Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

The Proper Christian Response To The Nalid Malik Husan Terror Attack: Concentrate On The Gospel!

Posted by Job on November 6, 2009

With regards to the crime and tragedy of Nalid Malik Husan’s attack at Ford Hood, Texas, where he shot at least 31 people, killing at least 12 people including women and civilians while screaming Allahu Akbar (and motivated by his desire not to be deployed against Iraq (or Afghanistan) as part of a force invading a fellow Muslim and Arab nation) allow me to propose a proper Christian response.

1. Prayer. We must pray for those wounded. We must pray for the families and loved ones of the wounded and deceased. We must pray for those who witnessed or responded to this horrific event, especially police officers, firefighters, ambulance personnel, nurses and doctors. We must pray for the counselors and therapists, both Christian and non-Christian, who will aid people deal with the physical, mental and emotional aftermath of this carnage. And yes, we must pray for the loved ones of Nalid Malik Husan and – presuming that he survives – Husan himself for his conversion to Christianity. Finally, we must pray that the body of Christ responds in a wise, Biblical manner to this event. We must pray that Christians discipline those who fail to respond in such a manner, and that we reject those who respond in a manner that does not honor Jesus Christ.

2. Evangelism. This is the primary way that the New Testament teaches Christians to deal with the non-Christian world, which is sharing the faith of Jesus Christ. This terror attack may cause an increase in fear, hatred and government action. Or it may cause people’s hearts to be desensitized and grow cold. With either reaction, the appropriate Biblical response is to go out and tell as many people as we can, or more accurately as many people as God leads us to, about the kingdom of heaven. Whether Jew, Gentile, Muslim, atheist, Hindu or a person involved in a false expression of Christianity, we must tell people that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who is God, that He is the only way to heaven, that His sacrifice on the cross is the once and for all payment of sins, and there is salvation in no other. This evangelism should not be event-driven, as some attempt to exploit this event or the fear that comes as a result of it. We should not indulge in the sort of “this is why Christianity is better than Islam” triumphalism, for that is a political and cultural worldview argument engaged in by people whose heart is with this world, not those who consider themselves pilgrims, for whom the world and the evils and hardships thereof are not worthy to be compared to the glory of eternity with Jesus Christ. Also, such a message is more useful to preaching to the false Christian cultural chauvinist choir than winning any converts, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. Instead, this tragedy should serve is a reminder that this is truly a wicked, fallen world that we live in, one ruled by the evil one, the prince of the power of the air who is Satan, and that evil and death and judgment are the fate of the world and the people not redeemed from it through Jesus Christ’s blood. Events like this one, wars, famines, floods, wildfires, earthquakes, oppressive political regimes etc. should all remind us of this fact, they should remind us of the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the Olivet discourse, the parables on the kingdom of heaven, his teachings on last things (New Jerusalem and the lake of fire), and serve as a burning fire shut up in our bones to go forth and obey the commandment of Jesus Christ given in the great commandments, to go and make disciples of all men, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If we go forth and keep this great commission commandment, then God will use us to save whom He will, and we will be as drink offerings poured out before God, and by our evangelism God will be praised, honored and glorified.

3. Resist temptation. For many, the temptation to indulge in an improper and non-Christian response will be very strong. Many quarters will use this as an excuse to fan the flames of hate against Muslims. Others will use it as an attempt to attack Biblical Christianity with its stand that Jesus Christ as the only way to heaven as well. However, for many the primary temptation will be a political and cultural one, the opportunity to assert Christianity’s superiority over Islam because of western culture and politics, because it is a superior worldview. Well, the west will come under the judgment of Jesus Christ along with the rest of the sinful world, and on that day the western cultural and political systems will be judged as part of Babylon and fall with the rest, including but not limited to the Arabic cultural and political systems. Further, even if the western worldview is superior, it is still a WORLDview, making it worldly, not holy, not of God, and not something that will last forever in New Jerusalem, but instead is something that will be consumed with this world when it is destroyed with fire. The western worldview will have no part in the new heaven and the new earth that Christians inherit. Further, incidents like this should remind Christians that true followers of Jesus Christ do not give themselves over to passions of revenge, hate, or reprisal. Christians are not to get involved in those things directly, nor in the indirect channels that the political debate allows us to. Where in the past, reprisal to incidents such as this may have been lynch mobs, the current political context allows us to simply demand a toughening and extension of the Patriot Act, profiling, immigration crackdowns, gun control, invading etc. While those issues may have their merits, the fact is that they have nothing to do with Christianity. Read the New Testament, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ. The church was never promised peace, prosperity or an easy time, but rather only conflict, warfare and persecution at the hands of the world that has rejected Jesus Christ. Christians have often forgotten that message by walking in agreement with the world. So Christians should reject the foolish idea that by taking political actions we can somehow make this country and world safe and better for Christians and the spread of the gospel. Take, for instance, the war on terrorism: it has been a disaster for Christians all throughout the Muslim wolrd, especially in Iraq.

So instead of trying to take revenge (or the offensive) against Muslims through political means, we should remember that Jesus Christ alone is to whom judgment was given, that God alone is the one capable of executing vengeance, and that Jesus Christ alone will conquer and rule the nations with a rod of iron, and that Christians cannot and should not perform judgment, vengeance, or rule in Jesus Christ’s place. (Of course, this does not preclude civil governments from doing what is necessary to punish crimes and defend its citizens from criminals and aggression from other nations, see Romans 13 with regards to that issue, but instead those actions are at best the just and necessary ones and should not be viewed as Christian in any sense.) Our job is not to pretend to be Jesus Christ and to usurp His place, but instead to obey and serve Jesus Christ so that He will act through us as His Body.

So in summary, the Christian response to this event is prayer, evangelism, and resisting temptation. Please realize that this should be the Christian response to all events. Thank you.

Advertisements

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Islam: The Original Actual And ONLY Slave Religion For Black People

Posted by Job on January 27, 2009

The Hidden Black Iraq

They Have Extreme: On MLK Day/Obama Eve, Blacks in Iraq Persecuted Same as Blacks in Entire Muslim World

The second link in particular has this comment:

Hello Debbie and All

Here are just 2 quotes from one of islams important books…

Tabari II:11 “Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks.” Then after being told that “Noah slept with his genitals exposed,” “Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.” 

Tabari II:21 “Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met the children of Shem, the latter would enslave them.” 

I found this at Prophet of Doom by Craig Winn

There are many more such verses

Posted by: INFINITE [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 19, 2009 11:02 AM

Fascinating that so few people speak of this.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 83 Comments »

Newsmax: George W. Bush Betrayed Conservatives

Posted by Job on January 21, 2009

The most interesting thing about the two columns below is the part in the first where it asserts:

The war was justified on the legitimate evidence, first offered by the Clinton administration, that Saddam Hussein was intent on developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Hussein had flouted agreements with the United Nations, and his riddance was a desirable goal. But almost from the beginning, the war was flawed. The American occupiers quickly fired the entire Iraqi military, leaving not only a tremendous vacuum of authority but also turning loose trained military professionals to join terror cells and paramilitary groups who would work to undermine the U.S. efforts.Some Pentagon military advisers suggested the U.S. military force was too light to accomplish the goal of both invading Iraq and stabilizing the country. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld strongly resisted deploying a larger force.

And as casualties mounted in the early part of the war, the administration continued to resist sending additional troops. Only after the 2006 elections did Bush sign off on the surge that added 30,000 troops in the spring of 2007, under the command of Gen. David Petraeus.

The surge helped, as did a more aggressive policy to pay off Iraqi Sunnis who turned against al-Qaida — the so-called “Anbar Awakening.”

Another ingredient: U.S. and Iraqi authorities rounded up tens of thousands of likely dissidents and imprisoned them. The effect of this action may be short lived, as many of these agitators eventually will be released. Still, the likelihood is that such calm will not prevail once American troops are removed and the goal of establishing a stable democracy in an Arab state may still prove elusive.It should be remembered that, sometime after the invasion, the raison d’etre of the war changed from removing Saddam from power and stopping his weapons of mass destruction program to a dreamy plan of creating a democracy in Iraq.

In Bush’s second inauguration speech, he echoed the thoughts expressed in former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky’s book “The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror.” Bush said: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

Such Wilsonian thoughts are laudable, but have long been discarded by conservatives as dangerous and unworkable. Even Sharansky himself had said that Iraq did not have the necessary cultural and political ingredients to create a stable democracy.

