The Middle East War on Christians – WSJ.com

This article comes from the Wall Street Journal and is authored by Israel’s UN ambassador.  It outlines how much Christians have been persecuted and eliminated in the Middle East.

It ain’t Israle that’s doing it.  It is our Muslim “friends” everywhere.  It is about time that we reassessed our interests in the Middle East.  We don’t really need their oil any more.  What else is there?

Israel is an ally and at least a safe haven for those who aren’t muslim.  There are cultural similarities.  Jews in America and Israel are closely related.  They are our religious cousins.  They preserve our most valuable shrines in the Holy Land. Anyone who has visited Bethlehem, Masada, The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Western Wall, Judea, Nazareth, and the Roman ruins knows that the path to Israel is the path to our own heritage.

The muslim threat to Isreal is a threat to all Christians and Jews.  They are eliminating Christians everywhere else by killing them, imprisoning them, and exiling them.  It is about time that we stood up for them wherever persecution is occurring.  It is about time that we actively supported our cousins in Israel.  It is about time that we preserved our history and tradition from those who would erase it completely.

It is time for a modern crusade.  It is time that we stopped supporting the artificially created states in the Middle East (other than Israel).  It is about time we allowed them to devolve into the tribal backwaters they once were.  It is about time that we flooded they emirates with armed missionaries to protect Christian enclaves and to convert muslims to follow a genuine religion of peace.

It is about time that muslims understood that islam is a cult, not a religion.  Mohammed was not a prophet…he was a terrorist who converted people at the point of a sword.  There was no peace at the beginning of islam and there is no peace now.

Will muslims make it to heaven?  I’m not sure…maybe, if they indeed are peaceful and in the end accept Jesus Christ as their savior.  I doubt that islamists will go to anyplace but Hell.

George

 

This week, as Jews celebrate the Passover holiday, they are commemorating the Bibles Exodus story describing a series of plagues inflicted on ancient Egypt that freed the Israelites, allowing them to make their way to the Holy Land. But over the past century, another exodus, driven by a plague of persecution, has swept across the Middle East and is emptying the region of its Christian population. The persecution is especially virulent today. The Middle East may be the birthplace of three monotheistic religions, but some Arab nations appear bent on making it the burial ground for one of them. For 2,000 years, Christian communities dotted the region, enriching the Arab world with literature, culture and commerce. At the turn of the 20th century, Christians made up 26% of the Middle Easts population. Today, that figure has dwindled to less than 10%. Intolerant and extremist governments are driving away the Christian communities that have lived in the Middle East since their faith was born. In the rubble of Syrian cities like Aleppo and Damascus, Christians who refused to convert to Islam have been kidnapped, shot and beheaded by Islamist opposition fighters. In Egypt, mobs of Muslim Brotherhood members burn Coptic Christian churches in the same way they once obliterated Jewish synagogues. And in Iraq, terrorists deliberately target Christian worshippers. This past Christmas, 26 people were killed when a bomb ripped through a crowd of worshipers leaving a church in Baghdads southern Dora neighborhood. Christians are losing their lives, liberties, businesses and their houses of worship across the Middle East. It is little wonder that native Christians have sought refuge in neighboring countries—yet in many cases they find themselves equally unwelcome. Over the past 10 years, nearly two-thirds of Iraqs 1.5 million Christians have been driven from their homes. Many settled in Syria before once again becoming victims of unrelenting persecution. Syrias Christian population has dropped from 30% in the 1920s to less than 10% today. Enlarge Image Close

via Ron Prosor: The Middle East War on Christians – WSJ.com.

Bundy vs. BLM – Is It Over?

Via TPATH.

My take on this…. BLM has not given up.  It has merely made a strategic retreat.  Once the cowboys have gone home they will sneak up in the middle of the night and assault the Bundy ranch.  What happens next?  Will the Bundy’s defend themselves in the face of overwhelming firepower?  Will the state and county intervene?  Will the cowboys retaliate?

This is not a good situation.  Watch closely and pray that it doesn’t spiral out of control.

Thanks to TPath and Rose Ann S.  for this insightful article.

George

Bundy v. the BLM
Is It Over?

