel and his uber-bimbo third wife, former pageant queen, Jackie.

First, I must get the unspoken elephant in the movie theater out of the way. Yes, I know Siegel is a Jewish surname, but I wish to point out that Siegel is not a practicing or identifying Jew, and the Siegels celebrate Christmas. Jackie is a gentile former model/actress from upstate New York with obtrusive basketball-sized fake breasts, a two-story closet full of exorbitantly expensive but sleazy, low-class outfits that show too much of them off, and a penchant for marrying wealthy JISNOs (Jews In Surname Only) (her previous hubby was a wealthy investment banker with the last name of Solomon). That said, it’s hard not to believe that filmmaker Lauren Greenfield is a far-left, self-hating Jew. After all, she chose a Jewish bete noire extraordinaire in David Siegel, and he fits the false narrative of American Jews that anti-Semites love to parade. It reminds me of some of the anti-Semitic literature Nazis used to drop near American soldiers in Europe during World War II (stuff like, “While you are here fighting, a flashy, rich Jewish banker is back home ravishing your girl”).

She and billionaire David, CEO of Westgate Resorts–America’s largest timeshare company–met when she was crowned Mrs. Florida and still married to her previous husband. At 43 (at the time of the movie–she is now 46), Jackie is 31 years younger than her grumpy, braggart husband. They live in a 26,000 square foot Florida mansion with a menagerie of multiple servants, eight children (seven are theirs and one is Jackie’s niece), pets, stuffed dead pets, and other chintzy, gaudy accoutrements. And yet that is not enough. They built “Versailles”–a 90,000 square foot edifice said to be the largest residential home in America and modeled on the French Palace of the same name. When the movie begins in 2007, they are on top of the world. But that soon begins to crumble as the economy melts down in 2008. At first, we see the hard sell tactics used by Siegel’s employees to get America’s working class to invest in a lifetime time share at his new Vegas hotel. But as the economy crashes, these people–who never really had the means–default on their payments, and Siegel’s empire crashes with it.

Regardless of that and the fact that Siegel tells apparent gold digger Jackie to cut her spending, she still goes to her expensive spa to get botox injections and face peels. And then she goes to the toy store, buying several shopping carts full of toys, which fill her entire van. After that, it’s an expensive Christmas party at their mansion.

To say the Siegels are tacky would be the understatement of year. The word “garish” is embarrassed to be used in connection with them. While they’ve gone from private planes, hosting Miss America contestants at their home, and helping David’s friend, George W. Bush win the election (he says he helped him win but won’t say how, “because it might not be legal”), they are now sending their kids to public school, and David tells the spoiled kids they might not go to college and might have to get jobs and work instead. Since they are down to only a few overworked servants and nannies, the house goes unkempt. One of the Siegel boys steps on dog fecal material in his room. David’s son from his first marriage was running sales at his father’s company. He discusses his youth in poverty with his divorced mother, all while his father was already a multi-millionaire. His and his father’s relationship is business only. And there is almost no business left, as he’s had to lay off the sales force.

This is the stuff liberals love to see–the rich being taken down a notch and destroyed. But I don’t, and neither should you. I didn’t revel in it because, even though I quickly grew to despise the Siegels, I don’t hold their wealth against them. That is what most Americans aspire to, and those aspirations are what drive Americans to do great things, start businesses, employ people, and create new inventions and services to make our lives better. If the Siegels were still going strong financially (and some reports say things are better for them since taping wrapped on the movie), they would continue to employ thousands of Americans they were forced to lay off, both in their company and in the construction of their showy palace. Their employees (as depicted in the movie) all seem to enjoy working for them. If things were good for them, it would also mean things were going well for the rest of America. But, at the end of the movie, the Siegels are in a similar bind as many other Americans. Their palatial Versailles was in foreclosure.

But they aren’t exactly in the same boat. They still have plenty of wealth and aren’t–like plenty of other Americans in the Obama economy–worrying about how to feed their kids and themselves and put a roof over their shoulders.

That’s why it’s especially disgusting to hear Jackie Siegel whine that she is upset that the bank bailouts didn’t cause the banks to send the money to “the common people: us.” Um, Jackie, common people don’t build 90,000 square foot homes. And they don’t live in 26,000 square foot ones.

Like I said, this movie has an easy target in its “hate the rich” goal. Sadly, for any of the many mindless who will see it, it succeeds in spades. The movie is very entertaining and engrossing in a reality show sort of way.

But, remember, most of America’s top one percent don’t live like this–not even close. That’s how they keep their wealth while the Siegels are losing theirs.

After seeing this movie, I don’t hate America’s rich. I just despise David and Jackie Siegel, who unfairly make them look bad. Predictably, most people seeing this movie don’t have the intellectual capacity to make the distinction.

One other note: the movie is distributed and shown by companies owned by billionaire Mark Cuban. Although you don’t see his wife behaving the way Jackie Siegel does, I’ll bet he lives in a giant mansion, and I know he has a private plane, as well as many of the other trappings of the billionaire lifestyle. But you rarely see his wife in public interviews, and when you do, she’s tastefully dressed and comports herself well. You don’t see Mark Cuban mocking his lifestyle or agreeing to expose his private life in a documentary showing his appointments of wealth. Smart man (which I already knew he was). But maybe also a little bit of a hypocrite in distributing this movie which is an attempted statement on his lifestyle and that of all rich people, using the Siegels as an easy-to-hate proxy.

The Siegels, so obsessed with bragging and showing off, just didn’t have the guts to say no to Director Lauren Greenfield. They are their own worst enemies. Yes, a documentarian can slant anything they way he or she wants and put the truth on the cutting room floor (or these days, in the digital circular file). But the Siegels provided Ms. Greenfield with miles and miles of rope.