Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Never has there been such a display of intolerance as what is happening in Indiana. Never has there been such an attempt to single out and punish a group of people for simply being who they are. I am NOT talking about supposed-discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bi, transgender (LGBT) community. I am talking about real discrimination against Christians by pro-LGBT people. The true discrimination is happening against people of faith, the exact opposite of what is being portrayed by opponents of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The state of Connecticut and the cities of San Francisco and Seattle have already imposed bans on city-funded travel to the state. Many CEOs, including Tim Cook of Apple, have come out against the law. Former NBA star Charles Barkley who has been providing commentary for the NCAA basketball tournament asked for the Final Four to be moved to another state.

RFRAs stated purposes are nothing more than protection of the religious freedom available to all Americans in the Constitution that guarantees us free exercise of religion. This law is in response to growing numbers of attempts in the United States to punish people for their beliefs and/or force them to act in a way opposed to those beliefs. All the law does is prevent that from happening without a “compelling government interest.” It is not like Indiana is the first to do this. 20 other states have laws that mirror the one in Indiana has. The federal government also has a law that parallels the one in Indiana called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That federal legislation was introduced by Democrat Representative Chuck Schumer of New York. It passed by unanimous House vote and near-unanimous Senate vote with only three Senators voting against it. Then it was signed into law by President Clinton The reason for state laws like the one in Indiana is the same reason for the state immigration law in Arizona that the Obama Administration opposed. The federal government ceased doing its job to protect the border. So Arizona decided to protect the border on its own. Indiana is acting in a similar manner with regards to religious freedom.

There are examples of this anti-Christian discrimination all over the place. After 31 years of helping the poor in the area, a Lake City, Florida ministry was told that it would not be allowed to receive food from the United States Department of Agriculture unless they removed portraits of Christ, the 10 Commandments, a “Jesus is Lord” banner, stopped praying, and stopped giving Bibles to people that came to them for help. In 2011, Mark Mackey and Bret Coronado were arrested and charged with misdemeanors for reading their Bibles outside of the Hemet, California DMV. Thankfully they were acquitted of any wrongdoing, but the fact that they were arrested speaks volumes. One of the most well-known cases of religious discrimination in recent memory involves the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. The owner refused to make a cake for a gay wedding because gay weddings violate basic Christian teaching. Dave Mullins and  Charlie Craig, the gay couple who requested the cake, sued and the Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a discrimination complaint.

If a Christian bakery owner thinks it is immoral to be involved in any way with a gay wedding, his bakery should not have to bake a cake for them. If a florist does not want to do a floral arrangement for a gay wedding under the same circumstances, the First Amendment indicates they are under no obligation to do it. It’s not like we have a shortage of bakeries or flower shops. Just go find another place that will accede to your request rather than purposely seeking out businesses that you know won’t do what you want just for the purpose of trying to force them into it. That is the real issue here with all of the LGBT “rights” propaganda in America and the world right now. It is not just about making more things such as marriage available to them. It is about silencing and punishing anyone with the courage to oppose sinful behavior.

As the 1st Amendment Partnership points out, “The bill protects religious minorities. Jewish people believe that the body should not be disturbed after death. In Georgia, rabbis all too often have to face undue bureaucracy when dealing with the state’s automatic, routine autopsies. [Bills like this] would protect their right to practice their faith in accordance with their conscience. RFRA will protect people of faith from unnecessary and costly red tape. A baptist Mississippi pastor sought to build a new church, but he was denied permission because of discrimination against religion. A RFRA bill would have helped this pastor build his church without wasting precious time and money fighting this bureaucracy. All Americans have the God-given right to live their faith according to their conscience. Freedom of conscience means that all Americans can follow the religious faith of their choice or none at all if they so choose. RFRA balances the rights of the individual with the interests of the government. The claim of religious liberty doesn’t guarantee victory. It just makes sure that government recognizes the impact of its rules and regulations on religious expression. Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, including this bill, do not allow anyone to abuse children or commit any other criminal act. Religious freedom never trumps public safety or justifies inherently evil acts. Preventing crime and violence, including domestic violence, is clearly a compelling government interest and would trump any religious claim. In the 20+ years RFRAs have existed, never has a RFRA case successfully cleared a defendant of a violent criminal act. The bill does nothing to encourage or discourage discrimination. RFRA states average $1.3 trillion in annual retail transactions. Despite this huge volume, never has a hotel, restaurant, or major retailer used this law to deny service to an LGBT person. In comparing states with and without RFRAs, there is nothing to indicate RFRA has any effect--positive or negative--on job creation.”

