“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

What’s in a word? A lot…

When the left has nothing left they pick on language as a last resort. Political correctness has been their tool of choice. So again they take to being the language police. Now we are back to their favorite tactics, pin the tale on the racist.

They constructed a whole defense around the word “thug”. That’s right, I said that vile, ugly, racial term. Can you believe they have nothing better than to play language games?

The word thug describes the behavior of, well, thugs: be they male or female, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Portuguese, Sicilian, Latino, gangsters, politicians, government officials. white urban teenagers, parents, teachers, union organizers, activists, etc. It is a generic term, or so everybody thought. And along comes the left, academia, media, even professors to say that term is a euphemism for blacks and a racist term. Apparently “thug” is a pejorative — like duh — that they don’t like. Who knew there was a lock on the term?

I’ve described many different people as thugs including politicians like Harry Reid. Let’s get something straight, it is the behavior that begets the label thug, not a skin color or demographic. I’m more amazed how these language and redefinition police have hijacked the term into some narrow and twisted definition. Of course when calling Bush, his administration, conservatives or Tea Partiers thugs that is a different story.

I just don’t understand how description of behavior can be turned into a slur. Every word the left doesn’t like it labels a slur or a racist term. After all, they’ve turned the generic word gay into a sexual identity. That is until someone uses their term in a way they don’t like, and then they attack you for using the term as a slur. Get it? It is not the term at all, it is the person using the term they have issues with. But they are afraid to take their argument up on those terms, so they make it about terms of language. They use the word lesbian. But when you use it they attack you for using a pejorative. Of course the word homophobic is loosely used and its use is freely encouraged.

So it is a game. It’s all about who uses the word that counts. We must know who is using it as to what it means. Terms the left uses all the time are deemed symbols of of hatred, animosity, racism and incivility when used by conservatives or Republicans. I’ve already mentioned a few. “Pride” is sexual awareness. The word protestor is a noble term to the left. But when a conservative uses the term it is supposed to be a slur of hatred. In other words, you meant to call them something else but just substituted a generic word “protestor” instead. See these self-anointed language police get to put all these parameters and qualifiers around words and terms. We get to define what we mean by our words, not them. They think they get to define not only the words but the person using the term.

I have a little hearing test for those left of sanity. The next time someone uses the word “thug,” just ask yourself if you heard “black urban youth” et al, or the word thug?

I used 567 words to talk about one word. A hundred years ago that would have probably seemed absurd, today it has become necessary.

RightRing | Bullright

Demophants send Letter to Obama

House Dems call for US troops in Africa to give direct Ebola care

By Peter Sullivan | The Hill

A trio of House Democrats is calling on President Obama to allow U.S. troops in West Africa to provide direct care to Ebola patients.

The Obama administration has already committed around 4,000 U.S. troops to help fight Ebola in the affected West African countries, but they are performing tasks such as building treatment centers and training local providers, not directly providing care.

Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.), Karen Bass (Calif.), and Barbara Lee (Calif.) want to change that.

“We write to urge you to consider building on the current response to the Ebola epidemic by allowing military medical and technical personnel to provide direct care to and to come into contact with patients in West Africa,” the representatives wrote in a letter to Obama.

The call comes as the World Health Organization says that there could be as many as 10,000 new Ebola cases every week within two months.

The lawmakers raised concerns that there would not be enough trained staff to care for Ebola patients if the U.S. did not directly intervene.

More: The Hill

So the people that hate America’s nation building think our military should be caregivers and run clinics in Africa. As long as we put no boots on the ground in the Middle East. And yet all they really care about is promoting abortion and global warming around the world.

They also claimed:

“If the U.S. enacts policies like travel bans, which are not effective and discourage volunteer participation, we increase the chance of worsening the epidemic and the chance that new cases arrive in the U.S,” they wrote. “Instead, we should be offering incentives for volunteers and assurances that they will have access to everything they need to be as safe as possible at all times.”

So by banning travel we get more Ebola. But they don’t say how much Ebola we get without a ban. So there is an acceptable amount of Ebola?

Obama had no problem shutting down Tel Aviv airport at a moment’s notice, but to avert spread of a deadly disease? Never. Then he claimed it wasn’t his own ideological decision, but other “experts”. Even in making a decision not to act he can’t take responsibility. He never told us that experts made him shut down Tel Aviv. And reaction didn’t matter.

RightRing | Bullright

Taqiyya , or basic Islamic lying

Your basic definition for starters:

Taqiyya — The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.

But then that does not begin to get at the nuanced roots of the application.

Taqqiya – An Tactic of Lying, Concealment

Islamists interpret their scripture to say that they are allowed to lie about the nature of Islam in order to further their political goals.
Mon, April 7, 2014 | The Clarion Project

Taqiyya is an idea of Islamic jurisprudence that has been redefined and appropriated by Islamists as part of their political strategy. This piece is not about use of the concept in mainstream theology.

Hard to define exactly, it has been variously translated as dissimulation, concealment, lying and diplomacy. Other words that are used are kitman and idtirar. These Arabic terms all have subtly different meanings.

Nevertheless they are used to describe the same overall strategy as practiced by Islamists: using deceit as a religious and political weapon.

It has been used by Islamists in a different context. Their interpretations of scripture say that they are allowed to lie about the nature of Islam in order to further their political goals, namely world conquest.

More at The Clarion Project

The next post will give some depth and background into this tactic or tradition.In view of the current events, its hard to know how this tactic might be employed. But does anyone notice the recent lying campaign Obama himself has been on over IS terrorists, and the nature of Islam with respect to the terrorism we see?

