How The Tribulation Begins, And How What You’re Watching On Your TV As We Speak Will Help Bring It To Pass

How does the Tribulation begin?  I was surprised to hear a pretty well-informed Christian answer that question by saying, “with the Rapture.”

Nope.

The Bible is very clear: the Tribulation officially kicks off when Israel signs a seven-year peace treaty with the Antichrist.

I see a lot of things very clearly now.  The world wants the beast to come much the way that I long for Messiah Jesus to come.  The world is pushing and pressing and manipulating and demagoguging and slandering as much as it can to prepare the way for the false messiah who will lead them to the ideological future of their dreams.

They don’t realize that the invariable result of the political and economic future they dream of is the closes thing one can get to literal hell on earth.  That is because “Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t
believe” (2 Corinthians 4:4).  Reason is becoming increasingly possible because the truth is foolishness to the unbelieving mind (1 Corinthians 1:18).  “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” God has told us in Romans 1:22.  And God has begun to fulfill His Word that “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent” (1 Corinthians 1:19).

Human beings have been tainted and perverted by sin.  The Scriptures tell us that over and over again.  All kinds of evidences and experiments show that human senses do NOT necessarily lead us to truth.  And that truth is even more true when it comes to the ideas of our minds.  All of the many “-isms,” such as Marxism or communism or socialism or fascism or existentialism or nihilism or pretty much whatever “-ism” you want to name, not only do not bring you to truth, and not only take you further away from the truth, but literally anesthetize and even inoculate us from being able to possibly see the world as it really is.

Do you want to know how we can see reality as it really, truly is?  We endeavor to see it as God sees it.  And we can do that by reading God’s Word and reshaping and reordering our minds to align with the Kingdom of God rather than the sinful nature of man.  When you look at the world through the lens or prism of Scripture, then and then alone can you begin to see reality as it truly is.

But secular humanists will not do that.  They will do ANYTHING but that, in fact.  They will NOT see the world the way the God who created it sees it.  They do not want to see God and they do not want to see reality the way God sees it.  Rather, they believe that the can create their OWN reality and replace our reality with the one that they have fabricated through their theories and their narratives.  The result is something that I have said many times on this blog: the secular humanist left have become the stupidest people on the face of the earth through sheer brute force of their wills.  They WILL NOT see, accept, or understand the real world; rather, they are as determined as their ultimate master, Satan, to impose their own reality by whatever means seem to work for them.

They will not see that the very actions they take to fabricate their Utopia (ignoring the brute fact of history that EVERY SINGLE SOCIALIST UTOPIA HAS GONE WILDLY WRONG) will cause the hell on earth that the Bible warned us of – as epitomized in “the people’s” upcoming decision to elect the Antichrist as their world leader.

Hal Lindsey put it this way back in 1973:

It’s once again very important for us to realize that the Book of Revelation is John’s firsthand account of what he saw and experienced when he was taken up into heaven.  How difficult it must have been for him with his first-century orientation to find adequate descriptive words to verbalize the incredible things he viewed!  Even fifty years ago the things described in the Book of Revelation were so far beyond our comprehension that no one dreamed they could happen apart from some supernatural assistance.

Now such things as John described are not only possible, but could happen within thirty minutes!  There are already enough nuclear-tipped missiles on station and ready for launching to do everything predicted in this chapter [chapter 8 of Revelation].  Dr. W.H. Pickering of Cal Tech confirmed this when he warned, “In half an hour the East and the West could destroy civilization.”

Although it is possible for God to supernaturally pull off every miracle in the Book of Revelation and use totally unheard-of means to do it, I personally believe that all the enormous ecological catastrophes described in this chapter are the direct result of nuclear weapons.  In actuality, man inflicts these judgments on himself.  God simply steps back and removes His restraining influence from man, allowing him to do what comes naturally out of his sinful nature.  In fact, if the Book of Revelation had never been written, we might well predict these very catastrophes within fifty years or less!  — Hal Lindsey, There’s A New World Coming, pp. 114-115

Man does this to himself.  Man chooses it.  Man does it.  Man votes for it.  Man elects it.  And we even find that: man cheers for it and even that man worships it.

The official kick-off to the Tribulation is Israel signing a covenant with the Antichrist.  And man will very much push Israel into that step.

The past 64 years, since Israel became a nation, Israel has had one or two allies with the rest of the world increasingly isolated against her.  But one of those allies was mighty America, and none of Israel’s enemies could defeat her with her great ally protecting her.

That period ended in 2008 when America voted for Barack Hussein Obama.  And America reaffirmed its choice earlier this month when it said that it wanted more of what Obama’s spiritual guide for 23 years prophetically called “God damn America.”

Israel is now more isolated than it has EVER been.

Israel is forced to contemplate an invasion of Gaza for the same reason it had to do so a few years ago: because Palestinian terrorists are launching hundreds of missiles that could land damn near ANYWHERE and which force a complete shutdown of Israeli society.  Such an indiscriminate attack against innocent civilians would be decried and condemned by the world if anyone else did it TO anyone else, but it is the Arab world viciously attacking Israel, and so the elite talking heads pooh-pooh the violence while reserving their condemnation against Israel.  An article from the generally leftist Daily Beast from when this last happened in 2009 proves what I’m arguing:

Israel has never been more isolated. Its best friend, the United States, had vetoed 41 Security Council resolutions condemning Israel in the past three decades, but was about to vote for the Jan. 8 resolution denouncing the attack on Gaza when President Bush intervened, at the behest of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Still, in the face of unprecedented global criticism, the U.S. didn’t dare veto, but merely abstained. Europe, never Israel’s close ally, erupted in near unanimous outrage over Gaza, with fits of anti-Semitic violence in France, Sweden and Belgium. […]