The stated goal of RFRAs are to protect the religious rights of American citizens. They are not about state prohibitions against any specific people or group. That is why Indiana Governor Mike Pence’s announcement today was a little bit disheartening. As commentator Todd Starnes put it in a Facebook post today, “In an unprecedented act of cowardice and capitulation, Indiana Governor Mike Pence...has ordered legislators to ‘fix’ the religious liberty law. In a press conference today he told reporters that no business has the right to discriminate. When asked specifically about protecting Christian business owners, Pence...replied, ‘This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate.’ So the Governor wants a religious liberty law that does not protect religious liberty?” I am hoping that the Governor’s words today does not make the law meaningless. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Monday, March 30, 2015

Wrestlemania 31 reaction

Photo courtesy of WWE

I had a feeling that Seth Rollins was going to leave Wrestlemania 31 with the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. I expected him to wait until the match was over to cash in the briefcase though. I was surprised when he cashed it in during the main event. Then he ended up not even having to pin the champion. Brock Lesnar is going to injure and maim Rollins the first chance he can get his hands on him. Do not forget about Randy Orton either. He got a win over Rollins at Wrestlemania with one of the best RKOs I have ever seen. I am sure Randy Orton will be happy to take the first title shot if Paul Heyman somehow convinces Lesnar to wait until he heals.

It was nice to see the Undertaker come back and defeat Bray Wyatt. I thought we had seen the last of the Undertaker after Wrestlemania 30 when the streak ended. Some of that old mysterious intimidation was gone after what happened last year. I am not looking forward to the day when we will see Wrestlemania without the Undertaker. It will never be the same again though. The next logical step for the Undertaker is a rematch with Brock Lesnar for Wrestlemania 32. Brock should still be seen as unstoppable even though he is no longer the champions just because Rollins never actually beat him. It would not be hard to promote at all. That is the way to go if WWE is serious about getting over 100,000 people in attendance next year.

All was looking good for the Authority after HHH defeated Sting in what could be titled the Nostalgia Match with the NWO in Sting’s corner and DX in HHH’s corner. I never have liked the NWO. I still don’t. There were a bunch of glorified street thugs who spat on the tradition wrestling was built on no matter how old they get or how many of them are in the Hall of Fame. It was nice to see that Sting had some back up. It still was not enough however. HHH did not waste any time gloating in his victory over Sting until he was interrupted by the Rock. I don’t much care for the Rock either since he treated WWE as a mere stepping stone to a movie career. It was still nice to see the Authority get embarrassed in front of a worldwide audience after HHH beat Sting though.

I am surprised AJ was able to make it back to the ring last night after she took two hard falls on the floor thanks to the Bella Twins. I was happy with the outcome. I don’t think the AJ & Paige team will last very long though. It never does. AJ and Paige make good friends, but they make better enemies to use a line from an old WWE PPV to describe Shawn Michaels and Kevin Nash.

Did anyone besides me notice how much easier it was to make a patriotic video using Ronald Reagan than President Obama? There were a lot more Reagan quotes in that video compared to the one Obama quote. I am relieved to finally see that Rusev has tasted his first defeat after an undefeated streak that rivaled that of the Undertaker and Goldberg. John Cena came out on top over Rusev in the same way the United States did in the Cold War. The U.S. hasn’t seen a worst Champion since Nakita Koloff beat Magnum T.A. in a best of seven series. Thank you John Cena.

I erroneously predicted before the match that Dolph Ziggler would become Intercontinental Champion again. He was one of the two men closest to getting his hands on the belt at the end. Daniel Bryan was able to capture the only title that has eluded him in his WWE career though. There is no doubt that Daniel Bryan will make a great Intercontinental Champion who will take on anyone who wants a title shot. I just hope he does not settle for his current position without making at least one more serious run for the top. I know WWE management does not want him there. They are much happier with Seth Rollins. That does not change the fact that Daniel Bryan is indeed an A+ player. He deserves at least one more shot at the WWE World Heavyweight Championship.

