Posts Tagged ‘Muslim’

Iran, Iraq, and the Future in Bible Prophecy

June 24, 2009

The huge demonstrations protesting the election issues in Iran put that country on the front pages of every newspaper.

For nearly two weeks, demonstrations have raged.  Early on, some said that they didn’t know what would happen as to whether the protests would succeed in overthrowing the regime, but most recognized that the endgame was a foregone conclusion: the regime has the tanks, the guns, and the military.  It was only a question as to whether how far things might get before they used them.

As it stands, they won’t have to, as an AP article entitled “Intensified crackdown mutes protests in Iran” indicates.  While the demonstrations might well briefly flare up again (presidential candidate Mousavi has said he would appear at a demonstration on the 24th), there has never been any serious question that the theocratic regime would stand.

The serious question that remains is, stand as what?  Will it become a more open society, more willing to seriously interact with the Western world, or will it become more hostile and more determined to pursue a violent agenda in the coming months?

Based on the prophecies in the Bible, and based on my own belief that we are entering the last days, my view is that Iran will become more hostile and violent as it is increasingly isolated in the Western world.  Furthermore, my view is that it will engage in an increasingly close alliance/partnership with Russia and with other Islamic Arab and African states.

It is important to realize that the Iranian Constitution (Article Five) is inherently apocalyptic in nature.  The still-revered Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 proclaimed that the basis for Iran’s constitution and its government would be the authority of the Hidden (or Twelfth) Imam.  This apocalyptic figure has been called the ‘expected one,’ (al—Muntazar), the ‘promised one’ (al—Mahdi’), or the ‘hidden one,’ (al—Mustatir) in the Shi’a tradition.

The threats of impending destruction of Israel and even of war against the United States have been issued in the name of this Twelfth Imam who will (according to Iranian/Shi’a Islam) come in the last days.

According to the tradition, the Hidden Imam was taken into hiding by Allah and kept there until he reappears in the last days to purify the umma and take the world for Islam.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many others in the Iranian leadership passionately hold to the coming of the Hidden Imam.  That in itself is not necessarily frightening: Shi’ite orthodoxy has it that humans are powerless to encourage the Twelfth Imam to return.  However, in Iran a group called the Hojjatieh believe that humans can stir up chaos and violence to encourage him – even force him – to return.  And Ahmadinejad is at least a former member, and quite likely a current member of this sect.  When Ahmadinejad became president, $17 million was spent on the Jamkaran mosque, which is central to the Hojjatieh movement.  And it is even more frightening when such a man sitting as President of Iran claims to have a direct link to God.

And Dr. Serge Trifkovic has said this regarding Ahmadinejad’s theology/eschatology:

Ahmadinejad, by contrast, shares with Trotsky an apocalyptic world outlook. He favors direct action in pursuit of a permanent Islamic revolution that will pave the way for the return of the Hidden Imam, pave it with blood, sweat and tears. Indeed he’d like to speed things up, as you point out, and implicitly he hopes to achieve this by twisting the arm of the Almighty – no less so than the cloners of red heifers and would-be re-builders of the Temple hope to do as a means of speeding up the Rupture. The fact that he is more sincere in his beliefs and more earnest in his endeavors than the kleptocrats of the House of Saud are in theirs, is alarming but unsurprising. He is a visionary; they are Machiavellian cynics.

A much-more detailed analysis that comes to much the same conclusion about Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic vision is available via FrontPage Magazine.

Mind you, re-building the Temple or cloning a red heifer are scarcely the source of inherently cataclysmic activities that many too many Shiite Muslims are pursuing.

So when one considers Iran, under such leadership, to be dedicated to the acquisition of nuclear weapons after stating that Israel should be “wiped out from the map” – and with the current Ayatollah Khamenei stating that Israel is a “cancerous tumor” on the verge of collapse – well, one should be very worried.  Wiping out Israel in a fiery blaze of atomic glory would indeed be a way to create the holocaust that would prompt the return of the long-awaited Hidden Imam (if anything ever could).

Clearly Jews understand this, as 1 in 4 would seriously consider leaving the country if Iran succeeds in acquiring nuclear weapons.  Given that such an event would literally mean the end of the state of Israel even if Iran didn’t nuke them, Israel has little choice but to attack Iran’s nuclear capability (since – clearly – no one else will).

