THE STAIN ON THE STEIN

• Posted on August 13, 2015
• by Ron Patton
• in Articles

THE STAIN ON THE STEIN

It wasn’t long ago that a team of scientists succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving.
Andrew Cleland at the University of California, Santa Barbara and his team cooled a tiny metal paddle until it reached its quantum mechanical ‘ground state’ — the lowest-energy state permitted by quantum mechanics.

They then used the weird rules of quantum mechanics to simultaneously set the paddle moving while leaving it standing still. The experiment shows that the principles of quantum mechanics can apply to everyday objects as well as atomic-scale particles.
Is it hard to imagine how something can be mobbing in one quantum state or dimension, and yet in this dimension of time it doesn’t?
A device that exists in two different states at the same time coincidentally proves that Albert Einstein was right when he thought he was wrong.
This proves that perhaps you can be in two places at one time and that dimensions and time lines can bleed over into the other, constantly confusing us and giving us a reason to pause and move in a quantum leap.
Normal, everyday objects obey the laws of conventional Newtonian physics, named after Sir Isaac Newton, but these rules break down on the sub-atomic scale and a whole new branch of theoretical physics had to be invented to explain what happens on this sub-microscopic level.
Einstein was the first to embrace quantum physics but later rejected it on the grounds that it made everything unpredictable – “God does not play dice with the universe,” he famously stated.
Now perhaps the quantum dice are loaded and when they are thrown, the numbers may look like they are winners, and simultaneously look you straight into those snake eyes.
What if it was possible that the elite or even the Illuminati have a way to see time as a simultaneous entity and that while we play in a linear timeline – they are able to change and manipulate what we see or what we have accumulated in our normalcy bias?
At the moment there is a controversy on the internet first listed ad Reddit.com concerning well known characters from our childhood.

Many of us grew up reading about the Berenstein bears. Except they were not the Beresnstein bears at all they were the Berenstain bears. The other problem is that the name has never changed and that it has been Berenstain all along.

If this is the case then why are so many people convinced that it was Berenstein instead of Berenstain?
This presents a quantum dilemma.
Which by the way the word dilemma also is part of the problem as well because there are a group of people that believe that in another time line the word dilemma was spelled with an “n”—“dilemna.”
Truth is it never was, however millions of people will swear that at one time that it was spelled with an “n.”
There is even a website called dilemma.info for people who have all of a sudden realized that their spelling of the word is wrong.
One of the interesting things about this spelling ‘error’ is that on first discovery many report feeling a bit physically shaken by it – as if a fundamental building block in their upbringing has suddenly crumbled away and left them feeling disorientated.
Philologists have suggested that the dilemna misspelling is an error that stretches back hundreds of years for the simple reason that our brains gloss over the error. Then again there is the quantum explanation.
Dilemna at one time was spelled that way and then there was some bleed over from another timeline and that the word dilemma corrected the problem in the Universal mind. And that’s why they feel physically staggered to discover that not only are they wrong but there’s also no trace of an “N” spelling anywhere in any dictionary in the history of this time line.
Some are calling this the Mandela effect which stems from the absurd number of people who seem to “remember” that Nelson Mandela died in prison in the 1980s and not at his home in Johannesburg in 2013.
Other examples of this “effect” include a portrait missing from this universe of Henry VIII, in which he’s holding a turkey leg, New Zealand being in a different location, and perhaps strangest of all, the color Chartreuse being “something other than yellow-green.”
It is been said that he who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the future controls the present. All cause and effect has been neutralized in a time where we are no longer able to control the time that we have – and the changes that are to come will leave us wondering where all of the time went. There are people who are skeptical of the fact that anyone can alter history, anyone can assume that a timeline has been linear and that the past, present and future may be simultaneously happening.
While we think that there is a precise measuring of time, we cannot fathom that it can be theoretically reshaped and many histories can be forgotten and rewritten to fit a version that everyone can agree on.
Now, not only are there physical time measurements being drawn or manipulated, but our mental acuity and remembrance of time and history are being manipulated as well. The news stories of alleged deaths and other strange occurrences make one stop and wonder if our mental clocks are being tampered with and in an Orwellian fashion being changed to fit the needs of the elite.
There is also the idea that there has been some strange paradigm shift and that the world you think you were living in and the information that you hold as fact was not really fact but a glitch in the Matrix.
The idea is mind boggling but now it seems that the universal time glitch or erasure seems to be happening, or people claim they are experiencing a time tweak.
In the film ‘The Long Kiss Goodnight’ a private detective and a CIA assassin are caught in a many-layered web of a particular false flag operation, or “Black Op” In a key scene toward the end of the film, the Deputy Director of the CIA reveals his plan to explode a chemical bomb during a holiday parade near Niagara Falls, a plot that is coded as “Operation Honeymoon.” The plan calls for the blame to be laid at the feet of Arab terrorists, which is to be accomplished by sticking a dead, frozen Arab national behind the wheel of a Chevy sedan, which is to be parked in a gully, half buried in snow, with lots of incriminating evidence.
At one point, the Deputy Director states that the motive behind the plan is a form of revenge on the US Congress for cutting the CIA’s budget, and that it is necessary to scare the hell out of the nation to restore that funding.

