Prayers for Kafirs (non-Muslims)

/in , , , /by

Since over half of Islamic doctrine is about Kafirs (non-Muslims), it follows that prayers would include Kafirs too, so every day, a Muslim prays for the punishment and suffering of all Kafirs. The prayers also follow the Koranic doctrine that Muslims are not to be a true friend of them. Muslims are to forsake and turn away from Kafirs.

Not only are all Kafirs to suffer punishment in hell, but Christians and Jews are singled out to be worthy of Allah’s anger and are condemned in their beliefs.

In the end, all references to Kafirs in Islamic prayer are negative, demeaning and hateful.

UK based Connect Justice Launches Free Online Film Initiative to Prevent Islamic State Recruitment

/in , , , /by

BIRMINGHAM, England, April 2, 2015 /PRNewswire/ —

Five free online film testimonies by former extremists aim to dissuade people from joining violent extremist groups

“Those who have ‘been there, done that’ have a compelling story to tell us about why people join and then turn away from extremism. Formers are those who have followed a path of violence and subsequently desisted.  When you know the leaders of these groups are as corrupt, hypocritical and oppressive as those you supposedly rail against, the prospect of joining them for brotherhood, adventure and redemption can be questioned.” – Prof. Lynn Davies

ConnectJustice, a UK-based social enterprise which builds trust between communities, police and state agencies around extremism and exploitation, recently launched a crowd funded initiative to film former extremists. The film is a preventative measure to stop people from joining violent extremist groups.

The film includes stories and powerful testimonials of five former UK extremists (Islamists and far right) in a 15-minute film, to create a community-led counter-narrative on extremism. The film will be made up of five three-minute segments.

By speaking to those who have “been there, done that”, ConnectJustice aims to raise £17,500 from a variety of community and individual backers. In less than two weeks the community-led enterprise has already raised £6,500. The social enterprise only has until 3rd April 2015 to meet its target and is appealing for support from individuals in the business community, to enable it to independently produce a free film resource available to everyone online.

“We want to raise this money from communities, as we believe the project will gain credibility if it is free from state funding, because we know that the problem needs addressing from within all our communities. The crowdsourcing route will help to produce a free, practical, online video capturing the stories of former UK extremists, because connecting with ‘real’ voices is important in preventing and halting the path to violence,” said Zubeda Limbada.

All monies raised will go directly into the project, and none of the money raised will go to ConnectJustice.

Why Do So Many American Converts to Islam Learn to Hate Their Home?

/in , , , /by

Why indeed?

Spc. Hasan Edmonds, a Muslim member of the U.S. Army National Guard, was arrested last Wednesday at Chicago’s Midway Airport. He had been planning to join the Islamic State. His cousin, Jonas “Yunus” Edmonds, was arrested as well. They had allegedly been plotting a jihad attack against a U.S. military facility – making Hasan Edmonds the latest in a long line of people who convert to Islam and then turn traitor.

Is it just a coincidence that so many converts to Islam come to regard the country in which they were born and raised, the land of the families and forefathers, as an enemy? Or is there some connection?

Hasan Edmonds clearly believed that his new religion required a shift of his allegiance. “I am already in the American kafir [infidel] army,” he told an informant in January, “and now I wish only to serve in the army of Allah alongside my true brothers.”

He also expressed the desire to carry out a jihad attack in the U.S. – something on the scale of January’s jihad murders in Paris at the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine and the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket: “Honestly,” said Edmonds, “we would love to do something like the brother in Paris did” – that is, commit mass murder among people he had once considered his countrymen, and whom he had, as a National Guard member, sworn to protect

Edmonds thus joins other American converts to Islam who have turned traitor, including Sgt. Hasan Akbar, an American engineer from the 101st Airborne Division, who murdered Captain Christopher Scott Seifert, Major Gregory Stone, and wounded fifteen others in a grenade and small-arms attack in northern Kuwait on March 22, 2003. As he committed his murders, he yelled:

You guys are coming into our countries, and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.

Yet Akbar was not Iraqi or Kuwaiti. He was an American from Los Angeles. But when he became a Muslim, any allegiance he may have had to America was gone. Likewise al-Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn and the Marin County Mujahid, John Walker Lindh, both of whom converted to Islam and ended up waging war against the country of their birth, on behalf of its enemies.

It isn’t just converts, either. A Muslim woman named Aqsa Mahmood is suspected of recruiting young women to join her in the Islamic State as “jihadi brides.” The BBC identified her in a February report as a “Scottish woman,” which means that she made her way from the land of her birth to join up with a group that has declared war upon Great Britain and the rest of the non-Muslim world.

Despite the BBC’s ready identifier of her nationality, however, it is extremely unlikely that Aqsa Mahmood considers herself a Scot in any way other than geographically. She almost certainly grew up in a Muslim area and was taught Islamic values, including the idea that one’s allegiance to Islam transcends all other allegiances, and that one is a member of the international Muslim community, the umma, before being anything else. Those ideas go along with distaste that the “best of people” (Qur’an 3:110) should have for the jahiliyya, the society of the “most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6) — unbelievers.

Simply by going to the Islamic State, Aqsa Mahmood showed that she clearly rejects a great deal of what most Scots would consider essential to what it means to be a Scot….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Over 25,000 foreign jihadis have joined the Islamic State and al-Qaeda

UK teachers fear students will join Islamic State, but won’t tell police

Nine UK Muslims, including four children, arrested by Turkish cops as they try to join the Islamic State

Netanyahu: “Evidently giving Iran’s murderous regime a clear path to the bomb is negotiable”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on PJ Media.

An Analysis of President Obama’s Middle East Policy: The Blind, Misleading The Blind

/in , , , , /by

Hubris: From Greek Hybris, meaning wanton violence, insolence, outrage; originally presumption toward the gods. 

Introduction

These days, we’re looking at spectacular displays of hubris, on steroids.  Scan the horizon in any direction, and there lies a threat, and/or a maturing scandal.  For those with eyes to see, the façade has slipped, and the mystery of iniquity is no longer hidden by shadows, or confined to once-secret rooms.  Rather, we are being openly misled, as we witness an overt, deliberate and intentional campaign of disinformation, distraction and deception, on both the domestic and foreign-policy fronts.

Despite cascades of evidence to the contrary, we are constantly reassured by Obama and Company, Inc., that all is well in the Middle East, not to mention here in Wonderland, and that we are more secure than we have ever been in our history.  Like the self-indulgent ruler and his faithful enablers in the Emperor’s New Clothes, it would be comical, if it wasn’t so dangerous.

As citizens, the only antidote to this relentless campaign of disinformation, distraction and deception is to stay constantly engaged, remain ever vigilant (alert), and keep our eyes fixed on the values embedded in our founding document, the Constitution.  No longer can we indulge in the passive assumption that our government is entirely benign, deriving its ‘just powers from the consent of the governed,’ nor can we safely presume that our current form of government could never ‘become destructive of these ends.’

For example, when at first 47 Senators, then 367 members of the House wrote formal letters expressing their concerns about ‘grave and urgent issues’ (vis-à-vis the impending nuclear deal with Iran), we were informed by the White House that the President was embarrassed.  Not cooperative, not responsive – as any reasonable person would expect – but ‘embarrassed.’  This was followed with a display of contempt from the Executive branch that no single generation of Americans has ever seen.  Meanwhile loyal members of the Democratic Party responded with their own barrage of condescension and derision, while describing the entire effort as ‘amateurish.’

Nonetheless, as Michael Flynn said recently:

“We’re not all going to suddenly wake up and peace is going to be breaking out in the Middle East.  We’re going to face increasing complexity in the Middle East and the escalation of this sectarian civil war.  And what seems to be a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ when it comes to Iran isn’t that at all, but it’s a train, and it’s heading in our direction.”

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu

As with so many of the byzantine policies of this Administration, the recent 30-car pile-up between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu didn’t just suddenly erupt with unexpected, spontaneous violence, right in the middle of the heated Israeli elections.  Quite the contrary, the tectonic shift leading to the pile-up began years ago, well before the latest well-choreographed flurry of official declarations about ‘divisive rhetoric,’ ‘racism’ and ‘evaluating our approach’ were released for public consumption.

Referring to statements Mr. Netanyahu made on the last day of the Israeli elections, U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf summed it all up so nicely on March 19, 2015, when she opined:

“When you say things, words matter.  And if you say something different two days later, which do we believe?  It’s hard to know.”

So true, Ms. Harf!  These days, it really is hard to know exactly who (or what) we should believe…

Oddly, then, from their commanding perch, way up in the lofty, panoramic heights of moral clarity, it seems the Administration somehow managed to overlook all of the ‘Words Matter’ statements made by Fatah and/or Saeb Erekat and the Palestinian Authority in the lead-up to the Israeli elections.  Or, perhaps the State Department thought it was all just harmless rhetoric, or merely a passing mirage?

Should we believe them, Ms. Harf, or you?  It’s really hard to know…

Note: Just this past January, I observed that “If the first postings on the Fatah and/or PA official websites provide any indication, we will see a steady stream of violent anti-Israel propaganda in 2015.”  Boy, did that turn out to be true (see more on this below).

