one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of
The Law Of Christ
BISHOP TELLS WEST: DEFEAT ISIS OR GIVE CHRISTIANS ASYLUM
'I can't understand what is going on around me. It is a nightmare'
Published: June 14, 2015
Christian militias such as this one in Iraq have formed in an effort to protect Christian neighborhoods. They have received no help from the U.S. Obama administration and have had to rely on private donations and training from private U.S. citizens.
A leading Iraqi prelate has called on the U.S. and its allies to double down on their efforts to defeat ISIS militarily, and, if that is not possible, to rescue Iraq’s 120,000 exiled Christians and grant them asylum in the West.
Marking the first anniversary of the Islamic State’s capture of Mosul, Syrian Catholic Archbishop Yohanna Mouche called on “people who have the responsibility” to come to the rescue of the ousted Christian communities, whose people long to go home, the archbishop said in a phone interview with John Pontifex of Aid to the Church in Need, an international Catholic charity.
Since the fall of Mosul into ISIS’s hands last summer, the city has been emptied of the thousands of Christians who once resided there.
The archbishop told Pontifex that military action is the “best solution” to restore the land and property that has been stolen from Christians in Mosul and other Iraqi cities.
“We ask everyone to put pressure on the people who have the responsibility to free the [towns and villages] as soon as possible so the people can come back and live in peace in their homes and continue their lives there,” he told the Catholic charity.
The archbishop’s comments reflect the frustration felt by many Middle Eastern Christian clergy, not only Catholic but also Orthodox and Protestant, about what they perceive as the West’s reluctance to commit to a full-scale intervention to confront and defeat Islamic extremism in the region. Until recently many Catholic clergy had opposed such a move, but as the situation has grown more desperate, so have their pleas for help.
Many Christians have fled to safe havens in Kurdish-controlled areas and some have taken up arms, fighting alongside Kurdish soldiers.
West should ‘open its doors’ to Christian refugees
Archbishop Mouche said if the West is unable or unwilling to expand its military options against ISIS, then it should open its doors to Christians and other minorities seeking asylum.
“I am calling on the international community: if they cannot protect us, then they must open their doors and help us start a new life elsewhere,” he said.
But “we would prefer to remain in Iraq and be protected here,” he added.
Speaking of his own hardship, the prelate said: “I am like someone who is dreaming or drunk. I can’t understand what is going on around me. It is a nightmare.”
Asked about widespread reports of destruction of religious artifacts and ancient churches in Mosul, he said his contacts with the city had been severed. But he confirmed that “all our heritage is in Mosul,
and in Qaraqosh,” on the Nineveh Plain.
Christian refugees flee Mosul during last summer’s sacking of the city by ISIS.
He noted the monastery of St. Behnam, which dates back to the fourth century AD. The monastery is believed to have been at least partially destroyed by ISIS, which has also desecrated numerous Christian cemeteries.
“We have no news about our churches and monasteries, because we have no one left in Mosul to report on it,” the archbishop said.
U.N. assigns mostly Muslims for resettlement in West
The United States, which accepts the majority of the world’s refugees and asylum seekers, has taken in 119,210 refugees from Iraq since 2008, but 72,983 or 61 percent of those have been Muslims and only 42,000 or 35 percent have been Christian, according to U.S. State Department data.
As for the other major Middle Eastern source of refugees, Syria, the numbers are even more slanted toward Muslims. Among the nearly 850 Syrian refugees sent to the U.S. for permanent resettlement since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, 92 percent have been Muslim and less than 6 percent Christian.
Iraq is home to some of the world’s earliest Christians. St. Thomas the apostle evangelized the Assyrians and Chaldeans living in the Nineveh plain of ancient Mesopotamia, part of modern-day northern Iraq, shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. About 4.7 million Christians lived in Iraq as of 1947, despite the numerous jihads launched against them by the 14th century warlord Tamerlane, who slaughtered 70,000 Christians at Tikrit, by the Ottoman Turks and later by al-Qaida.
Many Christians have fled while others converted to Islam. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein, about 1.5 million Christians still lived in the country. That number has now dwindled to about 125,000, with most of those remaining living in Baghdad, Basra, and in the Kurdish cities of Kirkuk and Erbil.
Yet, instead of pushing for these Christians to be allowed into the U.S. and other Western countries, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and much of the refugee resettlement industry has lobbied instead for the relocation of Syrian refugees, 90 percent of whom are Muslims.
The U.S. Congress, led by Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, has expressed grave concerns about the security risks of accepting large numbers of Syrian refugees, the ranks of which ISIS has vowed to infiltrate.
As WND reported June 3, between five and 10 of the 1,000 Syrian refugees slated by the U.N. for resettlement in Norway were recently found to have connections to either ISIS or the al-Nusra Front, according to Norway’s Police Security Service.
Also previously reported by WND in February, the FBI’s deputy director of counter-terrorism, Michael Steinbach, testified before the House Homeland Security committee that his agency was unable to screen the Syrian refugees because the U.S. has no access to reliable law enforcement records in the “failed state” of Syria. McCaul said he feared Syria’s Muslim refugees would become a “jihadi pipeline” into the United States.
Christians abandoned by Western governments
Christians pose no security risks, yet they have been largely abandoned in the face of vicious persecution, said Joel Richardson, a Christian author and filmmaker who recently visited Iraq on a missions trip.
“There’s no question we need to open our doors to the Christians of Iraq,” he told WND. “There’s been a lot of anecdotal evidence that within Congress and the various departments and channels that oversee U.S. immigration that for some mysterious reason we’re putting up these roadblocks that prevent these Christians from coming to the U.S. when we’re morally obligated to let them in, particularly in light of the fact that there is zero security risk and most of their plight can be attributed to the foreign policy blunders of the U.S. State Department under Barack Obama that was led by Hillary Clinton.”
The refugee issue will not be going away anytime soon, said Richardson, author of the New York Times-bestseller “The Islamic Antichrist,” and director of the film “End Times Eyewitness.”
“We have to get this issue down and established because the refugee crisis is only going to continue to explode as Libya falls into chaos as a result of (Obama’s) blunders there,” Richardson said. “It’s important to recognize what is the responsibility of the U.S. government but right now the Church needs to recognize that as chaos continues to envelope the earth, the mission field of Christ is opening up and expanding, and we are to be the first responders who will be there for the refugees who are in crisis.”
While the Christian refugees of Iraq pose no security risk, the loudest voices in the refugee resettlement industry, such as former U.K. Foreign Minister David Miliband, who now heads the International Rescue Committee, have lobbied in recent months almost exclusively on behalf of the Syrian refugees. Miliband and others have said the U.S. needs to take in at least 65,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016.
This same demand — for the U.S. to accept 65,000 Syrian refugees — has been echoed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and by the Refugee Council USA. RCUSA is the main lobbying arm of the nine agencies that do the resettlement work under contract for the U.S. government.
That demand was taken up last month by 14 Democratic U.S. Senators, led by Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, D-Minn. and Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., who signed a letter calling on President Obama to “dramatically increase” the number of Syrian refugees allowed into the U.S. That was enough to earn the 14 senators the title of “the Jihad Caucus” by Refugee Resettlement Watch author Ann Corcoran, who has been following the refugee movement since 2007.