Damien Sandow had me fooled. I am not talking about when he turned on the Miz. Everyone and their mother could see that coming. That is everyone except the Miz because of his super-sized ego. What surprised me is that he was so close to getting the Big Show out of the ring and winning the second Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal. I cannot think of a more appropriate winner than the Big Show. It was pointed out that the Big Show has always been compared to Andre the Giant. Those comparisons are legitimate despite WCW falsely hyping him as Andre the Giant’s son at one point. The Big Show could be congratulated for his otherwise dominating performance though.

The Tag Team Championship match to kick off the kickoff did not disappoint. It was full of action and high flying that should have kept fans everywhere on the edge of their seats. It was literally anyone’s match at any time. I don’t care for Tyson Kidd and Cesaro mainly because Tyson Kidd is a jerk. I am just glad anyone want that match except the New Day. I can’t stand their mockery of God by the way they come to the ring imitating certain prominent preachers. It’s time for a new day...without the New Day.

Friday, March 27, 2015

Airplane safety vs. car safety

I have been trying to convince my wife about the safety of air travel for a while. So far she is not convinced. I doubt the statistics will do much to convince her either, but we have had so many discussions about it lately that I thought it might make a nice blog topic. So here goes nothing.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, there were 34,678 transportation fatalities in 2013. 32,719 of them were highway accidents. That was the highest of all listed modes of transportation. The largest number of those were passenger cars, 11,977. Light trucks and vans were second with 9,155. 4,735 pedestrians were killed on the road. 4,668 motorcyclists were killed. 743 people died using pedalcycles. Medium and have trucks were responsible for the deaths of 691 people. Buses were the safest mode of ground transportation to avoid fatalities, only causing 48 deaths in 2013. Aviation, on the other hand, was only responsible for 443 deaths. 387 of those were labeled general aviation. Only nine deaths were due to airline crashes. Air taxis accounted for 27 deaths. Commuter planes caused six deaths. Foreign and unregistered air-travel vehicles had 14 deaths.

So after looking at those results, it is rather easy to conclude that air travel is much safer than ground vehicles. When taking into account all types of traveling fatalities, highway travel accounts for over 94% of all transportation deaths. A person takes a much bigger gamble when they get into a car than they do when they get on an airplane. Now I know some people might read this and say, “Well, if one refuses to travel by plane and they want to go the safest way possible every day, they should ride a bus.” We’ve been there and done that. I am thankful for the city bus system we have here because it helped us get from place to place and do what we needed to do when we didn’t have a car. The freedom to go where you need or want to go without having to be back by a certain time or without having to wait an hour or more for the bus to arrive is worth the risk, at least to us. And of course, no one can deny that flying is generally quite expensive. From just a safety issue though, the statistics prove that air travel is safer than highway travel.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Christian, Muslim, or neither

If we laid out the characteristics of President Obama and his personal beliefs, some would conclude that he is a Muslim and understandably so. I have made the mistake of saying it during personal and public political discussions because there are plenty of reasons to think so. The son of a Muslim father, he went to a public school in Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim school in a predominantly Muslim country. In his 2009 Cairo speech, “Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to “the Holy Koran.’...Mr. Obama established his firsthand knowledge of Islam (albeit without mentioning his reported upbringing in the faith) with the statement, ‘I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.’ Then the president made a statement no believing Christian — certainly not one versed, as he professes to be, in the ways of Islam — would ever make. In the context of what he euphemistically called the ‘situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs,’ Mr. Obama said he looked forward to the day ‘… when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.’ Now, the term ‘peace be upon them’ is invoked by Muslims as a way of blessing deceased holy men. According to Islam, that is what all three were - dead prophets. Of course, for Christians, Jesus is the living and immortal Son of God. Even more troubling were the commitments the president made in Cairo to promote Islam in America. For instance, he declared: ‘I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.’” In other words, he considers it part of his responsibility if anyone tries to tell the truth about Islam.