By TPATH Contributor
RoseAnn Salanitri

April 14, 2014 ~~TPATH~ Many are breathing a sigh of relief since the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) backed down in their attempt to relieve Cliven Bundy of his cattle and generational grazing lands in Clark County, Nevada.  However, the situation exposed a Pandora’s Box of crimes against the Constitution, as well as the will of the American people.  The list below is not meant to be a comprehensive one, but raises points we should all seriously consider:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) set up a First Amendment Area.
Perhaps someone should tell the BLM that the entire United States is a First Amendment Area – every square inch, including the 600 acres in Clark County, Nevada.
The BLM usurped the law enforcement responsibilities normally saved for the States. Constitutionally, the highest law enforcement agent in the area should be the county sheriff, who is accountable to the voters directly. Additionally, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), adopted in 1976, stipulated that the BLM had to go through the county sheriff for any action that required law enforcement*.

This begs the question:  do you know where your county sheriff would stand in such a situation?  If not, perhaps you better find out.

Congress never gave the BLM this type of law enforcement authority*.
It is reported that the BLM now controls over 60% of all the land within Idaho; over 70% of all land in Utah, and over 76% of all land in Nevada*.

The only crimes assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are: Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations. Therefore, this power grab is also a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which assigns all other rights to the states*.

*Many thanks to Pastor Chuck Baldwin for drawing attention to these facts.  Pastor Baldwin is not only a man of God but he is a constitutional scholar who was also the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate in 2008.

Putting the serious crimes against our Constitution aside, there are a number of other valid questions that should be raised.  For instance, why don’t the feds use this manpower that they garnered to use against our own citizens against those who enter our country illegally at our borders?  This is a hypocrisy that can’t be ignored.  Our borders are being continually violated by illegal trespassers and our border agents are encumbered with Rules of Engagement that fall significantly short of the Rules of Engagement that the agents employed in the Bundy standoff. Does our government consider our own hard-working citizens to be more dangerous than those entering our borders illegally – especially those who are rumored to be drug lords and Al Qaeda operatives?  Perhaps if you’re enemies of the state holding high-ranking positions within our own government, this point of view makes sense.

And, more frightening:  why were so many of these American agents willing to point firearms at our own citizens? And…who in the chain of command issued the orders to these agents to take such a militant stand against our own citizens; where did these agents come from; who trained them; and to what division of the military or law enforcement do they belong?

Cowboys and cowgirls recover Bundy’s cattle.

The stats that Pastor Baldwin reported regarding the percentages of land owned by the BLM in Idaho, Utah and Nevada are staggering.  These stats are also especially troubling because they appear to be a clear indication that U.N. Agenda 21 is achieving its goals.  For those that are not familiar with this United Nation’s plan to grab our land and herd us into Pack ‘em and Stack ‘em urban environments, go to “Agenda 21 for Dummies,” readily available on YouTube.  All in the harmless-sounding name of sustainability, the Bundy family and others like them all across this nation, beware: the government is searching for ways through Agenda 21 and associated programs to confiscate your land.  For us humans, “sustainability” is more than the intelligent preservation of wildlife and the environment; it is a nice-sounding way to strip Americans of their property rights and give them over to a global governing system.  The Bundy’s and their neighbors’ First Amendment rights may have been violated, but for those in Idaho, in Utah, and in Nevada that already lost their land through over-regulation, preservation of some species of animal, or whatever clever device the government created to disguise their power grabs, more than their First Amendment rights were violated.  Their God-given right to the pursuit of happiness vanished along with their property – without so much as a whimper from the rest of us.

Additionally, many reports have been surfacing regarding Senator Reid family’s interest in this land.  Can it be that these opportunists have discovered how to use the regulations imposed by Agenda 21 for their own profit?  One of the best things that may come of out this atrocity is an investigation into the elitist Majority Speaker of the Senate’s land power grabs and his “alleged” China connections.  This is perhaps, one of the best arguments for recalling a U.S. Senator that I have heard in a while. People of Nevada, on behalf of the rest of the nation, please pick up that baton! They say every dog has its day.  Hopefully we soon will hear the Reid family barking at the moon as its day is fast-approaching.

We should also be asking ourselves:  what would have happened to the Bundy family if the Second Amendment didn’t exist?  Would the person giving orders to the BLM agents been willing to negotiate? And…who exactly was the person that gave the order to the BLM agents? And why did he or she give the order:  was it out of concern for the lives that may have been ended; was it out of concern for the potential Revolution that most likely would have ensured; or was it out of concern for the Reid family, since the debacle exposed their ChiCom connections?

