Monthly Archives: September 2015

Sundry Notes on the Pope, the President, the Donald, Dr. Carson, Mind Control, Tim Tebow, and Legion Field


Here are some short takes on sundry items on the news:

The president’s guest list for the Pope:   The president pokes the predominant and representative Christian religion in the world, the Catholic Church, in the eye with his guest list, which includes a bunch of prelates and theologians who stridently disagree with the Christian Catholic faith and want to shove their circus shows down people’s throats. If I were the Pope, I would just bypass the White House and converse with the faithful, who need uplifting and sound, sober teaching, especially in light of this country’s failed economic and foreign policies and dispiriting secularism, not the jabbering of a president who attended a “church” that preached violence and hate.

Calling Donald Trump’s not correcting a questioner’s comments a “failure”:   Don’t ever believe the media isn’t egregiously biased, including unfair and imbalanced Fox News. When they report that Trump “failed” to correct a questioner’s comments about Muslims and the president’s place of birth, you can see it for yourself. Who says Trump “failed”? By what standard? Why does Trump have a responsibility to correct the questioner? Let Fox and the other crony networks correct the questioner instead of funnel us to the political conclusions they want us to reach. See next item.

Muslims want Dr. Carson to drop out of the presidential primary race:   Dr. Carson said he would not want a Muslim to be the leader of the United States. I wouldn’t either. Their culture and religious beliefs are toxic and contradict our own Christian and cultural beliefs. Some pundits like to throw out that there is some moral prohibition to holding a man’s religion against him. How can a voter not consider the totality of a man’s beliefs? If you believe that people should convert to Islam or be killed, don’t you think that’s important to know, and don’t you think you would vote against a man who believed that?

And isn’t it funny how the two poll leaders in the Republican primary are being attacked right and left? Any chance the Republican establishment will keep squealing about Trump and Carson and whomever else they don’t want to win the nomination? You can see Bush standing in the shadows, calling in all the favors he can, wielding his wads of tens of millions in cash, plotting how to get rid of anyone in his path. He has little to offer, so he must work with his establishment friends to make sure an acceptable, Washington insider, establishment approved, same ole same ole candidate gets the nomination.

Don’t be controlled. See beyond. Make them accept the candidate YOU want.

Scott Walker:   Walker ended his quest for the presidency Monday. Good riddance. While he was around, he was bought and paid for by the Inner Powers. Hearing anyone, but especially himself, laud his support for the “hard working man” elicits derisive laughter. Do you mean like the teachers you crushed? Was wiping away their negotiating power supportive of teacher workers? How free is the market when only one side has the power to control everything? Like Bush, he likes to have ten guys around him when he goes to fight one guy. Bullies! They are utterly sickening!

Ideology:   Don’t let ideology alone determine your vote. And don’t let the insiders tell you what conservatism or liberalism or anything else is or has to be. You are the rank-and-file of any movement or party. You determine the ideology. Seek someone who promotes good, wise policies that benefit the most Americans, a balance between the need to profit and the need to do the right thing. Party platforms aren’t static. They change over time. Nothing has to stay the same.

The fat cats will always try to get inside your mind, take it over with nonstop marketing and advertising, and keep it in their intellectual dungeon. They want you to support the policies they want by getting you to think those policies equate to patriotism and love of liberty. They aim the other barrel of their shotgun at the people and policies they need to smear because those policies, if they were enacted, would prevent their unrestrained greed and self enlargement at the expense of the middle and lower classes. The battleground is your mind. Do not fall for their strategy and tactics. Safeguard your intellectual distinction and integrity.

Tim Tebow:   The sports world is abuzz with the possibility that a couple of teams who lost their starting quarterbacks to injury may reach out to Tim Tebow as a backup or possible starter. After demonstrating effectiveness and improved passing form and completion rate during the preseason, Philadelphia Eagles Head Coach Chip Kelly unceremoniously dumped Tebow – after praising him over and over in camp – saying he wasn’t good enough to be the Eagles third-string quarterback. Kelly brought in Jacksonville Jaguars castoff Stephen Morris to be the third. A few days later, Kelly dumped Morris. Then he brought in Thaddeus Lewis. Never heard of him. Who knows whether he’ll last. I’m just trying to understand how any coach thinks these guys are better than a QB with a proven, NFL winning record, including a playoff victory against the best pass defense in the league in 2011.

