Monday, July 19, 2010

Article from ThinkIsrael - Stages of Global Muslim Takeover


It's the start of another year and a traditional time for stock-taking. In the January-February 2009 issue, we presented the Stages of Global Muslim Takeover. We would like to repeat them now.

1. Infiltrate quietly, settling in small numbers near or among the locals' towns and villages.
2. Establish friendly relations, and convince others of the virtues of Islam.
3. Participate in community activities and provide charity for the poor and generosity to all, while encouraging the immigration of other Muslims.
4. Get converts and supporters from the rank and file of the local population, particularly from the poor and disenfranchised of the host society, via the multiple mosques and madrasas and charitable and human rights groups. (Today, in the case of the US and EU, converts come in great numbers from the ranks of criminals, especially imprisoned African-Americans.)
5. Agitate for greater and broader rights and considerations for Muslims, and for protection against real or imagined "Islamophobia".
6. Organize a political party to push for changes in law to permit Muslim-only enclaves and for laws that formalize the host society's accommodation of Muslim religious needs.
7. Institute the divide-and-conquer strategy of making pacts with some anti-establishment or minority government groups, legal (as has been done in the USA with Green Party, National Lawyers Guild) or illegal (KKK, Aryan Nation) so they will help in the following stages.
8. Once you have the power base (some 10-15 percent of the population), then use violence, strikes, street riots, assassination, intimidation and bribery of government officials to destabilize the government.
9. If the host country's government response to the violence is not effective, then there is a de facto green light to start full-blown terrorism which will topple the government and allow Muslim leaders to move up the power ladder with the help of the anti-establishment groups. Once in power, Muslim leaders can use their influence over the agitating Muslim population to quell the violence, thus pretending that they are helping restore order even as they themselves orchestrate the violence.
10. Abandon the erstwhile anti-establishment allies and reign supreme; establish Shari'a, and declare the state to be a new Muslim nation where Shari'a is law and non-Moslems are dhimmi.

Terrorizing the populace is a much-used technique of global jihad. As the Strategy Page blog of January 11, 2010 writes: "In the last few months, Moslems have attacked Buddhists in Thailand, Jews everywhere, Baha'is in Iran and Christians in Egypt, Iraq, the Philippines, Pakistan, Malaysia and elsewhere. This is not a sudden and unexpected outburst of Moslem violence against non-Moslems. It is normal, and at the root of Islamic terrorism." Below we examine some features of Islamic terrorism and suggestions for fighting the terrorists.

This issue contains essays on what's happening in Europe, Israel and the U.S.A. The driving force in all cases is — depending on your views — Islam itself or an aberrant and marginal bunch of Muslims, variously called Fascist Islamists, Islamofascists, Islamists, Radical Islamists or extremists.

Judge for yourself how much more — or less — safe the world has become in this past year.


We start with characterizing the Islamic terrorist. We ask: How do you tell when you are dealing with a terrorist — i.e., someone who genuinely hungers to kill you. His reasons change. His aim doesn't.

This set of essays explore some of the features to look for. And what to do about it.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Letter to Pastors

July 17, 2010
Dear Pastors:
Am writing from the home which the Bride of my Youth purchased almost three years ago out by Piedmond, Oklahoma, while I was in Minnesota preaching.
Pastor Scott Hanks and his dear wife adopted a little girl they named Sharon 13 years ago.  When I was in their church in December past, Sharon and I seemed to really get along well.  However, here at our Youth Conference I could immediately see Sharon was now different.  Pastor Hanks asked me to talk with her.  I did.  Then, I talked with him and Sharon.  I got nowhere. Adopted children have all kinds of issues that you and I who were raised by our natural parents never have.
Thursday evening before the services, Ceci Harding, who was adopted by Chuck and Jo Harding eight years ago as a little ten-year-old girl from Mexico came to speak with me.  Cici's Mom, Jo Harding, has worked for me over 20 years and is such a hard worker!
Since I've dealt with "adopted child" issues before, I took a chance, and since Ceci is five years older than Sharon, I asked her to speak with Sharon.  She did.  Mrs. Richard Way then went to talk with her also.
Dr. Hanks was up preaching.  I was enjoying the sermon.  But, there was Ceci saying Sharon wanted to tell me something.  I went with her to the Adult 2 room.  Sharon had been crying.  She stood, hugged me, and apologized.  Then she said, "I TRUSTED THE LORD AS MY SAVIOUR.”
What a blessing.  She was a brand new girl.
As Dr. Hanks was finishing his sermon I had Mrs. Way take Sharon on to the Platform and tell Dr. Hanks, "She has something she wants to tell you."  She ran, hugged her dad, and told him, "I just got saved."
REVIVAL broke out amongst the young people there for the Youth Conference.  Dr. Rick Dawson, didn't even preach his prepared message, and the altars were filled with young people of all ages getting things right with the LORD. 
When Pastor Tom read the names of all those making decisions that evening the choir loft was rammed and jammed full of teenagers who had done so.
The "key person" in all this "happening" as "# 1 key person" was eighteen-year-old adopted Mexican girl, Ceci Harding.  The "# 2 key person" in all this happening was Mrs. Richard Way.  She has an amazing testimony which fit right in with both Ceci and Sharon.
And, this ole "hell-deserving sinner," was privileged to sit and watch all the "working of the LORD" develop at Windsor Hills Baptist Church Auditorium. Til I drop my body in the grave, I want the LORD to use me.

Let me deal with this "Iranian Defector" situation, which you’ve heard of, I am sure, in the news. It all concerns what Israel knows and has to do relative to "Israeli Security." And, they don’t have much time "left on the 11:59 Midnight ticking clock."
The multi-faced Iranian "nuclear scientist" Shahram Amiri probably is 32 years old. Other than that, no one - in the West, at least - knows anything about him for sure, even after he spent a year and a month in the United States.

Wednesday, July 14, as he headed back from Washington to Tehran via Qatar, the CIA could not be sure he was the real Dr. Amiri, employed at Malek Ashtar University of Defense Technology, whom he claimed to be.
After he landed Thursday at Imam Khomeini airport, the Iranians gave the pot another stir with a statement from Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Qashqavi: "Shahram Amiri is not a nuclear scientist and we reject it." He is a researcher at one of the universities in Iran.

Malek Ashtar University is closely connected to Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps and its secret military nuclear program. Its rector, a lieutenant general, was named in the UN Security Council's first round of sanctions in 2006 as one of seven people involved in Iran's nuclear program.

But if Amiri is not a doctor, a nuclear scientist or connected to this particular university, what use was he to the CIA?

This is the doubt Tehran is anxious to plant in US intelligence minds in one of the oldest and craftiest Cold War gambits.

Indeed, the undercover contest between the America Central Intelligence Agency and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security -MOIS over the missing Iranian fits a Cold War espionage scenario much more closely than this week's US-Russian spy swap in Vienna.

In June 2009, Tehran reported that one of their nuclear scientists Shahram Amiri had gone missing from the room he was staying at while on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Thirteen months later, he sought asylum at the Pakistani embassy in Washington, demanding to be repatriated and accusing US and Saudi spy agencies of abducting him.


To this day, US intelligence is not certain of the true identities of Russian agents who apparently defected to the West and then went home, just as they cannot tell if the Iranian they debriefed in the past 13 months was Amiri No. 1, No. 2, or even Amiri No. 3.

In the view of intelligence experts, had his defection been for real, the CIA would have chalked up a major coup against Iran's nuclear program and the MOIS, one of the largest clandestine agencies in the world.

The hundreds of news reporters who have followed the Iranian issue, including many in Israel, have claimed that the CIA and Israeli Mossad were able to slow Iran's nuclear progress - primarily, with the help of connections they established with Iranian nuclear scientists.

It was reported that these scientists had been shocked by the discovery of the military nature of these projects into cooperating with the German BND spy agency or the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service, AIVD.