Would Israelis hold back from a planned attack of Iran if they believed the United States would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?  Probably.  But the problem is, they clearly don’t believe that any more.  And they certainly no longer believe that America under Barack Hussein Obama is on their side.  When George Bush was president, fully 88% of Israeli Jews believed the president was “pro-Israel”; today under Obama, only 31% of Israeli Jews think so.

Such an event, of hated Israel swooping into an Islamic country to destroy their Russian-built nuclear facilities, would itself be a likely cataclysmic event.  Do you even dare to imagine how the Islamic world would react?  And realize that just such an event is very likely coming – and coming all-too soon.

Now Vice President Joe Biden predicted that Barack Obama would be “tested” by an “international crisis” that would test his mettle.  He went on to say:

I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

Joe Biden quickly turned his discussion of this international crisis and Barack Obama’s seeming poor handling of said crisis to politics and the hopes of Democrats.  But Iran obtaining nuclear weapons won’t be about politics; it will be about Armageddon.

Frighteningly, Barack Obama’s very own VP has said that Barack Obama is most certainly not ready for what may very well prove to be the most terrifying crisis in human history:

“There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden,” McCain spokesman Ben Porritt said in a written statement, according to CNN. “Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be president.”

Biden frequently raised questions about Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience during the primaries. “I think he can be ready, but right now, I don’t believe he is,” Biden said during one debate. “The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

North Korea looms large, and may loom far larger in the days soon-to-come.  But a nuclear Iran is an even more terrifying prospect.  You’ll see.

As I turn to Iraq – and then to how Iraq relates to Iran in the context of Bible prophecy – allow me to first discuss Joel Rosenberg.

A Wikipedia article on Joel Rosenberg probably provides the most concise summary (accessed June 23, 2009):

Rosenberg’s novels have attracted those interested in Bible Prophecy, due to several of his fictional elements of his books that would occur after his writing of books. Nine months before the September 11th attacks, Rosenberg wrote a novel with a kamikaze plane attack on an American city. Five months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he wrote a novel about war with Saddam Hussein, the death of Yasser Arafat eight months before it occurred, a story with Russia, Iran, and Libya forming a military alliance against Israel occurring the date of publishing,[7] the rebuilding of the city of Babylon,[12] Iran vowing to have Israel “wiped off the face of the map forever” five months before Iranian President Ahmadinejad said the same,[13] and the discovery of huge amounts of oil and natural gas in Israel (which happened in January 2009).[14] The U.S. News & World Report have referred to him as a “Modern Nostradamus,”[15] although Rosenberg tries to play down those proclamations, stating that “I am not a clairvoyant, a psychic, or a ‘Modern Nostradamus,’ as some have suggested.”[16] He gives the credit for his accurate predictions to studying Biblical prophecy and applying to the modern world.[16]

Why did Rosenberg predict that there would be a “kamikaze plane attack on an American city” by Islamic terrorists?  Because he accurately understood the evil at the heart of Islam.

Why did Rosenberg predict a war between Saddam Hussein and the United States resulting in the overthrow of Saddam and his brutal regime?  That’s where it gets interesting.

Joel Rosenberg had done a thorough study of the Book of Ezekiel and of the Bible (as a couple of overlapping articles summarize – Article 1; – Article 2).  He learned that one day, according to the Bible, a massive army under the leadership of Russia and many of its former republics (Magog) and Iran (Persia) and consisting of many countries that are today Islamic [e.g. “Cush” (modern-day Sudan and Ethiopia); “Put” (modern-day Libya); “Gomer” (modern-day Turkey); “Beth-togarmah” (modern-day Armenia); and many peoples “along the mountains of Israel” (modern-day Lebanon and possibly Syria)] would form an “exceedingly great army” that would one day attack Israel.

What Rosenberg noted was the absence of two countries: Egypt and Babylon (i.e. Iraq).  Egypt had been a perennial enemy of Israel until 1973, when Egypt alone in all the Arab/Muslim world forged a historic peace treaty with the state of Israel.  That left Iraq.  Rosenberg asked himself, “How could a nation like Iraq, under the leadership of someone like Saddam Hussein, NOT participate in this mega-colossal-last-days attack on Israel?