Long Kiss Goodnight - 911 Predictive Programming - We'll Blame It On The Muslim's

He then speaks of the original bombing attack on the World trade center and then having it pave the way for another attack that would Kill 4000 people.
He again says they can blame the Muslims of course.
The private detective asks, “So you’re gonna fake killing 4000 people just to scare some money out of Congress?”
The reply is chilling: “Unfortunately…I have no idea how to fake killing 4000 people; so I guess we’re just going to have to do it for real.”
This film was released in 1996, 5 years before the 9/11 disaster.
We have been told that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of those attacks.
However if you go through the history of what led to the Afghanistan war Dick Cheney and George W.Bush say that he was not the mastermind.
Twisting the timelines and rewriting history.
In December of 2001 it was reported that Osama bin Laden died and was buried in the Mountains Southeast of Afghanistan by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. The New York Times reported that Osama bin Laden was dead in July of 2002. The report was filed by Amir Taheri. CNN reported October 7th, 2002 that Afghan President Hamid Karzai admitted to the press that Osama bin Laden had died and that Mullah Omar was leading the war on terror.
The BBC reported in July of 2002 that bin Laden was dead citing the report of a thorough investigation by The US Federal Bureau investigation counter terrorism task force. Dale Watson bureau chief stated that it appeared that Osama Bin laden had died. Even Israeli intelligence reported that Bin laden died in December of 2001. Just before Benazir Bhutto was assassinated she told David Frost in a broadcast interview in 2007 that Bin laden was assassinated by Omar Sheik. Furthermore it is interesting to see how the leaders of the United States started to change the way we saw bin laden in the time line after his alleged death in 2001 for example.
Fox news first discussed the death of bin Laden December 26th 2001. It was soon after that we see the timeline begin to demonstrate some very significant changes.
On December 28, 2001 when asked about the whereabouts of Bin laden President Bush says, “Our objective is more than bin Laden”
In 2002 when asked about bin Laden Vice President Dick Cheney says that Osama bin Laden “isn’t that big of a threat. Bin Laden’s connections to this worldwide organization of terror are a threat.” Soon after White House Chief of Staff Andy Card tells CNN, “”I do not know for a fact that he’s alive. I happen to believe he’s probably alive… Our overall objective is to defeat terrorism, wherever it is around the world. And so, our objective is not to get Osama bin Laden.”
It was after these revelations that President Bush delivered his state of the Union address, his first since the attacks of September 11th, 2001. In the speech he calls out to the axis of evil. He names Iraq, Iran, and North Korea in that group but he left out a significant name and that is the name of Osama bin Laden.