The battle for the Bundy family may be over soon (at least that’s what we’re being told), but for the rest of us, it may just be the beginning.  I pray that the support that freedom-loving Americans expressed during this debacle is a good sign – a sign that Americans have had enough of government power grabs and that we are just not going to take it anymore. If anything good has come out of this debacle, perhaps it’s the message all patriots just sent to our government:

Keep your hands off my property!

Keep your hands off my kids!

Keep your hands off my church!
And

Keep your hands off my guns!

We still have a Constitution and even though those in government may not honor it, We the People fully intend to do just that.  God bless the militia, and thank God we still have the First and Second Amendments!

Contact RoseAnn   HERE

Contact TPATH HERE

April 14, 2014 TPATH

U.S. Defense Policy in the Wake of the Ukrainian Affair

Excellent analysis from Stratfor.

Sometimes I think they are a bit too kind to the Obama foreign policy.  What they are saying here is that we should not discount the possibility of a symmetric war, particularly in the Asian arena.  Obama is doing exactly this with his drawdown of the US military.  If he continues to do this we will be incapable of responding to anything but asymmetric warfare in any place but Asia.  Don’t you think that Russia, Iran, and al Qaeda understand this?  A flat out invasion, say of Ukraine or Iraq, can’t be resisted.

Obama has thrown Israel under the bus, ruining a trusted alliance and endangering stability in the Middle East.  Iran and Syria understand this.

Obama is waging asymmetric warfare in Syria.  We lose regardless of which side wins.  So does Israel.

Obama has pivoted our conventional forces to Asia. However, he is cutting back our Navy to such an extent that it can’t respond to Chinese action in the South China Sea, Straits of Formosa, or the Strait of Malacca.  Yesterday, according to DEBKAFile, China demonstrated it’s aircraft based fighter.  Also according to DEBKA and other intelligence sources, the fighter is superior to any of our F-18′s.  I suppose that the F-35 has a technological advantage but I don’t think 4 or 5 F-35′s can overcome swarms of advanced Chinese fighters.

Obama is cutting back on our submarine based nuclear missiles…by far the most effective of the nuclear triad.  I suppose he thinks that the ancient B-52s and the immobile land based missiles will do the job.  Or maybe we can defend the homeland with the one anti-missile system he has approved in Alaska.

Do you feel safe?   Not me.

George

U.S. Defense Policy in the Wake of the Ukrainian Affair

Tuesday, April 8, 2014 – 02:59 Print Text Size

Stratfor

By George Friedman

Ever since the end of the Cold War, there has been an assumption that conventional warfare between reasonably developed nation-states had been abolished. During the 1990s, it was expected that the primary purpose of the military would be operations other than war, such as peacekeeping, disaster relief and the change of oppressive regimes. After 9/11, many began speaking of asymmetric warfare and “the long war.” Under this model, the United States would be engaged in counterterrorism activities in a broad area of the Islamic world for a very long time. Peer-to-peer conflict seemed obsolete.

There was a profoundly radical idea embedded in this line of thought. Wars between nations or dynastic powers had been a constant condition in Europe, and the rest of the world had been no less violent. Every century had had systemic wars in which the entire international system (increasingly dominated by Europe since the 16th century) had participated. In the 20th century, there were the two World Wars, in the 19th century the Napoleonic Wars, in the 18th century the Seven Years’ War, and in the 17th century the Thirty Years’ War.

Those who argued that U.S. defense policy had to shift its focus away from peer-to-peer and systemic conflict were in effect arguing that the world had entered a new era in which what had been previously commonplace would now be rare or nonexistent. What warfare there was would not involve nations but subnational groups and would not be systemic. The radical nature of this argument was rarely recognized by those who made it, and the evolving American defense policy that followed this reasoning was rarely seen as inappropriate. If the United States was going to be involved primarily in counterterrorism operations in the Islamic world for the next 50 years, we obviously needed a very different military than the one we had.

There were two reasons for this argument. Military planners are always obsessed with the war they are fighting. It is only human to see the immediate task as a permanent task. During the Cold War, it was impossible for anyone to imagine how it would end. During World War I, it was obvious that static warfare dominated by the defense was the new permanent model. That generals always fight the last war must be amended to say that generals always believe the war they are fighting is the permanent war. It is, after all, the war that was the culmination of their careers, and imagining other wars when they are fighting this one, and indeed will not be fighting future ones, appeared frivolous.

