We will have a mirror site at http://nunezreport.wordpress.com in case we are censored, Please save the link

Monday, June 30, 2014

ISIS fanatics publicly crucify nine men in Syria

IS there no end to their depraved brutality?

The fanatical jihadists waging war across Syria and Iraq have already horrified the world with their mass shootings and the discovery of a “death pit” where they hurl victims’ bodies.

Now they have employed a cruelty many centuries old — crucifixion.

The fiends of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIL) publicly hung nine men on crosses at the weekend in Syria.

In a reflection of the complex and terrifying forces wreaking havoc across the region, the jihadists’ victims were not soldiers of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime; they were fellow rebels, who are fighting both the goverment and ISIS.


News of the killings come as, over the border in Iraq, fears are emerging that the Shiite Muslim militias raised to fight the Sunni ISIS forces are just as brutal as their foes — with no escape for those caught between.

Bloody insurgency ... fighters from ISIS march in Raqqa, Syria. Source: AP

The crucifxions came amid fierce clashes on the outskirts of Damascus between ISIS and other anti-Assad rebels, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

“ISIL executed eight men in Deir Hafer in the east of Aleppo province” on Saturday because they belonged to rebel groups that had fought against the jihadists as well as Assad’s forces, it said. The group then “crucified them in the main square of the village, where their bodies will remain for three days.”

Also in Aleppo province, a ninth man was crucified for eight hours as a form of punishment in Al-Bab town near the border with Turkey.

He survived the ordeal.

ISIS launched a campaign aimed at recruiting followers in the West, seeking to capitalize on its successful military offensive in Iraq. Now, the pitch is falling on receptive ears. Maria abi-Habib joins Simon Constable on the News Hub to discuss. Photo: ISIS Recruitment Video

The news came as ISIL continued its bloody push into Iraq, where the Sunni group is bent on destroying the deeply-divided nation’s Shia government.

Iraq’s security spokesman has said hundreds of soldiers have been killed since the insurgent offensive was launched on June 9, while the UN puts the overall death toll at over 1,000, mostly civilians.

However, the militias that have sprung up in response to the attacks appear to be just as terrifying as the extremists they are fighting.

Abu Mustafa, a resident of Baquba, 60km north of Baghdad, described his flashpoint city as being caught between two fearsome forces.

Horrifying ... this image appears to show ISIS militants leading away captured Iraqi soldiers dressed in plain clothes after taking over a base in Tikrit, Iraq. Source: AP

“We have Da’ash on one side,” he told the Guardian, using the colloquial word for ISIS. “And we have Asa’ib ahl al-Haq on the other. I don’t know who to be more scared of.”

Asa’ib ahl al-Haq is said to be one of the most powerful Shia militias in Iraq, and always present wherever government forces are clashing with ISIS.


They have become so important to the official fightback effort that some say the government is afraid to stand up to them, leaving the shady militiamen free to wreak their own brand of sectarian havoc.

In Baghdad’s southern suburb of Dora, the Guardian reports that several Sunnis have been killed in recent weeks after being seized on the streets.

One man, who retrieved his nephew’s body earlier this week after he was kidnapped by the side of the road last week, said Asa’ib had been responsible for killing him.

“They are operating right under the nose of the government and no one will stand up to them. Only Asa’ib can do that. It is clear who did this.”

Credit to news.com.au

Iraq Receives First Fighter Jets From "Our Russian Friends"

 Having offered "complete support" for Iraq's embattled PM Maliki, the troubled nation receives its first shipment of "America deluded us" Russian fighter jets. As RT reports, the Iraqi Ministry of Defense on Sunday confirmed receiving five Su-25 fighter jets in accordance with the deal with Moscow. Iraqi Army Lieutenant General Anwar Hamad Amen Ahmed explained, "our Russian friends have also sent their own experts to assist us in preparing the aircraft. All the logistics have been planned for as well." The proxy war continues...

The first delivery of Russian Sukhoi fighter jets arrived in Iraq on Saturday, the country’s Defense Ministry said. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is hoping the jets will make a key difference in the fight against ISIS.

The Iraqi Ministry of Defense on Sunday confirmed receiving five Su-25 fighter jets in accordance with the deal with Moscow. The jets were delivered by a Russian An-124 transport plane in a dismantled state, and are expected to be set up and become operational within 3-4 days.

“The Sukhoi Su-25 is an air-ground support and anti-terrorism mission aircraft. In these difficult times, we are in great need of such aircraft. With God’s help, we will be able to deploy them to support our ground forces on a mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant militants within the next 3-4 days,” Iraqi Army Lieutenant General Anwar Hamad Amen Ahmed told RT’s Ruptly news agency at an airport receiving the jets.
According to Ahmed, Iraq will wage a “massive attack” on insurgents with the help of the jets.
“We have experienced pilots and other professionals. Our Russian friends have also sent their own experts to assist us in preparing the aircraft. All the logistics have been planned for as well,” the lieutenant general said.


At the same time, Maliki criticized the US for taking too long to deliver on its own contract after Iraq purchased F-16 jets from America.
Credit to Zero Hedge

'No place to hide': Iraq's Christians face ISIS slaughter as country disintegrates

Isis announces Islamic caliphate in area straddling Iraq and Syria

A member loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) waves an Isis flag in Raqqa, Syria. Photograph: Reuters

Islamist militants have declared an Islamic "caliphate" in an area straddling Iraq and Syria, trumpeting the declaration in several videos.

