Sort of like we all thought

You don’t say? Exactly what we said, knew and saw. File it under old news, as it was exposed in 2016. But the intent has no expiration date. Remember when…

LEAKED: Obama Team Kept List of Muslims For Top Jobs, Excluded Non-Muslims

Justin Caruso | 10/24/2016 | The Daily Caller

The newest batch of John Podesta’s hacked emails released by Wikileaks shows Obama’s transition team kept lists of Muslim and Asian candidates for jobs in the administration.

According to an email chain from 2008, John Podesta received lists of exclusively Muslims and Asians to be considered for jobs in the Obama administration. The email chain revealed that in this process, Middle Eastern Christians were purposefully excluded, or set aside in a separate list, with an aide writing,

In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). Many Lebanese Americans, for example, are Christian. In the last list (of outside boards/commissions), most who are listed appear to be Muslim American, except that a handful (where noted) may be Arab American but of uncertain religion (esp. Christian).

Also notable, there was concern that some of the Muslims suggested would not survive media scrutiny, with one aide writing, “High-profile Muslim Americans tend to be the subject of a fair amount of blogger criticism, and so the individuals on this list would need to be ESPECIALLY carefully vetted.”

She continues, “I suspect some of the people I list would not survive such a vet — but I do personally know, at least in part, virtually all of the candidates in the 1st two categories (but I know very few of those listed for outside boards/commissions).”

Within the lists themselves, candidates were further broken down, with every candidate labeled by their nationality and sometimes race.

This follows a pattern of the Obama Administration using race and religion to determine hiring, with other leaked emails showing potential political appointees being labeled with an F for female, B for black, H for Hispanic, and M for Muslim.

Another Wikileaks release showed the Obama transition team keeping extensive lists of non-white candidates for administration posts.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/24/leaked-obama-team-kept-list-of-muslims-for-top-jobs-excluded-non-muslims/

So any surprise there? Only that they were so coordinated about doing it. Can anyone say litmus test? In other words, Article VI, no religious test. In this case, it was completely religious. Discrimination was the process. The left had no problem with that.

But then the results were obvious to everyone, or it should have been.

It only makes me wonder, will someone someday have the gonads to write the book on what Obama did flagrantly from the beginning to end? I kind of doubt it but like to hope so. It was as bad as we thought and then even worse. Yet it needs to be memorialized.

Any questions? All right then!

National Prayer Breakfast… post mosque visit

Last year at the prayer breakfast, Obama said that the violence and atrocities committed by the bands of Islamic terrorists was not unique to one faith. Then he said not to get on our high horses, lest we forget the Christian Crusades and the Jim Crow policies.

Well the problem is that this is sort of unique to this religion of Islam. Further the denial that this is unique and inherent to Islam is actually an offense of its own. It’s an assault on logic and current events.

So this year he one upped himself and planned a visit to a mosque the day before the National Prayer Breakfast. Not just any but one laden with controversy and Muslim Brotherhood ties. Why not choose another one? Well, that wasn’t the purpose.

The mission was to enunciate any friction he could while sticking it in the face of reasonable people. Like a gotcha effect. In fact, wouldn’t you think that if attempting to avoid friction, he could have made a case for speaking to moderate types he was trying to highlight? Why not give them some much-appreciated kudos for standing up to the face of radicals or Mo-Bros? No, again, that wasn’t his intent. His intent was to paint this mosque as the same as those moderates seeking reform that he was marginalizing by his visit.

So in his remarks, instead of denouncing violence and radicalization, he denounces the anti-muslim bias (which apparently is at epidemic levels in the country) Wouldn’t you think that message would have been better received in a mosque without Mo-Bro ties? And don’t look for a message like the slap in the face toward Christians last year aimed toward radical Muslim adherents because there isn’t one.

How can he manage to be any more divisive and biased himself? Again, he issued a warning to citizens to not be “bystanders to bigotry.”

“And so if we’re serious about freedom of religion — and I’m speaking now to my fellow Christians who remain the majority in this country — we have to understand an attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths.”

Which says nothing about the specific attacks of radical Islamists, or their apologists, on Christians or others. And what did he mean by an “attack”? Have we seen an attack[s] on Muslims? This, as the rest of the world is inundated by Muslim “refugees” who consistently attack citizens of countries that welcomed them. I’m sorry, I guess I missed his central point and all those examples.

From II Timothy, Obama quotes that the Lord has not given us a spirit of fear. He turns to preaching that our fear is not of God. The day before he had been lecturing about legitimate anti-Muslim bias fears. So now he says fear does some funny things. That fear can lead to our lashing out at others. Where was his fear-warning message yesterday in preaching to Muslims at the Islamic Society? Obama may yet decide to sire a Rev. Wright-style church. Now he’s telling Christians that sometimes we have to stand up even to friends as well as others. Would that not have been appropriate for Muslims yesterday?

Al Jazeera called Obama’s mosque visit a “belated denunciation of anti-Muslim bigotry.” And they point to Islamaphobia. When fear is justifiable it is not really a phobia.

What was the central purpose in his message? Of course it was a political one, disguised as he tried to make it. Even while he was appreciating what Christians have done in disasters to help better humanity, his overall theme is co-opting Christians into his political ideology. But that is nothing new for the community organizing guru. He wants to reinforce how the left can use Christianity to its political gain.

