Archive for July, 2006

Re-Post: “So, What Would They Do?” by Hal Lindsey

Monday, July 31st, 2006

I was listening with interest when a British reporter was called in by Fox News to give her ‘analysis’ of the current Middle East conflict between Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel. The context of the interview was in relation to Hezbollah’s upping the ante by firing a new, longer range rocket into Afula, some ten miles south of Haifa.
The interviewer pointed out President Bush’s statement that the root cause of the violence was Hezbollah and Hamas.
The British reporter, Hillary McKenzie, immediately took exception to Bush’s statement, saying that ‘in Europe’s view’ (which obviously was shared by McKenzie) the root of the problem was really Israel’s refusal to grant the Palestinians a state of their own.
The fact that every ‘occupied’ territory vacated by Israel was immediately used to stage new attacks against Israel aside, what would, say, the British do? Let’s just suppose that a group of Irishmen living in Ireland wanted an independent Irish state in place of the British mandate in Northern Ireland?
Let’s sweeten the pot by pretending that the Irishmen wanting an Irish state on Irish soil in place of the British-ruled state set up by the British after conquering its inhabitants won’t take ‘no’ for an answer?
To make it even more interesting, let’s pretend that these Irishmen set up an anti-British terrorist group and gave it a nationalist-sounding name, like, maybe the “Irish Republican Army” with a cool acronym like the Palestinians have in the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s acronym, PLO?
So, supposing there was an entity called the IRA that used bombs and terrorist attacks aimed at driving the British off Irish land and setting up an Irish state under Irish rule?
What would the British do?
Would they conduct ground wars against the IRA? Would they imprison the Irish ‘freedom fighters’ who were fighting with the only weapon they had — terrorism — against a ruling external nation much too powerful for the IRA to fight by conventional means?
Or would they, as McKenzie says Europe sees it, immediately turn Northern Ireland over to the Irish ‘rebels?’
Indeed, would ethnic Irishmen seeking to free themselves from foreign rule even qualify as ‘rebels’? Wouldn’t they be ‘freedom fighters’ like the Palestinians?
What IS the difference between British rule in Northern Ireland and Israeli rule over the West Bank and Gaza? Is there one? You bet there is. Before there WAS a Britain, there was an Israel. And before the British ever discovered there was an island across the Irish sea, the ‘Palestinian territories’ were part of ethnic Israel. Northern Ireland was never composed of ethnic Britons.
And Britain did not come into possession of Northern Ireland as a consequence of repelling Irish invaders whose goal was the extermination of the British race.

While we’re on the subject, China voiced its opposition to Israel’s incursion into Lebanon at the Security Council, demanding Israel be condemned for its actions against Hezbollah.
What if there were an island composed of ethnic Chinese that had NEVER been part of the People’s Republic of China? What if that island declared itself an independent nation? What would China do if Tawan resisted forcible unification with the Red Chinese? According to Beijing, it would use all the weapons at its disposal to bring Taiwan back under its rule.

What if Chechnya were to declare it did not want to be part of the new Russian Federation after the Soviet Union collapsed? What would Moscow do? Would it grant Chechnya the independence its population demanded? Or would it conduct a decade-long war, killing thousands of civilians in the process, to force Chechnya into the Russian Federation against the will of the majority of Chechen citizens?

What would the French do if the Vietnamese, after decades of colonial rule, declared its independence? Would it wish the Vietnamese rebels ‘bon chance’ and give the country back to its people? Or would it fight a ten-year war to keep Vietnam inside the sphere of French colonial influence?

Of course, none of these are exactly in parallel with the Israeli-Arab war. The Irish Republican Army poses no existential threat to the continued viability of Great Britain. The IRA has not sworn to annihilate every living Englishman and then seize Britain’s assets for itself.

The Taiwanese have not attacked Beijing, or threatened the annihilation of the Red Chinese state and every living Chinaman on the mainland.

The Chechens have not banded together with the express purpose of destroying Russia and setting up a Chechen state in its place.

And the Vietnamese defeated the French, after which, it left them alone.

