Jesus is the prince of peace; Christians are supposed to follow him 24/7

"It honestly has just astounded me in the last three decades how many good Christian kids have, without a flinch of conscience, marched off to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere. I don’t think they got the memo about what the Sermon on the Mount actually says on things like non-violence, love, forgiveness, non-resistance, loving enemies and the like. Jesus intended for his followers to imitate his own behavior, not that of Caesar and his legions. 

If only for the sake of putting the emphasis on the right syllable, Christians ought to be going out of their way to distinguish themselves from their more bellicose neighbors and friends. They ought to be setting a better example of the more excellent way of loving one’s neighbors, even one’s enemies, and I’m pretty sure when Jesus said love your enemies he didn’t mean love them to death at the point of a gun. 

 For me this means three things at the personal level: 1) I can’t serve in the military, except perhaps as a medic or maybe a chaplain, although I am not even sure that might not be too much of a compromise; 2) it means I must spend my life on positive Gospel tasks, not negative destructive ones. My focus and life style and views must be entirely different from that of perhaps the majority of Americans on these matters; 3) it means that I must support those Jesus says are blessed— the peacemakers." 

 Ben Witherington III, "The Prince of Peace - Part One"

Video: C-SPAN hosts Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for 40 minutes

I never thought I would see this on C-Span. 

But C-SPAN gave 40 minutes to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder to explain why he (and many) thinks that it was highly unlikely that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed because of an office fire -- the official explanation for the collapse of the only building that didn't get hit by an airplane on September 11, 2001 -- and floated the idea that it was destroyed by controlled demolition. He definitely wants an additional investigation and reports that people that have looked into it already believe that the 9/11 Commission report of the early 2000s was rigged to fail.

His group has 2,000+ architects and engineers across the world that dissent from the official story. (Reminds me of the Dissent from Darwin crowd)

For the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Website Click Here

Watch the Whole Architects and Engineers 9/11 Documentary Here

The fact that a major respectable publication such as C-SPAN is giving them a voice is HUGE.

And let's not forget that -- as Gage himself points out -- we started the longest war in American history because of this event.

I think that's it's an important issue but it's down the priority list if I was POTUS in 2016. The economy and the debt is always first. But I think that it should be pursued.

There are several very smart people that don't believe the official story. In fact, it was Paul Craig Roberts, a former official of the Reagan Administration, that tipped me off to the video in an August 3, 2014 blog post.

Gary North also thinks that the whole thing is fishy.

Read Gary North's Column "Of Course the Government is Lying About 9/11"

I'm recently discovering this within the last 10 minutes but Roberts wrote a column reviewing David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking." The column is well worth a read either before or after watching the above video. There is a least one website that sets out to "Debunk" 9/11 truthers, the people who don't believe the official story they were told about 9/11. Griffin's book indirectly addresses them, I assume.

Read Robert's Review of "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" here

Read Roberts' review first. Then watch the video. Then read North's column.

Angelo Codevilla on the "pipe dream" of spreading democracy

How, indeed, does one government transform the alien culture of a whole region on the other side of the globe? . . . Building viable new governments in foreign lands is extraordinarily difficult, and building wholly new regimes near impossible. Native regimes may change culture over generations, but the notion that foreigners who cannot even speak the language can do it in a few years is a pipe dream. Is anything sillier than the notion that American secularists can convince Muslims about what true Islam commands?" (p. viii). ~Angelo Codevilla, quoted in Mises Review editor David Gordon's review of his book No Victory, No Peace.

Terence P. Jeffrey on the role of secular, messianic foreign policies in pushing Christians out of Middle East

Via Terry Jeffrey of CNSNews.com:

.....In our time, Christianity could be driven from some of the lands where it first took root.

If that dark and epochal moment comes, some of the blame for it must be pinned on the messianic foreign policies pursued by our most recent two presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
.....[Bush] expressed his evangelical zeal for this secular cause in his second inaugural address.