Now he lectures that we need to respect the right of others to practice their faith freely. Well, I must have missed where we have denied someone their right to practice their faith. But I don’t remember Jihad being a right. Again, the ones denying respect are radical Islamists that attack an employee Christmas party, and plotted to carry out mass jihad. Or when Islamists tell us that America shall be under Sharia. Right, lecture us about fear. Then again, with Islamists, religion is a very political and a useful tool for terrorism.

RightRing | Bullright

A message for Muslims: beware

So let me offend Muslims a little bit and say we should use a little psyops on them. (apply a little reverse psychology) It may sound provocative to some people.

We can start with one of the oldest books in the Old Testament. Joel has something to say about just such a situation as we are going through. People of Judah were down and things were bad. Joel felt judgement had come upon them.

Joel 1:2-4

2 Hear this, you elders;
listen, all who live in the land.
Has anything like this ever happened in your days
or in the days of your forefathers?
3 Tell it to your children,
and let your children tell it to their children,
and their children to the next generation.
4 What the locust swarm has left
the great locusts have eaten;
what the great locusts have left
the young locusts have eaten;
what the young locusts have left
other locusts have eaten.

Joel 2:6-7

6 At the sight of them, nations are in anguish;
every face turns pale.
7 They charge like warriors;
they scale walls like soldiers.

They were depressed at the prospects all around them. They were no doubt wondering if God was with them? The answer came in the second half of chapter two.

Joel 2:25’I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten — the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm— my great army that I sent among you. (26) “You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you; never again will my people be shamed. (27) Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am the LORD your God, and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed.

(28)’And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”

The point is we often debate the cause of bad things, but there is also judgment. Yet God is capable of restoring us to greater blessings for going through them. When we call on Him and pray, He hears. He can turn to good that which is done to us.

We tend to personalize it seeing circumstances as punishment feeling judgment has come, that God has removed his protection. But He will restore even bless us.

2 Chronicles 7:13″If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, 14and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

So I have to wonder about the terrorism, as bad and evil as it all is? I’m thinking how God can restore us and greatly bless us for going through it. Then I wonder how great those blessings might be for what we are going through now?

Do hihadis and Islamists realize, with what they are doing, that God can and will bless us in the end? God will restore His people, and take them to greater heights. We can have faith in that. That’s the message I hear.

That should give Muslims, Islamists, and terrorists pause to know(or think) we will be restored. We will be blessed in spite of all they do. Now maybe that is the best message that could be sent to them. Just proclaim what is going to happen. That might be the best campaign we could have. It will also build a confidence among God’s people in anticipation of what is to come. Plus, it would be better than any propaganda we could employ. God repaid to his people what the locusts had eaten. God has a salvation plan, Christ.

RightRing | Bullright

“The way” is not ‘a way’

A very interesting subject often comes up within Christianity but is sometimes raised in a subtle, even sneaky manner. This could be a divisive message for some people, though I suggest that problem is with them not me. That subject is exclusivity, or the exclusiveness of the Christian faith. No matter how many times arguments against it are injected, it is not a new issue. In fact, it has been with us from the beginning.

The first thing to remember, for most people who were either drawn to or matured in their faith, is that exclusivity is an important part of the Christianity message. It wasn’t called the “way” or the road for nothing. But exclusivity has consequences and significance. It makes some people cringe. One reason that matters is it comes from Christians. If it were only from secularists and atheists it would be just another criticism of Christianity.

The whole problem comes in when talking about other religions, whether it’s Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam etc. But in a nutshell, to take exclusivity out of the equation would mean that it doesn’t matter which religion(or faith) you subscribe to, if basically the same. In application, those of this philosophy say they feel that way – uncomfortable. The effect is to make all beliefs coequal ways. Jesus did not teach that. How long then before people turn that thinking into a consensus of convenience? Then anyone opposing that view, like me, would be the marginalized outliers. That’s how it works in practice.

I apologize for having a habit of repeating myself. But it is a critical point.

II Corinthians 11:4
“For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.”

The real problem is some insist this non-exclusivity is the way it really is, or should be. Some people are just not comfortable with the idea of Christianity as the only, true way. They want to believe there are other ways. They often cite ‘my Father’s house has many mansions’ or ‘judge not lest you be judged’ to make their case. [Jn 14:2 & Mat 7:1]This creates a problem for Christians and Christianity. It is a politically correct view. One does not want to offend others by believing the Christian path, as espoused by Jesus, is the only way. It is inconvenient and makes them uncomfortable.

However, since the beginning of the church and after Christ’s death and resurrection, this exclusive message has been the case. Not accepting Christian exclusivity goes against the grain, fundamentals and the teachings. It’s also a concept inherent in many faiths, in their message. So why are Christians the only ones intimidated and uncomfortable with that tenet of their faith? It doesn’t seem to bother other faiths.

The exclusivity of Christianity is something we must come to terms with though, that is if we believe our own faith. Partly the reason for the issue is because much has been made of it over the years, largely by secularists extorting it for their own gain. The logic goes something like this: ‘sure, everyone thinks that theirs is the only true way and that is the problem. Everyone thinks he/she is right and, thus, believes everyone else is wrong. That is divisive.’ They ask you to alter your belief based on the idea you may offend someone. While you are at it, they insinuate, suspend your belief in who Jesus is too. It’s just the friendlier thing to do. Of course, the problem would then be what Jesus came and died for. He is the fulfillment of prophecy.