It seems like a perfect opportunity for those of the craft to employ useful techniques like this time-honored one. We’ve already seen the propaganda campaign by terrorists. This is an intrinsic part of Islam’s overall campaign. It deserves serious consideration.

When dealing with something of evil nature such as Islamic terrorism — just like Alinsky’s rules of radicals in politics — we must be aware of the techniques. How similar in nature are those two forces? I think the following post will be interesting and informative.

RightRing | Bullright

Poetry on the Rose Garden

H/T

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Come to my garden
For a photo op new

I don’t remember seeing the family of Terry, killed with a FAST & FURIOUS weapon at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Ambassador Stevens, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Smith, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Woods, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Doherty, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Martinek, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Bowen, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Walker, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Curtiss, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Andrews, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Murphey, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Fairbairn, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Casillas, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of any veteran murdered at the VA hospitals at the rose garden.

I DO remember seeing the family of Bowe Bergdahl, a traitor, at the rose garden.

Roses are red
Violets are blue
If you’re a hero
No garden for you

XL
as always
jj

Brought to you by “change you can believe in”.


H/T

Institutionalizing Anti-Semitism Pt-2

Calif. Taxpayers Funded Professors’ Meeting with Terrorists

Documents show San Francisco State University spent $7,000 to send professors on terror tour

BY: Adam Kredo | Washington Free Beacon
May 30, 2014 12:44 pm

San Francisco State University (SFSU) spent more than $7,000 to send two of its professors to the Middle East for a series of meetings with two convicted terrorists, according to funding documents obtained from a California Public Records Act.

SFSU professors Rabab Abdulhadi and Joanne Barker were awarded the money by the university for a trip to Jordan and the West Bank where they met with two notorious terrorists tied to Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), both of which are designated as terrorist groups by the U.S. State Department.

Abdulhadi, an ethnic studies professors, is already a controversial figure at SFSU, having organized anti-Israel events and served as the faculty adviser to an SFSU student who was booted from the school for posting a picture of himself holding a knife with a caption that read, “I want to stab an Israeli soldier.”

The revelation that California taxpayers footed the bill for the trip has sparked accusation that Abdulhadi obtained the funding on false pretenses and led a delegation of Jewish group to demand that SFSU launch an investigation into what they dubbed an “egregious misuse of university and taxpayer funds.”

During the January trip Abdulhadi and Barker met with terrorist Leila Khaled, a convicted hijacker and member of the PFLP, which has launched dozens of terrorist attacks and is responsible for the deaths of more than 20 U.S. citizens.

They also met with Sheikh Raed Salah, who has been convicted of funding Hamas and served prison time for inciting violence.

Jewish advocacy groups, including the AMCHA Initiative and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others, have expressed outrage over the meeting and demanded that SFSU promptly launch an investigation to examine if Abdulhadi improperly spent taxpayer funds provided by the school.

“Evidence demonstrates that Abdulhadi always intended to use the university-funded trip to build relationships with anti-Israel political activists to promote anti-Semitic academic, cultural, and economic boycotts of Israel and the meetings were set before Abdulhadi requested university approval,” the Jewish groups wrote in a recent letter to SFSU administrators, all of whom are documented to have signed off on the trip.

“We believe that there was some fraud going on in order to get the money, approval, insurance, she essentially defrauded the state and the taxpayers of California,” Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, the AMCHA Initiative’s co-founder, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Abdulhadi initially stated in funding proposals that the purpose of her trip was to attend an academic conference at the American University in Lebanon. However, Abdulhadi was dropped from the conference just weeks before she was scheduled to arrive.

“On at least four official university documents signed by several SFSU and CSU administrators, including SFSU President Wong and CSU [California State University] Chancellor White, Abdulhadi concealed the fact that the true purpose of her trip was political activism, as well as the fact that she had planned to meet with individuals affiliated with organizations on the U.S. State Department’s list of Designated Terrorist Organizations,” the Jewish groups stated in their letter.

The groups argue that there is clear evidence Abdulhadi “always intended to use the university-funded trip to build relationships with anti-Israel political activists to promote anti-Semitic academic, cultural and economic boycotts of Israel and the meetings were set before Abdulhadi requested university approval.”

Abdulhadi has long been at the center of anti-Israel activities on SFSU’s campus.

The professor organized a March event in which she “glorified and condoned terrorism to SFSU students,” according to AMCHA.

Boycotts against Israel also were celebrated at the event, which was reported to have left Jewish attendees in “tears,” according to video and eyewitness accounts.

An earlier anti-Israel event organized by Abdulhadi last year urged students who attended to make signs that read, “My heroes have always killed colonizers.”

Abdulhadi also sparked controversy earlier this year for serving as the academic adviser to student Mohammad Hammad, who was ejected from SFSU after groups such as AMCHA highlighted internet postings in which the student wished violence on Jews and threatened to kill Israeli soldiers.

Hammad, who was eventually investigated by the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force, was initially invited by Abdulhadi to attend the controversial trip and participate in the meetings with terrorists.

Hammad, in a Tumblr posting, stated that Abdulhadi had asked him to “join her and a delegation that she is taking to Palestine on a 10-Day trip … during which we will be visiting with prominent figures associated with the Palestinian Resistance Movement.”

“I WILL GET TO MEET [terrorist] LEILA KHALED,” Hammad wrote at the time.

SFSU officials, including President Wong and Chancellor White, did not respond to Free Beacon requests for comment about the controversy.

Abdulhadi also did not respond to an email request seeking comment.

SFSU spokeswoman Ellen Griffin told the Free Beacon on Friday that university professors are encouraged to communicate with whomever they like.

“Universities respect and encourage academic freedom and do not censor their scholars or condone censorship by others,” Griffin said in a statement. “Faculty can and do communicate with others relevant to their research, communicating by various methods that can involve travel.”

