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

Praise the Lord and Pass the Putin

Putin Jester toon

Norma Zager manages to use humor to drive home the point that Vladimir Putin is forcing the world to respect Russia and realize President Barack Hussein has transformed America into a weak doormat being prepared to be trampled upon.


I suspect American Baby Boomers will latch on to the humor-analogies quicker because their historical presence during classic TV, Old Movies (but not ancient) and a smattering of knowledge of past current events. Enjoy!


JRH 3/19/14

Please Support NCCR


Praise the Lord and Pass the Putin

Putin, What a Riot!  (The New James Bond)


By Norma Zager

Sent: 3/19/2014 10:59 AM


There is a rumor that a big Hollywood producer has approached Putin to do his own Reality Show. Why? Because Putin makes good TV.  He is easily the most entertaining Russian leader since Khrushchev, who blustered and beat his shoes on desks. What a kick to watch.


So what is it about Putin that makes him so much fun?  After all, the moron in North Korea is an ignoramus and has definitely replaced Tattoo as the short funny guy on that Fantasy Island he inhabits. Yet, he still has the kid in class who thinks he’s cool, and sits and picks his nose and grosses everyone out vibe.


But back to Putin. He is the new generation of Russian leader.  He talks to the world leaders and winks into the camera.  We get it.  He rides shirtless on a horse like some wanna be Beckham and the world laughs.


There is a definite feeling that even James Bond would have a hellava time getting rid of this Russian.


So what is his appeal, if that is really the word to describe a former Russian KGB agent?


I suggest the real reason people are amused by Putin is because he is actually a Bond character. A real life Fleming villain minus the pussycat on his lap.  Okay, so he has the horse.


In a world where each morning we awaken to a new set of horrifying realities, he is the comic relief.


It’s as if he is simply a product of the comedy mind of the Daily Show and not a real guy. Just made up so Stewart can point and use him for the laugh.  And laugh we do.


He walks in and takes Crimea without firing a damn shot, and we yuk it up.


Why? Because he lies and makes stuff up and John Kerry makes that face that says, “yeah, right what a liar,” and we laugh harder.


Why? Because all our politicians lie to us, and we are conditioned to accept the lies and say, “okay so they lie. What do you expect?”


And that’s the problem.  We have come to expect our leaders to lie, be dishonest, act ridiculous and do everything to harm us and we just laugh and shrug our shoulders.


Something has definitely changed in the last forty years because we were not laughing at Nixon. Nobody found him amusing at all.  Woodward and Bernstein put their lives on the line to bring a president down because he was dishonest.


Now when our president lies, the media swear to it and get a tingle down their leg.


So whose problem is the lack of accountability with our leaders? Is it the American people, the media or the politicians who like dogs will hump anything in sight if they can; or is it merely the times?  And do we have the ability to reset, and yes I used the term purposely.


If Putin is funny and Obama can do no wrong, or is it he can do wrong and it’s just all right, then who is really responsible for the lack of respect for the people running the world?


Russia and the United States are still powers without equal. Angela Merkel told Obama Putin doesn’t speak like he’s in this world. Okay, so what world does she suspect he’s in? Is she perhaps alluding to the fact he is an alien? Maybe the one who stole the Malaysian plane and flew it up to Mars with a stopover at the Crimean border?


Putin still has the firepower to end the world if he wishes, and we can match and top him for sure.


When is it no longer funny and simply tragic to watch?


I have heard so many people ask, “Really what’s our business if Putin takes Crimea?”


If Europe doesn’t care why should we? And that’s a good point.  Hard to find a comeback for that one, but I will try.


In 1994 we signed a paper telling Ukraine we had their back. What has changed? When did the United States stop caring about the bullies on the playground beating up the little guys?


When was it okay to walk away?


When Syrian children are being murdered?


When our ambassadors are murdered?


When Iran tweets we are idiots?


I’m confused.  No wonder.  Our foreign policy, whatever that may be, changes daily, even hourly. Where the hell is John Wayne when we need him?


Oops, someone will accuse me of living with a 1980’s cold war mentality.  What’s so cold about nukes?


Putin, the reset, American foreign policy.


Oddly we jumped in feet first to oust Mubarak, oust Kaddafi and pitched a fit over Syria then backed down when Putin stepped in and said, “I’ll handle this guy, after all were buds.”


Begs the question; who is getting handled here?


We just watch as Putin runs into convenience store and grabs a pack of cigarettes and a bottle of scotch and runs out before the owner sees him.


He has become that guy who will pull the stunts and the crap no one else has the guts to do, and we just go along for the thrill.


If Putin lived in America, he would be governor of Texas, riding bareback across his twenty acre spread, munching on a barbecue rib and guzzling a Bud. 


A good old boy.  We are not intimidated by him, because he is so familiar, we know this guy.


Hard to tell the good guys from the bad, when each claims they are in the right, and all their friends swear to their lies.


Annette Funicello died last year.  If you weren’t paying attention you may not have noticed.


Mouseketeers, Putin, what’s the point here?  Just this; an era has ended and we hardly noticed. Our youth is gone and with it decency, civility and right and wrong have left the building.


There are new sheriffs in town; ones we don’t know or recognize, scary black presences that are more frightening than Michael Landon dressed as a teenage werewolf.


Once the line, “To Serve Man is a cookbook,” scared the hell out of me and sent chills down my spine, now it’s the phrase, Russian Reset.


Pass the ribs and crack open a Bud; they’re cooking our goose for dinner.


Edited by John R. Houk


Norma Zager is an award-winning investigative journalist and author.  Her passion for Israel has driven her to dedicate the past decade writing and having a radio show about Israel.


This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.


Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.