But the truth was that no more than one or two Iranian nuclear scientists had agreed to play ball with the West and Amiri was the only one known about for sure.

According to our intelligence sources, the CIA's ties with Amiri went back six years to 2004, when he used European visitors to Tehran to pass a message volunteering to help the United States in its efforts to stall Iran's nuclear program and curtail its expansionist drive into Iraq and Lebanon.

At first, CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, did not rate the offer very high. But after he successfully carried a number of assignments, including his own transfer from the University of Tehran to Tehran's Malek Ashtar University, the American agency conferred with European and Israeli colleagues and decided to give him more hazardous missions.

Middle East sources agree now that Amiri must have been a key contributor of the thousand-page Iranian nuclear documentation on the laptop computer which the Americans showed nuclear watchdog executives in Vienna in 2005.

At the time the Americans claimed that these pages were taken from an Iranian laptop computer in mid-2004. They never gave away their sources, beyond citing a long-serving connection inside Iran.

That connection was Amiri, which is most likely one of the few true elements in the blend of fact and fiction surrounding this individual. However, as we shall see, the whole set-up was wide open to question.
Iranian and intelligence sources report that in the early months of 2008, Amiri began sending distress signals to Washington saying he feared Iranian security services were on to him and on the point of arresting or even killing him.

Since the signals were not consistent, the CIA judged he was suffering from the familiar persecution syndrome afflicting spies from time to time.

But in the spring of 2009, when Amiri kept on pushing the panic buttons, it was decided to pull him out.
He was told to choose between being picked up from a location in Iran by a special airplane or ship and carried to a Persian Gulf state or staging a pilgrimage to Mecca and being collected there.

Since Tehran encourages its top military, Revolutionary Guards, intelligence and scientific personnel to perform the hajj to Mecca - albeit under the watchful eyes of Al Qods Brigades agents - Amiri's application to join the pilgrimage raised no suspicion - or so Washington was given to understand.

This version ended in Amiri being placed voluntarily on a direct flight from Jeddah to the US capital.
The story told by Amiri to Iranian TV - prior to his landing in Tehran Thursday, July 15 - was naturally quite different.

This is how he described his transition from Saudi Arabia to the United States:
"There were three people in the van – a driver, another person in a formal suit and beard, and a third person in the back. When I opened the door to get in and sit down, the person at the back put a gun to my side and said, 'please be quiet, don't make any noise."

The only accurate thing in this account, according to our intelligence sources, was the involvement of Saudi secret agents, who organized and executed the transfer of the Iranian nuclear scientist from Mecca to the special American plane that awaited him in Jeddah.

But his bona fides came into question at his first CIA debriefing.

Instead of the efficient Dr. Shahram Amiri they had known for six years, whose reports were always clear and meticulous, they found a confused individual who fell down on the details of his working day at the university or even the simplest information about the buildings there and the work in the various laboratories.

Their Iranian "agent" kept on contradicting himself. From day to day, his behavior became so bizarre that the US agents were forced to conclude that the young Iranian nuclear scientist called Dr. Shahram Amiri had either never existed or the young man before them was a phony.

In either case, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security-MOIS had tricked them.
As the CIA became strengthened in this view, their analysts had to backtrack and correlate the now questionable data fed them by Amiri with its impact on US and allied policy-making on Iranian nuclear issues; they still need to reassess what it means for their covert operations in Iran and the events leading up to their decision to bring Amiri over to the United States.

Many moves made by the administrations under George W. Bush and, since January 2009, Barack Obama, were based on the information and documents that Amiri provided.

If Amiri was a double agent planted by the MOIS, then Tehran had been able to manipulate these policies and anticipate their course.

Even if real nuggets were mixed in with the false data - a common ruse for making false intelligence appear credible - it still meant that Iran's leaders controlled the flow of factual information to the West and were in a position to change it in good time - so that when Amiri was asked by his US handlers to amplify on a piece of real information, it was no longer valid; Iran had moved on and created a new set of facts, unbeknownst to the Americans.

A striking example of this tactic was the secret enrichment plant in a mountain near Qom, which became the subject of a dramatic joint appearance on Sept. 25, 2009 in Pittsburgh by President Obama, French president Nicolas Sarkozy and George Brown, then British prime minister.

His knowledge was based on data Amiri had relayed to the United States.
Throwing down the gauntlet, the US president gave Iran a two-week ultimatum to come clean on its hidden facility.

In fact, the Qom facilities had been dismantled six months earlier and relocated to a spot never revealed to this day. When the IAEA inspectors turned up, they found empty tunnels.
That is why nothing more was ever heard of the US president's ultimatum.

Only in recent months, have US and allied agencies begun to appreciate that this technique of misdirection has allowed Iran to pursue its nuclear and missile programs out of sight of spies and monitors. While the West and Israel relied on Amiri to keep them abreast of Iran's activities, nuclear development work went forward at still unknown locations and may have progressed a lot further than is suspected in the West.
Each time Iran has exhibited a step forward in uranium enrichment or a sophisticated missile, the West has been shocked.

Two such shockers were produced by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in January 2010, when he announced in a three-page document presented to the White House, that the US has no plan or means for stopping Iran's attainment of a nuclear weapon, and by CIA Director Leon Panetta, who told ABC television on Sunday on June 27, that Iran has enough enriched uranium to build two atomic bombs - at least one within two years.
Panetta was skeptical about the power of the new sanctions imposed by the Security Council, Europe and the US to halt Iran's progress toward obtaining a nuclear weapon.

In other words, it is too late now for the US to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, a feat in which Shahram Amiri, whoever he may be, was largely instrumental.

And the Iranian intelligence success may owe more than a little to some of the tricks of the trade imparted by close colleagues in the SVR, the former KGB's First Directorate.

It is therefore not surprising that the Amiri affair recalls the classical case of Vitaly Yurchenko, the defector who in 1985, after twenty-five years of service in the KGB, made a fake defection to the United States and fingered two American intelligence officers as KGB agents.

In November of that year, before eating a meal at Au Pied de Cochon, a restaurant in Georgetown, Washington, Yurchenko told his CIA guard, "I'm going for a walk. If I don't come back, it's not your fault." Several days later, the Soviet Embassy called a press conference at which Yurchenko announced he had been kidnapped and drugged by the Americans.

Amiri's "redefection" Thursday drew these remarks from US officials, none of whom agreed to be named: The United States "clearly got the better end of things" in the saga of Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri, and: "We have his insights -- original information on the Iranian nuclear program that proved useful - and now the Iranians have him. Plainly, we got the better end of things."

Another official denied Amiri was kidnapped or coerced. "He just wanted to see his family and - unfortunately - he chose a dumb way to do it, lying about what happened to him here to try to build up his credibility back home. He made his own decisions. He chose of his own accord to come to the United States, chose of his own accord who would come with him, and chose of his own accord to leave the United States," the official said.

One senior American intelligence source who declined to be identified acknowledged Amiri had been working for the CIA for more than a year, and was paid $5 million out of a secret program for inducing scientists and others with information on Iran's nuclear program to defect.

Middle East sources cannot say exactly when the CIA spotted Amiri for a double agent and decided to let him move freely about the United States to see whom he contacted and how Tehran would try and get him back. Our experts' best assessment is that it happened in February or March 2010.

After the Iranian videotape offensive, with different Amiri lookalikes, which began on June 7, 2010 and ended Wednesday, July 14, when Iranian state TV aired a video Amiri purportedly made from an Internet café in Tucson, Arizona, Washington understood that the man whom they debriefed for months could not be prevented from returning to Tehran.

Amiri received a heroes' welcome at the Tehran international airport, proudly declaring, "I was never a nuclear scientist."