The potentially improper use of funds will be investigated, Griffin said.

“Any allegations that a member of the university community misused state funds will be investigated,” she stated.

AMCHA’s Rossman-Benjamin said that Abdulhadi’s anti-Israel activism on campus is part of a larger effort by university professors across the nation to boycott Israel and take aim at Jews.

University “faculty [are] simply abusing academic freedom and using their classrooms and conference walls to promote their own animus to the Jewish state and Jews,” she said.

Temple University recently came under similar fire for refusing to condemn a professor who questioned the deaths of 6 million Jewish in the Holocaust and engaged in anti-Semitic discourse on a secret listserv.

Other professors on the secret listserv operated by members of the Modern Language Association—which is currently engaged in efforts to boycott Israel—were similarly caught engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric, the Free Beacon reported.

Welcome to academia activism 101 in 2014.

What do you know….

Congressman Blasts Democrat Group For Supporting Terrorists

Democrats still signing MoveOn petition supporting group after 230 girls kidnapped for sexual slavery

Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) — May 9, 2014 | Western Journalism

WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman Friday asked Democrat-aligned group MoveOn.org to apologize for hosting an online petition opposing a terrorist designation for Boko Haram.

“Boko Haram has murdered thousands and kidnapped hundreds of little girls to sell into sexual slavery. It is beyond despicable for Democrat Party groups to support a terrorist organization,” said Stockman. “The Democrat Party group MoveOn should apologize for hosting supporters of kidnappers and terrorists.”

The petition, “Reject ‘Terrorist’ Designation for Boko Haram” was posted in 2012 and began gaining more signatures from Democrat Party activists after the group kidnapped 230 Nigerian girls to sell into sexual slavery.

It demands the Obama administration “not to support the formal designation of Boko Haram in Nigeria as a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization’ (FTO).” The Obama administration, under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, refused to designate Boko Haram a terrorist group, even after it bombed United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria in 2011. The group was finally designated a FTO in November 2013.

MoveOn is one of the biggest bankrollers of Democrat Party campaigns, spending $21.6 million on its programs in 2012. 100 percent of its PAC contributions went to Democrats.

In 2007, the group ran a full-page ad in the New York Times accusing General David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, of being a traitor to the United States for supporting an increase in the number of troops in Iraq.

Surprise, surprise.

Race-baiting White Elitists to the Rescue?

…or just more pandering? You decide.

Jay Rockefeller plays the race card. Blame racist white people, voters.

Jay Rockefeller“It’s an American characteristic that you don’t do anything which displeases the voters, because you always have to get reelected here,” he added. “I understand part of it. It has to do with — for some, it’s just we don’t want anything good to happen under this president, because he’s the wrong color.”

The five-term senator said ideological barriers and lawmakers’ own narrow self-interests were preventing them making tough political decisions.

“For some it’s the tea party. For some it’s just a fear of their own reelection prospects,” said Rockefeller.

He acknowledged his own relative freedom to speak his mind now, saying he has “the ease of the fact that I’m not running again.” – Politico

Mind you he is doing it on the way out the Senate door as he retires. So what’s that tell us? He’s being called courageous. But look at his statement. He said you don’t do something that disagrees with voters. (read pander) But now he can say it leaving.

Blame those nasty voters.

So he’s telling us he can be honest leaving the way he couldn’t as Senator? Yes, that is the message. Believe him now because he couldn’t tell the truth before because of reelection. But take it seriously, as the left stream media does.

Funny he does not mention the race-baiters in Congress playing politics and the race card to get and stay elected.

Another statement comes from that dysfunctional Charlie Crist of Florida. He makes no bones about playing the race card. But he’s allowed to because he’s now a Democrat.
In an interview with Fusion:

Crist: Race Motivates GOP Opposition to Obama

Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (D) said Tuesday that a “big reason” why he left the Republican Party was because many in the GOP were hostile to President Obama due to his race.

Crist, who is running for his old office against Gov. Rick Scott (R), said in an interview with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos that he felt uncomfortable with his previous party affiliation. Republicans are perceived as “anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, [and] anti-gay,” he said, and they refuse to compromise with Obama. The ex-governor said he feels, “liberated as a Democrat.”

“I couldn’t be consistent with myself and my core beliefs, and stay with a party that was so unfriendly toward the African-American president, I’ll just go there,” he said. “I was a Republican and I saw the activists and what they were doing, it was intolerable to me.”

Crist left the GOP to run as an independent during his failed 2010 Senate bid, when he lost in a GOP primary to Marco Rubio. He officially joined the Democratic Party soon after the 2012 elections, and before that, he supported Obama’s reelection bid.

“I am liberated as a Democrat, my true soul is able to be seen, and I couldn’t be happier about it,” Crist said.

He holds a double-digit lead in at least one poll over Scott, who suffers from poor approval ratings.

Ramos challenged Crist on his motivation for leaving the party, questioning whether his loss to Rubio played a bigger role. Crist responded it was because Republicans had become too radical.

“No, I left the Republican Party because the leadership went off the cliff,” Crist said.

Republicans pushed back against Crist’s claims of racially motivated hostility toward Obama.

“Being a flip-flopper is bad enough, but playing the race card to win over voters is pitiful,” Izzy Santa, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman, wrote in an email to Fusion. […/] – Fusion

The real question in both of these is does playing the race card work for a white elitist politician? They both seem to think it does.

On one hand is Rockefeller leaving and the other Crist is running for election. Both liberal Democrats. The motivations of each seems clear. Good to see Crist is now liberated.
But there is an admission: both are saying they haven’t been honest. Crist wants the job back so he can be honest, the way he wasn’t before.

