Thursday, September 26, 2013

Lucia Jihad and the Crusades

I'm of the opinion that it is vital to understand the real history of the world, rather than the spun narratives that end up making young NZ'ers of European ancestry think that their own culture is not that special. Even the Crusades are something to be proud of. Unfortunately, the Crusades have quite a bad name due to major misinformation and historical ignorance of what the world was like at that time.

The cultural relativists on the Left and apologists for radical Islam like to blame the Crusades for almost everything. The Muslim extremists are only responding to the deeds of Christian extremists, the argument goes. In his new book, Sir Walter Scott’s Crusades and Other Fantasies, former Muslim Ibn Warraq takes on this misleading theme intended to blame the West for the Muslim world’s troubles.

The claim that the Crusades are the starting point of Islamic jihad is basically the political application of, “For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.” It equates the Christian beliefs driving the Crusades with the Islamic beliefs driving jihad.

Ibn Warraq’s new book tackles this misconception. Islamic atrocities were not provoked by the Crusaders’ own reprehensible acts, but preceded them. Islamic jihad was not triggered by the Crusades; it preceded them.

In fact, as explained by Warraq and in books like The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and What’s So Great About Christianity, the Christian world was reduced to about one-third of what it was by the sword of jihad. The Crusades were launched with the objective of, without any exaggeration, saving Europe and Western civilization from Sharia.

My personal experience in school is that the opposite was taught. The Crusades were framed as offensive and the jihads as defensive. The Crusaders were depicted as barbarians, particularly to Jews. I cannot recall hearing about a single Islamic atrocity before or during these wars.
This is a common phenomenon, Warraq explains, and it’s part of an overall trend when it comes to education about the history of Islam.

“What are seen as positive aspects of Islamic Civilization are ecstatically praised, even exaggerated, and all the negative aspects are imputed to the arrival of the pestilential Westerners, and where the Arabs, Persians and Muslims in general are seen as passive victims,”  Warraq said in an interview.

As proof, Warraq and the other authors mention the countless mass killings and persecutions of Christians and Jews before the Crusades. The destruction of over 30,000 churches during a 10-year period starting in 1004 AD is little-known. So is the burning of crosses, the beheading of converts to Christianity from Islam, the destruction of Christian holy sites like the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the forced tax for non-Muslims (the jizya) and the list goes on and on.

Read more: Blaming the Crusades for Jihad ~ FrontPage

Monday, September 23, 2013

Lucia Keyan Mall Attack by Islamic cowards

Anyone who considers themselves a fighter and deliberately targets unarmed men, women and even children is a coward. I don't care if they are risking their lives, because these types will most likely commit suicide (another cowardly act), but anyone who walks into a shopping mall to make war against women and children is a coward.

Islam, is the religion of cowards.

Here are some stories that might not make the mainstream news on the cowardly Somali attack against the Westgate Mall in Kenya:

NYPD redeploys counterterror units in response to Kenya jihad attack

The NYPD said that that it has redeployed some of its counterterror units in response to the attack on a mall in Kenya Saturday that killed dozens, but that there are no specific threats to the city.

"We keep track of events across the globe as they unfold and we adjust our counter terrorism efforts accordingly," said Deputy Commissioner John McCarthy in a statement. We have redeployed our critical response and hercules teams as a precaution. There is no specific threat to city."

Israeli forces join effort to free hostages and end jihad attack at Kenya mall

Israeli forces have reportedly joined efforts to end a deadly siege by Somali militants at a Kenyan shopping mall, a security source told AFP Sunday.

"The Israelis have just entered and they are rescuing the hostages and the injured," AFP quoted the sourec [sic] as saying on condition he not be named. Meanwhile, an Israeli source told Reuters that Israeli advisers are helping with the "negotiating strategy" to end the mall standoff.
Somali jihadists say that three U.S. Muslims are among Kenya mall jihad mass murderers

Al-Shabaab is claiming that there are American gunmen among those still holed up in the Westgate mall in a standoff with Kenyan and Israeli special forces.

The Somali al-Qaeda affiliate tweeted a series of names on its latest account before Twitter against suspended the group. Al-Shabaab has been creating new accounts each time they get shut down but a movement of pro-Kenyan tweeters has been tracking down the new accounts and complaining to Twitter.

“We received permission to disclose the names of our mujahideen inside #Westgate,” their latest account tweeted.

