Islam Corrupts Public Education

Justin begins his first paragraph about the Public School systems across America ramming Islamic indoctrination or propaganda into non-Muslim students while slighting the Christian heritage of America’s history. Here are some examples I found corresponding to the States mentioned in Justin’s “Islam Corrupts Public Education”:

o Florida: Common Core School Assignment FORCES Students to Make Islamic Prayer Rugs, Recite Muslim PrayersTop Right News 3/20/15

o Minnesota: Exclusive: World’s ‘Most Dangerous Islamist’ Alive, Well, and Living in PennsylvaniaFamily Security Matters 4/7/10


o Tennessee: ‘There is no God but Allah’? School accused of Islamic indoctrination – Fox News 9/10/15

JRH 10/4/15

Please Support NCCR


Islam Corrupts Public Education

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 10/3/2015 1:54 PM

America’s children are being indoctrinated in U.S. public schools, from Florida to Minnesota and California to Tennessee, through Islamic propaganda in the school’s curriculum that is nothing less than political reeducation disguised as “sensitivity training”. They are being sensitized into viewing Islam sympathetically and as a “religion of peace”, despite all evidence to the contrary, through politically correct messages and base Islamic lies that are aimed at developing “cultural awareness” and “tolerance”, regarding Muslims and Islam, and defusing the fact that Islam is a violent ideology that regularly spawns religiously motivated terrorist attacks, such as 9/11 and the Boston Bombing.

The textbooks are “white-washing” the Islamic faith. Islam is characterized as the underdog suffering injustice, while Christians and Jews are suggested to be unwilling to transcend prejudice and ill-will in order to allow Islam to have equal expression. And yet, there is not any mention of the hundreds of thousands of Christians and Jews being slaughtered and beheaded by Islamofascists across the Middle East or that the 9/11 abattoir was committed by Muslims opposed to our free exercise of religion and our pluralism and tolerance of all.

In an education climate heavily controlled by anti-Christian Progressives, atheists and the ACLU, public schools barely allow Christians to even pray, display the Ten Commandments and read the Bible on their breaks __ their own time __ even though this is protected under the First Amendment. These anti-Christian elements would never teach Christianity in the same manner, as they now teach Islam in the public schools.

With hypocrisy and double-standards on full display, public schools across the U.S. have adopted programs, such as the Islam Project, and they are blatantly violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, according to the Family Policy Network, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and millions of Americans. These programs promote an agenda that requires, among a long list of other inappropriate and unconstitutional items, that students learn the five pillars of Islam, recite Islamic prayers such as “all people must submit to Allah” and “there is no God but Allah” and learn that Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews, a base, outright lie.

In April of this year, Union Grove High school in Wisconsin gave a writing assignment “Pretend you are Muslim”, and not long afterwards, Carly Gammill, an ACLJ attorney, explained to their school district officials that Islam could not be presented in this manner without breaking the law: “By requiring the students to adopt the viewpoint of a Muslim, union Grove has gone well beyond teaching ‘about’ religion. In fact, this advancement of the Muslim viewpoint is specifically what the Supreme Court has deemed a direct violation of the First Amendment.”

In September 2015, parents in Rutherford, Williamson, Maury, Sumner and other Tennessee counties, were furious over the same sort of indoctrination tactics occurring in their schools; however, some administrators, like Rutherford County [one source 9/30/15] Superintendent Don Odom, claimed it was out of the School Board’s hands and blamed the textbook publishers and the state, while others, like Wilson County Director Donna Wright, claimed no wrong was committed. Some of these administrators are simply feckless and ill-informed, and others are knowingly supporting and advancing Islam and discriminating against Christianity and Judaism, in line with the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

In a deceptive and disingenuous statement, Paul Galloway, who is a Muslim and executive director for the American Center for Outreach, said: “To learn what the first pillar is has nothing to do with indoctrination. You can’t trick someone into being a Muslim.”

Galloway dismisses the fact that these are children in the 6th and 7th grades, who are in their most impressionable and formative years. Any seed of knowledge must be planted with care and full and honest discussion, and in regards to one’s worldview and religion, that responsibility must remain under the domain of the parents concerning the guidance of their children.

Just as Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) stated on September 8th: “There is a big difference between education and indoctrination.”

Reported first by the ‘Columbia Daily Herald’, imagine the righteous anger that flowed from Maury County parents, such as Brandee Porterfield and Joy Ellis, when they discovered their twelve year old children were taught the Islamic conversion prayer and made to write the “Shahada” — “There is no God but Allah; Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah.” And next, they were told by Dr. Jan Hanvey that Christianity would not be covered at Spring Hill Middle School, “because Christianity is not in the school standards.”

Pastor Greg Locke of Mt Juliet, TN (Wilson Co) noted that there is only “a half page of watered-down Christianity” being taught in the sixth grade, while 28 pages of Islamic curriculum are being taught. Locke and many families are highly upset “over all this new Islamic indoctrination in our school system”, which they call “absolute brainwashing”. Adding insult to injury, the Wilson County school system exhibited incredible insensitivity by scheduling a test on Islamic curriculum on Sept. 11th, however, the ensuing uproar in the community forced its delay.

Predictably, Christian parents across the country are also upset to find that the study guide section of ‘Origins of Islam’ presents as fact statements such as, “Around the age of 40, the angel Gabriel told Mohammed that he was to be a prophet of Allah.”

Imagine the outcry we would hear from the soulless Progressives, atheists and Muslims, if students were told that they had to pray the Lord’s Prayer, memorize the Ten Commandments, state that “Jesus is the Messiah” and fast during Lent. Even if we cannot fully or completely explain why Islam is being favored by the U.S. Board of Education and many state and local education boards, the duplicity of the public education system is apparent in regards to Islam.

State Representative Andy Holt (R-Dresden/TN) wrote in his blog: “While I can certainly understand the desire for cultural knowledge, it must never be at the cost of our cultural identity. Many of our children are not being taught the Ten Commandments in school, but instead the Five Pillars of Islam and the ‘Prophet’ Mohammed as a sovereign to Jesus Christ.”

The pro-Islam bias and precepts towards conversion to Islam in public schools must be ended, and all those government officials, educators and superintendents responsible for this situation across America must be held accountable through more than just petitions and lawsuits. Textbook contracts can be voided on the basis of multiple factual errors. Teachers can introduce new curriculum that meets their communities’ approval, with little to zero added cost. And, superintendents unable or unwilling to cooperate can be fired, defeated in special elections and impeached, their contracts ended and damn the cost: America’s parents must join ranks forcefully to ensure that our children receive an honest and fact-based education — the best possible education — through a system built on integrity, incorrupt from exalting Islam above all other beliefs.

By Justin O. Smith


Edited by John R. Houk

Text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor


© Justin O. Smith


Yesterday I posted “Profiling Harper-Mercer via Media Sources” in regard to the massacre perpetrated in Rosewood Oregon. Today I found a WND article that looks into the depraved mind of a psycho-killing and Christian hating murderer.

JRH 10/3/15

Please Support NCCR



Dating website shutters public access to killer’s profile


October 2, 2015


Photos from Christopher Harper Mercer’s MySpace page

The Oregon gunman who lined up his victims and asked specifically which ones were Christians before shooting them execution style had a special interest in “magick” and “spiritualism” and had joined a dating website called “Spiritual Passion.”

On the site, Christopher Harper Mercer, 26, who killed nine people and injured seven at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg before he was shot and killed by police, describes his politics as “Republican” and his interests as “killing zombies,” meditation, the occult and punk-rock music.

He also made clear that he had a disdain for organized religion. Using the handle “IronCross45,” Mercer describes himself as a “not religious,” man who lives with his parents. He belonged to a group on the site who shared common interests in “magick and the occult.” Under the category of “Religious Views,” Mercer wrote that he is not religious but is “spiritual” and was interested in “pagan” and “wiccan.”

He listed “vampire, piercings, psychic, tattoos” under the category of “Individuality.”

By midday Friday the dating site had removed Mercer’s page and blocked public access to his account but WND captured a screen shot (see below).

Mercer’s tactics, searching for Christians and killing them, bore a remarkable similarity to the Columbine High School incident where the shooters also targeted Christians, including Rachel Scott, who was the first to be killed for her faith that fateful day on April 20, 1999.

“It is astounding and inspiring to consider the number of young people who died as Christian martyrs in this horrific mass murder, a shooting spree that involved the specific targeting of Christians,” Carl Gallups, a Baptist pastor in Florida, author and former police officer who hosts a national radio show, told WND.

What do YOU think? Your thoughts on Obama reaction to mass shooting? Sound off in today’s WND poll.