In that effort to create a new Iraqi democracy, the Sunni Muslims — more sympathetic to the West — were pushed aside and the Shias ascended to power in Baghdad. The American-backed power shift in Iraq also created a new regional ally for Shia-dominated Iran, a major threat to the region.

After 9/11, as the U.S. considered making Saddam’s regime its prime target of revenge, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly warned the president, “You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people.” He noted that the U.S. would have little room to maneuver in dealing with other global problems.

“It’s going to suck the oxygen out of everything,” Powell added. “This will become the first term.”

It also became the second term. Powell’s stunning assessment was accurate. The U.S. became stuck in an Iraqi mire after its successful 2003 invasion, meanwhile elsewhere its enemies grew in power.

Please recall: one of the justifications for the Iraq War was the link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Sunni Al Qaeda. I do not disagree that such a link existed. Usama bin Laden wanted to use the Saddam Iraqi regime to remove OUR ALLIES the House of Saud from power in Saudi Arabia. That was why bin Laden declared jihad against America after the first Gulf War under the first president Bush. But our response was to put the Shi’ites in power? So when our troops leave Iraq, what keeps Shi’ite Iran from walking right in?

Ultimately, that angle may be overplayed, as Shi’ite Iran has no problem funding and controlling Sunni Hamas in Israel. Saddam Hussein hated Iran, but Saddam was a secularist motivated by nationalism. Saddam didn’t even necessarily get along with other members of the Ba’ath Party in other nations. So remove the nationalist regime out of the picture, and you basically have a region that is willing to unite either along the Muslim religion (whether, Shi’ite, Sunni, or Wahhabi, with the latter technically a form of Sunni that other Sunnis don’t like) or along Arab lines. Now Iran is technically not Arab, but they are Muslim. So with Saddam out of the way, when our troops leave, what keeps Iran from using its “influence” to put a government in favorable to its designs? It need not even use invasions or terror. It can just spread a little cash around to elect favorable Iraq leaders, basically the same way that Hugo Chavez has gotten a ton of sympathetic leaders elected all over Latin America. And again, they need not even necessarily be Sunni or Shi’ite. If Iran coordinates between Shi’ite Hizbullah in Lebanon and Sunni Hamas in Palestine rather than having one fight the other, they will likely do the same in Iraq once American troops leave. Any violence will be based on killing or silencing people opposed to Iran for whatever reason, not on killing Sunnis.

So, the result of removing Saddam based on – (insert ironic remark here) – Bill Clinton’s intelligence data will not be the establishment of a western style democracy that even the fellow whose views George W. Bush promoted as justification for nation building over there (Natan Sharansky) but the re – establishment of the old Medo – Persian Empire which included both Persia (Iran) and Babylon (Iraq). And what implications does THAT have for Israel, Christian Zionists and premillennial dispensationalists?

Bush’s Legacy: Conservatives Were Betrayed

The Bush Legacy Part II: Trillions in Deficits For Years to Come

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

On Israel And The Palestinians: A Tragedy Is Not A Crime

Posted by Job on January 19, 2009

Despite my sympathy for the Palestinians and many disagreements with Israeli policies, I have always maintained that ultimately Israel has not only the right but the responsibility to defend itself when faced with a population that throws rocks at Israeli tanks trying to avoid civilian casualties rather than at the terrorists using them as human shields. One can oppose political and religious Zionism – as do I – and sympathize with the intractable plight of the Palestinians – again as do I – while realizing that Palestinian civilian casualties are inevitable because the Palestinians allow themselves to be used as human shields.

I remember the Los Angeles race riots when brave residents of South Central Los Angeles risked their lives to rescue badly beaten Reginald Denny. Why? Because they had the mindset to do so, and I also recall specifically that one of the people who ran out in the middle of a race riot to rescue Denny was a Christian woman, a longtime and faithful church attendee. Well, the Palestinians lack the mindset required to drive out the murdering cowards that are using pregnant women and babies as human shields. The article below contains things that I do not agree with, but it is an excellent example of what the Israelis are faced with in dealing with actions of the Palestinian population that defy human reason. I am not going to state that the Palestinians practice some form of Islam that promises heaven to human shields, because not all Palestinians are Islamists, or Islamic fundamentalists. As a matter of fact, only a few are, and a real problem is how outside elements (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria) is supporting the portion of the Palestinian population that is Islamist. So then, what motivates the non – Islamist Palestinian majority to allow cowardly murderers to use their mosques, hospitals, schools, and apartment complexes as places to hide and fire rockets?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292897813&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

By the way, things are only going to get worse. Iran is upset that so few Jews died this time around (more Jewish deaths increases the pressure on the Israeli government to capitulate … I am sorry to say that it works just about every time, even when a conservative Israeli government is in power … Binyamin Netanyahu talks a tough game, but he made a series of concessions after a wave of successful terror attacks just like all the rest) so they are planning to send Hamas missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292910127&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Also, Hamas will be able to rearm itself from whatever weapons and infrastructure damage that Operation Cast Lead inflicted in as little as three months.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292908245&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The  Hamas lives lost will take longer to replace, but even Israel acknowledged that the 750 Hamas members killed were only a fraction of the 25,000 members of the Hamas military wing. Incidentally, even that 750 count doesn’t include only actual Hamas murdering cowards; a lot of it included police officers (even the decision to target police officers by Israel’s military was controversial) and also members of Hamas in governmental, administrative, and other non – military posts. So the actual number of people with the desire and training to launch missiles into Israel and perform other acts of murderous mayhem killed … the actual reduction in Hamas’ fighting capacity … is considered to be very small. Thinking that it is 500 or even 400 out of 25,000 would be extremely optimistic. So truthfully, Operation Cast Lead, while completely justified, accomplished absolutely nothing.

All the more reason why we should continue to pray for the return of Jesus Christ, that many be added to the church in the meantime, and that Christians in the Middle East and around the world be comforted in their turmoils and afflictions until the day of perfection, the return of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of those that sleep and those that are alive being changed and caught up, happens. Maranatha!

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Mumbai Attacks: Terrorism Or Warfare?

Posted by Job on December 1, 2008

Now when dealing with the war on terror with respect to the United States, I always try to bring up the inconvenient issue of America’s dealings in the region, starting with our overthrow of the Iranian government because of a dispute over oil profits and continuing onto such issues as our recruitment and training of such people as Usama bin Laden to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, our training, recruiting and arming Saddam Hussein to fight Soviet – aligned Iran, two wars in Iraq, various machinations with Afghanistan to protect a vital oil pipeline that runs through that nation, our military base in Saudi Arabia, and our abject failures in and subsequent withdrawals from Lebanon and Somalia. With that type of record plus our support for Israel, I really cannot blame any Muslim, Arab, or North African for thinking that we are out to get them, or at the very least will not hesitate to pursue our own agenda at their expense. Seriously, what basis do these people have for feeling otherwise? Do not claim that we had the interests of the Iraqi people in mind when we put Saddam Hussein in power and armed him to the teeth for the purposes of starting a proxy war with an Iranian regime that we put in power (because the prior regime wanted to use its own oil profits for economic development!) to fight a horrible war that dragged on for eight years. And as for freeing the Afghanis from Soviet domination: did any of us know or care about how the Afghanis were living BEFORE the Soviets invaded? Nope. It was all about the Soviets, never the Afghanis, which was why we not only had no problem with the Taliban regime that took over Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out, but we actually had dealings with the Taliban. I have no problem with pointing out that a great many of our issues in that region are the direct result of first our Cold War actions, and then our attempts to be “the world superpower/leader/police” afterwards. Seriously, how many Americans honestly care whether or how people in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. live or die so long as we retain our own high and comfortable standard of living? We all know the answer to that question. You can call it liberal anti – Americanism, I call it admitting things like the fact that conservative pro – American types honestly did not care how evil Saddam was or how brutally he was treating his own people until he invaded Kuwait over his desire to increase oil prices. (Again, he wanted an increase in oil prices because his regime was broke because of the war with Iran that we put him in power and armed and funded him to fight. After the Soviet Union collapsed, we had no reason to continue funding Saddam, so he had to look after his own affairs. So, who out there is surprised that a guy that we trained and put in power to start a war reacted to his own economic and political crisis by, well, STARTING A WAR?) It is our prerogative to seek our own interests and use violence in doing so? Well fine, but if you take that belief, then you have no standing for refusing the Muslims/Arabs/North Africans that same prerogative.