He might do well to study the fate of a former "redefector" - the Russian Vitaly Yurchenko. He too was honored on his return home, awarded the Order of the Red Star from the Soviet government for a successful "infiltration operation."

However, this did not stop the KGB from secretly interrogating him in their dungeons, using a truth drug to make sure that he was not recruited by the CIA as a double agent.

Now, Pastor friend, with all this shaking out, we need really be much in prayer for our Israeli friends and especially so, with the "Mohammedan-in-chief" in the White House and his minions playing "fumble the ball" about such issues as these.


Thursday, July 15, 2010

Letter to Pastors

July 15, 2010
Dear Pastors:
These lines are being written from my office here at the church at 5517 N.W. 23rd Street, in Oklahoma City, as I prepare to go over to the main auditorium at 9 AM to hear Brother Jon Booth of Clinton, Iowa, speak this morning to the the teenagers present at the 2010 Youth Conference.  Dr. Dawson and Dr. Hanks will speak after Jon, and I shall be privileged to listen to both them as well.
Some week ago, the Dutch Politician Geert Wilders was in America.  I want to pull a few lines out of his speech in NYC and delve further into the “Planned Muslimization of America!”
Geert Wilders is a Dutch parliamentarian who cause a furor in the Muslim communities around the world by making a documentary showing Muslims raging and rioting with voice over from the Koran.
Wilders said: []
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West.
The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.
My short lecture consists of 4 parts.
First, I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close, I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.   
You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome's ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see — and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims.
Non-Muslim women routinely hear "whore, whore". Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin.
The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they "understand" the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators "settlers". Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.
Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.
ALLOW ME TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF ISLAM 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah's personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet.
This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah's word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world — by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem.
But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages — at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza.
He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.
[The] Quran as Allah's own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam.
Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins.
But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'.
Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam "the most retrograde force in the world", and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.
I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.
Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe.
First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack.
Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.
A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.
NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW THINGS ABOUT ISRAEL. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: "Islam has bloody borders". Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest.
Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.
It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.
This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe's history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: "the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom."
If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.
Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don't think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.
Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.
Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe's last chance.
This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.
This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.
This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America — as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.
These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

"Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy".

[end of article]

Now, Pastors, “health issues” continue to drive this ole man up the wall.  If you recall in the 6-1/2 months which have been in this year, this ole man has been in the hospital 16 days out of those 195 days.  So, plans for what I can do, and will do, always are determined by these “health issues.” 
However, there has never been a time in my 70 years of living that God’s preachers ought be involved in the fight to keep Sharia Law from being implemented here in America as Mr. Wilders speaks of the “fight” in Holland and Europe.
With the “Mohammedan-in-Chief” sitting in the White House, our future looks dark and bleak.  His being also a Marxist Socialist is going to allow him and his Obamicans to pass laws putting more and more debts upon our children and grand-children should we not hit the ground “a-runnin” in the time in which we have to act.
Yonder in Israel, as I have mentioned to you, the Muslims have everything going their way against the Jews.  We need continue to be active in letting those Members of the Knesset who will listen to us, that Truly Born-Again Christians do, in fact, stand solidly behind the Jews in them preserving “that Everlastingly Covenanted Land” as not one grain of sand of it belongs to the Ishmaelites.
And, yes, it would appear that war is just right around the bend for the Jews.  If and when that starts, all of us ought get “on board” for the Jews to show them that they “can depend upon us” to be 150% in their corner.
Color this ole man in on the side of the Jews.  Never in my seventy years of living have they needed friends more than they do today.


Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Letter to Pastors

July 13, 2010
Dear Pastors:
The God of the Mountains is still the God of the Valleys, and, unfortunately, sometimes, you and I have to hit those "valleys" which this ole man did last Saturday morning yonder in Pennsylvania when I went out to look at my Suburban. Thieves had broken into the second window on the rider's side, and had cleaned this ole man out.
Of course, since you know where I had been, and what I’d been doing, your imagination can tell you what they cleaned out. I offered the Police a $1000.00 "Snitch" Award if they can get all the guns back. They said that unless they do so in the first few days, they won’t. For the moment, we’ll just have to see. Since I had everything covered on a "Gun Floater,” unless something unforeseen pops up, I should be OK for recouping my loss, although you never regain everything.
They broke into four other cars on the Econo-Lodge Motel parking lot. Dr. Brian Korner was "upset" to say the least, that his guest had his car broken into. His "care" for this ole man really is a blessing. Truly, he, Denny Corle, Brian Sharp, and Jeff Fugate surely spoiled me!
The other day, in a conversation with a man at the Motel in Bedford, Pennsylvania, a man said to me, "Of course, not all Muslims are bad?" Recently, on "Israel First" I think it was, I read something concerning this; therefore, I said, "Then, that brings up the question of how do you even tell if a Muslim is bad? Or good? "
Then, I gave the fella, what I’d read:
First off, what is a Muslim? A Muslim is a person who follows the doctrine of Islam. When that same person, does something that does not follow the doctrine of Islam, they are not a Muslim.
The common idea is that anyone who says that they are a Muslim has their every action and word dictated by Islam.
Put another way, every Muslim is seen as perfect follower of Islam at all times and circumstances. However, the truth is that a "Muslim" is not always a Muslim. When they do not follow Islamic doctrine, they are no longer a Muslim, but are a kafir (non-Muslim).

Now, how do we know if a Muslim is good or bad? If they are following the Qur’an and the Sunna (the perfect example of Mohammed), they are a good Muslim.
Then, get this, don’t miss it "If they don't follow the doctrine, then they are not a Muslim. That means that from the stand point of Islam there is no such thing as a good or bad Muslim. You either are a Muslim or you are not."
When anyone follows the Qur’an and the Sunna, they are Muslim. When anyone does not follow the doctrine of Islam then they are a kafir.
This means that a person called a Muslim has two modes of being — Muslim and kafir, or kafir-Muslim. The same person can be a Muslim in one moment and a kafir in the next.
What do kafirs mean by a good Muslim? Simple, the same way we judge all other people as good and bad —for illustration’s sake, let us take the Golden Rule.
Do they follow the Golden Rule when they are with us? If so, then they are a good person.
Since the Qur’an and the Sunna do not have the Golden Rule, how are Muslims to treat us?
Islamic doctrine lays out an alternative to the Golden Rule. Those who do not believe Mohammed are kafirs, and kafirs are treated differently from Muslims.
Islamic doctrine says a great deal about the kafir. Most of the Koran is about kafirs, 61%, only 39% is about Muslims.
About 20% of the Hadith is about kafirs and 98% of the Sura is about kafirs.
Mohammed was fixated on kafirs and annihilated every kafir by violence, exile or conversion.
When Mohammed died, there was not a person alive in Arabia who would argue with him.
Mohammed's actions are pure Islam; therefore, annihilating kafirs and kafir culture is pure Islam.
A Muslim has to be, in some way, in some form of action, eliminating kafirs and their world. The action against kafirs is jihad.
There are four flavors of jihad and murder is only one. Deception, conversation, articles and TV appearances can be jihad of speech and
writing. There is always the option of giving to an Islamic charity, since one of the Koranic uses of charity is jihad.
Every Muslim believes that all nonbelievers are kafirs. The Qur’an says that kafirs may be hated, plotted against, deceived, murdered, raped, enslaved, mocked and tortured.
All of those actions are Islam and perfect doctrine. When a person is being a good Muslim, they are following Islam and that means that you are a kafir.
Hate, deception, murder, mockery and torture are bad for kafirs, but good for Muslims.
Kafirs are pure other. Muslims treat other Muslims as brothers and sisters, but they can treat a kafir well or they can treat them as less than an animal. Islam has dualistic ethics, one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for kafirs.
Dualism is bad. When a Muslim practices dualism, they are bad. There is no good in Islam for a kafir and therefore, there is no good in a Muslim for a kafir.
Does this mean that the Muslim at work is bad? Yes, when they are following the doctrine of Islam.
Whenever they are not following Islam, that person can be as good as any other.
It is not about people, but about doctrine.
It is the doctrine of Islam to be bad to kafirs.
When anyone is practicing Islam around a kafir they must be bad, since Mohammed was never good to kafirs.
Wait! What about the nice, pious Muslim at work? He is good, isn't he?
Is he nice because of the Golden Rule or is he practicing the Sunna of the charming Mohammed we find in the early Meccan days?