Amazing. Meanwhile, the quarterbacks Kelly did keep aren’t doing the job, and Kelly himself is talking about evaluating everyone, including starting QB Sam Bradford. So what was the purpose of training camp and the preseason?

What’s really astonishing is the vehemence and repetitiveness of the anti-Tebow commenters to stories of Tebow’s possible acquisition by the Bears or the Cowboys, or by some Eagles commenters. They loudly trumpet that Tebow is no good, not an NFL quarterback, can’t play quarterback, etc. How do they know? They don’t. They just repeat the things they have heard sports bozos say over and over again. Even funnier, they acknowledge how bad their own teams are or how bad their backup QBs are, but persist in thinking that bringing in a proven winner would create disaster! So Brandon Weeden, who bombed in quarterback-starved Cleveland, will take the reins in Dallas, and Jimmy Clausen, whom I like but who boasts a 1-10 record in games he started, will take over for the Bears. I will tell you one thing: Jay Cutler will never win a Super Bowl. In fact, he will never get to an NFC Championship game and probably not even the playoffs. And Peyton Manning will never win another Super Bowl. So Elway can keep searching for his miracle man. I think he already had him.

Legion Field in Birmingham, Alabama:   This stadium has been the second home of the Alabama Crimson Tide for years and hosted the U.S. Women’s National Team Victory Tour friendly soccer game against Haiti on Sunday, which our girls won, 8-0. As great as the USWNT is and plays, Legion Field stunk! It’s an old, decrepit looking stadium with a shoddy artificial field, off-color scoreboard monitor, worn scoreboard, high school-like concessions, lighting towers that are highly corroded and look as if they could collapse at any moment, a dumpy, high school-like dirt and gravel parking lot, no accommodation for shuttle buses – just a thoroughly, shockingly ugly and old giant gray shanty of a stadium!

I cannot believe Alabama, a team of great pride and accomplishment, ever plays at such a dirty, ramshackle facility. Shame on the city of Birmingham! Shame!


The F***ed Up Five


The social engineers who want to conform your mind to their contrived standards have won. Let no so-called conservative or Republican complain ever again about the shackles of political correctness. The panelists on The Five on Fox News Channel today, Friday, Sept. 18th, have anointed themselves guardians of the mouth and mind and officially endorsed that standard today on their show. They continue to raise the banner of Fox’s indefatigable effort to discredit the outsider candidates for the Republican nomination, most particularly Donald Trump.

The Republican establishment – which The Five represent, and who owe allegiance to the member of that establishment who employs them – want Trump out for two reasons: he isn’t sufficiently ideological, particularly to let corporate greed run rampant, and 2. he’s a billionaire, so they cannot control him with their weighty financial interests as they do others, including silver spoon Jeb! Bush.

How are they trying to discredit Trump now? While asking Trump a question, a man at a rally in New Hampshire commented publicly and on the audio-video record that President Obama was a Muslim. Here is the exact quote, with the questioner’s portion bolded and Trump’s response, which occasionally overran the questioner’s comment, in italics:

“We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one.”

“Right”, says Trump.

“We know he isn’t even an American. The birth certificate, man.”

“We need this question,” Trump says over the man as the man mentions the president’s birth certificate, a comment that went unfinished, with Trump adding with a chuckle, “This is the first question.”

“But, anyway, (longer pause) we have training camps growing where they want to kill us.”


“That’s my question: When can we get rid of them?”

“We are going to be looking at a lot of different things and, you know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.”

Trump then points as if to another person in the crowd to signal him to ask a question. I watched the video at the link below:

So what The Five and the other political pea shooters wanted to focus on in a question with vital ramifications was what they called Trump’s failure to correct the questioner about the president’s religious persuasion and country of birth.

Guess what? It’s not his job to correct them. They are the voters, and if they want to operate under certain beliefs, that is their business.

Secondly and more importantly, in regard to religious persuasion, Trump has no business – nor does any other candidate or anyone else – affirming that Obama is a Christian or is not a Muslim. Actions speak louder than words, and Jesus Christ, the Bethlehem-born Jew, said you would know your brothers and sisters in Christ by their fruits, i.e., their deeds.