In March of 2001 once again reporters demand that Bush talk about bin Laden and he tells the press “Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all… He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him. I truly am not that concerned about him.”
Then by April of 2002, bin laden was no longer the objective Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers said to the press that , “The goal has never been to get bin Laden.”
Finally on October 16th, 2002 the Middle East News line reported that Israeli Intelligence officials confirmed that Israel and the United States believe Osama bin Laden was killed in mid-December 2001 during the Tora Bora bombing campaign.
All of that reported timeline now has never happened because Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan May 2011.
Now how is it that there are a group of people distinctly remembering that In December of 2001 Fox and friends and CBS News announced that bin Laden was near death in September of 2001, and later died in December? There are at least 9 different time annotations as to when Osama bin Laden died.
Prince Phillip reportedly has been dead since 2011. A week before his so called death report, WBTV in Charlotte North Carolina reported that Billy Graham had died at the Mission Hospital in Ashville.
During a BBC broadcast of “Family Guy” on August 11th, 2014 news of Robin Williams suicide made the news crawl.
Viewers were shocked over the uncanny timing after watching the episode called Fatman and Robin, where Peter Griffin is cursed with the ability to turn everything he touches into Robin Williams.
During the episode Peter tries to commit suicide in a desperate attempt to stop the Robin Williams clones from appearing, before eventually chopping both his hands off to end the spell.
Time is a bizarre thing especially on the quantum level.
Out of all of the belief systems that I have read about and have studied there seems to be a constant; it is what science has attempted to call quantum relationships. It is simply the law of attraction and manifestation through thought or power.
If you visualize events or outcomes that you believe will happen they will most likely happen in ways you couldn’t imagine! If you believe or have a consensus belief in something it may be a jolt to your normalcy bias to find yourself in a quantum entanglement.
Einstein had a word for all of this; he called it spooky actions at a distance. Science is calling it quantum entanglement. This term was used most often with early theories of gravity and electromagnetism to describe how an object could “know” the mass or charge of another distant object. Is it a sympathetic and intuitive response to what might happen or has it happened in another dimension? This is the deep and philosophical question and seems to be more and more apparent and appearing on the radar of most meaningful events in our lives.
So I guess maybe we should ask it is Eienstain instead of Einstein.

Americans Are Finally Learning About False Flag Terror   ~  hehe Wakey , wakey eggs & bakey  , seepy heads

By Washington's Blog

Global Research, August 14, 2015

Washington's Blog

Theme: Culture, Society & History

First published by GR in November 2013.

Governments Admit They Carry Out False Flag Terror

Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:

• A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson

• Soviet leader  Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939, and declared that the fire originated from Finland as a basis launching the Winter War four days later

• Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)

• The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister

• The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligenceadmit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security”(and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special

• As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

• 2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.

• And Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals

• The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing

• An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)

• Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)

• According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

• The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings

• As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.

• Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country

• Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

• United Press International reported in June 2005:

  U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

• Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians

• Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this)

• At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence

• A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat

• U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

• The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – admitted last the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists

Painting by Anthony Freda

So Common … There’s a Name for It

This tactic is so common that it was given a name for hundreds of years ago.
“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.
Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
- Plato
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
- U.S. President James Madison
“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
- Adolph Hitler
“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
- Josef Stalin

People Are Waking Up to False Flags

People are slowly waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war.
More people are talking about the phrase “false flag” than ever before.

Copyright © Washington's Blog, Washington's Blog, 2015

YOU TELL ME: MORE MYSTERIOUS EXPLOSIONS, THIS TIME IN CHINA AND RUSSIA

Posted on August 15, 2015 by Joseph P. Farrell • 8 Comments

Last week I shared some disturbing video images that had been brought to my attention by several regular readers here; these images showed what appeared to be either the actual use of thermobaric weapons in Yemen and Syria, or of tactical nuclear weapons. While the possibility always exists, in today's age, that sophisticated psychological operations can be run via the hoaxing of videos, these did not, and do not, seem to me to have that "feel" to them. In any case, that blog sparked quite a lot of good and thoughtful commentary, as people weighed in on the thermobaric or tactical nuke interpretations. The bottom line, though, was that the presence of either type of weapon actually being used operationally signified the presence of a major power behind the scenes. After all, only a few nations have the infrastructure and expertise to construct such weapons, and this is especially true in the case of thermobaric weapons, which reportedly and allegedly are products of thermnuclear weapons programs. If that is the case, then their presence is limited to thermonuclear powers (or near-thermonuclear powers).
With that context in mind, there are now reports coming out of China that explosions have occurred there, and similar reports are coming out of Russia, that many of you kindly sent along this week:
More than 40 people killed after huge explosion rocks a major city in China
Huge explosions in China's Tianjin port area kill 17, hurt 400: media

