Tuesday, January 20, 2026

When Muhammad Rejected by Rabbis, He Turned Against Them

When Muhammad Rejected by Rabbis, He Turned Against Them

When Muhammad Rejected by Rabbis, He Turned Against Them

To understand why Western civilization developed so differently from much of the Islamic world, it helps to understand early Islamic history.

Islamic tradition says that in the early 600s, Muhammad began preaching in Mecca. For roughly a dozen years, his message gained only a small following—mostly close family members and loyal friends—while facing strong opposition from local leaders.

After that period, Muhammad migrated to Medina (the Hijra). Medina was home to influential Arab tribes and significant Jewish communities, and it was a major commercial and political center. During this time, Muhammad’s changed his teachings to include many references that sounded familiar to Jews and Christians—often called “People of the Book, but there was no book.” This is one reason people notice similarities between Judaism and Islam, such as dietary restrictions, structured daily prayer, and fasting traditions.

However, when key Jewish groups in Medina did not accept Muhammad’s prophetic authority, tensions escalated. The relationship shifted from dialogue to political conflict and military confrontation. From that point forward, Islam was no longer only a spiritual movement; it also became a governing and military force, shaping law, society, and expansion.

As Islamic rule spread, Jews and Christians were often allowed to remain within Islamic states, but typically as protected minorities under specific legal limits. In many historical periods, this included paying the jizya (a poll tax) in exchange for protection and permission to practice their religion—though how this worked varied widely by place and time. Jews had to wear a star, and Christians had to wear a belt. Also, news could not blow the Shofar, and Christians could not ring the church bells. Basically, Jews and Christians were second-class citizens and were considered dirty. They could not walk on the same side of the street with a Muslim and would have to cross the street.

Islam continued to expand rapidly beyond Arabia, reaching the Levant and eventually Jerusalem. By the late 11th century, Christian rulers in Europe viewed Muslim control of key Holy Land sites—and reports of hardships faced by Christian pilgrims and Eastern Christians—as a crisis. In 1095, Pope Urban II called on Western Christians to go east in an armed pilgrimage to aid fellow Christians and to reclaim Jerusalem. That appeal became the First Crusade.

The Crusades were not originally launched as a random campaign to convert Muslims; their stated purpose was to defend Christian communities and recover Holy Land territory, especially Jerusalem. The Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 and held it for less than a century. In 1187, Saladin (Salah al-Din) defeated Crusader forces and Jerusalem returned to Muslim rule after the Siege of Jerusalem (1187).

Crusading efforts continued for generations, but by the late 1200s, the Crusader states in the region largely collapsed. Meanwhile, Islamic empires expanded across North Africa and into parts of Europe—most notably the Muslim-ruled territories of the Iberian Peninsula known as al-Andalus—and eastward across parts of Asia through successive dynasties and conquests.

In many regions under Islamic rule, Jews and Christians were permitted to remain as protected religious minorities, but often under legal limits and with the requirement to pay the jizya, a tax historically levied on non-Muslim subjects.

Ottoman expansion into Central Europe reached its high point in the 1600s, culminating in the 1683 siege of Vienna. The siege was lifted in September 1683, and that moment is often treated as a major turning point in the long European pushback against Ottoman expansion.

After World War I and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey abolished the caliphate on March 3, 1924 as part of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s secular reforms. Those reforms included major legal and social changes, including expanding women’s civil rights and restricting certain traditional religious institutions.

As for Jerusalem in the modern era: Israel captured East Jerusalem (including the Old City) in 1967 during the Six-Day War. 

Truth News by Teresa Morin






Wednesday, January 14, 2026

The Left’s Double Standard: Trump’s Action, Obama’s Air War

The Left’s Double Standard: Trump’s Action, Obama’s Air War

Obama’s Air War: Bombings in Iraq & Syria (2014–2016)

People throw fits over Trump, but stayed quiet when Obama’s Iraq–Syria bombing campaign ran 3 years—long-lasting damage, thousands of strikes, real lives taken. 

Obama’s Air War: Bombings in Iraq & Syria (2014–2016) vs. trump with only 20 men stopped venezuela and arrested Moduro


What is all the fuss that Trump went into Venezuela with only 20 men and finished the job in a couple of hours and arrested Maduro. 