© Israel Monitor, March 2014


First Published March 18, 2014

Liberate Ukraine

Ukraine-Russia crisis as of 3-5-14

Justin Smith writes about Ukrainian prospects. The Maidan protesters were influential in getting the corrupt Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych kicked out of Office by the Ukrainian Parliament; however Justin indicates Ukrainian voters may face future choices of corrupt candidates for President in the next election. It seems to me Ukrainian voters may have to find a leader from their grassroots able to sway voters. It reminds me of the difficulty among Conservative Republicans being continuously let down by the Republican Establishment.


JRH 3/9/14

Please Support NCCR


Liberate Ukraine


By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/8/2014 10:38 PM


The protesters in Independence Square have suffered a long train of abuses and usurpations from a succession of presumably democratically elected governments that consistently have sunk into the depths of corruption and arbitrary, illegal and despotic actions, forcing the people to oppose them and unify for the salvation of Ukraine. They did not initially ask for President Viktor Yanukovych’s removal, only that he honor the European Union – Ukraine Association Agreement. But, several hundred wounded and over eighty dead, at Yanukovych’s orders and Putin’s direction changed everything and created a call for new Guards, which is any freedom-loving people’s right.

The ouster of Yanukovych from office by the Ukrainian Parliament was no more a coup than was U.S. President Richard Nixon’s resignation over Watergate. Yanukovych was abandoned by his own Regions Party and accused of embezzling $40 billion over three years and betraying Ukraine. Assertions by Russian media and Putin that this was a “fascist coup” are outright Stalinist propaganda tactics, and pundits, such as Phil Valentine (Cumulus Radio), repeatedly calling this a “coup” are ignorant of the East-West dynamics, the ongoing trade war between the EU and Russia, and parliamentary procedures and “votes of no confidence.”

For months the protesters of Maidan held Berkut anti-riot police at bay, as they were injured and killed. They treated their wounded, prayed over their dead, and they fought for their right to form a new state governed, hopefully, by moral leaders, free from corruption. And now, they have been stunned by a new sense of betrayal, a new group of oligarchs, driving Mercedes and BMWs, form the interim government in the name of Ukraine’s people.

Betrayals came one after another, once Yanukovych appeared in Russia. Putin violated several international treaties by invading Crimea, as the European Union ringed their collective hands over Putin’s threats to raise gas prices from Gazprom, and Obama frantically floundered around the U.S.-Russian “reset button”, giving empty lip-service to sanctions no one will honor; don’t look for Russia’s removal from the G-8 either, since Chancellor Angela Merkel is pursuing angles for Germany during this internationally clustered imbroglio.

Ukrainians have long sought closer ties with the EU and the U.S. and their markedly freer cultures and political systems, not Putin and Russia. Five-hundred thousand dollars have gone towards this goal annually, since 2011, through the U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID], because many influential Ukrainians, such as Vitali Klitshko – member of Ukraine Parliament, feared Yanukovych’s growing subservience to Putin; Putin’s $15 billion bribe was intended to coax Ukraine into his Eurasian Union, and, in appealing to Yanukovych’s corrupt nature, it effectively sabotaged the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement: So, an East-West confrontation emerged, which is based on Putin’s desire to keep Russian hegemony in the region and enhance his own power.

The new interim President of Ukraine, Oleksandr Tuchynov, is a Baptist pastor and the one time head of the SBU (Ukraine’s secret service), which was essentially an extension of the KGB during the old USSR days. He is also Yulia Tymoshenko’s right hand man, and while she holds no official post in the new government, she is directing government affairs through him.

Elections are scheduled for May throughout Ukraine, and should Tymoshenko get elected, it will signal the continued reign of oligarchs and communists, along the lines of Leonid Kuchma, Ukrainian president (1994-2005), who ordered the murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze in 2000. Many of Tymoshenko’s countrymen refer to her, as “Putin in a skirt.”

A separate referendum is being called for in Crimea in order to decide if Crimea stays with Ukraine or joins Russia. Even though Putin stated he would ensure Ukraine’s territorial integrity last month, he has exacerbated the situation, and he is using this as leverage against the interim government in Kiev, because he can. And, he can because Obama has failed to offer global leadership and clarity of vision, offering in its stead meaningless warnings and weak statements that invited this aggression.

Currently, even if some older ethnic Russian pensioners, the old communist apparatchiks, want to return Crimea to the Russian state, the majority of the Russian-speaking easterners __ Russo-sympathetic __ are not so indoctrinated by Russian propaganda that they would accept slavery in Putin’s totalitarian state over membership in NATO or the EU. At different times during recent history, Crimea has voted to be independent of the Soviet Union (December 1991) and Ukraine (May 1992-rescinded then reconsidered 1994), so Crimea will do what it will. But, all the signatories of the 1975 (non-intervention) Helsinki Final Act and the Budapest Memorandum, which includes the U.S. and the Soviet Union (Russia affirmed 1994) assured Ukraine’s security and territorial integrity.

To imagine Germany today occupying western Poland under a pretext of protecting ethnic Germans living there conveys a strong analogy of the historical offense Putin committed against Ukraine, and it explains the fear that many other nations with Russian minorities and dire memories of Moscow are now experiencing.

George W. Bush attempted to gain NATO membership for both Georgia and Ukraine in 2008, but Europe refused their membership out of fear of Russia’s reaction, and four months later Putin entered Ossetia, claiming then, as now, that he was protecting ethnic Russians. This precise sort of weakness and policy must be rejected by both Europe and future U.S. administrations, not in favor of war but in the name of peace.

If Europe and the U.S. do not help Ukraine resist Russia successfully, who is next? Belarus? Poland?

On March 1, 2014, Jim DeMint, former U.S. Senator from South Carolina, said, “The Ukrainians who rose to demand freedom need to be comforted by our words and intentions, and the thugs in the Kremlin need to fear them” (Heritage Foundation).