Mohammed could be very polite with kafirs, however, if charm did not work, then other methods were used. Islam is a process of increasing force that can start out pleasantly.
We are left with an ethical confusion around any Muslim. They can seem pleasant, but nothing changes the fact that they see Mohammed as the perfect person to imitate. Nothing changes the fact that we are kafirs. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.
Whom are we to believe — the Muslim at work or Mohammed?
Every Muslim wants to imitate Mohammed; every Muslim is a Mohammedan.
The problem is that Mohammed annihilated every kafir he ever met.
It was a process. The process started out nice and when nice did not work, it ended in annihilation of the kafir.
In Islam, nice is the beginning of bad for the kafir.
So how do you tell if a nice Muslim is good or bad? From the kafir point-of-view, there is only the fact that a Muslim is following Mohammed's example.
And that is bad, very bad.

[end of article]

When Ishmael was born four chapters later in Genesis, in the sixteenth chapter, and twelfth verse, God Almighty said that "Sphyrapicus varius" [Sfy-rap-e-cus var-e-us] [yellow-bellied sapsucker] would be a "wild" man as our KJV states.
The Jews, bless their hearts, have had to deal with those "wild-donkey-men" since the sixteenth hapter of the book of Genesis. In the 11th chapter, when God Almighty called Father Abraham from the Ur of the Chaldees, historical records from there state that they worshiped the "Moon god," or chief of all their "gods" had the "crescent" symbol, as all Mosques have today!
Now, based on Holy Scripture, the Bible, God’s Word, you and I can either be a "blessing" or a "curse" to the Hebrews. Since I personally think that they shall be at War come August 1st, I had Dr. Bryan Sharp make Plane Reservations today for me.
Pray for me, and all this, and if you can, help me out financially with the cost of this up coming trip.


Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Letter to Pastors

July 6, 2010
Dear Pastors:
From the right front seat of my Suburban on a Mountain Side in Pennsylvania outside the driveway of Dr. Denny Corle’s home, I sit. From here, I read the news from the world relative to our situation in the Islamic Terrorist war the Throat-slitting sons of Ishmael have launched on free people world wide.

To my Hebrew Friends in Israel, I would want this Tuesday morning to remind them of the "Phoney War," that "almost forgotten even" of some 70 years ago, when France carried out the disengagement of Saarland, an area surrfendered to her by a defeated Germany at the end of World War I.
Let me refer you to the words of Dmeetry Raizman, a former Soviet Union refusenik and Jewish activist. He has been an Israeli citizen since 1979, and has a business developing high-tech start-up apps. He was a long time supporter of the "peace process" — from the Rabin-Peres Oslo Accords up to Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza.
However, the Middle-East reality of recent years made radical changes in his viewpoint:
Without an apparent reason, the French army withdrew from a location of strategic importance, unilaterally, without a fight, without a shot, and then for months the French forces sat in idleness. So began the Second World War.
On September 27, 1939, a few days before the disengagement, Hitler called a secret meeting of the General Staff and the commanders of the German military and declared: "We must immediately start preparing an attack on the West. The goal is to defeat the French."
The history of the subsequent German operation Fall Gelb ("Case yellow") is remembered primarily because of its consequences. The received wisdom is that the German army was strong, equipped with modern weapons and well-skilled while the French army was weak, armed with obsolete weapons, and untrained.
If that were indeed the case, there would be no need to be a military expert to understand the reasons for France's defeat.
Without taking a comprehensive tally of France's divisions and generals, several facts are readily apparent: in May 1940 there were 215 French army infantry battalions — each battalion had about 3,000 soldiers and 80 officers — for a total of 645,000 and 17,200 soldiers and officers, respectively. Furthermore, regiments from France's former colonies were part of its defenses: 14 battalions of French soldiers from colonies in North Africa, 42 battalions of Algerian troops, and 59 battalions from Tunisia, Morocco, Senegal, Madagascar and the United India — China.
Together with the Foreign Legion Infantry France had 1,130 battalions. The French generals, roughly, had available to them 1.2 million infantrymen and more than 30 thousand officers.
French armored corps included 430 fast and strong Somua S35 Tanks and 403 armored Char B1 and Char B1-bis tanks, which, at that time, were considered the best tanks in Western Europe. 1650 Renault R35/40s tanks constituted another armored force. Strength and quality of armor munitions (artillery guns) requirements for French tanks came from German models.
Toward the end of 30s, the French modernized the cavalry into motorized divisions that consisted of motorcycles, small vehicles, Kegresse half-tracks and Citroen-Panhard AMD trucks. French divisions against German Cavalry were also equipped with tanks: 100 Somua S35 tanks, about 100 Hotchkiss H39 and 70 AMR35 Renaults.
The French artillery had always been considered a huge steel force. German General Erich Ludendorff expressed its strength, saying, "How I hate the French guns!" This force numbered 409 battalions equipped with approximately eleven thousand artillery pieces.
At the individual armament level, French infantrymen carried automatic weapons equipped with an excellent Chatellerault FM, a semi-automatic rifle and a modern design of the MAS36, a Berthier which, although older, was improved in 1936.
In 1939, European military experts had a great appreciation for France's military power and considered its army one of the strongest in the world.
Therefore, trying to explain its military defeat by referencing a weak and outdated military is unacceptable. The opposite was true: France had the best military in the region and it had a well-equipped army, not only to defend against the Germans, but also to win. Why did France fall?
In these days, filled as they are with the reprecussions of the Goldstone report, with recent discoveries of scandalous anti-Israeli activities by the New Israel Fund, with days of appeasement, with days of doubts of Israeli right to fight against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, with days dithering about withdrawal from the Golan Heights — is there anything to be learned from events far away in the stale pages of history The events in France in 1939-1940? Are they relevant?
A Concept which the French followed spawned the French Strategy!
France fell because she was a captured by a misconception. Marshal Henri Philippe P
étain, the pride of the French nation, its number one soldier, the legendary winner of the Battle of Verdun in 1916, a hero of World War I, head of the defense establishment, was the father of the misconception.
All the strategies taught by French military academies, the legacy of battle experience, the wisdom of fighting, the principles, the tactics, and the acts of heroism, Marshall P
étain condensed into one simple formula: minimization of losses. Pétain defined the guiding criterion for the army: "We must prevent the losses the nation suffered during World War I".
Victory in battle? War? Subduing the enemy? Sacrifice for the homeland? No more! Now — just the minimization of losses.
This misconception gave rise to a defensive strategy, and a defensive strategy gave rise to the "Maginot Line" — the barricade that will guard France ... Hello!
A "Peace process" penetrated all aspects of French military doctrine: it paralyzed the strategic thinking of senior command and dictated all aspects of preparing the military-force structure, training, and the operational programs of the Joint Chiefs.
A debilitating "peace process" influenced the majority. However, some individuals understood where France's choice of peace would lead, including General Jean Baptiste Eug
ène Estienne, a French armored soldier who tried to promote the idea of putting a center tank formation as an offensive rather than defensive force.
After the idea was rejected, young lieutenant colonel Charles de Gaulle tried to place a similar idea on the agenda. The French government, however, rejected his plan as "contrary to the global French strategy" of defense for peace.
French General Staff operational plans for 1940 said: "avoid at all costs significant operations on the German front."
The alternative raised by France and her allies was a strategy of economic sanctions meant to deter Germany from taking aggressive steps.
The "peace process" gained momentum. In early October 1939, after the disengagement from Saarland, a journalist visited the French military on the front and wrote: "Wonderful peace and quiet prevail here — our artillery is located on the banks of the Rhine, nonchalantly looks over animated German trains and ammunition shells, all within range of our guns.
Pilots hover over our enemies' factories without dropping bombs." The main task of the French General Staff was not to harass the Germans, "not to be dragged into provocations."
Enemies? Germany joined "the peace process" with great joy. Its army had gained strength. Field Marshal Kesselring wrote about those days: "Fortunately the enemy had discovered absolute passivity and allowed us, prior to May 1940, to close the gaps and deficiencies by equipping and arming Germany."
On October 18, the senior command of the German Army published Order No. 7 instructing German forces to avoid any military action on the Western Front. The Wehrmacht was interested in hudna.
Did the Allies understand the absurdity and the danger in a French-German "peace process"? When a member of the Conservative Party British Cabinet, F. C. Amery, proposed to drop bombs on German phosphorus forests, Sir Kingsley Wood, Secretary of State for Air, answered him: "Come on, it is possible, but if you want to damage private property, maybe we will bomb the Ruhr mining region?"
Before his death in 1943, Sir Kingsley Wood saw bombs falling on London — German bombs manufactured from the steel of the Ruhr.
The "Phoney War" led to despair and took away the French military's morale. French troops did not understand why they did not fight if they declared war? Gradually they lost the desire to serve and saw their presence on the front line as counterproductive and pointless.
When the morale worsened, the French command was forced to turn to the government, on November 21, 1939, to get a ministerial decision regarding the establishment of an "entertainment force." On November 30 the French Parliament discussed increasing the alcohol ration to soldiers, and in February 1940 the Prime Minister signed an order canceling a tax on gambling in the army.
Additionally, the government decided to purchase ten thousand soccer balls to keep the army on the front pacified.
Not only the soldiers at the front, but also the citizens at home stopped understanding what was happening, why there were soldiers in the army, and what was the government's policy.
Well, was army Secretary Pétain really the "destroyer" of France in June 1940? Yes, but he was not the only one. There is another factor that "contributed" just as much if not more to France's defeat: at the beginning of October 1939, the leftist bloc demanded an extraordinary meeting of parliament for an urgent discussion of a "peace process". The left representatives wrote to the Parliament Speaker: "With all our strength, we strive for peace, achievable peace; we believe that the peace process can bring peace."
With Nazi Germany at the gate accruing power, the French left had its say: "We believe that peace is achievable, we call collectively to strive to achieve mutual confidence between all parties in Europe."
Although the French left sought peace, it was not the architect of the "peace process" in Europe on the eve of the German invasion of France.
The Left only executed instructions from abroad. Instructions from the "directors" of the Peace Festival, "owners" of the real enlightened left, tried at the same time to neutralize the Allies, to erode the resolve to fight Germany, and to lull the public opinion by the propaganda of peace.
And when fighting for peace, all means are acceptable. As an honored tradition, the "peace camp" mixed legal means (parliament, press, freedom of speech with underground activities — from strikes at plants of military necessity to direct sabotage of tanks, cannons, and aircraft on the production lines.
France fell victim to two parallel processes: an ideological sabotage by the extreme left-wing minority in France that was organized, guided, and funded by hostile interested parties abroad, and a consequent "second wave", a much wider process consisting of "striving for peace" and a preference for "minimizing losses" if there is no choice whether to fight.
Was the French leadership completely blind to what was happening? The French government eventually sobered up and realized it was suffering ideological sabotage and subject to extensive hostile action designed to topple the French interior.
Indeed, a ban was imposed on the distribution of left-wing newspapers, extreme left organizations were "outlawed," and leftist deputies were removed from all institutions and committees. But the French government's measures were too little, too late.
Subsequent events show that the left's ideological sabotage caused France irreversible destruction:
The Phoney War ended on May 10, 1940, following a large-scale German offensive that instantly defeated France.
The most powerful army in the region before the war, detachment, a general that is a former national hero and head of a security establishment that avoids fighting and preaches minimizing losses, a defensive line misconception, an extreme left driving the "struggle for peace" under the direction and financing of hostile elements abroad, a broad public drifting into the whirlpool of a "peace process", decadence and despair among soldiers and civilians — are these the indicators of the next Israeli war? [end of article]
Relative to that "Phoney War" and how the Nazis almost defeated the world, we face the Ishmaelite throat-slitters, and in his speech Thursday, President Obama assured us that our "southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years." []