The second reason was that no nation-state was in a position to challenge the United States militarily. After the Cold War ended, the United States was in a singularly powerful position. The United States remains in a powerful position, but over time, other nations will increase their power, form alliances and coalitions and challenge the United States. No matter how benign a leading power is — and the United States is not uniquely benign — other nations will fear it, resent it or want to shame it for its behavior. The idea that other nation-states will not challenge the United States seemed plausible for the past 20 years, but the fact is that nations will pursue interests that are opposed to American interest and by definition, pose a peer-to-peer challenge. The United States is potentially overwhelmingly powerful, but that does not make it omnipotent.

Systemic vs. Asymmetric War

It must also be remembered that asymmetric warfare and operations other than war always existed between and during peer-to-peer wars and systemic wars. The British fought an asymmetric war in both Ireland and North America in the context of a peer-to-peer war with France. Germany fought an asymmetric war in Yugoslavia at the same time it fought a systemic war from 1939-1945. The United States fought asymmetric wars in the Philippines, Nicaragua, Haiti and other places between 1900-1945.

Asymmetric wars and operations other than war are far more common than peer-to-peer and systemic wars. They can appear overwhelmingly important at the time. But just as the defeat of Britain by the Americans did not destroy British power, the outcomes of asymmetric wars rarely define long-term national power and hardly ever define the international system. Asymmetric warfare is not a new style of war; it is a permanent dimension of warfare. Peer-to-peer and systemic wars are also constant features but are far less frequent. They are also far more important. For Britain, the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars was much more important than the outcome of the American Revolution. For the United States, the outcome of World War II was far more important than its intervention in Haiti. There are a lot more asymmetric wars, but a defeat does not shift national power. If you lose a systemic war, the outcome can be catastrophic.

A military force can be shaped to fight frequent, less important engagements or rare but critical wars — ideally, it should be able to do both. But in military planning, not all wars are equally important. The war that defines power and the international system can have irreversible and catastrophic results. Asymmetric wars can cause problems and casualties, but that is a lesser mission. Military leaders and defense officials, obsessed with the moment, must bear in mind that the war currently being fought may be little remembered, the peace that is currently at hand is rarely permanent, and harboring the belief that any type of warfare has become obsolete is likely to be in error.

Ukraine drove this lesson home. There will be no war between the United States and Russia over Ukraine. The United States does not have interests there that justify a war, and neither country is in a position militarily to fight a war. The Americans are not deployed for war, and the Russians are not ready to fight the United States.

But the events in Ukraine point to some realities. First, the power of countries shifts, and the Russians had substantially increased their military capabilities since the 1990s. Second, the divergent interests between the two countries, which seemed to disappear in the 1990s, re-emerged. Third, this episode will cause each side to reconsider its military strategy and capabilities, and future crises might well lead to conventional war, nuclear weapons notwithstanding. Ukraine reminds us that peer-to-peer conflict is not inconceivable, and that a strategy and defense policy built on the assumption has little basis in reality. The human condition did not transform itself because of an interregnum in which the United States could not be challenged; the last two decades are an exception to the rule of global affairs defined by war.

U.S. national strategy must be founded on the control of the sea. The oceans protect the United States from everything but terrorism and nuclear missiles. The greatest challenge to U.S. control of the sea is hostile fleets. The best way to defeat hostile fleets is to prevent them from being built. The best way to do that is to maintain the balance of power in Eurasia. The ideal path for this is to ensure continued tensions within Eurasia so that resources are spent defending against land threats rather than building fleets. Given the inherent tensions in Eurasia, the United States needs to do nothing in most cases. In some cases it must send military or economic aid to one side or both. In other cases, it advises.

U.S. Strategy in Eurasia

The main goal here is to avoid the emergence of a regional hegemon fully secure against land threats and with the economic power to challenge the United States at sea. The U.S. strategy in World War I was to refuse to become involved until it appeared, with the abdication of the czar and increasing German aggression at sea, that the British and French might be defeated or the sea-lanes closed. At that point, the United States intervened to block German hegemony. In World War II, the United States remained out of the war until after the French collapsed and it appeared the Soviet Union would collapse — until it seemed something had to be done. Even then, it was only after Hitler’s declaration of war on the United States after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that Congress approved Roosevelt’s plan to intervene militarily in continental Europe. And in spite of operations in the Mediterranean, the main U.S. thrust didn’t occur until 1944 in Normandy, after the German army had been badly weakened.