Obama will likely not negotiate this crisis well, and this will be a severe geopolitical blow to the U.S., in many respects, and those patriotic activists in Maidan and across Ukraine, who understand that democratic Ukraine is on the frontline of the struggle against authoritarianism. Let us resolve, despite Obama, to see Ukraine enter the EU and NATO under the next administration, if that is truly their desire. Let us immediately erect a tactical nuclear shield, across the European fault lines and aimed directly at Moscow, as was planned for by Ronald Reagan, and only then worry with making Putin pay an economic price. Let us move forward unwilling to permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed and more determined than ever to not tempt our adversaries with weakness, as we prevent one tyranny, once removed, from being replaced by a far more iron tyranny.


By Justin O. Smith


Edited by John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith

Sorry Ukraine, America voted the wrong way in 2012

Reset The President red button

The Ukraine has been invaded by Russia ostensibly to preserve peace which probably means to protect the Russian speaking and Pro-Russia Ukrainians of the Crimea part Ukraine. At any rate Allen West has written a brief but explosive little essay about how the voters have elected an impotent weak President unable to confront Russia’s goal of becoming a big player at the cost of Liberty.


JRH 3/2/14

Please Support NCCR


Sorry Ukraine, America voted the wrong way in 2012

By Allen West

March 1, 2014

Allen West – Steadfast and Loyal


During his first term, Obama told then-Russian President Medvedev to “tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after reelection.”


Last week, Obama demonstrated some of that flexibility, which in that case meant decimating our military capability.


Yesterday, Obama demonstrated more flexibility, which meant more empty words and meaningless threats. There will be costs for any military intervention into Ukraine and Crimea? Just sounds like any red line blather from the community organizer prom king.


Vladimir Putin is a steely-eyed former KGB agent. He knows America under Obama has no options and no guts. It has taken Obama almost two weeks to address the Ukraine issue. Obama already cancelled the missile defense shield for Eastern Europe.


Americans and our allies don’t trust Obama to lead anything bigger than a Gay Pride parade. Hillary Clinton offered Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a toy reset button. Putin reset it to USSR.


Elections have consequences and the result is an absence of courageous American leadership. I humbly apologize to the liberty-loving people of Ukraine. The beacon of liberty and freedom that was American no longer shines brightly. Putin, you lucky rascal, your timing could not have been any better. America has no leader.


Copyright @2013., in association with Liberty Alliance. All rights reserved.


Meet Allen West


Allen West was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia in the same neighborhood where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once preached. He is the third of four generations of military servicemen in his family.


During his 22 year career in the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel West served in several combat zones: in Operation Desert Storm, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he was a Battalion Commander in the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, and later in Afghanistan. He received many honors including a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals and a Valorous Unit Award. In 1993 he was named the US Army ROTC Instructor of the Year.


After his retirement from the Army in 2004, Allen taught high school for a year before returning to Afghanistan as a civilian military adviser to the Afghan army, an assignment he finished in November 2007.


In November of 2010, Allen was honored to continue his oath of service to his country when he was elected to the United States Congress, representing Florida’s 22nd District. As a member of the 112th Congress, he READ THE REST

Maidan Hasn’t Won Yet

Protestors Clash with Police in Maidan Kiev 19-01-14

Intro to ‘Maidan Hasn’t Won Yet’
Editor John R. Houk
Justin Smith writes his take on what’s happening in Ukraine based on some interviews with some Ukrainian activists from February 23rd and 24th.
I suspect I am like a lot of Americans that know something is going on in Ukraine but have been aloof from paying attention. In my case it sounds like a Korean War or Vietnam War situation in which the people are divided upon a national path to follow. My sympathies are with the anti-Russian Ukrainians because in case you missed Putin is taking Russia down the road of eventual confrontation with the USA. On the other hand years of American soldiers fighting yet another war without the clear objective of winning against an enemy that hates our non-Muslim guts has soured me somewhat in giving the kind of help to those I consider the good guys in Ukraine that could lead to troops on the ground – again. Incidentally our military is being rendered into weakness by our own Left Wing President with military budget cuts and downsizing.
Maidan is a Square in Kiev the Capital City of Ukraine. From Maidan the people of Ukraine began a grassroots demonstration against the Putin-Russian influenced Ukrainian government of now ousted President Viktor Yanukovych. After Yanukovych tried to disperse the crowds protesting in Maidan using strong-arm tactics which most believe were under the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin the protests turned violent. The number I read was that 80 protesters were killed under the direction of Yanukovych. Ultimately Yanukovych fled Ukraine leaving a tenuous situation in which the only thing that seemed to unify Ukrainians was to get rid of the corrupt Yanukovych and his government operation.
Now thanks to the influences of a long history of foreign control which included the 20th century purges of the Communists Lenin and Stalin who tried to Russify the population, Ukraine is divided by sympathies to Russia and an independent Ukraine and religious differences between the Ukrainian Uniate Church and Orthodox Church. Uniates see an allegiance to the Papacy while keeping the Greek Eastern Rites and of course the Orthodox Church is part of the mainline Eastern Orthodox Church which is of Greek origin but is of the Russian version.
JRH 2/28/14

Please Support NCCR

Maidan Hasn’t Won Yet
By Justice O. Smith
Sent: 2/28/2014 12:20 PM
The Ukrainian Parliament heard the Bell of Freedom ringing on February 22, 2014, and they ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, their corrupt leader. Since the collapse of the former U.S.S.R, many corrupt men and women have sought to govern Ukraine, in order to empty her treasury; historically, Ukraine has been deliberately exploited geopolitically by many nations over the past five centuries, such as Poland, Germany and Russia, and its language and culture suppressed by all, except for the Hapsburg Monarchy. And, now that Ukraine’s Parliament has issued an arrest warrant for Yanukovych and answered their people’s call for freedom, the vast majority want Ukraine’s course to be uncorrupted and set by the Ukrainian people, without outside interference from the U.S., the European Union and Russia.

