When it comes to war, Obama is okay just this once, especially for Republicans
There is something particularly distressing about the ongoing debate on authorizing an internationally illegal and immoral military attack on Syria: a show of political support on the right. Such a ‘coming together’ of some of the center and much of the right in the American Congress has been sadly absent during Obama presidency until now, whether the issue was health, taxes, social services, keeping the government running, and immigration. And this support emerges on the rare occasion when a majority of American citizens, not known for their cosmopolitan sentiments or affection for the UN Charter, oppose attacking Syria, as was the British Parliament, and as is public opinion throughout Europe. In such a setting, it is not only international law and the UN are being repudiated in a war/peace situation, but the whole fabric of democratic accountability to law and the judgment of the people.
At least we can conclude that the reactionary tendency in American political life over the course of the last decade or so is consistent in its adherence to irresponsible means in the pursuit irresponsible ends. It appears that the real selling point for the looming attack on Syria is not for the sake of the Syrians, but to warn the leadership of Iran that it is next on the White House hit list unless it soon surrenders to Washington’s demands, echoing those more stridently made by Israel. Is this what global leadership of the United States has come to mean? To let adversaries be reminded that the global bully means business.
And what about damaging the Obama legacy? There is a loss/loss feeling about the eventual attack, if indeed it should happen. If the attack on Syria is truly limited and does not produce many civilian casualties, his Republican champions, including such hawkish stalwarts as Senators McCain and Graham, will quickly change sides, arguing that doing such a slap on the wrist is worse than doing nothing. The broadening of the Congressional resolution suggests that the hawk support depends on launching a major attack that has much wider ambitions than what Obama seemed to favor in his call to Congress for authorization. Does he heed his earlier concept of the attack or go along with his more militarist supporters?
If, as seems probable, there are casualties, retaliations, escalation, diplomatic fallout, persisting civil strife, cross border spillover effects, then Obama is almost sure to face a grassroots protest movement expressing national and global disaffection, and including some of those Democrats who go along because a ‘red line’ once drawn by an American president needs to get respect, even if the cost of doing so is irresponsible, irrational, imprudent, illegal, and immoral. Carrying out Obama’s preferred course of action would mean reverting to the once derided ‘Nixon madman’ approach to foreign policy, that is, inhibiting the Kremlin during the height of the Cold War by making their leaders believe that the American president was trigger-happy and crazy. Do whatever it takes to make sure else that America is feared around the world, endowing even its ill-advised threats with maximum potency. This iron fist style of ‘keeping of the peace’ is totally divorced from adherence to international law and support for the UN. It excessively values keeping ‘the military option’ on the table at all times in the hope of either annihilating its enemies or make them suffer the consequences of opposition to Washington ideas about how to run the world.
If Congress responds with an authorization for force in Syria, and even in a form that exceeds what the president requested, it will no doubt recall the last major Congressional dark folly: the infamous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, giving LBJ a blank check to widen the Vietnam War in ways of his devising. His first step was to escalate the American engagement by attacking North Vietnam from air and sea in 1965. It is never pleasant to revive bad memories except possibly to avoid another foreign policy fiasco, as well as to deepen the impression that America as a imperial superpower has lost its capacity to learn from past mistakes.
Dear friends, if the only way America can seem strong is to cast itself in the role of global bully, supplanting the earlier somewhat more understandable imperial cover of pax Americana, then the wise and virtuous will conclude, if they have not already, that America is actually weak. In this century true strength will not be measured by degrees of military dominance and battlefield victories, but by helping to solve the growing agenda of national, regional, and global problems endangering the future of humanity.
Such a constructive path can only be taken if the major states show respect for international law and the UN Charter as the foundational premises of a sustainable world order. Thinking otherwise, that the history will be interpreted from the militarist perspectives of those who base human and societal security on a global war machine places global civilizations, and even the human species, on a slippery slope of extinction, nothing less! At this time, we need to fear more a clash of rationalities than a clash of civilizations, although both should be transcended.