If, in the opinion of some electors, Obama has failed to meet that standard, to convince voters by his behavior and speech that he is a Christian, that is his problem. Trump, and certainly not Hillary Clinton or Chris Christie, is not qualified to make that determination for another person. What testimony can he offer to prove Obama’s Christianity? Has not Obama himself called into question his own beliefs by his actions, attending a church in which the minister regularly spouted racial bigotry, advocated violence, and spat profane and filthy language?

That is only one case. People could interpret several actions by the president that help to create a sense that he is a closet Muslim, including the Iran deal, in which radical Islamic Iran, long identified as a state sponsor of terrorism, gets a package of benefits and the American people get… nothing; the trading of five terrorists for the deserter, Bowe Bergdahl, whose desertion got Americans killed; cooking the intelligence books to give the impression that terrorism in the Middle East has diminished; lashing Christians for a war fought against Muslim aggression, what, eight centuries ago! Meanwhile, Muslims across the globe continue to blow up people, rape women, rape and murder children, destroy childhoods, and mass murder Christians, yet the president seems unable or unwilling to say the phrase “radical Islamic terrorists.”

So when an American voter says he believes Obama is a Muslim, not a Christian, that’s the sense he has, and he has a right to hold it. Trump would be out of line correcting him

Do alternative answers exist that could explain at least some of the above-listed actions. Yes. In fact, each one may be explained individually, some by national security concerns, etc. And it is possible those national security interests prevent the president from providing a detailed or even sufficient account to satisfy voters.

However, the voters have to make up their own minds. Lashing Christians for an eight century old war against Muslims may have seemed to the president a way to balance perspectives for the Middle East context, but at best, it was weak and obsolete and catered to the Muslims’ superannuated “crusader” mindset. Coming off his attendance at a questionable “church”, the admonition created resentment among people trying to protect their loved ones in an age of bloodthirsty Islamic terrorism.

And it isn’t Trump’s job to defend Obama’s birth certificate. Let the president do it. He has huge government and party apparatuses. Better yet, let the facts speak for themselves. If a candidate or a voter wants to hang on to the notion that Obama was not born in these United States, then let the facts speak against him. The Five’s attack on Trump represents another piling on to a candidate that threatens the party’s establishment.

That said, voters aren’t the only ones who imagine that Obama brings a non-American intellectual influence to the native political conversation. If memory serves me correctly, Forbes or Fortune did a detailed analysis of the influence Obama’s Kenyan father had on the president’s political and economic philosophy. That and similar analyses and perceptions may not have the visceral effect and factual defect of the questioner’s expression on Obama’s birth certificate, but they say something very similar: we don’t trust the guy because of his outside influences.

It is precisely those influences, and the actions and statements Obama himself has made, that give voters the feel that he is not as American as they are, that he is acting more like a foreigner, that he places Islamic interests first and American interests second or third. Take offense at that, ridicule it, whatever, but in this time of religious, ethnic, racial, and cultural tumult, such impressions can hardly be unexpected. The American voters, at least on the conservative or Republican side, are telling the party they are not happy with the way things are and the direction in which the country is going. Ridiculing, writing off, and ignoring their disquiet and agitation will only make matters worse.

Political correction, aided and abetted by political bias and corporate puppetry, overran the reason of the members of The Five, with Kimberly Guilfoyle possibly excepted. She seemed to say at one point that we should be talking about terrorism and its dangers and effects rather than how Trump fielded a man’s question. Greg Gutfeld, who can be funny but who is perhaps the most stringent party establishment man of the group, incapable of flexibility or pragmatism, and a sock puppet for the conservative string-pullers, came down particularly hard on Trump – for the second day in a row – because of his (Gutfeld’s) distinct incapacity to break through superficiality.

They all wanted to see Trump get bashed by the “Ten”, and they were awash in glee at the barrage he received. He took it like a man, and, ironically, Trump actually said one of the few novel things of the night, demonstrating again his perspicacity, when he remarked that North Korea was being ignored, even though they HAVE a nuclear weapon, the capacity to deliver it, and regularly threaten to do so.