DOBSON, GRAHAM TO SUPREMES: WE'LL CHOOSE BIBLE
'We will not honor any decision' that violates 1-man, 1-woman design
Published: June 14, 2015
Prominent Christian and Jewish leaders are warning the U.S. Supreme Court justices in a full-page ad in major newspapers that they will not honor any decision that violates the “biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.”
The statement by the leaders — who include Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Frank Pavone, Don Wildmon, Jerry Boykin, Alveda King and Alan Keyes — appears in a full-page ad in the Washington Post, USA Today and other papers.
“We affirm that marriage, as existing solely between one man and one woman, precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based solely on religion but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart,” the leaders say in the ad.
“We implore this court to not step outside of its legitimate authority and unleash religious persecution and discrimination against people of faith. We will be forced to choose between the state and our conscience, which is informed by clear biblical and church doctrine and the natural created order.”
“We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.”
The statement is signed by dozens of leaders whose organizations represent tens of millions. It comes as a U.S. Supreme Court decision on a marriage dispute in the 6th Circuit is expected imminently.
All you need to know about the attacks on marriage is in “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left has Sabotaged Family and Marriage,” by Paul Kengor.
Two justices, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, already have publicly advocated for same-sex “marriage” by performing ceremonies but have refused to recuse themselves from the case.
Many analysts expect the Supreme Court, by a narrow margin, to find a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.”
It already is recognized in about three dozen states, most of which have been ordered by federal judges to take that step.
In only one state, Alabama, has there been significant resistance. The state Supreme Court there ordered officials who issue marriage licenses to follow the state constitution and issue them only to male-female couples.
The ad states, “We the undersigned have joined together to present our unified message and plea to the justices of the United States Supreme Court regarding the matter of marriage.
“We are Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christian pastors, clergy, lay leaders and Jewish leaders, who collectively represent millions of people in our specific churches, parishes, denominations, synagogues and media ministry outreaches.”
They described anything other than biblical marriage as “an unjust law, as Martin Luther King Jr. described such laws in his letter from the Birmingham jail.”
They said they will choose the Bible.
“On this choice, we must pledge obedience to our Creator. While there are many things we can endure, any attempt to redefine marriage is a line we cannot and will not cross.”
They refer to DefendMarriage.org, where tens of thousands of Americans already have signed a related pledge.
The signers include: Matt C. Abbott of Renew America, Kirby Anderson of Point of View Talk Radio, Archbishop Foley Beach of the Anglican Church in North America, David and Jason Benham, Pastor Paul Blair of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Oklahoma, Dean Broyles of the National Center for Law and Policy, Kevin Burke of Priests for Life, Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, David Crow of Restore America, Steve Deace of USA Radio Network, former Rep. Tom DeLay, Elaine Donnelly of Center for Military Readiness, Deacon Keith Fournier of Catholic Online, Pastor Jim Garlow of Pastors Rapid Response Team, Pastor John Hagee of Cornerstone Church, Fr. Mousa Hadaa of St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel, Bishop E.W. Jackson, Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., Penny Nancy of Concerned Women for America and Pastor Rick Scarborough of Vision America.
The “Marriage Pledge” being signed by Americans states: “We will view any decision by the Supreme Court or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order.”
It continues: “Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the state. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. The precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage or human sexuality. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch.”
Here’s your chance to read James Dobson’s classics, including “Bringing up Girls,” “When God Doesn’t Make Sense” and “Bringing Up Boys.”
WND previously reported when Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel warned of the consequences of same-sex “marriage.”
“Immediately, when elevated to that level of a constitutionally protected category, [same-sex marriage] is given the same status as race. What you cannot legally do with respect to race, you will not be able to do legally with respect to same-sex unions and sexual immorality,” he said.
“Think of race in the context of religious expression or conscience expression and replace it with sexual immorality, transsexualism or so-called gender identity. For example, churches and other religious organizations are exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of federal, state or local nondiscrimination laws. But they are not exempted from the race provisions. So Catholics can hire Catholics, and Baptists can hire Baptists, but they cannot hire only ‘white’ Catholics or only ‘white’ Baptists. They would face significant penalties. You can’t have separate restrooms or drinking fountains for people of a different color. If a church did that they would be liable for a significant amount of damages because of discrimination on the basis of race.
“Same-sex marriage or laws including sexual orientation or gender identity as a non-discrimination category directly impact religious organizations and churches. If a man wants to use the women’s restroom and a church official told him he could not, then that act would be like telling people of color they cannot use the ‘white only’ restroom. You will also have the same issues with tax exemption over sexual preference as you have now over race,” he said.
The Alabama Supreme Court, in its own decision on marriage, cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor ruling, which struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The judges noted: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.”
The Alabama court wrote: “In Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”
But it then raised a question: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?
“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”
Cameron’s extremism orders ‘could criminalise traditional Christian teaching’
New measures to curb hate preachers could be a ‘disaster area’ for mainstream religions, says head of top Anglican theological college
Christian teachings could be “criminalised” by new anti-extremist banning orders, it is claimed Photo: Alamy
By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor
9:20AM BST 15 Jun 2015
Traditional Christian teaching could effectively be “criminalised” in some settings under David Cameron’s plans for new anti-extremist banning orders, a top Anglican theologian and former Parliamentary draftsman has warned.
The Rev Dr Mike Ovey, a former lawyer and now principal of Oak Hill Theological College in London, a training school for Church of England clergy, said proposals for new “Extremism Disruption Orders” could be a “disaster area” for people from all the mainstream religions and none.
Mr Cameron and Theresa May have signalled that the new orders, planned as part of the Government’s Counter-Extremism Bill, would not curb the activities of radical Islamist clerics but the promotion of other views deemed to go against “British values” even if it is non-violent and legal.
Ministers have defined British values in the past as including broad notions like democracy, tolerance and the rule of law.
In a speech last month Mr Cameron said that for too long Britain had been a “passively tolerant society” in which people were told “as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone”.
Dr Ovey warned that unless the criteria are tightly defined, the orders could be used against almost anyone and would have “chilling effect” on preachers and even call into question the curriculum of colleges such as his.
Even basic Christian tenets, such as the belief that Jesus is the son of God, could be deemed to offensive to other religions and branded un-British, he said.
It would also be easy to argue that there was a “clear trajectory” between, for example, teaching mainstream Christian ideas about subjects such as abortion and the actions of violent anti-abortion groups, he added.
Dr Ovey, who worked as a parliamentary draftsman in the 1980s when anti-terror legislation to deal with the IRA threat was being framed, said: “They are going to say this is far-fetched and will never happen.
“That is essentially a government saying trust us with your civil liberties.
“I would say frankly human experience tells us the last thing you ever want to do is trust a government with your civil liberties.”
“The Government is going around saying it is all a time of national emergency.
“I think I want to say we have been there before and got the T-shirt. It doesn't work.”
It follows a series of recent cases of Christian street preachers being arrested by overzealous police after complaints by people who claimed their traditionalist message was homophobic or condemnatory.
His comments came as an alliance free-speech campaigners, including faith groups and atheists prepare to launch a new campaign against the plan.
Last week Lord Blencathra, the Conservative peer, told the Lords that the orders could open the door to “idiot police forces arresting a couple of ladies from the WI and a traditionalist Church of England vicar who has said something radical — for example, that he actually believes in God”.
