Obama and American Christians are failing Assyrian Christians.

 A small army of Assyrian Christians are fighting back against the advances of ISIS and they are depending heavily on the United States and other Christian nations to help them, but military help has not been forth coming.  There are Christian leaders in the United States meanwhile telling them to pray and telling us to pray for ISIS members and to love ISIS so much they will convert to Christianity.

I wonder if those Christian leaders, that want us to love ISIS to conversion and pray for their conversion, would be begging for military help or our love and prayers for ISIS if they were living in ISIS controlled areas. I know if I was in that group of Assyrian Christians fighting to save the lives of my family members, the lives of my neighbors and fighting to preserve my heritage I would be praying that Christians and Western Allies would provide me the military aid I desperately needed to defend my way of life. Talk is cheap unless you have a dog in the fight!

Obama argues that equipping and arming a rebel army would carry risks for the U.S. and other Western nations. I admit the advance of ISIS into Iraq demonstrated that risk. The Iraqi forces quickly surrendered and abandoned their American-made equipment when ISIS advanced upon them.

The United States has a track record of supporting the wrong people and the wrong fighters. I can recall Iran, Yemen, Vietnam, Egypt, Philippines, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Uganda, Bolivia, Cuba, Brunei, South Africa, Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Rhodesia, Pakistan and the list goes on. Our leaders seem to have a penchant for supporting dictators are those in power right or wrong.

I would prefer we support those who are fighting for their own land, their own villages, their own cities and their own future. The Iraqi troops had no attachment to the land they were defending. The Assyrian Military Forces began fighting in the summer of 2014 and to this date they have not been adequately supported. They have a dog in the fight! The group started with just 12 fighters. Assyrian Christian women sold their wedding rings and other objects made of gold to finance the purchase of AK-14s and other munitions.

Assyrian Christians lived comfortable lives prior to the invasion and lost everything in one night when ISIS swept through. America support’s the Peshmerga, the Sunnis and the Yezidi, but not the Assyrian Christians of Nineveh? Are these bold speaking Christian’s leaders supporting The United Assyrian Appeal an organization that provides aid to the Assyrian military families who are fighting against ISIL/ISIS? I doubt it!   

"I am one of the servants of Allah.  We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah.  It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam.  Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion. “Osama bin Laden.

Many Christian leaders would like to bury their heads in the sand or look for ways to modify Islamic radical terrorism to fit their own Christian beliefs, but the fact is that violent radical Islamic Muslims are quite clear about their religious goals. Their acts are done specifically in the name of Allah and for the cause of Islam and Islamic rule across the globe.

“The Taliban are simply a band of dedicated youths determined to establish the laws of Allah on earth... The Taliban will fight until there is no blood in Afghanistan left to shed, and Islam becomes a way of life for our people. “Mullah Omar, Taliban leader.

"Our animosity is based on religion.  We hate Americans for their secular ideology." Tehrik a Taliban spokesman.

"In the name of Allah the Avenger, I swear on the holy book to perform my sacred duty as a soldier of Islam in this Jihad to restore to this world the light of divine justice... Allah demands no less for me to die in the cause and be sent immediately to paradise." A Taliban official.

“Islam came for the good of humanity.  If someone doesn't like our good we fight them.” Faruq Khalil Muhammad in Canada.

“We are working until we make Allah's religion supreme and we live a precious life in the shadow of Islamic Sharia law, or else be rewarded with martyrdom in the cause of Allah.  We are plotting for the Chinese to suffer the torture of Allah, or else by our hands” Abdul Haq, leader of the Turkistan Islamic Party.

“The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah [Islamic territory] in the heart of our enemy. Allah said those who fight you kill them wherever you find them." Statement by ISIS following the shooting massacre at San Bernardino.

How can the Islamic radical Muslims make themselves any clearer than they have? I stand with Reverend Frankly Graham.  We need to be praying for our country and Christians first. We need to be showing love and support for Christians around the world fighting to survive. Obama may think all religions are the same, but I do not. I apologize for Christian (Catholic crusades and inquisition) actions in the past, but that is the past and this is 2015. I know of no Christians taking delight in killing those of other religions like the radical Islamic Muslims are doing today. Christians who use violence against their enemies can expect no special reward from Jesus Christ.

I would also like to remind Obama and Ron Paul about the Islamic Crusades in 630 A.D. Muhammad invaded and conquered Mecca. Later on, Muslims invaded Syria, Iraq, Jerusalem, Iran, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Italy, France, etc. Obama and Ron Paul act as if the Christians are the only ones that conducted Crusades.

The Western Crusades started around 1095 to try and stop the Islamic aggressive invasions. In 1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I ask western Christendom for help against Seljuk (Muslim Turks) invasions of his territory. In 1095 Pope Urban II agreed to help.