They proceeded to tweet the names one by one, including Ahmed Mohamed Isse, 22, “native” of St. Paul, Minn., Abdifatah Osman Keenadiid, 24, of Minneapolis, and Gen Mustafe Noorudiin, 27, of Kansas City, Mo.

Kenya Killers Used Muslim Prayer to tell apart Muslims and non-Muslims

Ms Ahmed said the attackers released people who were able to prove they could speak Arabic.

“I witnessed a few people get up and say something in Arabic and the gunmen let them go.

“A colleague of mine said he was Muslim and recited something in Arabic and they let him go as well.

“I saw a lot of children and elderly people being shot dead.

“I don’t understand why you would shoot a five-year-old child.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, more of the cowards have blown themselves up to kill Catholic men, women and children coming out of Mass on Sunday: At least 78 killed in Pakistan church bombing.

And David Cameron says that all of this has nothing to do with Islam: UK PM Says Terror Attack Carried Out for Islam has Nothing to do with Islam

The Muslim attackers ordered Muslims to identify themselves, recite a prayer and then be excused from the massacre. Al-Shabaab repeatedly declared that they were acting in the name of Islam. Which is not surprising as they exist to impose an Islamic state.

Announcing that what happened in Kenya has nothing to do with Islam is a good deal like announcing that the USSR had nothing to do with Communism.

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Andrei Pyscho Milt might still think the USA is a bastion of open democracy

But it is rapidly sliding into Stalinist tyranny - Freedom of Speech - hurrumph, open Government phooey.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Lucia On expecting to see democracy in the Middle East

I always thought the whole "Arab Spring" thing would never result in anything good. Democracy requires a democratic people, it won't work if the population can't function that way.

Here is a really interesting article from FrontPage by Daniel Greenfield, which explains the situation in Egypt, from the point of view of Westerners expecting to see what's not really there, in the same way that mirages occur in the desert. It's an apt metaphor.

Deserts are funny things. A big wide open space in which nothing moves can play tricks on the mind. Spend enough time looking at a desert and you will see things moving in it because your mind needs to believe that there is life in it. Look hard enough and you will see democracy, progress and change.

But when you close your eyes and open them again, you will see that there is only a desert. And that there only ever was a desert.

Everything else was a mirage.

Egypt has gone back to what it was before the Arab Spring. It is now once again a country ruled by the military and bureaucratic institutions that are the legacy of British colonialism. Mubarak will not return to power again, but there are plenty of other military men to squat on top of a bankrupt oligarchy that lives on foreign aid and pride.

The mirage of Tahrir Square, the fireworks, fires and social media protesters brandishing smartphones and throwing down with riot police, is fading away. There will be more riots and fires and rapes. But that false sense of history being made will never return.

The truth about the Arab Spring is that it never existed. The term was coined by Marc Lynch, a George Washington University professor, who had spent years urging engagement with Hamas and championing the role of the Muslim Brotherhood as a “firewall” against Al-Qaeda “radicalism.”

This Arab Spring had nothing to do with democracy or freedom. It was a scheme to split the Islamist ranks by turning over the Middle East to political Islamists. It was Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Green Belt strategy practiced on a grander scale than Iran. Instead of Jimmy Carter hoping that the Ayatollah Khomeini would checkmate the USSR, there was Barack Obama counting on Muslim Brotherhood election victories to make the practice of international terrorism passé.

The Arab Spring was a cheerful brand, a shiny media package, covering up an ugly truth. The optimistic implications of its name kept many from looking at the list of ingredients and finding out that the only things inside were Islamists and more Islamists.

Read more: The Egyptian Pyramid Scheme ~ FrontPage

Lucia Pope Francis condemns abortion day after controversial interview

Will the mainstream media give Pope Francis the same sort of coverage that they did to his interview? Somehow I doubt it, but I hope I'm wrong.

ROME, September 20, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a meeting with Catholic gynaecologists this morning Pope Francis strongly condemned abortion as a manifestation of a “throwaway culture.”

"Every unborn child, though unjustly condemned to be aborted, has the face of the Lord, who even before his birth, and then as soon as he was born, experienced the rejection of the world," the pope said.

The comments come one day after the release of an in-depth interview in which the Pope had explained that despite criticism he has avoided speaking about moral issues like abortion and gay “marriage” in his papacy, instead focusing on preaching about the love of Christ.

Well, that might upset a few people who think that Francis was relaxing the rules.

Speaking to the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, Pope Francis spoke of a paradox in medicine today. “On the one hand we see progress in the field of medicine, thanks to the work of scientists who passionately and unreservedly dedicate themselves to the search for new cures,” he said. “On the other hand, however, we also encounter the risk that doctors lose sight of their identity in the service of life.”

