Stephen on Assyrian TV
Watch the interview!
Marriage died in 2013
Published December 31, 2013
More than a year ago, when states began to legalize gay marriage, I argued that polygamy would be the natural result. If love between humans of legal age is the only condition required to have the state issue a marriage license, then it is irrational to assert that two men or two women can have such feelings for one another, while three women and a man, or two men and a woman, cannot.
I have met would-be polygamists who cohabitate as groups and I can tell you that they seemed to be very committed to one another, to be very intimate and to be "in love."
Gay rights groups criticized me for suggesting that their bid for marriage rights would lead to polygamy being green-lighted.
I received threats of being raped and being killed from gay people who didn't like the point I was making and seemed to think I should be brutalized or die for it.
Well, now U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups has found parts of Utah's anti-bigamy law unconstitutional. His ruling comes in a case brought by Kody Brown and his four wives, who are featured in the reality TV show, "Sister Wives."
I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold that finding, if Utah challenges it.
As I predicted, this will officially make marriage the Wild West, in which groups of people can assert that they are married and should have all the benefits of that status, including family health plans and the right to file taxes as married people.
It will also, eventually, lead to test cases in which a few unusual sisters and brothers insist that they can marry, because they are in love and promise not to procreate, but, instead, to use donor eggs or sperm.
And, I predict, the courts will agree with them.
Given this dissolution of support for society's vested interest in providing children with a mother and father they can point to with certainty, in households where both genders are equally represented, it is very clear that government should get out of issuing marriage licenses, entirely.
People who wish to create special partnerships of the heart and home should sign prenuptial contracts with one another and then exchange vows at their churches or temples or in front of gatherings of family or special friends.
No different status or privilege should flow to married people, whatsoever. All individuals who earn income should file taxes, separately.
The truth is that government never had a defensible role in marriage. It should always have been the exclusive domain of the individuals and institutions that choose to recognize such interpersonal unions.
Churches should be allowed to define marriage as they wish and offer marriage certificates only to those who comply with their definitions. Temples, just the same. Communes can do it, for all I care. Any organization, in fact, should be able to award the status to anyone they like. But, states and the federal government should have no part in it, whatsoever.
Only child support should be mandatory, because the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that minors not be without financial resources.
Marriage is over. It was always at least a little funny that a huge percentage of people swore to stay together until death, then divorced and remarried. But, now, it is, officially, judicially, a joke. If two men can marry, and three men can marry, and five women and a man can marry, and three men and two women can marry, then marriage has no meaning. It's over. Go get rings, go get lawyers, go rent a nice hall, but City Hall should bow out.
A message for Christians about America's health care crisis (hint: it's much, much bigger than you think)
Published January 02, 2014
Basically, what the author says in this article is that Christians need to put preaching the Gospel and helping those in need preeminent to all else, such a political differences.
Saudis lament, 'we have been stabbed in the back by Obama'
Arabs don't trust Obama either. As 2013 ends, President Obama has lost credibility with many people who trusted him at the start of the year. Surprisingly, the same thing is happening on the other side of the world among Arabs in the Middle East and for the same reason. Too often, Obama's speeches and actions don't match. The Saudi official is referring to Obama's "red line" vow of military action if the Syrian dictator Bashir Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Assad did and Obama didn't. Saudi officials were stunned. Next came the revelation earlier this year that Obama was secretly negotiating with Iran, the mortal enemy of both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Officials in both nations have told me that they simply don't believe that the president can sweet-talk the mullahs out of the weapons they have coveted for years. "The bond of trust between America and Saudi Arabia has been broken in the Obama years," al-Ibrahim said. "We feel we have been stabbed in the back by Obama." "Every time that Obama had to choose between his enemies and his friends, he always chose his enemies," he said. "We don't know what he's putting in his tea." Al-Ibrahim also pointed to Obama's "dangerous inaction" during violent Iran-backed uprisings in Bahrain, and now his negotiations with Iran, and his separate, secret negotiations with Iran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah. Since American officials cannot legally negotiate with terrorist groups and Hezbollah is a State Department-listed terror organization, the administration has been using British diplomats to carry messages to Hezbollah. The Obama administration reportedly favors a "warm up to a direct relationship in the future" with Hezbollah.