Meanwhile, in addition to Fatah, et al., the Administration had several other excellent opportunities to miss an opportunity (thanks, Abba Eban) in the days and weeks pre- and post the elections, vis-à-vis a cascade of other ‘Words Matter’ statements made by the PLO, and Hamas, and One Voice / V-15 and J-Street.  In the permissive environment of this Administration, even Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is participating in the verbal festivities, and has thrown his hat into the ring for the title of World Champion Liar and Deceiver.

So many spectacular displays of hubris, on steroids!  Should we believe all of them, too, Ms. Harf, or not?  Apparently not, since not a single barbed, pithy admonition has been directed toward any of them, either.  Maybe such an effort would be just a ‘waste of time’?

Among many of the ironies embedded within this whole bizarre (cynical) fiasco, Ms. Harf made her authorized ‘Words Matter’ statements on the fifth anniversary of Obamacare (remember ‘You can keep your doctor’?) and the twelfth anniversary of the founding of the Department of Homeland Security.

Are we safer now, then we were before 9/11?  Again, it’s hard to know…

Sadly, it seems that much of this multi-faceted nuanced irony is lost to our elected custodians of freedom and democracy, who spend their time floating around in the self-contained bubble of D.C.  For, on the one hand, they are obviously capable of decisive, high-speed action (remember the 2013 WWII Memorial shutdown?), and of using direct, pointed criticism…if/when they want to.

On the other hand, despite their ‘deep concerns‘ about Mr. Netanyahu’s rhetoric, they remain remarkably (dangerously) myopic and childish, especially when you consider their chronic, deliberate & intentional efforts to minimize the malevolent threats coming daily from individuals and organizations who plainly express their intention to destroy us and our friends (i.e. Israel).

Apparently, Obama and Company, Inc., doesn’t realize what a gigantic Freudian slip this is, as they publicly treat their friends like their enemies, and their enemies like their friends, while pretending to be competent.

Background – Where Did This All Start?

First, I’d like to suggest three recent articles that summarize macro ‘turning point’ events preceding the March 2015 elections in Israel.  The first article is entitled A Statement On The Crisis In The U.S.-Israel Relationship.  The second is entitled The Religious Dogma of Palestinian Statehood, and the third is entitled Obama-Netanyahu Hostility Is ‘Unprecedented’ In History.

The first article includes these insightful observations (vis-à-vis policies toward Israel and Iran):

The relationship between the United States and Israel is in jeopardy because, from the moment his administration began, Barack Obama has consciously, deliberately, and with malice aforethought sought to jeopardize it.  He did so in part because he is committed to the idea that Israel must retreat to its 1967 borders, dismantle its settlements, and will a Palestinian state into existence.  He views Israel’s inability or unwillingness to do these things as a moral stain. But the depth of Obama’s anger toward Israel and Netanyahu suggests that there is far more to it than that.  Israel stands in the way of what the president hopes might be his crowning foreign-policy achievement: a new order in the Middle East represented by a new entente with Iran.  Netanyahu’s testimony on behalf of his country and his people is this: A nuclear Iran will possess the means to visit a second Holocaust on the Jews in a single day.  His testimony on behalf of everyone else is this: A nuclear Iran will set off an arms race in the Middle East that will threaten world order, the world’s financial stability, and the lives of untold millions.  Simply put, Obama finds the witness Israel is bearing to the threat posed by Iran unbearable.

President Obama Enters The Scene

Many of the bitter seeds of today’s failing official Middle East Policy, as well as the festering conflict between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, were planted in the aftermath of the failed July 2000 Camp David Summit.  As Robert Malley* described it: Nowhere was this [failure to reach a ‘Peace Agreement’] more evident than in the case of what is known as the Haram Al-Sharif to Palestinians and the Temple Mount to Jews…In the end, the Palestinians would have nothing of it: the agreement had to give them sovereignty [of Haram Al-Sharif], or there would be no agreement at all.  Mr. Malley also observed that, according to Yasser Arafat, “there was no [generous Israeli] offer; besides, it was unacceptable; that said, it had better remain on the table.”

NOTE: See more on Robert Malley below.

Fast forward to August 12, 2008, and we find the same no-deal scenario played out again, only this time between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.  According to Mr. Abbas, this offer was rejected because [1] it did not provide for a contiguous Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, and [2] showed a “lack of seriousness,” despite the fact that Israel had pledged to return 93 percent of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip (which Hamas had inconveniently seized from Fatah in June of 2006).

Another major turning point came on May 18, 2009, when Mr. Obama held a White House press conference together with Mr. Netanyahu and declared that “Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.  That’s a difficult issue.  I recognize that, but it’s an important one and it has to be addressed.”  Netanyahu responded to this demand by announcing a 10-month settlement freeze, while for the next nine months, Mahmoud Abbas refused all invitations (from the US and Israel) to negotiate.  Afterward, President Obama offered this astute analysis: “Although the Israelis, I think, after a lot of time showed a willingness to make some modifications in their policies, they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures.”

Next, we’ll transition to President Obama’s June 04, 2009 major policy speech at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, where he stated “That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires.  The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear.  For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.”

So far, so good.  However, in the same speech, Mr. Obama went on to express sympathy for the Palestinians by referring to the “daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation.”  These reassuring public comments left the Palestinians (and Arabs across the Middle East) in a jubilant mood (i.e., more ‘Hope & Change‘), but offended many Israelis after he went on to declare that the “United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.  This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.  It is time for these settlements to stop.”

Less than a year later (on July 13, 2009), President Obama met in the White House with about a dozen leaders of the American Jewish community, where Malcolm Hoenlein, the Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told him, “If you want Israel to take risks, then its leaders must know that the US is right next to them.”  Apparently, Mr. Obama’s reply caught them all off-guard: “Look at the past eight years.  During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that?  When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.”

A few months later (January 21, 2010), Mr. Obama declared during an interview with Time Magazine that he intended to continue “moving forward…we are going to…work with both parties to recognize what I think is ultimately their deep-seated interest in a two-state solution in which Israel is secure and the Palestinians have sovereignty and can start focusing on developing their economy and improving the lives of their children and grandchildren.”

Any uncertainty about what Mr. Obama really meant by ‘moving forward’ were dispelled on March 12, 2010, when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton informed Mr. Netanyahu that his March 08, 2010 announcement of plans to build 112 new housing units in East Jerusalem sent a “deeply negative signal” about Israeli-American relations, adding that it had harmed “the bilateral relationship.”

According to (unnamed) ‘Administration officials,’ Mrs. Clinton was relaying the anger of President Obama at the announcement.  As she pushed aside Mr. Netanyahu’s diplomatic apologies, Mrs. Clinton maintained that she “could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security.”  Meanwhile, Vice President Joseph Biden added his own emphatic condemnations to the proposed housing plan.

And now we come to May 19, 2011, the most decisive turning point in the relationship between Mr. Obama & Mr. Netanyahu (if not Israel and the pro-Palestinian West).  In a well-advertised policy speech at the U.S. State Department (given on the very eve of Mr. Netanyahu’s scheduled visit to Washington), Mr. Obama officially declared his support for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict based on the pre-1967 borders, when Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula.  “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.  We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Mr. Obama added that “The recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist.  In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.”

Note: Four years later (and counting), not a single Palestinian leader has provided a credible answer to ‘that question.’

In response, Mr. Netanyahu announced that Israel viewed Mr. Obama’s proposal as “unrealistic” and “indefensible,” while adding that Israel still intended to build 1,500 new housing units in east Jerusalem.  Seizing the opportunity, Palestinian officials quickly declared that peace negotiations with Israel were now ‘pointless,’ since Mr. Netanyahu had openly rejected Mr. Obama’s call to base any future peace talks on the pre-1967 borders.

At the same time, Fatah officials announced they would defy Mr. Obama, and seek UN recognition of Palestine as an independent state.  On November 29, 2012, the UN General Assembly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state, despite threats by the US and Israel to withhold funds for the West Bank government.  Just prior to the vote, Mahmoud Abbas used the UN podium to demonstrate his world-class diplomacy and statesmanship, by denouncing Israel for its “aggressive policies and the perpetration of war crimes.”

Ms. Harf, once again, I am so glad you reminded us that “When you say things, words matter.  And if you say something different two days [months/years] later, which do we believe?  It’s hard to know.”

Now…let’s fast-forward six more years, to the events surrounding the 2015 elections in Israel.  Aside from President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who were the other major players in this drama?

Fatah, Palestinian Authority (PA), PLO and Hamas

In the weeks and months before the March 2015 elections were held, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (PA) continued working to isolate and delegitimize Israel through political/diplomatic means, while continuing non-stop their official incitement of the Arab populations in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Here is a chronological sample of just a few official Fatah/PA postings from January 2015 thru the March elections:

01-02-15               Fatah Promotes Violence and Martyrdom-Death To Mark Its 50th Anniversary

01-21-15               Abbas’ Fatah To Hezbollah: We Are In The Same Trench, And Are Resisting The Same Enemy

01-21-15               The PA And Fatah Paved The Way For Today’s Stabbing Attack In Tel Aviv

01-21-15               Fatah Calls Stabbing Attack Self-Sacrificing Operation

01-21-15               Fatah Facebook Page Incites Terror Hours After Stabbings

02-09-15               Abbas’ Fatah: Martyrdom-Death Is A Destiny We Assume Willingly And Serenely

02-09-15               Abbas’ Fatah Threatens Rocket Attacks And The End Of Israel

03-04-15               Abbas’ Fatah Promotes Rocket Attacks

03-10-15               Fatah Celebrates Murder Of 80 (sic) Israelis In Most Lethal Palestinian Terror Attack

03-10-15               On International Women’s Day Fatah Praises Female Terrorist Who Lured Israeli Youth To His Murder As O Glorious One

03-11-15               Collect Your Body Parts And Leave!