What would the United Nations do if New Zealand attacked Australia with the express purpose of annihilating Australia as a nation and exterminating every Australian it could find, simply because they were Australians? Would they urge Australia to show ‘restraint’?
We already know what the British would do. They would increase their troop presence in Northern Ireland, and capture or kill every Irishman that lifted a hand against them. And they would NOT call the IRA ‘freedom fighters’. They’d call them terrorists.
China has threatened to launch an all-out invasion of Tawian and overthrow any Taiwanese government that dared to formally declare independence from the Red Chinese government Taiwan was never part of.
And Moscow has been conducting an all-out war against Chechen ‘rebels’ whom Moscow calls ‘terrorists’ and not ‘freedom fighters’.
But Israel, a sovereign member state of the United Nations, has fought five wars for its existence against the combined forces of the Arab world. In each case, the provocation for the Arab attacks was the mere existence of a Jewish state called Israel.

In each case, Brits, Chinese, Russians and UN have demanded Israel withdraw to indefensible borders, insisted on a cease-fire in order to give Israel’s enemies a chance to rest and regroup before launching a new war. And in each case, it blamed Israel for causing the war BY ITS EXISTENCE, demanding it surrender parts of itself to the aggressors in exchange for a ‘peace’ that never came.

History tells us what THEY would do. But, of course, their situation is different.

They aren’t Jews.

Original Link.

News from Iran

Monday, July 31st, 2006

Two stories caught my eye this morning concerning Iran’s latest rants.

Iran forces urged to prepare to hit Israel
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran’s hardline forces should get ready to take revenge on Israel and the United States for the offensive on Lebanon, the head of the Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.
“The Basij and Revolutionary Guards should prepare to get even with the Zionists and Americans,” Yahya Rahim-Safavi was quoted as telling Islamic militiamen by the conservative Fars news agency.
The Basij are volunteer Islamic militiamen.

UN resolution on atomic work rejected
TEHRAN — The people of Iran are entitled to produce their own nuclear fuel, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday, rejecting the terms of a draft UN resolution that demands Iran give up its nuclear work. Ahmadinejad said Iranians were seeking “peaceful nuclear technology.”
France issued a draft resolution to the Security Council on Friday demanding that Iran suspend nuclear activities by Aug. 31 or face the threat of sanctions if it refuses. A vote is expected this week. (Reuters)

Photos that damn Hezbollah

Monday, July 31st, 2006

No surprise here. Waging war on civilians while using civilians as “human shields” is what terrorist do.

THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon’s battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.
The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.
Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.
The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend.
They emerged as:
US President George Bush called for an international force to be sent to Lebanon.
ISRAEL called up another 30,000 reserve troops.
THE UN’s humanitarian chief Jan Egeland called for a three-day truce to evacuate civilians and transport food and water into cut-off areas.
US SECRETARY of State Condoleezza Rice returned to the Middle East to push a UN resolution aimed at ending the 18-day war, and:
A PALESTINIAN militant group said it had kidnapped, killed and burned an Israeli settler in the West Bank.
The images include one of a group of men and youths preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun metres from an apartment block with sheets hanging out on a balcony to dry.
Others show a militant with AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes.
Another depicts the remnants of a Hezbollah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block blown up in an Israeli air attack.
The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut and did not wish to be named said he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated.
“Hezbollah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets,” he said.
“Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was totally devastated.
“It was carnage. Two innocent people died in that incident, but it was so lucky it was not more.”
The release of the images comes as Hezbollah faces criticism for allegedly using innocent civilians as “human shields”.
Mr Egeland blasted Hezbollah as “cowards” for operating among civilians.
“When I was in Lebanon, in the Hezbollah heartland, I said Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending in among women and children,” he said.

Original Link.

Rabbis issue worldwide prayer calls

Monday, July 31st, 2006

Please continue to pray for Israel, that God will spread His protection over them, guide them and show them His Glory!!
My Brothers and Sisters in Christ need to remember that Jesus is a Jew, an Israelite. As His “adopted” people, through His promise of salvation on the cross, to all Gentiles, we have a responsibility to support Israel. They are still God’s chosen people. We have our roots with them through Avraham (Abraham), Yitzchak (Isaac) and Ya’acov (Jacob). May God Bless and Protect His People, Israel.