Could it not be offered in response that such thoughts are a hysterical over-reaction to what will be at worst a flash flood soon to be forgotten? Along these lines, it is contended that any attack on Syria is likely to be over in several days (although the current language of the resolution offers a wide open window to war making by extending authorization to 90 days), the reaction by Syria and its friends, if any is forthcoming, will probably be muted, and life in America, the Middle East, and the world will return to what passes for ‘normalcy.’ Even if we assume that such a moderate unfolding is more or less accurate foretelling, yet even so, the effect would be deeply destructive. It will enable most of us to remain ignorant of an underlying frightening reality: our body politic suffers from this crippling disease of ‘martialitus’ for which there is no known cure, and at present not even a widely agreed upon diagnosis. Indeed, the disgraceful edifice of global surveillance may have as its primary task suppressing knowledge that our political leaders suffer from severe versions of this disease. Snowden, Manning, and Assange were likely seen to pose such a great danger because they were attempting to remove the geopolitical cataracts clouding our vision of such a distressing political reality. After such knowledge, there would be no forgiveness, only urgent responsibilities. Under these conditions cultivating the false consciousness of normalcy is itself an ominous sign of a collective refusal to acknowledge the disease, much less to begin treating it by such moves as a Congressional resolution requiring the president to obtain authorization for non-defensive force from the United Nations and under all circumstances act in accordance with the requirements of international law as objectively determined. It would be also important to insist that the government move toward fulfilling its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty of 1968 by tabling a proposal for phased and verified nuclear disarmament. It may also be appropriate to introduce a resolution in Congress that would make mandatory a declaration of war in all instances where international force was to be used by the United States other than in circumstances of genuinely imminent foreign attack.
##
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
“It appears that the real selling point for the looming attack on Syria is not for the sake of the Syrians, but to warn the leadership of Iran that it is next on the White House hit list unless it soon surrenders to Washington’s demands, echoing those more stridently made by Israel. Is this what global leadership of the United States has come to mean? To let adversaries be reminded that the global bully means business.”
It’s worse than that. Leadership in the United States has come to mean … let Israel’s adversaries be reminded that Isreal is the real master of the Washington’s Wehrmacht and holds the reins of control of ‘our’ pathetic giant in its hands.
There is zero rerason for even the most hawkish of American hawks to favor war on Syria. The only reason this war is being undertaken is because the AIPAC/Israelis have commanded it, and by turning their vast US foreign aide based income against US Americans, they have suborned – bought- our Congress using our own money ! With ‘friends’ like Israel truly no one needs enemies !
“In this century true strength will not be measured by degrees of military dominance and battlefield victories, but by helping to solve the growing agenda of national, regional, and global problems endangering the future of humanity. ”
I agree. The US-based TNCs have already lost the battle. Their bankrupt managements can only coerce and bribe government in an attempt to keep the fossil-fuel economy alive because, like Israeli political ‘leadership’, they are too lazy … or too stupid … to see that the future of life on earth is life on earth : photosynthetic hydrogen energy ! Instead both embrace the death star.
Great post John Francis Lee… ‘the future of life on earth IS life on earth.’ Absolutely ! The Syrian situation is far more labyrinthine than is portrayed in western media. Surely Iraq and its results is a warning. Great pity dialogue not pursued, but resort to bullying and threats – the hallmark of bullies on every level. It is worrying too that Australia follows its great and powerful friend blindly to the detriment of the UN. One would think Australia in an important role at the UN this year, would have an opportunity to strengthen UN’s aims.
Watching Middle East developments from CanaDa since I was 12, listening to every detail of the 1956 Suez Crisis,This was before TV arrived in my neighborhood. I have been paying very close attention since then.
I have been following every development, weighing and considering, sifting the propaganda from the kernels of Truth buried in the avalanche of words.