Obama does that in spite of the fact that El Paso's City Hall is taking rifle fire from Mexico?
The president made his pitch for "comprehensive immigration reform" by assuring us problems on the border were already taken care of, so the next course of action was a modified amnesty program for 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. YES, SO THAT THEY CAN RE-ELECT HIM AS "MOHAMMEDAN-IN-CHIEF!"
But a funny thing happened on the same day he was urging Americans to go along: El Paso's City Hall found itself in a war zone as gunfire from the Mexican side from either traffickers or the Mexican lawmen trying to fight them pocked the edifice. News reports said as many as seven bullets hit the building. No one was hit — this time.
It's another sign of the horror in Mexico spilling onto the U.S. side.
Further down the border on the same day, 12 miles from Nogales, Ariz., 21 people were massacred in a fight between rival smuggling gangs over the right of way to bring their illegal immigrant "shipments" and narcotics into the U.S.
It all gives the president's assurances to Americans that the border situation is being dealt with an aura of unreality.
Statistics can be cut a number of ways, and some areas do have better border security.
But the fact that it's uneven has left other areas — such as the Arizona border, more vulnerable as traffickers fight over the last remaining routes with intensity.
And dramatic events are happening across the border area anyway that suggest bottoms dropping out, with horrors unimaginable in the past becoming the new norm:
• The U.S. has lost control of actual U.S. territory to drug and migrant smugglers as much as 80 miles inland in Arizona. Any American who enters this area risks being shot dead.
• The Falcon Dam on Texas' lower Rio Grande was targeted for destruction by a Mexican cartel to destroy a rival's drug and alien-smuggling route. Had the foiled plot succeeded, 4 million people could have ended up downriver with mass casualties and deaths.
• Arizona now has the second-highest kidnapping rate in the world, behind only Mexico City, with nearly all of it due to drug and migrant smugglers and their quests for cash and territory.
• Mass graves have been discovered in New Mexico, believed by lawmen to be the work of cartels.
• Two U.S. border consulates have been attacked, and three people connected with them have been killed in the past three years.
• In Washington state and others, national forests and Indian reservations have seen large swaths of land converted by cartels to drug cultivation operations guarded by illegal immigrants, making them also no-man's lands.
Now the Mexican shootout that hits a large U.S. city, and it's hard not to question how much urgency the White House has.
Obama's speech is a case in point, with amnesty for the illegals taking priority over border security.
That comes as a Fox News poll Friday showed 59% of Americans favor securing the border before dealing with amnesty.
Obama did say he was sending 1,200 National Guard troops to the Arizona border, but the Guardsmen are there to perform clerical tasks — not to protect and defend.
Meanwhile, even as the drug war spills over our border, the U.S. has given just $310 million to aid Mexico's fight this year through the Merida Initiative, and only $720 million in 2009, given the era of multibillion-dollar boondoggles?
The cash given so far has performed productively already, according to an analysis by Shannon O'Neil in Americas Quarterly, citing the intelligence-sharing and cooperation in 2009 that brought down two cartel kingpins, as well as the coordinated bust of 300 traffickers on both sides of the border last October.
With the war hitting our border now, it's time to finance more such success.
But all we're seeing is a can't-do attitude and a lack of urgency. Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano's recent declaration: "You're never going to totally seal that border," doesn't suggest any sense that there's an emergency here, even as the depravities of Mexico's criminal cartels penetrate ever deeper into the U.S.
When does it become urgent for our government? [end of article]
From AMERICAN History, let me give you a case of "urgency!" If you Pastors know ole JAV, you know that he is a student of History.
In the last fall of the Civil War, the fall of 1864, The Comanche Indians, Kiowas, and even the Navajos, were nailing Anglo-Americans as the Federal troops were all involved in the Civil War fighting the Southerners. Collectively, these Indians were effecting the shedding of much blood in the same area of our country where that city hall was hit by rifle fire I mention above.
Federal Colonel Kit Carson of the New Mexico Territorials had crushed the Navajos. Carson’s superior, General James H. Carleton. He then became ready to turn the Army’s attention to the Commanches and Kiowas, who had, all that year, raised havoc along the Sante Fe Trail.
Angry bands of Southern Plains Indians, as the Commanches and Kiowas were called, had threatened to cut completely the route of the Sante Fe Trail between the East, Missouri, and the West. During 1864 every wagon train proceeding down the Canadian River to New Mexico had been attacked. Even the large and powerful wagon trains lost horses and oxen to those raiding Amerindians. small wagon trains, whether military or civilian, had been massacred.
In October ‘64, therefore, Carleton received orders to restore full communications and to "punish the savages" as the then terminology was, for the depredations. Consequently, General Carleton authorized Colonel Kit Carson to sweep through the valley of the Canadian with a strong force of New Mexico and California "territorials" who were civilians that had signed up for a "militia type duty" rather than "army type duty."