Why we are supposedly the only ones who need to accommodate all the others is a question mark for me? Now if you take that exclusive part out of the faith, what do you have? It wouldn’t matter what you believe in whether it is Buddhism or the Hale Bopp comet, if all roads lead to the same place. Now I am not referring here to inter-denominational battles over doctrinal differences. That is a little different. Sure disagreements exist but part of that has to do with the necessary exclusivity. Again, the exclusivity is inherent in the message and our faith. But it is not the problem with it; it is the purpose of it.

Now how we treat people outside of that is another matter. We would like them to find Jesus, certainly not by force or duress. We love them and treat them nice. Then we go out of our way to be non-offensive by bending over backwards until we’re basically saying there is no difference between one religion or the other. That’s the message we are sending. Secularists pounded that drum for years. Whether consciously or unconsciously, that’s the effect of what we are doing.

If we did not believe in exclusivity we wouldn’t be Christians, because that is the message we accept in Christ and are baptized into. No, it is not politically correct.

Luke 12:51
“Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.”

Matthew 10:34
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”

I Corinthians 1:23
“but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,”

Matthew 13:57
And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” [58]And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.

It works to the enemies’ favor because then we have, in effect, disarmed ourselves if we no longer believe Christianity is the only true way. (John 24:6) Jesus said to [Thomas], “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me”. So many people make themselves the judge and jury that everyone is right, to avoid thinking others are wrong. It just sounds better and nicer, doesn’t it? Believing others are wrong just doesn’t feel comfortable. And who wants to tell others that the faith they believe or have been raised in is not the correct way? So let’s just remove that.

It’s not only coming from random pews, but from some pulpits and clergy as well. I’m not referring to the non-Christians because they will say what they will anyway. So this puts the problem within the walls of the church, not just outside it. If you are Christian, you should accept the exclusivity of the faith as a reality and come to terms with it.

If believing in exclusivity of Christ was a problem, the disciples were heavily involved in it. And they even died for that purpose. They weren’t suspending their judgement about other religions by preaching in the synagogues. That would have been politically incorrect to do. Jesus didn’t ask Peter if he would die for all the world’s religions. And Christ did not say he himself was irrelevant. But that would be the extension of what people are doing by reducing everything down to a politically correct stew.

Well, all that political correctness…. that was never my cross to bear.

Acts 4:11
“He is the stone which was rejected by you, The Builders, but which became the chief corner stone. [12]”And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

1 Corinthians 3:11
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

___________________________________________________________

“It’s Not My Cross to Bear” — by Allman Brothers Band 1969

Yeah
I have not come, yeah, to testify
About our bad, bad misfortune
And I ain’t here a wonderin’ why
But I’ll live on and I’ll be strong
‘Cause it just ain’t my cross to bear

RightRing | Bullright

There is a lot of this going on

The title on this article could be slightly misleading to people today. It may not be just what you expect.

If Only Christians In America Today Would Sing Louder!

Together, we can turn this destruction around; but if you choose to remain silent, don’t be surprised when they come for you and there is no one left to speak out.

Bradlee Dean May 15, 2015 | Western Journalism

When the hypocrites and accomplices to Adolph Hitler (Matthew 7:21-23) would sing praises to Jesus in the protestant churches in Germany, they would sing louder to drown out the noise of the Jews, Gypsies, and dissidents who were crying out for help while they were being hauled off in cattle cars to concentration camps–or even worse, extermination camps (Psalm 78:9).

When church services were over, they would find their cars toppled with the ash of the bodies that were burned in the incinerators.

To further the atrocities of these traitors to Christ, they were the ones handing off their youth groups to do Hitler’s killing for them.

These professors loved Jesus so much that they simply disobeyed His commandments with every opportunity they had (1 John 2:4).

I am sure most of you have heard:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

– Martin Niemöller

Martin Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for this quotation. I have heard this quote many times before, but it was just recently that I learned that the man who said it was a prominent protestant pastor during the time of Hitler and the Nazis. It was learning this fact that made all the difference in the world in understanding where this quote stemmed from. […/]

More: http://www.westernjournalism.com/if-only-christians-in-america-today-would-just-sing-louder/

We certainly have our problems today, and Christians nor churches are immune to the culture contributing to the apathy. Many do recommend singing a little louder. Not to make it a left and right problem, but there can be no denying the liberalization and its political influence gnawing at the foundation.

Just a little louder, please. And ignore those 55 million babies piling up, too. Climate change is a symptom of man but killing millions of babies is commendable and dignified. Preserving the habitat for the Delta Smelt is something worthy, while sacrificing babies on the altar of protecting abortion is worth fighting to preserve. Got values?

Prophecy

Now you can take or leave what he says, I’m not confirming it, but he has a pretty good summary of this nation over the years. He makes a good case about our condition.


(midway it gets pretty good)

More to the Boo Cruz story

I was glad to see more about the Cruz story because the news about it had no context. It was just “Ted Cruz booed by Christians”. They didn’t even mention the name of the organization he was speaking to. It’s amazing that, even with Christians, it makes a difference what part or group he was talking to. I heard rumors only some were booers, and that some might have been Leftist plants there to go after Cruz intentionally. Neither would surprise me.