The current rocket attack is nothing new.  Arabs hate Israelis and love murdering their citizens and their children.  When they run out of rockets to fire at Israel, they demand a cease fire that prevents Israel from destroying the weapons that the terrorists will stockpile for the NEXT surprise attack against Israel’s people.  The terrorists stockpile and fire their rockets in dense population centers in homes and schools and hospitals counting on the fact that Israel will have to kill women and children to destroy the rockets that would otherwise be used to try to kill Jewish women and children.  The world that could frankly care less if Jewish women and children are murdered are outraged that Palestinian women and children are being killed.  It doesn’t matter if those Palestinian children are being killed because Palestinian terrorists are putting rockets in their cribs.  And so the world demands that the Arabs get their cease fire so they can stockpile more weapons and start the war again.  Over and over and over, as needed, until Israel is gone.  This vile game is called “international diplomacy.”

Israelis believed that Bush was pro-Israel to the tune of 88% affirming that statement.  When only 6% of Israelis view Obama as being “pro-Israel,” if you have eyes to see and ears to hear you understand that Obama’s election left Israel more isolated.

Further, the last time Israel was bombarded with rockets, Egypt was an ally that was firmly on Israel’s side.  Today the new Muslim Brotherhood terrorist president of Egypt has openly sided with the enemies of Israel and has passively allowed the Palestinians to use Egypt as a conduit for their rocket arsenal – with said rockets manufactured in Iran –  so they can keep trying to murder more Jews and provoke a reaction from Israel knowing that the world will condemn Israel.

The Prime Minister of Turkey just called Israel a terrorist state and urged the terrorists targeting Israel to keep murdering Jews.

An Associated Press reporter named Matthew Lee bravely called attention to the fact that Barack Obama is inherently useless and weak in actually standing up for Israel in ANY meaningful way and exposed the true cowardice that is the core of Obama:

But the American people voted for a president who would turn his back on Israel in true time of need.

Meanwhile, Iran is racing toward its nuclear weapons which represent the extinction of the state of Israel and the ballistic missiles to deliver them.

Iran WILL get nuclear weapons.  America voted for that on November 6th.  The Iranian leadership knows with certainty that Barack Hussein Obama will NEVER order a massive military attack against Iran.  Iran knows that it is 16,275,183,000,000 percent free to continue working on their goal of Armageddon and Obama will do nothing but offer rhetoric and meaningless sanctions to prevent what will now necessarily happen.

And allow me to cite the source that affirms that Obama’s sanctions have been completely ineffective just in case you are fool enough to believe that Obama was being honest with you:

Iran nuclear work at constant pace despite sanctions – IAEA
By Alexandria Sage and Fredrik Dahl | Reuters – November 20, 2012

PARIS/VIENNA (Reuters) – Iran is enriching uranium at a constant pace and international sanctions aimed at making Tehran suspend the activity are having no visible impact, the U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said in unusually blunt remarks on Tuesday.

The point made by Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reinforced the view of many analysts that increased Western economic pressure on Iran has failed to make it change its nuclear course. […]

So the only way to stop Iran is war.  But Obama won’t go to war.  And Iran knows full damn well Obama won’t go to war to stop them from threatening the existence of Israel.  Therefore Iran will have nuclear weapons and Iran will also have the means to deliver those weapons much sooner than the Obama administration has claimed.

Israel is being pushed and prodded and forced into the arms of Antichrist.  And Israel will ultimately do what the world wants and sign that peace covenant so that hell on earth may officially begin.

America will soon be getting what it most dearly yearns for: it will get to worship the beast and take his mark.

Yes, Barry Hussein: I KNOW We Can ALWAYS Trust YOU To Say Soothing Words To Murderous Palestinian Fascist Terrorists

Remember when Obama took his overseas tour prior to his 2008 election?  You’d think he walked on water to get there, the way the mainstream media covered him.  The Marxist Media is showing it has fangs for everyone  who doesn’t think exactly like they do by going after Mitt Romney with the most idiotic charges of “gaffes.” 

So here’s the latest in the neverending world of the endless Two Minutes Hate of liberals for whoever the latest iteration of “Republican candidate Emmanuel Goldstein” is:

Monday, July 30, 2012
‘Palestinians’ seethe over Romney fundraiser comments

At a Jerusalem fundraiser on Monday, Republican candidate Mitt Romney told his Jewish donors exactly what he thinks of the ‘Palestinians’ (Hat Tip: Memorandum).

“As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,” the Republican presidential candidate told about 40 wealthy donors who ate breakfast at the luxurious King David Hotel.

Romney said some economic histories have theorized that “culture makes all the difference.”

“And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things,” Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the “hand of providence.” He said similar disparity exists between neighboring countries, like Mexico and the United States.

The ‘Palestinians’ are seething in response.

“It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,” said Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

“It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people,” Erekat added. “He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority.”

A few points. First, Romney understated the disparity. Israel’s GDP is $31,000 and the ‘Palestinians’ GDP is $1,500 per person.

Second, assuming that ‘Palestinian’ GDP is in fact restrained by Israel (an assertion I will challenge below), for an indication of what the ‘Palestinian’ GDP might be without that restraint, one only has to look at other countries in the region. Jordan’s is $5,900. Egypt’s is $6,324, Syria’s is $5,262 and Lebanon’s is $15,600, all far below Israel’s $30,975. It seems far more likely that an unrestrained ‘Palestinian’ economy would be closer to any of those other countries than to Israel.

Finally, with all the seething about Israeli restraints on the ‘Palestinian’ economy (backed up by the politically motivated World Bank), there are many restraints on the ‘Palestinian’ economy that are self-imposed. These include the highly centralized nature of the ‘Palestinian’ economy, the amount spent on several competing ‘security services,’ and the culture that values ‘martyrdom’ over economic achievement and education.