President Yanukovych’s arbitrary decision to nullify an economic agreement with the European Union (EU), with few strings attached, and accept a $15 billion aid package from Russian President Vladimir Putin was viewed with horror and revulsion. The specter of life under Russian influence and control surfaced, and this is a life that the majority of Ukrainians will never willingly accept again – something they will fight to the death before being forced once more down the road to serfdom.

From the first day of acquiring most of Ukraine from Poland, under the Treaty of Andrusovo (1667), Russian Tsars sought to destroy any sense of national identity in the Ukrainian people. In 1876 Alexander II actually banned books from being published in Ukrainian and speaking Ukrainian in theater plays.

Taras Shevchenko, Ukraine’s first major poet (1814-1861), synthesized urban and rural linguistic usages with Church Slavonic to articulate a full range of ideas and feelings. Shevchenko railed against the autocratic Russian state in the name of “this land of ours which is not ours”. His nationalist verses reassured literate Ukrainians that they were at least a potential nation.

The Ukrainian people have never forgotten the millions of peasants who were murdered during the 1919 de-Cossackization of the Don region, they have never forgotten the 10 million Ukrainians who were starved to death by Stalin’s regime between 1932 and 1934, and they remember the forced exiles to Siberia during 1944-45. Their resentment and hostility towards Russia and communism/authoritarianism has remained into the present, and, in large part, this explains the anger Ukrainians felt towards the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych and his cozy arrangement with the former director of the KGB, Vladimir Putin.

Ulrich Speck of Carnegie Europe (New York Times) recently pointed at Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and Romania as EU success stories, and declared that “the protest movement… centered in Kiev’s Independence Square, has won,” although many others declare that Ukraine will not find real freedom within a European Union economic stricture and the immigration burdens that accompany the EU’s open borders policy; however, the initial EU deal was simply an offer of economic aid, a loose association and a free trade agreement, and EU membership was not offered. But no matter how one views the EU, the Ukrainian people are obviously in desperate need of assistance, and perhaps an effective joint economic aid plan will soon be managed by the U.S., the EU and the International Monetary Fund, with mutually beneficial terms included.

Of course, the big pink Russian Bear’s reaction remains to be seen, as Russian military “maneuvers” are now occurring along Crimea’s border. Right or wrong, Ukraine, “Little Russia”, has been seen as critical to Russia’s national security, because it was the breadbasket of the old Soviet Union and it was also used as an invasion route by numerous past enemies, including Napoleon and the Nazis. Russian technological advances in missile delivery and other armaments negates this as a serious concern. But, no one should be overly hopeful that Putin will follow Boris Yeltsin’s declaration that “The Russian state…will never be an empire…It will be an equal among equals.”

At Putin’s urging, Yanukovych intensified the use of force against the Maidan protesters, resulting in 82 people dead. Since then, Putin has questioned the legitimacy of the recent actions by the Ukrainian Parliament. And, with a heavy imprint in the Crimea (eastern Ukraine) from decades of “russification” programs, Putin’s pure naked desire, thinly veiled in a proposed Eurasian Union, to reconstruct the old Soviet Union may result in an Ossetia-style Russian intervention, despite Obama’s warnings and Putin’s assurances to the contrary; or, at the very least, this means several more months of civil strife and turmoil, since pro-Russian protesters were flying Red Communist flags in Donetsk on February 23rd, and armed men occupied all the government buildings in Simferopol (Crimea) on February 27, 2014 (Reuters).

On Sunday, February 23, Yanukovych’s Party of Regions abandoned him and accused him of facilitating the deaths of the protesters and betraying his country. This same day, Yanukovych appointee and military chief of staff, Yuriy Ilvin said, “As an officer I see no other way than to serve the Ukrainian people honestly and assure that I have not and won’t give criminal orders.”

To the heart of the matter, Serhiy Sobalev, a member of Parliament from the Balkivshchyna Party, stated: “We will come out of Maidan either free or as slaves. But we don’t want to be slaves.”

After Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the Russian parliamentary committee that deals with former satellite states, exclaimed, “They are trying in every possible way to tear Ukraine away from Russia” (Interfax), the world should have asked, “So?” – Russia’s claim to the Ukraine has always been illegitimate, and the Ukrainians have never wanted to be integrated into Muscovy. Doesn’t Ukraine have a natural right to self-determination and their own independent state? History says “Yes.”

Interim Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov, Petro Poroshenko – opposition member of Ukraine’s Parliament, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama all agree that Ukraine’s territorial integrity must be preserved. Each has a different understanding of this term “territorial integrity.” Just as in the 1950s, today some Ukrainians in the Orthodox east and south still long for the Russian state, while in the west, with its Hapsburg and Polish traditions and its strong Uniate Church, Ukrainian nationhood is understood as inherently anti-Russian.

Recently, Yulia Tymoshenko, former Ukrainian Prime Minister, announced she would run for the presidency, even though much of her former appeal has been tarnished by being seen as part of a corrupt power structure. In many respects, Tymoshenko was much closer to Putin than Yanukovych could ever have hoped to be. But she did herself and her country proud, when she tearfully told a crowd on February 22, “After what you did, Ukraine is yours.”

In the years leading up to 1917, Ukraine was torn through national and social upheaval and embroiled in chaotic violence, much like Ukraine after the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Trans-Dniester Republic in 1991, much like present day Ukraine. Professional people, rural cooperatives and officers from the imperial army convened a Ukrainian Military Congress, which proclaimed the Ukrainian People’s Republic in November 1917, and it was immediately challenged by a Soviet government in Kharkov and supported by many of the workers and peasants in eastern Ukraine. But, the memory of their national independence from 1917 to 1921, no matter how brief, precarious and embattled, generates a powerful longing for fulfillment in the modern day Ukraine.