Cruz hecklers slammed as ‘useful idiots’ by pro-Israel Christian group

By T. Becket Adams | September 11, 2014 | Washington Examiner

The people who booed Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, at an event Wednesday evening are “useful idiots,” according to the executive director of Christians United for Israel, the nation’s largest pro-Israel organization.

At an event hosted by In Defense of Christians, a group dedicated to the protection of Christian communities in the Middle East, the Texas senator abruptly ended his speech when a small but vocal group of attendees booed him after he praised Israel.

On Thursday, Christians United for Israel’s David Brog told the Washington Examiner that the hecklers distract from the real crisis of religious persecution in the Middle East.

More http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2553247?slideout=1

Hecklers distracted the focus or was that the intended focus?

Would they ever boo or go after a liberal speaker in a similar manner? Would they, say, shut down a pro-abortion speaker? I have seen Christians be respectful to a fault.

So who is this group anyway? Free Beacon and Breitbart report that:

“According to Alana Goodman, writing at the Washington Free Beacon, In Defense of Christians (IDC) was funded by a controversial Clinton donor that featured pro-Hezbollah and pro-Assad speakers.”

Clinton donor and Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury, who pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009, reportedly provided funding for the IDC summit.

Chagoury, says the Free Beacon, also has backed Lebanese politician Michel Aoun, Hezbollah’s main Christian ally in the country, according to United States diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks.

 

Well, golly gee! Sympathetic to Hebollah ?  Is this an audience you want to influence? So maybe Cruz needs to have his staff better screen who he speaks to, now that he is in the big leagues. So he better watch his back.  Now we have the case where the Left seems to be merely using and projecting the Christian label.  It looks more like a cauldron of activism.

RightRing | Bullright

What do words tell us?

If I were a speech writer for Obama, I would have wondered, maybe highlighted a couple lines in the text either for clarification, revision, or removal. Sorry for the wordiness of this but it is unavoidable.

The line in question was about religion. Here is the text:

Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers. Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages — killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims — both Sunni and Shia — by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.

So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision, and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

And people like this ultimately fail. They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy and the world is shaped by people like Jim Foley, and the overwhelming majority of humanity who are appalled by those who killed him. … And we act against ISIL, standing alongside others.

Emblem of Islamic State in Iraq and Sham.jpg

Seal of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

“Declared their ambitions to commit genocide” … and are carrying it out. The word is ‘committing.’

Lonely phrases

“So ISIS speaks for no religion.” Was that completely necessary? On what facts does he base that? They believe they speak for Islam. In fact, they believe they are the self-declared spokesman for it. And masses of the Islam faith have not argued that point. Why was it so critically important for Obama to state that? He tries to separate ISIS from the religion of Islam, writ large. Again, why is that necessary? Others would seem more suited to make that distinction, except they don’t. He tries to put ISIS outside the parameters of Islam. We don’t need to do that. It is what it is — self-asserted. They certainly speak for some segment of it. Just declaring they don’t is a lonely phrase in there.

So he seemed more concerned that their actions are hurting Islam. If they are hurting Islam, that should not be of great importance to us. There seems to be no shortage of Islam defenders to make that case — but they don’t. It is not up to our president to explain why ISIS and the terrorists are not spokespersons for Islam. Sure it seems a simple thing and some probably see his motivation, not that I do. But why is there a need for it?

I realize there is a large world-wide population of Muslims to which it should matter, but why is it a priority to separate this violence, horror, and evil from Islam? The fact that he feels compelled to speaks for itself. Again, where are their voices? If a religion this large cannot make a case against this uber-evil, then what does that tell us?

Territorial control of ISIS

Rather, I recommend that we pose the question to Muslims: “do you realize these actions are being done in the name of your religion?” And it is not the first time — probably not the last. Had it been any other religion they would follow that tack. They’d say, “well I don’t believe they do, but others can make the case why they don’t speak for their membership.” But the majority of any other religion would beat them to it, to make that case. Not here, we don’t have that.

Of course, the real reason is his apologetics. He felt a need to separate them from the religion of Islam to defend it from this bloody stain. Again, that could be left to cleric spokesman and their academics. The ironic thing is Obama has Muslim advocates and activists all around him. I was no fan of Bush doing it either. Sometimes things are what they are. It would help if others were making the case. Instead, we see Muslims either joining ISIS-fever or registering their approval by their silence.

Someone please help Obama because if he has a heart it is sure not in this. We’ve seen his critique of Iraq politics and laying the problem at their feet. Yes. However, if ISIS is a threat to us and other countries, then how is it logical and rational to trust Iraq to solve the ISIS problem? That dependency on them places our security in their hands. Is that what we want to do? That is what Obama is doing — putting them in charge of our security and the free world’s. It would be nice if one of our generals took Obama out back and explained the food chain to him. He doesn’t seem to get the basics.

So then, I guess Obama speaks for no country either, especially not the USA.