JERUSALEM – As a record number of Hezbollah rockets slammed into Israeli towns yesterday, rabbinic leaders here and abroad called on Christians worldwide to increase acts of kindness, for Jewish men to done tefillin, or Jewish prayer phylacteries, once per day, while Jewish women were asked to light Sabbath candles every Friday night to ensure the safety of Israel during its military campaign in Lebanon.

“We call upon all Christians and non-Jews to increase in acts of goodness and kindness to your neighbor and fellow man. For Jewish males above the age of 13 to don Tefillin every weekday. Tefillin possesses a special spiritual component that frightens and deters the enemy. And to all Jewish women to start lighting Shabbat candles every Friday before sunset. Shabbat candles too have a spiritual component to dispel darkness and to light up the world,” the Rabbinic Congress for Peace, a coalition of over 1200 rabbinic leaders and pulpit rabbis, said in a statement.

Original Link.

Blog is being Spammed

Monday, July 31st, 2006

Hello everyone.
Right now we are experiencing a high amount of spam hits on the blog (over 200 per day). If you put links in your comment, at best, it will end up in moderation and at worse, it will be deleted by the anti-spam software.
If you need to include multiple links in your comment, it would be best to email it to me and then I can post it for you.
Thanks for your help with this.

Do Gays Really Want to Get Married?

Friday, July 28th, 2006

Do homosexuals REALLY want to get married? Statistics say no. The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy has issued a report saying that in places where same-sex marriage has been legalized there is an initial burst in marriages, but over time the demand decreases. I continually hear the complaints from gays who say they want the health benefits and death benefits of their partner like hetero couples have, but it seems that when offered the opportunity many of them choose not to legally marry. I find it interesting that there is such a push by the homosexuals for their “marriages” to be recognized legally, but when the rubber meets the road many are not willing to commit.

(AgapePress) - Homosexual activists in the U.S. are fighting ferociously for the legal right to marry, and are equalled in their tenacity only by their pro-family opponents. But when and where they are given the legal right, do homosexuals really want to get married?

Statistics appear to answer in the negative. That is the conclusion reached in a report issued by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (iMAPP) and written by the group’s president, Maggie Gallagher, and policy director, Joshua K. Baker. The iMAPP policy paper, “Demand for Same-Sex Marriage: Evidence from the United States, Canada, and Europe [PDF],” indicates that immediately following the legalization of same-sex marriage, “the number of same-sex marriages, after an initial burst, appears to [decrease] with each year the legal option is available.”

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. They were quickly followed by Belgium, Canada, Spain and South Africa. According to Caleb H. Price, research analyst in the Government and Public Policy Division at Focus on the Family, civil unions or other forms of domestic partnerships are allowed in an additional 11 nations.

But Gallagher and Baker found that homosexuals don’t seem very enthusiastic about taking part in the institution of marriage. (See “State of the Unions” below) In the Netherlands, for example, only 6.3% of homosexuals in that nation have gotten married. Only 2.1% of the total Dutch population is homosexual.

Original Link

Difference Between Israel and Terrorist

Friday, July 28th, 2006

In case anyone still doesn’t understand the difference between Israelis and Terrorist, I’ve arranged some visual aids to assist you.

Palestinian Body Armor

Cowardly Blend

Palestinian Baby Carriage

Images courtesy of Cox and Forkum and Michelle Malkin.

Iran to Nuke Israel on August 22?

Friday, July 28th, 2006

Well, when a madman runs a country, that either is or soon will be, a nuclear power, anything is possible.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has frustrated Western officials by refusing to reply to their offer of various incentives in exchange for Iran’s discarding its nuclear program until August 22. The Western governments had asked Ahmadinejad to reply by June 29; why would Tehran need two extra months?
Farid Ghadry, the president of the Reform Party of Syria, has offered a provocative explanation for this delay. He asserts that the Supreme National Security Council of Iran chose the August 22 date “for a very precise reason. August 21, 2006 (Rajab 27, 1427) is known in the Islamic calendar as the Night of the Sira’a and Miira’aj, the night Prophet Mohammed (saas) ascended to heaven from the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on a Bourak (Half animal, half man), while a great light lit-up the night sky, and visited Heaven and Hell also Beit al-Saada and Beit al-Shaqaa (House of Happiness and House of Misery) and then descended back to Mecca.…”

Original Link.