Let's look at what Obama did?

Total coalition munitions in Iraq+Syria during 2014–2016: 65,731 weapons released. 

Obama did airstrikes against Syria and Iraq. Let's look at the numbers.

  • 2014: 6,591

  • 2015: 21,116

  • 2016: 21,181
    (Total 2014–2016: 48,888)

Could Obama done the same with Syria like Trump did with Venesuela? I believe so. So, why all the loud mouths crying what Trump did? I can tell you why? The leftists are misinformed and want socialism and lose freedom. They been told differently, but they have been lied to.

A few big, documented reasons you saw louder outrage at Trump while a lot of Obama-era bombing (and drone war) drew less sustained mass protest—especially from the left:

Partisanship changes who mobilizes

Research on the U.S. anti-war movement found that activism dropped sharply after Democrats won the White House, even though major war policies continued—basically a “party victory” demobilized the street movement.

 
That doesn’t mean no one criticized Obama; it means fewer people showed up consistently when “their team” was in power.

Obama wasn’t “quiet”—but the backlash looked different

There was public skepticism about Syria strikes under Obama (including among Democrats), but it often showed up as polling opposition and inside-DC debate, not constant viral outrage. For example, Pew found the public was broadly against Syria airstrikes in 2013.

Media environment: Trump coverage was uniquely polarized and constant

Pew’s media study found Trump coverage was shaped heavily by a polarized media ecosystem and audience sorting—meaning stories and reactions amplified faster and harder along partisan lines.

Style, symbolism, and “how it’s done” matters politically

Even when actions overlap (airstrikes, drones, deportations, etc.), people react differently to:

  • tone and rhetoric

  • how decisions are communicated

  • whether it feels chaotic vs. procedural
    That affects how much energy activist networks, donors, and media give an issue.

Transparency and accountability fights were real—but unevenly applied

Obama expanded/normalized parts of the targeted-killing/drone framework; critics argued Congress and much of Washington applied little pressure for reforms.
And investigative reporting tallied large numbers of strikes and civilian-death allegations that fueled criticism—again, often more in reports than in mass protest.

Bottom line

A lot of the “why are they throwing a fit now?” comes down to partisan double standards + a more polarized, high-octane media era under Trump—not because Obama had no critics, but because the volume and visibility of the backlash differed. 

By: Teresa Morin, Truth News





Friday, January 9, 2026

Russia and China Attempts to Ruin America through Venezuela Government

Russia and China Attempts to Ruin America through Venezuela Government

Russia and China propped up Maduro with loans, weapons, oil deals, and tech—blocking U.S. pressure and prolonging Venezuela’s crisis for years deeply.

Russia and China Attempts to Ruin America through Venezuela Government


Russia's Attempt to Ruin America

Russia’s support for Venezuela wasn’t usually framed by Moscow as “ruin America,” but U.S. officials and many analysts saw it as Russia helping Caracas resist U.S. pressure and keep a hostile-to-Washington government afloat in the Western Hemisphere.

Here’s what Russia provided (with the clearest, documented examples and dates):

1) Weapons, air defense, and military support

  • Arms purchases financed by Russian loans (mid-2000s–2009): Venezuela became Russia’s biggest arms customer in the region, buying major systems with Russian financing. Universidad de Navarra+1

  • 2009: ~$2B Russian loan for arms (Reuters reported the loan tied to purchases like tanks and advanced air defenses). Reuters

  • Military “specialists/advisers” deployed (2019): Reuters reported Russia sent “specialists” to Venezuela under military cooperation arrangements, which the U.S. publicly warned about. Reuters+1

  • Private security contractors (2019): Reuters reported Kremlin-linked contractors associated with the Wagner network helped guard Maduro. Reuters+1

2) Strategic military signaling near the U.S.