However, my “contextualization” does not apply to India. India has in fact strongly allied itself with America, Israel, and China … three nations that are involved in violent struggles against Muslims to one extent or another. (China’s problems with Islamic separatists is a spectacularly underreported story.) Of course, imperalistic Islam has taken notice of this and does not like it. However, India has no history of pursuing economic and military aggression against Muslim states. Quite the contrary, India actually treats its Muslim population comparatively well, allowing them not only religious and economic freedom but to politically organize. While London’s socialist Guardian newspaper predictably claims that India’s terror problems are due to India’s discrimination and oppression of Muslims, especially in Kashmir, the truth is that Muslims get far better treatment in India than non – Muslims can expect in any Muslim country, including moderate pro – western regimes like Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.

This is not to say that India is perfect: after all consider the murderous persecution against Christians in the Orissa region. However, the issue is that the discrimination, marginalization and oppression of Muslims in India is not state – sponsored or supported. Quite the contrary, conservatives such as those who opine for the Wall Street Journal have charged the Indian government with being TOO NICE to its Muslim minority!

It is well known that Muslims in India are but one of many groups all over the world that face discrimination, marginalization and oppression. Yet how many of these put – upon groups respond to their maltreatment with sustained organized acts of violence designed to murder as many innocent defenseless civilians as possible plus to inflict widespread panic, economic collapse, and political instability? Muslims would appear to be unique in this respect. And since as stated earlier the Muslims that attack India can hardly claim themselves to be targeting a regime that has waged economic, diplomatic and military aggression against severely overmatched Muslim and Arab states, then the “self – defense” angle is not nearly plausible as it is with the United States, Britain, and Israel.

So that leads to this conclusion: the bombings in Mumbai are not acts of terror designed to cause the India government to change their policies, as India has no policies that can be construed to be opposing Islam or Arab regimes beyond maintaining financial and diplomatic ties with nations who allegedly do, which incidentally Muslim regimes such as Syria and Iran do the same by having relations with Russia, who is subjugating Islamic Chechnya, and China who has their own aforementioned problems. In other words, there are no anti – Islamic actions on the part of India for any terror acts to change. (Please, do not raise the Kashmir canard, as the Kashmir extremists will settle nothing less for India giving up control of the region, so Muslims and liberal apologists ought to call the Kashmir dispute what it is … Muslims attempting to start a civil war and to grab land that is internationally recognized as belonging to India. In other words, what ultimately happened in Kosovo, except in that instance the Muslims had our help in their land grab scheme!)

No, make no mistake, this is war. The Muslim world is at war with India. It is no less than an imperialistic war of aggression, because as stated before India has done nothing to Muslims either outside of or within its borders to provoke such a war. The Muslim world is trying to exert violent and economic pressure from without and within in order to bring about the collapse of the secular Indian government and replace it with an Islamic one. Of course, when that happens, such a government will go about forcing its Hindu population (as well as its other religions, including but not limited to Christianity) to either convert or leave. (That is assuming that they even allow anyone to leave, as they certainly did not give the Christians in Sudan that option, it was either convert or be killed or made a slave.) So, the Muslim world is waging an imperialistic war with India in order to make it into a Muslim land, just as Islam set about doing shortly after the religion was founded, just as the Koran commands Muslims to do.

Again, I am not convinced by the notion that all of these are internal problems with internal Muslims. First, even though everyone including the Indian government is falling backwards over themselves to implicate first the Kashmir situation and then Pakistan, and that a local obscure group has claimed responsibility, and that Al Qaeda has distanced themselves from the attack, we cannot ignore that this attack has Al Qaeda’s fingerprints all over it. There was the nature of the attack, a spectacular coordinated event. There was also the goal of attacking economic centers to cause financial turmoil (please note Al Qaeda’s recent claims that our current financial problems were caused by 9/11). It fits the methods, goals and ideologies of bin Laden. Also, what evidence is there that the obscure India militant group had the resources and expertise to carry out such an attack?

So, you might ask, why would Al Qaeda deny involvement and allow a local front group to take credit? For P.R. purposes. Al Qaeda’s support is based on the notion that they are defending Muslim victims of aggression. As India does nothing to harm Muslims within its borders or without, for Al Qaeda to target India turns them from freedom fighters to aggressors in the eyes of Muslims and other people in the region. Add that to the huge number of innocent Muslims that Al Qaeda has killed in Iraq, it is something that their image could ill afford right now. But rest assured (according to my theory anyway) let the Indian government take violent action, a military or police crackdown against these murderous criminals, against this army attempting to overthrow its government, and we will very shortly see a tape from Al Qaeda declaring jihad against India for its crimes of aggression against Islam.

And as for the Kashmir situation … that is even more evidence that this is an international Islamic war on India. After all, who denies that Muslims from other countries haven’t been smuggling arms and fighters into the Kashmir region that ultimately filter down into other parts of India for years? Kashmir merely serves as a front, an opening, an excuse just as “Palestine” serves the same purpose to funnel arms and extremists in through the Syrian, Egyptian, Lebanese etc. borders. Kashmir is merely what the Muslim world is using as the entry point, their home base for their war with India, and were India ever to grant “independence” to Kashmir, a) Muslims would then merely claim for themselves other places in northern India and B) Kashmir would be the launchingpad for military and terror campaigns in India. For Muslims do not merely want Kashmir. They do not merely want northern India. They want the whole country.

So, if the Muslim world is attempting to conquer India for Islam, what makes you think that they will stop there? And if they succeed in conquering India, who’s next? That is the first question that must be asked. However, the second and most important question that must be asked: what should the proper Christian response be to Muslim designs for global domination? Christian imperialism in turn? Globalism? The new world order? Mandatory religious pluralism, where all religions are forced to deny that their religion is the only way to salvation? I dare say that none of those are solutions that the New Testament would endorse.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Richard Holbrooke Would Lead Obama Administration Into War With Iran Just Like McCain!

Posted by Job on September 29, 2008

Iran: And the Beat Goes On The beating of war drums, that is

 

In a last-ditch, all-out effort to pave the way for war with Iran,Israel’s lobby in the U.S. has inaugurated a new front group: United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). What, “another” neocon front group – why is this important? With Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s most prominent foreign policy advisor – and a likely Secretary of State or National Security Advisor in the Obama administration – joining neocon nutcase James R. Woolsey in the top leadership of this new group, the signal is clear: UANI represents a bipartisan call for war.

In an op ed piece for what else but the War Street Journal, the four horsemen of the apocalypse – Holbrooke, Woolsey, Dennis Ross, the Israel Lobby’s ace-in-the-hole in the Obama camp (please note: Ross is a former George H. W. Bush official who also served in the same capacity under Bill Clinton and trained Condi Rice), and Mark D. Wallace, formerly U.S. representative to the U.N. for management and reform – mirror the joint statement of Obama and McCain on the economic crisis. This is “not a partisan matter” – the War Party is the only party that really matters. “We may have different political allegiances and worldviews, ” they aver,

“Yet we share a common concern – Iran’s drive to be a nuclear state. We believe that Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons is one of the most urgent issues facing America today, because even the most conservative estimates tell us that they could have nuclear weapons soon.

“A nuclear-armed Iran would likely destabilize an already dangerous region that includes Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, and pose a direct threat to America’s national security,” etc., etc., etc…

I suppose it’s just a coincidence that the list of threatened countries starts with Israel and ends with the United States, but I wonder…

Leaving the realm of speculation, and entering the region of hard facts: our own National Intelligence Estimate on Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons program shows that the Iranians had a weapons program that they abandoned: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” While keeping the option open, the Iranian regime has not restarted its nuclear program, according to our spooks, and probably could not iron out all the technical problems and hoarding of nuclear materials until at least 2015 – and even then there is no evidence Tehran has any such intention.

The NIE was issued last year around this time, and afterward Robert Gates spoke to the New York Times Magazine:

“One afternoon in late November, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was flying back to Washington from the Army base at Fort Hood, Tex., where he had spoken with soldiers and spouses about the future of Iraq. Sitting across from him at his desk in the back of the Pentagon’s jet, I asked him about the possibility of another military conflict: U.S. air strikes on Iran. ‘The last thing the Middle East needs now is another war,’ he said quietly. ‘We have to keep all options on the table,’ he went on, reciting the standard caveat. ‘But if Iraq has shown us anything, it’s the unpredictability of war. Once a conflict starts, the statesmen lose control.'”