“But where do the problems really lie?” he said.
“Do we have Buddhist suicide bombers? Are there Free Presbyterians beheading Roman Catholics in Benbecula? Are there jihadi Jehovah’s Witnesses? Of course not, so who then deserves to be caught in this wide net of extremists?”
Dr Ovey added: “We don’t know what British values are other than whatever Theresa May decides on the particular Monday when she wakes up and has to make one of these orders.
“Having an inclusive definition is hopeless from a legal point of view.”
He went on: “Is a police officer going to listen to me saying that Jesus is the only way in a Muslim part of the East End?
“There is always the argument that it will be OK on the night, yes you might be arrested but you will be released – but there is always the thought that you won’t be.
“The thing with a law like this is that there are going to be some people saying I’m not going to run the risk and someone like me who is going to run the risk is going to look more extreme.
“As a lawyer I think it is a disaster area and as a Christian believer and teacher I think it is a disaster area.
“There has got be a better way to do it.”
Colin Hart, director of the Christian Institute, said: "You can’t protect democracy by taking powers which undermine the very foundation of democracy.
“EDOs and banning orders, promulgated in the name of ‘British values’, will fundamentally undermine the key British value of free speech.
“The cure is worse than the disease.”
CNA Daily News
What happens when an entire country becomes infested with demons?
June 16, 2015
Vatican City, Jun 16, 2015 / 03:09 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Can a country with deep Christian roots like Mexico find itself at the mercy of demons? Some in the Church fear so.
And as a result, they called for a nation-wide exorcism of Mexico, carried out quietly last month in the cathedral of San Luis Potosí.
High levels of violence, as well as drug cartels and abortion in the country, were the motivation behind the special rite of exorcism, known as “Exorcismo Magno.”
Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, the archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara, presided at the closed doors ceremony, the first ever in the history of Mexico.
Also participating were Archbishop Jesús Carlos Cabrero of San Luis Potosí, Spanish demonologist and exorcist Father José Antonio Fortea, and a smaller group of priests and lay people.
The event was not made known to the general public beforehand. According to Archbishop Cabrero, the reserved character of the May 20 ceremony was intended to avoid any misguided interpretations of the ritual.
But how can an entire country become infested by demons to the point that it’s necessary to resort to an Exorcismo Magno?
“To the extent sin increases more and more in a country, to that extent it becomes easier for the demons to tempt (people),” Fr. Fortea told CNA.
The Spanish exorcist warned that “to the extent there is more witchcraft and Satanism going on in a country, to that extent there will be more extraordinary manifestations of those powers of darkness.”
Fr. Fortea said that “the exorcism performed in San Luís Potosí is the first ever carried out in Mexico in which the exorcists came from different parts of the country and gathered together to exorcise the powers of darkness, not from a person, but from the whole country.”
“This rite of exorcism, beautiful and liturgical, had never before taken place in any part of the world. Although it had taken place in a private manner as when Saint Francis (exorcised) the Italian city of Arezzo,” he stated.
The Spanish exorcist explained, however, that the celebration of this ritual will not automatically change the difficult situation Mexico is going through in a single day.
“It would be a big mistake to think that by performing a full scale exorcism of the country everything would automatically change right away.”
Nevertheless, he emphasized that “if with the power we’ve received from Christ we expel the demons from a country, this will certainly have positive repercussions, because we’ll make a great number of the tempters flee, even if this exorcism is partial.”
“We don’t drive out all the evil spirits from a country with just one ceremony. But even though all will not be expelled, those that were removed are not there anymore.”
Fr. Fortea emphasized that “when the exorcists of a country drive out its demons, it has to be done in faith. You’re not going to see anything, feel anything, there’s not going to be any extraordinary phenomenon. We have to have faith that God conferred on the apostles a power, and that we can use this power.”
“In any case, if this ritual were to be carried out in more countries once year, before or after, this would put an end to any extraordinary manifestations which would show us the rage of the devil. Because, without a doubt, the demons hate to be driven out of a place or to be bound with the power of Christ.”
The Spanish exorcist said that “it would be very desirable that when there’s an annual meeting of exorcists in a country, a ritual such as this exorcismo magno that took place in Mexico be performed.”
He also emphasized that a bishop “can authorize its occurrence once a year with his priests in the cathedral.”
“The bishop is the shepherd and he can use the power he has received to drive away the invisible wolves from the sheep, since Satan is like a roaring lion prowling around looking for someone to devour, and the shepherds can drive away the predator from the victim,” he concluded.
The New York Times
Pope Francis, in Sweeping Encyclical, Calls for Swift Action on Climate Change
By JIM YARDLEY and LAURIE GOODSTEINJUNE 18, 2015
Pope Francis was greeted by crowds at St. Peter’s Square this week.
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis on Thursday called for a radical transformation of politics, economics and individual lifestyles to confront environmental degradation and climate change, as his much-awaited papal encyclical blended a biting critique of consumerism and irresponsible development with a plea for swift and unified global action.
The vision that Francis outlined in the 184-page encyclical is sweeping in ambition and scope: He described a relentless exploitation and destruction of the environment, for which he blamed apathy, the reckless pursuit of profits, excessive faith in technology and political shortsightedness. The most vulnerable victims are the world’s poorest people, he declared, who are being dislocated and disregarded.
The first pope from the developing world, Francis, an Argentine, used the encyclical — titled “Laudato Si’,” or “Praise Be to You” — to highlight the crisis posed by climate change. He placed most of the blame on fossil fuels and human activity while warning of an “unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequence for all of us” if swift action is not taken. Developed, industrialized countries were mostly responsible, he said, and were obligated to help poorer nations confront the crisis.
“Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods,” he wrote. “It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.”
The Vatican released the encyclical at noon on Thursday, following a heavily attended news conference and amid widespread global interest. Vatican officials were infuriated after an Italian magazine on Monday posted a leaked draft of the encyclical online — one that almost exactly matched the final document. The breach led to speculation that opponents of Francis inside the Vatican wanted to embarrass him by undermining the planned rollout.
But on Thursday, religious figures, environmentalists, scientists, elected officials and corporate executives around the world were awaiting the official release of the encyclical, with many of them scheduling later news conferences or preparing statements to discuss it. Media interest was enormous, partly because of Francis’ global popularity, but also because this was the first time that a pope had written an encyclical about environmental damage — and because of the intriguing coalition he is proposing between faith and science.
“Humanity is faced with a crucial challenge that requires the development of adequate policies, which, moreover, are currently being discussed on the global agenda,” Cardinal Peter Turkson said during the morning news conference at the Vatican. “Certainly, Laudato Si’ can and must have an impact on important and urgent decisions to be made in this area.”
In the news conference, Cardinal Turkson said that Francis had already noted that humanity had played a role in climate change. He said that there was “heated debate” on the topic and that Francis was not trying to intervene in that.
Francis has made clear that he hopes the encyclical will influence energy and economic policy and stir a global movement. He calls on ordinary people to pressure politicians for change. Bishops and priests around the world are expected to lead discussions on the encyclical in services on Sunday. But Francis is also reaching for a wider audience when in the first pages of the document he asks “to address every person living on this planet.”