Rosenberg concluded that Saddam Hussein WOULDN’T refrain from such an attack.  And that meant that Saddam Hussein would have to go.

And so, NINE MONTHS before the 9/11 attack, Rosenberg in his “fiction” created a scenario in which terrorists flew a plane in a kamikaze attack, and the United States took out the Iraqi regime and replaced it with a stable Western-friendly government.

And because the Bible is the true Word of an all-knowing God who knows the end from the beginning as revealed through His prophets, the scenario laid out by Joel Rosenberg turned out to be eerily true.  It wasn’t a “lucky guess”; it was based upon the God who had revealed the last days to an inspired prophet named Ezekiel some 2,600 years ago.

Thus we have Iraq, its tyrant who had filled mass graves with the bodies of at least 400,000 of his own people, overthrown and a stable democracy growing in his place.  And we have Iran, a country strongly allied with Russia; a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons; a country that has announced its intent on the destruction of Israel; a country under the leadership of men who in all likelihood believe in establishing a future by an act of violent apocalypse.  Two countries on two very different paths.  And both paths known to God 2,600 years ago.

Newsweek Claims That Whites Who Don’t Vote For Obama Are Racists

August 31, 2008

Newsweek isn’t a completely in-the-tank-for liberals biased bullpoop rag.  They represent “legitimate journalism.”  Well, that’s the claim, anyway.

Of course, what passes for “legitimate journalism” often looks like the piece that recently emerged from the tiny little ideologue brain of Jacob Weisberg.

Here’s a representative sample:

But let’s be honest: the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He lags with them for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

Just realize something: if you are white and you don’t vote for Barack Obama, it is for one and only one reason: you are a racist.

I would love to vote for a black President.  I would be quite happy to vote for a woman.  The only thing I ask is that they share my basic values, beliefs, and vision for this country.

I know, I know.  How racist and sexist of me.

Here’s the Newsweek article, in its entirety, with a little more of my outrage to follow: (more…)

Coca Cola, Typical Pluralistic (Except for Christianity) Company

August 20, 2008

Bob McCarty came across this:

The crescent moon and star — yes, the same symbol featured on the flags of so many Muslim countries — is an internationally-recognized symbol of the Islamic faith in much the same way as the cross represents Christianity and the star of David Judaism. When I learned the symbol of the Islamic faith will appear on Coca-Cola packaging during Ramadan 2008, I found myself wondering whether or not the Atlanta-based soft drink maker will soon include the Christian cross and Jewish star of David in future holiday packaging designs targeting people of those faiths.

Here’s what the new cans look like:

Coca Cola – ever the profit-seeking enterprise – puts cute polar bears on their cans to “celebrate” Christmas. Jews don’t even receive the token snub that Christians get for their Hannukah.

In the name of pluralism and multiculturalism we are downright hostile to our own religious traditions even as we eagerly celebrate others.

Coca Cola and companies that now shun “Merry Christmas” greetings in favor of the neutral “Happy Holidays” pursued this reverse discrimination tactic only after years of lawsuits and judicial-activist government rulings.

World Net daily had an article titled “‘Five pillars of Islam’ taught in public school” that begins:

Another school has been “teaching” Islam by having students study and learn Muslim prayers and dress as Muslims, and a lawyer who argued a previous dispute over this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court said such methodologies wouldn’t “last 10 seconds” if it were Christianity being taught.

Educational Issues has an article titled, “Muslim Prayer in Public Schools: Are Public Schools Accommodating Islam Over Christianity?” And the answer is clearly, “YES.”

The ACLU, so vigilant of any “intrusion” of Christianity into public life, make it a point to look the other way when Islam is thrust upon us even when public funding is used to do the thrusting.

It is frankly amazing how liberals and secular humanists are so unrelentingly hostile toward Christianity in the name of “multiculturalism” and “separation of church and state” even as they embrace religions such as Islam in the name of the very same things!

As government creates a “gulag-like” mentality about expressing Christianity in public, corporations like Coca Cola follow the trend and go where the most money – and the least controversy – is.