Gallups’ latest book, “Be Thou Prepared: Equipping the Church for Persecution and Times of Trouble,” addresses the growing persecution of Christians in America. “They could not have known when they got up that morning they would be called upon to deny Jesus Christ, or die,” Gallups said of the courageous Christians in Oregon.

“Many are asking, ‘how could this happen in America?’ Sadly, the answer appears to be that not only ‘can’ it happen in America, but also, it will probably continue to happen with increasing frequency as the spiritual makeup of our nation continues to decay,” Gallups continued. “In the wake of this tragedy, the people of God will have even more opportunities to be the “salt and the light” and to demonstrate the love of Jesus.”

Only two ‘friends’ on Myspace

Blogger and author Pamela Geller noted that on Mercer’s Myspace page he had only two friends, “a girl and a jihadi.” The male friend is Mahmoud Ali Ehsani.

“He has just two friends — a girl and a jihadi,” Geller writes. “Check out the terror sympathizer’s page — ‘kill the jews.’ “The media has avoided mentioning this at all.”

Mercer said on the dating site he wanted a girlfriend and described his personality as a “loner, shy at first, but warm up quickly, side kick, better in small groups, geek, nerd, intellectual, punk, introvert.” He also idolized other mass shooters and terrorists. A Myspace account linked to Mercer’s email address shows pictures of him in black ski mask and full military dress holding a rifle and also images of Irish Republican Army logos. He also had an affinity for other mass killers.

In a blog, Harper-Mercer especially admired the Roanoke TV-interview shooter, Vester Flanagan, the Daily Beast reported. People “like him have nothing left to live for,” Mercer wrote on Aug. 31. “On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are… A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.” Mercer reportedly told his victims, “Oh, you’re a Christian? Well you’re about to see God.”

A well-defined pattern

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner, MD, told Fox News the pattern is familiar of someone who recognizes from watching others that they have an opportunity to be made “larger than life.”

“This converges with someone who recognizes he’s a failure as a man,” Welner said, “and that he can go overnight from a nobody to a celebrity. “He admired that he could get the attention from killing alone. And by saying something as callous as ‘pray, because you’re about to be meet your maker’ or whatever he said,” Welner added. “He admired that he could get the attention from killing alone. Hey, what can I do that’s outrageous, and where can I target where people are defenseless and wont’ stop me from killing as many people as I can get away with.”

Welner said these types of killers, like Mercer and Dylan Roof, the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooter, are not necessarily ingrained racists.

“No, it starts with a desire to kill because one recognizes one will be larger than life,” he said. On the dating site Mercer said he was an Internet junkie and fantasized about “killing zombies.” Gary Evans, 62, who was married to Harper-Mercer’s aunt, told The Daily Beast in a phone interview that when Harper-Mercer came into the world, his birth father was not in the picture. “They were separated when I first met them, and I don’t believe they ever were married,” Evans said. The father is Caucasian, Evans said, while Harper-Mercer’s mother, Laurel Harper, is black.


© Copyright 1997-2015. All Rights Reserved.


About WND

WND, formerly WorldNetDaily, can best be explained by its mission statement: “WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.

“We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.”

Indeed, WND is a fiercely independent news site committed to hard-hitting investigative reporting of government waste, fraud and abuse.

Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997, it is now a leading Internet news site in both traffic and influence.

WND has broken some of the biggest, most significant and most notable investigative and enterprising stories in recent years. See “WND Scoops” for a comprehensive list of major WND exclusive reports that first saw the light of day in READ THE REST

Help keep WND a free News Service – Check out the WND Super Store

Profiling Harper-Mercer via Media Sources

John R. Houk

© October 2, 2015

Chris Harper-Mercer is the latest mass murderer giving fuel to the leftist dream of disarming all Americans. Which we all should know would mean Americans would be an even easier target for lunatics like Harper-Mercer who wouldn’t have to worry about buying a gun a legally if he so chose to kill unarmed unprotected Americans such as those shot and killed at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.

When I first heard on the news that a spree-killer was targeting Christians for death by shooting them in the head who so identified themselves, my first thought was that another psycho-Muslim was on the loose in America. As more information has flowed in it has become apparent that Harper-Mercer was a lunatic most likely of the fringe Right. Just to be clear Harper-Mercer was not affiliated with Conservatives that the SPLC often mislabels as the fringe Right (Gun Rights groups, Family Values Christians, Counterjihad writers and so on). Rather Harper-Mercer was attracted to the actual fringe Right such as Nazis, Christian-haters, Jew-Haters and so forth.

I place Harper-Mercer among the fringe Right based on some logical guesses from media investigations looking at the killer’s web history leading to some fairly intelligent guesses. I suspect as the authorities investigate further some more relevant details will emerge. Until then below are some excerpts and articles into the mind of a young man who loathed Christians and had a disregard for human life.

JRH 10/2/15

Please Support NCCR


The ONE Thing The Press Will Say Over And Over Again About Chris Harper-Mercer: He Was A Republican


OCTOBER 1, 2015

Here it comes.

The bodies aren’t even cold and liberal gun-grabbers, starting with the Commander-in-Chief himself are going to trample all over the victims of the Oregon College tragedy to call for more gun control.

They’ll ignore all the facts. They always do.


They’ll ignore that Chris Harper-Mercer, the 26-year-old shooter, had one of two friends who was apparently an Islamic terrorist-in-waiting.

They’ll ignore that this man was a crazed loner, who was a fan of Nazi propaganda and “supported the IRA.”

His username on a dating website was “ironcross45,” clearly a reference to the Nazi symbol.

They’ll ignore that he was not white. He was mixed-race.

They’ll ignore that he was singling out Christians to slaughter.

He was clearly insane. Deranged. A killer.

Here’s what they won’t ignore.

Tucked into all this information about Chris Harper-Mercer, is one nugget the media will glom onto: He identified as a “conservative Republican.”

You’ll hear that a lot.

They’ll ignore everything else that screams “insane killer” about READ THE REST

Blog Editor: Not connected to Harper-Mercer’s story but may be chillingly informative: “Neo-Nazi Islamic White Radicals?


Here’s What We Know About Shooter Who Targeted Christians at Oregon College

By Fox News Insider – As seen on Hannity

Oct. 1, 2015 10:22 PM

Fox News Insider link

The gunman who killed at least nine people and wounded seven at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., has been identified as 26-year-old Chris Harper Mercer, law enforcement sources confirmed to Fox News.

Police have said little about Harper Mercer’s background or his motive for the attack.

There is a heavy law enforcement presence outside Harper Mercer’s home, and authorities are running his name against terror watch lists, in addition to combing through his email history, phone logs and social media footprint.

According to witnesses, he lined up students in a classroom and asked their religion. Those who answered Christian were shot in the head, while those who answered another religion or did not answer were shot in the legs.

A MySpace page in his name contains photos of IRA gunmen and points to support for the organization.

In an online dating profile, the shooter purportedly identified himself as a “conservative Republican” and expressed a disdain for organized religion, Daily Beast reported. He also specified that he was in college, lived with his parents and did not drink, smoke or do drugs.

According to CBS News, the shooter wrote a blog post about Vester Flanagan, who fatally shot a Virginia news reporter and a cameraman in August.

“I have noticed that so many people like [Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed READ ENTIRETY


The anti-Christ shooter is a mixed-race, teetotaling Nazi

By Joe Tacopino

October 1, 2015 | 11:54pm

New York Post

Chris Harper-Mercer, the gunman who went on Thursday’s rampage at an Oregon college, idolized the Nazis and the IRA, despised organized religion — and talked of how killing could bring a person fame.

A profile on an online dating site, Spiritual Passions, shows the 26-year-old Harper-Mercer “doesn’t like organized religion” and identified as a “conservative Republican.”

On his MySpace page, he posted a number of pictures related to the Irish Republican Army.

“He appears to be an angry young man who was very filled with hate,” one source told The New York Times.

Harper-Mercer, who lived in Winchester, Ore., identified himself as mixed race. On the dating site, he wrote that he does not smoke or drink.

His name on the site was Ironcross45, alluding to a Nazi military badge.

He also used the moniker on the website iOffer to laud the excellent “customer service” received when ordering a leather Nazi SS officer’s cap.



Oregon shooter targeted Christians

By Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief

October 2, 2015

Allen B. West – Steadfast and Loyal

It is unknown why Christians were targeted specifically. Harper was a frequent poster on an image-based bulletin board called “4Chan.” A quick review shows many of the users are obsessed with death and suicide, see themselves as outsiders and resent “normies” – anyone conventional or mainstream.