RightRing | Bullright

JFK’s ‘foreign policy’ Dems never talk about

Politics of incompetence

Ann Coulter has busted the myth about the golden child, JFK’s foreign policy disasters. (right, its plural)

Crimea River” goes to the heart of JFK’s foreign policy, which brought on the bay of pigs, and where Khrushchev walked all over the amateur bootlegger. That’s the part Dems never talk about with JFK. It’s the moon or his fiscal policy they point to. But it sure doesn’t appear he carried any gravitas overseas.

Ann points out how they even turned JFK’s bay of pigs into a myth.

The Kennedy Myth Machine has somehow turned JFK’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis into a brilliant foreign policy coup. The truth is: (1) Russia would never have dared move missiles to Cuba had Khrushchev not realized that JFK was a nincompoop; and (2) it wasn’t a victory.

But its about much more than JFK. Read it here, good for a few reality chuckles:

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2014/03/05/crimea-river-n1804802

One small leap for mankind, one giant JFK myth busted.
Truth never seems to have any consequences for progressives. But it does leave a stain.

RightRing | Bullright

Putin the Conservative Superstar

This is an older article but so relevant. See previous post on Putin’s address.

The conservative right sees areas to praise Putin. If I told you a few years ago this would be the case, would you have  believed me?

Now he’s riding high on conservative steam.

 

Why Are American Conservatives Praising Putin?

Russia’s anti-gay policies deserve the scorn of U.S. conservatives.
Cathy Young | August 22, 2013 | Reason.com

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, the career KGB officer who has presided over the rollback of his country’s post-Communist freedoms and revived Cold War-style anti-Americanism, is an unlikely hero for American conservatives. Yet the Kremlin strongman has lately found some fans on the right who see him as a defender of Christian values — most recently, in the imbroglio over Russia’s new legal ban on gay “propaganda.” It is a sad misjudgment that does a disservice to the causes of conservatism, freedom, and religion alike.

Take a minute to inhale that. Its a good article too, aside from the subheading. But there is a point many miss. Sure, I have praised some of his moves myself. Does it make him a stalwart conservative? Put in relative terms, is he more conservative than Obama? Without doubt. I don’t think Putin is worried about his approvals either.

What amazes me is Putin’s theatrical disagreements with Obama on several fronts. He could be accused of hypocrisy too, but why bother when Vlad says stuff which makes sense to conservatives? That’s the point.

Putin can be crude and slick at times, and ruthless at others. He can rally the support of his people. Obama could take a lesson on that. Putin can appear conservative on fiscal and cultural issues. In other words, in areas Obama would never dare to venture.

It might demonstrate that the new American Left is more openly Marxist than Putin. If it were a political campaign, in many ways it is, Putin can run to the right of the progressive Left. But that is not hard to do. Hillary ran to the right of Obama – while darling Edwards ran to the Left — creating an illusion Obama was in the middle.

Consider that for decades  cultural Marxists were natural allies to ‘mother Russia’. Visions of Ted Kennedy and Andropov come to mind. They stuck it in our faces when they could. This is a different twist. Moscow knows the American Left’s record. So should conservatives. It was conservatives who actively opposed communism. (it was even popular to some Dems in the JFK era) Today is different. The mask is off for the Left.

On to Putin. He has made inroads with the people who historically were the most opposed to Russia. Just how could he do that? This article like others points it out. When he bagged the big Pike in the summer, fish was not the only thing biting. If conservatives are comparing his policies to ours, he’s come a long way. He knows it. Meanwhile, he appears less like the new Democrats, despite former alliance.

Spokesmen for several right-wing groups including the American Family Association have praised the Russian law, which prohibits any pro-gay speech or expression that could be accessible to minors. Veteran columnist Pat Buchanan has joined the Putin cheerleading squad. And, shockingly, the usually thoughtful author Rod Dreher, who blogs for The American Conservative, has added his own “1.5 Cheers for Putin.”
While condemning anti-gay violence and authoritarianism in Russia, Dreher praises Putin’s willingness to speak up for Christianity and laments that “post-Soviet Russia, for all its grievous flaws, is . . . more conscious of its Christian history and character than the United States.”
This is a truly grievous misunderstanding of the reality of religion and politics in 21st Century Russia. Russia today is outwardly far more religious than most of Western Europe, but it’s a religion of state more than church: Orthodox Christianity has taken Communism’s place as the new official ideology, with church membership an official badge of patriotism and loyalty.

More at Reason.com

It’s good politics for Putin. His staunchest chief enemy, conservatives, have suddenly been smitten by his moves. Who changed Putin or conservatives? We know Putin hasn’t changed his stripes, he changed the rules to allow him to regain power. (something some of us are leery of Obama doing) So he’s no hero for the rule of law. Yet he has won over some conservatives with his gimmickry.(and politics) He’s still that same Putin Obama promised more flexibility to. Now Putin seems to flirt with American conservatives. Age-old enemies. Like people play the dating game: present yourself as a noble partner while courting, then after the commitment the truth comes out.

Don’t be fooled, Putin is still the Russian bear. I think its dangerous to draw too many parallels. Pat Buchanan should know better than making very cordial comparisons to Russia and Putin. It’s too easy to take a few positions for common sense agreement with Putin. And still as easy to disagree on his traditional values and anti-gay stance we are supposed to condemn. But there is more lurking beneath the skin, just like Obama.

It is a fascinating change though. I leave you with Putin recently sounding more FDR:

Vladimir Putin pointed out the well-known attempts in recent years to impose an allegedly more progressive development model on other countries. But the result was invariably retrogression, barbarity and a high price in blood. On the other hand, the situation around Syria and now around Iran, too, proves that any international problem can and must be settled exclusively through political means, without ever resorting to the use of force, which, the Russian leader is certain, has no future and provokes rejection in a majority of world nations.