I am only one individual among the billions in this world, and independent of Putin, I DEMAND to see ‘convincing’ Syria evidence.
I have not seen one iota of irrefutable evidence other than the Americans saying we know Assad did it because a chemical attack happened. The non stop emotional hyperbole in describing the effects of the attack is our proof Assad did it. Take our word for it so we can escalate military activity in the Middle East that is already a powder keg.
As a Citizen of the Democratic Free world, “secret evidence” is unacceptable, especially when the Obama Administration is asking the world to cheer on the US in this illegal adventure without UN approval, by unilaterally firing the match that will make the whole powder keg go KABOOM!
There will be no standing on the sidelines then, anywhere in this world.
In “it is not only international law and the UN are being repudiated in a war/peace situation, but the whole fabric of democratic accountability to law and the judgment of the people”, the word democratic seems out of place, as applicable to the US. There is no democracy in fascism. The reactionary tendencies have turned this country into a fascist state.
The influence of AIPAC on the American foreign policy drips off every decision made there. What puzzles me is, that Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and the following year WWI broke out. Was that just a coincidence, or do I have a conspiratorial mind? Did that Act not give the power for printing money to the Federal Reserve? And is that Federal Reserve not almost exclusively owned by private interests? And does the Federal Reserve not act, as if it is above the law, as seemed to be indicated, when it recently had to defend itself against the scrutiny of a government instituted body?
Could the pipeline, that Saudi Arabia wants to build to Europe through Syria have anything to do with the present ‘crisis’ in Syria, as well as weakening the position and influence of Iran at the same time, which also refuses to allow the international bankers to take over their financial interests? Did Saddam Hussein and Moamar Gadaffi not entertain the same sentiments?
“To let adversaries be reminded that the global bully means business”. I read here. Are we talking here about the US or Israel?
Obama painted himself into a very uncomfortable corner with his ‘red line’ remark and now wants out, but is trying to save himself and influence his fate by trying to find anybody to share the blame with. He sure would not risk the same fate, that befell JFK.
Saving reputation for Obama is already too late. There is nothing of an enviable nature of it left after soiling the very meaning of the Nobel Peace Prize with his relentless drone attacks and other mistakes of desperation, like the Morales affair in the Snowden saga.
The new word martialitus” Dr. Falk coins here describes the US position quite accurately and has been valid for some time already.
If the US and its handlers do not come to their senses, then we may very well be in for WWIII and nobody with any degree of sanity will look forward to the consequences of that.
Then the living will truly envy the dead.
Great conversation going on here in reply to another of Richard’s excellent posts. The one thing that seems to missing, though, is any idea of “what is to be done?”. Until the rest of the American people, like you have done, wake up and become aware of what the US has become – a quasi-totalitarian state (See Inverted Totalitarianism – Sheldon Wolin), any change of course is not in the cards. Sorry for my cynicism, but how can one be optimistic in the face our daily news?
to Gene Schulman,
President Putin already said officiallly that he regards some official US opinions as lies.
Neither Russia nor China will want to be involved with wars … both countries have wiser statesmen as some Western countries as they put the economy beforehand.
However, both countries are aware of danger and they will extremely careful observe how and what will be done from Western countries.
We should also take into consideration that US military is maybe extremely well equipped however, US hasn’t fought mostly alone even all those small countries not really equal to US… and it is doubtful if there has been really a war won since the WWII by US.
Moreover, Syria has been equipped with military machines etc. and its army has the picture of former Yougoslavia, Libya as well as Iraq and Afghanistan in their heads.
My great, great concern is the bacterial and viral stocks of US “military research labs”. From Anthrax to the H7N9 or H7N7 whatever it is named …
This could be extremely easy done and nobody could detect it quickly …..
US showed no mercy to bomb innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it was the only power on our globe who “probed in real life how people have been affected by the atomic bomb” …
and Napalm in Vietnam ..