Dems Have a Plan to Counter Growing Success of State Marriage Initiatives

Friday, July 28th, 2006

We could expect no less from the Dems.

(AgapePress) - The Democratic Party has apparently decided to take a different tack in its efforts to bring legalized homosexual “marriage” to every state in the country. Determined to provide more coordinated support to advocates of same-sex unions, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) recently announced it has adopted a five-point plan for fighting state ballot measures defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
In 2004, the Democratic Party made it clear it stood opposite President George W. Bush on defending traditional marriage. “We repudiate President Bush’s divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a ‘Federal Marriage Amendment,’” it says on page 38 of The 2004 Democratic National Platform for America. In the statement prior to that, the party says such an issue should be left to the states. “In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there,” it says.
Since that platform was written, the number of states installing the traditional definition of marriage as part of their constitution has grown to 20 — and as many as seven more are set to consider similar initiatives this fall. Sensing that its “leave it to the states” approach needs some tweaking, the DNC has apparently decided to add more structure to the state-level efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.
For example, the DNC recently contributed $10,000 to opponents of the pro-marriage “Protect Marriage Illinois” initiative in the state of Illinois. A spokesman for the pro-homosexual group National Stonewall Democrats — in an interview with the Washington Blade, a pro-homosexual publication — confirmed that contribution, adding that homosexual activists in the state were “very pleased” with the DNC’s help.
In the same article, DNC spokesman Danien LaVera spelled out the Committee’s five-point plan for fighting state ballot measures that would ban same-sex marriage:
1. Label “anti-gay” ballot measures as “divisive” ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues, including “the Bush administration’s failed policies.”
2. Begin a state “party-building” operation that includes specific training for state party operatives in all 50 states on how to campaign against ballot measures banning homosexual marriage.
3. Work closely with the National Stonewall Democrats to “develop strategy and talking points” to combat state measures defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
4. Work cooperatively with homosexual organizations fighting ballot measures in each state where they surface, providing campaign advice, expertise, and logistical and financial support.
5. Empower and organize GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] communities around the country through the help of Brian Bond, the DNC’s new “gay outreach organizer.”
According to LaVera, a number of these actions are already in place. The state party-building effort (Point #2), for example, was begun by DNC chairman Howard Dean, who is on record saying that the July 7 pro-marriage ruling by the New York Supreme Court “relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families.” LaVera also tells the Blade that the DNC’s involvement in the Illinois marriage initiative shows how “highly successful” cooperation between his organization and pro-homosexual groups can be.
The DNC will not be alone in its efforts to combat marriage protection initiatives at the state level. The Blade quotes spokespersons from two high-profile homosexual rights groups — the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force — who say the groups are committing several million dollars toward ballot measure fights. Their goal, says a NGLTF official, is to gain legalization of same-sex marriage in ten states over the next ten years — “either through legislative or judicial action.”
As of late, neither avenue has proven successful for advocates of same-sex marriage. Their most recent setback came out of Washington State, where on Wednesday the state Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act passed by voters in 1998 is constitutional — and said that in a democracy, marriage should be defined by elected governmental representatives, not by judges.
Currently, Massachusetts is the only state that allows homosexuals to marry; the state of Vermont recognizes “civil unions.” States considering constitutional marriage amendments in November include Arizona (pending certification of petition signatures), Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Original Link.

Al-Qaida Wants Holy War Against Israel

Thursday, July 27th, 2006

Well, we knew it wouldn’t be long until ALL the terrorists joined the fight against Israel. Al-Qaida is urging all Muslims to rise up and fight Israel until Islam reigns from Spain to Iraq. All you people out there who think that the Muslims are a peaceful people, you need to get a clue. The last thing this world needs is Islamic rule ANYWHERE!

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from “Spain to Iraq.”

In the message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, said that al-Qaida now views “all the world as a battlefield open in front of us.”

The Egyptian-born physician said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with “cease-fires or agreements.”

“It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails … from Spain to Iraq,” al-Zawahri said. “We will attack everywhere.” Spain was controlled by Arab Muslims for more than seven centuries until they were driven from power in 1492.

Original Link

Copyright © 2005 - 2007 Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian Family, All Rights Reserved