It is estimated that Islam has killed at least 270 million people: 120 million Africans, 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists, etc. and forced conversions to Islam has been the norm, across three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—for over 13 centuries.

Defeat of ISIS is the only thing that will slow down Radical Islamic Muslim Terrorist. Only one thing will possibly stop Radical Islamic Muslim Terrorist and that is for Moderate Islamic Muslims to take up the fight and I do not see that happening.  They are like some American Christian leaders all talk and no action.

More Hillary Clinton B.S. to win an election!

In an interview Sunday, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton (of course she is the front-runner she has no Democrat competition) defended herself against critics of her words against radical Islamists and her actions immediately after the Benghazi attacks. Only Obama and Clinton could find a way to defend incompetency and blame someone else.

Clinton was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, a former staffer to her husband, President Bill Clinton, a close friend to both Bill and Hillary, a donor to the Clinton Foundation and served on the board of the Clinton Foundation until he embarrassed himself and thought it was in his best interest to resign if he wanted to continue to have a media career.

Stephanopoulos pressed Clinton on a common Republican criticism, that she refuses to say the United States is fighting "radical Islam." He pressed her as much as any best friend who wants to see her elected would press.

Clinton claimed she says radical Islamists all the time. Really! I do not think I have heard her or Obama make those types of comments.

She did add, “Using the term "radical Islam sounds like the United States is going after an entire religion, ignoring the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. Also, she said, it helps create the notion of a "class of civilizations" that actually aids Islamic State (ISIS) recruiting.” According to her and Obama they do not call it what it is in order not to aid the terrorist.

No one denies that there are more Muslims not waging terrorist attacks than Muslims that are. I think she is trying to buy Muslim and Liberal votes by being politically correct. I do not think we are fighting Islam the religion or all Muslims if I did I would not have a Muslim caregiver. We are fighting “RADICAL ISLAM MUSLIMS”. How can you fix a problem if you cannot or will name it?

When asked if the United States is winning the fight against ISIS, Clinton said, "I can say today that we have a new set of threats.” You had better watch your back Obama, Mama is turning against you to win an election! It was interesting to me that she in no way implied that we were losing the fight against ISIS – which we are.

Clinton attacked Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for suggesting we should "carpet bomb" ISIS, She mocked him by saying; "He's never had any responsibility for trying to figure out who the bad guys are and who innocent civilians are." As if she has! Civilian casualties are the cost of war and quite frankly I prefer civilian casualties in Syria and Iraq than in the United States. If we are not willing to risk causing civilian casualties abroad we should get out and bring our people and equipment home and wait until we are fighting on our own soil, risking the lives of American citizens.

She said current and retired military leaders should come together to rebuild the Sunnis and Kurds to fight on the ground in Iraq against ISIS. I am all for that, but it was Obama and Mama Clinton that prior to her campaigning were not willing to take the advice of military leaders to do just that. What a difference how ones greed to be President can alter their thinking.

She said people are within their rights to buy and carry guns after the San Bernardino attack. Yes, Mrs. Clinton the Constitution gave us that right before and after the San Bernardino attack. It is a shame it took San Bernardino to make you realize that.

She addressed charges she lied to family members of the four Americans killed in Benghazi by blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim YouTube video: she said, "I understand the continuing of the grief of the loss that parents experienced with the loss of these four brave Americans. … This was a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war." She does not and cannot understand what the parents are going through because she has never experienced that kind of loss. She did lie to not only the parents of those murdered she lied to the world. Fast moving – if she would have misspoken within hours of the event and corrected herself the next morning I could cut her some slack, but she, Obama and all the rest of his administration continued to lie for WEEKS after the event.

She talked about how Americans see her as untrustworthy: "Obviously, I don't like hearing that, George, but I think people who have worked with me, people who voted for me twice in New York, people I've had a very long relationship with and working on their behalf, are going to know what I do and when I say I'll do it, I'll move everything I can to get it done." The people that work with her are as dishonest as she is or they could not work with her. As far as her winning elections - that is the result of her being a good politician capable of saying what the people want to hear in order to get votes. Americans all know she lies and covers up and the majority may elect her President in 2016 even knowing those facts.

She said the U.S. should not declare war on ISIS because it is a "legal term" and only Congress has the authority to declare war. CONGRESS should declare war or not risk the lives of American soldiers. Anytime we send our troops to foreign soil to fight or advise we should be willing to do whatever is needed to WIN!!!!!

I am sorry Mrs. Clinton I am one that did not buy your campaign spill.

 

 

More gun control laws are not the answer to the terrorist and crime problems in the U.S.