03-13-15               PA TV Host Lauds Poem: “Jaffa, Acre and Haifa…Leave, Leave.  This Land Is My Land”

03-26-15               PA Schooling: Fight The Jews, Kill Them, And Defeat Them

03-30-15               PA Mufti, Top Religious Leader: Muslims Have Religious Obligation To “Liberate Palestine”

After the elections, Mahmud Abbas declared that a two-state solution would be ‘impossible with a new government led by Mr. Netanyahu,’ adding that it was clear from Netanyahu’s campaign pledges that there was ‘no prospect of a negotiated settlement with him.’  Mr. Abbas also stated that “Netanyahu’s statements against a two-state solution and against a Palestinian state…are proof, if correct, that there is no seriousness in the (future) Israeli government about a political solution.”  Finally, Mr. Abbas also declared that the Palestinians would continue to “demand international legitimacy.  It is our right to go to anywhere in the world to achieve international legitimacy.”

All this, despite the fact that Mr. Abbas has not held elections since 2009, ‘does not take anyone into account, and is not accountable to any institution.’  Since there is no functioning Palestinian parliament, the only legislative decision-making body is the PLO Central Council.  However, its policy decisions can only be activated by the PLO’s Executive Council – which answers exclusively to Abbas.

Apparently, Zionist Union leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni agreed with Mr. Abbas, publicly blaming their six-seat loss on Mr. Netanyahu’s racist statements, while insisting that his re-election was a “victory of hatred and fear,” and that Mr. Netanyahu was extreme in his warnings against a “government led by Tzipi and Buji [Herzog] backed by the Arab List.”

According to Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat, Netanyahu’s victory “Show[ed] the success of a campaign platform based on settlements, racism, apartheid and the denial of the fundamental human rights of the Palestinian people.”  On March 18, 2015, Mr. Erekat also told Voice of Palestine radio that “It is clear Israel has voted for burying the peace process, against the two-state choice and for the continuation of occupation and settlement.”

Not to be outdone, Izaddin Al-Qassam (the armed wing of Hamas) used an election-day Twitter campaign urging all Palestinians to vote for Aymen Odeh, head of the Joint Arab List, in hopes that the party would garner 20 seats and bring about an “end to the occupation” and lead to a “majority representation” of Arabs in the Knesset.  This action (by a foreign power aka terrorist group) prompted Mr. Netanyahu to post a Facebook video, warning Israeli voters that “The right-wing government is in danger.  Arab voters are going en masse to the polls.  Left-wing NGO’s are bringing them on buses.”

As the outcry from the Arab leaders and leftists from around the world (including the US Administration) gained in volume, Mr. Netanyahu later clarified that “What’s wrong is not that Arab citizens are voting, but that massive funds from abroad from left-wing NGO’s and foreign governments are bringing them en masse to the polls in an organized way, thus twisting the true will of all Israeli citizens who are voting, for the good of the Left.”

The Likud Party

Israel’s multiparty political system is based on forming (and maintaining) coalitions of ‘like-minded’ parties that represent specific groups such as Israeli Arabs, Russian immigrants, Sephardic (i.e., non-European) Jews, and a wide spectrum of observant (‘religious’) Israelis.  Mr. Netanyahu leads the Likud Party (‘The Consolidation Party’), which has a strong base among middle-class Israelis (many who emigrated from the Arab world).  In general, ‘Likudniks’ tend to be politically conservative, protective of a homeland for the worldwide Jewish community, and supportive of an aggressive policy towards terror attacks.

On December 02, 2014, after a series of disagreements with centrists in his coalition, Mr. Netanyahu fired Finance Minister Yair Lapid and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, then immediately called for the dissolution of Parliament and early elections, which were then held on March 17, 2015.  According to the final official tally, Likud won 30 seats in the 120-seat Parliament, while the leftist opposition Zionist Union party came in second with 24 seats.  The parties that followed were the Joint Arab List (13), Yesh Atid (11), Kulanu (10), Bayit Yehudi (8), Shas (6), United Torah Judaism (6), Yisrael Beytenu (6) and Meretz (5).  After the Central Election Committee released the final election results on March 25, 2015, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin officially assigned Mr. Netanyahu the task of forming a new coalition government.

On the last day of pre-election campaigning (March 16, 2015), the NRG site published a video interview with Mr. Netanyahu.  During the interview, he said, “I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to radical Islam against the state of Israel.  Anyone who ignores this is sticking his head in the sand.  The left does this time and time again.  We [i.e., Likud] are realistic and understand.”  When Mr. Netanyahu was then specifically asked whether a Palestinian state would not be established if he were reelected Prime Minister, he answered, “Correct.”

Back in Washington, the Obama Administration chose to respond to the preposterous situation (i.e., active attempts to influence the elections from both terrorist groups and foreign leftist groups) by announcing on March 18, 2015 that the US government was “deeply concerned about Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign rhetoric against Arab voters,” adding that the US would not only “convey its concerns,” but would now have to “reevaluate its position on Mideast peace process.”

From there, things went from bad to worse, when US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki held a press briefing on the same day and stated, “Based on the Prime Minister’s comments, the US is in a position going forward in which we will be evaluating our approach with regards to how best to achieve a two-state solution,” adding that “the fact that he has changed his opinion certainly has an impact on US decision-making moving forward.”

Apparently, a reasoned, rational response to Mr. Netanyahu’s reality-based concerns was just too much for some of us to hope for.  Mr. Netanyahu did not say ‘never,’ just that the two-state solution would not be possible ‘today.’  We were also told that Mr. Netanyahu reiterated that fine point during a telephone phone call with the President, and that Mr. Obama didn’t believe him, adding that “I indicated to him that given his statements prior to the election, it is going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing that negotiations are possible,” while ignoring the Prime Minister’s post-election attempts to walk back [explain] his comments.  Instead, Mr. Obama has repeatedly made it clear – along with senior members of his administration – that now they all believe Mr. Netanyahu is opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state.

To complicate things even further, on March 19, 2015 (two days after the elections), the Administration declared that it could ‘take a tougher stance’ toward Mr. Netanyahu following his election victory, saying ‘there will be consequences for his sudden reversal on the idea of an independent Palestinian state.’  Senior officials also said that the Administration was ‘still evaluating options,’ and suggested that the US could ease its long-held official opposition to allowing the UN Security Council to create a Palestinian state.  “There are policy ramifications for what he said,” one official said of Netanyahu’s election campaign rhetoric rejecting the creation of a Palestinian state. “This is a position of record.”

Truth be known, this ‘tougher stance’ just reiterated an earlier Administration position, when it became evident that President Obama would not meet with Mr. Netanyahu before (or after) his March 03, 2015 speech to Congress.  According to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, the decision not to meet with Mr. Netanyahu was made partly out of a stated desire not to influence Israel’s elections, and partly because what he described as a ‘departure from protocol.’  At the same time, anonymous background sources had let it be known that Mr. Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry would all shun Mr. Netanyahu during his visit to Washington, stating that “There are things you simply don’t do.  He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.”

The U.S. State Department (John Kerry and Hillary Clinton)

On February 25, 2015 (during the volatile lead-up to Mr. Netanyahu’s March 03, 2015 speech before Congress), John Kerry testified at a hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security, where he offered the following opinions about Mr. Netanyahu (vis-à-vis Iran and Iraq): The Prime Minister “may have a judgment that just may not be correct here,” while adding that Mr. Netanyahu, “was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush.  And we all know what happened with that decision.”

On March 19, 2015, the Administration restated and clarified (?) its position, stating that the relationship between Israel and the U.S. would remain strong, but would no longer be managed by President Obama.  Instead, Secretary of State Kerry, will take over, along with Pentagon officials who handle the close military alliance with Israel.  “The president is a pretty pragmatic person and if he felt it would be useful, he will certainly engage.  The premise of our position…has been to support direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  We are now in a reality where the Israeli government no longer supports direct negotiations.  Therefore we clearly have to factor that into our decisions going forward.”

Along with what was discussed earlier in this article, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly stated that she was “often the designated yeller,” as she represented the Administration’s efforts to force Mr. Netanyahu make concessions for the sake of ‘peace.’  According to Alon Pinkas, who was Israel’s Consul General in New York when Mrs. Clinton was a Senator from New York, “Her relationship with [Netanyahu was] very bad, just not as toxic as Obama’s.”

The United Nations

After the election, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon called Mr. Netanyahu and urged him to renew Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, while informing Mr. Netanyahu that the “two-state solution was the only way forward,’ while urging him to renew Israel’s commitment to that goal.”