This was supposed to signal that the much-anticipated U.S. strike on Iran – the imminence of which was predicted with near certainty by a number of commentators, including this one – has been successfully aborted. There was a collective and well-nigh audible sigh of relief, from Tehran to Terre Haute, but some of us were not convinced by this display of official caution. After all, the statesmen have lost control before….

If the NIE was supposed to blast the neocon war campaign out of the water, then its authors did not take into account the persistence – indeed, fanaticism – of the United for War With Iran crowd. The sheer relentlessness of the effort suggests its essential character as a lobbying campaign on behalf of a special interest – in this case, a very special interest. Corporate and professional lobbyists are notably impervious to facts, and tend to cherry-pick according to the interests of their clients, and foreign lobbyists certainly fall into this category. Yet the latter have a certain edge to them, lacking in the others – and Israel’s lobby has the sharpest edge of all.

No one even pretends anymore that the Israel lobby isn’t behind the effort to drag us into another Middle Eastern war. You don’t have to be me, or Mearsheimer and Walt, to make this case: you have only to listen to the public pronouncements of Israel’s leaders, who areopenly demanding that either we strike, or else they will – perhaps, as has been suggested by Benny Morris, with nuclear weapons.

In the U.S., AIPAC, the scandal-rocked central command of Israel’s amen corner, has come out of the shadows, where they remainedduring the run-up to the Iraq war, and taken the lead in calling for harsh sanctions and a military blockade of Iranian ports. Now we have this bipartisan ad hoc committee taking out full page newspaper ads and speaking in the implied names of both major party presidential candidates.

I had to laugh when I read, in the Journal op ed piece, that “Tehran’s development of a nuclear bomb could serve as the ‘starter’s gun’ in a new and potentially deadly arms race in the most volatile region of the world. Many believe that Iran’s neighbors would feel forced to pursue the bomb if it goes nuclear.” Methinks the starter gun went off long off – sometime in the early 1960s, Israel having earlier procured the technology to make the Bomb from the French.

“Iran,” say the four horsemen, “is a deadly and irresponsible world actor, employing terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas to undermine existing regimes and to foment conflict. Emboldened by the bomb, Iran will become more inclined to sponsor terror, threaten our allies, and support the most deadly elements of the Iraqi insurgency.” One has only to insert “Israel” where Iran sits in those sentences, and the pot-kettle-black aspect of this whole issue is underscored, as is the ridiculous double standard. After all, Israel has surely been emboldened by its possession of nukes, lo these many years, and acted in a manner that could reasonably called irresponsible – and even deadly, now that you mention it. Yet Israel is not only given a pass, but the defining factor of the Middle Eastern strategic environment – Israel’s nuclear arsenal – goes unmentioned by these worthies.

They are full of laughable pronouncements imbued with the solemnity that usually accompanies the argument from authority:

“The world rightfully doubts Tehran’s assertion that it needs nuclear energy and is enriching nuclear materials for strictly peaceful purposes. Iran has vast supplies of inexpensive oil and natural gas, and its construction of nuclear reactors and attempts to perfect the nuclear fuel cycle are exceedingly costly. There is no legitimate economic reason for Iran to pursue nuclear energy.”

Aside from the propriety of assuming to speak for “the world,” one has to ask where the war propagandists have been hiding out lately: haven’t they read about those gas lines in Iran? Sanctions and official corruption have contributed to the country’s shortage, while rationing ensured it would continue. Indeed, the more tireless Iran-ophobes were at one point speculating that the resulting riots might well spell the end for the mullahs.

And I’m surprised they raised the following accusation, considering the context in which it is hurled:

“By continuing to act in open defiance of its treaty obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran rejects the inspections mandated by the IAEA and flouts multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and sanctions.”

Iran is fully within its rights, under the terms of the treaty, to develop a nuclear energy program, which is what they say they are doing – and, as those gas lines attest, they have a real need for it. At any rate, at least Iran has signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, unlike a certain country whose interests seem to be at the heart of the signers’ argument:

At the same time, Iranian leaders declare that Israel is illegitimate and should not exist. President Ahmadinejad specifically calls for Israel to be ‘wiped off from the map,’ while seeking the weapons to do so. Such behavior casts Iran as an international outlier. No one can reasonably suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran will suddenly honor international treaty obligations, acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, or cease efforts to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process.”

That old canard about wiping Israel off the map has been debunked so many times as a mis-translation of what Ahmadinejad really said – which was something more akin to predicting that Israel would be washed away by the tides of history and demography – yet it keeps bouncing right back. Just like all the other lies spread far and wide by the War Party’s propagandists. Remember that one aboutMohammed Atta meeting a top Iraqi intelligence official at the Prague airport? That one didn’t die until well after the invasion. I wonder how many people still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks? A lie, repeated relentlessly, becomes enmeshed in the public consciousness, and rooting it out is a major operation, with a problematic success rate.

That’s what we do, here at Antiwar.com – root out the lies, and set the record straight. We did it in the run-up to the last war, and we’redoing the same thing when it comes to the Iranian issue. The chances that we’ll succeed, this time, in stopping the rush to war are better now, perhaps, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. The forces pushing for war, led by the Israel lobby, are marshalling their supporters for a final push. Even if they don’t pull it off before the election, the Holbrooke-Woolsey Pact will go down in history as the turning point, politically, the crucial juncture when the American elite made the decision to go to war because the Lobby demanded it.

Our political elites speak in unison: accept the bailout, pay trillions to the plutocrats – accept the coming war with Iran – and pay with the lives of your children. Our leaders, their system in crisis, have closed ranks around the slogan of Big Government at home, and progressively bigger wars abroad. If it were one crisis, or the other, Americans might remain impassive. In this case, however, with the economy imploding and the threat of war looming simultaneously, the Washington crowd that thought it could ride out the turbulence is finding it’s a bit more of a bumpy ride than they or anyone else imagined. The people are awakening, but there is a danger in this: without leaders of their own, their rebellion is bound to be inchoate, undirected, and perhaps even violent. As Garet Garrett put it, anticipating this moment some sixty odd years ago:

“No doubt the people know they can have their Republic back if they want it enough to fight for it and to pay the price. The only point is that no leader has yet appeared with the courage to make them choose.”

~ Justin Raimondo

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

How The Russia – Georgia War Changes The World Political Order

Posted by Job on August 22, 2008

What Israel Lost in the Georgia War

“It is important that the entire world understands that what is happening in Georgia now will affect the entire world order,” Georgian Cabinet Minister Temur Yakobashvili said last weekend. “It’s not just Georgia’s business, but the entire world’s business.” Such sentiments would have been unremarkable but for the fact that Yakobashvili was expressing himself in fluent Hebrew, telling Israeli Army Radio that “Israel should be proud of its military, which trained Georgian soldiers.”

However, the impression that Israel had helped bolster the Georgian military was one the Israeli Foreign Ministry was anxious to avoid. Last Saturday it reportedly recommended a freeze on the further supply of equipment and expertise to Georgia by Israeli defense contractors. (Israel doesn’t supply foreign militaries directly, but its private contractors must get Defense Ministry approval for such deals.) The Israelis decided to refrain from authorizing new defense contracts, although those currently in effect will be fulfilled. Israel stressed that the contracts are to provide equipment for defensive purposes. But if the Israelis were looking to downplay the significance of military ties, they weren’t helped by comments like Yakobashvili’s — or by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s enthusing at a press conference earlier this week that “the Israeli weapons have been very effective.”

Nor did the Russians fail to notice. “Israel armed the Georgian army,” grumbled General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of staff of the Russian military, at a press conference in Moscow earlier this week. An Israeli paper had, last weekend, quoted an unnamed official warning that Israel needed “to be very careful and sensitive these days. The Russians are selling many arms to Iran and Syria, and there is no need to offer them an excuse to sell even more advanced weapons.” As if on cue, on Wednesday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad arrived in Moscow hoping to persuade Russia to sell him sophisticated air-defense systems — and reportedly offering the Russian navy the use of one of its Mediterranean ports. Late on Wednesday, the Israeli Foreign Ministry announced that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev had spoken on the phone to clear the air over the Georgia conflict and Russian arms sales to Syria.