Iraq descends into Chaos
Republican senators on Saturday blamed the Obama administration for Al Qaeda affiliates over-running parts of Iraq, including the city of Fallujah, which the United States secured before President Obama removed all U.S. forces from that country in 2011. Sen. John McCain, Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, called the recent turn of events "as tragic as they were predictable" and suggested Obama misled Americans into believing that Iraqi leaders wanted U.S. forces out of their country. "While many Iraqis are responsible for this strategic disaster, the administration cannot escape its share of the blame," the senators said in a joint statement. "When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces … over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America's enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests. Sadly, that reality is now clearer than ever." President Obama has lost leverage with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and thus holds no power to stop recent violence and bloodshed in that country, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said Friday on "Special Report with Bret Baier". "America has no leverage, America evacuated," Krauthammer said, "Obama decided we were going to liquidate our presence." Krauthammer said the president's failure to leave a residual element in Iraq to train forces and mediate between local ethnic groups has now hurt American interests. "Obama decided for political reasons that he would evacuate, he'd call it a great victory," Krauthammer said. "He ended the war. But he ended the war in a way that liquidated our gains."
Coptic Christians in Libya threatened with Shariah Law
Libya's recent edict that its coming constitution will be based on Shariah law has sent a chill through the North African nation's small Christian community.
Libya's Coptic Christians, who number about 300,000, or 5 percent of the population, were allowed to practice their faith under dictator Muammar Qaddafi. But since the strongman was ousted from power, and ultimately killed, Muslim fundamentalists have increasingly filled the power void. Last month, the national assembly voted in favor of making Koranic law, or Shariah, the basis of all legislative decisions, meaning Islam will shape all future banking, criminal and financial cases.
Good News! Dependence on Saudi Arabian Islamist Fanatic Oil near an end!
CNSNews.com) – Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, a billionaire businessman and nephew of Saudi King Abdullah, said the production of shale oil and natural gas in the United States and other countries, primarily done through fracking, is a real competitive threat to "any oil-producing country in the world," adding that Saudi Arabia must address the issue because it is a "matter of survival."New shale oil discoveries "are threats to any oil-producing country in the world," said Prince Alwaleed in an interview with The Globe and Mail. "It is a pivot moment for any oil-producing country that has not diversified. Ninety-two percent of Saudi Arabia's annual budget comes from oil. Definitely it is a worry and a concern."Alwaleed also commented that many Saudi leaders did not comprehend the threat posed by oil and natural gas production from shale. However, he said he would use his influence to keep pressing the issue."I will make them get it, there is no doubt about that," he said. "I'll make them get it. It is a matter of survival. There is no choice but to get it. I will keep pushing until they do." "The majority of Saudi Arabians get it," said the prince. "We will mobilize the media, mobilize the people to put maximum pressure on the government to do things to rectify the problem."Prince Alwaleed has been warning about the threat posed by fracking shale in places such as the United States and Russia for some time. Back in May 2013, in an open letter to the Saudi oil minister, Ali al Naimi, as translated from Arabic by the Wall Street Journal, Prince Alwaleed said, "With all due respect to your Highness' viewpoint about shale gas and that it poses no danger on Saudi economy at 'the present time,' I was hoping that your Highness would also shed light and focus on the danger of this matter in the 'not-so-distant future,' especially that America and some Asian countries made big discoveries in shale gas extraction which will affect the oil industry around the world in general and Saudi Arabia in particular.""It is necessary to diversify sources of revenue, establish a clear vision for that and start implementing it immediately," said the prince, who added, "we see that raising North American shale gas production is an inevitable threat." - During hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a mixture of water and sand (99.5%) and chemicals (0.5%) is injected into a deep horizontal well at high pressure, creating fractures in the rock out of which crude oil and natural gas, can flow. Because of fracking the shale deposits in places such as Bakken in North Dakota, Eagle Ford in Texas, and Marcellus in Pennsylvania, the U.S. production of oil and natural gas is increasing dramatically.
According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), fracking (and horizontal drilling) has resulted in the United States becoming (in 2010) the world's largest natural gas producer. Also, in October 2013, domestic oil production surpassed the amount of oil imported into the United States for the first time since 1995.