He is all too quick to wrongly blame Christianity when he sees fit, such as at this year’s prayer breakfast when he excused Islamic terror attacks by pointing back to the Catholic crusades. “Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. …So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.” He was all too quick to blame a poorly-done video on YouTube for the Benghazi attack when there was no evidence the attack was motivated by a video that hardly anyone saw beforehand. Despite appearances though, it would be incorrect to call President Obama a Muslim. The term “Islamic-sympathizer” is more accurate.

It would also be incorrect to refer to President Obama as a Christian. The President and much of the news media maintains he is a Christian. If he were on trial for being a Christian, there would not be enough evidence to convict him. Through Obamacare, the attempt was made to force businesses and churches to violate their religious convictions either by forcing them to cover birth control they don’t want or abortion-causing drugs they believe are wrong. He spoke against Christians while running for President, saying that they “cling to their guns or religion” and have an “antipathy for people who aren’t like them.” Then there was the order that a monogram for Jesus be covered up at Georgetown University when he gave a speech there. This flies in the face of Jesus’ own words when he said, “Whoever will confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever will deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father who is in heaven.” Only after being pressured did Obama fill the position of “Religious Freedom Ambassador” to the State Department. The First Amendment doesn’t apply to individual pastors either in the Obama world, as Pastor Louie Giglio found out when he was pressured to give the prayer at the second inauguration because he is in favor of natural marriage only. One of his first acts as President of the United States was to allow American money to be used to fund groups that pay for the murder of unborn babies in other countries. Then to add further insult, pro-life activists were labeled violent, racist criminals. While calling pro-lifers criminals, he demonstrated his own propensity for lawlessness by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which became a law in 1996. (Don’t even bother sending me the “You shall not judge” replies. I addressed that a long time ago). I could claim to be an airplane, but that doesn’t mean I am going to grow wings and start flying. One is not a Christian just by declaring it so when there life and decisions do not reflect it.

If one is going to claim that someone else is not a Christian either based on their stated beliefs or the fruit of their actions that does not back up what they profess to believe, there must be same defining of the term “Christian.” More specifically, what does a true Christian worldview look like? Certainly, it should be enough to demonstrate President Obama’s lack of respect for God and His Word just by looking at his hostility toward people of faith and biblical institutions that have been recognized by our country since its founding. Still, it helps to have a standard by which to measure these actions and beliefs of the President. Biblically speaking, someone who is truly born again is someone who repents of their sins and trusts in Jesus for the forgiveness of those sins, making Him the Lord of their life. A biblical worldview is one that declares that absolute moral truths exist and that those absolute truths are defined by the Bible only. Obama openly mocked the Bible and took certain passages completely out of context as a Senator in 2006. People with strong Christian worldviews don’t mock God or His Word. A biblical worldview recognizes that the Lord Jesus Christ lived a sinless life. It acknowledges God as the all-powerful, all knowing Creator of the universe who still rules today. A biblical worldview recognizes that one cannot earn salvation. It is a gift from God. It acknowledges the reality of Satan as an actual being rather than a mythical figure or a representation of evil. A biblical worldview motivates a person to recognize their responsibility to share their faith with others. Last, but certainly not least, a biblical worldview understands that the Bible is completely accurate in all of its teachings. Not only does President Obama not have a biblical worldview, but with the state of our country, sadly, most Americans don’t either. Our government is a reflection of our people.

So what is President Obama if he does not have a Christian worldview and is not technically a Muslim. His beliefs are rooted in Liberation Theology, which is pseudo-Christian. The focus of Liberation Theology is not on Jesus Christ in the sense that most Christians would understand. The focus is primarily on using the Bible to promote its own ideas of social justice and class warfare. This is an exact reversal on God’s intention. It places relationship with Him underneath the righting of perceived societal wrongs rather than relationship with him being the primary focus with all societal good being done flowing out of the relationship with Christ. Fixing social problems is a result of people faithfully following God, but it is not the goal. Transformation is an inside-out process, not an outside-in process. That does explain why people who believe in this theology are so favorable to Islam and Muslims though. They see them as victims of an international, centuries old conspiracy to steal from them and kill them. It’s the same reasons some radical liberals hate real conservatives. They see conservatives as victimizers of minorities and basically anyone who is angry that blames pre-Obama America for their plight.