White Phosphorus …
and last not least Depleted Uranium which lasts in soil for about 4,6 millions of years ….
and how it affects the inhabitants there ….
Just some thoughts….
monalisa
Monalisa: I agree with both the importance of the political economy agenda, especially oil and banks, as well as the relevance of the historical perspective on American war making and the behavior of various presidents. Hope you have had
a happy summer, warmly, Richard
Thank you Mr. Schulman for making reference to that great book of Sheldon S Wolin.
A post by Chalmers Johnson in ‘Global research’, dissects Wolin`s book ‘Inverted totalitarianism” into digestible morsels for the political layman.
The essence of his argument seems congruent with my personal convictions about the contemporary state of international politics.
Without this kind of objective analyses of the subject matter, we keep groping around in the dark. He may not be giving a solution to the problems the world faces, but making us aware of the observable facts and their negative consequences on our future helps to create an overall consensus for a guide to a potential remedy.
There are many factors here at play, that came into existence over a long period of time. Unfortunately we do not have an equal amount of time to rectify the problems. There is a long list of prerequisites and priorities and if the most pressing one is not successfully dealt with first, then all the others will be futile. Here I refer to the power to print money being in private hands. That is the crown-jewel of the international bankers.
If we do not first repatriate that jewel to its rightful owners, the democratic majority of mankind, all else will be for naught.
Albert, these words, “Without this kind of objective analyses of the subject matter, we keep groping around in the dark.” reminded me of similar thoughts recorded some 2600 years ago by the Great Jewish Prophet Isaiah. That generation of the chosen people didn’t listen then either.
Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue has muttered perverseness.
None calls for Justice, nor any pleads for Truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.
They hatch cockatrice’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eats of their eggs dies, and that which is crushed breaks out into a viper.
Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands.
Their feet run to evil, and they make hast to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.
The way of Peace they know not; and there is no Judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goes in them shall not know Peace.
Therefore is Judgment far from us, neither does Justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.
We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.
We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for Judgment, but there is none; for Salvation, but it is far off from us.
For our transgressions are multiplied before you, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them;
In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.
And Judgment is turned away backward, and Justice stands afar off: for Truth is fallen in the Street, and Equity cannot enter.
Dear Richard,
your thoughts are excellent and your sarcastic tone appropriate.
Maybe we should look too – as previous posts also suggested – where those big banks have already their affiliates … and too
I think we should look at the economy of some states …
for example …
UK ..
France …
US ..
In addition consulting history since the beginning of the 20th century each US president was involved with war and war drums and deceit in order to “mend” public opinions.
So this isn’t something newly practisized by US presidents …
I ordered today a book written by Charles Austen Beard, published in 1948, “President Roosevelt and the Coming of War 1941”. It will be very interesting from our time to look back and maybe I will see no big difference in presidential behaviours ? or “solutions” for catastrophic bad economies ? It is well known throughout history that wars have been created in order to solve econimical problems ….
Take care of yourself,
monalisa
This is, again, a wonderful post, Richard. I’m totally with you in opposing any US bombing–for all the reasons you’ve been outlining over the past week. I must say, however, that this doesn’t leave me in a comfortable place. I’m sickened by Assad’s violent, merciless hold on power, and don’t believe that rejecting US bombing is a vote for peace. At best, it is a vote for a sliver of sanity in a tragic situation. There is no easy resting place in this debate.
Thanks, Paul, for your typically generous words. I agree totally that there
are no decent options aside from a serious exploration of comprehensive diplomacy, which presupposes drawing the Iranians into the process, and giving them some reasons to be constructive. I continue to believe that regional denuclearization would be in the interest of the entire region, including Israel, and would give Israel major side benefits that it probably doesn’t deserve if it was to be cooperative.
We leave for Australia on Sunday after a lovely summer in Yalikavak. Hope you all
are fine!