One Voice International (OVI) / V15

According to media reports, Paul Begala, who is ‘one of the prime architects of President Bill Clinton’s political victories,’ went to Israel to consult for the campaign of the Zionist Union party, led by Yitzhak Herzog.  Along with Mr. Begala, several other well-known political strategists who are closely-affiliated with Mr. Obama – led by field organizer Jeremy Bird – travelled to Israel to work with One Voice International, a ‘non-profit’ organization that fiercely opposed Netanyahu (just like their mentor, Mr. Obama).  Some of these same individuals will probably join the (prospective) Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Though it remains to be seen whether this deceitful abuse of officially-endorsed authority will rise to the level of a major scandal, on March 18, 2015, 20 members of Congress wrote a letter urging the State Department and Obama affiliates to answer questions regarding the possible use of US tax-payer dollars in the anti-Netanyahu campaign.  This isn’t the first time something like this has happened, either. Two of Bill Clinton’s former campaign strategists, including his pollster Stanley B. Greenberg and strategist James Carville, went to Israel in May of 1999 to help Ehud Barak defeat Mr. Netanyahu.

For the sake of convenience, here is a brief chronological sample of One Voice International / V15 articles:

12-17-14               2015 Israeli Elections: Critical Decisions Ahead

01-01-15               Likud Accuses Anti-Netanyahu Electoral Campaign Of Illegal Donations

01-26-15               Foreign Funding Bankrolls Anti-Netanyahu Campaign – Flies in 5-Man Obama Team

01-26-15               Obama Backs Campaign To Defeat Netanyahu In Israeli Elections

01-26-15               The Obama Campaign Strategist Who Could Break The Israeli Elections Wide Open

01-27-15               State Department-Funded Group Bankrolling Anti-Bibi Campaign

01-28-15               V15 – Look Who Is Behind The New U.S. Democratic-Style Campaign In Israel

01-29-15               Obama Funding The Anti-Bibi Campaign

01-28-15               State Department Funded ‘Obama Army’ On Ground In Israel To Defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu

01-29-15               Watchdog Slams Use Of American Taxpayer Funds To Finance Anti-Netanyahu Campaign

01-30-15               V15 US Political Operative marinated In Hate-Israel Activism

01-30-15               Likud Asks Elections Panel To Bar Campaigning By Organization Affiliated With Obama Strategist

02-01-15               US Taxpayers Funding Anti-Netanyahu Campaign?

02-02-15               Anti-Netanyahu Campaign Under Fire In Israel, United States

02-05-15               Memo Reveals Plan Of US-Funded Groups to Influence the Israeli Elections

02-09-15               US Embassy Met With Group Trying to Influence Israeli Elections

02-09-15               V15 Group Won’t Be Investigated Before Elections

J-Street, James Baker and Dennis McDonough

Finally, we come to J-Street, another part of the leftist kaleidoscope, which was founded ‘to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israel conflicts peacefully and diplomatically.’  On March 23, 2015, James Baker gave the keynote address at a J-Street Conference in DC, where he expressed support for the Administration’s ongoing talks with Iran, but was very critical of Mr. Netanyahu.  Mr. Baker stated, “Frankly, I have been disappointed with the lack of progress regarding a lasting peace – and I have been for some time,” adding that “in the aftermath of Netanyahu’s recent election victory, the chance of a two-state solution seems even slimmer, given his reversal on the issue.  I still remain cautiously optimistic – and I stress cautiously – because it seems to me that Israel’s future, absent a two-state solution, could be very difficult at best.”

Dennis McDonough

On the same day, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough gave the keynote address, where he made the following comments: “An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end, and the Palestinian people must have the right to live in and govern themselves in their own sovereign state.  Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely, that’s the truth.”  Mr. McDonough went on to say that the “United States will never stop working for a two-state solution and a lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians so richly deserve,” adding that Mr. Netanyahu’s rejection of a Palestine state and approval of illegal settlements in the occupied territories for the strategic purpose of changing the borders was “so very troubling.”  Mr. McDonough concluded his comments by stating “In the end, we know what a peace agreement should look like.  The borders of Israel and an independent Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Oddly, nothing was said about Fatah’s March 11, 2015 warning for Israelis to “Collect your body parts and leave!”

Conclusion

Mr. Obama appears determined to keep pushing the reset button in the Middle East, despite the obvious failure of such an approach.  While using his global allies on the Left for political cover, it also appears that Mr. Obama will continue pressuring Mr. Netanyahu to make concessions for the sake of peace, while allowing the Palestinians to continue their campaign of incitement.

At the moment (March 31, 2015), the diplomatic crisis between Israel and Obama & Co., Inc., has been characterized as ‘the most vicious and public yet among only a handful of crises that have marred the close, long-running relationship.’  According to Israeli historian Jonathan Rynhold, the bad blood between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu is ‘unprecedented.’  Mr. Rynhold also observed that “the public nature of the mutual hostility is a new low.  I don’t think we’ve ever had as bad a relationship between a President and a Prime Minister, and of course that has policy consequences.”

On March 25, 2015, the Administration released a 386-page report entitled Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations, which includes a detailed description of Israel’s advanced military technology and infrastructure research during the 1970’s and 1980’s.  Politically, the timing of the revelation coincided with Mr. Netanyahu’s March 03, 2015 address in Congress, where he warned against any US-backed agreement that leaves Iran with nuclear breakout capabilities.

On March 29, 2015, House Speaker John Boehner appeared on CNN’s State of the Union program, where he said “I think the animosity exhibited by our administration toward the Prime Minister of Israel is reprehensible.  And I think that the pressure that they’ve put on him over the last four or five years has, frankly, pushed him to the point where he had to speak up.  I don’t blame him at all for speaking up.”  Mr. Boehner concluded the interview by stating “There are serious issues and activities going on in the Middle East, and I think it’s critically important for members of Congress to hear from foreign leaders…to get a real handle on the challenges we face there.”

In closing, on March 30, 2015, a dozen Jewish House Democrats met with Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes Obama and his aides, where they made it clear that the Obama Administration ‘had to stop acting as if the…Prime Minister’s comments are the only thing holding up a peace process, that’s been abandoned for a year, while not expressing a word of disappointment about Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.’  All this, [while] ‘openly toying with allowing the Palestinians their provocative recognition bid at the United Nations.’

According to the report, one (unnamed) aide told the group that Mr. Obama and his aides now believe it’s up to Mr. Netanyahu to repair a rift that they stress is only about the peace process, not the larger commitment to Israel.  “We’ve made our point.  The message has clearly been received,” a White House official said.  “The next move is theirs, presumably after the new government has been formed.”

As Americans, what can we expect in the weeks, months and years ahead?  Without a doubt, the challenges we face will go beyond anything ever seen before.  Some, perhaps even many of us, may be asked to stand up for those constitutional ‘truths that we hold to be self-evident.’  Despite the fact that our Founding Fathers had the foresight to design be remarkably flexible system, even a rubber band can only stretch so far before it breaks.  Will we find a way to ‘disenthrall ourselves, ’ or will the time eventually come ‘when necessity constrains us to alter our former Systems of Government’?

RELATED ARTICLE: How America’s Next President Can Lead on Foreign Policy

Islam is the ‘Religion of War’

/in , , , , /by

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, “A Terrorist’s Son Flips the White House’s Definition of Islam as the ‘Religion of Peace’ on Its Head,” conducted in 2012 where he provides some nuance and perspective on his provocative comment. The article provides a succinct biography for Mosab Hassan Yousef:

#IStandForReligiousFreedom — It’s a Basic Human Right

/in , , , /by

The Founding Fathers understood basic human rights. They understood that the basic human rights of life, liberty and property come from God and not government. There are various groups that want to establish government over God in America. Among these groups are the Human Rights Campaign, the American Civil Liberties Union and Southern Poverty Law Center. All promote, protect and defend homosexuality in all of its forms. These organizations believe that homosexual behavior is a basic human right equal to the color of ones skin. The problem is the color of one’s skin is immutable, homosexuality is mutable.

These groups want government to impose anti-Christian policies and laws, which impede individual free exercise of religion guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Recently Indiana joined 19 states that have passed their own state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. 

Kelsey Harkness in her column “These 19 States Have Religious Freedom Laws Similar to Indiana’s. Here’s What That Means” writes:

Gov. Mike Pence gained national attention when he passed the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law last week.

It caused the Twitter hashtag #BoycottIndiana to go viral and triggered Apple CEO Tim Cook to pen a Washington Post op-ed calling “pro-discrimination” laws “dangerous.”

Yet, despite the uproar, Indiana isn’t alone in enacting legislation that seeks to protect the religious freedom of its citizens.

Religious Freedom Restoration Acts—or what critics call “pro-discrimination” laws—have been around for over two decades.

Religious Freedom Restoration Acts first came about after the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which narrowed protections for the free exercise of religion.

In response to the court’s ruling, Congress sought to restore religious freedom by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, popularly known as RFRA.

The legislation won unanimous support in the House, passed 97-3 in the Senate, and was signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton.

Since then, in addition to Indiana, 19 states have passed their own state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

Another 11 states have RFRA-like protections provided by state court decisions.

Read more.

Ryan T. Anderson in his column “Apple CEO Tim Cook Is Wrong About Indiana Religious Freedom Law” writes:

Apple CEO Tim Cook has taken to The Washington Post to tell the nation that, in the words of the headline, “Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous.”