When comparing biblical Christianity with President Obama’s background and beliefs along with the teachings of Black Liberation Theology, there can be no way an honest observer could conclude that he is a Christian. He may claim to be. He may be able to give a personal testimony that could be made to sound like a genuine conversion to Christ. Jesus said, “Even so, every good tree bears good fruit. But a corrupt tree bears evil fruit. A good tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a corrupt tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruit you will know them.”

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Birth certificate deja vu

“Have you heard the news?  Some guy who has only been a senator for a short time, some guy without any real executive experience, some guy whose biggest qualification is he went to Harvard Law School, some guy with a foreign name and mixed ethnic background, some guy who has questions about his birth certificate, have you heard this guy's running for president?  Isn't that crazy” (Rush Limbaugh)? Senator Ted Cruz announced at Liberty University that he is going to be running for President of the United States in 2016. The following statement may seem on the surface to be completely wrong, but President Obama and Senator Cruz have some things in common. They are both very polarizing figures and both have a cloud of controversy surrounding their place of birth. Conservatives and liberals have made an issue of the birthplace of people they support while accusing the other side of hypocrisy.

Conservatives have sought to disregard questions about the birthplace of Senator Cruz just as liberals did about President Obama. Liberals thought any conservative who had questions about President Obama’s place of birth were on the political fringe. Some were even accused of doing so for reasons of racism.  Boston Globe editorialist James Carroll wrote on May 2, 2011, “There can be no doubt that the lurid contempt shown to the president by antagonists who question his constitutional right to hold office is rooted in white-supremacist hysteria.” At the same time, some conservatives have sought to marginalize anyone who raises questions about Senator Cruz’s constitutional qualifications just as Rush Limbaugh did with a caller during yesterday’s show who said, “I'm really troubled because, as much as I love Ted, I love the Constitution first. What I've studied and learned in the last several years about the true meaning of natural-born citizens, as far as I can tell, Ted's dad was not a citizen at the moment of Ted's birth, and Ted was not born of two American citizen parents, and that means he is ineligible. And it really troubles me because I love this guy.” Rush sarcastically replied, “Right, right. Look, I'll tell you what. I'm very happy you explained this to me. I'm gonna call Ted. I have his number now because I am a powerful, influential member of the media. I'm gonna call him and I'm gonna tell him, ‘You wasted your time, bud! You're not qualified. You can't run for president. I had a caller today tell me so.’ And he's gonna be say, ‘Really? Okay!  Well, then, I'll just keep making speeches, but I won't run.’”

The issue is whether or not either fit the definition of a natural-born citizen. The Constitution mandates that one of the requirements to be President of the United States is for a person to fit that terminology. Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states, “No person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of President.” Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court specifically spell out the definition of a natural born citizen. However, the generally held, non-politicized belief is that a natural born citizen is anyone who is born with American citizenship that does not have to go through any kind of naturalization process to become a citizen.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a mother who was an American citizen and a Cuban father who was working in Canada for the oil industry and a mother who was an American citizen as she was born in Delaware. According to this definition, Ted Cruz is qualified to be President of the United States. Eventually, his family moved to Texas where he grew up

President Obama's qualifications as a natural-born citizen were a little bit harder to discern. This is not because the information was not available. It turns out it was available all along. For whatever reason, probably to try to make his political opponents look foolish, the release of a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate was delayed until the controversy was a few years old. Up until that time, all he was released was a Certificate of Live Birth. That caused conservatives like myself to doubt even more whether his presidency was legitimate. It turns out that President Obama was indeed a natural born citizen and had every right to run for President, although he has been quite lawless since.

Regardless of your opinion of either person, the constitutional questions are important, especially in an age when ignoring the Constitution has become far too easy and acceptable. We should not shy away from these questions. We should welcome them, answer them honestly, and move on. When electing a leader, we need to choose someone qualified legally, morally, and in every other way. Senator Cruz definitely fits these qualifications and deserves to be President should he win the Republican nomination next year.