Dear Prof Falk;
As I read the final edit of this latest piece from Franklin Lamb now in Damascus it seemed only fitting that I get this essay to you for your review asap. Forgive my posting it here but as I have no other email address here it is for your review–its title will make obvious why we wanted to get it to you:
Damascus Notes: Late night ‘town meetings’ before the American attack
Where was Professor Richard Falk when I needed him?
Franklin Lamb
Damascus
The Persians, whose bright, articulate students are well known internationally, and with whom this observer has been honored to discuss international politics on several occasions, may well have met their intellectual match in the Syrian Arabs.
I base this conclusion on what is happening among the public in Damascus, not just in the universities and schools, but during impromptu “marketplace of ideas” sessions increasingly taking place on the streets and in coffee houses and places of public gathering.
Last night was one example. Way past this observer’s bedtime, some friends dropped by, desiring to sit outside “for a few minutes” to discuss the latest news from Washington and St. Petersburg. We ended up perching ourselves on concrete slabs that divide Al Bahsa Street in front of my hotel—where no cars are allowed—for more than three hours! Miss Hiba, a wild and wonderful Palestinian journalist born in Yarmouk camp, interpreted for us. The congregation very quickly grew as a few soldiers, shabiha and national defense force types showed up to see what was going on. Some even joined in the fast moving, animated discussion.
There were several students and neighborhood residents assembling and at the start of the ‘seminar” it quickly became obvious that Syrians are carefully tracking developments in the run-up to the widely expected “9/12/13 black Friday” now less than one week away.
It is this date when many Damascenes and foreign observers believe the American attack will begin. Life appears on the surface fairly normal, but tensions are rising and people are alarmed at the prospects of an American attack. This observer was educated by these Syrians about a number of things, including the conflict raging here, and on how events locally and internationally are apt to unfold. Very few here, if any, are inclined to believe that the American attack will be limited or short, this despite the fact that for the past few days the Obama team has made frequent use of the word “degrade” (as in demolish or destroy, one might note); nor do they believe its sole purpose is to send a message or to punish the Syrian leadership. An elderly gentleman who owns a pharmacy around the corner explained, “It’s regime change here and in Tehran and nothing less! They will bomb anywhere at will because their top 75 listed targets have already been emptied and keep shifting. We are all working to provide Obama with no targets.” This observer was dumbfounded by the sophistication of the comments made at the impromptu gathering. One Damascus University student preparing to return to classes later this month rattled off some likely or projected results of the upcoming Congressional vote, explaining to the growing assembly that in the House of Representatives the count, as of 9/4/13, could be viewed as 47 members firmly or inclined toward voting yes; 187 firmly or inclined to a no vote, with 220 unknown or undecided. Then she announced she was pretty certain the President will be forced to withdraw the resolution or postpone a vote in the House.
Another lady, who I have seen around my hotel garden, mentioned yesterday’s report in the Washington Post that the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has linked with the Israeli lobby AIPAC in an all-out public campaign for a U.S. war on Syria. I had no idea about this, and wondered how she was so current with her information. She then explained, “So far, only 21 senators have said they support or are likely to support the Obama resolution, thirteen have said they oppose or are likely to oppose the resolution, while 66 votes are undecided or unknown.” By early this morning, when our gathering had begun drawing to a close, the conversation had made its way around to the U.S. Constitution. One young man, presumably a law student, zeroed in on Article One, Section Eight, Clause 11, reciting for this observer not a summary, mind you, but word-for-word—from memory—“The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. He then explained that the particular passage provides no specific format for what form any legislation must have in order to be considered a “Declaration of War,” nor does the Constitution itself use this term.
Then came the zinger: “Sir can you compare and contrast this Article and Clause with the 1973 War Powers Act and share with us your interpretation of both with respect to what your President is threatening to do to my country.” “Who is this guy?” I thought to myself, and I began to stutter, thinking to myself, somewhat in anguish, “Where is Professor Richard Falk when I need him.