‘River on fire!’ Huge flames after oil spill ignites in Mosco

It should be noted that there is some precedent for explosions in CHinese factories:
By-standers scramble for safety after fuel leak fire becomes massive explosion at factory leading to mass evacuation
China paraxylene chemical plant hit by explosion
While the last two articles, as Mr. V (who shared them) pointed, tend to downplay the idea of any foul play with regards to the most recent explosion, the fact that it is not suspected that the latest onhe began in flammable materials raises my "suspicion meter" into the danger zone. As one individual put it who shared various articles: was this in retaliation for the recent devaluation of the yuan? In my opinion, probably not that one issue, but a whole constellation of policy moves China has made on the global stage with its BRICSA bloc partners. But an oil spill and explosion in Russia and in Moscow on the same day no less, doers raise questions. Russia not only has not been cooperating with the West by dutifully collapsing in the wake of the west's sanctions imposed on it after the west's coup d'etat in the Ukraine, it has begun serious steps to implement its own internal domestic financial clearing, and as we've seen most recently, partnered up with the Japanese giant JCB.  The interpretation that runs to "covert operations" here is the result of the West's - and America's in particular - own folly in recent years, for the covert operations card has been played so much that a real philosophical conundrum is being created.
That conundrum is that people withint the west itself now question everything coming from its corrupt governments,bought-off legistatures, corporate shills, mercantilist policies favoring only the corporations (think only GMOs and vaccines here for a moment) and agency "spokespersons" to such an extent that real trust and concensus are becoming difficult, and with them, governance itself. Or, to bring it closer to home, when explosions in CHina and Russia happen on the same day, more and more people now are more inclined to think "covert operation" than "accident" first, and that fact signals a cultural and epistemological change is taking place of a fundamental nature.
But, as a Mr. R.P. put it to me in discussing these events, there is real cause for this philosophical change, for when M, Hollande questioned the wisdom of America's policy vis-a-vis Russia and sanctions, two days later he was hit with Charlie Hebdo, an event which many analysts  think had "covert ops" written all over it. Norway backed out of Afghanistan, and indicated that it was a decision based on Norway's best interest (and really, you have only to look at a map to understand the Norwegians' point. Why have opium when you can have lefsa and lutefisk?). A week after Norway bows out of the USA's opium festival, they were hit with Brevik. Nad, as Mr. R.P. also pointed out, the pattern even goes back to Italian premier, his modus vivendi with Italian Communists and taking Italy out of Nato, then he gets a "trip in a trunk."
So, while I'm inclined to view these things as just plain old accidents - for after all, plain old accidents do occur in the real world - one can bet that in Moscow and Beijing they're taking a hard look at, and investigating, the other possibilities as well, for those, too, occur in the real world. The trouble is, they probably won't say anything about that if they do find evidence for it. They'll just indulge in a bit of their own "quiet operations"...
See you on the -
Oh...one more thing, and this one was found by Ms. K.M.  Remember that super-computer executive order that Mr. Obama signed, partly in response to that big CHinese super computer? Well, guess where that Big Chinese Supercomputer is?
Yup. You guessed it:
Chinese Port City Tianjin Searches for Clues After Devastating Blasts
And, just in case you missed it toward the end of the article::

China’s National Supercomputing Center, located more than a mile from the blast site, told Xinhua that it shut down the Tianhe-1A supercomputer over security concerns stemming from the blast. (Emphasis added)

Security concerns?  Rioters? Looters? Criminal syndicates like the Triads? Or something or someone else?

SUICIDE PACT

• Posted on August 11, 2015
• by Ron Patton
• in Articles

SUICIDE PACT

When Megyn Kelly told the participants in the first 2016 Republican presidential debate that they would be tested or questioned about God, I was shocked. I mean, I know that we are all supposed to be a Christian nation and all; I just thought that a God question for the candidates was pandering to an audience of Paleo-conservatives and I was always taught that using God in your morally-empty politics violated the third commandment.
After a score of questions about the economy and national security and abortion. Kelly teased the upcoming finale right as the network went to commercial: “We have to stand you by,” she told the participants, “because after the break, we’re going to let the candidates make their closing statements, their final thoughts — and God.”