So no, Romney’s assertion was not unreasonable and it wasn’t ‘racist.’

But you all knew that.

The explanation for where I was in the last several hours will be in the overnight music video, which resumes tonight.

Here was the White House’s gleeful reaction:

WHITE HOUSE (AP) – The White House says it appears that Mitt Romney’s comments today in Jerusalem left some people “scratching their heads a little bit.”

Romney told a group of Jewish donors that their culture was part of what allowed them to be more economically successful than the Palestinians are.

A Palestinian official called it a “racist statement,” and said Romney should know that the Palestinian economy is hampered by an Israeli occupation. […]

But the spokesman added that having comments like this one analyzed for “nuance” is “one of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage.”

The comment from the White House in direct response to the terrorist Palestinians being angry was:

“One of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage, particularly when you’re traveling to such a sensitive part of the world, is that your comments are very closely scrutinized for meaning, for nuance, for motivation,” Earnest said, adding, “and it is clear that there are some people who have taken a look at those comments and are scratching their heads a little bit.”

You know, I’m firmly in the Obama foreign policy camp that holds that the more blatantly evil a regime is and the more that regime hates America, the more we should value and credit their anger toward us.  Our historic ally Israel should hate us, and our historic enemy the Palestinians (who fought World War I against us before siding with the Nazis in World War II before they started killing civilians in terrorist attacks) should love us.

It’s those damned miserable piss holes like Israel that have stood by us for the last sixty years that we ought to trivialize.

Oops.  Please excuse me for a moment…

Okay, I’m back.  I had to throw out my tinfoil hat and I’m rational again.

Let me put it this way: Mitt Romney just went to Israel and said that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel.  That after White House spokesroach Jay Carney refused to answer direct questions as to what the capital of Israel was and before the Obama White House said Romney was wrong and that Jerusalem was in fact NOT the capital of Israel as far as all the terrorists and those who thought like them were concerned.

For some strange reason, Israelis are calling Mitt Romney “a true friend of Israel.”  Obama being “a true enemy,” of course.

Obama thinks we should be thinking, “My gosh, if even Palestinian terrorist fascists don’t like Mitt Romney, we should all vote for our Barry Hussein!”

There’s an article with the title, “Romney likely to see warm welcome from Israelis, chilly reception from Palestinians.”  And Obama is out there saying that it needs to be the other way around and the Palestinians ought to be happy with our president while the Israelis think he sucks.

We should all be agreeing with Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi: “Those Money Grubbing Jews Just Want Lower Taxes.”  C’mon.  Obama and Pelosi know what them damn Jews are really like.  After all, Obama’s reverend Jeremiah Wright spent his entire preaching career warning us that the Jews were evil.  And how could the man who spent twenty years mentoring messiah Obama possibly be wrong?  (See here for more on what the reverend that the man who is now president of the United States chose as his mentor believes).

Sorry, Barry H.  I’m with Mitt.  And I’m very definitely with Israel.

I’m With Newt Gingrich On Palestinians Being An ‘Invented People’

As far as I’m concerned, Newt Gingrich nailed this one.

The “Palestinians” exist for everyone who has a spiritual and ideological hatred of Israel, and that is the ONLY reason it/they exist. It NEVER existed prior to the existence of Israel and no Arabs even bothered to TRY to create it/them. The so-called “Palestinians” could have and should have gone to the 99-plus percent of the land that was controlled by Arabs; but the Arabs in their rabid hatred of Israel decided it was better to create a festering sore by leaving people in camps and ghettos as a deceitful way to denounce Israel.

Gingrich Gets It Right
Posted by David Horowitz Bio ↓ on Dec 12th, 2011

In an interviewon Saturday, Newt Gingrich put some reality into the surreal discussion of the Middle East conflict and (as he put it) the delusional nature of the current “peace process.” The Palestinians are indeed an “invented people” — invented by the Nasser dictatorship and KGB by the way — and the Hitlerian lie that Israel occupies one square inch of “Arab” let alone “Palestinian” land needs to be buried for any clarity on what the conflict is about, let alone progress towards peace.

Of course there is no peace in the Middle East and there can be no peace so long as the Muslim Arabs want to kill the Jews and destroy the Jewish state. That is the explicit goal of the enemies of Israel in the terrorist entities of Gaza and the West Bank, and also of Israel’s principal enemy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Newt Gingrich’s gutsy statements — if he will hold to them — could change the nature of the debate not only about how to deal with the Islamic terrorists of the Middle East but with the Islamic jihad itself. For the campaign to destroy Israel is at bottom a campaign to restore the Muslim (not Arab) ummah — as it was under the Turkish empire and the caliphate.

According to CNN, a Palestinian spokesman called Gingrich’s observation that the Palestinians are “an invented people” quote “the most racist I’ve ever seen.” This just shows what brazen liars Palestinian spokesmen are. Everything that Gingrich said was obvious fact. For nearly 2,000 years “Palestine” referred to region not a people — just as “New England” refers to a region not a people. In 1948 the Arabs of the Palestine region were not talking about a Palestinian state and were not referring to themselves as Palestinians. That came in 1964 with the creation of the PLO, engineered by the KGB and the Jew-hating dictator of Egypt, Gamel Abdel Nasser​. Even then the PLO charter (which is still available on the web) did not call for the liberation of the West Bank or Gaza (annexed by Jordan and Egypt respectively) but for the destruction of the Jewish state. Jew hatred is what has driven the conflict in the Middle East which is more precisely described as a genocidal war against the Jews.