This was clearly a terribly sick individual. It is a READ ENTIRETY


Chris Harper-Mercer: Everything we know about the Oregon school gunman on Friday afternoon

Shooter encouraged followers to watch grisly images online and posted that the “more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight”

By Rob Crilly, New York and Tom Morgan

4:02PM BST 02 Oct 2015

The Telegraph

Police in Oregon have identified the gunman who opened fire at a college on Thursday, killing 10 people, as Chris Harper-Mercer.

The 26-year-old, whose social media profiles featured content supporting the IRA, apparently demanded to know his victims’ religious beliefs before opening fire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.

He left behind a complex web of online identities which offer a possible insight into his personality – or at least a glimpse of the way he wanted to present himself to the world.

He maintained a myspace page, on which he posted a photograph of himself holding what appears to be a rifle, alongside images of masked IRA gunmen.

Obsession with Nazis

He offered the fullest description of himself on an online dating profile, saying he was “shy at first, but warm up quickly, better in small groups”. He also said he was not religious but was “spiritual” and described his political views as conservative.

His username on the dating site Spiritual Passions was ironcross45 – a handle often used by far-Right sympathisers in reference to the German military symbol reintroduced by the Nazis.

He was also linked, via the username Lithium_Love, to a video upload site, where he also posted about Vester Flanagan, the former TV reporter who shot dead two former colleagues live on air.

[Harper-Mercer post on] Vester Flanagan Shooting

Opposition to religion

During the attack he apparently asked victims whether they were Christians.

According to Kortney Moore, 18, the shooter told people to reveal their religion during the rampage. She had been in her writing class when her teacher was shot in the head.

A woman who said her grandmother was inside Snyder Hall, where part of the attack took place, described what happened in a tweet.

A Twitter Description of Harper-Mercer Singling Christians

British connections

The gunman has a British father, Ian Mercer, who is aged in his mid-50s and from the north-west of England.

The father, from Lancashire, is believed to have moved to America to live with the killer’s mother, Laurel Harper, who is the second-oldest of four sisters.

Mr Mercer told reporters READ ENTIRETY




2 Oct 2015

Big Government

Late Thursday evening, police named 26-year-old Chris Harper Mercer as the man who shot and killed at least nine students, many of them women, at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.

On another profile likely created by Mercer residing on the site Spiritual Passions, Mercer identified his ethnicity as “mixed race,” his interests as “internet, killing zombies, movies, music, reading,” and his political affiliation as “conservative Republican.” He also noted that he lived with his parents and never wanted children. His music interests were listed as “Industrial, Punk, Rock.”

One family member told the Daily Beast that Mercer’s father is white and his mother is black, but when he “came into the world, his birth father was not in the picture.”

On his apparent Spiritual Passions account, he also apparently reveals his distaste for religion. Not only does this page say he is “not religious” — but is “spiritual”– it also lays claim to the “Left-Hand Path” as a group that interested him.

The Left-Hand Path is an idea often equated with the occult and is said to manifest itself in “malicious Black magic.”

Local news quotes eyewitnesses as saying that Mercer ordered victims to identify their religion before firing; one Twitter user claiming to be a witness said that if students identified themselves as Christians, he shot them in the head.

Several reports identify the READ ENTIRETY


Father of Umpqua college shooting victim: Gunman singled out Christians

By Ed Payne, Sara Sidner and Kyung Lah, CNN

Updated 10:05 AM ET, Fri October 2, 2015


Roseburg, Oregon (CNN) The gunman who opened fire at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College singled out Christians, according to the father of a wounded student.

Before going into spinal surgery, Anastasia Boylan told her father the gunman entered her classroom firing.

“I’ve been waiting to do this for years,” the gunman told the professor teaching the class. He shot him point blank, Boylan recounted.

“He was a little odd, like sensitive to things,” said Rebecca Miles, who took a theater class with Mercer.

Throughout Thursday night, investigators talked to the gunman’s family and neighbors to try to piece together the puzzle.

Another neighbor, Steven Fisher, described him as “skittish.”

“His demeanor, the way he moved, always looking around,” Fisher said. “I got a bad vibe from him.”

Roseburg has about 22,000 residents, and Umpqua isn’t a traditional college. The average age of its 13,600 students was 38 during the 2013-2014 school year.

READ ENTIRETY [The article is written to lead to support gun control. I included because I read some personal accounts that I didn’t see at other places. On a personal level I have jokingly referred to CNN as the Communist News Network]


Edited by John R. Houk

Anything enclosed by brackets are likely by the Editor.

Govt. Temporarily Refunded – Baby Parts Keep Rolling

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2015

WARNING! – Graphic Video toward bottom – Children should not see this

Congress passed a Continuing Resolution (CR) yesterday to keep the government funded yesterday. The controversy in this 9/30/15 CR was it kept the baby killing and baby parts selling organization Planned Parenthood fully funded. Apparently ALL the Democrats made sure the baby killing and the trafficking in baby parts continued. Sadly the Republicans split on murdering babies and trafficking in live baby parts with the majority voting no for the CR.

The Senate easily approved the interim funding measure earlier Wednesday on a vote of 78-20.

While Congress has funded the government at least through December, the the [sic] funding of Planned Parenthood has angered conservative Republicans who argue GOP leadership has not fought hard enough for their values.

Indeed, the measure passed with a majority of Democratic votes — 186 Democrats voted in favor of the spending bill and 151 Republicans voted against it. Ninety-one Republicans voted for the short-term funding measure. President Obama is expected to sign it today, before funding expires at midnight. (SHUTDOWN AVERTED: HOUSE PASSES FUNDING BILL DESPITE MAJORITY OF GOP ‘NO’ VOTES; By CAROLINE MAY; Breitbart.comBig Government; 9/30/15)

I haven’t checked to see how many GOP Senators voted for the CR but it must have been a bunch for a 70-20 favorable vote. In the HOUSE NINETY-ONE Republicans voted for baby killing and marketing live baby parts in the name of keeping the government afloat.

On Wednesday September 16 on the CNN-GOP debate Carly Fiorina gave a vivid description of harvesting a live baby for body parts (which means a live birth then murdered and then dissected for internal organs). The Leftists cried boohoo and foul for the CMP video exposés implicating Planned Parenthood had no action of Fiorina’s description but only a description. THE THING IS Carly was talking about some video action that was not a part of CMP video releases. As a reminder, here’s what Carly Fiorina ACCURATELY described:

VIDEO: Carly Fiorina Response to Planned Parenthood on CNN Debate | The Blaze


I can’t assert this is the specific video that Presidential candidate for the GOP nomination viewed, but it is remarkably similar to her description. Due to the graphic nature I am beginning with the Youtube description first. Then I will show the roughly fifteen minute video.

Carly Fiorina was right

Published by AbortionNo

Published on Sep 29, 2015

Carly Fiorina, CNN Republican presidential debate, September 16, 2015:

“Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’ This is about the character of our nation, and if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this [Planned Parenthood defunding] bill, shame on us.”

Ms. Fiorina was referring to a Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) video depicting a few seconds of a 17-½ week fetus, still alive and moving, following an intact-delivery abortion. Here we post the entire unedited video. The total running time is approximately 13 minutes and the video is in five segments as the camera operator turns the camera on and off.

CBR and the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), in whose undercover Planned Parenthood investigative video the CBR abortion footage appears, have been falsely accused of misrepresenting a miscarriage as an abortion. The first segment of the unedited video depicts the abortion itself, with the baby delivered alive and struggling in the abortionist’s gloved hand. Segments 2 and 3 depict the baby still moving in a stainless steel pan after repeatedly being handled abusively by the abortionist. Segments 4 and 5 are static gynecological shots of the baby’s mother.

This unedited version of the disputed footage proves incontestably that this termination is an abortion. Mothers at risk of miscarriage present at hospitals, not abortion clinics. Hospitals are in the business of sustaining pregnancies and saving babies. Abortion clinics are in the business of terminating pregnancies and killing babies. This video depicts a termination and the subsequent abuse and neglect of a preemie obviously delivered alive. No attempt is made to provide the neonatal intensive care a hospital would extend to a wanted baby. It is possible that the abortionists performing this termination violated both state and federal law by withholding care from a baby who survived an abortion.

Ms. Fiorina made reference to a baby’s heart still beating while its brain was being harvested (a process which Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services calls “digging”) and a former StemExpress “procurement technician” says, “I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think” (National Review, August 19, 2015). The article adds that “… her StemExpress supervisor instructed her to cut through the face of the fetus in order to get the brain.”

The unedited version of this abortion depicts an intact-delivery termination and Planned Parenthood partner StemExpress admits through its CEO (Cate Dyer), “Oh yeah, if you had intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety …” (The Daily Signal, August 21, 2015).