” Not knowing where or how to begin to answer the gentleman, I mumbled something like “that’s an excellent question, can we meet later to discuss it because it’s very late now.” But mercifully, just as I glanced at my watch, noticing it was 4:28 a.m., we all heard the Adhan, (Islamic call to prayer) called out by a muezzin from the nearby mosque. The somehow reassuring strains, even a bit eerie, wafted around us. The time had come for al fajr (Dawn) prayers. It was this observer’s good luck; I could duck the question. The soldiers on the street fell silent, listening, becoming contemplative. One can only imagine their ruminations about next week’s likely American bombing campaign. Most everyone began now to disperse. I was saved. No thanks to Professor Falk.
The people of the Syrian Arab Republic are politically sophisticated and amazingly well informed as to the current crisis, even down to specifics on external players and their plans. One can only wish them well and join with them and with all people of good will—as many Christians and reportedly even more Muslims plan to do—for the day of fasting and prayer called by his Holiness Pope Francis for September 7, 2013.
Franklin Lamb is doing research in Syria and can be reached c/o fplamb@gmail.com
No one can deny the brutality of Assad’s regime and the vicious nature of the civil war in Syria. However, more violence and destruction is unlikely to deliver peace and compel the warring parties to negotiate and find a mutually acceptable peace agreement.
“In this century true strength will not be measured by degrees of military dominance and battlefield victories, but by helping to solve the growing agenda of national, regional, and global problems endangering the future of humanity.” – Very wise words, Dr. Falk, thank you.
kerryCatchup comparing this Brinkmanship with Munich / appeasement Nazi Germany!
the Devils are $hamele$$ ! Off with its head !
Dear Mr. Freer: Can you please explain that? (The first line). If possible for you. This is why: I am not in a full understanding about this.
K.F.
I have a reflection:
According to the reports the executive order that John F. Kennedy has singed is still valid, and can become active.
This is what has to take place: it is active since it was signed?
It seems that illegal activities have been going on for quite some time.
Is there anything that Church in Rome—or Vatican can do in order to deal with that?
I know that Vatican and Rome have spiritual authority, and ability to deal with that.
There was ancestor (a woman-wicked) of the clan-wicked…a very unclean, and evil woman. That seed of evil is never cut of; it is in the earth and not cut off.
I believe that there are some ecclesiastical reference/issues when comes to that (Satanic-cult). It took the power in Germany (spiritual) ever since reformation. Then, it was the destruction in natural, and so forth. Reformation revolts/disorder are the seed of that (Satanic-cult). They opened the doors to the Church disorder.
Martin Luther, himself was under Blasphemy of God’s Spirit and in satanic seals generational (of the origin and the time of Gnostic gospels that were of works of false church/disorders). This is what he did: He separated the Word and Spirit. (He was in anti-Spirit of God). He was extremely anti-Semitic, and he was not saved, and he was a Church-false. Nevertheless, there’s possibility that Martin Luther was saved at some point in time, however. Still, when he started the confusion he was not saved and he was in a bad spirit; (he was under generational sins, and he was defiled with an evil spirit trough unlawful marriage). Those satanic seals, as well as generational blasphemy of God’s Spirit can be silent in descendence for long time/many generations, and it can become active (as was the case with Luther). All that Luther has atempted to do was in a direct violation of the Gospel and Apostolic writings (regardles what he tought that is right—or wrong). When comes to the Church doctrine, nothing changes, unless the change is appointed and directed by Spirit. A monk was not a prophet, and had no spiritual authority. He was struggling to be enlightened/saved and could not—that is the reason why he challenged the Church order and authority—not a valid and appointed responsibility. This is what I understand about these things.