In addition, because of fracking, America is projected to surpass Saudi Arabia and Russia as the largest oil producer in 2015, according to the EIA.
In 2008, the United States was producing 5 million barrels of crude oil per day; because of fracking, America is now producing 7 million barrels per day.
According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), "A little more than a decade ago natural gas production from shale accounted for 2% of total U.S. output. Today that figure is 37%, and another HIS Global study projects that natural gas developed through the use of hydraulic fracturing will rise to more than 75% of the domestic supply by 2035."
- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/saudi-billionaire-prince-fracking-competitively-threatens-any-oil#sthash.jsDwpHg5.dpuf See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/saudi-billionaire-prince-fracking-competitively-threatens-any-oil#sthash.jsDwpHg5.dpuf
Commission on Presidential Debates:
I don't know how you people choose moderators, but having that partisan hack like Candy Crowley moderate was a national disgrace, and reflects poorly on you. Why is it too much to ask for a neutral moderator? I am an American citizen and a voter. It is extremely offensive to see a political moderator trying to help her favored candidate win a debate-and then she interrupts the debate-making a claim-that Obama called the Benghazi attacks a terrorist attack-during the debate. He did not. He mentioned terrorism in a general sense. Of course that wasn't clarified until later-meaning that left viewers deceived by the moderator. If a presidential debate is about two Democrats ganging up on a Republican-why should I waste my time watching that? Why have debates? Why should the Republican candidate subject himself to this kind of nonsense? Obviously, the Commission on Presidential Debates must be some kind of Democratic PAC or special interest group. How can I take you people seriously? "The Commission on Presidential Debates" is a national embarrassment and a laughing-stock. I want to know why they let unprofessional jokers like you run the debates? I think that you are incapable of running fair debates and something needs to be done about it before the next presidential election. Why is it that only Democrats in the news media can serve as moderators? What fool is making up these rules? If a liberal clown like Candy can host-why not get some one from Fox like Chris Wallace? I know the Democrats complained about Jim Lehrer-because Obama debated poorly-but my understanding is that Jim Lehrer is another Democrat. Also, to my knowledge Jim Lehrer didn't interrupt the debate waving a piece of paper-trying to save Obama. Debates are important. By attempting to give the Democrats the upper hand in the Debates-this so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates" is endangering the democratic process and something needs to be done to stop you! It is obvious that this so-called "Commission" has an agenda to influence the debates to favor the Democrat Candidate. Your so-called "Commission" is a threat to free and fair elections in the United States. Sincerely, Stephen Missick, Shepherd, Texas
Why Americans cannot detach from what's happening in Iraq
"The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him" -- Sun Tzu
When it comes to warfare, our president is not gifted.
It is clear that Al Qaeda is not "on the run" as put forth by the White House, and the entirety of the Obama administration, in the months and days leading up to the November 2012 election.
It was not true then and the evidence of the falsehood is now more evident than ever. Our allies don't understand it; and our adversaries benefit from it.
We now have proof that the bulk Obama administration's foreign policy is failing – badly.
We now have proof that the bulk Obama administration's foreign policy is failing – badly. The Chinese are willing to take aggressive, destabilizing actions by insinuating new "security zones" in the Pacific and fear no negative reaction from the U.S.
The Russians continue to increase their dominance over the former states of the Warsaw Pac and the Middle East and have no concern about our response.
The Libya conflict was neither "quick nor kinetic" military conflict (taking nearly a year to oust Mummar Qaddafi), and instead we witness the murder of a sitting U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in an Al Qaeda attack.
Egypt and its people remain completely baffled by the Obama administration's support for the Muslim Brotherhood – an entity (the Egyptians) has deemed a "terrorist organization". We have a complete chaos in Syria where the Obama White House has supported Al Qaeda linked militia – which brings me to Iraq.
Let me be clear – I am in the camp that judged our 2003 invasion of Iraq to be unjustified and ill-conceived. But, as General Colin Powell famously said "you break it, you own it" – well – we broke it and we were in the process of helping fix it when President Obama decided to abandon the mission of helping Iraq transition into a representative democracy in August 2010.