In order for this strategy, which the U.S. inherited from the British, to work, the United States needs an effective and relevant alliance structure. The balance-of-power strategy assumes that there are core allies who have an interest in aligning with the United States against regional enemies. When I say effective, I mean allies that are capable of defending themselves to a great extent. Allying with the impotent achieves little. By relevant, I mean allies that are geographically positioned to deal with particularly dangerous hegemons.

If we assume Russians to be dangerous hegemons, then the relevant allies are those on the periphery of Russia. For example, Portugal or Italy adds little weight to the equation. As to effectiveness, the allies must be willing to make major commitments to their own national defense. The American relationship in all alliances is that the outcome of conflicts must matter more to the ally than to the United States.

The point here is that NATO, which was extremely valuable during the Cold War, may not be a relevant or effective instrument in a new confrontation with the Russians. Many of the members are not geographically positioned to help, and many are not militarily effective. They cannot balance the Russians. And since the goal of an effective balance-of-power strategy is the avoidance of war while containing a rising power, the lack of an effective deterrence matters a great deal.

It is not certain by any means that Russia is the main threat to American power. Many would point to China. In my view, China’s ability to pose a naval threat to the United States is limited, for the time being, by the geography of the South and East China seas. There are a lot of choke points that can be closed. Moreover, a balance of land-based military power is difficult to imagine. But still, the basic principle I have described holds; countries such as South Korea and Japan, which have a more immediate interest in China than the United States does, are supported by the United States to contain China.

In these and other potential cases, the ultimate problem for the United States is that its engagement in Eurasia is at distance. It takes a great deal of time to deploy a technology-heavy force there, and it must be technology-heavy because U.S. forces are always outnumbered when fighting in Eurasia. The United States must have force multipliers. In many cases, the United States is not choosing the point of intervention, but a potential enemy is creating a circumstance where intervention is necessary. Therefore, it is unknown to planners where a war might be fought, and it is unknown what kind of force they will be up against. The only thing certain is that it will be far away and take a long time to build up a force. During Desert Storm, it took six months to go on the offensive.

American strategy requires a force that can project overwhelming power without massive delays. In Ukraine, for example, had the United States chosen to try to defend eastern Ukraine from Russian attack, it would have been impossible to deploy that force before the Russians took over. An offensive against the Russians in Ukraine would have been impossible. Therefore, Ukraine poses the strategic problem for the United States.

The Future of U.S. Defense Policy

The United States will face peer-to-peer or even systemic conflicts in Eurasia. The earlier the United States brings in decisive force, the lower the cost to the United States. Current conventional war-fighting strategy is not dissimilar from that of World War II: It is heavily dependent on equipment and the petroleum to power that equipment. It can take many months to field that force. That could force the United States into an offensive posture far more costly and dangerous than a defensive posture, as it did in World War II. Therefore, it is essential that the time to theater be dramatically reduced, the size of the force reduced, but the lethality, mobility and survivability dramatically increased.

It also follows that the tempo of operations be reduced. The United States has been in constant warfare since 2001. The reasons are understandable, but in a balance-of-power strategy war is the exception, not the rule. The force that could be deployed is seen as overwhelming and therefore does not have to be deployed. The allies of the United States are sufficiently motivated and capable of defending themselves. That fact deters attack by regional hegemons. There need to be layers of options between threat and war.

Defense policy must be built on three things: The United States does not know where it will fight. The United States must use war sparingly. The United States must have sufficient technology to compensate for the fact that Americans are always going to be outnumbered in Eurasia. The force that is delivered must overcome this, and it must get there fast.