A World Magazine article, August 19, 2015, describes “… an aborted baby’s beating heart, a post-abortion occurrence that’s not uncommon, according to Ben Van Handel, executive director of Novogenix Laboratories.”

Ms. Fiorina’s characterizations are not hyperbole.

The terms of our abortion clinic access agreements explicitly forbid us from disclosing any information which could identify the abortion providers from whose clinics we obtain imagery. Dates, locations, affiliations and staff and patient information are confidential. Violating these prohibitions could subject CBR to legal liability and jeopardize clinic access for current and future projects. We are even obligated to delete the audio track on all of our videos.

The Grantham Collection is a component of the CBR abortion imagery archive. Questions related to this very disturbing video should be directed to Gregg Cunningham,, 949-206-0600.

Addendum: Medical malpractice lawsuits have become so common that OB/GYNs practice defensive medicine. They protect themselves by over-diagnosing, over-treating and over-prescribing. No doctor delivering this baby as a preemie in a hospital would fail to provide neonatal intensive care. Even if he had no compassion for the baby or his parents, he would provide care to avoid being sued for negligence. Warren Hern, in his book “Abortion Practice” warns of the difficulty in estimating fetal ages. A baby moving as vigorously as this one is presumptively entitled to care and would receive it — unless the attending physician is an abortionist, which is the case here.

Miscarried embryos and fetuses are virtually all still births involving a baby who expired in the uterus and was later born dead. A preemie in a hospital is born alive and given intensive care — not slapped around in a pan as happened here with a baby who survived the abortion depicted at the beginning of the video.

Notice: Age-restricted video (based on Community Guidelines).

Category: Education



God have mercy on the voters that voted for Senators and Representatives who supported the Continued Resolution without defunding Planned Parenthood. The baby killing entrepreneurs of Planned Parenthood has made America complicit in the murder of children.

I am pleased my Oklahoma District One Representative Jim Bridenstine voted NO.

JRH 10/1/15 (Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers)

Please Support NCCR


A Failure To Govern

Rep. Bridenstine Votes “No” on Continuing Resolution

By Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK 1)

Sent: 9/30/2015 8:30 PM

Jim’s Blog Website

Today I voted “No” on the Continuing Resolution (CR). Continuing Resolutions are a failure to govern, a failure to represent the people, and a failure to exercise the power of the purse.

The House passed the bills to fund the government in the proper process. The Senate failed to take up any of them due to Democrat filibusters. Accordingly, a CR was presented as the only option for funding the federal government.

Representatives should be able to appropriate funds for programs the people approve and withdraw funds from those they oppose. In Federalist 58, James Madison said, “The power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people…”

I have never voted for a CR. Those who voted for the “clean” CR today, or any of the numerous CRs over the past 7 years, voted to fund Planned Parenthood, the President’s unconstitutional executive amnesty, sanctuary cities, Obamacare, and the Iran nuclear deal. There is nothing “clean” about this process. In passing a CR, Congress abandons its representative duty and fails to fulfill the role given to it by the Constitution.

Rep. Jim Bridenstine Votes to Stop the Iran Deal


On September 11th the House voted on three bills to stop President Obama’s atrocious Iran nuclear agreement. These bills make clear that the American people, acting through their elected representatives, reject the President’s capitulation to Iran. America’s next President can — and should — end the agreement on day one and restart the most effective sanctions regime ever created. The Iran deal will endanger the security of America and our closest allies and partners, as I have explained at length (here and here).

Read More


Govt. Temporarily Refunded – Baby Parts Keep Rolling

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2015


A Failure To Govern


Copyright © 2015 Congressman Jim Bridenstine, All rights reserved.


Our mailing address is:

Congressman Jim Bridenstine

2448 E 81st St

Suite 5150

Tulsa, OK 74137

Russia Enters Syria – Is it Geopolitics or Prophecy?

A rebel group in Syria said to be backed by the US, claimed that Russian warplanes have hit its positions in the centrre (sic) of the country.

John R. Houk

© September 30, 2015

Pertaining to Israel, I have to be upfront. My view of the Jewish State is through the lens of the Holy Bible. As a Christian that means I am labelled a Christian Zionist. The kind of guy that Orthodox Jews mistrust due to history and the viewpoint that Christian evangelism is a threat to Judaism. I am also the kind of guy Left Wing (sometimes called Liberal and sometimes called Progressive) Jews loathe due to a non-secular pigeon-holing Israel in Biblical terms rather than a secular homeland for Jews to escape centuries of global antisemitism. Frankly I’m not claiming to know an Israeli/Jewish middle ground of the acceptance Christian Zionist friendship. I just pray a growing trust for Christians supporting Israel grows. At the same time I advise Jews – particularly Israeli Jews – to be wary of Western Leftists and of Progressive (Leftist) Christians who have disowned Biblical essentials and the reality of God Almighty.

NIV Quotes:

Ezek 39:27-29 “When I have brought them back from the nations and have gathered them from the countries of their enemies, I will show myself holy through them in the sight of many nations.” 28 “Then they will know that I am the LORD their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind.” 29 “I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

Amos 9:13-15 “The days are coming, declares the LORD, when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills. 14 I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. 15 I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them, says the LORD your God.”

Jer 30:2 “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you. 3 The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,’ says the LORD.”

Jer 31:10 “Hear the word of the LORD, O nations; proclaim it in distant coastlands: ‘He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.”

Jer 33:7 “I will bring Judah and Israel back from captivity and will rebuild them as they were before.”

Ezek 37:21-27 …..“I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.” (Quotes taken from: Israel: The Greatest Sign; By Ken Marineau; Bible Probe for Christians and Messianic Jews)

Stratfor bills itself as a geopolitical intelligence firm and as such does not look geopolitically through a Biblical lens. From Stratfor I have learned the strategic importance of Israel from history to the present. A Stratfor email was sent out that I believe is no coincidence of the timing of Putin’s Russia demanding the USA to stop bombing inside Syria. Russia is deploying troops to Syria AND so far its own strafing is occurring where ISIS is not in control. Could it be that Russia is engaging the Syrian rebels trying to topple Bashar al-Assad – the same rebels not connected to the brutal Islamic terrorists of ISIS and al Nusra?

Does Secretary of State John Kerry (representing Obama Administration) sound clueless to Russian intentions or what?

VIDEO: Kerry: US Welcomes Russia Strikes if Target IS


Published by Associated Press

Published on Sep 30, 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States is prepared to welcome Russia’s actions in Syria if they are directed at the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda. (Sept. 30)

Subscribe for more Breaking News:
Get updates and more Breaking News here:

The Associated Press is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased [cough] news from every corner of the world to all media platforms and formats.

AP’s commitment to You can read the rest of the lame self-promotion

Is Russia jockeying itself to be the prophetic invaders from the north of Israel that ironically lines up with the Stratfor analysis of the geopolitical importance of Israel? Here is the Stratfor tease from the PDF:

Israel exists in three conditions. First, it can be a completely independent state. This condition occurs when there are no major imperial powers external to the region. We might call this the David model.

Second, it can live as part of an imperial system — either as a subordinate ally, as a moderately autonomous entity or as a satrapy. In any case, it maintains its identity but loses room for independent maneuvering in foreign policy and potentially in domestic policy. We might call this the Persian model in its most beneficent form.

Finally, Israel can be completely crushed — with mass deportations and migrations, with a complete loss of autonomy and minimal residual autonomy. We might call this the Babylonian model.

Below is the Stratfor PDF reformatted for blogging:

JRH 9/30/15

Please Support NCCR


The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern


Downloaded 9/30/15

Notification Sent: 9/29/2015 9:42 PM

This study was originally published by Stratfor in 2008 as the first in a series of monographs on the geopolitics of globally important countries.


The founding principle of geopolitics is that place — geography — plays a significant role in determining how nations will behave. If that theory is true, then there ought to be a deep continuity in a nation’s foreign policy. Israel is a laboratory for this theory, since it has existed in three different manifestations in roughly the same place, twice in antiquity and once in modernity. If geopolitics is correct, then Israeli foreign policy, independent of policymakers, technology or the identity of neighbors, ought to have important common features. This is, therefore, a discussion of common principles in Israeli foreign policy over nearly 3,000 years.

For convenience, we will use the term “Israel” to connote all of the Hebrew and Jewish entities that have existed in the Levant since the invasion of the region as chronicled in the Book of Joshua. As always, geopolitics requires a consideration of three dimensions: the internal geopolitics of Israel, the interaction of Israel and the immediate neighbors who share borders with it, and Israel’s interaction with what we will call great powers, beyond Israel’s borderlands.