Here’s another article on the subject from another guy I listen to when it comes to this region:

Newt Gingrich and the “Invented” Palestinian People
by Daniel Pipes
December 10, 2011
Cross-posted from National Review Online

The former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and current Republican presidential candidate said yesterday that “there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab people, and they had the chance to go many places.”

Everyone from the PLO to a Mitt Romney spokesman jumped on Gingrich for this assertion, but he happens to be absolutely correct: no Arabic-speaking Muslims identified themselves as “Palestinian” until 1920, when, in rapid order this appellation and identity was adopted by the Muslim Arabs living in the British mandate of Palestine.

For details, see a long article of mine from 1989 on the topic or a short one from 2000. (December 10, 2011)

I was frankly appalled at the criticism Newt Gingrich received from rival Republicans competing for the GOP nomination.  The only candidate who supported Gingrich’s completely accurate and factual statement was Rick Perry. 

The idea made by Mitt Romney and seconded by most of the candidates that covet Gingrich’s poll numbers that this somehow is “speaking for Israel” is simply asinine.  Newt Gingrich isn’t speaking for anybody; he’s a private citizen and doesn’t even speak for “America,” let alone Israel.  Rather, Newt Gingrich was speaking for “truth.”  And I’m on board with that.

Since Newt said this, I have laughed at the snooty “journalists” who huffed that countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon were “invented,” too, as though somehow that means that we can’t oppose allowing “Palestinians” to be similarly invented.  Because as we all know, the world would obviously have been just so much worse off without the many blessings provided by Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to world harmony.  And the more dictator-controlled hellholes, the better, right?

Al Jazeera puts it this way (you know, after citing the “wisdom” of Vladimir Lenin):

The modern Middle East was born in crisis. Remnants of the Ottoman and Safavid Empires of the 19th century, the countries of this realm only took the form of modern nation states after passing through the brutal mill of European colonialism. Whereas state formation in Europe took centuries to develop, countries in the Middle East were created by the veritable stroke of a pen; by a line drawn on a map; by a decision taken in a smoke-filled boardroom.

So what the hell, let’s get back into that smoke-filled boardroom and invent another country.  Because it’s just worked so damn well in the past and all.  And you know how great the United Nations is about getting things right, right?

Most of the countries “created with the stroke of a pen” are hellholes.  So one question worth serious discussion is why do we want to create another hellhole?

It’s almost as if the left is arguing, “We have a chance to repeat the mistakes of history, and let’s not be timid about doing so.”

Fwiw, when Newt Gingrich says (and when I agree with him) that Palestinians are an “invented people,” neither of us is trying to argue that the Arab people living in the West Bank, etc., are not “real people.”  What we are claiming is the FACT that there had never in history existed a people with a “Palestinian” identity, nor had there ever existed a nation-state with that identity.  EVER.  There is no legitimate historical reason to ascribe to them the idenity that the United Nation and liberals and various other enemies of Israel have been attempting to ascribe to them.  And these people – who have genuine needs and are genuinely suffering – should have been absorbed by the many surrounding regions and nations out of which they came from in the first place.  And I further submit that it is not Israel, but those Arab countries, to whom the real blame ought to be directed for ignoring the plight of the “Palestinians” and abandoning them to neglect.  Because these their own people literally WANTED these people to suffer simply so they could point a finger at Jews and say, “See what you did?”

For more than sixty years Arabs have allowed the “Palestinians” to suffer in ghettos and camps because they would not take care of their own people.  Rather than give a damn about their fellow Arabs in need, they preferred to keep hating on Israel and say, “We want nothing to do with these Arabs because we frankly have no respect for human life whatsoever, but YOU ought to care more about our people than we do and provide for them.”

So before you attack me as a “racist” or an anti-Palestinian “bigot” or whatever, realize that I will merely re-direct those charges right back at you and state that in fact YOU are the hater who wants these poor people to suffer just so you can point a finger of blame at the Jews you so rabidly despise.

Left Calls Terrorists Good And Israel Evil. Shame On Them.

One Youtube video is worth all the morally depraved leftist arguments in the world:

Why are Israelis so harsh when it comes to allowing Palestinians to enter Israel?

The answer is agonizingly simple: because Israelis have had long and hard experience with what the Palestinians are like.

The above video shows a woman (Wool Wafa Samir Ibraim Bas) who had been given a medical certificate to go to Soroka Hospital in Israel for treatment on compassionate grounds by Israel being stopped for an inspection.  It turned out she was a suicide bomber with a massive explosive device concealed in her pants.  She detonated herself at the Erez barrier checkpoint; had she been allowed to pass she would have murdered countless hospital staff.

At every turn, Palestinian Muslims take advantage of every kind and charitable act by Jews and turn it into another attempt to do the worst evil imaginable.

At every turn, Muslims have attempted to target and murder Jewish children.  They are despicable, as is every single member of the left who takes their side against Israel and against Jewish children.

This is the truth of the Islamic worldview versus the truth of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

And here is what the Scriptures say about both the terrorists and the leftists who take their side:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4

Pray for Israel.  Pray for the apple of God’s eye.  Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.  And then make sure your elected officials know where you stand, and that your vote for them depends on whether they will stand with Israel through thick or thin.

Ground Zero Mosque And Moral Idiot ‘Tolerance’

The New York City Community Center – with its proposed site being just two blocks from Ground Zero – is moving forward.

The basis of that forward movement is political correctness and “tolerance.”

New York Mayor Bloomberg told us why our soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq:

“I think our young men and women overseas are fighting for exactly this,” Bloomberg said. “For the right of people to practice their religion and for government to not pick and choose which religions they support, which religions they don’t.”

It might be news to our soldiers that their real motivation for fighting overseas is so Muslims can build a giant mosque virtually on top of the site where Muslims murdered 3,000 Americans.