Recent address

Related https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/new-bear-is-the-traditional-bear/

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s black incompetence

Economist Williams: Obama Incompetent, ‘Beyond Learning’

Friday, 06 Dec 2013 | Newsmax

President Barack Obama will never able to learn from the late Nelson Mandela about how to properly govern a nation, says Walter E. Williams, a syndicated columnist and economist at George Mason University.

“He’s beyond learning. He has another agenda and, firstly, I don’t think Obama is his own man,” Williams told “The Steve Malzberg Show” at Newsmax TV.

See video interview

“He is a puppet of George Soros,” he added, referring to the liberal billionaire businessman and philanthropist.

Williams believes Obama’s presidency ultimately will be regarded along the lines of Jimmy Carter’s “somewhat failed” administration.

He said it is unfortunate that America’s first black president is “incompetent.”

“Back in 1947 when Jackie Robinson came into the Major Leagues … he had to be that good. Blacks could not afford an incompetent baseball player,” Williams said.

Read more: Newsmax

Geert Wilders’ open letter to Pope Francis

Baron Bodisey of Gates of Vienna blog posted an open  letter from Geert Wilders, of the Dutch Parliament, to Pope Francis. I encourage you to read the  letter there.

Here is an excerpt:

“The Koran is full of bellicose and hate-mongering verses against non-Muslims. Your Holiness will be able to find them if he reads the Koran, but I will name just a few:

 2:191-193:

“And slay them wherever you come upon them, […] Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s.”

 4:89:

“If they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

 5:33:

“This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, […]: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land.”

 8:60:

“Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

 9:5:

“When the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.”

 9:29:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah.”

 9:30:

“The Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them.”

 9:123:

“O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”

 47:4:

“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.”

See: http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/12/open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-francis/

JFK: a big-spending big-government liberal- not.

JFK Museum Updates Exhibit Following Complaints by Conservative Author

Author: JFK was ‘tax-cutting, pro-growth politician’

BY: Alana Goodman | Free Beacon | October 18, 2013

The John F. Kennedy museum in Dallas told the Washington Free Beacon that it is planning to “completely update and revise” its permanent exhibit after a historian accused it of falsely depicting the 35th president as a big-government liberal.
Ira Stoll, author of JFK, Conservative, called on the Sixth Floor Museum last month to revise alleged “inaccuracies” in its exhibit regarding Kennedy’s views on social programs, the federal deficit, and tax policy.
The Sixth Floor Museum chronicles Kennedy’s legacy and his assassination in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.
Nicola Longford, executive director of the Sixth Floor Museum, said the permanent exhibit is 25 years old and in need of updating. She said the institution is planning a major overhaul after the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s assassination next month.
“While Mr. Stoll has taken issues with the content of a few exhibit text panels, and encouraged priority attention for substantial updating and revision, it bears stating that this exhibit text is almost 25 years old,” said Longford. “Clearly the world has changed dramatically during this quarter century and now half century since the assassination.”
She added that the museum’s “intent has always been to completely update and revise our core exhibit post fiftieth anniversary (November 2013) and it is at this time that we will carefully review and consider all comments and recommendations.”
Stoll wrote in a letter to Longford that he was “troubled by some passages of the permanent exhibit text about Kennedy and his administration that struck me as inaccurate or misleading.”
He disputed the exhibit’s claim that “massive new social programs were central to Kennedy’s New Frontier philosophy,” calling it “just not true.”
“Kennedy was against ‘massive new social programs,’” wrote Stoll. “Kennedy described his own Medicare plan, accurately, not as ‘massive’ but rather as ‘a very modest proposal.’ And, as [Arthur] Schlesinger [Jr.] noted, he chose not to fight for even that.”
Stoll also took issue with a passage that refers to Kennedy’s “philosophy of using induced deficits to encourage domestic fiscal growth became a mainstay of American government under later administrations, both Democratic and Republican.”
According to Stoll, “Kennedy’s recipe for growth was not a deficit; it was a tax cut that, both by changing incentives and by putting more money in the hands of the private sector, would yield growth that would ultimately narrow the deficit by increasing federal revenues.”
Additionally, the exhibit discusses the positions of one of Kennedy’s liberal economic advisors, Walter Heller, without mentioning the views of Kennedy’s “more conservative Treasury Secretary, Douglas Dillon,” wrote Stoll.
He said Kennedy’s own statements and actual policies hewed closer to the conservative view.
“As for the idea that Kennedy’s deficits were a ‘radical departure’ from [President Dwight] Eisenhower’s balanced budgets, that is not supported by the evidence,” wrote Stoll. “Kennedy’s annual deficits—$3.3 billion in 1961, $7.1 billion in 1962, and $4.8 billion in 1963—were modest by modern standards and as a percentage of GDP.”
When contacted by the Free Beacon on Friday, Stoll praised the museum’s response to his letter.
“I’m thrilled to learn that, after receiving my letter based on the research in my book, JFK, Conservative, calling inaccuracies to their attention, the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas has announced plans to revise its exhibit text panels,” he said. “I hope the new exhibit text portrays JFK as closer to the real JFK I describe in my book—a tax-cutting, pro-growth politician who favored welfare reform, free trade, domestic spending restraint, and a balanced budget over the course of the business cycle.”
Stoll’s book, JFK, Conservative, was released on Oct. 15. It argues that the 35th president, idolized by liberal Democrats, was actually a conservative on economic and national security issues.

Shocked that they were caught revising and distorting JFK. But they are now going to remodel the exhibit. Revisionists caught again. The truth is the enemy of the left.