Scouts had revealed that large numbers of Commanches and Kiowas were wintering on the rich Buffalo plains of the Texas Panhandle, right where this ole man grew up as a poor boy. Furthermore, Carleton believed that the Indians would not be prepared to fight a winter campaign.
Therefore, Colonel Kit Carson and his Territorials rode out of Cimarron, New Mexico, in early November 1874. In his number were over 300 mounted territorials with 72 Ute and Jicarilla Apache scouts and auxiliaries. The Utes and Apaches were promised scalps and plunder from their "up til then ravaging them Commanches!" Carson was well supplied: He had a well-stocked wagon train of twenty-seven wagons and six thousand rounds of ammunition.

He was also furnished with two excellent little 12-pounder mountain howitzers, fitted on special traveling carriages. [Had Custer not been so proud and arrogant, at a later day, he would not have left his Gatling guns and howitzers behind.]
Carson’s column followed Ute Creek to where it pours into the Canadian, then rode east into the high Texas plains along the broad, flat river bottoms. The scouts went far ahead. At night, Carson camped among tall cottonwoods in the gulches or canadas.
At Sundown on November 24, 1864, the Scouts reported an encampment about a day’s march to the east, near the old, abandoned Bent and St. Vrain trading post on a small tributary of the Canadian, known as Adobe Walls, from its still standing sun-dried brick structures. Carson at once marched toward the Indians, pushing his column through the frosty night for fifteen miles, allowing no fires nor smoking during rest breaks.
Colonel Carson was in sight of the Comanche encampment at daybreak.
Lt. George Pettis of the California volunteers, the officer in charge of the two-gun twelve-pound Mountain Howitzers, and Carson pointed out to him the sun-bleached tipis of the Plains Indians. The Utes reported a camp or village of 176 tipis. Without scouting farther down the river valley, Carson detached his baggage train with a guard of 75 men, and with a squadron of some 250 cavalry attacked across the 2-mile wide valley toward the village.
The Ute and Jicarilla auxiliaries left the column and tried to steal the enemies’ horse herd. The camp, which was Kiowa Apache, was alerted before the cavalry reached it. The warriors formed a skirmish line to cover the flight of the women and children, who abandoned the tip-is and ran for the ridges behind the river. The Nermernuh Commanches knew their tactics well when being attacked by Horse Soldiers.
What Colonel Carson did not know, however, was that Kiowa Comanche Chieftain, To ‘hau-sen, Little Mountain, also called Sierrito and Dohasan] was in the encampment. Dohasan organized the defense immediately, while also sending for help from Comanche and Kiowa lodges further downstream that Carson was blissfully ignorant of their presence too. Dohasan rallied the Commanches and their swirling, shooting horsemen slowed the white attack and assured the women’s escape. Dohasan exhibited great bravery with his horse being shot out from under him, but, his braves rescued him, and he rallied his warriors.
Carson’s Cavalry pushed the retreating Kiowa Commanches for about four miles, finally reaching the Adobe Walls buildings. Here, more and more Indians kept appearing. The Territorials dismounted and sheltered their horses behind the trading post, and began their skirmishing on foot.
When Colonel Carson and Lt. Pettis arrived with the Howitzer Battery, now, the old mountain man, and the inexperienced Lieutenant, saw, to their dismay, another camp of some 500 tipis rising less than a mile away.
This was a Comanche encampment, and hundreds of warriors were streaming from it across the prairie. Pettis counted "twelve or fourteen hundred." The Indians formed a long line across the rides, painting their faces while their chiefs harangued them.
The Kiowas, who too, were arriving in large numbers, roared the battle sons of their warrior societies. Pettis feared that the horde would charge the white squadron at any moment.
The ole mountain man Carson ordered Pettis to throw a few shells at the mob of Indians. The howitzers were unlimbered, wheeled around, and fired in rapid succession. The shells, screaming over the warriors’ heads and bursting just beyond them, seemed to startle the Indians badly. Yelling, the host moved precipitously out of range.
Unfortunately, Colonel Carson thought the battle was over, and told his troops accordingly, then ordering his horses watered at Bent’s Creek.

Within an our, thousands of warriors surrounded the trading post, circling and firing from under their horses' bellies. Surprisingly, most of the warriors appeared to be equipped with good repeating rifles, which the Mexican and French arms dealers had traded them. The Savages swirled about for several hours, not daring to press too close, while the howitzers killed many.
Colonel Carson had marched unwittingly into a vast winter-concentration of the tribes on the southern bison range. Carson, with a split command, then began to worry about his wagon trains. His rear detachment, without cannon, would almost certainly be overwhelmed if the enemy discovered it. Carson then made a cautious, and yet quite sensible decision: to break out of Adobe Walls and regroup with his supply column, which had his food and ammunition.
The Cavalry mounted and retreated behind the fires of the battery, which stayed constantly in action. The Indians set fire to the grass, however, this helped, because the smoke concealed Carson’s retiring column.
About sundown the whites arrived back in the deserted Kiowa Apache camp, where Pettis noted that the Ute women accompanying them had mutilated the corpses of several dead Kiowa Apaches. Carson ordered those tipis-lodges set on fire. Then, under the cover of darkness, he moved out toward his wagons, with which he rejoined about three hours later.
The next day, because of those two Howitzers, the Indian Mob—thousands of them—still held back. Some of the territorial officer besought Carson to take up the attack, but, instead, he ordered a withdrawal. The odds were much too great; Carson, who later wrote that he had never seen Indians who fought with such dash and courage until they were shaken by his artillery, did not make the error of despising horse Indians.
He had so far lost only a few dead, and a handful of wounded, whiles his howitzers had inflicted heavy losses, killing and wounding about 200 Indians. Carson wrote and claimed a victory later.
Privately, he thought himself lucky to have extricated his command. In fact, the howitzers and his own caution had probably saved him and his command from Custer’s fate later on the Little Big Horn.
The Kiowas and Commanches told some Comancheros who were in the Indian camps at the time that except for the "guns that shot twice," the twin howitzer battery, they would have killed every white man in the valley of the Canadian. Carson himself said as much to Lt. Pettis.
Carson’s recommendation up the Chain of Command was a resumption of "Indian War" but, with at least a thousand troops, who, he thought, would destroy the Indian concentration in winter.
The Military Authorities were planning extensive, determined operations from Kansas to New Mexico, when the sudden collapse of the Confederacy changed everything again. The Plains Indians had gotten a reprieve at the beginning of the Civil War. They received another within that decade with the "drawdown" which was effected after the Confederacy collapsed.
History’s lessons sometimes are harsh. Anglo-Americans continued to be brutalized by the Plains Indians with thousands more dying and hundred being carried into degrading captivity.
In Israel recently, I disbursed several books about Indian Warfare in America, all the way from Daniel Boone, here in Pennsylvania, where I now sit in my suburban, out to where I was born and raised as a boy. My advice to the Israelis was, this is what you will have to do to your Ishmaelite enemies if you are to prevail. If you continue to allow them "sanctuary" and continue to listen to "Mohammedans" like our "Muslim-in-chief" in the White House, it shall be a very costly affair till Yeshua, your Messiah, does in fact, return, as HE has promised that HE will!!!! I wonder what’s going on in the White House right now in the Meeting between Bibi and Obama?