CAIR leader Nihad Awad has repeatedly said that Muslims didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.  And, of course, anyone who suggests that Muslims had anything to do with 9/11 is a bigot.

But the religion whose culture would murder a Christian for giving a Muslim a Bible – let alone building a Christian church near one of their hallowed locations – turns out to be quite judgmental, indeed.

Sorry, Nihad, but here’s the real face of Islam:

This is the latest Time Magazine cover, featuring the face of a woman whose story makes me want to vomit, then cry:

The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband’s house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn’t run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha’s brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.

Nihad says that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (the terrorists were like Barney the Dinosaur worshipers, rather than Muslims), and that all Muslims were appalled by the destruction.  The thing is, I remember it very differently.  I remember that the name “Osama bin Laden” was so popular after bin Laden murdered 3,000 Americans and brought the Twin Towers down that many embarrassed Muslim countries banned it.  And I remember footage from all over the world such as in the Palestinian territory and in Barcelona of Muslims literally cheering in the streets in celebration of the 9/11 attack.

So please don’t insult me by trying to tell me something so profoundly stupid that Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11.  I’m not that dumb.

9/11 was a religious act, committed in the name of Allah and Islam (which means submission, not “peace”).

And please don’t insult my intelligence with politically correct nonsense, suggesting that it is my “tolerance duty” to enable a Muslim shrine to be erected on top of an act of Muslim horror.

Let’s say – by way of analogy – that some Jewish group bombed the Dome of the Rock.  Let’s say that, oh, ten years later, another Jewish group – saying that it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the group that bombed the Dome of the Rock – wanted to build a temple there.  You know, to advance the cause of understanding between Muslims and Jews.  And let’s just say that the rabbi behind the project had made a number of incredibly controversial statements (more here), having been frequently caught saying one thing in Hebrew to Jewish audiences, and another thing in English for media consumption.

Do you think that would fly?  Or do you think that the Muslim world would erupt in the greatest outrage the world had ever seen?

Would Nihad Awad or CAIR condemn as “bigoted” any Muslim who opposed that construction?

Anyone who says that Muslims would allow such construction is a liar, a fool, or, more likely, a lying fool.

Germany – which had experienced the bitter ultimate results of Nazism – banned the Nazis from their culture.  They never wanted to experience that evil again.  But our liberal progressives in the ACLU fought hard for the rights of Nazi groups to flourish here in America.

This isn’t about “tolerance.”  It’s about political correctness.

Political correctness is not merely an attempt to be more inclusive or to make people feel better about themselves.  It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it.  Early Marxists implemented this tactic long ago and continue to execute it today — and now the American liberals who share the Marxist worldview are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language and hence the “acceptable” ideas and values.  Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

Radicals who want “fundamental transformation” push for anything that will destabilize the hated current system.  They begin in revolutionary mode, inviting change, attacking the status quo.  They are permissive, attacking established and transcendent authority, advocating total sexual freedom, and promoting radical artistic and cultural experimentation.  But once they gain power, however, they are determined to defend the new status quo that they have created.  The questioning of all authorities gives way to the supreme elevation of a new authority that must not be questioned.  Permissiveness gives way to ruthless suppression.  Subversion of order gives way to the imposition of a new order.  And the previously “tolerant” revolution will systematically and ruthlessly suppress any “change” that “hopes” to overcome the big government totalitarian system they have imposed.

Both the Soviet communist (“Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics”) and the Nazis (“National SOCIALIST German Workers Party”) were socialist.  Both came from the radical left.  The only major difference between the two was that communism was an international socialist movement, whereas Nazism was a national socialist movement.

Socialism is a germ that can easily become viral and violent.  It’s in the very DNA of socialism.  And those that play with it play with fire (given that it is a political philosophy that has been responsible for the murders of more than 100 million people in peacetime alone).  I say that in recognition of the fact that 55% of Americans now recognize that Barack Hussein Obama is a socialist (as were both his parents and all his mentors before him).

American liberals and progressives served as the useful idiots for communism – including Stalinism – just as they served as useful idiots for fascism – including Nazism.  All one has to do is look at the 1920s and 30s, when Democrat progressives were cheering first Marxism and Joseph Stalin, then Italian fascism and Benito Mussolini, and, yes, Nazi fascism and Adolf Hitler.  FDR‘s cabinet was filled with admiring bureaucrats who had gone to Germany and Russia and Italy to study the “marvelous developments” that were taking place in these planned societies.

And now they are useful idiots for Islamic radicalism as well.  Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf has Muslim Brotherhood provenance, and is an adept practitioner of Islamic taqiyya — deceptive speech and action to advance the interests and supremacy of Islam.

And only useful idiots wouldn’t understand that.

What we are seeing is that it’s not “religion” that Democrat progressives hate per se; it’s orthodox Christianity, which has been the guiding force that shaped the American cultural history they now wish to “fundamentally transform.”  And if these progressives can use Islam to undermine and supplant Christianity, they will do so.  They will use Islam to attack the Christian hold on American culture.  They will use anything at their disposal to burn Christianity out of American culture.  So they can fill the vacuum with themselves and their poisonous ideology.

Christian conservatives [and Christians are conservative because our Messiah revealed Himself and His teachings two millennial ago, rather than a two-year election cycle ago] are “intolerant,” say Democrat progressives.  “Just look at how they are treating these wonderful Muslims who merely want to build a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero.”  You don’t want intolerant – and therefore bigoted and evil – people like that leading America. Liberals then hold themselves up as morally superior to their “intolerant” conservative opponents, hoping that no one perceives enough to ask why liberals are so tolerant of Islamic fundamentalism but so profoundly intolerant of Christian conservatism.