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Table of Contents 3

Israel in Biblical Times 4

Israeli Geography and Borderlands 6

Israeli Geography and the Convergence Zone 11

Internal Geopolitics 13

Israel and the Great Powers 15

The Geopolitics of Contemporary Israel 16

Israel in Biblical Times

Israel has manifested itself three times in history. The first manifestation began with the invasion led by Joshua and lasted through its division into two kingdoms, the Babylonian conquest of the Kingdom of Judah and the deportation to Babylon early in the sixth century B.C.



The second manifestation began when Israel was recreated in 540 B.C. by the Persians, who had defeated the Babylonians. The nature of this second manifestation changed in the fourth century B.C., when Greece overran the Persian Empire and Israel, and again in the first century B.C., when the Romans conquered the region.


The second manifestation saw Israel as a small actor within the framework of larger imperial powers, a situation that lasted until the destruction of the Jewish vassal state by the Romans.

Israel’s third manifestation began in 1948, following (as in the other cases) an ingathering of at least some of the Jews who had been dispersed after conquests. Israel’s founding takes place in the context of the decline and fall of the British Empire and must, at least in part, be understood as part of British imperial history.




Israeli Geography and Borderlands

At its height, under King David, Israel extended from the Sinai to the Euphrates, encompassing Damascus. It occupied some, but relatively little, of the coastal region, an area beginning at what today is Haifa and running south to Jaffa, just north of today’s Tel Aviv. The coastal area to the north was held by Phoenicia, the area to the south by Philistines. It is essential to understand that Israel’s size and shape shifted over time. For example, Judah under the Hasmoneans did not include the Negev but did include the Golan. The general locale of Israel is fixed. Its precise borders have never been.

Thus, it is perhaps better to begin with what never was part of Israel. Israel never included the Sinai Peninsula. Along the coast, it never stretched much farther north than the Litani River in today’s Lebanon. Apart from David’s extreme extension (and fairly tenuous control) to the north, Israel’s territory never stretched as far as Damascus, although it frequently held the Golan Heights. Israel extended many times to both sides of the Jordan but never deep into the Jordanian Desert. It never extended southeast into the Arabian Peninsula.

Israel consists generally of three parts. First, it always has had the northern hill region, stretching from the foothills of Mount Hermon south to Jerusalem. Second, it always contains some of the coastal plain from today’s Tel Aviv north to Haifa. Third, it occupies area between Jerusalem and the Jordan River — today’s West Bank. At times, it controls all or part of the Negev, including the coastal region between the Sinai to the Tel Aviv area. It may be larger than this at various times in history, and sometimes smaller, but it normally holds all or part of these three regions.

Israel is well-buffered in three directions. The Sinai Desert protects it against the Egyptians. In general, the Sinai has held little attraction for the Egyptians. The difficulty of deploying forces in the eastern Sinai poses severe logistical problems for them, particularly during a prolonged presence. Unless Egypt can rapidly move through the Sinai north into the coastal plain, where it can sustain its forces more readily, deploying in the Sinai is difficult and unrewarding. Therefore, so long as Israel is not so weak as to make an attack on the coastal plain a viable option, or unless Egypt is motivated by an outside imperial power, Israel does not face a threat from the southwest.

Israel is similarly protected from the southeast. The deserts southeast of Eilat-Aqaba are virtually impassable. No large force could approach from that direction, although smaller raiding parties could. The tribes of the Arabian Peninsula lack the reach or the size to pose a threat to Israel, unless massed and aligned with other forces. Even then, the approach from the southeast is not one that they are likely to take. The Negev is secure from that direction.

The eastern approaches are similarly secured by desert, which begins about 20 to 30 miles east of the Jordan River. While indigenous forces exist in the borderland east of the Jordan, they lack the numbers to be able to penetrate decisively west of the Jordan. Indeed, the normal model is that, so long as Israel controls Judea and Samaria (the modern-day West Bank), then the East Bank of the Jordan River is under the political and sometimes military domination of Israel — sometimes directly through settlement, sometimes indirectly through political influence, or economic or security leverage.

Israel’s vulnerability is in the north. There is no natural buffer between Phoenicia and its successor entities (today’s Lebanon) to the direct north. The best defense line for Israel in the north is the Litani River, but this is not an insurmountable boundary under any circumstance. However, the area along the coast north of Israel does not present a serious threat. The coastal area prospers through trade in the Mediterranean basin. It is oriented toward the sea and to the trade routes to the east, not to the south. If it does anything, this area protects those trade routes and has no appetite for a conflict that might disrupt trade. It stays out of Israel’s way, for the most part.

Moreover, as a commercial area, this region is generally wealthy, a factor that increases predators around it and social conflict within. It is an area prone to instability. Israel frequently tries to extend its influence northward for commercial reasons, as one of the predators, and this can entangle Israel in its regional politics. But barring this self-induced problem, the threat to Israel from the north is minimal, despite the absence of natural boundaries and the large population. On occasion, there is spillover of conflicts from the north, but not to a degree that might threaten regime survival in Israel.

The neighbor that is always a threat lies to the northeast. Syria — or, more precisely, the area governed by Damascus at any time — is populous and frequently has no direct outlet to the sea. It is, therefore, generally poor. The area to its north, Asia Minor, is heavily mountainous. Syria cannot project power to the north except with great difficulty, but powers in Asia Minor can move south. Syria’s eastern flank is buffered by a desert that stretches to the Euphrates.

Therefore, when there is no threat from the north, Syria’s interest — after securing itself internally — is to gain access to the coast. Its primary channel is directly westward, toward the rich cities of the northern Levantine coast, with which it trades heavily. An alternative interest is southwestward, toward the southern Levantine coast controlled by Israel.


As can be seen, Syria can be interested in Israel only selectively. When it is interested, it has a serious battle problem. To attack Israel, it would have to strike between Mount Hermon and the Sea of Galilee, an area about 25 miles wide. The Syrians potentially can attack south of the sea, but only if they are prepared to fight through this region and then attack on extended supply lines. If an attack is mounted along the main route, Syrian forces must descend the Golan Heights and then fight through the hilly Galilee before reaching the coastal plain — sometimes with guerrillas holding out in the Galilean hills. The Galilee is an area that is relatively easy to defend and difficult to attack. Therefore, it is only once Syria takes the Galilee, and can control its lines of supply against guerrilla attack, that its real battle begins.

To reach the coast or move toward Jerusalem, Syria must fight through a plain in front of a line of low hills. This is the decisive battleground where massed Israeli forces, close to lines of supply, can defend against dispersed Syrian forces on extended lines of supply. It is no accident that Megiddo — or Armageddon, as the plain is sometimes referred to — has apocalyptic meaning. This is the point at which any move from Syria would be decided. But a Syrian offensive would have a tough fight to reach Megiddo, and a tougher one as it deploys on the plain.

On the surface, Israel lacks strategic depth, but this is true only on the surface. It faces limited threats from southern neighbors. To its east, it faces only a narrow strip of populated area east of the Jordan. To the north, there is a maritime commercial entity. Syria operating alone, forced through the narrow gap of the Mount Hermon-Galilee line and operating on extended supply lines, can be dealt with readily.

There is a risk of simultaneous attacks from multiple directions. Depending on the forces deployed and the degree of coordination between them, this can pose a problem for Israel. However, even here the Israelis have the tremendous advantage of fighting on interior lines. Egypt and Syria, fighting on external lines (and widely separated fronts), would have enormous difficulty transferring forces from one front to another. Israel, on interior lines (fronts close to each other with good transportation), would be able to move its forces from front to front rapidly, allowing for sequential engagement and thereby the defeat of enemies.

Unless enemies are carefully coordinated and initiate war simultaneously — and deploy substantially superior force on at least one front — Israel can initiate war at a time of its choosing or else move its forces rapidly between fronts, negating much of the advantage of size that the attackers might have.

There is another aspect to the problem of multifront war. Egypt usually has minimal interests along the Levant, having its own coast and an orientation to the south toward the headwaters of the Nile. On the rare occasions when Egypt does move through the Sinai and attacks to the north and northeast, it is in an expansionary mode. By the time it consolidates and exploits the coastal plain, it would be powerful enough to threaten Syria. From Syria’s point of view, the only thing more dangerous than Israel is an Egypt in control of Israel. Therefore, the probability of a coordinated north-south strike at Israel is rare, is rarely coordinated and usually is not designed to be a mortal blow. It is defeated by Israel’s strategic advantage of interior lines.