  • Strategic bomber visits: Russia flew Tu-160 bombers to Venezuela in 2008, 2013, and Dec 2018—high-visibility deployments widely interpreted as “messaging” to Washington. Military Times+1

3) Money lifelines: loans + debt restructuring

  • Debt restructuring (Nov 2017): Russia restructured $3.15B of Venezuelan debt over 10 years with minimal payments early—effectively giving Caracas breathing room. Reuters+1

  • Loans/credit since 2006: Reporting and analysis describe Russia (government + Rosneft) as a “lender of last resort,” with multi-billion support over time. Voice of America+1

4) Oil-sector backing that helped Venezuela keep exporting under sanctions

  • Rosneft investments/advances: Reuters calculated Rosneft poured about $9B into Venezuela projects since 2010 (and sought repayment through oil flows/structures). Reuters

  • Keeping oil moving after U.S. sanctions (2019): Reuters reported Rosneft trading units handled a large share of Venezuela’s exports in 2019, helping PDVSA continue shipments when many buyers avoided it. Reuters

  • Supplying diluents like naphtha (2019 and again in 2025): Venezuela needs diluents to blend extra-heavy crude. Reuters reporting shows Russian naphtha exports to Venezuela (notably discussed again in Dec 2025). Reuters+2Reuters+2

5) Diplomatic cover against U.S. action

  • UN Security Council veto (Feb 2019): Russia (with China) vetoed a U.S.-drafted UNSC resolution on Venezuela. Security Council Report+1

The “so what” (in plain terms)

Russia helped Venezuela survive longer by providing:

  • hard power (weapons, advisers, security),

  • financial oxygen (loans + debt relief),

  • oil logistics and inputs (trading + naphtha/diluents),

  • international protection (UN actions),

…all of which blunted U.S. leverage and made it harder for U.S. policy to isolate Maduro. Reuters+2Reuters+2

China's Attempt to Ruin America

What China did for Venezuela

1) Gave Venezuela huge oil-backed financing (the “oil-for-loans” lifeline)

  • Starting in 2007, China (especially China Development Bank) set up large joint funds/loan facilities where Venezuela repaid with oil shipments. The Dialogue+1

  • Multiple credible trackers (Inter-American Dialogue–based work) put Chinese lending to Venezuela at ~$62B+ over the 2000s–2010s (depending on the date range used). The Dialogue+2Americas Quarterly+2

  • Example of the later phase: in 2015, Maduro announced a $5B disbursement from a $10B oil-backed facility. China Global Development Dashboard

Why that mattered to the U.S.: it helped Caracas stay afloat financially when markets and later sanctions cut off normal funding.


2) Kept buying Venezuelan crude (and helped it keep moving even when sanctioned)

  • China was a major outlet for Venezuelan heavy crude for years, including during sanction periods, often through trading/renaming/re-routing tactics that show up repeatedly in sanctions-evasion reporting. Reuters+1

Why that mattered to the U.S.: oil exports are Venezuela’s main cash engine—buyers reduce U.S. leverage.


3) Gave diplomatic cover against U.S. pressure

  • U.S. government reporting notes that in UN discussions, Russia and (to a lesser extent) China supported Maduro, contributing to blocked/ineffective UN action. EveryCRSReport

Why that mattered to the U.S.: it reduced international isolation and helped Maduro resist regime-change pressure.


4) Provided “state control” technology (ZTE + the Fatherland Card)

  • Reuters documented that China’s ZTE helped Venezuela build the “Carnet de la Patria” system—a national ID/social benefits platform that can be used to monitor and pressure citizens. Reuters

  • Think tanks and U.S. testimony describe it as part of a broader “digital authoritarian” toolkit that strengthened the regime’s internal control. CSIS+1

Why that mattered to the U.S.: stronger internal control made Maduro harder to dislodge and reduced the effectiveness of external pressure.


A simple timeline

  • 2007–2010: China–Venezuela joint funds / big oil-backed credit ramps up. The Dialogue+1

  • 2014–2015: After the oil price crash, China still provides major financing; 2015 includes a $10B oil-backed facility with a $5B first disbursement reported. China Global Development Dashboard+1

  • 2016–2019: China remains a key crude outlet; sanctions-evasion tactics around shipping/trading show up in reporting. Reuters+1

  • 2018: Reuters exposes ZTE’s role in the Fatherland Card system. Reuters

So, “how did this undermine America” (in practical terms)?

  1. Money + oil outlet = less U.S. leverage.

  2. Diplomatic backing = less international isolation.

  3. Control tech = Maduro stayed in power longer, making U.S. pressure less effective. EveryCRSReport+2Reuters+2