As soon as Kelly came back, she explained that Chase A. Norton, like thousands of others, had posted a question for the candidates on Facebook. Unlike thousands of others, his was chosen: “I want to know if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first.”
Apparently the majority of Christian watchers of the debate were not impressed with the candidate’s answers because they were perceived as non specific.
They were dissatisfied because none of them specified a church, or whether not they prayed or whether or not they would ask for direction from God.
Sometimes I wonder if we forget that we are a country that believes in freedom of religion, but also we no longer specify that a candidate has to be religious.
Many different religions have their own systems of rules and practices. These often cover marriage and divorce, bans on certain actions such as drinking alcohol, and rules about worship, rituals and physical dress/appearance. Members of that religion have to follow these rules and the rules of the state where they are in the majority are modeled to incorporate and allow this, indeed religious laws are often part of the foundation of the state’s law.
However, there is a gray area that we tend to ignore when dealing with our own country’s laws and the laws of other countries and that is when laws are made by those who are religiously bound by belief in a God, are the Laws being made objectively or are the laws being made because the leader tends to mingle his religious views into the making and enforcement of laws?
With migration around the world there are increasingly minority groups in nations with different belief systems that are therefore not taken into account.
As a result in some cases, religious beliefs are in contradiction to state law.
This of course strikes fear into people, because they worry that their ability to practice their religion will be hindered by the influx of immigrants who practice different religions or religions that they are not familiar with.
Recent examples of this debate of this include whether to allow Sharia law courts (Islamic courts) in Canada and the United Kingdom, whether non-Muslims should be allowed to drink alcohol in Muslim countries like Iran, and whether Jewish, Muslim and Hindu communities should be allowed to slaughter animals in a way that would break animal welfare laws.
They say that God moves in mysterious ways, but his follower tend to be even more mysterious especially when they hold positions of political power.
A Pew Research analysis finds that 30 of the world’s countries (15%) belong to a unique group of nations that call for their heads of state to have a particular religious affiliation. From monarchies to republics, candidates, including descendants of royal monarchies, must belong to a specific religious group.
More than half of the countries with religion-related restrictions on their heads of state 17 maintain that the office must be held by a Muslim. In Jordan, for example, the heir to the throne must be a Muslim child of Muslim parents. In Tunisia, any Muslim male or female voter born in the country may qualify as a candidate for president. Malaysia, Pakistan and Mauritania also restrict their heads of state to Muslim citizens.
Two countries, Lebanon and Andorra, require their heads of state to have a Christian affiliation. Lebanon also has a religious requirement of its prime minister, who must be a Sunni Muslim.
Two other countries require the heads of their monarchies be Buddhist: Bhutan and Thailand. And one country, Indonesia, requires the official state belief in Pancasila to be upheld by its head of state. Indonesia is a Muslim-majority country; Pancasila is a summation of “common cultural elements” of Indonesia, including belief in God.
A handful of countries do not require a particular religious affiliation for heads of state, but do limit candidates for the office to laypersons. Eight countries, including Bolivia, Mexico and El Salvador, specifically prohibit clergy from running in presidential elections. In Burma (Myanmar), the president is prohibited from being a member of a religious order.
In addition to the 30 countries in this analysis, another 19 nations have religious requirements for ceremonial monarchs who serve as their heads of state. Sixteen of these, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, are members of the Commonwealth of Nations with Queen Elizabeth II – also known as the Defender of the Faith – as their head of state. The other countries in this category are Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
Most of the world’s countries, 85% allow citizens of any religious affiliation to be head of state. In the United States, the Constitution specifically prohibits any kind of “religious test” as a qualification for holding federal or state public office. At the same time, a number of states still have laws on the books prohibiting nonbelievers from holding office. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of religion clearly prohibits states from requiring office-holders to profess a belief in God.
However, it would be very interesting to see just how the United States would react to electing an atheist or an agnostic to office. Many people question Barack Obama’s religious loyalties. Obama has said that he is a Christian while others will argue that he is a Muslim.
Equally in Israel, the law doesn’t require that the Prime Minister be Israeli or Jewish. But as Israel’s demographics stand, it’s very unlikely that someone who’s not Jewish will be elected as prime minister. About 80% of the population is Jewish and they are not likely to vote for an Israeli Arab which is the major part of the other 20% give or take few percentage points.
According to Iran’s Constitution it states that:
“The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur’anic justice.”
Furthermore:
The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:
1. The One God (as stated in the phrase “There is no god except Allah”), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.The return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man’s ascent towards God;
4.The justice of God in creation and legislation;
5. Continuous leadership and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
6. The exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to:
1. Continuous jihad of the fuqaha’ (practicing of Islam) possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Ma’sumun, upon all of whom be peace;
2. Sciences and arts and the most advanced results of human experience, together with the effort to advance them further;
3. Negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.
As you can see Iran is a very religious country whose values and political decisions including the making of law are given through Divine revelation.
Which bring us to the Iran nuclear deal. It has been proposed that the reason the Republicans are hard-lined against the deal is because it appears their loyalties lie with special interests where they can profit.
One interest is in the profit form defense contractors and religious extremists both Jewish and Christian, both of which are huge supporters of the Republican Party.
It is the continuous ideology to continue with suspicion and war in the Middle East, because war is profitable if you’re the producer of tanks and bullets, and if you’re a religious extremist, war against your religious enemy is required by what you think your god wants.
Anymore, God wants war.
That also includes the God that gives the so-called divine revelation to the leaders of Iran.
On July 18th it looked as if the Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khameni was divinely inspired to tweet a message showing a graphic of what appeared to be a silhouette of Barack Obama attempting suicide.
The graphic was accompanied by these words “US president has said he could knock out Iran’s military. We welcome no war, nor do we initiate any war, but…” IF ANY WAR HAPPENS THE ONE WHO WILL EMERGE LOSER WILL BE THE AGGRESSIVE AND CRIMINAL U.S.!
Khamenei’s account has not been verified by Twitter but is widely believed to be the supreme leader’s tweet based on its content, which often rails against the United States and Israel.
In his first speech since a nuclear agreement was reached with world powers, Ayatollah Khamenei, voiced support for the deal without criticizing any of its terms, providing his version of an endorsement that could remove the most significant obstacles to its domestic approval.