The extent of involvement in Georgia by Israeli defense contractors may be overstated, and most of the equipment used by the Georgian military comes from the U.S. and other suppliers. Still, Israeli companies had been sufficiently involved in supplying specialized equipment and advanced tactical training to the Georgian military that the connection — and Russia’s perception of it — created a ripple of anxiety in Israeli government circles. Israeli officials say that, in anticipation of a showdown between Georgia and Russia, Israel began to scale back the involvement of Israeli companies in Georgia as early as the end of 2007. Georgia’s Yakobashvili charged this week that Israel, “at Russia’s behest,” had downgraded military ties with Georgia, a decision he branded a “disgrace.”

Israel’s weapons sales, just like Russia’s, are driven by the commercial interests of domestic arms industries. Israeli military exports to Georgia are driven more by the logic of business than by a strategic choice to back Tbilisi against Moscow — indeed, the Israeli response since the outbreak of hostilities is a reminder that, on balance, even a relatively cool friendship with Russia may be more important to Israel than a close alliance with tiny Georgia. Despite Israel’s pecuniary imperative, Georgia has used these commercial military ties to press closer ties on Israel.

President Saakashvili has noted that both his minister responsible for negotiations over South Ossetia (Yakobashvili) and his Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili, had lived in Israel before moving to post-Soviet Georgia. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, the Georgian leader this week enthused that in Tbilisi, “both war and peace are in the hands of Israeli Jews.” Working through the Georgian Defense Ministry (and with the approval of its Israeli counterpart), Israeli companies are reported to have supplied the Georgians with pilotless drones, night-vision equipment, anti-aircraft equipment, shells, rockets and various electronic systems. Even more important than equipment may have been the advanced tactical training and consultancy provided, as private contractors, by retired top Israeli generals such as Yisrael Ziv and Gal Hirsch, the man who commanded Israeli ground forces during their disastrous foray into Lebanon in 2006. (Never one to resist an opportunity to mock his enemies, Hizballah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah quipped in a speech this week, “Gal Hirsch, who was defeated in Lebanon, went to Georgia, and they too lost because of him.”) Not necessarily: Russia applied overwhelming force against the tiny Georgian military, which, according to Israeli assessments, still managed to punch above its weight.

The Russians were piqued by Israel’s military trade with Georgia even before the latest outbreak of hostilities — Moscow expressed its annoyance over the pilotless drones supplied by an Israeli company to the Georgians, three of which were downed by Russian aircraft over South Ossetia in recent months. Obviously mindful of the need to avoid provoking Russia, Israel declared off-limits certain weapons systems the Georgians had asked for, such as Merkava tanks and advanced anti-aircraft systems. “We have turned down many requests involving arms sales to Georgia, and the ones that have been approved have been duly scrutinized,” a Defense Ministry official told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahoronot amid concerns raised over a possible fallout from the Israeli ties to the Georgian military. The extent of damage to the Israeli-Russia relationship — if indeed there is any — remains to be seen. Despite General Nogovitsyn’s comments, Israeli officials say they have received no formal complaints from Russia over ties with Georgia.

Israel’s strategic priority now is countering the threat it sees in Iran’s nuclear program, and on that front, Russian cooperation is essential. If the Israelis are to achieve their objective of forcing Iran to end uranium enrichment through diplomatic coercion, they will need Russian support for escalating U.N. sanctions — a course of action for which Russia has thus far shown little enthusiasm. And if Israel were to opt for trying to destroy Tehran’s nuclear facilities through a series of air strikes, then the presence of the sophisticated Russian S-300 missile system in Iran would considerably raise the risk to Israeli pilots. Unfortunately for Israel, however, there may be little it can do to shape Moscow’s Iran policy for the simple reason that Israel is not a major factor in Russia’s strategic outlook. Moscow’s actions on Iran are less likely to be determined by Israel supplying a few drones to Georgia than they are to be shaped, for example, by the deployment over extreme Russian objections of U.S. interceptor missiles on Polish soil.

With reporting by Aaron J. Klein / Jerusalem

Posted in Christianity, Russia | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Iran And Russia Sign Major Oil Deal

Posted by Job on July 15, 2008

Even so, come Lord Jesus Christ. 

Link from Worthy News.  Link from Jerusalem Post

Iran and Russia sign major oil deal
Jul. 14, 2008  The Media Line News Agency , THE JERUSALEM POST

A few days after French oil giant Total withdrew from its planned multi-billion dollar gas investment project in Iran, Russia’s Gazprom is entering the market in a multi-billion-dollar deal.

Gazprom’s Chief Executive Alexei Miller met on Sunday with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and went on to sign an agreement for developing Iranian oil and gas fields.

Iran, according to the agreement, has offered Gazprom an extended package for the development of oil and gas fields; construction of refineries; transfer of oil from the Caspian Sea to the Sea of Oman; development of Iran’s North Azadegan oil field; exchange of technology and experience; and the possible participation of Gazprom in the planned pipeline between Iran, India and Pakistan.

Azadegan is Iran’s biggest onshore oil field with an estimated 42 billion barrels of crude oil. Iranian firms began working on the field in February after the Japanese partner, Inpex, quit the project. (Thought Japan and France were our allies against Iran?)

The accord also includes the future formation of a joint company between the two countries, for cooperation in oil and gas.

Official reports from both countries have not yet revealed if the South Pars gas field will also be part of the deal. Last week, France’s Total decided to freeze its investments in South Pars, following Iran’s test-fire of long-range missiles. (When the heat got too much for the French. They will start it back up when the heat dies down.)

“After Total’s announcement that because of political risk they do not want to commit themselves to the South Pars multi-billion-dollar project, it was natural that Iran would continue and expedite its current negotiations to use other companies,” Manouchehr Takin of the UK-based Center for Global Energy Studies, told The Media Line.

The South Pars field in the Gulf has around 500 trillion cubic feet of gas, which accounts for about eight percent of the world’s gas reserves.

Takin was however skeptical regarding whether or not it was the American pressure on European companies that made Total withdraw from the project.

“I think it is more within Total’s shareholders and board of directors, who have looked at every aspect, and decided not to take too much political risk in their portfolio,” he said.

“However, I do agree that one cannot help but think of the pressure from the US Department of Treasury, who had been directly talking to managements of banks and big companies, twisting their arms not to get involved with Iran,” Takin added.

The Media Line News Agency

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Oil Prices Being Used As Excuse To Impose Global Economic Regulation

Posted by Job on June 21, 2008

Saudi summit aims at oil prices

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Saudi Arabia this weekend will convene a special summit on oil prices that could lead to cheaper crude on the world market. But a Saudi decision to produce more crude likely won’t come without a demand: The Kingdom is expected to press the U.S. government to impose greater controls on oil trading and take steps to strengthen the dollar.

The world’s largest oil producer, stepping out of its usual role as de facto leader of OPEC, will host representatives of big oil producing nations, consumer countries and companies. The Saudis are widely believed to be concerned that escalating oil prices – crude hovered around $134 a barrel Thursday, nearly double what it cost a year ago – will cause a permanent drop in demand as consumers get more efficient or, worse, the global economy slows.

One sign of the Saudi anxiety: The country’s oil production decisions, usually left to its oil minister, appear to have been put back in the hands the Royal Family, according to Antoine Halff, deputy head of research at brokerage firm Newedge.

Fuzzy numbers

As a group, OPEC has been reluctant to raise production. Several states, enjoying the record prices, maintain there is no shortage of crude. It’s a line the Saudis also touted – until recently. Saudi Arabia now says it will pump more. The Kingdom, during a recent visit by President Bush, pledged to increase production by 300,000. Last week, they said they would boost it by another 200,000 barrels. Those numbers are not set in stone, and Sunday’s meeting may produce more details on the planned increases.

The Saudis will also seek to convince refineries and others to keep buying. Recently, refiners worldwide have cut back in light of record prices. But that has only led to a drop in crude inventories – further pushing up the price of oil. (Almost as if it was PLANNED.) To inject more oil into the market, Halff said the Saudis may use the meeting to arrange for special deals with refiners and others that could bring crude to market at below-market prices. The exact nature of the deals, he noted, will probably never be disclosed. At the very least, traders will be watching the Sunday meeting to see if those announced production increases fall closer to the 500,000 or 800,000 barrel a day mark.

Sunday showdown

The meeting holds high stakes for both Saudi Arabia and the United States. If prices don’t respond, the country’s credibility will suffer, and with it any notion that someone has control over these record oil prices. “Riyadh is seen as running out of options to regain control of the market,” said Halff. “Failure to do so, it is assumed, could cause prices to leap even higher.”

