Amerisrael

Which Christ Preaches "Christ at the Checkpoint"?

The members of the first church of the misinformed and misguided are at it again.

From Israel Today:

["From March 5-9 Bethlehem Bible College will be hosting its second "Christ at the Checkpoint" conference. While Israelis are celebrating their ancient divine delivery during the Purim holiday, some 30 Christian leaders will be gathering in Bethlehem to raise the banner of "Palestinian Liberation Theology" as the only true hope for reconciliation and peace in the Middle East.

The target of most of these speakers will be "Christian Zionism," that theological viewpoint that supports modern Israel's continued prophetic relevance and destiny, and, in so doing, also supports Israel's biblical claim to the Land of Israel. For Bethlehem Bible College and like-minded institutions (such as "reconciliation" ministry Musalaha), Christian Zionism is a threat to peace and the fulfillment of God's Word.

By contrast, these Christian leaders claim their own position is apolitical and biblical. With massive assistance from abroad (some of the speakers head some of America's largest churches) they support the Palestinian struggle for freedom in their "occupied land."

One such speaker is British Christian writer Ben White, who recently published the book Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy. Israel's largest daily newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, on Monday highlighted the fact that the forward for White's book was written by extremist Israeli-Arab Knesset Member Haneen Zoabi."]

--read the rest at Israel Today.

Related:

According to this oped article at Ynetnews, Haneen Zoabi should be tried for treason.

Palin Slams GOP Establishment Rino "Cannibals"

Sarah Palin has come out swinging hard against the elitist GOP establishment for "using the tactics of the left"  to  falsely attack Newt Gingrich and "annoint" Romney the nominee without full vetting and debate:

Sarah Palin's Facebook-

["We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future..."]

--read it all.

 

French Parliament Adapts Armenian Genocide Bill

[But will Sarkozy sign it?]

From Fox 11AZ:

"A bill making it a crime to deny the 1915 killings of Armenians was a genocide has passed both houses of France's parliament.

The Senate's vote Monday came despite Turkey's threats to impose new sanctions on France. It already suspended military, economic and political ties when the lower house of French parliament passed the bill last month.

The measure now needs to be signed by President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose party proposed it, to become a law.

While most historians contend that the 1915 killings of Armenians as the Ottoman Empire broke up was the 20th century's first genocide, Turkey vigorously denies that."

[but Sarkozy probably won't sign it. His party is the party of appeasement.] 

Read up on the Armenian Genocide here via Islam Watch.

["How the Turkish Jihadis overran the homeland of the Armenians and occupied it (present day Eastern Turkey) and massacred the Armenian Christians in Cold Blood right up to the 20th century!"]

 

Mitt Romney is Corrupt

Via 1389blog--

Pay To Play

Mitt Romney’s organization contributed to GOP candidates in 2010 to buy their endorsements in 2012. That means everyone who ran in 2010 as a Tea Party candidate and then endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012 is a sellout, a political prostitute, a turncoat, and a fraud.

And that’s just the beginning.

Not Romney

Article also includes many source links. Visit the 1389blog.

Obama Campaign Makes Distorted "America-Israel" Video featuring Netanyahu

But neither most Israelis or Netanyahu would "approve" the distorted campaign message:

["Unlikely advocate: Although he is not known for his particularly close relationship with US President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is nonetheless seen praising the president in the latter's new reelection campaign video, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday.

A clip produced by the president's reelection campaign targeting Jewish voters features a long line of Israeli senior officials seen praising Obama. The video's "stars" may be surprised to find themselves included in the clip, as they never gave interviews for the campaign. The footage was taken from interviews they previously gave to US media outlets and it is highly doubtful their permission to be included in the clip was sought."]

--read the rest.

Doesn't Come as a Surprise: Obama Considering Release of Taliban Jihadists

From IPT:

["The Obama administration is considering releasing five top Taliban jihadists from custody at Guantanamo Bay in hopes of negotiating a peace agreement with the Afghan terrorist movement. "

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week that administration is in "the preliminary stages" of testing whether talks with the Taliban can succeed."