“While new rights are attributed to or indeed almost presumed by the individual, life is not always protected as the primary value and the primordial right of every human being,” said the Pope. “The ultimate aim of medicine remains the defence and promotion of life.”

The pope told the doctors, "Your being Catholic entails greater responsibility: first of all to yourself, in the effort to be consistent with the Christian vocation, and then to contemporary culture, to help recognize the transcendent dimension in human life, the imprint of the creative work of God, from the very first moment of conception. This is a commitment to the new evangelization that often requires going against the tide, paying a personal price. The Lord counts on you to spread the 'Gospel of life.'"

Yep, the Pope is Catholic!

Read more: Pope condemns abortion in strongest pro-life comments to date, day after controversial interview ~ LifeSiteNews

Friday, September 20, 2013

Lucia Ave Maria



This is just how the choir at the Mass I go sings Ave Maria. Perfect.

Lucia Christus Vincit



My favourite rendition of Christus Vincit.

The you-tube audio doesn't quite do it justice, unfortunately.

Andrei If you want to know what the Pope really said

Instead of getting the potted and reworked version from Stuff or the New York Times it can be read in its entirety here

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Lucia The American Thinker on Putin the Peacemaker vs Obama the Warmonger

This post from the American Thinker starts out strong and never lets up:
President Obama has now sabotaged four decades of stability in the Middle East. First he pulled down the biggest pillar of peace, the Mubarak regime in Egypt; then he bombed Libya into the Dark Ages; and now he has paraded "My Army" and "My Navy" against the Assad regime in Syria, which is just as evil as the rebels.

The one thing Obama has never faced honestly is what everybody knows to be the real threat -- namely mullahs with nukes.

In the strangest twist of history, it is Obama the radical leftist who is now acting as the destabilizing warmonger in the Middle East, while Vladimir Putin may be emerging as a stabilizing peacemaker.

Nobody can figure out whether Obama is the most hapless bumbler in history, or whether there is some sinister purpose behind it all.

It could be both.

Then there's this why the Mullahs will be terrified of Russia:
... Russia may be the only nation that can scare the b*****s out of the mullahs. The reason for that is very simple: Putin does not make idle threats. Every single day for more than thirty years the mullahs have been chanting, "Death to Israel! Death to America!"

But they never chant "Death to Russia!" because under Tsar Vladimir Putin, they are afraid to do so. Putin can a very nasty enemy, with far more power than the mullahs have.

On the differences between Russia and America, and the strength of the American military doesn't really cut it, it's the weakness of American liberals that is the problem:

Our weakness is in our lack of political will under Democratic presidents. We are unreliable in a harsh world that can't afford to risk flabby American presidents every four years.

Putin knows all about pushover liberals. He rose in the Soviet KGB to become the head of the East German arm of Soviet intelligence. The Soviets studied Western politics and penetrated West Germany at the highest levels of government. Our Democrats are useful idiots in Lenin's meaning of that term, and they are not mysterious to Putin. They can be rolled. To hardnosed KGB thugs they are ridiculously easy to manipulate.

That makes Vladimir Putin potentially the most powerful player in the Middle East. If the Saudis come to an arrangement with him, he can protect them against Iran. One possibility is for the Saudis to coordinate oil prices with Russia, to their mutual benefit.

On Putin effectively being the new Russian Tsar:

Putin is a Russian nationalist, like the tsars. Russian rulers have long been nationalistic tyrants. The tsars were also the heads of the Russian Orthodox Church, in exactly the way Queen Elizabeth is still the titular head of the Church of England. The Tsars were religious tyrants.

If you google "Putin + Patriarch of Moscow," you'll get 360,000 hits, including fabulous news photos of Vladimir Putin kissing the ring of the patriarch, surrounded by those golden baubles they inherited from the Byzantine Empire. Look at those pictures, and you see Putin the tsar.

In Russian legend, even Ivan the Terrible ended up confessing his sins to the Orthodox Church. Putin is playing a role going back five centuries and more.

Russia needs a unifying ideology, and if it's not Communism, it has to be its ancient form of orthodox Christianity. The Soviets tried to extirpate the Orthodox Church for seventy years and failed.

To understand Putin the Peacemaker, consider two more facts.