I would like to leave you with two of the most poignant thoughts I received from two young activists, as I communicated with them on the 23rd and 24th of February:

4:45 pm Sunday 23rd/ Galyna Kolodkevych, Professor of Ukrainian literature in Kiev, asked, “What is the way forward now?” She continued, “Maidan has become (the) opposition now and (the) new authority has to listen to the people of Maidan, but not to the West or Russia. Our politicians receive the power but then forget us…We demand full lustration of official power, without previous communists, party of regions, (and) (Yulia) Tymoshenko. So, Maidan hasn’t won yet. People will stand until the murderers are punished.”

4:37 am Monday 24th/ Yevgeniya Goncharuk cried out, “There is a pain in my heart. Ukraine (is) washed with tears. Many different and difficult thoughts are in my head. Fear to forget. Fear to allow politicians to forget what happened. There is no feeling something great was achieved. I do not see a clear plan for how to remove the old politicians, judges and policemen. But I know that people have to learn by new, normal rules – moral law. The main thing is to remember all the mistakes and lies of every person, who worked in the government. The criminals have to sit in jail. How long will they avoid punishment? …There is hope….Ukrainians are great, they are beautiful people. They surprised themselves. Suddenly they show that they are brave, desperate and they deserve a better life.”

No, Maidan hasn’t won yet, but the Ukrainian people have always been brave, and they do deserve a better life. They have the right to choose and to create for themselves a more perfect union, with one’s liberties and human dignity guaranteed, where equality under a moral law reigns and everyone lives and dies free; today I, all of us, and the world share the chains of the Ukrainian people, since the destruction of just a single person’s freedom creates a ripple effect throughout civil society: So, without undue influence, the Free World must enable, through every available means, the destiny of the Ukrainian people to manifest itself through the people’s own free will, uncorrupted by immoral men.

By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
© Justin O. Smith

Ann Barnhardt Podcast #4

Ann Barnhardt - pink machine gun

I am subscribed to Ann Barnhardt’s Youtube channel. Every so I actually check the notifications. I am glad that I did. This Youtube video is actually a copy of a Barnhardt podcast. You get to see a picture of her in the backdrop of a Charlie Brown Christmas still. The podcast is a bit lengthy at 1 hour and 4 minutes. Here are the topics that I roughly gleaned from the Youtube post:


1)     MF Global


2)     Putin’s calculated faux-Christian schtick


3)     Direct Saudi Govt. involvement in 9/11


4)     Pope Francis named “Man of the Year” by sodomite agitprop magazine “The Advocate”.


5)     Reading of the PULCHRA VERA essay


The Barnhardt about page for this podcast breaks down the time stamp of these discussions. I am posting this breakdown prior to the cross post of the Youtube video.


JRH 12/21/13

Please Support NCCR


Ann Barnhardt Podcast #4 December 19, ARSH 2013


Posted by AnnBarnhardt

Posted on Dec 19, 2013


Topics and timestamps:

0:0013:57 Explaining how the MFGlobal victims had to sell their claims to recovery sharks at a heavy discount long ago. The time value of money (aka interest) is discussed as a corollary.

13:5822:33 The importance of not falling for Putin’s calculated faux-Christian schtick. The guy is a murderous tyrant who is also clearly insane, as evidenced by his multilation of his face via plastic surgery. Just because he can cross himself and is making a calculated political stand against the sodomites does NOT make him a “good guy”.

22:3433:20 The news of the Saudi government being directly involved in 9/11, the need to declare war on the caliphate, the precedent of the deportation of the members of the German American Bund (Nazis) during WWII, and a tangent on petroleum and fusion.

33:2152:14 Pope Francis named “Man of the Year” by sodomite agitprop magazine “The Advocate”. Our Lord’s words to Doctor of the Church St. Catherine of Siena regarding the sins of sodom are discussed.

52:151:04:07 Reading of the PULCHRA VERA essay – On Beauty and Truth, specifically when the truth is ugly.

Pulchra Very Essay link:



Barnhardt Webpage


About Ann Barnhardt


It is a bizarre tale.


I was born outside of Kansas City in ARSH 1976.  I dropped out of public high school after being skipped two grades because I feared for my safety and the “education” was a complete joke.  I graduated from Kansas State University in ARSH 1997 with a degree in Animal Husbandry (beef cattle production) with an emphasis in Agricultural Economics.  Again, the education wasn’t much to write home about, especially the economics which was 105% Keynesian agitprop, but it served its purpose.


After graduating I immediately moved to Denver and became a commodity broker, specializing in cattle and grain hedging – PURE hedging, as in forward contracting actual cattle and actual grain for farmers and ranchers.  I was NEVER a “money manager” or a so-called “hedge fund”.  I was a pure, old-school commercial agricultural hedge broker.  In ARSH 2004 one of my clients, a salty and brilliant old-timer, trained me in the art of cash cattle marketing and cash market arbitrage, and I began teaching cattlemen this lost skillset.  This was my most important professional achievement.  I am a good teacher, and I loved teaching, and I especially loved being able to teach such good people as there are in the North American cattle industry.


In ARSH 2006 I opened my own Independent Introducing Brokerage, which consisted of just me – a one-man shop.  It became very successful very quickly.  I considered hiring other brokers and expanding, but never did.  Thank God.