So The Five joins the rest of the mainstream media in political correction because it behooves their political motives to do so. NPR and the Associated Press trumpeted with a headline that spoke about Trump’s failure to stifle “bigotry” or a “bigoted comment”, something like that, but I see that they have apparently removed it. Imagine a reporter and/or his editor creating such an opinionated headline! It happens all the time today. Now The Five have joined their ilk.

I hope Trump continues to speak his mind and to put the oily, superficially charming politicians to shame. I have never been much of a Jeb Bush fan, but I am now thoroughly convinced he is the wimpy, silver-spooned boy who gets his ten friends together to go with him to teach a lesson to the boy who insulted his girlfriend by ganging up on him. What a punk! Trump had nothing to apologize for, and I am glad he didn’t. And Jeb inserted his wife into the political debate ages ago. He wants the benefit of using her Hispanic-ness but none of the drawbacks. Live with it! If your wife cannot take the heat of a campaign by now, then you should bow out instead of wimpily demanding an apology. Get over yourself, silver spoon! You deserve worse for backtracking on your brother anyway.

Shame on The Five for their disingenuous journalism and commentary! I hope the river keeps flowing the way it has been, and that all your establishment candidates continue to see their campaigns shipwrecked.

The American people must be heard, acknowledged, and deferred to, because it is their voice that counts, not the voice of the party elites and their puppets.

The Question of Socialism


News commentators, anchors, field reporters, and politicians have been tossing around a term within the political and presidential debates that packs a lot of punch: “socialism.” So I am going to review what I consider the meanings of the term. This is not a scholarly article, nor even researched de profundis. It is only a starting point, but I hope a helpful one.

I would suggest the term “socialism” covers a spectrum of meaning, and confusing the meanings leads to erroneous understanding, reporting, and digestion of the political debate. Caveat emptor!

Socialism, when practiced by a communist state, usually means government ownership of the means of production under the direction of the leadership of a communist party. In communistic socialism, little to no private ownership exists, whether it be a business, a factory, a farm, etc. The communist party-directed state owns everything. This type of socialism is largely unknown or unpracticed by Western democracies. Even few communist states practice this type. Cuba and North Korea are likely the only exceptions.

In national socialism, which saw its most extreme embodiment in Nazism, socialism refers to government control and direction of the means of production and the economy. Like communism, this is an extreme form of tyranny; however, private ownership continues in this arrangement. A private owner or corporate owners would never cross the government. If the government says a business is going to build gizmos, then the business is going to build gizmos. The state assumes a martial and authoritarian attitude that subordinates private and corporate interests to its own. That doesn’t mean the private interests don’t profit and prosper. They often do. However, the state exercises tight control of the economy. As with communism, a single party often runs the show, as it did in Nazi Germany.

Red China is a mix of communism and national socialism. Reportedly, the communist-directed Red Chinese government owns about 60% of the means of production and service. Some local and foreign investment exists. And some Red Chinese individuals have become exceedingly wealthy. At any moment, however, the communist-led state may impose its will.

Western democracies have no to little acquaintance with national socialism. Venezuela was moving toward a type of national socialism, but I think that movement has taken a hit since the death of its progenitor, Hugo Chavez. Chavez led the Venezuelan government’s takeover of the private sector oil industry.

I might add at this moment that the terms “democracy” and “democratic” offer an astounding ambivalence that readers, viewers, and listeners must treat with care and discernment. I’ll delve into them in a bit.

Finally, there remains the still broad term of what I will call western socialism. I acknowledge that western socialism can be approached from two angles. I am going to choose mine, but I acknowledge that anyone could approach from another direction.

With western socialism, we mean the government assumption of greater control over the market in which goods and services are provided. While the government usually does not own the means of production or services, it can establish itself as an intermediary between, or governor over, the producer and the consumer. This constitutes a certain market control. However, it can also become the provider of services, as with the maintenance and discharge of social security or unemployment benefits. Under the current health care legislation, the government determines how the funding of health care will operate and to whom it will apply.

Western democracies experience this kind of socialism to one degree or another, and I will leave it to the ideologues to argue where to draw the bright line between standard government operation and the practice of socialism.