1. Historically, all the Orthodox Christian churches were shaped by more than a thousand years of warfare against Muslim aggressors. Putin does not have to learn about Muslim aggression -- unlike Obama, who can't seem to get what everybody else understands. When Muslim terrorists attacked a full theater in Moscow and an elementary school in Beslan, Putin took a terrible revenge in Chechnya. The liberal media never covered that war, but you can look it up. Muslims fear Putin. He takes no prisoners.

2. Like the English royals, the Russian tsars styled themselves as the protectors of Christians in their own country and abroad. When Putin therefore expresses official Russian concern about vicious Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East, this is not just a shrewd political move. It is also a signal that everybody understands. The Orthodox Churches have ancient ties to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Istanbul, to name just three famous capital cities.

Putin is therefore adopting a traditional Russian approach to the world. He is a realist who plays big-power politics.
Catholics also have a long history of dealing with the Muslim world.  Not so much Protestants, who used Islamic attacks in Europe to strengthen their own positions.  Anyway ...

And on understanding the danger suicidal Muslim terrorists pose:

Putin cannot tolerate a Muslim fascist regime with a nuclear martyrdom complex. Putin knows about suicide bombers. Chechen suiciders were involved in two great terrorist disasters at the beginning of his rule, the Beslan elementary school massacre and the Moscow theater massacre. Putin can't doubt the danger of Muslim suiciders, unlike American leftists who keep trying to pretend that reality isn't what it is.

Vladimir Putin therefore knows in his very bones what Obama doesn't know: that suiciders with nukes are not acceptable.

Obama's pro-Muslim policies have to be driving the Kremlin batty these days. What is with this American president? The Russians can understand American leaders acting in our national interest. They can't figure out why this president seems to be empowering our sworn fanatical enemies: radical Sunnis in Arabia and radical Shi'ites in Iran.

Twelve years after 9/11/01, how dumb can these Americans be?

Read more: Dangerous Times: Putin the Peacemaker vs. Obama the Warmonger

Friday, September 13, 2013

Lucia Robert Spencer on Putin's letter to the American People

I had to laugh at some of the cries of hypocrisy leveled at Vladimir Putin for the points raised in his Op Ed to the American people over potential strikes in Syria. So Putin doesn't live up to his own standards, what leader does? Obama? What's Mr Peace Prize wanting to do? Oh yes, bomb a country in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons within that country. Maybe Putin has been trying to live up to higher standards lately, maybe he's trying to put his KGB past behind him. Maybe. In this case, however, he is right on most, if not all his points.

Anyway, Robert Spencer has been the most interesting commentator on the letter so far:

When even the New York Times admits that Barack Obama has been outfoxed, outsmarted and outplayed, you know he has really been outfoxed, outsmarted and outplayed.

But there it was, in Wednesday’s edition: “suddenly Mr. Putin has eclipsed Mr. Obama as the world leader driving the agenda in the Syria crisis.” Putin, wrote Steven Lee Myers for the Times, “appears to have achieved several objectives, largely at Washington’s expense.” Chief among these was that “Russia has at least for now made itself indispensable in containing the conflict in Syria, which Mr. Putin has argued could ignite Islamic unrest around the region, even as far as Russia’s own restive Muslim regions, if it is mismanaged.”

Barack Obama, meanwhile, has been revealed as being spectacularly dispensable. The Syrian jihadis who were counting on his aid are bitterly disappointed that he has (at least for now) backed off on committing the U.S. to intervening militarily; true to form as ever, they are blaming it all on Israel. He and his administration’s top officials, most of whom spent years excoriating George W. Bush for lacking sufficient evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, are definitively unmasked as hypocritical, self-serving and partisan in repeatedly glossing over the fact that Obama still has not proven his central contention, that it was Assad who used the chemical weapons unleashed in Syria on August 21.

Putin talked a lot of sense, while simultaneously issuing Obama a veiled threat, in his op-ed. He warned, quite accurately, that a U.S. strike in Syria could risk “spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders” and added: “Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it,” without quite getting around to mentioning that if the U.S. intervened, Putin himself would be one of the prime movers behind the escalation of the conflict.

Putin also scolded Obama for his reference Tuesday evening to “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” Putin pontificated: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

The irony was thick. Putin may have been aware that Obama notoriously denigrated American exceptionalism at a town hall meeting in Europe during his first Presidential trip there in 2009. Obama denigrated American exceptionalism by equating it with nationalistic chauvinism: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, every country is exceptional, and so none is.