Because Vatican is part of UN (overseeing) and John F. Kennedy was killed due to dealing with these issues; it is possible that they will be helpful—this could possibly be resolved by ecclesiastical impact/ministry to the cult-members, and in a more civil way. They are under blasphemy of God Spirit—there was blasphemy against all essence of God’s Spirit, and they are in satanic-seals-generational. (All of them in general are in all blasphemy and abominations—this is a fact, regardles what people would like to argue about that).
Hopefully, the offspring of wicked will submit to the laws appointed and will not kill (or employ to kill), once again. They should be stripped away of their obnoxiousness by Baptism in God’s Spirit. I do not think that wicked understand why are they in an evil way.
Still, generational sins should be no burden to the weary.
Likewise, offspring of King James are not grafted in by Faith-or Spirit. Their Church marriages are invalid. They would need baptism in God’s Spirit to annul unlawful and/or invalid marriages/works of church/priest invalid. (Generational sins against the Gospel of God and the Word of God are regrettable).
By Church Order and the Gospel, and all teaching that was appointed by Spirit, and all Apostolic writing, the evil king could not make his Church marriage invalid. He started a civil religion—he annulled Law ecclesiastical/Church Laws according to the Gospel: The Law of the Spirit. Until yet, some in that line are not grafted in, by any means (not by seed, not by works, not by faith, and not by Spirit). By nothing, they are grafted in, even to these generations.
Church Charismatic that is valid has no jokes for anyone.
I have another refflection:
There is just too much going on, and hardly anything is held in security–there is not accountability of the nations to nothing, and no one.
Earlier this week, I was looking at CNN report about devastating pollutions in China’s rivers. (Due to bad economic undertakings). I could not believe what I was seeing; I wondered, “How can anyone do that?”
Irresponsible economic practices are definitely reaching its point of end to that balance between nature and humans and this balance will no longer be sustainable.
I had brainstormed about AIDS (HIV virus) in humans…I was thinking that it was crossed over from HIV 1 and 2 virus in animals/ (monkeys) to the human population. I just have ill-feeling, and also think that this form of viruses was manipulated, by scientists. I do not see/ understand—by factual evidence that this was done—I see the possibility of insane scientific developments that may have taken place before 1981 when this virus started out into a world-epidemic—from within US. (Now, only Nazi-like would do such things).
Is it possible that thy flesh viruses into the society for profits in medical industry—or other forms of population controls—not always because of the wars?
I have ill feeling that they are doing such things, in general.
I came across a Church report, and this is what is taking place:
http://global.christianpost.com/news/dozens-of-pentecostal-churches-being-shut-down-in-cameroon-103774/
I do have a reflection about that:
Because these items in the article are taking place; it is not enough just to shut down the churches that are planted in charismatic disorder/heretical denominations—are Church invalid and are violent, already.
It would be good that Catholic Diocese should be aware in these effected areas, and should have the priesthood that is charismatic – missionary/evangelists ready to go and recover thise people from these churches, and perform rites of the Church so that complete restorations is possible (e.g., exorcism, anointing in a valid Oil of the Spirit, a valid baptisam in God’s Spirit has to take place). A full Church-Charismatic ministry that is valid will have to apply here.
They would have to restore people who were ministered/juged/given over to destruction by heretical-church-charismatic misusing the Church orders by Anti-Spirit of God, and were demonized (recived anoiting of Anti-Church).
This is why: Church valid would be condemned to see someone who is Church valid in appearance (or Catholic) demonized, someday in the land (land of Cameroon) seed a civil war—or anything that is related to that.
Other Churches may assist demonized population–they can help Church that is valid (or Catholic)–or can do whatever they want. It would be helpful if they would attain, and apply some sort of their church oversight, as an elementary thing and an elementary guide.
Why is some of 500 denomination in the land of Cameroon, when only 47 official permits were given to the missionary’s by the land of Cameroon? Why is that? I would hold those Churches/lands accountable that went into the land of Cameroon without order and oversight. Still, I am not their churh oversight to deal with their disorder–nor I can.
K.F.