Our American Constitution provides for the general welfare or the common good, often called the “common weal” or “common welfare” of our people. This is a shared responsibility for each other under the direction of our democratically elected legislators and presiders, in short, the Union to which we agreed.

At what point does that common good begin and at what point does it end? Traditionally, laws, defense, foreign relations, domestic tranquility, interstate and international commerce, etc.,  have all been assigned to the operation of the federal government, with an overarching view to enhance and protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the individual citizen.

Our arguments about socialism revolve around the government’s role in maintaining personal life, liberty, and pursuit against its role in promoting  the common good. The religious, ethnic, cultural, and economic turmoil of our times has disrupted our domestic tranquility and is tossing our political ship to and fro. The federal government has without precedent entered the business of determining what constitutes a marriage. It now governs the purchase of health insurance to compel everyone to obtain it, to provide coverage for those who lacked it, and to control its functions for the purpose of controlling its costs. One candidate has extended a proposal to make it the province of the federal government to subsidize all student college costs because of the accumulated mountainous student loan debt. That same candidate describes himself as a “socialist”.

So now the question becomes, is favoring or legislating such programs “socialism”? This question differs from the pragmatic question of whether such programs are good ideas, feasible, or practicable. As with any budget item intended for the common good, such programs receive their funding from the individual taxpayers and the wages or salaries they have worked hard to earn. Most, if not all, of us would agree we would like to keep as much of our pay as possible. On the other hand, as good citizens, we see the need and the desirability for programs that promote our common good: a strong defense, a retirement we can count on, clean air, etc.

So the battle over “socialism” really comes down to how much money we are willing to be taxed and, if we are going to give up our hard-earned money, how we will allow it to be spent. We want government to be lean and effective, not bloated and ponderous; what should our government do with our money and how involved should they be in spending it.

As we vote, or our legislators votes for us, or our presiders employ their executive powers, we may allow a greater degree of government involvement and control over our lives. What is an acceptable level of that involvement and control? Is the only viable solution to student loan debt to use our taxpayer money to pay it? Should taxpayer money be used to pay college costs because they have become so outrageous no one individual can pay them? If I support such action, am I a socialist? I don’t want a big brother watching over me. I don’t want one political party dictating its beliefs to me.

Furthermore, am I partaking in socialism if I support such a use of taxpayer money? If I was, is that kind of socialism bad like national socialism or communistic socialism?

At the least, voting, for instance, to have the government use taxpayer money to subsidize all future college costs would constitute increased government involvement and diminished personal responsibility. I don’t think that means taking a stand for socialism. Whether it is a good idea or a bad idea, or a feasible idea, or a desirable idea remains another question. If college costs have become so outrageous and unreasonable in today’s market, it can be argued that allowing the federal government to pay for them would be a good idea.

The key here is that this kind of socialism is not necessarily evil or wrong, not when it is practiced democratically. When a majority of the citizens vote for it, or their representatives vote for it, this kind of socialism is democratic and lacks the strong-arm authoritarianism of the national socialistic and communistic ideologues. If that is what the citizens collectively want their government to do and how they want the government to do it, then it is democratic and is only economically socialist, and in regard to that program only, not the entire economy.

So when you hear a commentator or reporter or politician use the word “socialism” positively or negatively, beware! Examine and mull over what he or she really means, and evaluate the significance of what he or she is saying.

Finally, beware of the use of “democracy” or “democratic” when used by an authoritarian socialist, one who wants to exercise control over the citizens and their lives.  The meaning of democracy is rule by the people, and a democratic country is one ruled by the voice of the people through themselves or by their consent through their elected representatives. When authoritarians, especially Marxists, use those words, they mean doing something for the people or on behalf of the people to bring a wider result, whether the people like it or not.

The difference is vital. In democracy, we decide directly or indirectly. In a “democracy”, the leaders of a particular movement decide “for the benefit” of their subjects. The mere increase of goods and services to more members of a state does not make a democracy nor a program democratic.

Do not allow good words to be hijacked by the unscrupulous. Caveat emptor!