 
RightRing | Bullright

Clergy and NYT right on cue

U.S. Religious Leaders Embrace Cause of Immigrant Children

By MICHAEL PAULSONJULY 23, 2014 | NYT

After protesters shouting “Go home” turned back busloads of immigrant mothers and children in Murrieta, Calif., a furious Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, the Roman Catholic archbishop of New York, sat down at his notepad and drafted a blog post detailing his shame at the episode, writing, “It was un-American; it was unbiblical; it was inhumane.”

When the governor of Iowa, Terry E. Branstad, said he did not want the migrants in his state, declaring, “We can’t accept every child in the world who has problems,” clergy members in Des Moines held a prayer vigil at a United Methodist Church to demonstrate their desire to make room for the refugees.

The United States’ response to the arrival of tens of thousands of migrant children, many of them fleeing violence and exploitation in Central America, has been symbolized by an angry pushback from citizens and local officials who have channeled their outrage over illegal immigration into opposition to proposed shelter sites. But around the nation, an array of religious leaders are trying to mobilize support for the children, saying the nation can and should welcome them. …Plenty More

 

As I have been talking about, and with an upcoming civil disobedience rally coming up to top it off. I would have one question for them. If this is their position then will they accept the responsibility for more coming? Wait, I know the answer. But I meant are they going to accept blame for more of them coming because of their actions?

So Obama that would not even visit the border that he is responsible for is now down in favorability partly from this, partly just because of his many scandals. They need to raise support for Obama and his policies which caused the mess. Send out the support wagons and have press push it. He wouldn’t say or do anything to halt the problem, yet expects people go out to push public opinion.

Oh, do you see him or this administration even talking about Christians being persecuted on a massive scale around the world? They can’t advocate on that. Quite the opposite, the silence speaks volumes. Obama won’t even intervene for a US soldier in a Mexican prison. What about all the rest of us who have to endure all the affects of Obama’s border crisis?

So they are getting their “anger” up. The anger should be at Obama for causing this.

Churches stand with extremist politics over Israel

To all you churches, clergy and hierarchy, et al: are you proud of yourselves now? (you know who you are) Are you satisfied with the fruits of your efforts over the past few years? You are reaping the harvest you have sown and participated in.

You have not fooled us all in your political maneuvers. It’s time to ante up and face your actions. You have defended so-called Palestinians in their war against Israel. You have petitioned our government and Congress to stop and audit aid to Israel.

You called on UN to take actions against Israel, and complained publicly about human rights abuses. Despite Israel’s respectful protest, you organized and participated in boycotts — aka BDS movement. You have divested your organizations of stocks in Israeli contractors and independent companies that do business with Israel.

(NYT) The Christian leaders’ letter acknowledged that both Israelis and Palestinians had suffered, and that both sides bore responsibility. But it called for an investigation into only Israel’s activities.

The Jewish leaders said such an approach was a double standard. The Palestinian Authority also receives foreign aid from the United States and has also been accused of rights violations, they said.

“Where’s the letter to Congress about Syria, which is massacring its own people?” said Rabbi Steven Wernick, the chief executive of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. “When Israel is the only one that is called to account, that’s when it becomes problematic.”

All this in an orchestrated attempt to hurt both Israel and those it does business with. If that is not enough, you allied yourselves with some of the most extreme political elements of the radical Left, both here and internationally.

The Jewish leaders were shocked not just by the content of the letter, but also by the fact that the Christian leaders had not given them any warning. Both sides have been participating for eight years in a Christian-Jewish Round Table designed to heal wounds over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was Monday’s meeting that the Jewish leaders canceled.

You publicly pursued this agenda while representing thousands, if not millions, of people under your leaderships. You justified this under the guise of social justice, and Christian principles. You even introduced the ideas supporting and celebrating these actions in your regional conferences. All that brings us up to date with present circumstances.

Now Israel has been under attack for weeks of daily rocket fire. In one recent barrage, there were 40 rockets in 20 minutes in one area. That is two rockets per minute or one every 30 seconds. As a response to the rockets, Israeli citizens are under constant air raid alarms and warnings.

Then came justified defensive responses from Israel on the Gaza and so-called Palestinian sources. 1000+ rockets were fired upon Israel before this action. They waited ten days before going in on the ground to stop these attacks. Yet at least twice during Hamas-led Palestinian offenses — armed by Iran — our US government and President have contacted Israel calling for restraint. Obama pleaded to minimize damage on structure and lives. That while the Hamas/Palestinian objective is always the destruction of innocent lives, and maximizing the damage.

So these churches, clergy and leaders, as well as the other organizations that allied themselves against Israel for months and years, have culpability in this outcome. To many people, indeed Christians, this was predictable. You allied yourselves with those calling for Israel’s destruction and listed as terrorists by our government and others.

You may argue it was not the churches directly but activists within tied to them. Except that they operated in positions of leadership while gloatingly participating in activism and appeared to represent their members.

Now it has come to harvest, and the results of those efforts are clear to those who have eyes to see. The churches have blood on their own hands for further fueling conditions through advocacy and de facto sanctions of Israel. Nonetheless, you have chosen sides. The present circumstances place blame on your hands.

How long can you continue in this bias direction? I hope your collective conscience and financial portfolios are satisfied. These are the results. You have blame on your hands

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” – (Mark 4:9)

See Update

RightRing | Bullright

School censors parent upset over explicit book content

Dad handcuffed for protesting graphic-sex book

Cop takes action at school-board meeting

    William Baer, a parent upset over a reading selection in Gilford, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct when police said he did not leave a school board meeting after being asked.