"President Obama plans to withdraw virtually all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by 2014. Last month, Vice President Joe Biden told an interviewer that "the Taliban per se is not our enemy."]--read it all.

This was a major topic on Secure Freedom Radio this week:

"How Far is Too Far?"-

"United States House of Representatives Louie Gohmert from Texas just came back from leading important discussions overseas in defense of our interests in Afghanistan. He starts by explaining the situation in Afghanistan and the incredible work the United States military has done by defeating the Taliban, and how the Obama Administration seems to discount all the hard work of our troops by releasing high ranking Taliban leaders. Representative Gohmert clearly states what will happen if the US releases the Taliban leaders, and the danger it will bring, not only to the United States, but to Afghanistan as well. Will the president follow through with this horrific lack of judgment and release these dangerous terrorists?"

Would a Vote for a Member of a Cult to be President help Legitimise their Cult?

That's probably a better question to ask than the one posed by George Handlery over at the Brussels Journal:

"Would a Mormon President Subvert American Democracy?"

Handlery writes the following:

["What follows below is not a Romney-fan’s propaganda. Actually, my favorite used to be another aspirant. The LDS affiliation of Mitt Romney exposes us again to the temptation to make religion into a criterion for picking a candidate."

"Now then, the theological validity of Mormonism’s version of Christianity is beyond my competence and my interest. To many, the implications of a President embracing that creed are of concern."

"However, American public life and her high-level politics have created indicators that Mormons will not kidnap America and replace its system with their theocracy."]

"...Mormons will not kidnap America and replace its system with their theocracy."]

Most likely not.

But is that why many would be concerned over voting for Romney?

Aside from Romney's Mormonism many question whether he is a valid conservative.

But back to the Mormonism.

It is most likely not out of a concern that America's democracy would be subverted , but perhaps instead, indirectly helping to legitimise a cult religion that is the cruxt of concern for many. 

Handlery concludes his article with this:

["...What matters to me now that a Mormon has become a candidate for the Presidency is that, the faith not only teaches values, its adherents live by them."

"Good Mormons work hard, try to measure up to constructive norms, and are reliable. That amounts to a strategy that results in worldly achievement."

"Even so, being a Mormon is a bad rationale to elect someone. However, LDS membership does not amount to a reasonable or a fair reason to deny such person one's vote...."]

"However, LDS membership does not amount to a reasonable or a fair reason to deny such person one's vote...."

Perhaps the reason why Handlery adapts that view is because of what else he wrote:

["Now then, the theological validity of Mormonism’s version of Christianity is beyond my competence and my interest."]

That's the problem Driscol puts a spotlight on:

In his blog article "Is Mormonism a cult?", Mark Driscol noted the following:

["... but in that it, Mormonism] claims Christianity while subtly subverting it in both practice and theology."

"Because it claims to be Christian, uses Christian language, but is antithetical Christianity, it must be labeled a cult theologically. "

"Of course, the trouble is that most people are not Christians, do not understand the differences between Mormon and Christian doctrine, and are therefore confused or upset to hear Mormonism labelled a cult, as it simply sounds cruel."

"What makes matters even worse is when presumably orthodox Christian leaders add to the confusion by essentially declaring Mormonism as a new form of Christianity."

"While it is understandable that the average non-Christian, and many Christians, don’t understand the ways in which Mormonism uses Christian terms while importing them into non-Christian meaning, it’s incumbent for Christian leaders to act like shepherds and warn the sheep about the wolves."

["... but in that it, Mormonism] claims Christianity while subtly subverting it in both practice and theology."]

Most Christians that are informed and studied about Mormonism, probably don't think Mormons are out to subvert American democracy. But rather Christianity. 

To that end, would the election of a Mormon to be President help to legitimise the Mormon cult?

Obama Regime to Close Syrian Embassy? History lesson flashback 2009

This from Ynetnews:

["The United States warned on Friday that it may soon close its embassy in Syria due to the worsening security situation, a move that could exacerbate tensions between Washington and Damascus over its bloody crackdown on protests...."]

--read the rest here.