Notice the scare quotes around “religious freedom.” But the reality is that the only person in favor of discrimination in this debate is Tim Cook.

It is Tim Cook who favors laws that discriminate against people of faith who simply ask to be left alone by government to run their businesses and their schools and their charities in accordance with their reasonable belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It is Tim Cook who would have the government discriminate against these citizens, have the government coerce them into helping to celebrate a same-sex wedding and penalize them if they try to lead their lives in accordance with their faith.

Read more.

Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council notes, “Indiana is more than the ‘crossroads of America’ — it’s the crossroads of the entire religious liberty debate. The Left made sure of that, fabricating all kinds of baseless outrage over the state’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). What started out as a harmless affirmation of the First Amendment turned into a blow-up of national proportions — with ‘truth optional’ journalism leading the way… Like most states, Indiana doesn’t think the federal or state governments should force Americans to violate their faith. Is that controversial? The media seems to think so. They believe — as the President does — that surrendering your beliefs is just the price of doing business.”

If you believe religious freedom is fundamental then share on your social media #IStandForReligiousFreedom.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Where the 2016 Hopefuls Stand on Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law

Are Indiana Restaurants Allowed to Turn Away LGBT Customers?

Christian Groups Call for Boycott of Company That Opposes Religious Freedom Law

The ACLU’s Hypocritical Defense of Laws That Violate Religious Liberty

Religious Freedom Laws Are About Tolerance, Which Is Exactly Why the Left Doesn’t Like Them

34,000 Black Churches Break Fellowship with Presbyterian Church USA over Gay Marriage!

Libs turning Indiana religious freedom law into new ‘hands up, don’t shoot’; Rush explains

The Ind. of the Road for Religious Freedom?

Angie’s List Sides Against Christians in Indiana

The Indiana Law Treats All Americans Equally

Religious Illiteracy Hampers West’s Response to Radical Islam

/in , , /by

We are faced with a multicultural elite that freely slanders and disparages Israel, Jews, Christians and western values, but which tends to excuse Islamist extremism or contextualize it disingenuously.

It seems that some lessons are difficult to learn. As ISIS was busy slaughtering Yazidis, Coptic Christians and western hostages, burning fellow Muslim alive, and destroying ancient pre-Islamic artifacts, President Obama was denying its spiritual pedigree and planning a White House summit on violent extremism that would deny any connection between radical Islam and terrorism.

The very use of the term “violent extremism” minimized the terrorist threat by obscuring its ideological motivations. And by using neutral terminology to mask its doctrinal character and goals, the president didn’t simply ignore the religious connection – he affirmatively denied it and thus facilitated Islamist dissimulation.

He also attempted to shift blame for terrorism by legitimizing Muslim grievances against the West and attributing the actions of religious extremists to economic privation.  With other world leaders and moderate Muslims finally acknowledging the threat, President Obama’s steadfast refusal to do likewise seems pathological.  His denial of the religious foundation for much of today’s terrorism – and for Iran’s nuclear ambitions – is a slap in the face of reality and an insult to Israel and all other U.S. allies that are targets of Islamist aggression.  Moreover, it demonstrates either ignorance of history or an affinity for those committed to religious totalitarianism.

Mr. Obama’s coddling of extremist organizations and rogue regimes stands in sharp contrast to his hostility for Binyamin Netanyahu and duplicitous treatment of Israel.  Furthermore, any discussion that misrepresents Islamist terror as “violent extremism,” or fails to acknowledge that its primary targets are Jews, westerners, “infidels” and “heretics,” serves only to camouflage the problem.

There can be no understanding of radical Islam without recognizing its historical antecedents and theological underpinnings, according to Rabbi Dr. Richard Rubenstein and Pastor Dr. Mark Durie, who spoke at a recent program in Massachusetts entitled, “Responses to Jihad from Christian and Jewish Theological Perspectives.”  Dr. Rubenstein is an academic theologian with degrees from the University of Cincinnati, the Jewish Theological Seminary and Harvard University.  A former university president, he is the Distinguished Research Professor of Religion in the College of Public and International Affairs at the University of Bridgeport and the author of numerous books on theology and history, including, “After Auschwitz” and “Jihad and Genocide.”

Dr. Durie is a Christian theologian, human rights activist and Anglican pastor, as well as a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and Adjunct Research Fellow of the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at Melbourne School of Theology.  He has published an array books and articles, including, “The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom,” and numerous meditations on Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom.

According to Dr. Rubenstein and Dr. Durie, western society’s inadequate response to Islamic radicalism arises from religious illiteracy and ignorance of history.  Gaps in popular knowledge exist because of the secular progressive penchant for belittling domestic religious traditions, criticizing western culture’s global influence, and suppressing history that contravenes liberal sensibilities.  A common ploy for minimizing the threat of radical Islam is to compare it to Christian or Jewish religious traditions in order to present it as somehow less extreme by association.

Such intellectual artifice does not withstand critical scrutiny, particularly in light of the post-reformation, post-enlightenment evolution of Christianity and the lack of an evangelical impulse in Judaism.  Christianity differs greatly from Islam, and neither tradition is squarely comparable to Judaism, in which national identity and religious obligation are merged and the Covenant remains binding on successive generations through common history and descent.

Though Christianity has a missionary tradition, and while its persecution of Jews was institutionalized by Constantine and later codified by Theodosius and Justinian, it did not begin to engage in holy wars until almost a thousand years after its birth.  In contrast, followers of Islam have engaged in jihad, which is explicitly referenced in the Quran, from its earliest days to the present in many parts of the world.  This is not to ignore the Christian mistreatment of Jews throughout the generations or the anti-Semitism that persists in many quarters today, but conditions ameliorated comparatively after reformation and enlightenment.  Indeed, many Christians today are unwavering supporters of Israel.  The Islamic world, however, has not experienced the same kind of reformative change.

The ability to understand religious differences is essential for understanding the conflict between Islamist radicalism and western values.  By way of illustration, Dr. Rubenstein recounted an interaction he had with a Muslim cleric who opined that Islam would ultimately predominate because “[we] love death, while you love life.”  According to Dr. Rubenstein, this observation is indicative of a master-slave worldview in which those in control do not fear death, but rather prefer it over the loss of mastery and freedom, while the slave accepts his lowly status in order to preserve life.  This Weltanschauung does not recognize universal human rights and accords “nonbelievers” only two choices: dhimmitude or death.

Dr. Rubenstein likened this view to Hegel’s master and slave dialectic, and said it explains why subjugated peoples are willing to live in dhimmitude.  Those who value life are more likely to accept subservience than those who are willing to kill or die to advance their ideology and preserve their mastery.

The western mainstream’s knowledge of Islam is generally limited and is colored by its own cultural perspectives.  Few actually read the Quran, Hadith and Sira, and fewer still seem to have any awareness of how non-Muslims were habitually treated in Islamic society.  Observant Jews who bridge the knowledge gap are capable of seeing how Islamic tradition deviates from their own.  So are believing Christians.  However, secular people with little connection to religion do not have the same frame of reference, and thus often do not see where different faiths diverge.

Secular westerners tend to eschew religious belief in favor of liberal political values and often fail to confront radical beliefs for which they have no theological sense of perspective.  It is difficult to analyze religious extremism in the absence of a countervailing belief system against which to compare.  When confronted with Islamist ideology, some progressives attempt to accommodate it in the name of multiculturalism, or to deem negative reactions to it as bigoted and insensitive.  Such responses are certainly informed by religious illiteracy, but are also shaped by moral relativism and ignorance of history.

Dr. Durie attributes the prevalence of religious illiteracy to the success of secularism and enlightenment.  Though liberal democracy certainly affords rights and liberties that are unheard of in dictatorial theocracies, the trivialization of religion has made it difficult to discuss matters of faith cogently.  Those who believe all religions are fundamentally the same often have little understanding of their own traditions and thus have no standard for determining how extremism deviates from normative faith.  Some believe that all religions are benign and peaceful, while others believe they are all reactionary.  But informed analysis becomes difficult when mainstream religious knowledge is reduced to generalized concepts of little substance.

According to Dr. Durie, Christianity has the capacity for critical self-reflection; and, indeed, Christian views regarding Jews and non-Christians have evolved in ways that have no analogue in the Islamic world.  In addition, Dr. Durie believes that Christian and Jewish religious identities are shaped by relational covenants with G-d rather than the master-slave dynamic. He does not believe there is a parallel perspective in Muslim scripture.  The lay ability to discern such distinctions, however, decreases as society loses sight of its own religious traditions.

In addition to being hampered by religious illiteracy, progressive society tends to view Islamism from a morally relativistic perspective and to ignore the historical role of holy war in spreading the faith.  Though the left falsely accuses Israel of being a colonial creation – ignoring the native Jewish presence that long predated all other claimants and usurpers to the Jewish homeland – it has amnesia regarding the history of jihadist conquest and colonialism.

The White House is of like mind in its refusal to acknowledge the Islamist basis for much of today’s terrorism – or for that matter to recognize Jewish ancestral rights in Israel.  Despite terrorist acts committed throughout North America, including assaults, murders and the attack on the Canadian Parliament, and regardless of the increasing numbers of ISIS and al-Qaeda sympathizers arrested in the U.S., Mr. Obama refuses to concede any links to radical Islam.  This refusal has become a meme of his administration, often leading to absurd results, such as designating the Fort Hood shooting as workplace violence and referring to terrorism perpetrated by Muslims as “man-caused disasters.”