One slick video, mostly in English, features a bearded fighter with an AK-47 on his back, explaining the new caliphate.

"This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders," a jihadist from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) warned in the video called End of Sykes-Picot, a reference to the agreement between France and Britain that divided up the Ottoman empire territories after the first world war.

Later the fighter pledges that jihadists will free Palestine. "We are not here to replace an Arab cahoot with a western cahoot. Rather our jihad is more lofty and higher. We are fighting to make the word of Allah the highest," the spokesman said.

He is filmed showing abandoned Iraqi army badges and vehicles left by fleeing soldiers. "There is no army in the world that can withstand the soldiers of Islam," he said.

The video features about a dozen men in a cell said to be captured troops and border police. A building, said to be a police station, is shown being blown up, as well as US-made Humvees captured from the border police. "Look how much America spends to fight Islam, and it ends up just being in our pockets," the spokesman taunted.

Isis, a breakaway group from al-Qaida, is notable for its hardline anti-Shia sectarianism, declaring Shia Muslims and other rivals as heretics that deserve death.

Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, an Isis spokesman, defined the Islamic state's territory as running from northern Syria to the Iraqi province of Diyala north-east of Baghdad, a vast stretch of land straddling the border that is already largely under Isis control. He also said that with the establishment of the caliphate, the group was changing its name to the Islamic State, dropping the mention of Iraq and the Levant.

"The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organisations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's authority and the arrival of its troops to their areas," he said in an audio statement posted online, AP reported. "Listen to your caliph and obey him. Support your state, which grows every day."

Adnani said the group's chief, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is the leader of the new caliphate and called on Muslims everywhere, not just those in areas under the organisation's control, to swear loyalty to him.

Baghdadi has been disowned by al-Qaida's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, after al-Baghdadi ignored al-Zawahiri's demands that the Islamic State leave Syria.

Since the Ottoman collapse, Sunni Islam has lacked an internationally recognised clerical hierarchy and senior figures generally hold authority within a single country. Among the most prominent of these is the Grand Mufti of Egypt, whose spokesman dismissed the new caliphate in Iraq and Syria as an "illusion".

"What they called the Islamic caliphate is merely a response to the chaos which has happened in Iraq as a direct

result of the inflammation of sectarian conflict in the entire region," Ibrahim Negm said in Cairo.

Another video called Breaking of the Borders showed Isis fighters killing Iraqi border guards, Reuters reported.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group, said Islamic State fighters crucified eight men said to be rival rebel fighters in the town square of Deir Hafer in Syria's Aleppo province on Saturday as a warning to others.

An analyst said the declaration of a caliphate by the Islamic State posed a huge challenge to al-Qaida.

"Put simply, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has declared war on al-Qaida," said Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Centre. "While it is now inevitable that members and prominent supporters of al-Qaida and its affiliates will rapidly move to denounce Baghdadi and this announcement, it is the long-term implications that may prove more significant.

"Taken globally, the younger generation of the jihadist community is becoming more supportive of Isis, largely out of fealty to its slick and proven capacity for attaining rapid results through brutality."

The Islamic State's declaration came as the Iraqi government tries to claw back some of the territory gained by the jihadists and disaffected Sunnis.

On Sunday, Iraqi helicopter gunships struck suspected insurgent positions for a second consecutive day in the northern city of Tikrit, the predominantly Sunni hometown of former dictator Saddam Hussein. The insurgents appeared to have repelled the military's initial push and remain in control of the city.

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has voiced support for Kurdish statehood, calling for the establishment of an independent Kurdistan as part of a broader alliance with moderate forces across the region. The US, however, has said Iraq should stand together in the face of Isis and other jihadists.

Credit to The Guardian

100 Years Ago Today: "Keep Calm And Buy Stocks - World War I Is Priced In"

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Amid the growing geopolitical powder keg of 2014, the deafening roar of BIS-deniers proclaiming that everything bad is priced-in and nothing good is priced-in dominates the mainstream media. This is nothing new... as no less than The Financial Times proclaims on June 30th 1914 that "stock markets have been scarcely affected by the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne... there's no evidence that stock holders took fright" as it's priced in (or contained?). It seems things didn't quite work out as 'priced-in'.

h/t @FT
Things were not quite as priced in as 'they' thought...

The Trigger Event for the UN Takeover of the US

un vehicles 2Parts One and Two of this series described how the United Nations is poised to take over the United States. The border crisis with tens, if not hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens is threatening to paralyze several federal agencies. When this number grows to millions, this country and its resources will be paralyzed in terms of responding the holocaust which is underway. Part Two, in particular, demonstrated how the United Nations is prepositioning resources in anticipation of being able to assume a policing duty with regard to the border crisis, which has totally been manufactured in order that the UN has a pretext to function as a force. Because the UN will be responding to a “humanitarian need” the American military will have a very difficult time objecting and opposing the takeover by the UN. The policing of the US by the UN is merely a move to gain a foothold for control over this country. When one looks at the wholesale movement of UN military vehicles, it is easy to conclude that their mission will not be humanitarian, in its totality, but this is lining up to be a military mission. As bad as the crisis on the border will be, this is just the opening act. What follows will allow the UN to assume complete policing powers in all 50 states and the assumption of jurisdictional control over all state and federal agencies.