The Iran Deal: There Are Two Doors, and There Is Nothing Behind Door No. 2


Proponents of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known commonly at the “Iran Deal” or the “Iran Nuclear Deal” claim we, the American people, have two choices: 1. Go to war with Iran or; 2. Accept the agreement crafted by the president’s secretary of state, John Kerry.

The either/or proffered by those proponents amounts to a scarecrow. If Americans want to avoid war and behave peacefully in the world theater, they will support this agreement; otherwise, they would be exercising belligerence, and who knows what catastrophe might result from that, a catastrophe that would hang around their necks like an albatross for years to come!

Whew! If that scarecrow were the real thing, I certainly would launch my ardent support of the Iran Deal!

Is that scenario true? Are there only two doors from which we may select an action? As importantly, what exactly is behind door No. 2?

Common sense should tell us other options exist, a better deal for one. When the proponents say, “That is the best we could do”, one has to examine whether that is true. Read the series of questions below and make up your own mind. Alternatively, sanctions can be diminished or increased. Diplomatic pressure applied. Even when the word “war” is thrown out, what exactly does it mean? Do the users of that word, deliberately left vague, mean a full-scale military conflict with the proverbial boots on the ground? Do they mean surgical or drone strikes? Do they mean a one-time effort to bomb and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities?

The fundamental problem with the JCPOA is that Russia and Red China are part of the so-called “5+1”, the five permanent nations of the U.N. security council negotiating with representatives from Germany and the European Union alongside them and sitting across the table, Iran.

Americans want a different deal than the one negotiated with Iran. Russia and Red China do not. Their interests and goals diverge widely from ours. They want to unlock Iran from commercial and military restrictions that will benefit them while piling more stones in America’s shoes (Russia already has a weapons deal in place with Iran; check various news sources; and the Russians are sending men and materiel to Syria). We want a safe, peaceful world; they want to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war. When the so-called “adjudication process” kicks in, as it will when Iran digs in its heels on some inspection or other issue, as it has done in the past, do you think we can count on Russia and Red China to do the right thing or the thing that is in their interests?

Consequently, one must ask, “Just what exactly is behind Door No. 2?” The answer: “Nothing.”

One has to question what our goals were? What were we, the United States, and the rest of the world besides Russia and Red China supposed to get? For what did we bargain?

Does the JCPOA guarantee that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons?


Does the JCPOA guarantee that Iran will be punished if it is found to abrogate the terms of the JCPOA or any related agreements?


Does the JCPOA guarantee tight inspections of Iranian facilities?


Does the JCPOA require that Iran allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect Iranian nuclear facilities or suspected nuclear facilities or areas anytime, anywhere without notice?


Does the JCPOA include a provision in which Iran forswears a first strike with nuclear or conventional weapons on any of the other signatory nations, including the U.S.?


Does the JCPOA require Iran to forswear the development of short-range, medium-range, and intercontinental ballistic missiles?


Does the JCPOA require that Iran forswear its belief in, encouragement of, and financial support for terrorism?


Does the JCPOA require Iran to acknowledge the right of all nations to exist, including the state of Israel?


Does the JCPOA prevent Iran from obtaining missile technology with which to launch nuclear weapons or from buying such missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads, for instance, from Russia, Red China, or North Korea, etc.?


I could go on, but it is always better to read it for yourself, and carefully, especially the last section subheaded “Overall, what are the verification risks and uncertainties”. Here is a link to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, just one nonprofit think-tank evaluating the merits of the Iran Deal:

(A quick digression: I have been using Microsoft Edge, the company’s new browser, and it works wonderfully. I can hit the “read” button, which looks like an open book, and it displays the article alone without all the other stuff around it. I can mark it up or print it from there. I would like to be able to mark it up and then print it as a PDF. Work on it, Microsoft! But good job! To be fair, I think Firefox does the same thing now, and perhaps other browsers, too.)

So what does our America get out of this? Nothing. There’s just plain old nothing behind Door No. 2! In fact, we are supposed to help pay for the inspections!

That is what so many critics mean when they call the Iran Deal a bad deal. That is what Trump means, and perhaps others, when he says our negotiators are incompetent or stupid.