Those who refuse to make the connection must deny the long history of jihadist colonialism in the Mideast, India, Africa, Asia and Europe, where fanatical armies subjugated indigenous peoples, destroyed their sacred places, and exterminated those who refused to submit.  In extolling the virtues of an idealized Muslim tolerance that never really existed, secular apologists from the president on down – liberals and conservatives alike – are simply parroting back dissimulation that is fed to them.

But how many in the secular mainstream have the background to understand that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram are engaging in modern jihad and have no desire for peaceful coexistence?  This is precisely the scenario envisioned by Samuel P. Huntington in “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,” which seems all the more prescient in light of current events.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time the West has been confronted with Islamist aggression.  Jihad came to the Iberian Peninsula in the eighth century and spread to the Balkans and other parts of Europe thereafter.  As brutal as the Crusaders were to Jews, their campaigns against Muslims were reactions to the jihad that had been unleashed on Europe centuries earlier, and which was not finally quashed until the Battle of Vienna in 1683.

The United States, too, had early experiences with doctrinal militancy, as alluded to in the Marine Corps Hymn, which begins with the verse: “From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli.”  These words refer to the First and Second Barbary Wars precipitated by Muslim pirates from North Africa, who began attacking and ransoming American and European ships in the late eighteenth century.  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met in London in 1785 with Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, the envoy from Tripoli, who explained to them:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. (“Jefferson, American Minister in France,” p. 413, the Atlantic Monthly, Volume 30, Issue 180, October 1872.)

The First Barbary War ended when the United States agreed to pay annual ransom to ensure safe passage.  But the cessation of tribute in 1801 triggered the Second Barbary War, which ended with the U.S. Naval bombardment of Algiers.  Unfortunately, American school children no longer learn this history, as progressive educators have jettisoned subject matter deemed culturally offensive or insensitive.

This cultural dumbing down is an inevitable consequence of the theological illiteracy and politicization of education about which Dr. Rubenstein and Dr. Durie spoke, and which have compromised western society’s ability to understand religious extremism.  The problem is exacerbated by a multicultural elite that freely slanders and disparages Israel, Jews, Christians and western values, but which tends to excuse Islamist extremism or contextualize it disingenuously.

Whatever the reasons for this state of affairs, western society has not responded effectively because it refuses even to identify the problem.  However, mislabeling Islamist terrorism “workplace violence” or “violent extremism,” or falsely comparing it to the lawful political activities of religious conservatives, only inhibits the ability to confront it.  The situation will not change until westerners reclaim their own religious traditions, relearn their history, and take control of the dialogue from those who believe that religious terrorism is an understandable reaction to European and American chauvinism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arab allies wage war in Yemen with U.S. weapons, without U.S. leadership

Biden: American Jews Can Only Rely on Israel, Not U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Israel National News.

The Mind of the Islamic State — Part 2

/in , , , /by

In part 2 of this Micro Series we will delve into the mind of the Islamic State terrorist. Why killing Jews, American, and infidels is his or hers only option. In the Islamic State’s online publication Dabiq the Islamic states depicts clearly their purpose and Islamic world view.

As ten’s of thousands flock to the Islamic state worldwide, this series will illustrate motivations, desires and tactic for world domination.

Pesach & Eliana Show: Dr. Rich Swier talks about the U.S., Israel, Islam and the Middle East [Podcast]

/in , , , , , /by

I had the opportunity to appear on the Pesach & Eliana Show to talk about issues important to every American and lover of Zion. This broad ranging discussion covered many topics including: the recent Israeli elections, U.S. policy in the Middle East, the Islamic State and what strategy drives Islamic organizations and nations such as Iran.

Pesach and I discuss in some detail my column titled the “Five Fingers of Islam.”

Please take the time to listen and learn.

Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with pesachelianashow on BlogTalkRadio

Jew Haters and the USS Liberty

/in , , , /by

Israel attacked an American ship in 1967. Tragic mistake or intentional act?

VIDEO: The real meaning of “Allahu Akbar”

/in , , , /by

In this episode of the world’s challenging counter-jihad chatfest, the fearless, peerless host interviews the nonpareil Daniel Greenfield, discussing what these peaceful screams of “Allahu akbar” that we keep hearing from misunderstander of Islam as they commit acts that have nothing to do with Islam are all about.

RELATED COLUMNS:

Saudis restore envoy to Sweden after Swedes apologize for insulting Islam

Islamic State in Illinois planned another Fort Hood

A Varied and Inextricable Tangle

NY gang boss resurfaced at Florida mosque, sending jihadists overseas

/in , , , /by

What happens to turn a former Marine into someone who wants to murder top generals? Why, conversion to Islam. We have seen this phenomenon many times with converts: they believe that their new religion requires them to turn traitor. No one, however, in this politically correct age seems interested in recognizing or studying this phenomenon.

“NY gang boss resurfaced at Florida mosque, sending radicalized jihadists overseas, say feds,” by Malia Zimmerman, Fox News, March 28, 2015:

Marcus Dwayne Robertson, 46, a former U.S. Marine known to his supporters at his Orlando-based Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary as “Abu Taubah,” is suspected of sending young proteges abroad for terror training.

A Muslim extremist who once led a murderous New York gang dubbed “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves” and then resurfaced decades later as a radical imam at a Florida mosque is begging for help funding his legal defense against charges he committed tax fraud to, according to authorities, finance terror training for his followers.

Marcus Dwayne Robertson, 46, a former U.S. Marine known to his supporters at his Orlando-based Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary as “Abu Taubah,” is currently being held in a local jail on a gun conviction. He faces sentencing on April 30 on a 2014 conviction of tax fraud, but more serious charges could be coming, given that prosecutors say he used the money to send his radicalized followers to Africa to learn how to kill Americans.

“The United States believes that the defendant is still an extremist, just as he was in the early 1990s,” prosecutors said in recent court filings. “The only differences are that the defendant is now focused on training others to commit violent acts as opposed to committing them himself and the violent acts are to occur overseas instead of inside the United States.”

Robertson, according to recent Facebook posts, will continue to proclaim his innocence to all remaining allegations against him.

“The Prosecution is attempting to characterize me as a ‘Teacher of Terrorists.’ … They are attempting to twist my statements to fit into a terrorist plot. …. In reality, they know I am not a terrorist teacher,” Robertson wrote on his web site.

In his younger life as the leader of the “Forty Thieves” gang, Robertson “murdered several individuals; participated in assassination attempts; used pipe bombs, C-4, grenades, other explosives, and automatic weapons; participated in a robbery resulting in a hostage situation; and attempted the murder of police officers,” according to federal prosecutors.

Court records and wiretap transcripts from 2011 to 2015 provide a gripping tale of Robertson’s life, and that of one student, Jonathan Paul Jimenez, who Robertson allegedly instructed to file false tax returns to obtain a tax refund to pay for travel to Mauritania, Northwest Africa, for study and violent jihadist training.

The tax fraud case led to the prosecution of Jimenez, who reportedly knew Robertson for 11 years and, by his own admission, trained with the imam for a year in preparation for his travel to Mauritania, where he would study and learn to kill U.S. military personnel.

Robertson denies sending Jimenez overseas “to commit violent jihad,” but prosecutors produced several wiretapped conversations from 2011 that they say prove Robertson trained Jimenez “in killing, suicide bombing, and identifying and murdering United States military personnel.”

According to court records:

• Jimenez stated he and Robertson discussed suicide bombings. Robertson told Jimenez if one could “go to a place where there’s seven top generals, it would be permissible to use a suicide bomb to kill them.”

• Jimenez said Robertson wanted him to “fight to kill” and taught him it is obligatory to kill military officers, specifically generals, because they “can lead an army.” He said Robertson had instructed him on how to kill people “in a good manner” and how to “do it with kindness.”

• Jimenez said he was “getting ready for that grave, baby,” and Robertson was preparing to make him a “killer” after he completed the religious aspects of his training.

FBI investigators said Robertson’s computers held documents from the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, such as “How to think like a terrorist” and the “Militant Ideology Atlas,” American military reports on interrogation, polygraphs, psychological operations; survival kits issued to Army aviators and a diagram of names connected to Global jihad.

Jimenez pleaded guilty August 28, 2012, to making a false statement to a federal agency in a matter involving international terrorism and conspiring to defraud the IRS, and was sentenced April 18, 2013, to 10 years in federal prison….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State in Illinois planned another Fort Hood

Somalia: Islamic jihadists storm Mogadishu hotel, murder at least nine people

UN human rights top dog: Islamic State more “diverse” than some UN member

First-Time Buyer Mortgage Share and Mortgage Risk Indexes (FBMSI and FBMRI) for February 2015

/in , , , /by

SUMMARY:

  • First-time buyers accounted for nearly 56 percent of primary owner-occupied home purchase mortgages with a government guarantee, up slightly from the prior February.
  • The Combined FBMSI (which measures the share of first-time buyers for both government-guaranteed and private-sector mortgages) stood at an estimated 50 percent.
  • The number of primary owner-occupied purchase mortgages going to first-time buyers over the 6-month period of September 2014-February 2015 totaled an estimated 667,000, up almost 4 percent from the 643,000 mortgages over the same 6-month period in 2013-2014.
  • The Agency FBMRI stood at 15.07 percent, up 0.2 percentage point from the average over the prior three months and up 0.8 percentage point from a year earlier. The Agency FBMRI is about 6 percentage points higher than the mortgage risk index for repeat home buyers.