The Saudis will also expect something from consumer nations in return. The Kingdom has long held that oil markets are well supplied, and that speculative investing is the real culprit behind high prices. (What happened to the booming economies in China and India? By the way … most electricity in China is generated by coal.) To that end, the Saudis will likely seek more oversight of oil markets, and perhaps even limits on the amount of contracts speculators can hold. (This will lead to increased government regulation of mutual funds, major banks, stock and commodities trading, etc. and furthermore it will have to be regulation by unelected international nongovernmental bodies accountable to no one, instead of by the leaders of sovereign states or even of corporations. I can imagine some United Nations “oil trading oversight board” or similar. More on that later.

That’s something consuming counties may give them. Several proposals along those lines have bipartisan support in Congress. (More evidence still that both parties are working for the anti-Christ.) More difficult to deliver, and probably more important to the Saudis, is a stronger dollar. (No it isn’t. Going back to the gold standard would fix all of these problems, and also force our nation to go back to sound economic – and foreign/military – policy because we would no longer have the illusion of unlimited financial resources, pretending that, for instance, grotesque sums of money like 100 trillion dollars have any basis for existing in reality. Of course, that is precisely why it will never happen.)

Like the currencies of many countries in the Middle East, the Saudi riyal is pegged to the U.S. dollar – it rises and falls with the greenback. (Which makes me think that these guys are in on it too. Which basically is why no major political group, either in America or outside of it, has ever taken a line against the Saudi royal family despite their being extremely wealthy, powerful, corrupt, and a major exporter of terror. As a matter of fact, the only two that I can think of that has ever opposed the Saudis were Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden. Not only is the former dead, but he is also dead on account of what the latter did. It begs the question: what does the Saudi royal family have to gain from a global anti – Christ economic system? By the way, as the current version of events go, the reason for the FIRST Gulf War was that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in order to institute a puppet regime. Why? To get more votes on OPEC. Saddam wanted to reduce production to increase prices, Saudi Arabia wanted to keep production high and prices low – the position of the George H. W. Bush family which has extensive financial and political ties and interests with the Saudi regime. And why did Saddam want the price of oil to go up? Because the Iran – Iraq War left his regime bankrupt, and he feared domestic political instability because of it. And who put Saddam in power to wage war against Iran, and supplied him with arms and money only to cut off the aid when the Berlin wall fell and Iran’s backer the Soviet Union fell apart? The United States.)

But while lower interest rates – and hence a lower dollar – may be what the U.S. economy needs to snap out of its slump, they have been disastrous for the red-hot Saudi economy. Inflation in Saudi Arabia has doubled in the last year and is projected to surge even higher. (This is the first article of the many that I have read in years on the weak dollar that claims that the weak dollar was in any way a good thing for the United States economy.) “I think [Saudi Arabia] wants something from the West, particularly the U.S. … a stronger monetary policy,” Nauman Barakat, an energy trader at Macquarie Futures, wrote in a research note. (No, what America is getting from the Saudis is political and economic cover to consent for international economic regulation.)

That will be hard to get. The Federal Reserve is unlikely to raise interest rates anytime soon. And any other move by the U.S. government is likely to have little effect on the free-trading dollar. More info (This is the “more information later” section. What if the Saudis and other oil producing countries state that we need international economic regulation to guarantee stability in the currency markets … that there is never a “weak dollar” or “strong euro” because of the effect that it would have on OPEC’s oil output? Pretty soon, they would also link this monetary exchange oversight to debt relief for third world countries and the economic reform in these countries required to lift them out of poverty and attract foreign investment from – of course – globalist corporations. And since the motivating force is to control oil prices, how long would the idea develop that in order to really have an effect on oil prices, the world needs to agree to cut down on oil consumption? And that easily ties into – you guessed it – global warming regulation!

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Iran Steps Up Arrests Of Suspected Converts To Christianity

Posted by Job on June 1, 2008

Original link: Report: Iran Arrests Suspected Converts to Christianity

Amid a growing crackdown on religious freedom, Iranian police reportedly have been rounding up people they suspect have converted to Christianity. On May 11, police arrested eight people in the southern city of Shiraz, according to Carl Moeller, president of Open Doors USA, a Christian organization that fights religious persecution.

Converting from Islam is a crime in Iran; converts can face jail and other penalties. Most of those detained have been released, but at least one of them, 21-year-old Mojtaba Hussein, is still behind bars and is not cooperating with his captors, according to Moeller.

“He may not be willing to give up the names of other Muslim converts. He may not be willing to recant his faith himself,” Moeller said. Numerous calls to Iranian government representatives in the U.S. have not been returned. Though they are protected under the Iranian constitution, Christians are not given the same freedoms as other citizens in Iran. Christians can’t worship freely or hold public office, and they can be arrested for even speaking to Muslims about Christianity.

“Such people are persecuted, and particularly in the 1990s such converts were killed — it’s thought by government agents,” said Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. Under the watchful eye of the Iranian government, many have been forced to worship in secret and are moving underground into what are called house churches —although some sects, such as Armenians and Syrians, have been allowed to worship in churches.

“With [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad as president, the Iranians are intensifying the religious dimension of their rule,” Marshall said. “The concern about the religious purity of the regime has become stronger in the last two or three years.” Earlier this year, Ahmadinejad proposed a law that would impose a death sentence for any Muslim who converts to another religion. Under current laws, those charged with converting can be prosecuted and face jail time for vague crimes like “blasphemy” and “insulting Islam.”

Marshall said these restrictive policies may be creating a backlash among Muslims. “There are indications that with the deep unpopularity of the regime that people are turning away from Islam,” he said. “Seeing Muslims converting to Christianity is directly threatening to an Islamic regime,” said Moeller.

He compared these small groups of converts to early Christians living under the yoke of the Roman Empire, who met in secret and whose beliefs were “dependent on dreams, visions, signs and wonders.” Because Bibles are rare in Iran and teachings are not “as dependent on the Bible as Evangelical Christianity in America is,” said Moeller, there is a “real lack of scriptural foundation.”

But despite the growing pressure from the state, worshippers continue to practice, and Moeller said the house church system seems to be growing. “We’ve got confirmed reports of groups of Muslim convert believers doubling in size in the last six months,” he said.

Posted in Bible, Christianity, evangelism, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Pope Benedict XVI Plus George Bush Plus Battle Hymn Of The Republic Plus Five Supreme Court Justices Equals FASCISM!

Posted by Job on April 17, 2008

Click Here To Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan!

Now I was going to ignore Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to America. I believe in religious freedom and tolerance, and see nothing to be gained by unnecessarily provoking people concerning their deeply held beliefs. I opposed the re – publication of the Muhammad cartoons for the same reason. Not only does such behavior fail to advance the cause of Jesus Christ, but it actually impedes the spread of the gospel by producing a public witness of Christians as being fearful, dishonest, aggressive, and lacking in compassion, mercy, and respect. The best example of this is the revolting racist Ann Coulter, who uses the legitimate truth that Jesus Christ is superior as an excuse to vehemently trash (OVERWHELMINGLY NONWHITE!) Muslims while extending politically expedient pluralistic salvation to (OVERWHELMINGLY WHITE!) Jews and Mormons. So despite the incontrovertible error of the Roman Catholic Church, I was going to remain silent out of respect to members of that false religion, as many of them are good people, and I pray that they are brought out of their error into Biblical Christianity just as I was brought out of works – based prosperity/Word of Faith Pentecostal Holiness. 

And then this happens. To the absolute glee of the religious right and warmongers everywhere (and regrettably to those deceived by them, for example the grieving father of a serviceman killed in Iraq that called into the Hugh Hewitt radio show last night – and yes Hewitt both continued his campaign to define religious faith in political/cultural terms and insist that Mormonism was a branch of Christianity based on it), George W. Bush plays “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” for the pontiff (whom Catholics call “the Shepherd”, not “a shepherd, which all pastors are, BUT THE SINGULAR ONE SHEPHERD). Listen, “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” IS NOT our national anthem. Now our national anthem is militaristic as well, but at least there would have been a REASON for playing it … it is our national anthem and therefore an entirely appropriate accompaniment to state ceremonies. Therefore, playing it would not have sent any religious and political messages (quite the contrary, one would be more likely to send a message by NOT playing it). But as for “Battle Hymn Of The Republic“, there is no ceremonial, traditional, etc. REASON to play that song unless you are trying to send a message, and with Bush the message was none other than the Iraq War and our national policy of warfare in general.