And now Putin was rubbing his face in this, admonishing him that America itself was not exceptional, and driving the point home by saving the world from a wider war in Syria when Obama was itching to get in it, despite failing to provide any proof of his claims that Assad used chemical weapons.

That proof proved to be more elusive by the day. Jason Howerton reported Wednesday in The Blaze that “two Europeans who were allegedly abducted and held hostage for several months in Syria claim they overheard a conversation between their captors suggesting the Syrian rebels were behind the deadly chemical attack in Damascus.…Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin and Italian journalist Domenico Quirico both say they were able to eavesdrop on an English-language Skype session between their abductors in which they allegedly revealed that it was the Syrian rebels who perpetrated the attack so that the West would intervene.”

Likewise, Matthew Schofield reported for McClatchy on Tuesday that Assad “has repeatedly rejected requests from his field commanders for approval to use chemical weapons, according to a report this weekend in a German newspaper.”

These were just the latest additions to a growing mountain of evidence that, as Putin put it in his op-ed, “there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.” In support of that claim, Russia submitted a detailed 100-page report to the United Nations; the Obama Administration, by contrast, has offered only circumstantial evidence that hasn’t convinced even our closest allies to join us in a military strike on Syria.

Robert Spencer's conclusion contained a warning note:
On June 29, 1453, Ottoman jihad warriors finally conquered Constantinople after a prolonged siege (and seven hundred years of trying) when a careless city worker left a gate open to the city after taking out the garbage, thereby offering an entrée to the Muslim forces, who rushed into the city and laid waste.

What happened this week could prove to be just as accidentally momentous. Russia has suddenly reemerged as a major player, if not the major player, in the Middle East and on the world stage in general. And it has happened not because Putin’s plan for a resolution to the Syrian conflict is particularly imaginative, or even workable (how will anyone be able to be sure that Syria has turned over all its chemical weapons?). No, Russia’s reemergence is due not to Russia’s power or Putin’s statecraft, but because Barack Obama left the gate open for them. The consequences of their rushing into the city have yet to be determined, but they’re unlikely to be good in the long run for free people.

Thanks to KG of Crusader Rabbit for the link to 7 Hypocritical, False and Misleading Statements in Vladamir Putin's NYT Op-ed from the Christian Post. I found another similar article in the Washington Post: Vladimir Putin’s New York Times op-ed, annotated and fact-checked.

Meanwhile in Syria, the type of rebel that Obama is supporting by sending them weapons are beheading their opponents. Warning, graphic picture at the link which shows the starting cut of a beheading of a young man.

Lucia The significance of the date of September 11

Why did the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York happen on September 11 in 2001?

Plane-sized hole in one of the Twin Towers

Because the largest, most decisive defeat of the Muslim incursion into Europe occurred on September 11 and 12 in 1683 at Vienna, after a previous failed attempt to penetrate Europe through Poland:


I doubt it was a coincidence.

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Andrei Vladimir Putin addresses Americans (and the rest of the world)

It takes the form of an Op Ed in the New York Times but is addressed as a letter to the American people.

Extraordinary - there is a tectonic shift in human affairs underway, I feel it. A rational adult is speaking and that has been a rare thing in recent days.

How will this be received? Time will tell.

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Lucia Socialists admit that their promotion of gay marriage and abortion is part of their strategy to replace global capitalism with Marxism

From LifeSiteNews, an article highlighting that promoting gay marriage and abortion is part of a socialist strategy to attack the family and thus replace global capitalism with Marxism.

A publication of the international socialist movement has explicitly stated it is promoting abortion and gay “marriage” as part of a multi-pronged campaign to “replace global capitalism” with Marxism.

The admission came on Monday in an article entitled "How Can We Change the World?" by Todd Chretien in the Socialist Worker, which is published by the International Socialist Organization. The ISO proudly “stands in the tradition of revolutionary socialists Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin, and Leon Trotsky.”

...

Today's young people, Chretien hoped, would carry on a social revolution by waging war on the family.

“When you break the statistics down by age, race and gender, you see what the powers that be are afraid of,” he wrote. “Some 68 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 34, 60 percent of women, and 60 percent of people of color support gay marriage – compared to 46 percent of people over the age of 50, 49 percent of men, and 53 percent of whites. These gaps generally hold true for a host of issues."

Millenials – those born after 1981 – represent the only generation where a majority supports gay “marriage.” Meanwhile, only 38 percent of the nation's largest demographic group, the Baby Boomers, back marriage redefinition, according to a Pew Research Forum in March.

...