Israeli Geography and the Convergence Zone

Therefore, it is not surprising that Israel’s first incarnation lasted as long as it did — some five centuries. What is interesting and what must be considered is why Israel (now considered as the northern kingdom) was defeated by the Assyrians and Judea, then defeated by Babylon. To understand this, we need to consider the broader geography of Israel’s location.

Israel is located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, on the Levant. As we have seen, when Israel is intact, it will tend to be the dominant power in the Levant. Therefore, Israeli resources must generally be dedicated for land warfare, leaving little over for naval warfare. In general, although Israel had excellent harbors and access to wood for shipbuilding, it never was a major Mediterranean naval power. It never projected power into the sea. The area to the north of Israel has always been a maritime power, but Israel, the area south of Mount Hermon, was always forced to be a land power.

The Levant in general and Israel in particular has always been a magnet for great powers. No Mediterranean empire could be fully secure unless it controlled the Levant. Whether it was Rome or Carthage, a Mediterranean empire that wanted to control both the northern and southern littorals needed to anchor its eastern flank on the Levant. For one thing, without the Levant, a Mediterranean power would be entirely dependent on sea lanes for controlling the other shore. Moving troops solely by sea creates transport limitations and logistical problems.

It also leaves imperial lines vulnerable to interdiction — sometimes merely from pirates, a problem that plagued Rome’s sea transport. A land bridge, or a land bridge with minimal water crossings that can be easily defended, is a vital supplement to the sea for the movement of large numbers of troops. Once the Hellespont (now known as the Dardanelles) is crossed, the coastal route through southern Turkey, down the Levant and along the Mediterranean’s southern shore, provides such an alternative.

There is an additional consideration. If a Mediterranean empire leaves the Levant unoccupied, it opens the door to the possibility of a great power originating to the east seizing the ports of the Levant and challenging the Mediterranean power for maritime domination. In short, control of the Levant binds a Mediterranean empire together while denying a challenger from the east the opportunity to enter the Mediterranean. Holding the Levant, and controlling Israel, is a necessary preventive measure for a Mediterranean empire.

Israel is also important to any empire originating to the east of Israel, either in the Tigris- Euphrates basin or in Persia. For either, security could be assured only once it had an anchor on the Levant. Macedonian expansion under Alexander demonstrated that a power controlling Levantine and Turkish ports could support aggressive operations far to the east, to the Hindu Kush and beyond. While Turkish ports might have sufficed for offensive operations, simply securing the Bosporus still left the southern flank exposed. Therefore, by holding the Levant, an eastern power protected itself against attacks from Mediterranean powers.


The Levant was also important to any empire originating to the north or south of Israel. If Egypt decided to move beyond the Nile Basin and North Africa eastward, it would move first through the Sinai and then northward along the coastal plain, securing sea lanes to Egypt. When Asia Minor powers such as the Ottoman Empire developed, there was a natural tendency to move southward to control the eastern Mediterranean. The Levant is the crossroads of continents, and Israel lies in the path of many imperial ambitions.

Israel therefore occupies what might be called the convergence zone of the Eastern Hemisphere. A European power trying to dominate the Mediterranean or expand eastward, an eastern power trying to dominate the space between the Hindu Kush and the Mediterranean, a North African power moving toward the east, or a northern power moving south — all must converge on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean and therefore on Israel. Of these, the European power and the eastern power must be the most concerned with Israel. For either, there is no choice but to secure it as an anchor.

Internal Geopolitics

Israel is geographically divided into three regions, which traditionally have produced three different types of people. Its coastal plain facilitates commerce, serving as the interface between eastern trade routes and the sea. It is the home of merchants and manufacturers, cosmopolitans — not as cosmopolitan as Phoenicia or Lebanon, but cosmopolitan for Israel. The northeast is hill country, closest to the unruliness north of the Litani River and to the Syrian threat. It breeds farmers and warriors. The area south of Jerusalem is hard desert country, more conducive to herdsman and warriors than anything else. Jerusalem is where these three regions are balanced and governed.

Photos: Source: Lehava Taybe via Israeli Pikiwiki project* – Source: Israel Defense Force** – Source: Avishai Teicher via Israeli Pikiwiki project*

[*Images provided under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. These images have not been altered in any way other than cropped to fit available space. Terms of the license can be viewed here:

**Image provided under the Creative Commons 2.0 Generic license. Terms of the license can be viewed here: 2.0/deed.en]


There are obviously deep differences built into Israel’s geography and inhabitants, particularly between the herdsmen of the southern deserts and the northern hill dwellers. The coastal dwellers, rich but less warlike than the others, hold the balance or are the prize to be pursued. In the division of the original kingdom between Israel and Judea, we saw the alliance of the coast with the Galilee, while Jerusalem was held by the desert dwellers. The consequence of the division was that Israel in the north ultimately was conquered by Assyrians from the northeast, while Babylon was able to swallow Judea.

Social divisions in Israel obviously do not have to follow geographical lines. However, over time, these divisions must manifest themselves. For example, the coastal plain is inherently more cosmopolitan than the rest of the country. The interests of its inhabitants lie more with trading partners in the Mediterranean and the rest of the world than with their countrymen. Their standard of living is higher, and their commitment to traditions is lower. Therefore, there is an inherent tension between their immediate interests and those of the Galileans, who live more precarious, warlike lives. Countries can be divided over lesser issues — and when Israel is divided, it is vulnerable even to regional threats.

We say “even” because geography dictates that regional threats are less menacing than might be expected. The fact that Israel would be outnumbered demographically should all its neighbors turn on it is less important than the fact that it has adequate buffers in most directions, that the ability of neighbors to coordinate an attack is minimal and that their appetite for such an attack is even less. The single threat that Israel faces from the northeast can readily be managed if the Israelis create a united front there. When Israel was overrun by a Damascus-based power, it was deeply divided internally.

It is important to add one consideration to our discussion of buffers, which is diplomacy. The main neighbors of Israel are Egyptians, Syrians and those who live on the east bank of Jordan. This last group is a negligible force demographically, and the interests of the Syrians and Egyptians are widely divergent. Egypt’s interests are to the south and west of its territory; the Sinai holds no attraction. Syria is always threatened from multiple directions, and alliance with Egypt adds little to its security. Therefore, under the worst of circumstances, Egypt and Syria have difficulty supporting each other. Under the best of circumstances, from Israel’s point of view, it can reach a political accommodation with Egypt, securing its southwestern frontier politically as well as by geography, thus freeing Israel to concentrate on the northern threats and opportunities.

Israel and the Great Powers

The threat to Israel rarely comes from the region, except when the Israelis are divided internally. The conquests of Israel occur when powers not adjacent to it begin forming empires. Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Rome, Turkey and Britain all controlled Israel politically, sometimes for worse and sometimes for better. Each dominated it militarily, but none was a neighbor of Israel. This is a consistent pattern. Israel can resist its neighbors; danger arises when more distant powers begin playing imperial games. Empires can bring force to bear that Israel cannot resist.

Israel therefore has this problem: It would be secure if it could confine itself to protecting its interests from neighbors, but it cannot confine itself because its geographic location invariably draws larger, more distant powers toward Israel. Therefore, while Israel’s military can focus only on immediate interests, its diplomatic interests must look much further. Israel is constantly entangled with global interests (as the globe is defined at any point), seeking to deflect and align with broader global powers. When it fails in this diplomacy, the consequences can be catastrophic.

Israel exists in three conditions. First, it can be a completely independent state. This condition occurs when there are no major imperial powers external to the region. We might call this the David model.

Second, it can live as part of an imperial system — either as a subordinate ally, as a moderately autonomous entity or as a satrapy. In any case, it maintains its identity but loses room for independent maneuvering in foreign policy and potentially in domestic policy. We might call this the Persian model in its most beneficent form.

Finally, Israel can be completely crushed — with mass deportations and migrations, with a complete loss of autonomy and minimal residual autonomy. We might call this the Babylonian model.

The Davidic model exists primarily when there is no external imperial power needing control of the Levant that is in a position either to send direct force or to support surrogates in the immediate region. The Persian model exists when Israel aligns itself with the foreign policy interests of such an imperial power, to its own benefit. The Babylonian model exists when Israel miscalculates on the broader balance of power and attempts to resist an emerging hegemon. When we look at Israeli behavior over time, the periods when Israel does not confront hegemonic powers outside the region are not rare, but are far less common than when it is confronting them.

Given the period of the first iteration of Israel, it would be too much to say that the Davidic model rarely comes into play, but certainly since that time, variations of the Persian and Babylonian models have dominated. The reason is geographic. Israel is normally of interest to outside powers because of its strategic position. While Israel can deal with local challenges effectively, it cannot deal with broader challenges. It lacks the economic or military weight to resist. Therefore, it is normally in the process of managing broader threats or collapsing because of them.