Esoteric election results

What has the election shown us?

The Atlantic Wire said

    “Even though Christie’s actual politics often lean conservative, he’s done some serious rhetorical work to try and distance himself as much as possible from the Tea Party cohort of the Republican Party, especially in the shut down. As the national party’s approval ratings plummeted in the wake of the shutdown, Christie had some strong words: “get the government reopened, stop monkeying around, and get back to work. I said, I’m out there in the field, people have no patience for this stuff. None.”

If you remember in the last few months, gov Christie was taking shots aimed at both the Tea Party and Libertarians. Rand Paul in particular. He also attacked those “esoteric debates” taking place, and this growing strain of libertarianism in both parties.

Esoteric as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1
a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone
b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group ; broadly : difficult to understand
2
a : limited to a small circle
b : private, confidential
3
: of special, rare, or unusual interest

Flash forward, he wins his reelection, which really wasn’t in question. Regardless of his chances, RNC still felt compelled to dump a million and a half dollars into it. Why, is the big question. It became clear right after the election. RNC wasted no time claiming victory and some credit in New Jersey. Though its cash could have been better spent elsewhere, but we aren’t supposed to criticize that. The GOP can criticize factions in the Party, but dare we criticize their motivations. Typical for the GOP.

Also typical is that they need to credit themselves for a win that really was never in question. What was the purpose again that the RNC had to dump cash into NJ when Christie had it sown up? The answer is so they could lay claim to his moderate strategy. I don’t know how much patience people are going to afford his esoteric candidacy?

I think the election and results in New Jersey were esoteric. Who really cares about the results there other than NJ? Still we have this esoteric election discussed as if it has great national significance.

After Christie took big swipes at two major GOP factions and “esoteric debates”, his reelection proved exactly what? That favorites win? On the other hand, there was much more national significance and interest in those “esoteric debates”, as he called them. I forgot, nobody but nobody is supposed to criticize Christie. Governor, don’t be looking for that groundswell f popular support for your esoteric candidacy.

Not all governors would make good presidents, some are more esoteric than others.

Globul Swarming … for Obama

 

And they aren’t alone

Closing words — Wild Bill’s view on, well, “Useful Idiots”

O=this is a useful idiot’s brain
O=this is the collective useful idiots’ brain on O-bama…any questions?

Commies and their Marxist agenda don’t add up to Bush

First off, I have to say enough of the Bush and Obama comparisons. It doesn’t work. Sure Bush made a lot of mistakes, and the right took issue with things he did shortly after his first inaugural. But the left painted him a swashbuckling cowboy,(no offense to cowboys) with few intellectual credentials. The real brain trust behind him was evil Dick Cheney pulling the strings. This was the characterization the left created. We all know the narrative so well because they were so good at drumming it into us. So good, many accepted it.

Now they are quiet as church mice about Obama’s conniving adventures. The man can do nothing to earn the wrath of the Left. How come? That is a story in itself.

But for a moment think about the Bush years, the left painted him a dummy while crediting him with some of the worst evil this country has seen. Oops, don’t think they are both true. And they assert that Obama is just following those footsteps, much as he’d like to break the pattern.

obama photo: happy obama danceyobama.gif Even though Obama controlled all branches of the government for a stint, and still controls the Senate. Their narrative continues that Obama is a victim of circumstances — even if he victimized the entire country. However, you won’t get the Left to admit to playing the race or victim cards at every opportunity to defend him.

(Happy O photo)

Actually, Bush and Obama are very different. Bush could have been a lot of things but Obama is a radical Leftist weened on Communism. See there is a difference. What would you expect from a commie, or a radical Leftist these days? Well, they’re pretty much the same thing now. If they aren’t overt Marxists, and I don’ know that percentage, then they are useful idiots who pretty much go along with those who are. They are not the same.

Their beloved Obama studied at the feet of card carrying commies, and actively sought them out. He worked for them, even his doctor is a communist. Does that sound like a victim of circumstances…. beyond his control? Hardly. Say what you will about Bush, that was not one of his attributes. And he didn’t have media and people eating out of his hand no matter what he did.

Maybe we should dispense with another creative notion. The left declares themselves the champions of civil rights and the watchdog for the little guy, the defender of gays or any fashionable group that pops up, including radical Islamists. But that’s only part of their program, it’s the sales brochure to bring them on board. Then, no one leaves the plantation. It isn’t them or their issues they care about but their support. The kicker is many of those “groups” don’t even know or understand what they are supporting.

I can’t forget to mention the liberal Christians and clergy co-opted by commies over the years. (Remember Hill and Obama courted Christians) Even some of them don’t know what agenda they are really supporting. Leftist leaders and pols tell Christians its about their issues and agenda but nothing could be further from reality. It has always been about the commies’ agenda. Not seeing that seems ignorantly naive to us, but just the way it is.

Chock them up to useful idiots.(useful idiots know more about truth than they do) My patience has expired for these people. Their ignorance is not for a lack of being told. So if they were duped it was by their own free will. For Christians, it has been decades in the making. As Hillary said, that “requires their willing suspension of disbelief” — which they quite willingly provide. So we are dealing with Marxist communists, nothing less.

Shortest rise to power since the phone booth.

Photo: Coincidence ; (Happy O photo); Wanted ; Bush Pre-release ; CPUSA

Profiler- in-Chief is against profiling

So all the hooplah over profiling is just great, if you are a minority, or fit one of the key demographics, or you’re just looking for a cause celeb to hang your hat on. But we know they’ve been profiling right along. And some of the biggest offenders are the very people who are against profiling.