We now have Al Qaeda-backed militia take control of Fallujah -- this is a major setback to both Iraq's continued stability and prosperity as well as a signal that the region is moving toward expanded civil and international unrest.
While the Iraqi government claims it will re-take Fallujah "in a matter of days" the situation will not improve and we'll see more Al Qaeda elements taking control of parts of Iraq.
The expanded instability of Iraq is based on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's support for the Iranians (and the Shia Muslims) and continued isolation and marginalization of Sunni Muslim groups has resulted in the continued destabilization of Iraq.
What we, the U.S. left, in 2010, as a nascent democracy is slowly devolving into a religious theocracy, and in doing so moving more and more toward civil war.
The situation in Iraq mirrors that of Egypt before the removal of President Morsi.
During Morsi's year in office he went about instilling his political allies in all offices of government, and marginalizing all others for the purpose of a permanent Muslim Brotherhood controlled government – this is what Maliki now seeks: to instill permanently Shia Muslim control of Iraq.
This White House has supported both of these leaders – and in doing so gone against our own American values of defending democracy. Further, the support for these leaders has resulted in a demonstrative destabilization of both nations.
But unlike Egypt, in Iraq we had the option to have and maintain a military and diplomatic presence – we had the option to remain involved in helping that nation move into a tradition of democracy.
However, our premature departure from Iraq, driven by this White House, has allowed for President Maliki to become radicalized to the point that his own actions supporting the Iranians (Shia) have embolden pro-Al Qaeda militants and given them the upper hand and left President Obama with zero influence or options; in other words, there is no way for President Obama to "impose his will" on our enemies.
Had we remained, at least for a few more election cycles, it is likely that the Iraqi democracy would have matured and become more robust (I will not say stable – as any democracy, done well, will maintain a degree of friction between parties and groups).
There is no doubt that had we had a close relationship – and continued military presence, that Iraq would not have been allowed to allow Iran to use its airspace, and therefore become the key rallying point for the Shia uprising (and pro-Al Qaeda success):
Ok – you ask – why does this matter to us? Most Iraqis did not want us there to begin with. While I feel the original invasion was not justified, we cannot now, after we created the situation, afford to be disengaged and detached from these actions for two reasons.
First – for better or worse: oil. While we as a nation are becoming more and more energy independent, our allies and competitors depend on Middle Eastern oil – we must be aware, and involved in this, to defend our own interest, even if we don't need the oil.
Second – terrorist groups will continue to re-generate and seek to attack the homeland. The Global War on Terror is not done – it has transitioned. And it is al Qaeda's franchises (such as this example in Iraq) are growing strong – with the intent to subvert our allies, and, eventually, be able to project attacks back into the U.S. homeland.
This is not a new problem – but it is getting worse.
Instead of dealing realistically with threats we face, White House and Pentagon leadership spend time on "science fictionalized" threats.
In military institutions, even with the Syria crisis at hand, they were not permitted to conduct military exercises regarding Syria – having to "invent" scenarios as to not offend politicians and their bizarre sensibilities.
We are not even permitted to look directly at the adversaries we face – and the result of which is the chaos we now see as the product of our foreign policy; we no longer have a "reality" based threat understanding.
There are real issues we need to examine and develop strategies to face them directly – at this point, the Obama administration has not, and there is no indication that it will have a cohesive foreign policy anytime soon.
This has to be fixed – and it is in our interest to work directly to support those nations who are attempting to transition and establish a tradition of democracy is something we must do.
Iraq may be too far gone – due to neglect by this White House – that does not mean we can afford to sit on the sidelines and simply "lead from behind" as we watch our friends and allies slide into chaos.
Pulling most of our troops out of Iraq was a good idea. Pulling all of our troops out-was folly and squandered all the gains we made and that we paid for with the blood of our heroes. It isn't just Americans that are suffering because of this idiot in the White House-but Iraq and the whole world.
How are we going to endure three more years of Obama? God help us! This man never worked a day in his life. His only accomplishments are his two autobiographies-ghost written by the terrorist Bill Ayers-who tried to kill American soldiers-These autobiographies show how full of himself he is-he is an arrogant meglomaniac.