Ranges of new technologies, from hypersonic missiles to electronically and mechanically enhanced infantryman, are available. But the mindset that peer-to-peer conflict has been abolished and that small unit operations in the Middle East are the permanent features of warfare prevent these new technologies from being considered. The need to rethink American strategy in the framework of the perpetual possibility of conventional war against enemies fighting on their own terrain is essential, along with an understanding that the exhaustion of the force in asymmetric warfare cannot be sustained. Losing an asymmetric war is unfortunate but tolerable. Losing a systemic war could be catastrophic. Not having to fight a war would be best

THE REPUBLICAN “MACHINE’s” DIRTY TRICKS

Via TPath…I concur except…if this goes the way Nick Purpura thinks it will it is time for the New Jersey tea parties to seriously consider uniting to form a third party.  It may not run anyone for President but it can have a significant impact on local elections.  The GOP machine is casting us aside.  OK….I get it.  We will run our own candidates and ensure that the GOP does not win except with our active support.

George

BATTLE CRY!
THE REPUBLICAN “MACHINE’s” DIRTY TRICKS

Team NJ Commentary
By TPATH Contributor
Mr. Nicholas Purpura

April 5, 2014 ~TPATH~ TeamNJ has always advocated that voters should stand behind candidates of high moral character regardless of party affiliation. The problem in politics today is the public no longer chooses the candidate. It’s become apparent it is no longer about values, public policy, or what is beneficial to the public. It’s all about the “machine,” or should I say the “establishment” and of course, money.

In New Jersey, whether Republican or Democrat, there’s less than 6-degrees of separation between them.  The public ends up with the candidate who’s time has come, paid his dues, regardless of qualifications. What is worse is that they pay their dues by playing along to get along.

Shamefully, the Republican Party once again demonstrated their conventions are a charade. The so-called leaders pretend to be constitutionalist, when in truth; they are self-serving progressives interested in absolute control. This year was not unlike any other. We first watched the fiasco leading up to filling the seat held by Senator Lautenberg (D).  Governor Christie played a key role and proved that he earned, and is deserving of, his RINO status. Instead of appointing a true constitutionalist like Steve Lonegan “Blunderbuss” called for a special election – a “special election” that would cost the NJ taxpayers millions when the general election was only three weeks away. Christie’s  behavior prior to the election sent shock-waves throughout the GOP nationwide.

Well, once again the Republican “machine” is showing their true colors. Mayor Steve Lonegan decided to enter the race for Congress in the 3rd District to replace Rep. Jon Runyan (R) (retiring). One would think that Mayor Lonegan would be the perfect candidate to win this seat sending a true Constitutionalist to Washington. Remember, Mayor Lonegan trashed Cory Booker in the Senate race in Ocean County 65% to 35% (2 to 1 ratio). Also, in an online poll Mayor Lonegan trashed his nearest opposition Mo Hill 31% to 11%, and MacArthur who only received a mere 3% in Burlington County to Mayor Lonegan’s 31%. Instead, who got the Republican line?   Tom MacArthur.

The Republican “machine” decided to support Tom MacArthur, a former Mayor of Randolph, in Morris County. Of course the establishment knows exactly how to manipulate and control the convention so Lonegan would lose at the convention. You see, the fix was in from start to finish. They had rigged it all – friend to friend, or should I say “crony to crony’?

Two factors entered into the GOP’s decision making process; first, the Republican establishment will not tolerate those that are not obedient operators.  Only those who pledge allegiance to Big Daddy Christie are permitted. Love him or hate him, Steve Lonegan is his own man. Therefore the “machine” made sure through the convention process that Mayor Steve Lonegan was intentionally ignored. You see Mayor Lonegan is not obedient to the party bosses. This upcoming primary is more about who controls the line than who would be the district’s best representative.

Prior to the convention, the “machine” reached out to each Republican Club to influence their delegates to vote for MacArthur. Rumor has it that Ocean County Republicans were initially going to support Mayor Lonegan until Mr. MacArthur presented them with a check for $25,000.00 and stated he would self-fund his campaign. He immediately became their candidate. At the same time this puts everyone on notice; the party bosses will show Steve Lonegan and others in the party, who’s in charge.

This is not the first time the GOP went with the money, rather than the people’s choice.  Anna Little beat their candidate Diane Gooch (another multi-millionaire) in the Republican Primary, and as a result, felt their wrath. Anna received almost no help as the NJ GOP made it clear they would do as little as possible to help the party renegade defeat the liberal Pallone.