What Will Give the UN the Justification to Assume Control Over the Entire US?

The one element that binds together all the local, state and federal agencies is the economy. The border crisis will provide the UN the opportunity to have a presence in the border states. However, there will be 46 states that will not be under UN control. Therefore, how does the UN overcome this challenge in order to assume complete control of the United States?
Food riots are coming
Food riots are coming
When the American economy collapses, food riots will commence. The average American will have enough food and water for about three days, with the majority of Americans not possessing the means to protect their individual supplies from the hording bands of desperate people. Banks will collapse, business inventories will be looted and police will abandon their posts just like they did during Hurricane Katrina. From a law enforcement perspective, America will lose the ability to respond to the crisis within 3-5 days. Within 10 days, there will absolute and total anarchy. Nobody will be safe. However, the UN “Peacekeepers” will be present and will be willing and able to assume control. And if they assume control, as they did, in Bosnia, Serbia, the West Bank, Lebanon and Rwanda, Americans are in a lot of trouble. northcomMy military sources have told me that this has already been rehearsed, the UN takeover of America, as far back as the 1990′s version of NORTHCOM and in combination with the UN have engaged in urban warfare drills. Again, in Bosnia, urban occupation was coordinated between foreign troops and US soldiers, under UN command in this war torn country. The removal of 260+ American military senior grade military officers should make a lot more sense because our loyal military leaders would not approve of this loss of sovereignty. An economic collapse will be the second leg of the UN takeover of this country following an international response by the UN at the border. And what will that mean? It will mean gun confiscation and seizure of private assets.


For those who are indifferent to a planned UN intervention in this country, I would ask you to please tell me when has the United Nations ever intervened in a crisis without having its presence create genocide type conditions? Since class is in session, let me provide for you with the poster child answer to the previous question. Look at what the UN did not do in the Rwanda crisis. These yellow-bellied blue helmets watched as people were pulled from their cars, their wagons and their homes and were subsequently murdered.
Rwandan murdering perpetrators.
Rwandan murdering perpetrators.

United Nations Rwandan crisis spectators.
United Nations Rwandan crisis spectators.
Twenty years after a million Rwandans were murdered in 90 days, the UN apologized for their inaction. The UN also has a similar track record in Bosnia, Serbia, the West Bank, et al., and soon to be in America. Mark my words, when the food riots commence following the collapse of the dollar, the UN will not be intervening to save American lives in the midst of the economic collapse that is presently underway. The sole purpose of the UN presence, during this crisis, will be to assume complete control of the government and the key infrastructure.

Larry Grathwohl Was Correct

fema civilian detaineesI had the good fortune of interviewing the late Larry Grathwohl many times. Larry was well-known for exposing the fact that Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne, formerly the leaders of the radical revolutionary group, the Weatherman Underground, launched the political career of Barack Hussein Obama. While Larry was serving as an undercover informant designed to penetrate the Weatherman on behalf of the FBI, he once asked Ayers what will happen if and when these radical communists were ever able to assume control over the US. Ayers responded that “50 million  Americans would have to be placed in re-education camps” (i.e. FEMA Camps). And he added that about “25 million would have to be eliminated”. At that time in 1968, the United States only had 200 million people. Ayer’s incarceration numbers represented one in four Americans would have to incarcerated and one in eight would have to murdered. In today’s numbers, about 67 million Americans would be incarcerated and over 33 million Americans would have to murdered. The enormity of this statement by Ayers is staggering. Please keep in mind that this man that was the driving force behind the launching of Obama’s political career!
...become this?
“We have plenty of food and water”

The Catalyst

Americans need to stop listening to Obama and the mainstream media, there is not going to be any economic recovery. No matter how many times they lie and bend the numbers to cushion America’s fall from financial grace, we have no hope economically because there is nothing left to salvage. America only has to look at three economic indicators to know that we are in a lot of trouble, The debt is $17 trillion dollars, unfunded (partially or otherwise) mandated social programs constitutes another $240 trillion dollars and the credit swap derivatives total between $1 quadrillion dollars to $1.5 quadrillion dollars, which is six times the GDP of the planet. Do you get it now? There will be no recovery, only a complete UN takeover when the economic collapse does come.


The UN will not have to round up 67 million Americans, most Americans will come to their imprisonment willingly, that is, if they want to eat and to be “temporarily” protected. It will be during this backdrop that we will see FEMA camps unveiled in manner described by Bill Ayers, who not only launched Obama’s political career but also still visits him at the Whitehouse.  Time is short and the dots are beginning to connect. Perhaps this July 4th, we should be having a going away party instead of a celebration.
Credit to Common Sense