Even before the release, Francis’ unflinching stance against environmental destruction, and his demand for global action, had already thrilled many scientists. In recent weeks, advocates of policies to combat climate change have expressed hope that Francis could lend a “moral dimension” to the debate, because winning scientific arguments was different from moving people to action.
“Within the scientific community, there is almost a code of honor that you will never transgress the red line between pure analysis and moral issues,” said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and chairman of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a leading European climate scientist. “But we are now in a situation where we have to think about the consequences of our insight for society.”
Yet Francis has also been sharply criticized by those who question or deny the established science of human-caused climate change and also by some conservative Roman Catholics, who have interpreted the document as an attack on capitalism and as unwanted political meddling at a moment when climate change is high on the global agenda.
Governments are now crafting domestic climate change plans before December’s United Nations summit meeting on climate change in Paris. The goal of the meeting is to achieve the first sweeping global accord in which every nation on earth would commit to enacting new policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Many governments have yet to present plans, including major emitters like Brazil, which also has a large Catholic population. The encyclical is seen as an unsubtle nudge for action, even as it provides support for leaders faced with tough choices in countries with large numbers of Catholics.
“It gives a lot of cover to political and economic leaders in those countries, as they make decisions on climate change policy,” said Timothy Wirth, vice chairman of the United Nations Foundation.
Catholic theologians say the overarching theme of the encyclical is “integral ecology,” which links care for the environment with a notion already well developed in Catholic teaching — that economic development, to be morally good and just, must take into account the need of human beings for things such as freedom, education and meaningful work.
“The basic idea is, in order to love God, you have to love your fellow human beings, and you have to love and care for the rest of creation,” said Vincent Miller, who holds a chair in Catholic theology and culture at the University of Dayton, a Catholic college in Ohio. “It gives Francis a very traditional basis to argue for the inclusion of environmental concern at the center of Christian faith.”
He added: “Critics will say the church can’t teach policy, the church can’t teach politics. And Francis is saying, ‘No, these things are at the core of the church’s teaching.’”
Francis has drawn from a wide variety of sources, partly to buttress his arguments, partly to underscore the universality of his message. He regularly cites passages from his two predecessors, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, even as he also draws prominently from his religious ally, Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, leader of the world’s Eastern Orthodox Christians. He also cites a Sufi Muslim mystic, Ali al-Khawas.
Francis begins the encyclical with a hymn written by St. Francis of Assisi, the 13th-century friar who is the patron saint of animals and the environment. Francis cites the Bible’s book of Genesis to underpin his theological argument, though in a passage certain to rankle some Christians, he chastises those who cite Genesis as evidence that man has “dominion” over earth and therefore an unlimited right to its resources. Some believers have used this biblical understanding of “dominion” to justify practices such as mountaintop mining or fishing with gill nets.
“This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church,” Francis wrote. The Bible teaches human beings to “till and keep” the garden of the world, he said: “‘Tilling’ refers to cultivating, plowing or working, while ‘keeping’ means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving.”
His most stinging rebuke is a broad economic and political critique of profit-seeking and the undue influence of technology on society. He praised the progress achieved by economic growth and technology, singling out achievements in medicine, science and engineering. But, he added, “Our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.”
Central to Francis’ theme is the linkage between the poor and the fragility of the planet. He rejects the belief that technology and “current economics” will solve environmental problems or “that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth.” He cites finance as having a distorting influence on politics and calls for government action, international regulation and a spiritual and cultural awakening to “recover depth in life.”
Amid the broad themes, Francis also touches on a wide range of specific topics, from urban planning (calling for better neighborhoods for the poor) and agricultural economics (warning against the reach of huge agribusinesses that push family farmers off their land) to conservation and biodiversity (with calls to protect the Amazon and Congo basins), and even offers up small passages of media and architecture criticism.
“A huge indictment I see in this encyclical is that people have lost their sense of ultimate and proper goals of technology and economics,” said Christiana Z. Peppard, an assistant professor of theology, science and ethics at Fordham University in New York. “We are focused on short-term, consumerist patterns, and have allowed technological and economic paradigms to tell us what our values ought to be.”
Encyclicals are letters to clergy members and laity of the church that are considered authoritative papal teaching documents. Catholics are expected to try to sincerely embrace the teaching and moral judgments within. But while broad moral principles are widely considered to be binding, more specific assertions can be categorized as “prudential judgments” — a phrase some critics have invoked to reject Francis’ positions on hot-button issues like climate change or economic inequality.
Many conservatives will be pleased, however, because Francis also included a strong criticism of abortion while also belittling the argument that population control represented a solution to limited resources and poverty. However, he sharply criticized carbon credits — the financial instruments now central to the European Union’s current climate change policy — as a tool that “may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors.”
Above all, Francis has framed the encyclical as a call to action, imbuing environmental protection with a theological and spiritual foundation. He praises the younger generations for being ready for change and said “enforceable international agreements are urgently needed.” He cited Benedict in saying that advanced societies “must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency.”
“All is not lost,” he wrote. “Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start.”
Jim Yardley reported from Vatican City, and Laurie Goodstein from New York. Gaia Pianigiani contributed reporting from Rome, Coral Davenport from Washington, and Justin Gillis from New York.
CLIMATE EXPERT: MARXISTS, GLOBAL WARMING EXTREMISTS CONTROL VATICAN
by ROBERT WILDE13 Jun 20151150
Lord Christopher Monckton, chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute and expert for the Heartland Institute, joined Breitbart News Saturday on Sirius XM Patriot Radio.
The Economist called the Heartland Institute “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”
Monckton has held positions with the British press and in government, as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office in the UK, and as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s policy advisor.
In 1986, Monckton was among the first to advise the prime minister that “global warming” caused by carbon dioxide should be investigated. Monckton has since become a vocal advocate that global warming — subsequently called climate change, most recently camouflaged by the term “sustainable development,” doesn’t exist.
Lord Monckton told BNS co-hosts Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Marlow that, judging by Hillary Clinton’s re-launch speech on Saturday in New York, he doesn’t expect her to give much attention to climate change in her 2016 presidential run.
The topic of climate change is “beginning to smell like a Kipper that went behind the radiator and has been there too long,” Monckton jibed. “I don’t think they’re going to play this very big. Obama’s done it because everything else he’s touched has failed.”
Monckton believes the Obama administration is spending vast amounts of money on “trashing their own economy by driving every steelworks and aluminum works overseas, by not allowing the development of the XL pipeline, interfering with fracking, and establishing a war on coal.” He contends that all of this has had “catastrophic effects on the jobs of the very people that will be foolishly voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016.”
Bannon asked Monckton why does he believe Pope Francis is getting involved in the climate change movement, which he is about to justify in a Vatican encyclical this week.
Monckton explained that if one looks at the book of Genesis (“with dominion over the earth comes responsibility”) and heroes of the church like St. Francis of Assisi, taking care of the earth has always been “part of established Catholic social teachings. Nothing new in any of that. But what happened was a communist managed to get control of the pontifical academies of sciences and social sciences—Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.”
According to Monckton, Sorondo is an “out and out marxist who decided that climate change was useful to marxism.” Monckton said that Sorondo could care less whether climate change is true or not. He ignored information from the Vatican’s most influential scientists demonstrating that global warming was more theoretical than empirical.