Saying Lincoln Freed the Slaves is Like Saying Obama Ended the War in Iraq

Saying Lincoln freed the slaves is like saying Obama ended the war in Iraq.

Truth be told...

...Lincoln never thought blacks to be equal and once said that if he could "save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it."

Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"
Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not "interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states" (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union "with the rights of the several states unimpaired."

Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights. His words and, more important, his actions, repudiate this myth. "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." And, "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals."
In Springfield, Ill., on July 17, 1858, Lincoln said, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." On Sept. 18, 1858, in Charleston, Ill., he said: "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes."

 Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution, which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state, and he also supported the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived the small number of free blacks in the state any semblance of citizenship. He strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled Northern states to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners. In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having the power "to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment "express and irrevocable."

Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States.

...And President Obama lobbied the Iraq government to stay in longer but got booted out.

The last U.S. troops left Iraq in December 2011, while Barack Obama was president, but the “status of forces agreement” that governed the departure of U.S. troops was actually negotiated between Iraqi and U.S. officials in late 2008, under the auspices of President George W. Bush.  In fact, none other than the Huffington Post actually pointed out that as president, Obama was actually interested in keeping troops in Iraq past the agreed-upon 2011 deadline, explaining that “the president ultimately had no choice but to stick to candidate Obama's plan -- thanks, of all things, to an agreement signed by George W. Bush.” Just six months before the Bush deadline, Obama tried to foist 10,000 U.S. troops on the Iraqis past 2011.

So Republicans and Democrats are being disingenuous when they say these men did these things.

Reagan's Homeboy: His Legacy Stinks

I really enjoyed writing this article. Here's an excerpt:

The former budget director under President Ronald Reagan said something you don’t hear often from people who have worked under Reagan or from conservative politicians.  That is, that the conservative idol and oft-referred to leader of a bygone era left a “horrible legacy.”

“The thing that came out of the Reagan era, which really was a horrible legacy, was the notion that deficits didn’t matter and the rationalization that we were only trying to starve the beast and if the deficit got big enough or persistent enough or extended far enough in time, surely they would wake up and shrink the government,” said David Stockman, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981-1985, at the Cato Institute Wednesday.

 Read More: Former Reagan Official: "Reagan Era Was A Horrible Legacy" || Politic365

The chief and most original insight is his analysis of Reagan's defense build up and its connection to the Iraq war of the 1990s. I never heard anything like it before this lecture. It's pure gold. Read it for yourself.

Bill Maher Real Time 'The Israelis Are Controlling Our Government'

Bill Maher points out that Chuck Hagel received so much opposition from right-wing Republican senators, even though he is a right-wing Republican that voted for the Iraq War, Afghanistan War, the PATRIOT act, and Department of Homeland Security -- and yet Republicans still didn't want the guy as Department of Defense Secretary.

"He's a right-wing republican and that's not good enough?" Maher asked.

Two explanations immediately come to mind: (1) The Maher explanation: Republicans filibustered Obama's nominee for Defense Secretary simply because he's Obama's nominee, and (2)You just aren't allowed to question Israel. (Other explanations do come to mind)

I always wanted to know from Hagel although he voiced criticism against certain policies and yet he always voted with the Republican party on the above-listed issues will he always go along with Obama's policy despite having personal objections to the policy.

This raises serious issues if you don't like Obama's policies. Why would you confirm a Secretary of Defense who spent all his political career going with the flow?

Hagel's criticism's, of course, do deeply trouble Republicans because they are out of line with Republican foreign relations orthodoxy. Why should the guy who is critical of establishment policy--which ironically is generally shared by the President--be put in the position to make policy and influence policy?

Buchanan: Why y'all all 'wee-weed up over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?"

Pat Buchanan asks:

How is America, with thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, scores of warships in the Med, Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, bombers and nuclear subs and land-based missiles able to strike and incinerate Iran within half an hour, threatened by Iran?

I don't know. You tell me Pat.