That’s the real reason the ACLU fought for Nazism in the town of Skokie, where Nazi death camp survivors lived after fleeing the horror of Europe.  And that’s why the ACLU is fighting for Islamic jihadism today.  Because, as their founder said, “communism is the goal” – and anything that undermines the current Christian and free market system of America takes them closer to their cherished “goal.”

The problem with the ideological left trying to harness Islam to destroy the even more hated enemy Christianity is that the left don’t realize that they have a tiger by the tail.  They have bought into their own rhetoric that they can satisfy Islamic jihadism by appeasing them (by serving them Israel on a platter, for example).  But Islam is even more determined to have its way, and even more determined to employ whatever means are necessary – including catastrophic violence – to get it, than the socialist left.

In inviting Islamic fundamentalism to come into America and take root (as it is already doing in our “tolerant” prison system), it is as though the left are using a deadly plague to destroy their opponents, not realizing that they have no cure for the plague themselves.

As for the New York City Community Center, the Muslims certainly should be able to build their mosque (or community center, or whatever they want to call it).  But they should build it elsewhere, rather than near the site of the worst Islamic terrorist attack in history.  They should not be allowed to build a shrine commemorating their conquest of the Twin Towers.

If they are determined to build their “center” two blocks from Ground Zero, then they should be required to live up to their own disingenuous rhetoric: build a multicultural religious center that features a Jewish synagogue and a Christian church, such that men and women of all three monotheistic faiths may come and worship side-by-side together.

The fact of the matter is that they most certainly WON’T do the above.  Which proves that their stated goals are lies, and that what this construction really is is a political act.  If the “community center” is built, it will be a symbol of coming victory for radical Islam; it will be a demonstration that our enemies can violently bring our mightiest buildings down, and then erect mosques on top of their destruction.  And we’re such weak, insipid, pathetic moral fools that we actually help them supplant us.

The Ground Zero mosque (I don’t care if the mainstream media won’t use the most accurate description anymore) is provocation.  That is the entire idea: to suggest doing something despicable, and then point a finger at the American people over their “intolerant” reaction.

Meanwhile, the real insult to the American people is the giant hole where the World Trade Center used to be.  Because there was a time when we were the sort of people who would have immediately built an even greater building there – and defied our enemies to knock that one down.  Now we’re the sort of people who spend ten years twiddling our thumbs (both of which seem to be left thumbs) and listening to useful idiots lecture us.

Much the same way those ACLU attorneys lectured the Jewish Holocaust survivors living in Skokie, Illinois during the Jimmy Carter era.

It’s Official: Palestinians Recognize One Jew Is Worth One Thousand Palestinans

What’s a Jew worth these days?

According to Hamas, a Jew is worth one thousand Palestinians.

Israeli Cabinet ministers debate whether to trade 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for lone soldier

By AMY TEIBEL , Associated Press
Last update: December 21, 2009 – 2:44 PM

JERUSALEM – Negotiations for an Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange entered a crucial stage Monday, with Israeli Cabinet ministers huddling to decide whether to accept Islamic militants’ demand to swap 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for a lone Israeli serviceman.

A decision to pay that lopsided price for 23-year-old Sgt. Gilad Schalit could reshuffle Mideast politics in unpredictable ways and possibly ease a punishing blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu and six Cabinet ministers convened again after nightfall Monday, the latest in a series of sessions over the past two days in a frenzy of activity that suggested a deal could be close. The group was divided, however, with some ministers opposed freeing Palestinians convicted in fatal attacks, arguing they could kill again.

It seemed likely the prime minister would bring the final decision to a vote in his full Cabinet. As the Monday evening meeting began, Netanyahu’s office issued a statement saying, “The prime minister will continue to protect Israel’s security and the lives of its citizens as the most important factor” in a decision over the soldier, a possible hint that he was leaning against approval of the deal.

A Palestinian close to the negotiations said a German mediator carrying a proposal approved by Hamas has set a Wednesday deadline for Israeli action. The Palestinian, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said there would be no further negotiations. […]

That’s not very good for Palestinians, to be worth only one-one thousandth of a Jew.

I mean, it’s not just sub-human, it’s sub sub-human.

I suppose if they are willing to officially acknowledge this, then I should, too.

I also suppose it could forge a new understanding in Israeli-Arab relations: for every single Jew killed, one thousand Arabs should die to balance the scales.

It is beyond a moral crime that Palestinians have so little regard for the value of their own lives that they send their children out to blow themselves up to murder other lives.

Human beings and legitimate governments value the lives of their citizens.  That’s why Israel would even consider this crazy and frankly evil one-sided trade.  And it’s why a loathsome and vile terrorist state would issue such immoral demands recognizing the total lack of value for their own people.

A Time to Ponder: If US Attacked Again, Will We Still Favor Obama’s Dismantling Of Bush Safeguards?

9/11 should be a time for every American to ponder the events of that fateful and horrific day in 2001.

We had just suffered more casualties from a foreign enemy in an act of war than had ever been sustained by America on its own soil in its entire history – including the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Most Americans were angry and demanded action.  Fully 90% supported George Bush as he laid out his plans to respond to the attack.  And that support was still above 70% when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003.  We passed the Patriot Act with wide margins in both branches of Congress in October of 2001.  Only ONE Senator – Russ Feingold – voted against it.

And then, slowly at first, and then precipitously, Americans began to turn against the president they had supported, against the wars they had supported, and against the Patriot Act they had supported.

You can see in collections of quotes from Democrats regarding Iraq and the underlying justifications of the war how Democrats were “for that war before they were against it” as declining American support made undermining the war effort itself more and more politically advantageous.