Francis, who was brought up in the Communist tradition of liberation theology in Latin America, encourages Sorondo. Previous popes like John Paul II and Benedict believed you have to let skeptics have their say. Pope Francis, Monckton argues, lets Sorondo dominate his head exclusively.
Monckton further explained that Francis is influenced by extremist Professor John Schnellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who said in 2009 at a climate conference in Copenhagen that if we let global warming continue, six billion of the seven billion people on earth will be killed by it.
Monckton said that Schnellnhuber will be standing by the side of Pope Francis when they announce the encyclical next week. “The fact that Schnellnhuber is going to be there is an extremely bad sign,” he declared.
The influence that Schnellnhuber may have had over the papal letter worries Monckton. The fact that he will be there next to the pope suggests to Monckton that Francis is thanking him for having written the climate portion of the encyclical.
Rabbi Receives Heavenly Message in the Cave of Elijah the Prophet
By Rivkah Lambert Adler June 12, 2015 , 9:00 am
“And he came there to the cave, and he lodged there. And behold! The word of the Lord came to him. And He said to him: “What are you doing here, Elijah?” (1 Kings 19:9)
Rabbi Amram Vaknin (Photo: Adam Alioa)
On the morning of Tuesday, June 9, Israeli mystic Rabbi Amram Vaknin, led a prayer service at the Cave of Elijah the Prophet in Haifa, Israel, along with approximately 30 Jewish men and 30 Jewish women, to pray for the welfare of the Jewish people.
Gil Nachman, an aide to the Rabbi and
an eyewitness, told Breaking Israel News that at approximately 11:30
AM, Rabbi Amram Vaknin suddenly fell to the ground, into the mud and
water on the floor of the cave.
In this world, Rabbi Vaknin was lying on the floor, but what happened in that cave, according to Nachman, “was above this world. The rabbi received a message for the Jewish people from Eliyahu haNavi (Elijah the Prophet) that there is a decree from Heaven that war will be starting in the south of Israel, will move to the north of Israel and will continue inside of Israel. Thousands of people will die, God-forbid.”
All Jewish people throughout the world are being urgently requested to unite, to pray together in groups, to fast and to give charity in order to avert this decree. Jews are being urged to direct the power of their prayer to beg God to have mercy on the Jewish nation.
Further, according to Nachman, people are being asked to polish their character traits, their fear of Heaven and to improve their interpersonal interactions, in order to change the decree in Heaven.
In an interview with Breaking Israel News, Nachman, speaking for Rabbi Vaknin, passionately appealed to the Jewish people to unite. “We have to be together! No matter what a person wears on the outside, we have to have the intention to love one another.”
Yehudis Schamroth of Beit Shemesh, Israel began attending Rabbi Vaknin’s prayer gatherings six months ago. She told Breaking Israel News, “I first went to Rabbi Vaknin for brachot (blessings) for me and my family. He took a genuine interest in me in a grandfatherly way. He became especially animated in conversation when I asked him how I could help bring along the geula (the final redemption of the Jewish people).”
Rabbi Vaknin, a 76 year-old mystic who lives in striking poverty in the port city of Ashdod, comes from a family of mystics. His mother and his grandmother had the same gift of receiving revelations from Heaven.
Through these messages, Rabbi Vaknin accurately predicted the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” in May, 2010, the deadly fire in the Carmel forest in December of 2010 as well as Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012 and Operation Protective Edge in 2014.
In the coming days, Rabbi Vaknin is expect to announce a large prayer gathering in Israel. Although a video of the revelation was posted to Facebook, it is difficult to understand. Nachman told Breaking Israel News that some Hebrew subtitles have been added..
The location where this message was received by Rabbi Vaknin is significant. The cave is the very place where God spoke to Elijah when he was hiding from King Ahab and Queen Jezebel.
Further, in Jewish tradition, it will be Elijah the Prophet who announces the ultimate redemption of the Jewish people.
REAL CLEAR WORLD
ISIS Could Win. Here's What that Means
By Ronald Tiersky
June 9, 2015
The feeling is growing in the international commentariat that the Islamic State may win: That the group will continue to gain territory in Syria and Iraq and will consolidate a permanent government, a state ensconced in the Islamic caliphate its leadership has proclaimed. I ended a recent article on a note of bravado, writing that in spite of its successes on the battlefield and elsewhere, it remains all but certain that Islamic State will ultimately be ground up and destroyed. Today I am less certain, and I have started to imagine what would happen if ISIS actually prevails.
I am reconsidering for a simple reason: U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter's contention that the Iraqi government's military forces show "no will to fight." In a June 1 editorial titled "Who's willing to fight for Iraq?" the New York Times suggested that if Baghdad's military is unwilling or unable to defeat ISIS - if it is outgunned, out-organized, out-strategized and, one must add, terrorized by ISIS savagery - outsiders should stay out. No boots on the ground, no escalation of air strikes; let us limit wasted resources.
What would result from an ISIS victory? First, an official Sunni Muslim state would be consolidated, straddling the post-World War I Sykes-Picot Syria-Iraq border whose very existence exemplifies for the Islamic State how Middle Eastern geopolitics was unilaterally rearranged by European powers. The battlefield would decide exactly how much of Syria and how much of Iraq would fall under the state's control. In Iraq, the Islamic State would incorporate all Arab Sunni areas, beginning with Anbar, the largest Iraqi province. Kurdistan would be left alone, at least for the time being. The Peshmerga army, beefed up by the United States and highly motivated because the Kurdish fighters are defending their own territory, would be a fierce opponent for ISIS, whose leaders are rational strategists.
Iraq south of Baghdad - that is, the country's Shiite-dominated area - would also be left unchallenged for the time being. ISIS is a Sunni entity and aspires to destroy Shiism worldwide, but, like the Peshmerga, Iraq's Shiite militias are battle-ready, and they hate Islamic State viscerally. Moreover, there is the Iran factor. Tehran is backing Iraqi Shiites - providing weapons and personnel - and ISIS will not want to challenge Iran, so will avoid attacking Iraqi Shiite territory. Whether to target Baghdad itself will be a strategic decision for ISIS. (Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass considers Baghdad already part of a Greater Iran.) Turkey, for its part, has already accepted Islamic State control over substantial territory along the Turkish-Syrian border. Ankara did not engage ISIS when the group attacked the Syrian Kurdish border town of Kobani, and Ankara has little reason to fight to save Syrian territory now, especially since it wants the Assad regime demolished. A victorious ISIS furthermore would have defeated and/or incorporated the various anti-Assad rebel groups, including the so-called moderates as well as al Qaeda-linked formations.
Nevertheless, as with Turkey, the Islamic State logically at some future point would attack Iran. The Islamic State's goal is to reign over the entire Muslim world of believers, the umma, in a Sunni caliphate centered on Sunni beliefs and Sunni interpretations of the Koran. Iranian society is Persian and overwhelmingly Shiite; Turkey is Sunni, but comprises mainly Turkic peoples, along with a Kurdish minority accounting for 15 percent of the population.
One must also eventually consider nuclear proliferation issues, and question the Islamic State's relation to the nuclearization of the Middle East. Would an ambitious Islamic State not require nuclear weapons to face Iran (and Saudi Arabia)? What would the United States and Israel do if it began to pursue them?