Of all the social issues today, homosexuality seems to be the main firebrand leveled against conservative evangelicals. The mainline churches are largely given over to it. Episcopal,[i]ELCA,[ii] and PCUSA[iii] not only accept homosexual unions, but put homosexual clergy in charge of their churches. 
        At President Barack Obama’s inauguration, an openly gay Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, expressed his horror at how specifically Christian past inaugural prayers had been, and instead prayed to the “God of our many understandings.”[iv] 
          Baptist fundamentalist John MacArthur has argued this represents God’s judgment on America in line with:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did exchange the natural use into that which is against nature;
            And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was fitting. (Rom. 1:26–27)[v]
Of course, liberals try to explain this away as first-century exploitation. New Testament scholar Peter Jones addressed the mainline interpretation, arguing, “Some critics say that Paul was speaking of exploitative relationships of domination and that he didn’t understand homosexuality as we know it today—a loving, mature, stable commitment. But Paul argues (v. 27) that men burned with desire for each other, not that one exploited the other.”[vi] Another conservative evangelical pastor, John Piper, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of and modeling this behavior (1 Cor. 6:9–11).[vii] It is also important to note that the 1 Corinthians passage reads “And such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:11a, emphasis added), forever dispelling the notion that one cannot become a former homosexual.Because it is representative of the divide, this entry will provide arguments against same-sex marriage based on a moral category distinction.
A Category Distinction
The first task is to distinguish the moral category of marriage from the moral category of same-sex relationships. This presentation will first give an overview of the biblical-theological distinctions, then it will examine the social-secular differences. Same-sex relationships are ontologically different from marriage between a husband and wife. The difference in moral category will be explored in a face-value manner. According to a standard reference, “Category differences are articulated as a way of diagnosing and avoiding various philosophical problems and confusions.”[viii] Western culture is deeply confused concerning the attributes of a same-sex relationship as compared to attributes of a marriage. If same-sex relationships and marriage are in different moral categories, then there can be no such thing as “same-sex marriage.” It will be shown that they are not in the same moral category. For example, a same-sex relationship requires both individuals to be of the same sex, while a marriage requires gender complementarity. That alone should settle the matter, but further reasons are given. Marriage, grounded in a natural teleology and beneficial to society, is in an entirely different moral category than homosexual relationships that are inherently immoral and, from a secular perspective, pathological. Because marriage is a covenant, let’s begin there.
A covenant is an oath-bound promise within which one party swears to bless or serve another party in a specified way. In the Bible, a covenant was associated with ritual sacrifice and involved splitting an animal in half and walking between the two halves, i.e., “cutting a covenant.” The implication was that if one violated the covenant, the fate of the animal would be visited on the violator. Covenants are made between God and man (Gen. 9:12–15) and between humans with God as their witness (Gen. 21:22–34; 31:44–54). Marriage was established at Creation as a covenant bond between a husband, a wife, and God. David Naugle explains: “It was to be a total life union between man and woman in an exclusive and permanent covenantal relationship of faithfulness and love (Gen. 2:23–24).”[ix] In modern ceremonies, the division of the groom’s party on one side of the church with the bride’s on the other is symbolic of the ancient practice of splitting an animal. Malachi 2:14 indicates that marriage was understood as a covenant. In marriage, one man and one woman vow to live together in a lifetime relationship (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4–6) involving sacrificial love, sexual relations, and joint provision.
Therefore, marriage is a sacred institution defined by a spiritual and moral pledge rather than merely a legal contract, as held by secular society. The seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exod. 20:14) serves to protect this sacred institution rather than mere sexual fidelity. This is illustrated by the fact that the punishment for adultery was death (Deut. 22:22), but the punishment for fornication was compulsory marriage and a fine (Deut. 22:28–29). The distinction is that the former violates a sacred covenant while the latter does not. Children are also at stake, because the bond is essential to healthy child rearing.
In the social-secular realm, the marriage relationship has a natural teleology toward procreation and child rearing. It is an uncontroversial fact of biology that only male and female couples can procreate. Data from the social sciences strongly suggests that intact marriages produce the healthiest children. Children raised in intact, married families are physically and emotionally healthier, less likely to be abused, less likely to use drugs or alcohol and to commit crimes, have a decreased risk of divorce, and are more likely to attend college.[x] In contrast, data on children reared by same-sex couples suggests they are more likely to have social and emotional problems.[xi] Because married couples produce the next generation of citizens for a nation, the state has an interest in preserving and encouraging traditional marriage. This reasoning does not and cannot apply to same-sex relationships, because they do not produce children. There is no legitimate interest for the state.
In the biblical theological sphere, homosexual relationships are inherently sinful and offensive to God. The overarching category is sin or immorality, but same-sex relationships of this type are in their own specific moral category. God affirms healthy, platonic, same-sex relationships. For example, Jonathan and David cut a covenant in which Jonathan acknowledged David’s right to the throne of Israel (1 Sam. 18:3; 23:18). However, contrary to liberal revisionism, this has absolutely nothing to do with the modern debate concerning homosexual couples. Same-sex relationships can be covenantal, but are not necessarily so; marriage is by definition a covenant. God’s moral character does not change, and in the Torah He clearly defines homosexual acts as an abomination (Lev. 20:13). The New Testament affirms this in many passages (Rom. 1: 26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10). This scriptural categorization is clearly not arbitrary or historic-culturally bound. Even more, an argument from teleology supports the divine rationale.
Homosexuality defies God’s created order. Arthur Holmes asserts, “Paul in Romans 1 speaks of some human actions as contrary to nature: he echoes the Genesis record about man and woman created in God’s image, their lives and their heterosexuality protected therefore by the law of creation (Genesis 1:26–31; 2:18–25; 4:8–16; 9:1–6).”[xii] It is indisputable that there is a definite biological order, indeed a necessity, when it comes to sexuality. Same-sex attraction is obviously a violation of this order and purpose. A same-sex relationship is not designed to be sexual, while a marriage relationship is designed to be sexual. A same-sex relationship cannot result in procreation, but marriage has the potential for procreation. If this is a healthy behavior as its advocates argue, then it follows that everyone should adopt healthy behaviors. The reductio ad absurdum is that, if universally adopted, homosexuality leads to the extinction of the human species. This strongly suggests homosexuality is a sexual attraction disorder. Jones wrote, “Homosexuality is a creational dysfunction and homosexual marriage an oxymoron.”[xiii] In contrast, normal marriage generally benefits the survival of the human species. Accordingly, it follows in the social-secular sphere that same-sex relationships are in a different moral category than marriage.
Marriage can be generally classified in secular terms as a procreative contract. Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment, “until death do us part.” Some same-sex relationships are dissoluble, whereas marriage is defined to be indissoluble. It seems that marriage is something described rather than defined. One observes the natural procreative order and describes the coupling commitment for child rearing in terms of marriage. It is not something defined to suit popular affinities, but rather a description of natural teleology. Those who wish to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships are engaging in a futile exercise. Philosopher Frank Beckwith has quipped, “You can eat an ashtray but that doesn’t make it food.”[xiv] Semantics aside, same-sex relationships can never really be “marriage.”