A parent who complained about a book assigned to his daughter at Gilford High School in Gilford, New Hampshire, was arrested and taken away in handcuffs from a school board meeting for refusing to “be quiet” when repeatedly admonished by a board member.

William Baer, whose ninth-grade daughter last week was assigned the book “Nineteen Minutes,” came to the meeting to protest the book’s assignment and the district’s failure to notify parents the book contained graphic descriptions of “rough sex” between teens.

According to the Laconia Daily Sun, Baer challenged the board to read aloud the controversial portion of “Nineteen Minutes” during the meeting, but school officials refused.

Before speaking, Baer was told he had two minutes to speak.

Baer spoke beyond the time limit and sat down but then exchanged words with another parent who approved of the book.

“So what is the remedy here?” Baer asked.

The board said it would not take questions on the matter.

“Sir, would you please be respectful of the other people?” a school board member responded.

“Like you’re respectful of my daughter, right? And my children?” he countered.

“Please, be quiet,” admonished the board member.

A police officer then arrived at the scene, instructing Baer to leave with him.

“You are going to arrest me because I violated the two-minute rule?” the father said. “I guess you are going to have to arrest me.”

But Baer did get support from other parents.

Sarah Carrignan said, according to the Sun, that she was “‘utterly appalled that this was acceptable.”

“My son should never have had the book in his hand.”

Part of the problem was that when the book was used previously in the school, parents were notified and asked for permission for their children to participate.

The school this year didn’t notify parents until after students already were assigned the book and given access to the material.

Gilford Police Lt. James Leach, who was at the meeting, ordered Baer to leave the meeting and then handcuffed the parent. Reports say Baer was ticketed for disorderly conduct. MORE

H/T to Dave
 

Most people may have heard about it. If it was a school authorized book, then the school obviously purchased the books. So tax money is paying for objectionable material?

But wait, there was a similar story at WND, 08/04/2005. While not the exact same thing, the same narrative played out in Massachusetts .

Father faces trial over school’s ‘pro-gay’ book

Arrested after objecting to kindergartner’s reading material

A Massachusetts man faces a court trial over a dispute about the teaching of homosexuality in his son’s kindergarten class.David Parker, of Lexington, spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with school officials April 27, unless they gave him the option of pulling his child out of certain classes.

Parker says the officials had indicated they would agree to a notification policy then suddenly refused. He insists he has done nothing wrong and is willing to contest the charge rather than plea-bargain.

At a hearing Tuesday, Parker’s trial date was set for Sept. 21.

The Lexington School Board contends Parker deliberately set out to be arrested and make national headlines.

Parker’s attorney, Jeffrey Denner, rejected that claim as supporters picketed outside the courthouse.

The dispute began last spring when Parker’s then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, “Who’s in a Family?” The optional reading material, which came in a “Diversity Book Bag,” depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.

“There’s a larger issue here locally and nationally and internationally about the role of family and what kind of encroachments government can make into children’s and people’s lives,” Denner told reporters.

More http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31618/
 

Now the treatment is virtually the same — even if the details are different. One in Massachusetts and the other in New Hampshire, years apart. But the message is the same to concerned parents: object to book content and you could get ‘booked’.

There is also another glaring contrast. That was the 9/11 Benghazi attack where they injected a video as a motive for it and violent protests in Egypt etc. Whether it was the cause of protests or not, they injected a video as a de facto cause, ran out publicly talking about it, then rounded up and arrested the guy who made it.

Notice how quick the federal government condemned the video content for being objectionable to Muslims or Islamists? But if you are a parent of a grade school or middle school kid where the content in a book and their handling of it is objectionable, they go after the parents for offending the school by criticizing the content. Off to jail for objecting to content. See how due process works?

Then throw in one more contradiction. The State Dep. and Obama wasted no time running out to condemn content of a video. But so many Christians have been killed and persecuted throughout the Middle East, with the worst violence and cleansing being committed. Yet silence comes from our government. No long speeches, dialogue or condemnation and criticism. Maybe speaking out would offend the persecutors? Now hundreds of girls are kidnapped, and the terrorists come out making threats about what they are going to do to them. Officials struggle to find the right words to condemn it.

But don’t worry, if parents object to content in the schools, they’re going to jail. The disparity could not be greater if it was intentional. Wait…

RightRing | Bullright

Pakistan church blast kills dozens

BBC – reports
22 September 2013

    A twin-suicide bombing outside a church in Peshawar in Pakistan has killed at least 75 people, in one of the worst attacks on Christians in the country.

    Two bombers blew themselves up as worshippers were coming out of the city’s historic All Saints church after attending Sunday Mass, police say.

    Relatives of the victims gathered at the scene to protest against the government’s failure to protect them.

    Militants linked to Pakistani Taliban have said they carried out the bombing.

    The group, Jandullah, said it was in retaliation US drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal northwest.

    Sunday’s twin attacks targeted Peshawar’s historic All Saints Church as hundreds of worshippers were attending Mass.