A Regional Breakdown
If ISIS wins its wars in Iraq and Syria, Iraq will have effectively broken down into its three historical ethnic-religious regions: a majority-Shiite south, a Sunni-Kurdish north, and a Sunni-Arab west. An international conference to legally redraw boundaries would be unnecessary and in any case anathema, to the Islamic State and outside powers alike.
For Washington, Tehran, Ankara, and the Europeans, considering whether to intervene decisively in Syria and Iraq means thinking not only about who is willing to fight, but also about who is willing to pay to rebuild those societies if ISIS is crushed. The re-establishment of institutions and infrastructure is a huge enough task, and it is but one aspect. The human dimensions are much greater: It is estimated that half of Syria's population is displaced, most of them living somewhere on the national territory, but with millions of others living in other countries - for example Turkey and Jordan, which also house large Palestinian refugee populations. Adequate food, housing, and medical and energy services are necessary - not to mention getting hundreds of thousands of children back into schools that would need to be rebuilt. (Several months ago it was estimated that the Islamic State had about 600,000 children in its grasp, educating them in a Sharia-based curriculum.) How many exiled Syrians and Iraqis would return home from abroad is an open question.
Outside governments and international organizations might take on this burden for humanitarian and geopolitical reasons. But rebuilding, indeed recreating nations in Syria and Iraq would be a monumental project at a monumental cost that would require a commitment of many years, if not decades, and these countries have their own priorities as well.
Looking at things as they really are, it is obvious that the only government (or other organized force) willing, indeed eager, to take on this job is the Islamic State. That's the whole point for them: to assume the burdens of victory, which would, after an orgy of violence, prove their integrity of purpose. Providing food, health care, and housing is defined as such in their "mission statements," along with committing any savagery necessary to (in U.S. military terminology) "clean and hold."
These calculations would explain the evident but tacit foreign policy shared by Washington, Tehran, and Ankara: Stay out and keep clear. Provide money and face-saving air and ground engagement, but let the war play out among the locals and plan for a future Middle East encompassing a powerful, dangerous, and unpredictable state hostile to everyone else. This includes extreme wariness about negotiating with it, which will be an issue at some point.
If this came to pass, displaced Syrians and Iraqis throughout those countries and the region would have to decide whether to continue their precarious lives among strangers or return home to life in a Sharia society run by Islamic State rules. Some might look to the city of Mosul, where ISIS for almost a year has run the municipality without collapse or great violence, presenting it as a prefiguration of caliphate society. ISIS in power provides jobs and pays salaries on time, whether to local officials or its fighters on the battlefield. Outside the region, everyone - and especially Americans for whom everything about Islam is unknown - should be aware that even for people who hate Islamists, ISIS rule offers a kind of stability. Comparable cases abound both in history and in the contemporary world.
YOU’VE BEEN WARNED – CALLS FOR MANDATORY “NATIONAL SERVICE” FOR AMERICANS AGED 18-28 HAS BEGUN
The statists are coming for your kids, and the conditioning has already begun
by MICHAEL KRIEGER JUNE 18, 2015
War is a Racket
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
– From Major General Smedley Butler’s War is a Rackett
This is one of the most important articles I will write all year. The statists are coming for your kids, and the conditioning has already begun.
Last night, I came across one of the most horrifying articles I have ever read, which is saying a lot. Before I get into it, take a look at the title and the tagline:
If you think the title is bad, wait until you read the article. What becomes evident is that this grotesque concept of forced “national service” is being actively discussed at the highest levels of government. What Ron Fournier is doing in his National Journal article is conditioning the public to accept something that is completely unacceptable.
Before we get to that, who is Ron Fournier? National Journal provides a bio:
Ron Fournier is the Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director of National Journal. Prior to joining NJ, he worked at the Associated Press for 20 years, most recently as Washington Bureau Chief. A Detroit native, Fournier began his career in Arkansas, first with the Hot Springs Sentinel-Record and then with the Arkansas Democrat and the AP, where he covered the state legislature and Gov. Bill Clinton. In January 1993, Fournier moved to Washington, where he covered the White House and presidential campaigns for the AP.
So basically, this guy covered Bill Clinton in Arkansas, moved to the District of Criminals after he was elected President, and now wants to convince you to subject your innocent children into mandatory service to a nation provably run by corrupt criminals and oligarchs.
It sure is some twisted notion of “shared sacrifice,” when those who had nothing to do with the disastrous choices made by the oligarchy are the ones who have to suffer the consequences.
Let’s now take this piece of Nazi-esque propaganda apart piece by piece. From the National Journal:
I know a better way to fight ISIS. It starts with an idea that should appeal the better angels of both hawks and doves: National service for all 18- to 28-year-olds.
Require virtually every young American—the civic-minded millennial generation—to complete a year of service through programs such as Teach for America, AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, or the U.S. military, and two things will happen:
First of all, he confidently proclaims that this scheme will appeal to both hawks and doves. Based on what evidence? Let me provide some evidence against his argument based on a recent Rasmussen poll that 45% of U.S. Voters Concerned Government Will Use Military Training Exercises for Power Grab. Here’s an excerpt from the findings:
Just 20% of voters now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty. Sixty percent (60%) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead. Only 19% trust the federal government to do the right thing all or most of the time.
So the American public has no confidence in government, but somehow they are going to gladly line up to serve the corrupt oligarchy? Of course not, which is why people like Ron Fornier want to make it mandatory. Now back to the piece…
1. Virtually every American family will become intimately invested in the nation’s biggest challenges, including poverty, education, income inequality, and America’s place in a world afire.
2. Military recruiting will rise to meet threats posed by ISIS and other terrorist networks, giving more people skin in a very dangerous game.
This may seem like a radical plan until you compare it with two alternatives: the status quo, which clearly isn’t working, or a military draft, which might be the boldest and fairest way to wage the long war against Islamic extremists.
Notice how he offers us only three options, as if that is all the imaginative well of humanity is capable of coming up with. Forced national service, the status quo or a draft. Nowhere does he offer the logical alternative of say: stop preemptively invading and destroying countries for no reason (Iraq, Libya to name a few). Perhaps then idiotic foreign policy decisions won’t create ISIS in the first place.
This is an important lesson in how statists operate. They only offer you statist choices. Kind of like being forced to choose between a Clinton and a Bush for President.
The Draft Act is highly unlikely to be law, given the nation’s post-Vietnam resistance to the mandatory military service and the relative success of an all-volunteer armed forces. Which leads me to the year-of-service plan: It stops far short of a draft while drawing on the ethos of communal sacrifice.
Notice how he cleverly started the piece by mentioning the Peace Corps, Teach for America, etc, and only listed the military at the end? Pure smoke and mirrors. His entire point is to push for mandatory military service. No one wants to fight any more unnecessary wars to boost corporate profits, and any statist worth his or her salt knows full well mandatory conscription will be necessary in order to maintain the power position and wealth of the status quo going forward.
Finally, just in case you think this is merely some hack journalist mouthing off, Mr. Fournier makes it clear that this is being discussed at the highest levels of government.