If the Ayatollah is pleased, doesn’t that make you wonder of we have made a mistake especially when he supports the deal and then adds that it will not end the hostility between our nations.
Several sources have reported that the United States acted as Iran’s agent during the negotiations which led to a nuclear deal that some say relies on trust of a regime bent on terror and colonial expansion throughout the region.
When an agreement, a pact or a binding political treaty is made with country whose government is motivated by religious affiliation, what takes priority when that country makes decisions? The religious convictions of that government? –Or the political convictions of that government? Are they the same things?
How is it that it is seen as bad to question a president that has aligned the United States with a terror-sponsoring nation like Iran while alienating our allies in the region?
Americans are supposed to trust President Obama and Iran and we will never be allowed to know what is going on.
The U.S. and allies have also promised to help Iran learn how to thwart and detect threats to its nuclear program, according to the parameters of a deal. We will also help Iran construct next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium at Fordow, the facility deep underground which is impenetrable to air strikes. This should help in Iran’s clandestine work.
We will be actively sponsoring the development of Iranian nuclear technology and we will be protecting it.
Should we trust this type of seeping authority by a President?
We should also think about the motivation behind this.. some say again that this shows Obama’s religious loyalty.
During a news interview in London, two Middle Eastern commentators have accused President Barack Obama of working to improve ties with Iran, because, they claim, “his father was a Shiite” Muslim. Abu Muntasir Al-Baloushi, an Iranian opposition activist based in London, made the comments on the Saudi 4Shbab television.
Syrian writer Muhydin Lazikani said in an interview with Hiwar TV ““I am not peddling some theory and I am not being a racist, but Barack Hussein Obama is the son of a Shiite Kenyan father.”
Time magazine in 2008 examined the rumor being spread then in the Middle East that Obama is a secret Shiite. It reported:
“The notion that Obama is a Shi’ite may be traced to Iran. In the run-up to the U.S. presidential election, state-run papers published articles claiming that the Democratic nominee’s paternal ancestors had hailed from southwestern Iran. In reality, of course, Obama’s father and his ancestors came from Kenya, where Shi’a Islam is rare. Most Kenyan Muslims are Sunnis and leaven their faith with pre-Islamic African traditions and beliefs. Obama himself has said he has no idea if his paternal grandfather (who converted from Christianity) was Sunni or Shi’ite.
Undeterred, some Shi’ite scholars trawled through ancient texts to find proof and came up with increasingly far-fetched theories linking the rise of Obama to important Shi’ite figures like the Imam Ali. Some pointed to a prophecy sometimes attributed to Ali that the arrival of the Mahdi — a messiah-like figure who, Shi’ites believe, will ultimately defeat evil — will be presaged by the appearance of a messenger, a tall black man who will rule the West.”
It all goes to show you that when it comes to war and decisions of war, religious extremism is unavoidable in the apocalypse.
When the world seems like it is closing in on us we wither blame God or the Devil for the problems in the world. Either way, it is a safe bet and a reliable crutch to keep the blame from falling on our shoulders.
Little do we know that when we continually forfeit our responsibilities by blaming an unseen God or demon, or appear fanatical or extreme we open the door for superstitious manipulation by those who have no regard for either the devil, or God.
I think the leaders of this world fit that description.