More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24193734

No lack of politicking from pulpits

Can’t get no, can’t get no… satisfaction … no, no, no. [part 1]

I never imagined saying this, but our problem today does not stem from a lack of taking on political issues from the pulpit. No. Wait; hold the tomatoes! It’s just that when they do mention anything related to politics, it is mostly a sanitized politically correct view. I know that is not every church or pulpit. Some pastors treat social issues equally serious.

But many pastors and clergy who will not talk about something in any way related to politics often do find their voice, but on other political matters. One could make a list: social justice, peace, being thy brother’s keeper, not judging others, not using certain outdated labels that may sound offensive, tolerance, and so on. So it is just so-called hot button issues they will not talk about – i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc. Is that what we are called to do, effectively “screen” our speech? And to do it for political correctness?

Pastors to Endorse Candidates from the Pulpit on Sunday by Albert Milliron

(Note: keep in mind that I had written this a while ago, over a year, as the elections were still heating up)

I recently got schooled from the pulpit about vocal support and candidate endorsements. The sermon was basically we should “be very cautious about endorsing” in politics. (one notable Texas pastor’s endorsement of Perry was Exhibit A) You can read into that, ‘you ought to refrain from publicly endorsing politics or candidates’. You would be reading my mind too. The basis was probably meant as endorsing from the pulpit but there it was in broad daylight, an anti-activism type message to Christians.

It is far deeper than just candidate endorsements of clergy from the pulpit, the same principle is then applied to all politics and all of us. Message: stay clear of politics. You also might correctly assume the basis for all this was ‘render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’. The actual passage and I’ll give various scriptures:

Mark 12:15-17
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

Matt 17:24-27
Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes — from their own sons or from others?”

26 “From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

This is usually the reference used

Matt 22:17-21
17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Of course, many use that latter exchange to broadly lecture us to “Give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Thus, since this politics stuff is rendered Caesar’s turf now, it all therefore belongs to him. “Go back to your prayer closet, Christians.” The truth is our life and rights come from God. With that we have some responsibility. We are accountable to God. And we are responsible for our leadership, and choices.

Something similar may unfold in the Middle East, in countries where people are crawling out from under brutal dictators. We might sympathize with them but they could be headed down a tough road – do they know it? That is, if as they say claims are true that they strive for democracy. Whether that is really the case or not, let us accept that premise for now. They might discover the ideal is not as simple as it sounds. They will share some responsibility for their democracy at some point. Then, they cannot just blame a tyrant and authorities for the results. They will have to accept some blame for problems and consequences, or reap credit when things go well. So they might have a few surprises ahead, such as accountability. It will not be easy for those who have not experienced “freedom” before. Providing they get that far … and that is their goal.

We have the example of Jesus crucifixion. Remember Pilate washed his hands of the deed, or tried to, in as much as the event was already in process. He wanted to escape responsibility for Jesus’ death. Though we still associate Pilate with Jesus’ crucifixion. In Acts, the apostles made it known to political elites that they had a shared responsibility for His death. That was not a convenient message they wanted to hear, and it did not tickle their ears. In fact, they wanted to shut down the apostles for that reason. It made them look bad. Some people suggest “…but we must keep clear of politics.” But we can see in Christ’s time the air was thick with politics.

The Sadducees didn’t care much for the resurrection message; and the apostles didn’t care to be silenced by political pressure. The point is the apostles did not stop preaching, even as it was seen as a form of political speech and dissent with powers that be. On the contrary, they prayed and with the help of the Holy Spirit grew bolder in speaking out. (even to those who sent Jesus to his death)

I don’t read those events as an example to stifle or tone down one’s message to suit elite politicos, and cede one’s virtue to authorities or powers that be. Likewise, those cautious clergy today never suggest taking a silent approach on, say, the “social justice” agenda. They endorse that. The social justice advocates will demand taking a bold approach to preferred “social issues” – just not certain others – while likening their stand to bold traditional Christian activism.

So my instinctive reaction about ceding certain aspects, political issues or turf to powers that be – under the guise of giving to Caesar what is his – is to remember Pilate. Are we to reject our own responsibility for the circumstances we are in and our God-given rights, remaining silent, then try to wash our hands of the blame for the results in view of the consequences? That would be slightly hypocritical, wouldn’t it? Should we render to Caesar the all-encompassing political turf, stifling our conscience or virtue, and cede all “controversial” social matters to his authority? Politics have usurped cultural matters

Our first allegiance is still to God. If I silence my voice, or cede to status quo those matters over to political authorities or others, I cannot escape accountability. I still bear some responsibility for the outcome. So what then about what we owe God?

The double standards are amplified when the pulpits do talk about their pet issues, social justice and peace. They want to do that “loudly and proudly”. Seriously, are the rest of us demanding injustice, or are we actively opposing peace just for the sake of it? It’s been a while since I attended a good anti-peace march, or a rally against justice. Sorry, I never did and don’t know anyone who has. But I somehow am vehemently against peace and justice according to them, if you follow their accusation to its logical conclusion. That is, to follow their entire “social justice” agenda – as they define it. In fact, they actually posit in their rhetoric that, unless we jump aboard their political agenda, we must be anti-peace or anti-social justice. Many Christians resent that insinuation but it does exist. Many Christians have signed on to that. (one only has to look at the [message of churches])

It’s like that with “99-percenters”, Wall Street Occupiers. They point to everyone outside that 1 percentile of wealth as part of the 99% they speak for. Thus, we must be part of that 1%, then, if we don’t agree with their agenda. I think there are more than 1% of us who look past this fallacy and their unreasonable approach. Some Christians are disgusted by these political tactics. But many buy into them.