4. A biographical essay presenting the subject’s most noteworthy characteristics and achievements.
5. A formal summary or analysis of data, often in the form of a graph or table, representing distinctive features or characteristics

Profiling has been very good for politics.

Obama sees everything through the eyes of race, ethnicity, union label, income status, etc. etc. And worse yet, he talks to people the same way, by stereotyping them by demographic and group. Look at his campaigns where he had a drop-down menu on his campaign site, Latinos or Hispanics, African Americans, immigrants and on and on. You name it. It was amazing. That is his way of organizing, which is largely credited with taking him to the White House.

So yes, if you are a profiler, you can make people swoon you into office. Just don’t call it profiling, call it…ah, “organizing”. Call it campaigning, even pandering – not “pofiling”.

In his book, he made no bones about seeking out Marxist professors — radicals as I call them. Now we have an administration chock full of radicals. Obama the profiler? You bet. How did Eric Holder, Chu, or Van Jones get their jobs? Profiler-in-Chief.

Even when Congress holds Holder in contempt, they call it racism and stage a walk out. They make a science of it.

Beyond that they even profile what laws to enforce and which not to. And don’t be surprised when it’s in ObamaCare too. He cuts breaks for his union buddies but throws Catholic institutions to the wolves. Notice he holds rallies and makes his speeches on college campuses. Or he goes to speak at Planned Parenthood’s convention. No profiling there.

His allies in the Democrat party are profilers. They literally make a living at it, it’s their bread and butter. It is what they do. Now they are offended by the idea of profiling. Profiling has been very good for them. How else can one pander so effectively? It’s a way of life for career politicians.

The very same people who have problems with voter ID laws are habitual profiling panderers.

In the illinois senate, Obama pushed a bill to profile. He actually claimed that profiling was the answer. Theirs has not been a “profile in courage”. Today, our profiling comes straight from the top. ‘Shhh, we don’t want anyone to profile.’

As far as I’m concerned, we could do a little more profiling of Congress. Maybe if we the people did a little better job profiling in elections, we wouldn’t be in the state we are in? So don’t be surprised any solutions they propose to profiling involve profiling.

What a difference between Zimmerman and Gosnell

 I don’t remember the media being so concerned about the content of Sunday sermons before. That’s not usually headline coverage. Post Zimmerman verdict,  media wanted to know what pastors said, and they claimed pastors scrambled to  change their sermons.

 Okay, how many of them wanted pastors to speak about Gosnell or abortion? I don’t remember that call for concern. How much attention did they give that verdict? If the pastors did talk about it, then media and the left would accuse them of meddling in civil and political issues – since they claimed Roe/Wade is “politics”.

 Everyone is supposed to know Gosnell and abortion has no place in sermons according to the liberal left and secularists.  However, human rights? “Knock yourself out”, they only hope you will speak from the pulpits on that. Anytime, you don’t need a reason and you can weave the topic into anything. They encourage it.

 A genocide of 56 million and over 4 decades, no need to talk about that from pulpits, way too divisive. Better stick to human rights, social justice, love and peace. The courtroom seats went empty in Gosnell’s trial, but they didn’t miss a minute of this trial and ran almost non-stop coverage.

Now we know what is really important, so how many had sermons about Trayvon Martin, I wonder?

Notice the below article is Father Pfleger’s church in Chicago not the entire Catholic [C]hurch.

Catholic church protests Trayvon Martin killing

Gloria.TV – News Briefs  15/07/2013 

Father Pfleger [Photo credit]
CHICAGO (AP) — From pulpits to rallies, several black churches in Chicago joined the nationwide call for justice in protesting the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager in Florida.
The Rev. Michael Pfleger spoke out about the death of Trayvon Martin during Mass at St. Sabina Catholic Church, a prominent black Catholic institution. Churchgoers wore hooded sweatshirts, as Martin was wearing when he was slain Feb. 26. After Mass, nearly 100 people attended a rally outside the church where youth from St. Sabina performed poems and songs.
“The church has to rise up and get out of its sanctuaries and get into the streets,” Pfleger said.
Pfleger also wore the hood of his vestment robe over his head and called for racial justice. Pfleger is a white priest in charge of a largely black church, and has long advocated against violence.
During Mass in Chicago, Pfleger challenged the idea that children wearing hoodies should be treated as suspicious. One congregant held a sign reading, “We are all Trayvon Martin.”
From the U.K. photos of viiolence after the verdict

I bet there a whole lot of props they could have used for Gosnell or abortion.

UPDATE: I don’t believe or imply this is representative or speaks for the entire Catholic Church. And overall, they are very pro-life on abortion issues. There were many various churches mentioning it, as the media stressed. This is not to only single this one out.

Wake up call for __________ (Rep, Senator, President….)

This is a “wake up call” for Congressman, Senator, President, assemblyman, et al.

Dear _________________________, [aka, blabbermouth extraordinaire]

I am contacting you because of the importance, between taking my kid to the doctor and trying to keep a roof over my head. What with working overtime to pay for the taxes that government at all levels is levying on us. And before searching for a new job because my present one is ending, I took the time to write your office because that is just how important it is. I do hope you appreciate it.

Please be advised, whatever you and your colleagues are doing is NOT working. I would have said “is wrong” but that implies a judgment and I know how you frown on that. And private citizens are not supposed to make those, especially about government and elected officials, or their duties.

But it is not working nor has it been for some time. It is just an illusion you and your cohorts labor under: that government is operating under rules and ethical conduct, according to some invisible principles – which no one can see a trace of – and that it delivers in kind.

However, wake up, it is not working! And it will not as long as you apply the same logic and misguided effort that you all have thus far.

Government is not to serve you, your friends, supporters and distinguished cronies. It is not a personal tool, so stop treating it like your sandbox.