Marriage is within a different moral category than same-sex relationships. Marriage is in the category of a covenant bond between God, a husband, and a wife for the purpose of raising children and caring for one another. Only a male can be a husband and only a female can be a wife; this rules out “same-sex marriage” by definition. Homosexual relationships fall in the category of sin and pathology, as they violate God’s law, His biological design, and they do not contribute to repopulation. These ideas are supported by biblical theology demonstrating the establishment of the marriage covenant by God and His prohibitions against homosexuality. In the secular sphere, traditional marriage is good for society, because it produces the next generation, and children are better off with heterosexual parents. Same-sex relationships do not produce new citizens, and even same-sex adoptions are less than ideal. Hence, there is no good reason for the state to endorse or promote them. These facts lead to the conclusion that the idea of “same-sex marriage” is an immoral absurdity that has been deceptively hoisted on a naively liberal culture. Mainline churches that perform these ceremonies are willfully opposing the God they claim to worship.
The Divided "Church" As Prophesied
It is extremely unfortunate that what is called the Christian church is so divided. Even so, this series has shown that not all that is labeled “Christian” actually is consistent with classical Christianity. Liberals suffer from unbelief. The only solution is the gospel. That’s right, I said it: They need the gospel. How can I say that? The gospel entails sincerely believing that Christ died for my sins (1 Cor. 15:3) and that Christ resurrected from the dead on the third day (1 Cor. 15:4). We have seen many examples of emergent (McLaren) and mainline (Spong) pastors and leaders who explicitly deny those very truths. Some do so by folly and ignorance and others by malintent: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works” (2 Cor. 11:14–15). Thus, we should approach liberal Christians as nonbelievers, keeping in mind that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of (Matt. 7:13).
I am not saying there are no saved people in liberal, mainline, or emergent churches, but that the theology expressed by their leaders does not lead to it. This should not be terribly surprising, as Jesus’ brother Jude warned back in the first century:
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
            For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 3–4)
Although it is more blatant, there is nothing new here. It seems the subsection's title above was somewhat misleading; the church is not a “divided house,” but rather, many who claim to be under its roof, in truth, are married to the world (Rev. 3:17). These “in name only” Christians will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, already labeled as bigoted and homophobic.
Great Harlot and Return to Pagan Rome
It is not that homosexuality is a special sin more deserving of revulsion than other transgressions, but I have yet to witness an “adultery pride” parade. Homosexuals flaunt and expect everyone else to celebrate “gay pride.” Because its defenders refuse to admit it is a sin, homosexuality is the primary social issue used to marginalize folks who take the Bible seriously. Already, the celebration of same-sex unions is being pressed, indeed forced, upon those who believe it to be immoral.
The year 2013 marked a dramatic shift in American jurisprudence, one with foreboding implications. In 2006, Elane Huguenin of Elane Photography declined Vanessa Willock’s request to photograph and help celebrate a same-sex marriage ceremony between Willock and her partner. Huguenin declined the request because her and her husband’s Christian beliefs would not allow them to participate in good conscience.
Even though Willock easily found another photographer for her ceremony, she nevertheless filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission against Elane Photography. The case eventually rose to the New Mexico Supreme Court. On August 22, 2013, the high court ruled against Elane Photography and concluded that the Huguenins “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.”[xv] This was despite the fact that same-sex marriage was not even legal in New Mexico at the time.
It is important to recognize that a wedding photographer is not merely an impartial observer, but rather a cocelebrant in a wedding ceremony. Can the state really force people to celebrate something they believe is wrong? Senior Defense Counsel Jordan Lorence lamented, “The idea that free people can be ‘compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives’ as the ‘price of citizenship’ is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom,” and “Americans are now on notice that the price of doing business is their freedom.”[xvi]
The judge’s decision basically boils down to saying, “You are free to believe whatever you like in your private life, as long as it doesn’t affect how you live in the real world.” The government is quite literally forcing Christian business owners to either celebrate a sin that the Bible teaches leads to hell (1 Cor. 6:9) or go out of business. The legal precedent set by this case lays the legal groundwork for further persecution. Like with the first-century Christians who were commanded to bow down to the Roman Caesar as god or be crucified, homosexuality is the foil to legally marginalize true, Bible-believing Christians. These developments should not surprise students of biblical prophecy.
Jesus prophesied that just prior to His return, “Shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another” (Matt. 24:10). The KJV translators rendered the Greek word skandalizō as “offended,” whereas the English Standard Version translates it as “fall away.” Both are correct as far as they go, but the complete meaning likely incorporates both: “to cause to stumble, to give offense.”[xvii] In the American church, the issue of homosexuality, more than any other, is the stumbling block that offends and leads to hatred of those who remain faithful to the Word of God. One should expect to see many more cases like the Huguenins and increasingly punitive verdicts. The liberal church is leading the charge.
The so-called Christianity of the emergents and theological liberals is one and the same as pantheistic monism of Eastern religions known as oneism. The defining issue is the creature/creator distinction from exegesis of: “Who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom. 1:25). Notice that the text juxtaposes “the lie” with “the Creator.”[xviii] The lie is oneism that “all is one.” Androgyny and homosexuality flow naturally from this spiritual system, as explained in Romans chapter 1.
Biblical scholar Peter Jones explains, “The open practice and approval of homosexuality is precisely what Paul affirmed two thousand years ago—that homosexuality flows directly from the One-ist worship of creation.”[xix] The following bullet points are quoted directly from Dr. Jones’ seminal work One or Two: Seeing a World of Difference(essential reading for a twenty-first century believer):
  •  In ancient Canaanite religions, effeminate priests served the goddesses Anat, Cybele and Rhea;
  • In the Roman Empire, androgynous priests castrated themselves publicly as an act of devotion to the Great Mother;
  • In Hinduism, anyone who unifies the sexes in sexual practice has reached the highest self-identity;
  • In the Medieval West, Alchemists who transformed heterosexual energy into androgyny produced spiritual “gold” (“a tremendously deepened sense of the oneness of all….beyond gender differences”);
  • The pagan spiritualist Jacob Böhme (1575–1624) believed the ideal human state was androgyny;
  • In ancient Aztec and Inca religions, homosexual and bisexual priests were common; in American Indian religious practice, homosexual transvestite males are its shamans;
  • In Latin America and the Caribbean Islands, homosexuals were magicians with supernatural powers; frequenting gay temple prostitutes was a means of sanctification;
  • Jewish Kabbalah celebrates the ideal of the first cosmic androgyne, and in its modern form, is committed to “global, spiritual oneness.”[xx]
Thus, one should not find it so surprising that the nominal church has embraced homosexual behavior. They are primed for absorption into the great harlot one-world religion, “with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication” (Rev. 17:2). Those who dissent are already called “bigots” and “enemies of progress.” Even so, all true followers of Jesus, while loving their neighbors, must stand on truth no matter the consequences. The context of pagan Rome in the book of Romans has come full circle, and the end-time believer will eventually find himself or herself in the same predicament: martyrdom or compromise.
Credit to RaidersNewsUpdate.com