"U.S. Embassy Attack Exposes Obama Administration's Failed Syrian Policy"--

Key excerpt:

["The Administration naively sought to upgrade diplomatic contacts with the Syrian dictatorship after abandoning the Bush Administration’s policy of mobilizing international pressure on Syria to halt its support of terrorist groups that murdered civilians in Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq, as well as U.S. troops in Iraq."

"It reversed the Bush Administration’s 2005 withdrawal of the U.S. ambassador to Syria following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who courageously opposed Syrian domination of Lebanon..."]

--read the rest here.

Flashback 2009:

"Obama Sending an Ambassador to Syria"

Michael Rubin via National Review: 

["President Obama has decided to send an ambassador to Syria after a four-year hiatus. Bush had withdrawn the ambassador (but kept the embassy open and functioning normally under a charge d’affaires) in the wake of the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005."

"The New York Times says simply that Washington suspects Syria’s involvement. Actually, it goes beyond that: Hardly a country in the world doesn’t suspect Syrian involvement."

"This is why there is a U.N.-sponsored tribunal investigating Syrian complicity. Syria has since refused to cooperate, however, and so the lesson Obama now chooses to send is that there are no red lines or absolutes, and rogue regimes can always outlast international outrage."

 All it takes is four years of defiance and then everything will be okay. No wonder Tehran and Pyongyang, let alone adversaries like Moscow and Beijing simply don’t take Washington seriously."]

[" No wonder Tehran and Pyongyang, let alone adversaries like Moscow and Beijing simply don’t take Washington seriously."]

 

The damage the Obama regime has already done the last three years:

Obama Gets Slammed on Iran [And Appropriately so]

From INN:

["Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Yaalon on Tuesday voiced concern saying "election-year considerations" lay behind the Obama administration's reticence to impose the tough Iran sanctions sought by US legislators.

"In the United States, the Senate passed a resolution, by a majority of 100-to-one, to impose these sanctions, and in the US administration there is hesitation for fear of oil prices rising this year, out of election-year considerations," Yaalon told Israel Radio."]

UK Has a History of Foreign Policy "Vandalism" Against Israel

UK Foreign policy loons: David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Tony Blair.

Nick Clegg, the UK's second string dhimmi Prime Minister, belched out the UK's ignorance and foreign policy dhimmitude with the following vitriolic charge of 'vandalism' against Israel:

["Once you've placed physical facts on the ground that makes it impossible to deliver something that everyone has for years agreed is the ultimate destination... it is an act of deliberate vandalism to the basic premise on which negotiations have taken place for years and years and years," Clegg said, referring to settlement construction. 

Clegg was speaking alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was also holding talks in London with Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague – both of whom have previously expressed concern about settlements.

"The continued existence of illegal settlements risks making facts on the ground such that a two-state solution becomes unviable," Clegg said]

England, along with most [liberal dhimmi] Europeans want to impose the establishment of an Islamist state in the heart of Israel's own land of Judea and Samaria.

All the members of the so-called Quartet, -the U.S., UN, EU, and Russia, are in willful ignorance of previously established international law:

["The “Road Map” vision, as well as continuous pressure from the “Quartet” (U.S., the European Union, the UN and Russia) to surrender parts of Eretz-Israel are contrary to international law that firmly call to “encourage … close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” It also requires the Mandatory for “seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the government of any foreign power.”]

See the San Remo Conference and the Mandate for a Jewish National Home .

["The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,⁴ and became operational on September 29, 1923.⁵

The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community in blissful unawareness of Arab opposition to the very notion of Jewish historical rights in Palestine. The Mandate weathered the test of time: On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations, the international community, in essence, reaffirmed the validity of this international accord and reconfirmed that the terms for a Jewish National Home were the will of the international community, a “sacred trust” – despite the fact that by then it was patently clear that the Arabs opposed a Jewish National Home, no matter what the form."]

On the contrary it is the UK that has had a history of perpetrating political and foreign policy 'vandalism' against Jews and Israel:

[British policy on Israel slammed by top British historian.]

See also "Israeli settlements-Are they Legal?"