After years of reading and research, trying earnestly to disprove or discredit it, and despite the fact that the Kennedy family is Roman Catholic, I was received into the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on April 7, ARSH 2007.  As this was before Summorum Pontificum, I was unaware of the Latin Mass parish in Denver, and thus entered the Church in a Novus Ordo parish, through the “RCIA” program.  Novus Ordo Masses, while illicit, are indeed (mostly) valid, and Our Lord is physically present therein.  I know this for a metaphysical certitude.  I am NOT a sedevacantist.  It is precisely because the Novus Ordo Masses are valid that the sacrilege built into the Rite by Bugnini and the other infiltrators matters, and why the Novus Ordo Rite MUST be exterminated as quickly as possible.  There will be no civilizational recovery so long as the Novus Ordo remains.


On April 3, ARSH 2011, after seeing Sen. Lindsey Graham advocate for Sharia Law and the punishing of American citizens who “disrespected” the islamic political system and its manifesto, the koran, I rebutted Graham’s remarks and then burned a koran – bookmarked with raw bacon – and concluded by announcing my address and inviting all musloid and/or FEDGOV comers to come and get a piece of me.


My actions were … appreciated.  The two videos went viral instantly and have been mirrored countless times.  A translation and subtitling project was begun, and the videos were translated into at least ten languages.  The Arabic version was done by Egyptian Copts, some of whom may already be martyrs, and is the most-viewed version with over 650,000 views, most of which were in Egypt.  My Arabic-subtitled koran burning video stood instantly as proof of the lie of the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack motivation, as my video had hundreds of thousands more views in North Africa than READ THE REST

Ann Barnhardt burning Quran

Tony Newbill Emails 9/10 to 9/25/13

American Dollars


This set of emails begins with more of Newbill following the possible reasons that Obama is interested in what happens in Syria. It does have to do with American National Interests, natural gas, oil and Russia. The other emails deal with the dangers facing the American economy and the Federal Reserve’s economic management.


JRH 10/9/13

Please Support NCCR


This Syrian War is a Pipeline Dance among the Global Elites!!!!!!!

Sent: 9/10/2013 1:51 PM


Russia wants to be the Supplier to Europe but Needs the energy from the Middle East regions that they are Associated with to make this happen:


Pipeline Politics; Is Putin Running Out of Gas?


The Cold War is now so over that it might as well be grouped with the ancient ice ages, but there is one echo rolling across Europe from East to West: the Russian attempt to dominate the natural gas market on the European continent. As the energy sector accounts for 25 percent of Russia’s economy, any large changes in energy markets present major challenges for Vladimir Putin. Those old enough to recall the Soviet gas pipeline controversy of the early 1980s a high-profile fight of the Reagan administration to deprive Moscow of hard currency are right to have a feeling of déjà vu, as Putin’s motives transcend honest commerce.


Despite huge gas reserves waiting to be tapped, most of Europe lags the United States in the shale gas boom for several reasons: a lack of mineral rights on private land, bureaucratic obstacles, the usual intransigent opposition from Europe’s potent green lobby, and, perhaps most important, the lack of adequate pipelines to connect new gas fields to the market. Hence, natural gas prices in Europe are several times higher than U.S. prices. Since natural gas and oil are Russia’s principal export commodities, the prospect of newly abundant oil and cheaper gas outside of Russia is a grave threat to Russia’s economic and political might in the region. Russia can’t do much about global oil trends, but Putin and the state-controlled Gazprom are doing everything they can to throttle new gas development in Eastern Europe, rerunning the same kind of behind-the-scenes propaganda against shale gas that the KGB ran against new NATO missiles back in the Cold War. Propagandists in Russia are promoting every translation possible for the message fracking=bad. The second prong of Putin’s strategy is to control pipeline development as far as possible. But things are not going well for him.


Gazprom is the linchpin of Putin’s political and economic strength. The state-controlled natural gas conglomerate is a huge source of revenues for the Russian budget, but also a slush fund for Putin’s clan the corrupt network of power-political and economic relationships that rules Russia today. Immediately after coming to power in 2000, Putin moved to put the company under his direct control. In short order, he made his protégé and current prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, chairman of Gazprom’s board and appointed another protégé, Alexey Miller, as CEO. According to a book by two prominent former Russian politicians, 11 of the 18 executive positions in Gazprom were quickly filled with Putin cronies. He then moved to make the company a national champion, giving it an exclusive license for the export of the country’s gigantic gas wealth. It is widely believed that Putin makes all of the key Gazprom decisions himself.



Putin’s energy cronyism is vertically integrated, as he ensures that infrastructure projects such as pipeline construction go to his friends’ firms at lucrative prices. Gazprom pipelines typically cost two to three times more than those built by Western companies, despite the much lower wages paid to Russian labor. While the German portion of the Nord Stream pipeline, for instance, cost $2.8 million per kilometer, the Russian portion built by one of Putin’s handpicked companies cost $6.5 million/km. This is one reason Putin likes pipelines, even if he can’t guarantee they will be fully utilized.


Sitting on 18 percent of the world’s current proven gas reserves (a percentage that shrinks with each new discovery elsewhere), Gazprom became one of the largest companies in the world. At the 2008 peak of the bubble in oil prices, to which Russian gas prices were indexed, Gazprom’s hubris overflowed. With a market valuation of $365 billion at the time, Alexey Miller confidently predicted that his company would become the largest in the world, with a market cap of up to $1 trillion by 2015, and that it would dominate the huge Chinese market as well as 10 percent of the American market with shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Gazprom’s optimists thought it could command 30 percent of the world market.



Two other threats to Gazprom’s fortunes must also be mentioned. For years Gazprom and Kremlin propaganda have done their level best to scare the Europeans away from shale gas exploration. Alternatively dismissing it as a Hollywood invention or conjuring up an ecological apocalypse, the Kremlin seemingly believed that it can wish this threat away, despite evidence of the massive impact of the shale gas revolution in America. Early on, things seemed to go their way, with France and Bulgaria imposing a moratorium on shale gas exploration. No longer. With Great Britain now allowing fracking and Germany’s government submitting a draft law to do the same, the genie is out of the bottle. It’s only a matter of time before European countries begin exploiting their domestic shale gas fields, posing yet another challenge to the Russian monopolist.