Cold War Renewed With A Vengeance While Washington Again Lies

Paul Craig Roberts

The Cold War made a lot of money for the military/security complex for four decades dating from Churchill’s March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri declaring a Soviet “Iron Curtain” until Reagan and Gorbachev ended the Cold War in the late 1980s. During the Cold War Americans heard endlessly about “the Captive Nations.” The Captive Nations were the Baltics and the Soviet bloc, usually summarized as “Eastern Europe.”

These nations were captive because their foreign policies were dictated by Moscow, just as these same Captive Nations, plus the UK, Western Europe, Canada, Mexico, Columbia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Georgia, and Ukraine, have their foreign policies dictated today by Washington. Washington intends to expand the Captive Nations to include Azerbaijan, former constituent parts of Soviet Central Asia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia.

During the Cold War Americans thought of Western Europe and Great Britain as independent sovereign countries. Whether they were or not, they most certainly are not today. We are now almost seven decades after WWII, and US troops still occupy Germany. No European government dares to take a stance different from that of the US Department of State.

Not long ago there was talk both in the UK and Germany about departing the European Union, and Washington told both countries that talk of that kind must stop as it was not in Washington’s interest for any country to exit the EU. The talk stopped. Great Britain and Germany are such complete vassals of Washington that neither country can publicly discuss its own future.

When Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge with prosecuting authority, attempted to indict members of the George W. Bush regime for violating international law by torturing detainees, he was slapped down.

In Modern Britain, Stephane Aderca writes that the UK is so proud of being Washington’s “junior partner” that the British government agreed to a one-sided extradition treaty under which Washington merely has to declare “reasonable suspicion” in order to obtain extradition from the UK, but the UK must prove “probable cause.” Being Washington’s “junior partner,” Aderca reports, is an ego-boost for British elites, giving them a feeling of self-importance.

Under the rule of the Soviet Union, a larger entity than present day Russia, the captive nations had poor economic performance. Under Washington’s rule, these same captives have poor economic performance due to their looting by Wall Street and the IMF.

As Giuseppe di Lampedusa said, “Things have to change in order to remain the same.”

The looting of Europe by Wall Street has gone beyond Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Ukraine, and is now focused on France and Great Britain. The American authorities are demanding $10 billion from France’s largest bank on a trumped-up charge of financing trade with Iran, as if it is any business whatsoever of Washington’s who French banks choose to finance. And despite Great Britain’s total subservience to Washington, Barclays bank has a civil fraud suit filed against it by the NY State Attorney General.