Monday, March 23, 2015

He's still a politician

This map represents the small sliver of land of which Israel currently has possession.
The red line represents all of the land the Jews have a right to according to God.

This is my first post in a while as I have not really had a chance to get on here and keep up with the news events of the day as I accustomed to doing. While I have a short time though, I wanted to share with you my thoughts over the Israeli election aftermath. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party won a total of 1/4 of the mandates in the 120 seat Knesset. The more liberal Zionist Camp chaired by Issac Herzog and Tzipi Livni came in second with 24 mandates. That may not seem like a big margin, but it is when pre-election projections are considered.

Over the last three weeks, I have been very vocal about my support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That support has not changed. If he were an American, he would fit in nicely with the general ideals of the Tea Party. I was ecstatic when I heard that the polls were wrong once again, as they often are, and that Netanyahu would be allowed to continue as Israel's Prime Minister. I believe that he was the best viable choice for Israel's security given the perilous spot it continually finds itself in.

All that being said, as the title of this post says, he's still a politician. Politicians are notorious for saying whatever they have to in order to be elected. Then after they win the office they seek, they often times begin to walk back their strong, "I'm immovable" stances in favor of weaker, "I'm willing to sacrifice my core beliefs to 'get things done'" positions. I don't think the Prime Minister is a liar. I believe he is committed to defending Israel by whatever means necessary should it come to that. Believing that, it was still difficult to listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu come out the day after the election and say that he would be open to a two-state solution that would give the so-called Palestinians part of the Jewish promised land for their own state.

On March 16, the day before the election, Netanyahu said, "I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the state of Israel. This is the genuine reality that has been created here in the past few years. Those who do not understand that bury their heads in the sand. The left-wing parties do it, bury their heads in the sand, time and again. An international initiative will be presented to us, to return to 1967 borders, to divide Jerusalem. Those are real things. It is going to happen. We need to form a strong, firm national government, headed by Likud to push those pressures away. The day after the victory on March 18 he said, “I haven’t changed my policy. I never retracted my speech at Bar-Ilan University six years ago calling for a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. What has changed is the reality. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, refuses to recognize the Jewish state, has made a pact with Hamas that calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, and every territory that is vacated today in the Middle East is taken up by Islamist forces, so we want that to change so we can realize a vision of real, sustained peace.”

His strong, clear statement that there would absolutely not be a Palestinian state just two days before was watered down right after the election with a “What I really meant was there would be no Palestinian state because the Palestinians don’t want peace.” Certainly it is true that the Palestinian terrorist organizations do not want peace and have no interest in a two-state solution. They want the biblical land of Israel renamed Palestine with no Jews present. To think they want anything else is, as the Prime Minister said before the election, to “bury your head in the sand.” To then hear right after the election that there are conditions where Netanyahu would accept a Palestinian state is disappointing at best. Even if the Palestinians were as peaceful as Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, they have no right to any of the land of Israel. That was given to them by God thousands of years ago.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Jon Voight and Chuck Norris share pre-election videos to Israel

“Hi. I’m Jon Voight. I love Israel. I want to see Israel survive and not be overtaken by the mad men of this world. President Obama does not love Israel. His whole agenda is to control Israel. In this way, he can be friends with all of Israel’s enemies. He doesn’t want Bibi Netanyahu to win this upcoming election. America has not been the same since his presidency. I beg everyone, all of you, to understand the truth. Those like Yitzhak Herzog, who believe that deal-making is the solution to what Israel faces, are as wrong as Neville Chamberlain, believing he made a peace deal with Hitler. We must learn from history where the true danger lies. I pray to God to keep Israel safe and America as well. Much love to you.”

This is the second message by an actor released today in support of Benjamin Netanyahu. Chuck Norris released one earlier today. “I’m Chuck Norris and I would like to say hello to all my friends in Israel. I watched Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before Congress and saw a man who loves his country with all his heart and soul. I also saw a strong leader, which is absolutely crucial for the safety of the Israeli people. I have done three movies in Israel...and I have formed many friendships while there. You have an incredible country and we want to keep it that way. That’s why it’s so important to keep a leader who has the courage and vision to stand up against the evil forces that are threatening not only Israel, but the United States. So I ask you to vote for Prime Minister Netanyahu on Election Day. Thank you for listening to me.”