The First-Time Buyer Mortgage Share and Mortgage Risk Indexes (FBMSI and FBMRI) are key housing market indicators based on monthly data for nearly all government-guaranteed home purchase loans, which greatly reduces the risk of sample error. By relying on millions of loans, this approach stands in contrast to traditional first-time buyer surveys based on small samples of home buyers or real estate agents.

In February 2015, first-time buyers accounted for nearly 56 percent of primary owner-occupied home purchase mortgages with a government guarantee, according to the Agency First-Time Buyer Mortgage Share Index (FBMSI).  The February share was slightly lower than the revised share for January and slightly above the February 2014 share.  As indicated in the chart below, the first-time buyer share has displayed no trend over its 23-month history apart from seasonal variation.

image001 (2)

The chart below displays the monthly first-time home buyer percentage by agency.  As shown, the share varies widely across agencies.  FHA is at the high end with a share consistently around 80 percent, while Freddie Mac is at the low end with a share generally below 40 percent.

image002 (1)

The Combined FBMSI (which measures the share of first-time buyers for both government-guaranteed and private-sector mortgages) stood at an estimated 50 percent in February 2015.  Consistent with the agency series, the broader combined share has varied seasonally but has displayed no trend over its 23-month history (see chart below).

image003 (2)

The monthly count of agency first-time buyer mortgages (the Agency FTB Loan Count) is presented in the chart below.  The number of primary owner-occupied purchase mortgages going to first-time buyers over the 6-month period of September 2014-February 2015 totaled an estimated 667,000, up almost 4 percent from the 643,000 mortgages over the same 6-month period in 2013-2014.  This increase in the Agency FTB Loan Count outpaced the 2½ percent rise in total agency purchase loan volume over the same period.

image004 (1)

The Agency FBMSI is calculated, as noted above, from a nearly complete dataset of government-guaranteed home purchase loans, which greatly reduces the risk of sample error. The near-universe of included loans stands in contrast to the 2014 survey of home buyers and sellers conducted by the National Association of Realtors (NAR), which was based on responses constituting only 0.2 percent of all purchase loans originated during the 12-month survey period and was voluntary, with responses received from only 9 percent of those mailed the 127-question survey.[1]  Data on the importance of first-time home buyers for non-agency loans are not available to our knowledge from any source.  The Combined FBMSI is calculated from the loan-level data in the Agency FBMSI, along with assumptions for the non-agency loans that we believe to be reasonable.

The Combined FBMSI percentage of first-time buyers is much higher than that estimated by the NAR.  For the July 2013-June 2014 period covered by the NAR’s 2014 survey of home buyers and sellers, the Combined FBMSI showed an average share of 50 percent, substantially higher than the NAR’s survey of home buyers finding that first-time home buyers took out 36 percent of the mortgages used to buy a primary residence.[2]

“February’s results show that first-time buyer volume and share remain strong,” said Edward Pinto, co-director of the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI’s) International Center on Housing Risk.

“We calculate first-time buyer shares from comprehensive data provided directly by the federal housing agencies, making our indices the most complete measures currently available,” said Stephen Oliner, co-director of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk.

AEI’s Agency First-Time Buyer Mortgage Risk Index (FBMRI) estimates the share of first-time buyer mortgages that would default in a stress event comparable to the 2007-08 financial crisis based on the actual performance of loans originated in 2007.  The Agency FBMRI stood at 15.0710 percent in February, up 0.2 percentage point from the average over the prior three months and up 0.8 percentage point from a year earlier. As indicated in the chart below, the Agency FBMRI is about 6 percentage points higher than the mortgage risk index for repeat home buyers.

image005

The higher risk for the mortgages taken out by first-time buyers is largely due to risk layering. As shown in the table below, in February 2015, 68 percent of first-time buyer mortgages had a combined loan-to-value ratio (CLTV) of 95 percent or higher, and 96 percent had a 30-year term. Given the combination of little money down and slow amortization, these buyers will have very little home equity for a number of years unless their house appreciates substantially. In addition, about one-fifth of first-time buyers taking out mortgages had a FICO score below 660, the traditional definition of subprime mortgages, and one-quarter had total debt-to-income ratios above 43 percent, the limit set by the Qualified Mortgage rule.  The mortgages taken out by repeat buyers are less risky along two dimensions in particular: a much smaller share had a CLTV of 95 percent or higher and a smaller share had a FICO score below 660.

Characteristics of Mortgages Taken Out by First-Time and Repeat Home buyers:

February 2015
CLTV ≥ 95% 30-year Term FICO < 660 DTI > 43%
First-time Buyers 68% 96% 21% 26%
Repeat Buyers 37% 91% 10% 24%
Source.  AEI International Center on Housing Risk, www.HousingRisk.org

This risk profile for first-time buyers implies that the supply of mortgage credit to this group is not tight.  In February 2015, the median first-time buyer with an agency mortgage made a down payment of only 5 percent, or $7500 in dollar terms.  For the large subset of first-time buyers who obtained mortgages with an FHA, VA, or RHS guarantee, the median down payment in February was even smaller ― 3 percent ($4100 in dollar terms).  Moreover, the median FICO score in February for first-time buyers with agency mortgages was 705, slightly below the median of 713 for all individuals in the United States with a score.[3] For first-time buyers with FHA-insured loans, the median FICO score in February was only 673, well below the middle of the distribution for the U.S. as a whole. These data are a strong counterpoint to the NAR’s commentary that “interested first-time home buyers continue to find it challenging to obtaining [sic] financing because of weak credit and income credentials and inability to pay the required down payment.”[4]

“It is in the NAR’s financial interest to push for ever looser credit standards.  But the facts demonstrate that down payments are already low and total debt ratios are high,” said Pinto.

“The FICO data undercut the argument that first-time buyers have limited access to mortgage debt.  Many borrowers with weak credit profiles are buying homes.” said Oliner.

The FBMSI and FBMRI are objective and transparent measures of the first-time buyer share and the riskiness of first-time buyer mortgages, respectively, based on the millions of loans contained in National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) database developed by AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk. The FBMSI, FBMRI, and NMRI are updated monthly.  For more information about these indexes and the work of the center, please visit HousingRisk.org.

[1] The NAR conducts a separate survey of realtors (http://www.realtor.org/reports/realtors-confidence-index) that also collects information on first-time homebuyers.  Although this monthly survey is sent to more than 50,000 realtors (out of a total of 1.1 million members), the response rate is low; only 4,259 responses were received for the January 2015 survey and of these, only 1,979 realtors provided information based on the last sale they had closed in January.  Thus, the results from both NAR surveys reflect very limited information with questionable reliability.

2 A small part of this gap could reflect a difference in the definition of first-time homebuyers.  The various federal agencies use the Uniform Residential Loan Application (Form 1003), which asks the following questions: have you had an ownership interest in a property in the last three years and was it a principal residence?  Applicants who have not owned a principal residence within the last three years are considered to be first-time homebuyers by these agencies. The NAR survey asks whether the purchaser is a first-time buyer, without further instruction, which likely results in a slightly narrower definition than the one used by federal agencies.

3 The national median score is from FICO; the other FICO scores cited here are from AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk.

4 Supra. NAR realtor confidence survey, p. 12.

The Oppression of Expression

/in , , , /by

The connection between language and liberty is profound by SARAH SKWIRE.

I have been thinking and writing a great deal about ISIS and its attempts to destroy art, language, culture, and history. This means I have also been thinking a lot about Mark Dunn’s novel Ella Minnow Pea, which is a funny and troubling exploration of language and oppression.

Dunn subtitles his novel “A Progressively Lipogrammatic Epistolary Fable,” and the novel is replete with the word games that its punning title and sesquipedalian subtitle suggest. Ella Minnow Pea is set on the fictional island of Nollop, named after the equally fictional Nevin Nollop, who invented the pangram “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.” (A pangram is a sentence that uses every letter in the alphabet.) As Dunn explains in the novel’s epigraph, the island has an “almost monastic devotion to liberal arts education and scholarship.” A symbol of that devotion is the large statue of Nevin Nollop that is placed at the center of the main town of Nollopton and decked with tiles that spell out his famous sentence.

As the novel opens, the tile bearing the letter z has fallen off the statue and been taken to the town council. The heroine of the novel — Ella Minnow Pea — explains what happens next.

On Wednesday, July 19, the Council, having gleaned and discerned, released its official verdict: the fall of the tile bearing the letter Z constitutes the terrestrial manifestation of an empyrean Nollopian desire, that desire most surely being that the letter Z should be utterly excised — fully extirpated — absolutely heave-ho-ed from our communal vocabulary! Henceforth, use of the arguably superfluous twenty-sixth letter will be outlawed from all island speech and graphy… Under penalties to be determined by the aforementioned Council. On Friday, July 21, those penalties were decided. They are as follows: To speak or write any word containing the letter Z, or to be found in possession of any written communication containing this letter, one will receive for a first offense a public oral reprimand… Second offenders will be offered choice between the corporal pain of body-flogging and the public humiliation of headstock upon the public square. For third offense, violators will be banished from the island. Refusal to leave upon order of Council will result in death.