When I hear preachers and leftists claim their staunch support for social justice, I wonder who is opposed to justice? It must need a whole lot of defending. Of course, their subjective, ever-evolving definition of “social justice” holds the real key to them.(and we are beholden to their definition) But in simple and clear terms, supporting true justice or peace is a no-brainer. Who could really disagree? We can support justice. It’s a fallacy that we do not.

However, many of these passionate advocates are reluctant to take on matters of abortion, gay marriage, or state-sponsored euthanasia from the pulpits. (all presently ensconced in politics) Their ‘passion pond’ dries up quickly. Statistics are reserved for issues like war or hunger. No, those “political” issues are too controversial. “Better to wash our hands of those. We don’t want the stains that come with those.” In doing so, they advise the flock to leave those “cultural” matters alone. But if their advocacy were not so lopsided and full of double standards, it probably would look much different.

We may better ask if we are really cheating God and not rendering to God what is His? And are we giving Caesar more power authority and control than he should have? Those questions do not seem to come up.

Today, rendering to Caesar not just what is his but what he wants is far more popular and convenient than giving to God what is God’s.

The message is clear: “everything will be fine if you just leave those divisive, controversial, cultural matters alone.” Leave that all to Caesar. Otherwise, full steam ahead. Some see all this as “a culture war”, but I think it’s more like ‘cultural survival of the best fit’, to compliant Christians.

So some clergy can keep right on making blanket disclaimers about not endorsing any specific political candidates or Party politics. But they will likely keep right on endorsing specific “preferred” political issues .

Part 2 to follow
(continued- Part 2 )

Dr. King speaks again

News reports that a new tape was found containing an interview with Dr King,years prior to his Dream speech. In it Dr. King imparted a critical part of his non-violent approach. It was this:

“I would … say that it is a method which seeks to secure a moral end through moral means,” he said. “And it grows out of the whole concept of love, because if one is truly nonviolent that person has a loving spirit, he refuses to inflict injury upon the opponent because he loves the opponent.”

You can contrast that with today’s leftists and see a message. The modern Left, in its evolution, has defined and perfected its own system of protest — unlike King’s philosophy. It may get some results; but not only do you have to question the results, but the motivation and means as well.

King said his was driven by love, as opposed to what we see today. Actually it is based mostly on hate, resentment, or some animosity toward their “enemy”. I mean their political enemy. See, politics is everything, with ideology, today. It trumps all. Their activism is not based on love, as in for one another, and it doesn’t contain a moral component. That part was replaced by the religion of politics. With love and morality out of the equation, what is left? A bitter political activism.

The left tries to project the same on the right, but its the left who has lost their moral compass. Class warfare is the stand-in. And you don’t have to look far for the proof; it’s all around. It is quite a contrast to the “moral means” toward “a moral end”.

Plus the Left today wants very much to inflict damage politically, spiritually and morally on its opponents, IMO. They see it as their purpose; its part of their view of social justice. No it isn’t amazing that we get those results considering what drives or motivates them and what they espouse, such as subjective truth, relative morality, ends justify the means. That is not the same as King had in mind. Winning is the only goal at any cost. If it doesn’t sound angry then it doesn’t sell to their masses. Sure it is sprinkled with words like fairness or justice but there is no mistaking that hurtful spite, open disdain, and blind bigotry aimed at whoever stands in their way — using whatever means, power and government they can toward their ends.

Then you have the economic battles of class warfare designed to deliver redistribution. So it is not the individual they celebrate, its the collective group or demographic that matters. They talk more about the group than the individual. When they talk about their central focus, elections, it’s the Hispanic vote, the black vote, or the fat cats on Wall Street.

I sort of chuckle how they got so irritated by a notion that businesses are people, or that pacs have a freedom of speech. (which they want to regulate as much as they can) They’re furious at the thought of wealthy people excersising their freedom of speech, or gasp that they combine in doing so. That’s a bad thing. But on the the left, they are all about the group and so is their politics. If you aren’t in a group you are invisible to them. It is not based on the individuals. Its the Hispanics or Latinos, the African-Americans, the LGBT’s, the government employees, the private sector unions, AFLCIO, Teamsters, Federation of Teachers, SEIU, the TSA employees, women like NARAl, planned parenthoods, single mothers, college students, and environmentalists, or the middle class, the 99%-ers and 1%-ers. Take a number after those.

And they pander to every group or demographic as such, replacing the individual concerns with that of the group. And they play politics the same way, using them to win and keep power. It’s funny when it comes to organized radical Islamists, they want to dismiss the importance of the group factor, and make every effort to paint them as individuals. If it is Christians, they lump them all into a group with labels to their liking. No label can be gentle enough or non-offensive enough for radical Islamists. They go to lengths to make them individuals. Save the harsh labels and group criticism for Christians. What would King think of their ultimate group dynamics?

Referenced article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ap-exclusive-man-discovers-unheard-audio-of-martin-luther-king-jr-on-reel-in-fathers-attic/2012/08/21/f088ac72-ebc5-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html