Vladimir Putin may have dreamed of becoming the J.R. Ewing of Europe, but his recent moves are more in the mold of the hapless Cliff Barnes. His signature initiative at the moment is the proposed South Stream pipeline, which would run under the Black Sea and through Bulgaria to points west. Putin was hoping Gazprom could retain monopoly control of the pipeline, but because it runs through European Union territory, it is subject to the EU’s market regulations (known as the Third Energy Package ), which require that all pipelines be available for use by competing suppliers and overseen by an independent EU regulator. These conditions are unacceptable to Putin and make it unlikely that South Stream will be built.



That strategy envisaged South Stream as achieving two key political objectives. In bypassing Ukraine, heretofore the key transit country for Russian gas to Europe, it would provide the Kremlin with a powerful weapon for continued economic and political blackmail of Kiev. And, just as important, it would preempt the realization of the competing Nabucco pipeline project, designed to bring non-Russian gas from the Middle East and Central Asia into Europe. The Nabucco pipeline will run to Europe either by way of Greece and Albania into southern Italy, or through Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary to a hub at Baumgarten, Austria. A decision on the final route is expected in June. The defeat of South Stream holds dire implications for Russia’s standing as the indispensable gas supplier to Europe and for the political fortunes of Putin. [Bold Emphasis Blog Editor – It is my impression Tony Newbill is drawing attention to the fact that the control of the proposed Nabucco Pipeline from Syria by Putin would make up for his ongoing apparent natural gas designs gone awry.]



Putin’s grand scheme of strong-arming Ukraine, Poland, and others and making Europe ever more dependent on Russian gas has not only failed but seriously endangers the gas monopoly’s very existence. Well-known experts such as Mikhail Korchemkin, head of East European Gas Analysis, believe that Gazprom has only a few years before bankruptcy. With Russia’s future oil exports looking soft the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Energy Research Institute in early April forecast that oil exports could drop by 20 percent over the next 30 years weakness in gas exports will deliver a double-whammy to Putin’s power base. The financial flop of the Soviet gas pipeline in the 1980s contributed significantly to the eventual collapse of the evil empire a few years later; the prospective collapse of Putin’s energy strategy may similarly hasten the demise of his evil empire lite. (READ ENTIRETYPipeline Politics; Is Putin Running Out of Gas? By Alex Alexiev & Steven F. Hayward; Downstream Today – Originally Weekly Standard; 5/27/13)



The Competition to this is described here in this link:


It’s not about the chemical weapons, it’s about the Syrian pipeline (Photos)


Obama is going after Syria to secure gas pipelines for Sunni Muslims.


America’s quest to bomb Syria is not about chemical weapons being used against the Syrians. Chemical weapons are basically a smoke screen, and Obama desperately wants to remove Assad from power for other reasons.


The players in this continuing world drama are Turkey, the United States, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia. There is a good reason why Turkey and Saudi Arabia both have their backs against the wall and are desperate to take out Assad.



Two years ago, Syria announced it found a promising gas field in its country, and Oil Minister Sufian Allawai said “The first wells were drilled at Qara in Homs governorate, and the flow rate is 400,000 cubic meters per day.” This is great news for Syria’s energy revenues. Besides the prospect of its own gas field, Syria is also one of the most strategic locations for natural gas pipelines to flow to Europe.


Qatar, home to the world’s largest gas field along with Iran, has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey that would traverse Syria to the Mediterranean, with the gas then being shipped to Europe. Assad in 2009 refused to go along with the Qatar plan, instead inking deals with Russia and Iran.


Called the Islamic pipeline, it is set to open in 2016; in fact, Iran, Iraq and Syria signed deals in 2011 to construct the 3,480 mile natural gas pipeline that runs from Iran’s South Pars to Europe. This Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is set to be the largest gas pipeline in the Middle East. It will snake through Iran, Iraq, Syria, South Lebanon and through the Mediterranean; in addition, the best refinery and infrastructure is in Damascus. Further talks between Iran, Syria, and Iraq for construction of the Islamic Pipeline kicked off in Baghdad today.


The Islamic pipeline through Syria could cut energy power of Qatar and Turkey. To make matters worse, most Arabs view the Islamic Pipeline as a Shi’ite pipeline serving Shi’ite interests. After all, it originates in Shi’ite Iran, passes through Shi’ite Iraq, and flows into Shi’ite controlled Syria. Therefore, the Sunni-dominated Gulf nations have both an economic and to a lesser extent, a religious reason, for stopping the Islamic Pipeline from becoming a reality. So far, the Gulf nations have violently opposed Syria’s adoption of the Islamic Pipeline by arming opposition fighters within Syria in order to destabilize the nation.


This is certainly one reason why President Obama helped run weapons from Benghazi, Libya, through Turkey into the hands of the Syrian rebels. Al Qaeda strongly opposes the Assad government and has joined other rebel factions in an effort to overthrow Assad and to install a more Sunni-friendly government.


Russia has built up naval presence in the ports of Latakia and Tartus to protect the pipeline.


Saudi Arabia is desperate to get rid of Assad. The Saudi’s, through their intelligence (READ ENTIRETY It’s not about the chemical weapons, it’s about the Syrian pipeline By Vicky Nissen; Examiner; 9/9/13)


And the US Political Elites on both sides of the Isle are Involved, see here look at the board members:


And this Link shows you the connection between the  Genie Oil & Gas Co and the Pipeline project that will compete with Russian Interests if Syria Falls:


Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights


Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy.