The shooting Wednesday in San Bernardino, California gave Obama, Democrats and Liberals another opportunity to call for stricter gun control. I am for laws regulating the purchase and use of guns and we have laws in the United States for that purpose such as: people are prohibited from purchasing a gun if they are under indictment for a felony, or any crime which could result in more than a year in prison; if they have been convicted of a felony, or any other crime for which they could have been sentenced to more than a year in prison; if they are a fugitive from justice; if they are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, controlled substances, including marijuana; if they have been adjudicated mentally defective; if they have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; if they have renounced their United States citizenship, etc.

It seems to me that we do not need more laws we need to enforce the laws we have. If the government cannot enforce present laws how are they going to enforce new laws?

One problem with gun control in the United States may be the carrying of weapons, either openly or concealed, is primarily regulated by the States. Perhaps there should be uniform Federal laws governing ownership, use and types of guns. I know many would fear putting this control in the hands of Washington politicians. But, removing guns from being available to law abiding United States citizens violates the Constitution and solves nothing. 

Obama and his follower’s claim they are calling for, "common sense gun control," as though that would have prevented the tragedy. What exactly do they mean by “common sense gun control”? The articles I have read pertaining to last Wednesdays killings by TERRORIST said some of the weapons were not even purchased by the two terrorist. They were purchased legally by a friend. Perhaps a law regulating or prohibiting transferring or loaning weapons by unlicensed dealers would have help?

No assault weapons ban, no gun violence restraining order, no ammunition magazine capacity law would have prevented the San Bernardino slaughter. The French terrorist attacks proved, gun control laws written by people like Obama do not work they simply leave the innocent unprotected.

Murders and TERRORIST view gun control laws with the same contempt that they view laws against murder and terrorism. California already has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, but their laws did not stop the San Bernardino attack. California has an “assault weapons” ban. However, the shooters used AR-15-style semi-auto rifles, which are quite illegal ANYWHERE in California. California has Universal Background checks that Obama is proposing to put in force nationwide it did not stop the shooting last Wednesday. California also has strict magazine limits, but yet the terrorist ignored those laws. The simple fact is criminals and terrorist break the law and only law abiding citizen’s keep the law.

I do not think people who claim the Paris terrorist attack was caused by climate control and that the most serious problem the world faces is climate control is capable of writing “common sense gun control” laws.

It has been said many times, “guns are not the problem - people are the problem, guns do not kill - people kill” and I find that to be very true. Anyone that is determined to commit a crime using a gun will get one.  In the Philippines those bent on committing a crime with a gun and cannot afford one, make one. They are called a sumpak. They are made from materials like nails, steel pipes, wooden pieces, bits of string, etc. They kill and injure just like those guns made by a gunsmiths and major gun manufacturers. How are control laws going to prevent people from making homemade guns?

 Obama following the TERRORST shooting in California urged Congress to pass a law banning firearms purchases for people on the Transportation Security Administration’s unaccountable, unconstitutional no- fly list. What would that have done to prevent the slaughter last Wednesday? The two terrorist were not on the no-fly list. In fact Obama’s Immigration program welcomed one of them to the United States with open arms in a matter of weeks after she applied for a visa to the United States - that says volumes for Obama’s immigration vetting programs.

The New York Times is using space on its front page to call for greater gun regulation in the wake of recent deadly mass shootings. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. says the newspaper is running its first Page 1 editorial since 1920 on Saturday to "deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country's inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns."

Obama, Democrats and Liberals are never going to let a tragedy go to waste, not when it can be used to weaken the U.S. Constitution. President Obama’s then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made it clear what Obama’s political strategy is when he said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.” This is the same Rahm Emanuel that is Mayor of Chicago the killing capital of the United States.

 

 

 

Do not risk committing murder!

Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, China, Sudan and the United States have something in common. They are all countries that kill their own people. Every country mentioned currently allows its citizens to be sentenced to death.

I cannot speak for the other countries, but in the United States we say we have the death penalty to deter, and ultimately reduce, crime, but does it really work. There is no evidence suggesting that increasing executions leads to a reduction in crime. In fact, as executions increased in the late '80s, the number of crime rose along with them. Similarly, both the number of crimes and the number of executions have decreased in the past decade. If anything, the evidence concludes that increasing executions might actually correlate with higher crime. It leads you to ask does the death penalty accomplish anything other than death.

Unintended consequences can come with any policy and unintended consequences can come with the death penalty that cannot be undone. Carlos DE Luna, an alleged murderer executed by the state of Texas in 1989 is one of many that were executed only to find out later they were most likely innocent. After his execution substantial evidence was discovered that undermines his conviction.