Mayor Steve Lonegan is no defeatist and despite losing the “line” he will be running a strong campaign to win the Republican nomination.  Immediately,  out came the hit pieces led by the “Independence Hall Tea Party”.  Typical for this faux Tea Party, they endorsed Tom MacArthur over Mayor Lonagan the proven national Tea Party supporter.
But the question everyone should be asking is “Independence Hall Tea Party” truly a Tea Party any longer or just shills for the GOP?  It’s indisputable that Mayor Lonegan is a seasoned and tested conservative Republican, who believes fully in the Constitution. We also know Tom MacArthur, relatively unknown, except that he is pro-gun control, pro-Federal Reserve stance, and is financially well heeled. So much so that he can buy the GOP and outspend Mayor Lonegan, but is Mr. MacArthur a true Republican?

Let’s address these facts; Mr. MacArthur favors the Federal Reserve controlling our money supply. (So how do you like the economy, and our devalued dollar?) We also know Mr. Tom MacArthur favors restrictive Second Amendment rights as does the Democratic Party. To this writer, ex-Mayor Tom MacArthur sounds more like a wealthy progressive Democrat.

Independence Hall Tea Party leader Ms. Teri Adams, claims to have vetted Tom MacArthur prior to their endorsement. The question Team NJ has; did they question Mr. MacArthur on the two issues mentioned above? I’ve seen some of Mr. MacArthur’s fabricated campaign literature that’s been flooding Ocean County – great hype. The problem is – it’s just hype without substance.

It has also been alleged that Ms. Adams is a GOP insider. Not to disparage any members of Independence Hall who are true patriots, but do they realize they may be being used by the GOP? Independence Hall wouldn’t be the first time a Tea Party has been infiltrated and co-opted by the GOP. I digress. Why was Independence Hall the only Tea Party in the country that endorsed Mitt Romney 2012 – the man who set the protocol for Obamacare and ordered his legislature to write laws permitting same sex marriage?

Ms. Adams, the people of New Jersey are independent. We certainly don’t need shills for the GOP from across the border trying to influence our elections. Nor do we appreciate it when you attack a true Constitutionalist! True Tea Parties want what’s best for the country, not the GOP. Clean up your own back yard and stay out of ours!

Mayor Lonegan is not an isolated act. In District 6, Frank Pallone (D) is up for re-election.  What took place there defies reason and logic. Some of the Republican establishment “Steering Committee” in Middlesex County decided to support Hari Eppanapally, an Obama contributor and active Democrat Fundraiser/Donor, to challenge Congressman Frank Pallone. Many of us alerted the public, and thankfully Hari Eppanapally dropped out of the County Convention. Anthony E. Wilkinson a true Republican Constitutionalist, a man of high moral character, won the nomination in Monmouth. It was alleged by an insider in the Republican Party that Mr. Wilkinson was told it would be wise to distance himself from the Tea Party.

They’ve even gone so far as to attempt to discourage any Republican running on Lonegan’s line, as well as trying to rid all Tea Party Committee people from their ranks. I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Monmouth County GOP insiders are attempting to rid the Party of all District leaders associated with the Tea Party as retribution for not adhering to the party line.

For example Mr. Juan Frank Gonzalez, who is married to Bayshore Tea Party co-founder Barbara Gonzales, was elected Committeeman in 2012, has been targeted.  When Frank contacted the GOP Coordinator, seeking assistance with filing the ballot petition every candidate is required to submit, she claimed to be too busy. Her quote, “You are on your own.”  Frank then reached out to GOP Chairman Peter Carton who professed to have no idea what to do with the petition but did question why Mr. Gonzales planned to run for re-election.  According to him, Frank was not a team player. In other words he was not easily controlled or manipulated.

Mr. Gonzalez went to the Town Hall to have his petitions notarized and was told that the Republican Party line on the ballot was already taken.  The coordinator apparently had made a bee-line to the Town Hall, getting there ahead of Frank and filed for a NEW candidate, one Andrew Spears, getting there just ahead of Frank. I guess we know why she as too busy to help an incumbent Tea Party Republican.  The club wanted to make sure their candidate got the top line on the ballot.

It is public knowledge that both political party “machines”, with the help of their lap-dogs in the media, are double-teaming the Tea Party movement. Repeatedly, they have stigmatized the Tea Party painting them as far-flung right-wing radicals because they had enough of an out-of-control government. Ask yourself is “Tax Enough Already” (TEA) such a terrible slogan when your country is in debt over 17-trillion dollars, unemployment continues, and the average family picks up the tab for crony bailouts for corporations, tax-payer pay-offs for campaign contributions? All this while the dollar is collapsing and Obama-care is destroying the greatest medical system in the world.