Saturday, July 3, 2010

Third Letter to Pastors

July 3, 2010

Dear Pastors:

From the News Events listed below, it is a good possibility that you and I will wake up soon, with a full-scale war going on between the LORD GOD OF ISRAEL’s chosen people, and a conglomerate of Israel's enemies!

I am casting my lot with the Jew. Orde Wingate said, in 1938, in the presence of Chaim Sturman, who was later killed by an Arab Land Mine, "It has been given to us to kill the enemy of the Jews, for the enemies of the Jews are the enemies of all mankind."

Wingate was training the Israeli Special Night Squads at the time. He had petitioned the British Generals to be allowed to call those Jewish soldiers "Gideon’s Force" as he was a great admirer of Gideon, but had been turned down cold. Many of his SNS fellows went on to be founders of the IDF in 1947-48!

Please read:

If Israelis in high official places were still slow to get the message of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's implacable anti-Israel campaign, they only had to listen to foreign ministry spokesman Burak Ozgergin's vow in Ankara Wednesday, June 30: The (Turkish) public," he said, "will see in step after step (taken by Turkey) how Ankara gets Israel to admit its crimes."

Israel fights back by expanding the mandate of the Turkel commission for probing the legality of the flotilla incident. Preparing to demand a UN Assembly resolution establish a rival probe, Ankara quotes the extremist MAZLUM-DER organization as maintaining that the nine Turkish activists killed aboard the Marmara were the victims of shots from Israeli helicopters. This aims to disprove Israel's evidence that the Israeli commandos fought back in self-defense against activist thugs on deck.
Israeli FM Lieberman denies his party plans to quit government but insists on clarification of prime minister's failure to update him on Ben-Eliezer's meeting with Turkish FM.
Wall Street Journal: Iran transferred to Syria sophisticated radar to boost its defenses against Israeli attack in 2009 · It could also serve Hizballah and help enhance its rockets' accuracy.
Israeli Air Force struck three targets in Gaza Strip in response to Palestinian Qassam attack Wednesday.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has his hands full calming the uproar in his cabinet over infrastructure minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer's failed meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu to try and narrow the widening rift between Ankara and Jerusalem. DEBKAfile reports the prime minister has four days to stabilize his government before meeting the US president in Washington as the "Turkish flotilla effect" leads him into one misstep after another.

This time, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is up in arms over Netanyahu's failure to update him on the meeting. Some circles in Jerusalem suggest that Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Labor engineered the crisis to rid the government coalition of Lieberman's right-wing Israel Beitenu.
Erdogan is exploiting the upset in Jerusalem to intensify his smear campaign against Israel. He is now suggesting that Mossad was behind an alleged coup attempt by Turkish generals.
02 July: A US-Iran showdown loomed closer early Friday, July 2, when President Barack Obama signed into law a series of energy sanctions, the toughest yet, against Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran's defense minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi warned that searches of its ships or planes would have "dire consequences" for world security and the Middle East in particular.
The law shuts US markets to firms.

Some US intelligence circles are now suggesting that the high-ranking Hamas official Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh who died by an unknown hand in Dubai last January was not targeted for death but for capture as a live hostage against the release of Gilead Shalit - along with half a dozen high-value Hamas operatives. The hostage plan was aborted when Al-Mahbouh died of the drug supposed to have doped him enough to bundle him out of the Dubai hotel.The abduction team leader is said to have aborted the mission, left the dead man in place and told the would-be abductors to get out of Dubai fast and scatter. The rest of the high-risk, ambitious plan was scrapped.

The Bride of my Youth and I just read Jeremiah Chapters 5, 6, and 7 on the phone together a few minutes ago, then had prayer.

I marked especially Jeremiah 5:7 How shall I pardon thee for this? Thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots' houses.
8 They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour's wife.
9 Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
10 Go ye up upon her walls, and destroy; but make not a full end: take away her battlements; for they are not the LORD'S.
11 For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very treacherously against me, saith the LORD.
12 They have belied the LORD, and said, It is not he; neither shall evil come upon us; neither shall we see sword nor famine:
13 And the prophets shall become wind, and the word is not in them: thus shall it be done unto them.
14 Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.
15 Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.
And then: Jer 5:18 Nevertheless in those days, saith the LORD, I will not make a full end with you, [and with,]
Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?
Also along with those verses Jer 7:6 If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:
7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.

So, as I said up above, ‘I AM CASTING MY LOT WITH THE JEW!’ Vice Prime Minister Moshe "Boogie" Ya’alon took a telephone call from Dr. Jeff Fugate of Clays Mill Road Baptist Church, Lexington, Kentucky, yesterday at 11:00 AM and spoke to the good people present at Circle C Baptist Ranch for special Patriotic Services. The Vice Prime Minister, a friend of mine, was very kind to each of us yesterday in his remarks, FOR THE SUPPORT GIVEN TO ISRAEL from our very brand of Independent Baptist Christians. Praise the LORD for the privilege of being present as that good man, "Boogie," thanked Christians for their support of the nation of Israel.

Notice particularly, if you would, carefully, the ending words of Jeremiah 5 and verse 7: “in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.” Amen and Amen!!!!


Second Letter to Pastors

July 3, 2010

Dear Preachers:

After having a very successful time of teaching ladies how to shoot the Walther P22 for a week, at Circle “C” Baptist Camp in Kentucky, with my good friend Dr. Jeff Fugate, and Dr. Dave Smith, a tired ole man sits down at a computer in West Virginia to write you a few lines concerning the “WAR VERY SOON” signs I see all over the Middle East. Our friends the Hebrews in Israel will find themselves pitted against their enemies.

I think, if my score is right, that thirty-seven ladies and girls shot. Probably twenty of them had never fired a weapon. One dear lady was petrified; but, after my assurance to her, she did very, very well. Pastor Fugate’s oldest daughter (age 9) set her face like a flint and really let the bullets fly. She was the youngest. You should have seen the staff females shooting that Barrett .50!

Let me give you what I know, and draw some conclusions for you on that:


For Tehran, the Russian vote with the US and China at the UN Security Council on June 9 in support of a new round of sanctions was a most painful and surprising diplomatic affront. Up until the last moment, Iran's leaders did not believe Moscow would line up against them on its nuclear program.

Deepening US-Russian strategic cooperation in the aftermath of the vote has the Islamic Republic even more worried. Its rulers have woken up to find they could face a foreign attack on their nuclear installations from four possible directions.

In the Middle East, America continues to pile up air, naval and marine forces off the southern Iranian coast.

This week the USS Nassau Carrier Group and two escort ships, the USS Mesa Verde and USS Ashland moved in with 4,000 Marines, including special commando units trained to operate behind enemy lines.

They joined two more carriers, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Strike Group and the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, with another approximately 6,000 Marines on board.