When you negotiate, you negotiate for something tangible, something you can take to the bank. We got nothing. Not only that, “verification” is dependent on non-Americans. While there are people from other nations who care about the situation, some will be unwilling to challenge the Iranians. They won’t view it as their fight.

Generally, Iran won’t allow any Americans into their country, much less nuclear inspectors. Of course, once Americans and often other foreigners are there, the Iranians often don’t let them leave. So they have taken four hostages. Does the JCPOA require that Iran free them from their persecution and imprisonment?

You know the answer.


The Real Satan: Iran, ISIS, and Other Destructive Perverts


Comes now word that Iran’s “supreme leader” says the United States remains “the Great Satan” and that the political state of Israel won’t be around in 25 years.

Read it for yourself. Here’s one link:

Here’s another:

The “supreme leader” is Ayatollah Khamenei, another clown dressed in clothes styled 2,000 years ago.

The real Satan is Khamenei and the perverse, bloodthirsty Iranian leadership, along with their bastards, the members of ISIS. We can throw in their buddies, the atheistic regimes of North Korea and Red China, and the whorish Russian government of Vladimir Pootin.

So much for the religion and the “jihads” of the different Islamic states. They work hand-in-hand with atheists!

I don’t agree with atheists, but I don’t have anything against them. I am not criticizing them. I am criticizing allegedly religious people who believe in God who want to murder other people who believe in God and who are willing to work with people who absolutely deny that God exists to do that! Pretty astonishing, eh?

So, the Iranian “leaders” want to murder all the people who live in Israel. They think predominantly Christian America, the America that is talking about helping the Muslim refugees from Syria while Iran sits on its ass, is “the Great Satan”.

I have a better idea. How about we call the Iranian leadership Satan’s privy council? They want to commit premeditated murder on a massive scale. Their bastards at ISIS do so every day, lopping off people’s heads, raping women of all ages, including underaged girls, and slaying anyone who disagrees with them. The Iranian leadership lies to keep themselves in power. They build nuclear weapons, allegedly for defense, but the only country to attack them in the last 35 or 40 years was… Iraq! And Iraq is another, yep, Muslim nation!

Is there anyone who mistakes the Iranian leadership and their followers for godly men? Anyone?

Here’s how many, if not all, the chapters of the Koran begin, “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful” or in another translation, “In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful”.

Let me ask the people who allegedly believe in the Koran whether you think anyone sees compassion when a hateful member of ISIS draws his dagger across a hostage’s throat? Does anyone see or feel mercy when Khamenei declares that Israel won’t be around in 25 years? Does anyone feel grace when an enraged, hate-filled ISIS zombie penetrates brutally a nine-year-old girl’s private parts and steals her innocence from her in the name of God? Does anyone get a sense of God’s mercy when Khamenei calls the U.S. the Great Satan, even though Khamenei sits atop one of the most immoral regimes of all time?

Listen closely: no one mistakes you Mohammedans for holy people. You are just another bunch of sin-filled human beings. And listen to this: if God wanted to execute judgment on the world, He could do it himself. He does not need sinners to brutally rape and murder other sinners, nor does He need one country filled with sinners to bomb another country filled with sinners out of existence.

The only place to wage jihad is in your own souls, where your perverse human cravings are so easily manipulated by the real Satan. He uses those cravings to disfigure you and to lead you to commit more and bloodier sins. You will not escape punishment unless you repent and accept God’s only way for deliverance. None of us will.

It is a sin that you call other believers in God the Great Satan while you sleep with the devil’s own children: Putin, Red China, North Korea, and the atheism and war they spread. Satan is laughing at your hypocrisy and stupidity!

So if one day you actually do what you have been saying you were going to do, wipe Israel off the map, then know you will be responsible for initiating an international nuclear conflict that incinerates your own men, women, and children. When their ghosts point a finger at you and accuse you before the Most High God – “You are the ones who destroyed our lives and the lives of our children and our country and led us astray with your hate and greed!” –   and all the other peoples look at you and point their fingers, too – “You destroyed the innocents, and the world God made, and made yourselves judges of whole peoples when you were just sinful men yourselves!” – then you will know the judgment of God, and you will be dragged away in sobs and whimpering and fear to the abode of your Master, Satan, who will own you and feast on you for the rest of time!