I spoke about the concept with retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commanded forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and now chairs the Franklin Project, part of the Aspen Institute that is trying to position a year of full-time national service—a service year—as a “cultural expectation, a common opportunity, and a civic rite of passage for every young American.” His logic tracks with mine.
Second, if this president or his successor gets serious about ISIS, McChrystal said the effort would require an international coalition and more U.S. troops. “Even if we didn’t need a draft” to drum up the required troops, McChrystal said, “I would argue we need a draft, because it forces national commitment.”
Forced national commitment to a government nobody believes in. Can’t wait to see how that works out.
“A problem in America is we’ve let the concept of citizenship diminish into a series of gripes,” McChrystal told me. “One of the ways we can rebuild that sense of ownership, sense of shared ownership, is through experience, and so I believe that every young person deserves—I don’t think this is an onerous thing—deserves the experience of being part of something bigger than themselves.”
No General McChrystal, we have let the concept of democracy diminish into a corrupt, thieving oligarchy. In case you need proof: New Report from Princeton and Northwestern Proves It: The U.S. is an Oligarchy.
Furthermore, you don’t “rebuild ownership” by forcing citizens to serve an oligarchy they hate, you “rebuild ownership” by dismantling the oligarchy.
Bowing to political realities in risk-averse Washington, the Franklin Project aims to make a service year a social expectation rather than a legal requirement. I would mandate it. So would McChrystal—if he had his way.
Statists gonna state.
While ISIS and other terrorist groups are having no trouble recruiting suicide bombers, McChrystal said, Americans are struggling to redefine their national identity for the 21st century. “A year of service for young Americans would be a step,” he said. “Not a panacea, a step.”
This paragraph unintentionally says a lot. You want to fight an army of radical volunteers created by your own foreign policy crimes by forcing people who have no trust in their government to join the military? It’s an idea so stupid and destructive, only a rabid statist could conceive it.
Before concluding, I want to emphasize how dangerous this line of thinking is. It is precisely because I see these sorts of things coming down the road, that I do what I do with this website. The only way to stop statist plans like these is to win the war of ideas before they have a chance to dazzle you with their next bit of propaganda.
Stay vigilant and keep fighting.
FARS News Agency
Saudi Arabia's Najran Tribes Declare War on Riyadh
Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:23
TEHRAN (FNA)- The tribal people living in the Saudi border city of Najran in a statement voiced opposition to Riyadh's strikes on Yemen and declared war against the Saudi regime.
"The Najran tribes in a statement declared war against the occupying Saudi regime, stressing that the House of Saud represents corruption on the Earth and sheds the bloods of innocent people across the globe in a very routine and normal manner," activist Abdulaziz Farid told FNA on Monday.
According to Farid, the statement also added that "the seditionist Saudi regime wants to turn the Najran region into the forefront of war against its brothers and neighbors and has used this region for artillery attacks against Yemen since the second week of the war" on the Yemeni people.
He underlined that the tribes in Najran will rise against the Saudi regime for its aggression against Yemen and will fight against the Saudi forces.
His remarks came after Saudi Minister of the National Guard Mutaib bin Abdullah sent gifts, worth several millions of Rials, to the Arab sheikhs in Najran in the Southeastern parts of the country to dissuade them from hosting and supporting Yemen's Ansarullah movement.
Yemen's Khabar news agency reported last week that Mutaib has paid 1mln Saudi rials (approximately 250,000 US dollar) to each tribal leaders and sheikhs in Najran along with an appreciation letter to keep them on Riyadh's side.
The Saudi activists have released documents showing one-million-rial checks sent for Hossein Mahdi al-Haidar, Massoud Bin Mahdi al-Haidar, Sal Ibn Naji and others who are among the Nijran leaders.
The Najran tribes' statement in opposition to using the region as a frontline to attack Yemen showed that their leaders have not accepted the checks.
Also yesterday reports said that a large number of Saudi nationals are on the verge of starvation as a result of intensified attacks by the Yemeni forces on the border regions and the Riyadh government's lack of attention.
"As the clashes between the Yemeni revolutionary forces and Saudi forces have intensified in Najran province in Southwestern Saudi Arabia and near the border with Yemen in recent days, hundreds of residents of border regions who have fled the fighting are facing famine due to an acute shortage of foodstuff," Talal Ahmed, a Saudi political activist, told FNA on Sunday.
He underlined that a large number of families in the border regions of Saudi Arabia cannot meet their daily needs, and complained that "the Saudi army has looted the houses of these people".
US Gov’t Contractor: Fukushima so fragile it can turn globally catastrophic at any moment — Concern about impact to West Coast from another meltdown — Danger of something “far worse” than initial event — “Substantial risk to stability of Asia-Pacific” — National Lab: Fukushima already a global disaster.
Senior Scientist: “Birds in such bad condition” off West Coast — Zero babies survive on islands, usually over 15,000 — “Extremely poor” breeding success… they didn’t even try.
Alarms raised on West Coast over unprecedented die-off of nearly endangered marine mammals — More have washed up in last few months than during all of recorded history combined — Experts scrambling to deal with latest wildlife crisis in Pacific — Official: “What’s going to happen next?”
Japan Scientists: High radiation levels near West Coast after Fukushima disaster — Almost 30 Bq/m3 of cesium offshore — Secret documents reveal US gov’t previously ordered radiation test results in Pacific be hidden to avoid contamination fears.
GREEKS REFUSE TO PAY DEBT, DECLARE IT “ILLEGAL, ILLEGITIMATE, AND ODIOUS”
Other nations will now likely demand their debt be declared odious
by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM | JUNE 17, 2015
A committee formed by the speaker of the Greek parliament and Syriza member, Zoi Konstantopoulou, has released a report stating that the debt the IMF and the Europeans insist the people of Greece owe to the bankers is “illegal, illegitimate and odious.”
Here is the conclusion from the report:
All the evidence we present in this report shows that Greece not only does not have the ability to pay this debt, but also should not pay this debt first and foremost because the debt emerging from the Troika’s arrangements is a direct infringement on the fundamental human rights of the residents of Greece. Hence, we came to the conclusion that Greece should not pay this debt because it is illegal, illegitimate, and odious.
The debt payment is due in two weeks.
Zero Hedge writes that “this has just thrown a very unique wrench in the spokes of not only the Greek debt negotiations, but all other peripheral European nations’ Greek negotiations, who will promptly demand that their debt be, likewise, declared odious, and made null and void, thus washing their hands of servicing it again.”
Eurozone bosses will now attend an emergency meeting in Brussels and discuss the crisis. The Troika will probably attempt to seize Greek assets or take its case to the Hague, reactions that will likely prove to be futile.
The refusal to pay the IMF will undoubtedly lead to Greek’s exit from the euro and the European Union.
Russia calls investigation into whether US moon landings happened
Russia is suspicious over missing scientific evidence
Thursday 18 June 2015
The increasingly tense relationship between the United States and Russia might be about to face a new challenge: a Russian investigation into American moon landings.
In an op-ed published by Russian newspaper Izvestia, Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the government's official Investigative Committee, argued that such an investigation could reveal new insights into the historical space journeys.
According to a translation by the Moscow Times, Markin would support an inquiry into the disappearance of original footage from the first moon landing in 1969 and the whereabouts of lunar rock, which was brought back to Earth during several missions.
“We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened,” Markin wrote, according to the Moscow Times translation.
