Zev Porat

Monday, September 9, 2013


By Rev. Joda Collins
PPSIMMONS News and Ministry contributor

The Associated Press put out an article this evening.  I have reproduced a part of it below.  Meaning no offense to the author, the article is not well written in a few places, so I helped a little to make it more easily understood.  My assistance is in parenthesis.  

You can read the article for yourself at  http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2013-09-09-Syria-Diplomacy/id-af296388b291481cb786d30f941a2ae7

I have, also, organized the article to get rid of the intended or unintended convolution.  

The article reads, in part:

1.  "Obama…declared it (the full turn over of Assad's chemical weapons) a 'potentially…significant breakthrough' that could head off the threats of U.S.air strikes."

2.  The article continues, "The administration (is) press(ing) ahead (anyway) in its efforts to persuade Congress to authorize a military strike…."  (Parenthesis mine).  He (is) stick(ing) to his plan to address the nation Tuesday night…."

3.  "The suggestion to secure the chemical weapons 'could potentially be a significant breakthrough,' Obama told NBC News in another interview."

4.  "Kerry…(said)…that his comments were not a proposal but the U.S. would be willing to review a serious plan...."  "....former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said any move by Syria to surrender its chemical weapons would be an "important step."

5.  "...Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice reiterated that the president ha(s) decided it is (still) in U.S.interests to carry out limited strikes.

6.  "The president said he would 'absolutely' halt a U.S.military strike if Syria's stockpiles were successfully secured…."

7.  "My objective here has always been to deal with a very specific problem," Obama said in an interview with ABC News. "If we can do that without a military strike, that is overwhelmingly my preference."

Okay, friends, that is the meat of the article. Paragraph one through five implies that turning over the chemical weapons probably will not stop Obama from starting war with Syria

Paragraph six states turning over the chemical weapons "will" stop Obama from starting a war. Both cannot be true.


A sociopath will tell you anything you want to hear and, often, also tell you what he is going to do. When he wants action, he will do what he told you he was going to do and tell you that he never intended to say anything else, leaving you to scratch your head in bewilderment.  We already know Obama will do as he wishes as long as he can get away with it and claims over and over that he never said things that are captured on film.  

Paragraph seven states that Obama has a goal of dealing with one "very specific problem."  I tell you that "problem" is that the Muslim Brotherhood or Al-Qaeda is not in "official" control of Syria.

Of course, Obama's hope is that you will wrongly assume that "his" very specific problem is Assad's command of chemical weapons.  It is a bad mistake to assume anything from or about a sociopath.  All veiled language hides evil. In all conflicting comments, the most devastating action to good people is the sociopath's goal.  

Obama is telling the truth, however, that if he can get Islamic terrorist in control of Syria, he will not bomb Assad. 

To understand Obama's words, you have to think like a sociopath. 
The following short book will help you do that.  

You can read it free at:   

Read it quickly so you can know what is coming next from the Oval Office.

Disclaimer:  I make no claim that anyone else agrees with my views or opinions. 

joda collins 
Rev. Joda Colliins

No comments:

Post a Comment