You would reply “So? Who did not know that George W. Bush and for that matter the Bush family is anything other than a bunch of warmongering globalists?” Well, THE POPE is what makes it an issue here. Now due to the nature of his position, the pope is SUPPOSED to be OFFICIALLY anti – war. But realize that state visits involving highly influential dignitaries are extremely sensitive matters with every detail agreed to and choreographed in advance in order to remove even the appearance of an insult by both the parties involved and the populations that they represent. And yes, a gigantic percentage of the national and global Roman Catholic Church, from laity to high ranking church officials, deeply oppose the Iraq War and what it represents: a major and global escalation of warfare and related tactics either directly (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) or by proxy (i.e. encouraging Ethiopia to invade Somalia). So the playing of this song – which would have been extraordinary even absent this context – would have not occurred without prior personal approval from Pope Benedict XVI himself. And Pope Benedict XVI would NEVER have given said approval unless he supported our military policy on some level, even if that support was not full or official.

Keep in mind: the pope is not under any obligation to make a public ceremony of meeting the president when visiting this country, and he certainly is not beholden to being subjected to conduct that he and his members find offensive and disagreeable while there. So had this not been acceptable to the pope, Bush would have asked to play the song, the pope would have said no, and that would have been it. Had Bush insisted, the pope would have simply refused to meet Bush in a public ceremony (or at all). Under those circumstances, NO ONE would have asked why the pope refused to meet with Bush, for the pope meets with virtually everybody. Instead, it would have been asked why Bush failed to receive the pope. And under those circumstances, an appropriate low level Vatican functionary would have been assigned the duty of “leaking” Bush’s completely unreasonable, inappropriate, and quite frankly INSANE demands to play A WAR SONG IN SUPPORT OF A WAR THAT THE VATICAN’S LONG AND WELL KNOWN POSITION IS TO OPPOSE during the visit to the (already hostile) foreign press, with the result being an international public relations firestorm. In short, on a matter such as this, the pope has all the leverage. He would not have exercised said leverage to consent to this highly unusual request – and in the process crossed the substantial portion of his church (possibly even a clear majority!) that oppose this war – had he not supported the politics, policy, and propaganda behind it on some level. Evidence of this is the absolute glee of the pro – war crowd. 

And then after the Bush reception of the pope (which incidentally was not only unprecedented, but would have been IMPOSSIBLE before Billy Graham’s evangelical – Roman Catholic ecumenism, IMPOSSIBLE before Ronald Reagan created white Roman Catholic and evangelical political ecumenism, and IMPOSSIBLE before Reagan established official diplomatic relations with the Vatican including the Roman Catholic Church’s own ambassador who must be appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative one … someone PLEASE explain to me how this DOES NOT VIOLATE the First Amendment’s ban on the government’s favoring any one religious view over another) there was a reception that included Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts at minimum. Robert Kennedy may have been there too, but Kathryn Jean Lopez, the token minority at the National Review, does not include him as a “favorite” of hers. This woman, who has lately taken to blatantly cheerleading for our nation’s institutions and culture to increasingly reflect – and be governed by – Roman Catholicism, actually claimed that the event “was a terrific celebration at the White House of the pontiff, religious freedom, and  Catholicism“! And here is another entry from this loathsome enemy of Jesus Christ where she manages to A) claim that this nation is prosperous, virtuous, and free because it was founded on Roman Catholic principles (a notion which no doubt will soon be reflected in the religious right’s approved history books an curriculum), B) insult Protestants by comparing it to Mitt Romney’s “accept Mormons as Christians evangelicals just as Roman Catholics accepted you or be declared a bigot and the enemy” speech, and C) make a gratuitous “joking” slam against Protestants just for the fun of it. (This woman is still fuming over the evangelical refusal to bow to the notion that not being in the Roman Catholic Church places them on equal footing with Mormons, oneness pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, or any other crackpot cult group that wants to lay claim to Jesus Christ.)

Now Christians, I know a lot of you view Islam as a global threat to our faith, freedom, prosperity, culture, and way of life, believe that this threat should be met militarily, and for that reason support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror in general in some form. I respect those views in the hearts of sincere and well – informed Christians that hold them; I just happen to disagree with them. Still, such Christians have to start investigating the history of the Bush family, their national and international political/business/social associations and activities, and also those of the globalist societies that they are members of or consort with (which now, let us face it, incontrovertibly includes the Roman Catholic Church … this may be gratuitous, but let me remind you that the meeting of Bush and Benedict was literally one between a member of the family that made a lot of money off the Nazi regime and a former member of the regime itself … Benedict was literally a Hitler youth).

Also, study the political, military, and FINANCIAL decisions made in pursuit of this war. It bears no resemblance to actually capturing and punishing the people that have been attacking us and our interests since the early 1990s (in response, let me remind you, to our long term threats, provocations, and military actions against THEM), neutralizing any future threats, or containing whatever threat to the west and its allies that Islam allegedly poses. I will say this: the full scale invasion of foreign nations strategy of Islam has been effectively abandoned ever since their defeat by Charles Martel at Tours. The reason is THEOLOGICAL: the Muslims sincerely believed that their moon god was fighting for them at the time, was responsible for all of their victories, and that global military conquest followed by their version of the endtimes was at hand. So, when they were defeated in such a decisive manner, that forced a change in their theological outlook. Thus, despite the presence of 1 billion Muslims in the world, no one can name the last time that there has been a full scale invasion and subjugation of a non – Muslim country. (By contrast, Muslim areas have been invaded and/or controlled by the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, India, etc. in just the past 50 – 75 years!) Why is this the case?

Again, refer to the fact that THERE ARE NOW ONE BILLION MUSLIMS. Immigration, evangelism, and reproduction has proven to be a much more effective method of spreading their faith than the sword, and if anything going off and launching an invasion of any western nation (which would be technologically superior AND have the backing of other western allies) would not only be suicide, but it would lead to crackdowns of the very same liberal immigration policies that have allowed millions of Muslims to enter (and spread their faith to) western nations over the past few decades. As such, the Bosnia – Serbia – Kosovo mess is a perfect illustration of the current Islam strategy. And who did the United States back? Why the very Muslims that brazenly stole a large chunk of a Christian nation for themselves. 

Which proves that the entire war on terror AND the basis for it is a sham. Were it real, we would have done two things.

1) We would have gone after specific groups with a history of violence against us and our allies AND the nations that supply them with money, weapons, and hiding places. America has done the opposite by not only maintaining diplomatic relations with known terror sponsors like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority (which is actually the closeted homosexual Yasser Arafat’s PLO, people!) to speak nothing of our “special relationship” with Pakistan (which we had with Iraq not too ago!), but we are increasing the pressure on Israel to negotiate with Hamas (just as we forced them to negotiate with the PLO, and see where THAT got Israel … less land, more intifadas, rocket attacks, a collapsing economy, and a deteriorating internal political situation). Excuse me, but what are we supposed to gain by declaring the domestic army of a sovereign nation (Iran’s Revolutionary Guard) to be a “terrorist group”? Even better: what justifies this action? The ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE that they are helping folks that share their religion FIGHT THE SUPERPOWER THAT INVADED THE NATION NEXT DOOR? Sure, like if the Soviet Union had invaded Canada and Mexico during the Cold War we would have just sat around twiddling our thumbs waiting to be next. We were willing to go to start a nuclear war over the Soviet Union putting missiles in Cuba, but Iran is supposed to just do nothing after we A) put them on our axis of evil list, B) attack the regime of the neighboring country that we put in power to attack THEM in the 1980s, C) attack the nearby Afghanistan regime that we put in power to drive out the Soviets in the 1980s, and D) spend YEARS leading an international chorus demanding economic sanctions against them after the manner that caused the deaths of from 500,000 to 1,000,000 people OF THE NATION NEXT DOOR, sanctions that were used to weaken THE NATION NEXT DOOR to prepare for an invasion of THE NATION NEXT DOOR. Why? BECAUSE IRAN IS STARTING THE VERY SAME NUCLEAR PROGRAM THAT WE ALLOWED PAKISTAN TO COMPLETE WITHOUT BATTING AN EYE? What makes it OK for Pakistan to have the potential for weapons of mass destruction but not Iran or Iraq, ESPECIALLY SINCE USAMA BIN LADEN IS HIDING IN PAKISTAN RIGHT NOW!?!? Oh well, ignore all of that information. Just repeat the right wing line: Iran hates us because we are prosperous and free and they are a bunch of backwards savages with a strange religion. We are such a peace – loving, fair nation that has never bothered or been a threat to anyone but instead has always tried to act in everyone’s best interests, so hatred, fear, resentment, etc. against us just HAS to be irrational, right? Well put it to you this way: we starved 1 million innocent Iraqis to death knowing full well that the people who ran that country would always have plenty of food to eat. Hmmm …

2. Much simpler (and shorter) than 1: practically end immigration from Muslim countries. But notice how anyone who proposes this gets condemned in the international press and by all of the “relevant” political and religious leaders as a dangerous far right xenophobe. 