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

Democrat Jack Murtha denounced as war criminals and murderers Marines who were later proven to have been innocent.  Democrat House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.  Democrats openly attacked Bush’s “surge” strategy that proved to be the difference in turning the war around and providing victory for the United States.  And Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Now I believe myself that this war is lost” even as our military was valiantly fighting on foreign soil to win.  Barack Obama joined Democrats in voting to defund the troops fighting overseas as a means of politically undermining George Bush.  Democrats denounced the credibility of General Petraeus even as liberals ran a New York Times ad entitled, “General Betray Us?”

Today, as we pause to reflect over 9/11, we no longer have a “war on terror.”  Now we have an “overseas contingency operation.”  We no longer want our Central Intelligence Agency to aggressively pursue terrorists and seek out any and all information to help us prevent the next attack.  Now we want to criminalize those operatives who tried to keep us safe as a warning to any future CIA personnel who might be so foolish as to violate liberal morays.  Better to lose a city or two than to waterboard a terrorist.

As I reflect on the hours of that terrible day of 9/11, I remember Palestinians cheering and dancing in the streets and holding up ‘V for Victory’ gestures.  I remember people leaping to their deaths from the top floors of the skyscrapers rather than endure the heat that would have murdered them even more agonizingly.  I remember Democrats and Republicans arm-in-arm singing “God Bless America” on the steps of the Capitol Building – at least until Democrats determined to undermine virtually everything they had previously supported.

On the anniversary of 9/11, I just wonder what will happen if we are attacked again.  How will we respond?  What will we want?  How will we demand our president act?

Will Americans say, “We agree with President Obama.  Let us hasten our dismantling of our intelligence apparatus to show the world our good will.”  Or will there be a dramatic swing back to the strategy envisioned and implemented by former President George Bush, based on aggressively taking the fight to the enemy, remaining in those fights, and winning them?

I hope that Americans soberly reflect how they would respond to the next massive terrorist attack today.  Because virtually every expert agrees that another such attack is surely coming.  And rather than swing wildly and frankly psychotically between extremes, perhaps we might come to a considered and committed path based on the real will of the American people.

Ask yourself this: if we are attacked again, would you want a President Bush, or would you want a President Obama?  Would you want to handled the next massive attack in which thousands, or tens of thousands (or even more) Americans die to be handled as an act of war, or as a law enforcement investigation?  Would you prefer to go to war against any nation that threatens us, or would you prefer to talk and negotiate instead?  Would you prefer a president who fights our enemies, or a president who voted against fighting and who in fact voted for undermining the war effort in order to stop it?

Just what is it you want your commander in chief to do in response to a massive terrorist attack?  What is it you expect your commander in chief to do in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening in the first place?

Let us realize that the next “Iraq” is rushing toward us in the form of a nuclear-weaponized Iran.  Is such a country a threat?  Should we allow them to develop their weapons of mass destruction, or should we use all means – including military power – to stop them?  The media first reports that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been dramatically slowed down, then reports that they can literally make a bomb whenever they want within the space of a couple of weeks’ time.  One thing seems quite sure: Iran is inexorably working toward nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.  What do we want our president to do about it?  Everything?  Nothing?

To the extent that the American people are even capable of genuine self-reflection and wise contemplation of the future, I hope we take this opportunity to do so today.

I also hope that every single American – regardless of political party – takes a moment to thank God for our troops and pray for their safety and for their victory.

Jimmy Carter Addresses Barak Obama’s Convention: How Appropriate

It is ironically appropriate that Jimmy Carter will be one of the first speakers to address the Democratic National Convention. The worst President in recent American history should be present to pass on the baton of naive incompetence to his successor.

A Newsmax article, appropriately titled, “Jimmy Carter’s Trail of Disaster,” underscores just how colossal a failure Jimmy Carter has been in foreign policy for years. But nowhere was that failure more costly or pathetic than his failure on Iran. Christopher Ruddy writes:

The media would have us forget Jimmy Carter’s presidential record.

But I won’t.

Remember Carter’s human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah’s top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.

The Shah’s military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah’s first acts.

By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.

Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. Only President Reagan’s election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages.

The man who will be addressing the Democratic National Convention personally presided over the abandonment of an Iranian government that had been America’s strongest ally in the Middle East under the Shah and actually enabled its transformation into America’s greatest enemy in the Middle East under the Ayatollah.

It’s not all Carter’s and Obama’s fault. Failure, weakness, and appeasement are in their blood as Democrats. Read the INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY piece titled, “97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can’t Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime“, for more on that. Jimmy Carter features prominently in those 97 reasons.

When Jimmy Carter speaks, don’t bother listening to any of his pseudo-humanitarian blather. Think rather of the similarities between the failure Jimmy Carter and the failure-waiting-to-happen Barack Obama.

Think of how Barack Obama has already demonstrated an astonishing failure of naiveté and ignorance when he said that “Iran does not pose a serious threat to us.” And that “If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

Iran is clearly determined to progress into a nuclear-armed state, and could even have the bomb within six months if it pulled out all the stops. With nuclear weapons, Iran would be impervious to attack – even if it masterminded the next 9/11 attack against us. To underestimate either their threat or their evil is the very worst kind of folly.

We have seen Barack Obama issue horrible double-minded statements that reveal both frightening weakness and indecisiveness. Obama said that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel to Jewish groups, and then said to Palestinians that the issue of Jerusalem would be subject to negotiation. Jerusalem is the hottest, most easily-ignitable flash point in the history of the world; you simply DO NOT commit such massive blunders with this piece of real estate. Obama’s indecision and pandering weakness on Jerusalem reveals exactly the sort of man who would ignorantly empower our worst enemies and then indecisively sit on his hands while they made us look like fools, as Carter did with Iran before and after the Ayatollah seized our embassy and held Americans as hostages.