Government of, by, and for the people has been replaced by “Government”– of government, for government, by government And the two concepts have nothing in common. That in mind, it is time to restore the foundation on which this leviathan now rests

It is possible that this will be the last time you hear from an American concerned for the future of this country. There seem to be fewer and fewer of them every year, judging by the number of voters who participate in our “process” and their results.

So be advised, you have been warned. You may ignore the will of the people now, but you will not even hear an echo of those concerned voices in the future. You and your comrades are killing off that voice. Many of them still shell-shocked about our current condition. Instead, all you will likely receive are thousands of “Dear Santa” letters whenever people want something, and you will have to comply with them. So now it is time for you to decide. While I go back to my immediate responsibilities, it would be nice if you took your oath and responsibilities seriously enough to act on them as well.

Sincerely,
Your stubborn constituent

Op-Ed: Mainline American Christians Against Israel


Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld – Arutz Sheva
Published: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:07 AM

Manfred Gerstenfeld interviews Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Wiesenthal Center:
“They claim to support the underdog against ‘powerful and evil Israel.’”

“The leadership of most American ‘mainline’ Protestant churches is top-heavy with anti-Israel agitation, especially among those on mission committees. By now, a substantial number of their members have been influenced by anti-Israel rhetoric. Furthermore, younger members, due to anti-Israel attitudes on campus, are increasingly hostile to Israel. If the Palestinians make further progress here, it will be a great blow to the self-understanding of America as ‘firmly in Israel’s camp.’

“These very liberal churches include Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and the United Church of Christ. They presently number about 16 million. Their membership and influence in the United States continue to decline. These churches’ rhetoric is usually outdone by an even harsher one of a small group of so-called ‘peace churches,’ including the Mennonites and Quakers.”

Rabbi Yitchok Adlerstein is the Director of Interfaith Affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center. He is the Adjunct Chair, Jewish Law and Ethics at Loyola Law School. He is the Founding Editor of the Jewish Orthodox blog Cross-Currents.

“Mainline churches claim many members from Congress. They represent America’s heartland and have adopted a range of resolutions hostile to Israel. They include calls for boycotts plus divestment and sanctions (BDS). Some are aimed at Israel, others focus on the ‘settlements.’ Several churches supported the hateful Kairos Palestine Document published in 2009 by some Palestinian Christians. There is also tourism to Israel under Palestinian auspices.

“BDS started with the passage of a resolution in 2004 at the Presbyterian Church (USA) calling for selective divestment of shares of American companies doing business in Israel. Long before that, the World Council of Churches (WCC) founded in 1948, aligned itself with ‘third world’ countries and thinking. This is an international umbrella group of mainline churches which claims denominational membership of 590 million people. It has frequently condemned Israel, yet never protested attempts by Israel’s neighbors and by terrorists to erase it from the map.

“The churches’ salaried officials often harm Israel, without a specific mandate from a convention floor. For example, in fall 2012 just before the U.S. presidential elections, a consortium of church officials sent a letter to members of Congress questioning how U.S. military aid was being used by Israel, and calling for cutbacks in that aid.

“Several of these churches also publish extremely anti-Israel educational materials. These are often the only ones members will view. The Methodists produced a study guide a few years ago authored by an apostate Jewish pastor. He admitted to hating Judaism. It featured illustrations of Israeli soldiers reminiscent of Nazi guards at a concentration camp.


Easter message 2001: ‘It seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him.

“The motives of these churches differ. Some aim to delegitimize the State of Israel as ‘a colonialist enterprise conceived in sin.’ Others desire to give Christian witness to the lack of peace in the Holy Land. These churches have discarded much of their grandparents’ beliefs and practices, retaining sympathy only for the powerless. In defending the Palestinians, they claim to support the underdog against ‘powerful and evil Israel.’

“Theology is playing an increasing role in mainline churches’ anti-Israel activity. It began with the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center and its head, Dr. Naim Ateek. Many liberal churches have partnered with Sabeel. Ateek used crucifixion imagery in his Easter message of 2001: ‘It seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him.’

” This reintroduces the ancient murderous Christian charge of deicide against the Jews. Ateek and others deny that the Bible speaks of any covenant of land with the Jews. This is a renewal of the replacement theology and supersessionism, and is extremely dangerous for Jews around the world, especially at a time of rising anti-Semitism.

“Palestinian influences in anti-Israel hate mongering is huge. They have sent teams of Palestinian Christians around the U.S for a decade, tugging at Christian heartstrings with emotional tales of woe. They are more effective than Palestinian Muslims, who don’t come as ‘brothers.’

“Still, there are surprises. In 2012, several denominations substituted positive investment resolutions in place of divestment. In some cases, votes that looked like they were heading in the anti-Israel direction were saved by impassioned speeches by pastors who spoke about the impact such a resolution would have on Jewish-Christian friendships and partnerships in their churches.

“I frequently converse with friends in churches, pondering the sundry causes of anti-Israel sentiment. When I attribute much to the misdirection of Christian love, I am often interrupted by someone saying: ‘Rabbi, I wish it were true. There is far more old-fashioned anti-Semitism in this church than any of us would like to admit.’”

“The actions of these mainline churches have poisoned the well of Christian-Jewish dialogue. Jews entered the dialogue, which has been fruitful at times, on the basis of assurances that Christian partners left contempt for Jews and Judaism behind, and had made serious attempts to understand what was important to Jews. The way in which these churches treat Israel shows that neither is true.”

About author: The writer has been a long-term adviser on strategy issues to the boards of several major multinational corporations in Europe and North America.He is board member and former chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and recipient of the LIfetime Achievement Award (2012) of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/13524#.Ud33_6x-r4v