The charges against Barclays PLC are likely correct. But as no US banks were charged, most of which are similarly guilty, the US charge against Barclays means that big pension funds and mutual funds must flee Barclays as customers, because the pension funds and mutual funds would be subject to lawsuits for negligence if they stayed with a bank under charges.

The result, of course, of the US charges against foreign banks is that US banks like Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are given a competitive advantage and gain market share in their own dark pools.

So, what are we witnessing? Clearly and unequivocally, we are witnessing the use of US law to create financial hegemony for US financial institutions. The US Department of Justice (sic) has had evidence for five years of Citigroup’s participation in the fixing of the LIBOR interest rate, but no indictment has been forthcoming.

The bought and paid for governments of Washington’s European puppet states are so corrupt that the leaders permit Washington control over their countries in order to advance American financial, political, and economic hegemony.

Washington is organizing the world against Russia and China for Washington’s benefit. On June 27 Washington’s puppet states that comprise the EU issued an ultimatum to Russia.The absurdity of this ultimatum is obvious. Militarily, Washington’s EU puppets are harmless. Russia could wipe out Europe in a few minutes. Here we have the weak issuing an ultimatum to the strong.

The EU, ordered by Washington, told Russia to suppress the opposition in southern and eastern Ukraine to Washington’s stooge government in Kiev. But, as every educated person knows, including the White House, 10 Downing Street, Merkel, and Holland, Russia is not responsible for the separatist unrest in eastern and southern Ukraine. These territories are former constituent parts of Russia that were added to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet Communist Party leaders when Ukraine and Russia were two parts of the same country.

These Russians want to return to Russia because they are threatened by the stooge government in Kiev that Washington has installed. Washington, determined to force Putin into military action that can be used to justify more sanctions, is intent on forcing the issue, not on resolving the issue.

What is Putin to do? He has been given 72 hours to submit to an ultimatum from a collection of puppet states that he can wipe out at a moment’s notice or seriously inconvenience by turning off the flow of Russian natural gas to Europe.

Historically, such a stupid challenge to power would result in consequences. But Putin is a humanist who favors peace. He will not willingly give up his strategy of demonstrating to Europe that the provocations are coming from Washington, not from Russia. Putin’s hope, and Russia’s, is that Europe will eventually realize that Europe is being badly used by Washington.

Washington has hundreds of Washington-financed NGOs in Russia hiding behind various guises such as “human rights,” and Washington can unleash these NGOs on Putin at will, as Washington did with the protests against Putin’s election. Washington’s fifth columns claimed that Putin stole the election even though polls showed that Putin was the clear and undisputed winner.

In 1991 Russians were, for the most part, delighted to be released from communism and looked to the West as an ally in the construction of a civil society based on good will. This was Russia’s mistake. As the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines make clear, Russia is the enemy whose rise to influence must be prevented at all cost.

Putin’s dilemma is that he is caught between his heart-felt desire to reach an accommodation with Europe and Washington’s desire to demonize and isolate Russia.

The risk for Putin is that his desire for accommodation is being exploited by Washington and explained to the EU as Putin’s weakness and lack of courage. Washington is telling its European vassals that Putin’s retreat under Europe’s pressure will undermine his status in Russia, and at the right time Washington will unleash its many hundreds of NGOs to bring Putin to ruin.

This was the Ukraine scenario. With Putin replaced with a compliant Russian, richly rewarded by Washington, only China would remain as an obstacle to American world hegemony.

Credit to Paul Graig Roberts

Darpa B.R.A.I.N. Chip Program EXPOSED!

Chris Martenson…..People Will Be Wiped Out In Coming Crash

Global Meltdown Has Begun

the ISIS conquest of Iraq leads to Jerusalem

As we witness the brutalization of Iraq by the ISIS terror organization consider this: this Islamic march of death leads to Jerusalem. The leading result of the call of the people in the Arab world for the overthrow of unsatisfactory leaders has been their cause being hijacked by insurgent jihadist terrorists.

We saw that in Libya with the fall of Gadhafi. We saw it in Egypt where Mubarak was replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, in this case an in-house jihadist movement. We see it in Syria where the people’s cry against Assad has led to an influx of Al-Qaida type groups vying for dominance. Now we witness the conquest of Iraq by a vicious Islamic terror regime against which Al-Qaida pales into moderation.

The Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) is headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He transformed a few small terror cells into the most brutal and lethal terror group on earth. Mercy is not in this man’s vocabulary. Abu Bakr picked up the mantle after Abu Omar al Baghdadi was killed in a joint U.S.-Iraqi operation in 2010. Al-Qaida in Iraq was under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who, in a 2005 letter to the head of Al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahiri, put the aims of Al-Qaida in Iraq into four stages;

1. Drive America out of Iraq.

2. Create a Caliphate in Iraq.

3. Use that as a base to attack other countries.

4. Attack Israel.

When both al-Zarqawi and al-Baghdadi were killed by American forces it looked as if Al-Qaida was decimated in Iraq, but Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi reformed a weakening terror group by leading it in battle, honing its fighters’ training and experience in Iraq and Syria, and by using political savvy to link his growing group to local and tribal demands and interests. It became both a fighting force and a social benefactor, winning local hearts and minds along a bloody path of victory. He absorbed the al-Nusra Front terror group in Syria into his ranks, demanding their obedience. Seeing the growing threat, Al-Qaida’s al-Zarqawi, from his hiding place somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan, criticized ISIS for not concentrating on Iraq. In response, a confident ISIS hit back, accusing the Al-Qaida chief of “Sheikh Osama (bin Laden) gathered all the mujahedeen with one word, but you divided them and tore them apart.”