The similarity between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama does not end with naiveté and indecisiveness. It extends into their philosophy.

Both men have exhibited a degree of moral equivalence that prevents them from seeing the difference between the good and the evil.

Jimmy Carter has displayed a shocking inability to see the difference between democratic Israelis trying to protect themselves from terrorism, and nihilist terrorists out to kill as many Jewish women and children as possible:

I don’t consider… I wasn’t equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism. But when the Palestinians commit terrorist acts, and I mean when a person blows himself up within a bus full of civilians, or when the target of the operation is women and children – such acts create a rejection of the Palestinians among those who care about them. It turns the world away from sympathy and support for the Palestinian people. That’s why I said that acts of terrorism like I just described are suicidal for the popularity and support for the Palestinian cause. In my book, I talk about violence from both sides, and I describe very carefully and accurately the number of casualties among Palestinians and Israelis, including children. The number of Palestinian children who died because of the violence is five times greater than the number of Israeli children, and I condemn this kind of violence on both sides.

Carter was forced to apologize for what he claimed were misconstrued statements. But Alan Dershowitz has come to see two Carters – what he calls the “Brandeis Carter” who says the right things in democratic forums, and the “Al Jazeera Carter” who makes shocking statements about the state of Israel.

The very title of Jimmy Carter’s book – Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid – reveals not only an incipient antisemitism, with Israel depicted as an apartheid (and therefore racist and illegitimate) state, but also a shocking degree of moral equivalence.

American Thinker has an article titled, “Obama’s Moral Equivalence Problem,” that discusses this very same tendency on the part of Barack Obama. Obama not only demonstrated this in his initial patronizing statement for both Georgia and Russia to stop fighting (lumping the invaded democracy in the same category as the attacking autocracy), but he then proceeded to go even further by comparing Russia’s actions to the United States’ action in its invasion of Iraq.

If that is not bad enough, Joe Biden – Obama’s pick for running mate – also has a significant history of failure to understand Iran or deal with the threat that this terrorist state presents to the United States.

As Jimmy Carter speaks, and throughout this convention, we should seriously consider the Carter years, and the return to unmitigated disaster the Obama years would bring.

Obama Foreign Policy: The ‘Grave Threat’ Of Naive Pretension

Several years ago, my young nephew believed that he was the most magnificent thing that ever happened.

He was Superman.

His family went from encouraging his self-esteem to trying to take him down a notch.

But for a while, there was no taking him down a notch. His sense of himself was so full that no failure or defeat could reach him. It didn’t matter if you caught him a thousand times, he still genuinely believed that he was faster than you.

That’s kind of where Barack Obama is, methinks.

He says that – unlike George Bush and the other candidates for president, he would pursue unconditional talks with leaders of rogue regimes. As time passed, Obama proceeded to tack on so many stipulations to his “precondition-free” talks that his policy was no different than anyone else’s.

But he still claimed his policy was better.

Obama said that Iran wasn’t a serious threat to the United States, but was forced as the sheer ridiculousness of his position was revealed to acknowledge that it was in fact “a grave threat.”

But he still maintained his position never changed, and he had been right along.

Obama said that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel to Jewish groups, and then said to Palestinians that the issue of Jerusalem would be subject to negotiation.

But he maintained that his position was “no shift in policy.”

Obama opposed the surge strategy in Iraq, arguing it would lead to more sectarian violence and result in more American deaths. In the face of overwhelming evidence that he was wrong – with even al Qaeda acknowledging its defeat – Obama had his campaign scrub his worst criticisms from his website and began to “evolve” his position on Iraq without ever acknowledging that he had changed.

Barack Obama maintains that he “never has doubts about his foreign policy experience.” Never.

That’s why he can ignore the advice of General David Petraeus and other military experts. Just try convincing a pretentious child that you know better than he.

Nope. Obama is still the fastest, strongest, bestest boy in the whole wide world. And nothing – no matter how many times events prove him wrong – can shake that naive childish confidence.

My nephew got through this period, and is a terrific kid to be around. Obama has a very long way to go.

John Edwards – in the face of his caught-red handed act of adultery – said, “In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic.” I would submit that Barack Obama is FAR more egocentric and narcissistic than Edwards at this point.

The pattern continues merrily along: when Russia invaded Georgia, Barack Obama offered a neutral, insipid statement calling for both sides to restrain themselves. John McCain immediately issued a sharply-worded message that condemned the Russian invasion of a democratic government and ally. As the days, the war, and the death and destruction, dragged on, Obama began to issue increasing criticism of Russia (you know, like McCain had immediately done).  McCain appeared prescient; Obama appeared ignorant.

Barack Obama was taken to school in foreign policy yet again. But like a pretentious child, he can’t see it or admit it. Hence his campaign came up with this beauty via a senior adviser:

Obama adviser Susan Rice, appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” Tuesday night, accused McCain of responding irresponsibly. “Barack Obama, the administration and the NATO allies took a measured, reasoned approach,” she said. “We were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip, very aggressive, belligerent statement. He may or may not have complicated the situation.”

In other words, McCain should have taken “the nuanced” and “measured” initial position Obama did and call on Georgia to “restrain” itself as Russian tanks started rolling through its streets.

John McCain “shot from the hip” with a “very aggressive, belligerent statement” that “may (or may not) have complicated the situation”? When McCain’s assessment was right-on target and Obama’s was pathetically weak?

It’s really no different than that little arrogant punk kid who can’t admit he got beat claiming that his opponent somehow cheated.

America needs to take a long, hard look at Barack Obama and conclude that it needs an experienced adult to make good decisions – not a pretentious child who is pathologically incapable of dealing with his limitations and inadequacies.