The Geopolitics of Contemporary Israel

Let us then turn to the contemporary manifestation of Israel. Israel was recreated because of the interaction between a regional great power, the Ottoman Empire, and a global power, Great Britain. During its expansionary phase, the Ottoman Empire sought to dominate the eastern Mediterranean as well as both its northern and southern coasts. One thrust went through the Balkans toward central Europe. The other was toward Egypt. Inevitably, this required that the Ottomans secure the Levant.

For the British, the focus on the eastern Mediterranean was as the primary sea lane to India. As such, Gibraltar and the Suez were crucial. The importance of the Suez was such that the presence of a hostile, major naval force in the eastern Mediterranean represented a direct threat to British interests. It followed that defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I and breaking its residual naval power was critical. The British, as was shown at Gallipoli, lacked the resources to break the Ottoman Empire by main force. They resorted to a series of alliances with local forces to undermine the Ottomans. One was an alliance with Bedouin tribes in the Arabian Peninsula; others involved covert agreements with anti-Turkish, Arab interests from the Levant to the Persian Gulf. A third, minor thrust was aligning with Jewish interests globally, particularly those interested in the refounding of Israel. Britain had little interest in this goal, but saw such discussions as part of the process of destabilizing the Ottomans.

The strategy worked. Under an agreement with France, the Ottoman province of Syria was divided into two parts on a line roughly running east-west between the sea and Mount Hermon. The northern part was given to France and divided into Lebanon and a rump Syria entity. The southern part was given to Britain and was called Palestine, after the Ottoman administrative district Filistina. Given the complex politics of the Arabian Peninsula, the British had to find a home for a group of Hashemites, which they located on the east bank of the Jordan River and designated, for want of a better name, the Trans-Jordan — the other side of the Jordan. Palestine looked very much like traditional Israel.

The ideological foundations of Zionism are not our concern here, nor are the pre- and post- World War II migrations of Jews, although those are certainly critical. What is important for purposes of this analysis are two things: First, the British emerged economically and militarily crippled from World War II and unable to retain their global empire, Palestine included. Second, the two global powers that emerged after World War II — the United States and the Soviet Union — were engaged in an intense struggle for the eastern Mediterranean after World War II, as can be seen in the Greek and Turkish issues at that time. Neither wanted to see the British Empire survive, each wanted the Levant, and neither was prepared to make a decisive move to take it.

Both the United States and the Soviet Union saw the re-creation of Israel as an opportunity to introduce their power to the Levant. The Soviets thought they might have some influence over Israel due to ideology. The Americans thought they might have some influence given the role of American Jews in the founding. Neither was thinking particularly clearly about the matter, because neither had truly found its balance after World War II. Both knew the Levant was important, but neither saw the Levant as a central battleground at that moment. Israel slipped through the cracks.

Once the question of Jewish unity was settled through ruthless action by David Ben Gurion’s government, Israel faced a simultaneous threat from all of its immediate neighbors. However, as we have seen, the threat in 1948 was more apparent than real. The northern Levant, Lebanon, was fundamentally disunited — far more interested in regional maritime trade and concerned about control from Damascus. It posed no real threat to Israel. Jordan, settling the eastern bank of the Jordan River, was an outside power that had been transplanted into the region and was more concerned about native Arabs — the Palestinians — than about Israel. The Jordanians secretly collaborated with Israel. Egypt did pose a threat, but its ability to maintain lines of supply across the Sinai was severely limited and its genuine interest in engaging and destroying Israel was more rhetorical than real. As usual, the Egyptians could not afford the level of effort needed to move into the Levant. Syria by itself had a very real interest in Israel’s defeat, but by itself was incapable of decisive action.

The exterior lines of Israel’s neighbors prevented effective, concerted action. Israel’s interior lines permitted efficient deployment and redeployment of force. It was not obvious at the time, but in retrospect we can see that once Israel existed, was united and had even limited military force, its survival was guaranteed. That is, so long as no great power was opposed to its existence.

From its founding until the Camp David Accords re-established the Sinai as a buffer with Egypt, Israel’s strategic problem was this: So long as Egypt was in the Sinai, Israel’s national security requirements outstripped its military capabilities. It could not simultaneously field an army, maintain its civilian economy and produce all the weapons and supplies needed for war. Israel had to align itself with great powers who saw an opportunity to pursue other interests by arming Israel.

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister (Public domain)

Josef Stalin, first Secretary-General of the Soviet Union (Public domain) – Robert Schuman, French prime minister, 1948 (Public domain)

Israel’s first patron was the Soviet Union — through Czechoslovakia — which supplied weapons before and after 1948 in the hopes of using Israel to gain a foothold in the eastern Mediterranean. Israel, aware of the risks of losing autonomy, also moved into a relationship with a declining great power that was fighting to retain its empire: France. Struggling to hold onto Algeria and in constant tension with Arabs, France saw Israel as a natural ally. And apart from the operation against Suez in 1956, Israel saw in France a patron that was not in a position to reduce Israeli autonomy. However, with the end of the Algerian war and the realignment of France in the Arab world, Israel became a liability to France and, after 1967, Israel lost French patronage.

Israel did not become a serious ally of the Americans until after 1967. Such an alliance was in the American interest. The United States had, as a strategic imperative, the goal of keeping the Soviet navy out of the Mediterranean or, at least, blocking its unfettered access. That meant that Turkey, controlling the Bosporus, had to be kept in the American bloc. Syria and Iraq shifted policies in the late 1950s and by the mid-1960s had been armed by the Soviets. This made Turkey’s position precarious: If the Soviets pressed from the north while Syria and Iraq pressed from the south, the outcome would be uncertain, to say the least, and the global balance of power was at stake.

The United States used Iran to divert Iraq’s attention. Israel was equally useful in diverting Syria’s attention. So long as Israel threatened Syria from the south, it could not divert its forces to the north. That helped secure Turkey at a relatively low cost in aid and risk. By aligning itself with the interests of a great power, Israel lost some of its room for maneuver: For example, in 1973, it was limited by the United States in what it could do to Egypt. But those limitations aside, it remained autonomous internally and generally free to pursue its strategic interests.

Celebrating the Camp David Accords, September 1978: Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat (Source: Bill Fitz-Patrick, public domain)

The end of hostilities with Egypt, guaranteed by the Sinai buffer zone, created a new era for Israel. Egypt was restored to its traditional position, Jordan was a marginal power on the east bank, Lebanon was in its normal, unstable mode, and only Syria was a threat. However, it was a threat that Israel could easily deal with. Syria by itself could not threaten the survival of Israel.

Following Camp David (an ironic name), Israel was in its Davidic model, in a somewhat modified sense. Its survival was not at stake. Its problems — the domination of a large, hostile population and managing events in the northern Levant — were subcritical (meaning that, though these were not easy tasks, they did not represent fundamental threats to national survival, so long as Israel retained national unity). When unified, Israel has never been threatened by its neighbors. Geography dictates against it.

Israel’s danger will come only if a great power seeks to dominate the Mediterranean Basin or to occupy the region between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean. In the short period since the fall of the Soviet Union, this has been impossible. There has been no great power with the appetite and the will for such an adventure. But 15 years is not even a generation, and Israel must measure its history in centuries.

It is the nature of the international system to seek balance. The primary reality of the world today is the overwhelming power of the United States. The United States makes few demands on Israel that matter. However, it is the nature of things that the United States threatens the interests of other great powers who, individually weak, will try to form coalitions against it. Inevitably, such coalitions will arise. That will be the next point of danger for Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of the U.S. Congress in March 2015 — warning of dangers to Israel if Washington reaches an accord with Iran. (Public domain)

In the event of a global rivalry, the United States might place onerous requirements on Israel. Alternatively, great powers might move into the Jordan River valley or ally with Syria, move into Lebanon or ally with Israel. The historical attraction of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean would focus the attention of such a power and lead to attempts to assert control over the Mediterranean or create a secure Middle Eastern empire. In either event, or some of the others discussed, it would create a circumstance in which Israel might face a Babylonian catastrophe or be forced into some variation of Persian or Roman subjugation.

Israel’s danger is not a Palestinian rising. Palestinian agitation is an irritant that Israel can manage so long as it does not undermine Israeli unity. Whether it is managed by domination or by granting the Palestinians a vassal state matters little. Nor can Israel be threatened by its neighbors. Even a unified attack by Syria and Egypt would fail, for the reasons discussed.