Iran has no missile that can reach us, no air force or navy that would survive the first days of war, no nuclear weapons, no bomb-grade uranium from which to build one. All of her nuclear facilities are under constant United Nations surveillance and inspection.

Say what?

Yet, according to the Christian Science Monitor, Bibi first warned in 1992 that Iran was on course to get the bomb — in three to five years! And still no bomb.

Yup, I blogged about that article in 2011.

And Bibi has since been prime minister twice. Why has our Lord Protector not manned up and dealt with Iran himself?

Answer: He wants us to do it — and us to take the consequences.

 Bibi's vision: U.S. as aggressor and the fall guy.

Shia Iran has influence in Iraq because we invaded Iraq, dethroned Sunni Saddam, disbanded his Sunni-led army that had defeated Iran in an eight-year war and presided over the rise to power of the Iraqi Shia majority that now tilts to Iran. Today’s Iraq is a direct consequence of our war, our invasion, our occupation.

Buchanan: Infantile Conservatism || Human Events

[Editor's Note: I took liberty with the quote in the headline. Pat's statement which I quoted from isn't in a form of a question.]

Patrick Buchanan on Ron Paul in 2007: He is "no TV debater" but "was speaking intolerable truths"

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

Patrick Buchanan, But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron?

Our Fear of Iran-Iraq Shiite Government Partnership Makes Perfect Sense

So let me get this straight:

(1) We invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, who suppressed the Shiite minority over the years.
(2) We are now scared that the Shiite-led government will collaborate with the Shiite Government of Iran.

That makes perfect sense.

According to the Daily Telegraph:

Lt Gen Firouzabadi added that Iran was now "ready to expand its military and security ties with Iraq."

It continues:

US analysts have expressed concern that Iran could exploit the vacuum left by the US withdrawal to bolster links with Iraq's Shiite-led government.

New readers, please note the irony.

Ron Paul had good words for Pope John Paul II

From a 2005 column:

Just two years ago conservatives were busy scolding the Pope for his refusal to back our invasion of Iraq. One conservative media favorite even made the sickening suggestion that the Pope was the enemy of the United States because he would not support our aggression in the Middle East. The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America — and conservatives resented it. September 11th did not change everything, and the Pope understood that killing is still killing. The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short memories.

Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for maintaining that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope's positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create.

Both conservatives and liberals cannot understand that the Pope's pronouncements were theological, not political. He was one of the few humans on earth who could not be bullied or threatened by any government. He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker, but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party, or politician.

To the secularists, this was John Paul II's unforgivable sin — he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.

Theology, Not Politics

Yes, Governments Do Lie To Those They Govern

On the recent Iranian terror plot, the writers at the Daily Kos express some skepticism about Hillary Clinton's very telling question regarding the believability of the foiled plot. If you missed it, Hillary said: "The idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador, nobody could make that up, right?"

The Daily Kos Responds: "Wrong, Hillary. Somebody Could Make That Up To Start a War With Iran. Remember Curveball?

The Daily Kos isn't the only outlet who expressed some skepticism on the matter.

Monthly Review expresses major doubt on the matter as well. They are more forthright.

Sure they could, Madam Secretary. You could. So could the same people who lied to us about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, ties to al-Qaeda and responsibility for 9/11. You guys lie all the time. That's your job.

Iran hasn't attacked another country in more than 200 years. Its government works day and night to improve its relations with its mainly Muslim neighbors. But as ludicrous as the assassination plot charge is, it comes at a very serious time.

Video Flashback: Ron Paul schools Laura Ingraham

The Nuremburg Trials Definition of Aggression

An aggressor, for the purposes of this article, means that state which is first to commit any of the following actions:

1. Declaration of war upon another State.

2. Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.

3. Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.

No political, military, economic or other considerations may serve as an excuse or justification for such actions, but exercise of the right of legitimate self-defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a State which has been subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of aggression.

Source: The Avalon Project

Video: Obama does more war than his predecessor

Video: Matt Welch Debates Ann Coulter on the Iraq War, TSA, and using Torture o...