There’s a lot of food for thought here. We have the exceptionally rich, almost overwrought, baroque language of the islanders at the story’s outset. Ella and her fellow islanders clearly glory in the beauties of language and in its ability to communicate. We also discover that this charming little island has some sinister characteristics.

First, Nollop is treated by at least some portion of the Nollopians as a god or prophet. Second, there is an apparently endlessly powerful “High Council” that has the ability to make laws and assign punishment without consulting the populace. Lastly, we discover that language — in its very building blocks, not merely political, religious, or obscene language — is open to regulation of the strictest kind.

As Ella’s cousin Tassie writes, “I am so fearful, Ella, as to where this all may lead. A silly little letter, to be sure, but I believe its theft represents something quite large and oh so frighteningly ominous. For it stands to rob us of the freedom to communicate without any manner of a fetter or harness.” Tassie’s fears are not based only in her concerns about the trammeling of her freedom of expression, however. She notes that the High Council is “installed for life, with complex legal procedures for official recall, copies of which will soon be disappearing from the shelves of our island libraries.”

The council’s decree has not merely committed the absurdity of outlawing the usage of the letter z. It has effectively restricted the Nollopians’ ability to function politically. Without copies of their laws in the libraries — and these laws will have to be removed from the libraries and any written record because they doubtless contain at least one instance of the letter z somewhere — the Nollopians have no recourse other than sufferance or revolution.

As with Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984, even this earliest and simplest of High Council decrees begins the process of eliminating words and people. The day the ban on z goes into effect, Ella writes to her cousin, “The books have all disappeared. You were right about the books. We will have to write new ones now. But what will we say? Without the whiz that waz. For we cannot even write of its history. Because to write of it is to write it. And as of midnight, it becomes ineffable.” Eliminating the letter z eliminates not only the letter, but all printed material and spoken expression in which the letter occurs. It eliminates, as Ella records, the ability to remember it or write its history. It has been “vaporized” in classic Orwellian style.

Unsurprisingly, the new regulation spurs further regulation — including a ban on writing words where the letter z has been replaced with an asterisk. Violation of this ban is subject to the same draconian penalties as violation of the proscription of z. Shortly thereafter, we see citizens flogged, the publication of the names of 58 first-time offenders, and the locking into the headstocks of 13 second-time offenders.

Then, the letter q falls from the statue. Ella is, as ever, an optimist, noting that “as luck would have it, there are simply not all that many words in the English language which claim this letter among its constituents.” She continues to discuss the possibility of either a legal recall or a military coup of the High Council, but recognizes the difficulty of a legal recall when the laws remain in effect, but the written records of them have all been burned, and the difficulty of a military overthrow when the government pays the military well. She also records, in rapid succession, the loss of the island radio station, newspaper, and all recordings of any music with lyrics.

And this is with only the two least-used letters outlawed!

Tassie soon reports to Ella that the new regulations have encouraged neighbors to spy on neighbors and report their violations to the High Council. Her mother, a school teacher, is reported for referring to “a dozen eggs.”

Loss of the letter q also produces some heroic behavior. The Rasmussen family marches into the High Council session wearing duck masks and quacking. They are then manacled and offered the choice between flogging and headstocks. The family — including the nine-year-old twin daughters — chooses flogging in hopes of horrifying the islanders to some sort of response. The townspeople do nothing. That evening, however, one islander is caught trying to replace the j tile that has fallen off the statue. Ella tells us, “He was apprehended and is being held without bond.”

When the letter d falls, the High Council revamps the calendar, naming the days of the week: Sunshine; Monty; Toes; Wetty; Thurby; Fribs; Satto-Gatto. Loss of the letter d also proves the cause of Tassie’s mother’s second slip, which she duly reports to the High Council, only to receive this reply:

We appreciate your coming to us with a copy of your letter to your sister, but it was unnecessary. Your offense was known to us even before the letter’s receipt by your sister. Effective as of September 15, the primary responsibility of our isle’s new assistant chief postal inspector has been to scan all post for use of illegal letters of the alphabet, then to make nightly reports to the Council.

But Dunn’s book ceases to be a dark comedy and becomes a pure tragedy as the book progresses and we are privy to the degradation of language produced by the council’s restrictions. Ella’s penultimate letter is written to herself because her friends and family have nearly all been exiled, have killed themselves, or have chosen to stop writing and speaking.

Letter to me:

Onlee 24 owers remain.

Storm.

Tiles plop. 8 tiles plomp plomp plomp all in one nite.

Tee ent is near.

So lon A!

So lon E! (Nise to no ewe.)

So lon I!

So lon R! (Are we lonesome tonite?)

So lon S!

So lon T!

So lon W!

So lon O twin. (Remnant twin is all alone now.)

Now onlee 5 remain at 12 o’time. Onlee 5. Onlee 5 remain.

There are several notable things about this letter. First, there’s Dunn’s impressive accomplishment of managing communication, humor, and even pathos with only 12 letters. Second, there is Ella’s undying need to communicate, to connect, to record, to use language even at the instant it is being taken from her. Last, there is the inevitable comparison between the paucity of this language as contrasted with the baroque expressions of Ella’s first letter in the novel. Ella’s final letter is composed of only the letters LMNOP. It is a less successful piece of communication, but the pathos and humor continue.

Ella’s story ends with the triumph of creative forces over government repression, tyranny, theocracy, and general insanity. Along the way, though, it is a vivid reminder of the strong ties between language and liberty, and a strong caution that the oppression of expression can ally itself to tyranny, ruin our ability to think, and render us unable to fight.

ABOUT SARAH SKWIRE

 Sarah Skwire is a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis.

Do Godly People Need Help Reading the Scriptures?

/in , , /by

I am often asked what I think of the Blood Moons theory, which is tied to religious leaders, notably John Hagee, who use a convoluted analysis of certain passages from the Bible to convince Christians that the Second Coming is imminent and will happen in their lifetimes, something that many Christians have believed since the days of Christ. Something that will be true, at least for a future generation.

Blood-moons

For a larger view click on the image.

Many pastors over the last centuries have preached that, based on this or that Biblical passage, Jesus must be coming during their lifetime, sparing Christians the pain of death in this or that generation. People looked to these religious leaders believing that they had a special gift of prophecy and staked all their hopes in their words, often putting aside their own plans for their future and for the future of their nations, even though there were serious issues that went unresolved as a result of their abandoning their earthly duties.

I want to point something out.

If you are a godly Christian with a thorough knowledge of Jesus’ teachings, you know that you don’t have to follow “godly men” and their interpretation of the scriptures. If you are not a godly person with such knowledge, then you are spiritually and intellectually incapable of properly identifying a godly person. You have no idea what that means and a man with a strong personality will mesmerize you like a mother mesmerizes a baby with a lullaby

I responded thusly to one of those who asked me about the Blood Moons theory.

There have been numerous blood moon tetrads since about the year 800 and none of them were accompanied by events more significant than other events in times of no blood moon tetrads.

I believe that God wrote the Bible for ordinary people and does not send signs that need to be interpreted with specialized knowledge and analysis. He knows that to give us such abstruse signs would put us in the hands of a few shrewd men claiming to have such knowledge and that they would exploit us for their own purposes, and worse, for Satan’s purposes, just as the Neocons exploit soft-headed Christians constantly for the purpose of supporting war by designating as leaders certain men who claim to be Christians and whose behavior suggests they are “godly” when in fact they are deceivers whose wars invariably redound to the deaths of Middle East Christians. It has happened over and over again and some Christians have never observed the obvious pattern of this deceit.

I grew up in a fundamentalist home and saw all sorts of pastors and evangelists pretending to know things that they did not and making dated predictions that did not materialize.

I remember one itinerant evangelist by the name of Oliver B. Green from Greenville, SC who preached in the 1950s.

He had a stentorian voice, like John Hagee, and mesmerized his audiences, who came to hear him in his big circus tent. He put on quite a show, always jumping onto the top of his pulpit and gesticulating wildly at least once during his sermon to make a point. He once said that some had complained about his acrobatics and warned that they might be considered blasphemous, but he said “this is my pulpit.” My dad said that was an arrogant thing so say and that since Green was using the pulpit for God’s work, it was God’s pulpit, not his.

Years later I saw a pamphlet in my parents’ bedroom titled: “Why Man will Never Reach the Moon” written by none other than Oliver B. Green. That was a few years before man did reach the moon.

Green’s arguments were all taken from the Bible and they proved beyond a doubt that man would never reach the moon.

At the time I found these arguments to be far fetched and yet I hated myself for doubting the truth as written by this godly man, whom I had been taught to honor.

Even after man reached the moon, taking that small step for a man, my parents never wavered in their faith in Oliver B. Green. He was still a man of God.

That is the mechanism by which we are misled.

Yet the stakes have never been higher. Our Christian brethren are dying throughout the Middle East thanks to the credulity of American Christians in particular, the one group these Middle Easterners are looking to for their salvation from the horrors and atrocities they face. It is high time for godly men to do their own thinking, and their own praying.

Let’s not be misled again, for God’s sake.