And we continue to surrender everything that made this nation – and the Christian religious tradition that both formed and informed it – great.

Obama’s Vile Claims that Republicans, McCain Are Anti-black, Anti-women Justify ANY Counterattack

June 28, 2008

After John McCain announced that he supported ending the federal ban on offshore drilling and allowing states to make their own determination, Barack Obama said:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), Illinois: This is yet another reversal by John McCain, in terms of his earlier positions. And I think we could set up an interesting debate between John McCain 2000 and John McCain 2008.

This was only one day before Barack Obama on June 19, 2008 announced his decision to go back on his earlier promise to support campaign reform by accepting – and publicly calling upon other candidates to accept – public financing.

Barack Obama has been all over the place on a whole host of isses: his all-over-the-place stance on gun control; his staffers telling Canada his official NAFTA position was merely “populist positioning”; his position on talking to rogue leaders such as Iran’s Ahmadinejab without preconditions which he has since hedged beyond recognition; his position on the status of Jerusalem which changes based on whether he’s talking to Jews or Arabs; his previous demand that telecommunications companies be unprotected from lawsuits for cooperating with the US government; his initial call for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq; his reversal over the Cuba embargo; and on and on. John McCain has been the rock of consistency compared to Barack Obama – even in spite of the fact that Obama hasn’t had much of a career to actually have time to reverse positions. Most of McCain’s flips – in direct contrast to Obama’s – were announced prior to the primary elections so voters could consider the ramifications and vote accordingly. And his recent change of position over allowing states to decide whether to pursue offshore drilling is perfectly understandable given the new situation of $4.50/gallon gas. And yet here Barack Obama is, talking smack just like the self-righteous, self-aggrandizing hypocrite he is.

And consider Obama’s reasoning for breaking his promise to accept public funding:

“We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election,” Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying “we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

Liberal and Democratic 527s have ten freaking times the cash conservative and Republican causes have. Liberal money is all over the place. Obama is expected to raise shocking loads of money – $500 million dollars in just the final 2 months of the campaign alone – at a time when Democrats are out hysterically proclaiming that we’re in the second coming of the Great Depression. And liberals constantly talk about “swiftboating” (they’ve turned the noun into a verb), disregarding the fact that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth was made up of over 200 fellow members of John Kerry’s riverine unit in Vietnam – including a Rear Admiral and Kerry’s own direct superior – as well as most of Kerry’s former fellow boat skippers. They also conveniently forget the fact that the Swiftboat Veterans caught a number of Kerry “misstatements.” And let’s not also forget those forged documents allegedly proving President Bush sought and received preferential treatment as a National Guard flight officer that showed up on Dan Rather’s CBS newscast.

A recent Democratic attack ad campaign engaged in a clearly racist attack against a Republican candidate of Italian ancestry named Dino Rossi, playing the theme music from The Supranos as it attempted to unfarily tie him to the mob. Even a number of Democrats characterized the ad as “racist and beyond offensive.” Democrats are every bit as good at “gaming the broken system” as Republicans have ever been.

You remember the MoveOn.org ad that ran at a substantially discounted rate in the New York Times that proclaimed, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” Try reading MoveOn or the DailyKos for a little sampling of some of the nastiest bile ever vomited out of the mouth of the sleaziest creature that ever crawled.

Please don’t try to argue that Barack Obama somehow has to go to extraordinary lengths to clear his pure-as-the-driven-snow reputation from those dirty Republicans.

Having said all the above, allow me to introduce a particularly pathetic recent example of Obama launching despicable cheap-shot character attacks against John McCain:

“John McCain, if he’s elected, is going to pick a Supreme Court that will roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years.”

Now, you see, I hear that kind of crap, and I have to ask: why NOT label “Barack Hussein Obama” as a covert Muslim who will introduce sharia law into the United States? All it would take would be one Supreme Court Justice appointment to do precisely that.

Let me tell you something: there’s a far better case that Barack Hussein Obama is a Manchurian-type Muslim candidate than there is that John McCain will roll back every gain that women have made in the last 50 years.” A FAR better case.