Since June 20, Iran has been massing military units in West Azerbaijan, braced in the expectation of a possible American or Israeli offensive from the Caspian Sea area from the north and northwest, particularly from Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Neither is Tehran ruling out a US or Israel strike from the Arabian Sea, where the Eisenhower and Truman are deployed; from the Gulf of Aden, where the Nassau has taken up position; or from Azerbaijan, where, according to the Revolutionary Guards regional commander Brig.-Gen. Mehdi Moini: "The (Iranian) mobilization is due to the presence of American and Israeli forces on (our) western border."

Finally, Iranian war planners acknowledge a possible Israeli air strike with missiles launched from great distances - by submarine, warplanes or even from outside Iranian air space.

Iran fears Washington-Moscow collaboration on sanctions is the outer manifestation of a broader deal brewing up behind its back for cooperating in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Tehran suspects Moscow has agreed to look the other way in the event of a US-Israel attack on its nuclear facilities.

Three more incidents have pushed the Islamic rulers' alarm buttons:

1. Sunday, June 27, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said a CIA report that Iran had enough low-enriched uranium to build two atom bombs was "worrying." He was speaking in Toronto at the end of the G20 summit in response to CIA Director Leon Panetta comment to ABC television that Iran probably has enough low-enriched uranium for two nuclear weapons.

Tehran is fully aware that Moscow likes the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as little as Washington does.

Two days later, on Tuesday, June 29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, after visiting Israeli president Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, confirmed Panetta's assessment adding that Iran has 2,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium in stock, enough for two bombs. But he voiced the hope that Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium.

He heard the same intelligence assessment from Peres, together with the remark that not only the Israelis, but the Russians too face sleepless nights.

2. The mere fact of the Russian foreign visitor's visit to Israel made Tehran uneasy - especially when he arrived just 24 hours after Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, held an impromptu session in Tel Aviv with the IDF high command after talking to defense minister Ehud Barak.

With no real explanation offered for his unscheduled visit, Mullen rounded it off by saying: "I try to see threats and challenges from the Israeli perspective."

Another 24 hours went by and America's top soldier had more words of discomfort for Tehran:

Addressing the Aspen Security Forum, he said it would be "incredibly dangerous" for Iran to achieve nuclear weapons, and that there's "no reason to trust" Iran.

Asked if he thought Israel would give the United States time to see whether tougher sanctions or talks would produce more cooperation from Iran, he would only say he believed the US and Israel were "in sync" with their current policies.

This was taken to mean that further negotiations with Tehran are pointless because Iran is on a fixed course toward a nuclear weapon. Mullen's stress on the military cooperation between the US and Israel is what has Iran's rulers worried most of all.

3. Iranian sources say that this US-Israeli military partnership, which could menace Iran from the south and west, is perceived by Iranian rulers as complementing the deepening US-Russian diplomatic and military cooperation to the north, i.e. from Azerbaijan and Georgia and farther afield, from Kyrgyzstan and Armenia.

In the past two weeks, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has led urgent high-level consultations about the troubling possibility that the US and Russian presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev were putting together a joint strategy for combating terrorism in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

With the chances of the US-led NATO force winning the Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban almost down to nil, they believe the two presidents resolved to get down to addressing the likely Islamist spillover into the lands abutting Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Russian defense industry spokesman Vyacheslav Dzirkaln said Thursday that Moscow was willing to provide heavy-lift Mi-26T Halo transport helicopters to assist the NATO-led military fighting Taliban in Afghanistan, thereby strengthening Iranian suspicions of developing military cooperation between Moscow and Washington.

Iran's rulers are ever conscious of their country's history of suppression at the hands of world powers in the 1940s and 1950s.

It is high in their strategic thinking, alongside their radical Shiite Islamic goals and the revolutionary tenets laid down by Islamic Republic's founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Surprisingly for many Americans, Iran's incumbent rulers see similarities between Obama's Russian policies today and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's approach to Soviet Russia in the 1940s.

In his belief the antagonism between the two superpowers derived from misunderstanding and the dominance of stereotypes, FDR set out to fix the problem by offering the hand of friendship to the nascent Communist state - in the same way, so the Iranians believe, as Obama is offering Medvedev that same hand.

In the absence of solid intelligence data, Iranian leaders find confirmation for this thesis in two indicators:

First, Neither Washington nor Moscow has intervened in the turbulence sweeping Kyrgyzstan - even after at least 3,000 deaths. Tehran believes they have secretly agreed to keep their hands off the conflict in this strategically placed land and let a bunch of fractious politicians battle each other in the October general election.

Iran is not alone in assuming that that Washington is deliberately turning a blind eye to Russia's plans to build a second military base in Kyrgyzstan - either in Osh or Jalalabad - even though it would expand Russian influence in Central Asia and bolster its standing vis-à-vis both the United States and China.

Second, In an apparent quid pro quo, Moscow has not stood in the way of an Obama administration plan to establish a big new air base at Fizuli in southwestern Azerbaijan, one of the seven Armenian-controlled enclaves around the breakaway Republic of Nagorno Karabakh. Fizuli is separated from Iranian Azerbaijan by the river Araz.

Up until now, Moscow vehemently objected to a US military presence in any part of Armenia or Armenian-controlled territory, regarding them as historically within Russia's political, military and intelligence orbit.

Now, according to ME military sources, the planned Russian and US bases in these highly sensitive and unstable regions are shaping up on the ground - across from Iran's northern borders.

American Engineering and Air Force units have arrived in Fizuli and begun preparing the ground for the first take-off and landing runways of the new base, while Russian construction crews are preparing to go to work in Kyrgyzstan.

An air base in Fizuli will not only plant a US military foothold in Armenia, but also restore US military credibility in Georgia north of Armenia after the setbacks of the August 2008 war, in which the Russians crushed the Georgian Army and used their victory to expand their military and naval strength through the Caucasian and Black Sea regions.

Seen from Tehran, an American air base at Fizuli adds a valuable link to its military and intelligence encirclement of the Islamic Republic from the direction of the Black Sea.

Whereas before, the threat of US air strikes was limited to American aircraft carriers afloat in the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf, from now on, this peril has been extended to US bases in the Caucasian and Central Asia.

Tehran sees a further dip in its fortunes in Moscow's perceived shift away from its strenuous objections to US military action against its nuclear sites.

Iran thinks Russia is now willing to accept the Obama administration's resort to a military solution of the nuclear dispute - albeit on the quiet.

This conviction was strengthened by a comment this week by Gen. Nikolai Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

He said that the intelligence in his possession indicated the mounting imminence of a US strike against Iran.

In his view, this would be suicidal for America, because US armed forces are not capable of waging three wars simultaneously in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

The Russian general did not speculate about the timeline of such a strike, but Tehran views US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's whirlwind trips to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, starting July 1, as fitting into Washington's overall Iran's strategy.

Part of that strategy too, for Iran, is the concerted US-Russian effort to bring to an end the 22-year-long war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.

That war is intermittently ongoing, with Fizuli stuck in the line of fire. Monday and Tuesday this week, June 28-29, saw the eruption of heavy shooting in some of the local villages as the Armenians and Azerbaijanis maneuvered to improve their positions ahead of the US-Russian conciliation bid.

On June 17, Medvedev collared the Armenian and Azerbaijan presidents at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum for a discussion on how to resolve the Karabakh conflict.

Hillary Clinton, for her part, is trying to get to grips with issues left over from the Russian-Georgian 2008 conflict and present in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute during her five days of talks in the capitals of Poland, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia.

If any of the top level Israelis happen to read this ole preacher’s lines, and I believe there are some that do, I’d apprise them that forty million Americans are classified as Evangelical Christians [we Independent Baptist are counted in that number] who’d be 150% behind your ailing those Sphyrapicus yellow-bellied sap suckers soon!