The op-ed is unlikely to raise worries among Nasa officials. In 2009, Nasa itself admitted that it had erased the original video recordings of the first moon landing among 200,000 other tapes in order to save money, according to Reuters. However, Nasa has since restored copies of the landing, using recordings from other sources such as CBS News. The organization says that due to restoration efforts, the recordings' quality is superior to the original one that has gone missing.
Nasa did also emphasize the uniqueness of lunar soil and rock in the past. “They differ from Earth rocks in many respects,” David McKay, chief scientist for planetary science and exploration at Nasa's Johnson Space Center, where most of the material is stored, was quoted as saying by Nasa's website in 2001.
So, why is Investigative Committee member Markin speculating about conspiracy theories surrounding US moon landings that happened decades ago? In his op-ed, the Russian official also emphasized that “US authorities had crossed a line by launching a large-scale corruption probe targeting nine Fifa officials,” according to the Moscow Times.
On June 2, Fifa President Sepp Blatter announced that he would eventually step down amid an ongoing investigation into widespread corruption at the organization. "US prosecutors have declared themselves the supreme arbiters of international football affairs," Markin complained in his op-ed. The official went on to argue that US investigators had confused political bargaining with corruption. He specifically referred to media speculation that former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder authorized military arms shipments to Saudi Arabia to help Germany win the 2006 World Cup bid.
Copyright: Washington Post
END OF THE AMERICAN DREAM
CALIFORNIA HAS NEVER EXPERIENCED A WATER CRISIS OF THIS MAGNITUDE – AND THE WORST IS YET TO COME
Things have never been this dry for this long in the recorded history of the state of California, and this has created an unprecedented water crisis
Image Credits: armaggeusa, Flickr.
by MICHAEL SNYDER JUNE 18, 2015
Things have never been this dry for this long in the recorded history of the state of California, and this has created an unprecedented water crisis. At this point, 1,900 wells have already gone completely dry in California, and some communities are not receiving any more water at all. As you read this article, 100 percent of the state is in some stage of drought, and there has been so little precipitation this year that some young children have never actually seen rain. This is already the worst multi-year drought in the history of the state of California, but this may only be just the beginning. Scientists tell us that the amount of rain that California received during the 20th century was highly unusual. In fact, they tell us that it was the wettest century for the state in at least 1000 years. Now that things are returning to “normal”, the state is completely and total unprepared for it. California has never experienced a water crisis of this magnitude, and other states in the western half of the nation are starting to really suffer as well. In the end, we could very well be headed forthe worst water crisis this country has ever seen.
When I said that some communities in California are not receiving any more water, I was not exaggerating. Just consider the following excerpt from one recent news report…
The community of Mountain House is days away from having no water at all after the state cut off its only water source.
Anthony Gordon saves drinking water just in case, even though he never thought it would come to this.
“My wife thinks I’m nuts. I have like 500 gallons of drinking water stored in my home,” he said.
The upscale community of Mountain House, west of Tracy, is days away from having no water. It’s not just about lawns—there may not be a drop for the 15,000 residents to drink.
So what are those people going to do?
And what is this going to do to the property values in that area?
Who in the world is going to want to buy a home that does not have running water coming to it?
Other communities throughout the state are pumping groundwater like crazy in a desperate attempt to continue with business as usual. In fact, it is being projected that groundwater will account for almost all water used in the entire state by the end of this year…
Underground aquifers supply 35 percent of the water used by humans worldwide. Demand is even greater in times of drought. Rain-starved California is currently tapping aquifers for 60 percent of its water use as its rivers and above-ground reservoirs dry up, a steep increase from the usual 40 percent. Some expect water from aquifers will account for virtually every drop of the state’s fresh water supply by year end.
But of course this creates a huge problem. When the groundwater is gone, it is gone for good. Those aquifers took centuries to fill up, and now they are being drained at a staggering rate. In some parts of the state, aquifers are being drained so fast that it is causing thousands of square miles of land to sink…
Californians have been draining water so rapidly from underground aquifers that tens of thousands of square miles of land reportedly are sinking — so drastically that the shifting surface is starting to destroy bridges and crack highways across the state, according to a recent report by the Center for Investigative Reporting.
So what is the solution?
Some of my readers have suggested that desalination is the answer. But the truth is that desalination is very expensive and it is really bad for the environment. The following comes from a recent Natural News article…
For those who are saying, “There’s no water problem in California! It has the entire Pacific Ocean right next door!”, you need to look into the catastrophic environmental destruction tied to ocean water desalination.
Not only does desalination use fossil fuels which emit the very same carbon emissions that the California government insists caused the drought in the first place, the desalination process itself pollutes the ocean with high concentration salt brine that kills marine ecosystems and destroys ocean life along the California coastline.
And that’s on top of all the Fukushima radiation that’s already causing a marine ecosystem collapse in many areas of the coast. Add more salt brine to the mix and you get a state where rich, self-entitled Hollywood celebrities demand their lush, green lawns at the expense of ocean life, climate change and the global ecosystem. If that happens, California will lose all credibility as a “green” state, and its wealthiest residents will be living an ecological lie.
Others have suggested that California can solve their water problems using “toilet to tap” technology…
Potable water reuse – or converting sewage effluent to heavily-treated, purified drinking water – is receiving renewed attention in California in the midst of the state’s four-year drought.
According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, “California water managers and environmentalists” are pushing the idea of recycled sewage water. Yet past efforts in the state to employ similar systems have stalled, as opponents have dubbed the concept “toilet to tap.”
How would you feel about that?
Would you be willing to have your family drink water that came from the toilets of your neighbors?
I don’t think that I could do that.
But something has to be done. It is not just the state of California that is experiencing a major water crisis. All over the world, underground aquifers are being drained rapidly. In fact, according to the Washington Post, 21 out of the 37 largest aquifers in the world “have passed their sustainability tipping points”…
The world’s largest underground aquifers – a source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people — are being depleted at alarming rates, according to new NASA satellite data that provides the most detailed picture yet of vital water reserves hidden under the Earth’s surface.
Twenty-one of the world’s 37 largest aquifers — in locations from India and China to the United States and France — have passed their sustainability tipping points, meaning more water was removed than replaced during the decade-long study period, researchers announced Tuesday. Thirteen aquifers declined at rates that put them into the most troubled category. The researchers said this indicated a long-term problem that’s likely to worsen as reliance on aquifers grows.
Sadly, this is just the beginning. There is a reason why experts refer to fresh water as “the new oil”. Without fresh water, none of us can survive. But we are very quickly getting to the point where there simply won’t be enough of it for everyone on the planet.
As for the state of California, it was once a desert and now it is turning back into a desert. As I mentioned earlier, the 20th century was the wettest century that part of North America had seen in at least 1000 years. During that time, we built enormous cities all over the Southwest that currently support millions upon millions of people. But now we are learning that those cities are not sustainable.
Until next week...keep on believing.
the heavens are shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned
against You, and they pray toward this place and confess Your name,
and turn from their sin when You afflict them; then hear in heaven
and forgive the sin of Your servants and Your people Israel, indeed,
teach them the good way in which they should walk. And send rain on
Your land which You have given to Your people for an inheritance.”
(2 Chronicles 6:26-27)