John McCain is somewhat against abortion, it is true. The anti-abortion position has been a significant plank on the Republican platform for a generation. Is this news to you? I have written at length that “a woman’s right to choose” is in fact the denial of any kind of right for men, who are forced to either sit by while women murder their children, or who are forced to provide nearly two decades of child support for a child they may not want to “choose.” And I have argued that nothingnothing – has been more destructive to fatherhood than 1) defining a child in the womb as a thing that deserves absolutely no dignity, status, or protection; and 2) taking away any element of right or privilege that ought to be accorded to fathers.

Why should fathers stick around? They did nothing more than contribute half the genetic materials that abortionists call “products of conception” when they burn a baby to death with acid or chop it into pieces and vacuum it out of the womb. Why shouldn’t fathers be resentful that they are forcibly required to pay support for the very same children that women could have legally butchered in their wombs?

That isn’t a right of women; it’s an abject denial of rights of children and fathers.

And “roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years“? Is Obama serious, or simply slanderous? This kind of language is just as loaded as saying that John McCain will roll back every gain blacks have made in the last 50 years.” It is absolutely vicious.

Oh, wait, Obama has already used that vicious, hateful, cheap-shot too:

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) – Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him…

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

If this isn’t “playing the race card,” then there is simply no such thing as “playing the race card.” Obama doesn’t have a single piece of evidence to cite that Republicans have done any such thing. But a truly dishonorable man simply doesn’t need any evidence to slander his opponents.

No. There’s a much better case that secretly Muslim Barack Hussein Obama will seek to impose sharia law on the United States.

British journalist Melanie Phillips has quite a story in the Israel Insider titled, “Obama takes on the Great Global Blogosphere Conspiracy Against His Holiness.” She links to Obama’s official website, which carries a denial titled, “Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim.” It contains the statement, “Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.” And Phillips points out that Obama has said, “I’ve always been a Christian,” and “I’ve never practiced Islam.”

However, as Phillips points out:

But none of this is true. As is explored in detail on Daniel Pipes‘s website, Obama was enrolled at his primary schools in Indonesia as a Muslim; he attended the mosque during that period; his friends from that time testify that he was a devout Muslim boy. A former teacher at one of these schools, Tine Hahiyary, remembers a young Obama who was quite religious and actively took part in “mengaji” classes which teach how to read the Koran in Arabic. The blogger from Indonesia who reported this commented:

“Mengagi” is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, “mengaji classes” are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to… The fact that Obama had attended mengaji classes is well known in Indonesia and has left many there wondering just when Obama is going to come out of the closet.

His father was a Muslim, as was his stepfather. His grandfather was a Muslim convert. His wider family appear to have been largely devout Muslims. Yes, we only know about Obama?s early years as a Muslim; and yes, twenty years ago he became a Christian. The issue, however, is why he has been less than candid about his early background and his family. Indeed, he appears to have actively deceived the public about it. That is why the blogosphere is so exercised about it.

There’s actually a whopping load of documentation proving that Barack Hussein Obama has been disengenuous to the extreme about his background – which is exactly what we would expect a Manchurian-style candidate to do.

Phillips also points out:

Now here’s another curious thing. Much has been made of his membership of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago whose former pastor and his long-standing mentor, Jeremiah Wright, Obama was forced finally to renounce on account of his obnoxious views (although he has signally failed unequivocally to denounce those views themselves and the no less obnoxious philosophy of the Trinity United black power church). But according to a passing reference in a profile in The New Republic last year, Pastor Wright was himself a Muslim convert to Christianity. He seems to have moved from being a Muslim black power fanatic to a Christian black power fanatic — which might go some way to explaining his close affinity to the Muslim black power ideologue Louis Farrakhan.

I went to the article she cited and – sure enough:

After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright’s church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for “Buppies”–black urban professionals–and didn’t have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness.'”

And just Google “black liberation theology” and “Marxist” and see that the one is virtually identical to the other.

Now, I’ve written over 70 articles – many directed at Barack Obama – and never once used his “full” name until now. Nor have I ever attempted to link him to Islam until now.

I want to make it clear: I am directly responding to incredibly cheap shots by Barack Obama against an honorable man.

Barack Obama: don’t you dare whine and cry foul every time someone criticizes you, and then go out and unload these kinds of hateful and unsubstantiated charges on your opponent.