Both videos were spot on. I don’t know if it is right to say the Jews have never faced such terrible circumstances in their history or not. They have overcome some pretty major obstacles in the past from Pharaoh’s Egypt, to the Babylonians, to the Romans, to the Inquisition, to the Holocaust where approximately six million Jews were mercilessly killed, to the more recent wars, to being surrounded by people who would just as soon see them all driven into the sea if they could make it happen.

The Satanic-inspired hatred of God’s chosen people from almost the onset when God first made the promise to Abraham has seen various peaks in its growth. We could be on the verge of another one of these peaks right now, but even if we are, they are not defenseless. They are more than capable of defending themselves. Even though there will be times in the future when they will find themselves overmatched according to Bible prophecy, God will supernaturally protect them. After Jesus returns, Israel will take its rightful place at the center of the world’s attention. All nations will go there to worship King Jesus who will rule the world from Jerusalem and no one will be able to harm His people again.

Until that time, Israel will face many challenges, but they do not face them alone. For every American leader that is turning their back on Israel, there are a lot more American citizens that have not, whether for the same reasons I am speaking of or for different ones. And, as for right now at least, they have a Prime Minister who will not be bullied by evil malcontents who deny the Holocaust while at the same time threatening to create a new one. In the mean time, all Christians should pray for President Obama that he will truly come to repentance and a personal relationship with Jesus and that his worldview will be corrected.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Netanyahu: No Palestinian state

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said Monday that as long as he is the leader, a Palestinian state would not be established, reversing his support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ‘I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands, is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the state of Israel.’”

I hope the Prime Minister means this and it is not just election rhetoric. In the past, he has supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which would give the Palestinians their own state in land that belongs to them. If this is just campaign hyperbole, then that is unfortunate for a country that has been forced into one way land-for-peace deals where they have given up land and received no peace in return. A prime example of this was the Gaza Strip land-for-peace deal. Israel removed itself and the attacks continued. Giving the Palestinians their own state in exchange for peace is based off of the faulty premise that Israel owes them anything to begin with. It is also inconsistent with past history which shows the terrorist organizations that continue these attacks have no interest in peace.

In reality, there is no such thing as Palestine. The land got the name “Palestine” thanks to the Roman Emperor Hadrian. It was a way to insult them and spit on their heritage because of the Jewish revolution against the Roman government. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a Palestinian. The “Palestinians” are just Arabs descended from Ishmael that will displaced by their own Arab governments so that their plight could be blamed on the Jews. They stole the false name to make their claim to the land seem more legitimate. “There was no Palestinian state or people known as ‘Palestinians.’ The few Arabic-speaking people living there considered themselves ‘Ottomans,’ ‘Turks,’ ‘Southern Syrians,’ or simply ‘Arab people,’ but never ‘Palestinians.’ The migratory Bedouins who seasonally moved through the area never laid claim to the land. The Jews, who began returning to the Holy Land in earnest throughout the mid-nineteenth century, bought land from the all-too-willing-to-sell effendis for enormously inflated policies. With the price of herculean labor and the loss of many lives of malaria, the Jews began to reclaim the land and make it flourish. The development encouraged a significant number of poor Arab-Muslims to flock to there in order to find work and a better standard of living. Jews became victims of their own success. Little did they realize the very ones they were helping would turn and claim Jews had stolen their land that had belonged to Arab families for hundreds of years. In fact, most of the so-called Palestinian refugees couldn’t establish to UN workers sent to help they had been in Palestine more than two years prior to their 1948 exodus, a pilgrimage designed to clear the way for Arab armies to annihilate the new state of Israel.”

When the Arabs failed in their attempts to destroy the new Jewish state, the Arabs that had previously left claimed the Jews were occupying their land. All the Israelis were really doing was reclaiming a very small portion of the land that had been promised to them thousands of years earlier. There are no Palestinians and there never have been. So there should be no talk of a Palestinian state now or ever that takes land away from the Jews for both historical reasons and reasons of security.