Communist Party member and ACLU founder “Elizabeth Gurley Flynn thought reproductive justice and socialism went hand in hand," he wrote.

So, too, did Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. When she died in 1966, the New York Times described her as “an active worker for the Socialist Party” whose “friends included radicals of all shades.”

This is something I have stressed on this blog a number of times, that gay marriage especially is about an increase of the power of the state (See Same-sex marriage creates a more powerful state), which links in with a greater ability for governments to impose socialism.

Strong families are more able to resist socialism, while as weak families tend to embrace it, as the state takes over some of the family's functions. Families that break up easily will also embrace socialism so that the parents are more easily able to walk away from their commitments. Abortion imprints in the psyche of the population that children are disposable and removable if they cause the adults to change their lifestyles. Sacrifice for the greater good is actively discouraged.

Related link: Socialist publication: We can ‘change the world’ through abortion and gay ‘marriage’

Friday, September 6, 2013

Lucia Pope Francis has called for a day of prayer and fasting tomorrow for Syria

Pope Francis is actively trying to prevent the potential attack on Syria by the United States, through calling for a day of prayer and fasting tomorrow, writing to Russian leader Vladimir Putin and calling together the world's diplomats in the Vatican to discuss the Syrian situation.

I’m at the Vatican this week, where Syria is the number one topic of discussion and concern.

We just learned that in a letter sent yesterday to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Pope Francis urged international leaders to “lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution” in Syria.

It was the latest in a series of Vatican statements signaling opposition to President Obama’s planned attack on Syrian government forces and urging instead a renewed international-backed effort at diplomacy and negotiation.

The pope wrote to Putin because the Russian leader is chairing a G20 summit that Obama is attending, but also perhaps because Russia has been a supporter of the Syrian regime headed by Bashar Hafez al-Assad, and therefore may have some influence with the Syrian leader.

Francis condemned the “senseless massacre now unfolding” in Syria, and said the international community cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of the country’s civilian population. But he said the path to follow was dialogue, because “violence never begets peace.”

The pope’s letter was made public today after a meeting of ambassadors summoned by the Vatican for an urgent discussion of the Syrian situation. Addressing the diplomats, the Vatican’s foreign affairs minister, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, expressed outrage at the recent chemical weapons attack in Syria that left more than 1,400 people dead and called for clarification in identifying those responsible.

He cited Pope Francis’ recent condemnation of the attack: “There is a judgment of God and of history upon our actions which are inescapable!” The Obama administration has blamed the Syrian regime for the attack.

Mamberti said the short-term priority in Syria is to stop the violence, and he warned of “unforeseeable consequences” if the fighting continues. He then listed several essential principles that need to be part of a just solution in Syria:
– Renewal of dialogue between all parties in Syria.
– Preservation of Syria’s unity and territorial integrity.
– Protection of all minorities, including Christians, in the future Syria, as well as respect for religious freedom.

Mamberti also expressed the Vatican’s growing concern about the presence of “extremist groups” in Syria, often from other countries, and said opposition forces should keep their distance from such extremists and openly reject terrorism. This was a point also raised by several of the 71 ambassadors present for the discussion that followed, according to a Vatican spokesman.

When it comes to the issue of a U.S. attack on Syrian government forces, there isn’t much debate going on at the Vatican: everyone here seems to think it would be a very bad idea.

The message from the pope and others is that a U.S. bombing of Syria would not bring peace any closer, would increase suffering in the country, would worsen the flow of refugees, would risk sparking a wider war and could further endanger the Christian community and other religious minorities in Syria.

Pope Francis has called for a universal day of prayer and fasting for peace on Saturday, an appeal that’s struck a chord among other religious leaders, including Muslims in the Middle East.

But it’s clear the pope also wants to make sure the Vatican’s diplomatic voice is heard, and thus his letter to Putin and the convocation of ambassadors.

The current American President is an idiot. I'm praying that he doesn't compound that by potentially starting a world war by wrongfully bombing a country that has an active Islamic terrorist insurgency operating there. The insurgency most likely used the chemical weapons against the civilians, rather than the current government.

Related link: Pope rejects pursuit of military solution in Syria as Vatican convenes diplomats ~ John Thavis

Fletch Pope Answers Woman's Letter With Phone Call

A 35 year old woman wrote to Pope Francis because she got pregnant and the father told her he was married already and to go get an abortion. The Pope gave her a quick ring and told her not to let anyone “rob her of hope” and said that if she couldn’t find a priest to baptize the child, that he would come and do it himself.