ISIS has attracted thousands of foreign fighters to its ranks, increasing its power and size. The shockwaves caused by its Iraqi Blitzkreig in seizing the towns of Mosul, Tikrit, and Fallujah was met by a mocking response by ISIS.

“The battle is not yet raging, but it will rage in Baghdad and Karbala. Put on your belts and get ready” as they contemptuously called Iraqi leader, Nouri al-Maliki, an “underwear salesman.”

Clearly, the battle for Iraq is along sectarian lines with the Sunni ISIS, representing the majority of Iraqis, challenging the Shia al-Maliki rule. Clear also was al-Maliki’s refusal to allow American forces to stay on in Iraq, but the ISIS victories were enhanced by the military vacuum in Iraq following the American pullout, and this responsibility can be put at Obama’s White House door.

Obama’s self-proclaimed foreign-policy “achievements” have been U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq, and “Al-Qaida has been decimated and is on the run!” These two boasts have now come back to haunt him. Al-Qaida has morphed into a bigger monster that is about to take over Iraq. And what was President Obama’s response?

“We don’t have the resources. Let the local leaders deal with them.”

This is shortsighted weakness, and dangerous. This was emphasized on Friday, June 13, when Obama, confronted by the deteriorating situation in Iraq, decided to head off to California for a fund-raising event and some golf. America spilled blood and treasure in Iraq including 4500 lives, $17 billion in military training to Iraqi forces, and $15 billion in military equipment. Now ISIS terrorists are seen driving around in American military Humvees.

The United States embassy in Baghdad is the largest global American embassy. It has 15,000 workers. It would be a mistake to think that they did not pick up intelligence on the gathering Islamic terror storm. They did, and it fed it up the chain to the State Department and the White House, for months. Neither of those bodies acted on the intel. As one staffer told Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters,

“We couldn’t convince the President that this is serious!”

Now the Baghdad embassy could be under ISIS fire, making Benghazi look like child’s play. And the attack on Americans will not end there. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was captured, imprisoned, and then released by America in Iraq, just as Obama recently released the five top Al-Qaida/Taliban prisoners at Gitmo.

America, and others, will pay for both these foolish gestures. As Ken King, the commander of the Bucco Camp that was ordered to release al-Baghdadi, related on the Fox News “Kelly Files” program, as a parting shot the ISIS leader glared at King and warned:

“I’ll see you in New York!”

In a strange twist on “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” Republican lawmakers called for a partnership with Iran to stop ISIS from attacking Baghdad. Senator Lindsey Graham warned that ISIS “will eventually march on Jordan and Lebanon. They’re going to take the King of Jordan down.” The unspoken implication is that Israel will be next. ISIS is now pumping Iraqi oil. It grabbed half a trillion dollars when it seized Iraq’s central bank in Mosul making it the richest terrorist organization in the world. ISIS has been called too extreme for Al-Qaida with justification. Al-Baghdadi is being crowned “the next Bin Laden.”

ISIS is guilty of wholesale massacres in Syria, leaving the bodies to rot for all to see. It beheaded a top rival rebel commander, leaving his head in the middle of the market. Amnesty International listed a few of their atrocities in their 18-page report “Rule of fear;ISIS abuses in detention is northern Syria.”

“They have conducted hundreds of executions, beheadings, even crucifixions in Mosul, Iraq. They destroy anything that is not Islamic, such as the Assyrian Church in Mosul. Hundreds have been slain for being “infidels.”

Once Islamic ISIS establishes its permanent presence in Iraq, as Hizb’allah has done in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, it will strengthen its grip on Syria. While looking down on Israel from the Golan Heights, it is likely to turn its attention to a militarily weak Lebanon, seeking to remove the Shiite Hizb’allah from power, taking over its armory of a hundred thousand rockets, and taking control of that country.

From its northern stronghold in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria it will target Jordan with the intention of deposing, or killing, the Hashemite king, as a preliminary step to taking over his country. If America, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia do not immediately move to strengthen the kingdom, King Abdullah will be exposed to mortal danger, granting ISIS control over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan in their march to a global Caliphate, and Stage 4 of their original plan. Israel would be advised to keep a sharp eye on future moves by ISIS to attack or infiltrate Jordan via Syria.

Who is to say that radical Palestinians and Islamists in Jordan will not open the gates of that country to ISIS, just as Syrians reached out to them at their cost? When that scenario is achieved, Israel will be exposed to a threatening and powerful terror enemy stretching from Rosh HaNikra on the northern Mediterranean to Mount Hermon in the northeast of Israel, sweeping through the Golan Heights and down the Jordan Valley to the Dead Sea and the Red Sea in the south. In the turmoil that is the Middle East, where regimes are falling and nations are toppling, who is to say that such a nightmare scenario is not possible unless ISIS is stopped in its tracks now?

Credit to The daily sheeple
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/armageddon-on-the-doorstep-the-isis-conquest-of-iraq-leads-to-jerusalem-are-you-ready-for-the-next-world-war_062014#sthash.xvuQ60OP.dpuf