Despite the endless attacks upon it, the Tea Party is comprised of Americans from both political parties and the movement is alive and well. It’s obvious both parties are working  to make the Tea Party a political party as opposed to a patriotic movement. As a third Party they could be divided and conquered.  Let me assure you that is not going to happen. The Tea Party will continue to “primary” every candidate that behaves unconstitutionally. The Constitution defends the American people.  The time has come for the people to defend the Constitution.

The primary is on June 3, this election is critical. Vote wisely.

April 5, 2014 ~TPATH~

Contact Mr. Purpura HERE

Chemical weapon used lethally by Assad’s forces – Israeli sources

Via DEBKAFile

Another red line crossed.  It seems we were duped again.

I’m not saying we should do anything about this.  I am merely commenting on how easily Kerry, et al, were duped and how weak it makes us look.

In the mean time so called moderate Syrian rebels have been finally equipped with US TOW anti-tank missiles.  Are these the same groups who are killing Christians?  In any case, its a bit late in the game to supply the rebels with equipment that could be captured and used by Syria against…Israel.

George

 

Chemical weapon used lethally by Assad’s forces – Israeli sources

DEBKAfile

April 7, 2014, 6:31 PM (IDT)

Forces loyal to Bashar Assad struck rebels with chemical weapons on March 27, causing scores of casualties, Israeli military sources report. They used a substance that causes paralysis and was not included in the list of chemical weapons covered by the US-Russian agreement for Syria’s chemical disarmament concluded in Sept. 2013

via Chemical weapon used lethally by Assad’s forces – Israeli sources.

Egyptian Islamists Murder Young Christian, After Dragging Her From Car | CNS News

More from the “religion” of peace.  This young woman was doing an act of charity for an elderly Christian.  I guess charity only applies to muslims.

 

Eyewitnesses have given a harrowing account of the murder in Cairo of a young Coptic Christian woman, hauled out of her car and beaten and stabbed to death by a Muslim mob, apparently targeted because of a cross hanging from her rear-view mirror.

The incident occurred in the Cairo suburb of Ain Shams after mosque prayer services on Friday, when police clashed with Muslim Brotherhood supporters angered by army chief Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s decision to run for president.

An eyewitness appearing on “90 minutes,” a program on the al-Mehwar satellite network, said 25-year-old Mary Sameh George was attacked in her car near a church, where she planned to deliver medicine to an ill and elderly woman.

Protestors climbed onto her car, collapsing the roof, then hauled her from the vehicle, beating and mauling her – to the extent, he said, that portions of her scalp were torn off. She was stabbed multiple times, her throat was slit and when she was dead, the mob torched her car.

One Coptic outlet said that according to the health ministry, the young woman had been stabbed at least a dozen times.

The death of Mary Sameh George received little coverage in Egyptian newspapers.

The state-owned Al Ahram daily, in a report on five people reported killed in various parts of Cairo on Friday among them a journalist who was shot dead, included one sentence saying, “A Coptic woman, Mary George, was reportedly stabbed to death by pro-Morsi supporters in the same area.”

In a report on the death of the journalist, Daily News Egypt mentioned in passing that “Another woman, Coptic Christian Mary Sameh George, was stabbed to death in Ain Shams.”

A wire service report quoted an Interior Ministry spokesman as saying protesters had “stabbed a Christian woman to death,” and blaming the Muslim Brotherhood for Friday’s deaths.

The Australian Coptic Movement Association condemned what it called the “callous, vicious and unprovoked” killing.

“Mary George was targeted for her faith in what is becoming an increasingly intolerable and inhospitable region for Christians; given that Ain Shams is a known stronghold for the Muslim Brotherhood,” it said, appealing to the authorities to ensure that the perpetrators were brought to justice.

“The Egyptian government must send a clear message that this behavior will not be tolerated and that the culprits will be held to account under the full force of the law,” the organization said.

It also urged Western governments “to pay due attention to the extreme and violent agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

A screenshot from Egyptian TV shows Coptic Christians reacting to the violent death

via Egyptian Islamists Murder Young Christian, After Dragging Her From Car | CNS News.