Israel’s real threat, as can be seen in history, lies in the event of internal division and/or a great power, coveting Israel’s geographical position, marshaling force that is beyond its capacity to resist. Even that can be managed if Israel has a patron whose interests involve denying the coast to another power.

Israel’s reality is this. It is a small country, yet must manage threats arising far outside of its region. It can survive only if it maneuvers with great powers commanding enormously greater resources. Israel cannot match the resources and, therefore, it must be constantly clever. There are periods when it is relatively safe because of great power alignments, but its normal condition is one of global unease. No nation can be clever forever, and Israel’s history shows that some form of subordination is inevitable. Indeed, it is to a very limited extent subordinate to the United States now.

For Israel, the retention of a Davidic independence is difficult. Israel’s strategy must be to manage its subordination effectively by dealing with its patron cleverly, as it did with Persia. But cleverness is not a geopolitical concept. It is not permanent, and it is not assured. And that is the perpetual crisis of Jerusalem.


Russia Enters Syria – Is it Geopolitics or Prophecy?

John R. Houk

© September 30, 2015


The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern

221 West 6th Street

Austin, TX 78701


About Stratfor


Stratfor is a geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis and forecasting to individuals and organizations around the world. By placing global events in a geopolitical framework, we help customers anticipate opportunities and better understand international developments.


We have two core offerings: online subscriptions and custom consulting services. Subscribers gain a thorough understanding of world events through full access to our analysis, published around the clock. Clients get direct access to our analysts and to our global networks, enabling them to better assess geopolitical risk, make strategic investments and expand into challenging regions.


Founded in 1996 by author George Friedman, Stratfor brings customers an incisive new approach to examining world affairs. Stratfor taps into a worldwide network of contacts and mines vast amounts of open-source information. Analysts then interpret the information by looking through the objective lens of geopolitics to determine how developments affect different regions, industries and markets.




Stratfor’s vision is to be the most respected provider of predictive intelligence services. Our core philosophy centers on the understanding that transformative world events are not random and are, indeed, predictable.


Building on nearly 20 years of experience as the world’s premier geopolitical intelligence firm, Stratfor develops constraint-based narratives for key trends around the globe — placing today’s events in context and forecasting tomorrow’s new developments well before they appear in the headlines.




Stratfor’s mission is to provide a strategic advantage for our clients and subscribers.

Stratfor produces accurate forecasts and intelligence reports for the globally engaged. The success of Stratfor’s predictive intelligence service is measured by our client’s ability to identify opportunities, make better decisions and manage risk through information that is timely, relevant and — above all else — actionable.


The Stratfor Difference


  • Analysis and forecasting capabilities for more than 175 countries


  • Unparalleled expertise in the world’s most complex environments


  • Clients get direct access to a team of experts


  • Accurate forecasting using proven geopolitical methodology


  • Multinational professionals who speak 29 languages and live in every region


  • Trusted partner of leading Fortune 500 companies, financial institutions, natural resource firms, nonprofits and high-net worth individuals


  • Proven track record maximizing investment opportunities


  • No political agenda and no national bias


  • Live subscriber support


“Whenever I want to understand the details behind world events, I turn to Stratfor. They have the most detailed and insightful analysis of world affairs and are miles ahead of mainstream media.”Muneer A. Satter; Satter Investment Management, LLC

No Muslim Moral Obligation to Keep Agreements to Kafir & Spouse

Counterjihad anonymous writer and expert on interpreting Islamic writing – Dajjal – commented on the NCCR post “I’m with Dr. Carson on Constitution and Islam”. Dajjal points out in the comment that a Muslim has no moral obligation to keep any agreement with a non-Muslim or a woman.

JRH 9/29/15

Please Support NCCR


No Muslim Moral Obligation to Keep Agreements to Kafir & Spouse

[Editor’s Title]

By Dajjal

Edited by John R. Houk

September 23, 2015 at 2:48 AM

Dr. Carson did not propose legislation to bar Muslims from the Presidency. He explained why he would not vote for one. His explanation fell short. In a later interview, which I heard Tuesday on Hannity’s radio show, Carson admitted that he only read part of the Koran.

When a Muslim makes a promise to his wife, Allah has already permitted the dissolution of his oath. 66_2


“Whoever makes an oath and then sees that something else would be better than it, should do kaffara for his oath and do what is better.” [Blog Editor: As of 9/29/15 1:15 PM CT this message appears – 404 – File or directory not found.] [Blog Editor: As of 9/29/15 1:15 PM CT this message appears – 404 – File or directory not found.]

9:3. And a declaration from Allâh and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah – the 12th month of Islâmic calendar) that Allâh is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikûn) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allâh. And give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve.

A Muslim is allowed to break a promise to his wife and Moe & Allah are free of obligations made to the pagans of Mekkah. Got a clue yet? A Muslim’s oath is worth as much as used toilet paper. When he promised to defend and protect the Constitution, Obamination was spewing shit: he had mental reservation and purpose of deception. Why then should we trust any other Muslim?

The root word of religion means “to bind”. What does Islam bind Muslims to do?
War against us!


Got a clue yet? Moe is the role model for ‘slimes to emulate.

What did Moe do for them to mimic? He waged war, took, raped and enslaved captives and committed genocide.


Got a clue yet?

Challenge to LibTards:

Should any of the following be elected President? If not, why not??

Klansman of the KKK


Made Mafiosa

Challenge to Nihad Awad, obnoxious A*s**ole:

Shari’ah requires that the Caliph be a Muslim, Infidels are disqualified. Subordinate rulers must be Muslims, Infidels are disqualified. Judges must be Muslim, infidels are disqualified. An infidel has no right to authority, even over other infidels. Have you ever considered reciprocity?


http://www. [Blog Editor: As of 1:48 pm on 9/29/15 my browser could not locate link. Here is an link to the entire Reliance of the Traveller]

Now therefore I direct you to dissolve CAIR and go directly to Hell. Tax exempt organizations are not permitted to interfere in elections, you violated our law.


Edited by John R. Houk


© Dajjal

Breaking Eggs for a Good Omelet

John R. Houk

© September 28, 2015

Yurki posted this video on the comment section of my About Page to the NCCR blog. The video is about an animation discussion between an anti-Israel teddy bear and a pro-Israel teddy bear. The information learned demonstrates the antisemitic attitude the United Nations has toward Israel, yet other nations commit atrocities that make accusations look like a day in the park and the UN says absolutely nothing. Sadly my own nation of the USA is on the list summary list of nations that gets a pass for some wrong doing:

US bomb kills 30 at Afghan weddingDaily Mail 7/1/02

The US Has Bombed at Least Eight Wedding Parties Since 2001The Nation 12/26/13

Yemen May Not Offer Best Model For Obama’s ISIS Plan – NPR 9/11/14

It’s not that I am unsympathetic toward innocent civilians that perish in this war paradigm prosecuted by Islamic terrorists; however part of that paradigm is either hiding among innocent civilians or those civilians are not so innocent because they are supportive of Islamic terrorist goals incorporating hate-Americans and hate-Jews strategies. Ergo winning a war in this paradigm means breaking eggs to make a successful omelet.

JRH 9/28/15 (Hat Tip: Yurki1000)

Please Support NCCR


VIDEO: I hate Israel – the UN told me so


Published by firstonethrough

Posted on Apr 8, 2011

Israel is the sole focus of the United Nations, to the misfortune of millions of people who are suffering.

Other videos in series:

I hate Israel – Racism
I hate Israel – Zionism
I hate Israel – East Jerusalem
I hate Israel – Murderers
I hate Israel – Wars
I hate Israel – Right of Return
I hate Israel – Gaza Blockade
I hate Israel – Security Wall
I hate Israel – I don’t hate Jews
I hate Israel – Displaced People
I hate Israel – Persecuting Christians
I hate Israel – Assassinations
I hate Israel – I wish it would go away
Syria Hypocrisy – Asma Al-Assad on violent rampage
Turkey Hypocrisy- Erdogan threatens Israel
Jordan Hypocrisy – Queen Rania on Palestinians and UNRWA
Jews and US Foreign Policy
Remembering the 1972 Israeli Olympic Athletes (Evanescence)
The 2002 Massacres of Netanya and Jenin
The 2011 Massacre of the Fogels in Itamar
Drive, Saudi Arabia (The Cars)
The al-Assad Show Goes On (Queen)
Mad World, Arab-Israel Conflict (Tears for Fears)
IDF and Hamas trade shots (Pat Benatar)
Obama to Israel: Go Your Own Way (Fleetwood Mac)
Fragile Beauty in the Far East (Bon Jovi)
Freewill, Arab Spring (Rush)
God is a Zionist (Joan Osborne)