Major shareholders of Genie Energy – which also has interests in shale gas in the United States and shale oil in Israel – include Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild. This from a 2010 Genie Energy press release:


Claude Pupkin, CEO of Genie Oil and Gas, commented, “Genie’s success will ultimately depend, in part, on access to the expertise of the oil and gas industry and to the financial markets.


Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch are extremely well regarded by and connected to leaders in these sectors. Their guidance and participation will prove invaluable.”


(READ THE REST Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights; By Craig Murray; Global Research; 8/26/13)



This will rock your world!!!

Sent: 9/12/2013 9:35 AM


[Blog Editor: The above link is to a video that has interesting information but will make an offer to deal with the info. Video title below]


Could Take Effect as Early as October 17


When it happens, 16 states are ready to disappear from the United States, including California and Florida.” Wall Street Journal



Warren Buffet, Bank of America and all the Big Banks

Sent: 9/20/2013 7:42 AM


Warren Buffet and Bank of America as well as all the Big Banks have this helping them profit…. It’s the greatest group of insiders ever in the history of the world!!!!!  This will take you right to page 144 and show you the insider information …….


Here is how they are controlling inflation…. and it shows how the insider’s club is not helping the debt investment market that feeds a consumer supply-side demand. So this means the market is overpriced.


The Federal Reserve Is Paying Banks NOT To Lend 1.8 Trillion Dollars To The American People


Did you know that U.S. banks have more than 1.8 trillion dollars parked at the Federal Reserve and that the Fed is actually paying them not to lend that money to us?  We were always told that the goal of quantitative easing was to “help the economy”, but the truth is that the vast majority of the money that the Fed has created through quantitative easing has not even gotten into the system.  Instead, most of it is sitting at the Fed slowly earning interest for the bankers.  Back in October 2008, just as the last financial crisis was starting, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Federal Reserve would start paying interest on the reserves that banks keep at the Fed.  This caused an absolute explosion in the size of these reserves.  Back in 2008, U.S. banks had less than 2 billion dollars of excess reserves parked at the Fed.  Today, they have more than 1.8 trillion.  In less than five years, the pile of excess reserves has gotten nearly 1,000 times larger.  This is utter insanity, and it will have very serious consequences down the road.


Posted below is a chart that shows the explosive growth of these excess reserves in recent years…

Excessive Reserves of Depository Institutions Chart


This explains why all of the crazy money printing that the Fed has been doing has not caused tremendous inflation yet.  Most of the money has not even gotten into the economy.  The Fed has been paying banks not to lend it out.


But now that big pile of money is sitting out there, and at some point it is going to come pouring in to the U.S. economy.  When that happens, we could very well see an absolutely massive tsunami of inflation.


Posted below is a chart that shows the growth of the M2 money supply over the past several decades.  It has been fairly steady, but imagine what would happen if you (READ THE REST The Federal Reserve Is Paying Banks NOT To Lend 1.8 Trillion Dollars To The American People; By Michael Snyder; The Economic Collapse; 7/1/13)


Then they pumped this into the equities markets:


Wall Street Week Ahead: Fed may taper without causing market tantrum


NEW YORK (Reuters) – Months of anticipation will come to an end next week when the Federal Reserve finally says whether it will start to rein in its massive stimulus of the economy, which has flooded financial markets with some $2.75 trillion over the past five years, supercharging returns on everything from stocks to junk bonds.


But for all the concerns that the reduced presence of such a giant asset buyer would be calamitous for investors, it appears equity and bond markets are poised to take next week’s Fed decision largely in stride – provided the central bank doesn’t surprise with the size of its move or shock in some other way.


The Fed has telegraphed its intentions to (READ THE RESTWall Street Week Ahead: Fed may taper without causing market tantrum; By Ryan Vlastelica; Yahoo Finance; 9/13/13 5:50 PM EDT)



Big Government Rationed Economic System

Sent: 9/25/2013 5:30 PM


Obamacare is a Result of this Trend because they have not the will to try and continue to allow the free market economic concept to feed demand because of Peak Earth Ideology!!!!!!


This 15 year chart shows why the Governments around the world are setting up the free market consumer driven international economy to become a Big Government rationed economic system.


The rate of this inflation is an unsustainable signal that demand is out pacing any kind of supply-side growth potential in the key areas of resource production and development that sustains life growing at the rate it has been.


This is why we see a dysfunctional Government not willing to up hold the values of the Constitution in their entirety.


This is a 15 Year chart of key resource price inflation and interest rates



                                                      1998           2013         % Change

Dow Jones Industrial Ave.     7,908        14,840         4.29%/year

Federal Funds Rate                 5.50%        -.25%           -100%

Prime Rate                                 8.5%             3.25%        -62%

10-Year Treasury Bills            5.54%          2.73%         -49%

Gold (lb.)                                    $290             $1,470        +11.43%/year

Copper (lb.)                               66¢               $3.23          +11.17%/year

Oil (barrel)                                 $8.74            $101            +17.72%/year

Lean Hogs (cwt.)                     $38               $96                 6.37%/year

Live Cattle (cwt.)                     $58                $128              5.42%/year

Land (per acre)                       $1,801           $8,296          10.72%/year

Corn (bu.)                                 $1.99             $7.27             9.02%/year

Soybeans (bu.)                       $5.85             $15.36           6.65%/year

Wheat (bu.)                              $3.17              $7.52            5.93%/year  


This will end in nation Isolating from the International free market Scheme because as these supply demand struggles increase without any future growth expanding the supply and population continuing to expand incomes in the free market will not be able to manage the continued inflation in the key vital resource categories and nations will have to respond to their society outcry with intervention in free market profitability. 


© Tony Newbill

Edited by John R. Houk