Since the Bush administration (and the administrations that preceded it and will follow it) are on record as vehemently opposing those steps – and anyone who advocates them! – what they are obviously engaging in is not a war on terror or on radical Islam. Instead, it is a policy of increased militarization for increased militarization’s sake. Even more concerning than the actual military action (again whether directly waged by us or by proxy) are the matters concerning intelligence, national security, and money. For the first time in world history, the various global powers have virtually carte blanche to monitor the personal and financial activities of any person or group. All it takes is an allegation of being a terrorist – a loosely defined term – and you can be detained indefinitely and without due process, including but not limited to being secretly whisked overseas to a nation where torture is legal. And where there are still (for now) limits to what they can do against people without sparking a public outcry, not so regarding assets: money and property. Keep in mind, they do not have to seize it, which would raise due process issues. All they have to do is freeze it to keep you from using it, and it has the same effect, and doing so to any individual’s or group’s (think church!) assets on a “temporary basis” requires virtually no evidence at all that needs to be made public. In the course of prosecuting this, the government has been quite prudent. They have gone after large numbers of people and groups that they know are probably guilty while at the same time going after people that they know are innocent. They are not after the guilty folks, because claiming that they are fighting terror by shutting down some charity that raises a few thousand dollars a year for Hamas when Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. are funneling them hundreds of millions in cash and weapons (again, something that we are doing nothing about) is ridiculous. Instead, they are seeing how far they can get away with detaining and freezing the assets of the innocent. The answer: pretty far indeed. It is only going to be a matter of time before what has been made acceptable to people and organizations with Arabic and Muslim names is going to be commonly accepted by these cultures to everyone, just as everyone now accepts being searched at airports (which the citizenry would have opposed tooth and nail less than a generation ago). 

So make no mistake: Benedict’s allowing the Battle Hymn of the Republic to be played during a state visit (which, incidentally, was not given for the Dalai Lama, a fact which not a few Buddhists expressed chagrin over, leading the loathsome Michael Medved to dedicate a show to denigrating Buddhism and the Dalai Lama … hard to appreciate coming from a religious right type that will go to the mat defending Mormonism) was nothing less than an expression of support for the Bush regime – and the new world order globalists that he serves – policy of global military and economic aggression. It also signals that Pope Benedict XVI himself is part and parcel of and servant to this same group of global imperialists just like Bush. And most importantly of all, it signals that Bush and Benedict have become brazen and bold enough to publicly celebrate this fact, with no thought given to the notion that they have to hide their ties, beliefs, and intentions. They could care less about who knows, just as Bush could care less about his approval ratings.

I am honestly of the opinion that this event was one of triumphalism. They were announcing to America – and to the world – that the globalist takeover of this nation was complete, and that America is irrevocably signed, sealed, and delivered. I do not know how long it is going to take, but everything else is going to be just a matter of winding things down and allowing things to fall into place. It could take 5 years, it could take 100, but the global consolidation is going to happen. After all, it is no accident that Bush’s releasing proposals on global warming that endorse our moving ever closer to global economic and political integration was timed to so closely coincide with the pope’s visit. After all, the pope has been on board with the global warming agenda for some time now.

It is also a good time to point out how both sides of the political aisle have contributed to these developments. For instance, conservatism pulled off the merging of evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jews to create the ecumenical pluralist religious right, and in doing so effectively muted the political voice of Protestant fundamentalists. Liberalism, meanwhile, contributed their part by allowing any criticism of this state of affairs to be called “anti – Catholic bigotry” (piggybacking on the black civil rights movement!). Indeed, such rhetoric was key to creating the climate where the Supreme Court could rule to legalize school vouchers: the religious right was successful to use the language of the left to convince the body politic that the only reason why no one had ever seen the obvious wisdom of sending low income inner city PROTESTANT black children to Roman Catholic schools en masse (after all, they provide SUCH GREAT DISCIPLINE for the boys and OUTSTANDING MORAL INSTRUCTION for the girls!) was because of the HORRIBLE discrimination and persecution against Catholics in our past. Hilarious that the very same conservatives that will go to their grave denying that this country was ever racist against blacks – or if it were that any legal remedy is required to address it – are perfectly willing to sit around and call virtually everyone living in this country 50 years ago of allowing their interpretation of the First Amendment to be motivated (or distorted) by their animus of Roman Catholics. If nothing else shows who is actually running this country now, that does. 

Since the American piece has fallen into place (even if all of the details have yet to play out, but trust me they will in very short order to the point where this nation will be unrecognizable within 10 years, and no I am not talking about demographics), what – apart from getting even more involved in the third world, which by the way George W. Bush was a huge trailblazer on – is next? My conjecture: Israel is next. 

Now please view Independent Conservative’s antichrist One Has Landed. Pope Benedict XVI in America. Why This Event is Nothing to Cheer About! for a more theological treatment of the implications of the Pope visiting America and being so vigorously received. It includes the following:

 

Posted in anti - Christ, antichrist, beast, big business, Christianity, Council on Foreign Relations, fascism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments »

Rudy Giuliani Backer Pat Robertson Has A History Of Supporting Murdering Fascists: Remember Liberia Charles Taylor?

Posted by Job on November 7, 2007

The brother at Freedom In Our Time has an excellent link that contains not only pictures of Rudolph Giuliani in women’s clothes (showing just what an abomination this fellow is) but detailing Robertson’s past dealings with Liberia’s Charles Taylor. The fellow, a Reformed Christian, makes some excellent spiritual points too. Thanks Jeri Lynn for providing the link: freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/11/so-pat-robertson-individual-who-looks.html

As my prior post on Robertson endorsing Giuliani stated, the hands of Robertson and the GOP establishment were forced by Ron Paul raising enough money to hire a staff and buy airtime in New Hampshire and Iowa.  But why Giuliani and not Romney for Robertson? Simple: power. With his personal wealth and support from the business community, the Bush family, and certain religious conservatives, it can arguably be said that Romney does not NEED Robertson. This is not to say that Romney is a lock to win (for if he were Robertson would endorse HIM instead) but rather that there is very little that Robertson could bring to the table that Romney does not have already have, and there are few places that Robertson can take Romney that Romney cannot go on his own.

With Giuliani, however, Robertson’s huge organization can help him take South Carolina. Were that to happen, what would potentially be a long grueling race that would have the carnival sideshow distraction of Ron Paul pulling double digits in every state would be avoided. After the nomination, Robertson could help Giuliani broker terms to buy off Dobson and the rest of the religious right (another task that Romney does not need Robertson for). So where Robertson could deliver an early victory and a substantial portion of the religious right leadership to Giuliani, he cannot provide the former and is not needed for the latter with Romney.

So since Giuliani is the one that Robertson can lend the most assistance to of the two, Giuliani is also the one that Robertson will have more influence over and be able to call in more favors for later. As the religious right has convinced their followers to lower their expectations to the point where “it is all about the judges!”, Robertson will be able to identify judges that will give such Christians just enough incremental progress on abortion and a few other issues to keep them mollified while Robertson in return will be able to exert far more behind the scenes influence over the administration of socially liberal Giuliani than he was George W. Bush.

Money and power, that is what it is all about, and that is what Robertson is after, and as such he picked the fellow who would be more beholden to him.

Posted in abortion, Christianity, GOP, Mitt Romney, Pat Robertson, Republican, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

A Good Theory On Why Bush Took Us To War

Posted by Job on September 26, 2007

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/09/cui-bono-and-bushs-monstrous-deadly.html

Posted in Christianity, George Bush, government, politics | Tagged: , , , , , | 4 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: