The Apple Of God's Eye

November 14, 2009

Muslim Violence: Politically Correct Weakness Was Inevitable Precursor To Fort Hood Deaths!

www.freerepublic.comAccording to a November 10 Newsmax article, 10 Percent of 2000 U.S. Mosques Preach Jihad and extremism, the FBI Estimates.

Here are some astounding facts about Islamic thought in the USA. About a quarter of the Muslims in America ages 18 through 29 believe that suicide bombings can be justified, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Generating those attitudes are imams who preach jihad and hatred in American mosques and postings on the Internet, according to FBI counter terrorism officials interviewed for the book, “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack. The same source said, “It’s not the Irish, it’s not the French, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the Protestants, it’s the Muslims.” …

The Bible shows that we have a muddled, minority-privilege, criminal-as-victim rationalization within our societies. This view is fueled largely by our liberal leadership and media’s look-the-other-way response and pretending the greatest danger in the war on terror is increased discrimination against peaceful American Muslims. Nothing, but nothing seems to prevent us from prioritizing “sending the right message” to the Islamic world over dealing with the truth.

That sort of thinking puts into perspective  the problem facing us as we ponder the meaning of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s slayings of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. Numerous signs point to Hasan’s jihadist motives:

  1. His attendance at a mosque with a jihadist hate preacher—Anwar al-Awlaki, the same “spiritual adviser” to three of the 9/11 terrorists.
  2. His labeling of the war on terror a “war on Islam.”
  3. His identifying his nationality not as American, but Palestinian.
  4. His being reprimanded during his postgraduate work for inappropriately proselytizing for Islam.
  5. His efforts, noted by U.S. intelligence officials, to contact members of al Qaeda.
  6. His evident approval of a Muslim terrorist killing an Army recruiter in Arkansas this past summer.
  7. His statements (according to colleague Col. Terry Lee), that Muslims had the right to attack Americans, and that “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.”
  8. His lecture to doctors at Walter Reed in D.C. where he warned that “adverse events” could occur if the military didn’t release Muslim soldiers as conscientious objectors.
  9. His statement, in the same presentation, calling non-Muslims (in the words of the Sunday Telegraph) “infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire,” and saying they “should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.”
  10. His statement to a neighbor the morning of the attack, as he gave her a Koran with his business card, “I’m going to do good work for God.”
  11. His shout of “Allahu Akbar!” (Allah is great) before he mowed down his victims.

More motives are appearing by the minute and it is clear that the radical element of Islam influenced Hasan.

Don’t expect many retractions from any who assume Hasan’s religion had no bearing on his motive in the attack. That is because political correctness is cherished more than truth. Most in power or in the press have downplayed the jihadist connection from the moment the tragedy happened. They ascribed the attack to Hasan’s supposed mental imbalances, stress from counseling traumatized soldiers, or harassment he endured for being Muslim. Everything at all, except the fact that he is a Muslim with extreme views.

Gen. George Casey, the U.S. Army chief of staff, said it’s important not to speculate about the role his Muslim faith played in the outburst. Well, why not given the facts stated above? Because his concern is to prevent a backlash against Muslims in the military.

President Obama also issued a statement saying, “We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”  sounds noble right, except this is the same man who, before knowing all the facts, glibly judged that the Cambridge police’s actions against Henry Louis Gates fit a pattern of racial profiling in America.

I don’t see that these 13 murders will do anything to change the culture of political correctness strangling our Western nations. They have a stubborn, unshakable conviction that the best way to fight Islamist terrorism is to avoid offense. This runs parallel to a prophecy in Isaiah which states: “[W]e have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves.”

The Prophet Moses warned that the end-time nations of Israel, of which the U.S. is one, would suffer. Among their punishments: “The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.” And why? “For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them” (Deuteronomy 32:25, 28).

Doesn’t the above information adeptly show a nation void of counsel and bereft of understanding? As long as we continue to cherish political correctness above truth and value diversity over life itself, we will continue to suffer. The reason? Our life is void of God’s word.

April 16, 2009

President Obama Denies His Country’s Foundation

21“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation,” President Obama said while in Turkey last week. “We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” These comments were similar to those in his inaugural address, when Obama referred to the United States—the largest Judeo-Christian nation on Earth—as “a nation of Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus.”

But the fact that the U.S. president chose to make this point while in a Muslim nation was especially significant.

“I don’t know what ‘we’ consider ‘ourselves,’” David Limbaugh writes on Newsmax.com, “but I do think we ought to examine that statement and why Obama felt compelled to make it a part of his world apology tour. Can you imagine the Saudi king coming to America and bragging that his nation is not Muslim? I assure you that he’s not ashamed of the Islamic character of his nation, even though his nation is demonstrably less tolerant of other religions.”

Limbaugh continues:

So is (or was) America a Christian nation? … [I]f we are talking about the ideals that led to the very colonization of this land, our declaration of independence from Britain, and the formulation of our Constitution, then the answer is certainly “yes.”

In the words of Prof. John Eidsmoe, author of Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, “If by the term Christian nation one means a nation that was founded on biblical values that were brought to the nation by mostly professing Christians, then in that sense the United States may truly be called a Christian nation.”

Why does this matter? Simply because our dominant secular culture delights in demonizing Christianity, distorting its character, conflating it with less tolerant faiths, and associating it with all our societal woes. History revisionists have convinced many that we mainly owe our liberties to secular humanist ideals and those borrowed from the Greeks, Romans and the French Enlightenment.

To the contrary, our freedom tradition can be traced to our predominantly Judeo-Christian roots. …

Our constitutional framework of government can be understood only in the context of the framers’ predominantly Christian worldview. Although they believed in man’s dignity, they also believed in his depravity and that it would be possible to establish a scheme of individual liberties only if they imposed limitations on government.

Much of our Bill of Rights is biblically based, as well, and the Ten Commandments and further laws set out in the book of Exodus form the basis of our Western law. Indeed, English legal giants Sir William Blackstone and Sir Edward Coke both believed the common law was based on Scripture. …

Our ruling class today is dominated by those who no longer believe that our rights are God-given or that our liberties depend on effective limitations on the state. They are so divorced from true history and American statecraft that they fail to see the irony in their dissociation with and apologies for our Judeo-Christian heritage, which is responsible for making this the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth for people of all races, ethnicities and religions.

Source: Trumpet.com

April 12, 2009

The Obama Bow: Fealty To A Foreign Potentate!

 sharprightturn.wordpress.com/  

sharprightturn.wordpress.com/

President Barack Obama’s bow in front of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz during their recent meeting at the sidelines of the G20 conference in London has astounded many people.  OK, so what you might say, it’s no big deal, right? Well, yes it is!

First of all, media from media networks to newspapers, neither have aired the video of the incident nor reported on it. In fact, so blase are they that Washington Post reporter Michael A. Fletcher’s gave this breezy dismissal of the event: “I’m not sure what the etiquette is for such greetings, but I’m sure the president was only trying to convey respect … Remember some years ago when President Bush touched cheeks with and held the hand of a Saudi monarch during a visit to his Texas ranch? Another sign of respect. I would not make too much of it.”

But there is a difference. Though George W. Bush holding hands with and kissing Abdullah on the cheeks, while begging down the price of oil was over the top, it did not hold the same consequences as President Barack Obama’s obeisance to the Saudi king.

Let’s examine what I mean.

The White House denies that the president bowed. 

“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah.” 

I don’t know if they were watching a different video clip than the one that shows Obama’s head below the King’s shoulder level, a significant stoop by any measure. Or did they miss one of the President’s hands dangling at the knees?

Michael Goldfarb summed up the problem for Mr. Obama succinctly in the Weekly Standard: “So who you going to believe — Barack Obama or your lying eyes?” The evidence simply does not support the official position of the Obama administration.

Interestingly, a columnist in the Saudi-backed Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat also took the gesture as a bow and appreciated the move.

It’s deeper than a matter of etiquette

Is it really a matter of etiquette for an American President to bow to royalty? Was this merely a generic breach of protocol; a rookie mistake for a young President? Protocol experts told FOX News that no rule exists on presidents bowing.

“To my knowledge, there is no rule at all,” said Lloyd Hand who was chief of protocol for President Lyndon Johnson. “Protocol is 95 percent common sense judgment and 5 percent specific rules and that has nothing to do with bowing.”

OK, so it’s not a matter of protocol, but rather of judgment and common sense. In that vein, the US has some of the best intelligence in the world and Mr. Obama should be well vested in whom he is dealing with. King Abdullah is a Sharia dictator who fosters religious repression, de facto slavery, subjugation of women, and, not least, the international export of jihad and Sharia through “charities,” mosques, madrassas, textbooks, university endowments, Sharia finance and, of course, terrorists, some 15 of whom attacked the United States in 2001 (Townhall.com, April 9, 2009).

By showing deference to this person, Mr. Obama besmirches the memories and lives of Americans dead and maimed in action aginst their foes. And as the Washingtom Times said in their editorial, “By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States. Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king’s subjects, not his peer.”

It’s certainly more deference than Queen Elizabeth received, who was the recipient of a handshake and an I-Pod equipped with Mr. Obama’s  speeches. Oh, I almost forgot: A sweater-clad first lady did show some (over) familiarity with the queen by putting her arm around the monarch.

This diplomatic disrespect was also evident in buying cheesy DVD box sets and toy Marine 1 helicopters for the British Prime Minister and family. And as for that Churchill bust, we no longer need it because we’re all about change! 

“Now remember that Obama said he was going to improve America’s image throughout the world….and showing respect and adhering to protocol is unarguably the first way to achieve that if you believe that is your purpose…..so then ask yourself:

Why did Michelle Obama not curtsy to the Queen?
Why did Obama know to tip his head to the Queen, but mastered a full waist bow to the Saudi King?
Why did Obama use two hands in his gesture to the Queen when one hand is protocol?
Why did he give the queen a cheap Ipod made in China by cheap labour? 

Why was there no more thought put into PM Brown’s gift?

These gestures may SEEM small, but this lack of respect, uninformed gaffes, or outright purposeful messages being sent by the Obamas are fully in line with their subtle anti-Americanism and disdain for British history and culture.  – (Sharprightturn)

Will past associations show in future actions?

Mr. Obama had a close association with the  “hate America” pastor  Jeremiah Wright who states that the foundation of his beliefs are in systemized black liberation theology. Here is what Glenn Beck said on his CNN broadcast, March 19, 2009:

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power which is the power of black people to destroy their opinion pressers here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

This is one of the most anti-God, anti-Bible statements one can utter! Christ died for the sins of all humanity. And all humanity is going to be a part of God’s Family, in God’s time frame.

Rolling Stone featured “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama” in its Feb. 22, 2007, issue stating: “This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from ….” The magazine insisted that Jeremiah Wright was not “an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics.” The article also quoted another pastor, who said, “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from, just look at Jeremiah Wright.” (The Trumpet.com, July 25, 2008).

And much has been made about Barack Obama’s association with William Ayers, a man who hasn’t expressed one ounce of remorse for his terrorist attacks on federal targets during the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, he wishes his organization could have committed more murderous acts of domestic terrorism.

What does all this portend? 

If history is our guide, we know that the success of a nation under crisis is tied to two essential words that Lincoln knit to a new birth of freedom – “under God.”  These were the two most important words in Lincoln’s entire presidency.

“This nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom” — A. Lincoln, Nov. 19, 1863.