Texas convicted and executed DE Luna despite the fact that the police and prosecutors knew or should have known that the victim was murdered by a man named Carlos Hernandez, a violent criminal who looked almost exactly like DE Luna. It was common knowledge on the streets of Corpus Christi in 1980 that Carlos Gonzalez Hernandez killed Wanda Lopez and not Carlos DE Luna.

DE Luna had a court appointed attorney that had no criminal experience and not one piece of solid evidence was presented in court against DE Luna. After the execution the local newspaper got a copy of the court transcript and it was discovered that there were ten errors in the trial that would have demanded a new trial. Carlos Gonzalez Hernandez the real murderer died in prison, in 1999, boasting to the end that he had killed Wanda Lopez and allowed another man to take the fall for it.

What happen in the DE Luna trial has happen with other trials and it happens because the criminal justice system decides that the accused criminal is bad enough to be executed without a remotely fair process. The community is fine with the result. The media doesn’t care until it is too late. The DE Luna case and about six others cases that I know of in the United States prove that innocent people have been executed in the United States.

Ex-Governor Rick Perry of Texas criticized the Syrian government for threatening the safety of its own people. The next month, he bragged that he had authorized 234 executions, the most of any governor in history.

At least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are thought to have been innocent, according to the first major study to attempt to calculate how often states get it wrong. More than 8000 have been executed in the United States since 1970. Every time we execute someone, there is a risk of executing an innocent person. The risk may be small, but it’s unacceptable.

Some 2,675 people were taken off death row after doubts about their convictions were raised between 1973 and 2004. But, they were then put on new sentences, usually life without parole which means they will almost certainly die in prison. Prosecutors are not anxious to allow new trials even when these errors are pointed out because it is an embarrassment to them to be proved wrong.

You would think when a prisoner is removed from death row that it would be a good thing and in a way it is, but that does not tell the whole story. Once a prisoner is taken off death row and put in general population they no long have the best efforts of the judicial system available to them since that is reserved for prisoners facing execution.

Hundreds of DNA exonerations reveal that murder cases are often riddled with problems: mistaken eyewitnesses, bad lawyers, shoddy forensics, unreliable jailhouse snitches, coerced confessions, and more. DNA evidence exists in only 5-10% of criminal cases.

The FBI announced that experts exaggerated the value of hair analysis in hundreds of cases, 32 of which resulted in a death sentence. Defendants in 9 of those cases have been executed. Finger prints, bite marks, ballistics, and fire pattern analyses have also come under scrutiny.

In cases where DNA evidence is available, courts can block access to testing, even when it could exonerate someone. Furthermore, scientific evidence is only as good as the people testing it. Crime labs from Baltimore to Oklahoma City have come under fire for errors and even fraud in their forensics.

An independent review of the Houston police crime lab found serious problems with DNA and blood-evidence analysis in dozens of criminal cases from 1987 to 2002, including three death penalty cases. 2,700 cases were analyzed by the lab's six forensic departments during that time and 1,100 cases have been reviewed. Nearly 40 percent of the DNA cases and 23 percent of the blood evidence cases were found to have had major problems. The same problem arose in the Houston police Crime lab in 2006.

Ray Krone was sentenced to death in Arizona for rape and murder, even though DNA found on the victim wasn’t his. The state argued against having the DNA submitted to the database since the jury convicted him even without physical evidence. A decade later, a crime lab worker ran the DNA through the database on his own, without a court order, and found the person who actually committed the crime.

The risk of executing an innocent person is not limited to the cases where court appointed lawyers sleep through trials. Despite the best efforts of police, prosecutors, judges, juries, witnesses, and defense attorneys, mistakes can and will happen. In a capital case, even one small mistake can be deadly.

Frank Lee Smith was sentenced to death in Florida on the testimony of a single witness. No physical evidence tied him to the crime. Four years later, the same witness saw a photo of a different man and realized she had made a mistake. DNA tests later confirmed that Smith was innocent, but it was too late. He had died of pancreatic cancer in prison.

Troy Davis was executed in Georgia in 2011 for the murder of police officer Mark Allen McPhail. No physical evidence ever tied him to the crime. His conviction was based on the testimony of nine witnesses – seven of whom later recanted or changed their testimony. Of the two who kept their testimony, one has long been suspected of committing the murder himself.

When a life is on the line, one mistake is one too many. Can we afford the risk? The Death Penalty should be abolished by the Supreme Court in the United States immediately and replaced with life in prison without the possibility of parole. If a mistake is made then it can be corrected.

Hillary Clinton said that while the death penalty needs to be limited and deserves a "hard look," she does not want to abolish capital punishment. Clinton told an audience at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire that the punishment is "too frequently applied and very unfortunately often times in a discriminatory way," but that it should not be gotten rid of altogether. Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s longtime aide said, her boss is “often confused” After hearing her comments on the death penalty I believe it.