When Barack Obama (who ironically strives to mimick Lincoln) took the oath of office as America’s first African-American president, these words were conspicuous for their absence. This is a man who relies on himself, not on God. He sees his enthusiasm for dialogue and negotiation as one of his chief selling points.

“Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions,” his website proudly asserts. In a January interview, he said he wanted to hold a Muslim summit in hopes of bridging the gap between Islam and the West. He told the Daily Telegraph he would “do so with the credibility of someone who has lived in a Muslim country.”

Obama is also proud of his opposition to the September 2007 Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which branded Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization and authorized the U.S. to use “all instruments … of national power in Iraq” to combat the destabilizing influence of Iran. (The Trumpet.com, July 25, 2008).

If you want to know what a person really believes – observe his actions and aquaintances, rather than his words. Since being elected he has bent over backwards (and now forwards) to show deference to the Muslim world. All this while famously hanging out for years with people who hate America. Is there a connection?

Leaders – and world events – are of God

God’s Word informs us that there can be no power in this present world, except as God allows, so I don’t take sides, nor get into emotional debates. I can say though—with certainty—that this president of the United States is the one God put into that office. The movement behind Barack Obama’s improbable rise to power, as well as his celebrity-like status internationally—says a lot about where we are in Bible prophecy.

The movement to elect Mr. Obama’s reveals just how naive many of our people are when it comes to the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East and, to a certain degree, the whole world—Iranian-backed Islamic extremism. The Bible reveals that neither America nor Israel has the will to confront this prophesied “king of the south” (Daniel 11:40). That task will be left to a Vatican-led European Union. And it will result in a spectacular clash that will then lead to a worldwide war!

March 20, 2009

Will Rome Take Over Jerusalem?

The Vatican’s Hidden Jerusalem Agenda

March 16, 2009 | From theTrumpet.com

By Ron Fraser

This magazine has been watching Joseph Ratzinger for a long time. As we have watched, we have followed his course from chief confidante of the late Pope John Paul ii to his enthronement as pope and then on throughout the past four years of his controversial papacy.

As we have watched this leading religious figure, we have monitored his involvement in a clandestine project of the Vatican that was documented in Bible prophecy almost 2,000 years ago and which remained a mystery until fully exposed within the last two decades.

Now, as Benedict xvi prepares for his upcoming visit to Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan this May—a tour incorporating his first visit to Israel since being elected pope—it is crucial that the Vatican agenda for the city of Jerusalem be publicized.

Back in the mid-1990s, a statement made by Pope John Paul ii during an interview in his native Poland, broadcast in Italian over a Polish radio station, was noted by one of our Italian associates. She sent us a transcript of the interview, which included one particularly startling reference made by the pope regarding the Vatican’s ultimate goal of transferring its headquarters from Rome to Jerusalem.

What was unusual about this admission of John Paul ii is that the Vatican’s intentions to possess Jerusalem are seldom publicized and little commented on. In fact, an air of secrecy—something that the Vatican has a history of creating over various of its affairs over the centuries—has surrounded this project since the failure of the Crusades, the most obvious of the overt and now very historical attempts by the Vatican to seize control of the Holy City. Those attempts have a long history with strong attachments to the German nation, right up to the past two world wars, and beyond to our present day.

As far back as the eighth century a.d., emissaries were sent to Jerusalem by Emperor Charlemagne to negotiate an agreement with the Muslim Caliph Haroun al-Raschid. The result was that Jerusalem became a protectorate of the Holy Roman Empire.

Historical records indicate that such a protectorate was limited to the oversight of the welfare of Christians, the care and protection of designated holy sites, and the properties of the Roman Catholic Church in Jerusalem. The fact that the caliph would be a financial beneficiary to this enterprise was a given. Muslim support of the Kaiser’s army in World War i, and again of the Nazi regime in World War ii, was the end result of a long historical nexus between the Muslims and Germany.

From the time of the Charlemagne/Haroun pact, through the attempt by Kaiser Wilhelm to seize Jerusalem in World War i to this day, elements within Germany have historically viewed themselves as protectors of the Roman Catholic Church. From the time of the failure of the great crusades, German elites have worked to find ways and means of seizing the plum job of protector of Jerusalem.

Recently, courtesy of the actions of Germany’s Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany has aggressively stepped up its diplomacy in the Middle East. This action comes in advance of the upcoming visit by a German pontiff, Josef Ratzinger, under his adopted papal name Benedict xvi, to Jerusalem. Both Vatican and German diplomacy in Israel are linked to a common end: possession of the Old City of Jerusalem, as well as most of the eastern half of the city. The Jews are the pawns in this grand game of international diplomacy, the Palestinians the all-too-willing grunts on the ground eager to facilitate the division of Jerusalem and the annihilation of the State of Israel in the process.

The Vatican already has a significant presence in Jerusalem by virtue of free access to its holy sites over which Rome has legal jurisdiction, under Israeli law, including both its institutions and assets in Jerusalem. The consolidation of these arrangements came by virtue of a bilateral agreement termed “The Fundamental Agreement Between the Holy See and the State of Israel,” which the Israeli government signed with the Vatican on Dec. 30, 1993. The terms of this agreement, composed in secret, were subsequently legislated by the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. What remains largely unknown is the secret deal done by current Israeli President Shimon Peres and the leftist peacenik, former Meretz party member Yossi Beilin, known widely as “Peres’s poodle.”

Six months after the signing of the bilateral agreement between Israel and the Vatican, on June 15, 1994, the Israeli government inked a further agreement with the Vatican endorsing the Roman Catholic Church’s participation in negotiations to determine the future of Jerusalem. This was followed in February 1996 by Secretary General of the Vatican Serge Sebastian announcing that Rome recognizes Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem. The Vatican had thus revealed its hand. From here Rome was to go on to actively work through its proxies in the “peace process” to exploit Palestinian claims as a means of splitting the city of Jerusalem asunder, seizing the Old City and possessing East Jerusalem. This involved the management of Palestinian aggression as part of the process, regardless of the suffering and loss of life that it would inevitably incur. This would in fact be a vital part of the initiative to take East Jerusalem by force in the event of the failure of diplomatic means. The same tactic had been instigated by Germany and Rome in the Balkan Peninsula to achieve a desired result with implicit UN agreement, with the Serbs becoming the pariah in the world’s view. This time, it’s the Jews who are being pilloried, in particular since the Gaza incursion, in the lead-up to a similar result as that in Kosovo: the seizure of iconic territory to be placed under the influence of Berlin and Rome with the willing acquiescence of the United Nations.

Journalist Joel Bainerman, a well-known commentator on Israeli affairs, claims, “The end goal of the Vatican is to seize control of the Old City of Jerusalem out of the clutches of the State of Israel. To that end they have a secret agreement with Israel which obliges Israel to respect the ‘extraterritorial’ claim to their physical presence in the city. In short, we have accepted the Vatican’s rights to have little Vatican sovereign embassies throughout our eternal capital of Jerusalem. That same Vatican has committed itself, in public and in a written agreement, to ensure that the Palestinians have sovereignty in the Old City of Jerusalem.”

Yet, beyond the proof of the hidden agenda of the Vatican exposed by commentators, there is the “more sure word of prophecy,” which we have well documented in our publications, that forecasts the coming of an individual who will be the spiritual head of a great religio/political institution centered in Europe, spreading its tentacles “toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” (Daniel 8:9).

Believe it or not, your Bible prophesies the hidden agenda of the Vatican! The press and media remain fixated on what they believe are the faltering mistakes of a pope out of touch with reality—witness the imbroglio over Benedict’s Regensburg speech and the latest kerfuffle regarding the lifting of the excommunication of the four Lefebvrist bishops, including the Holocaust-minimizing Richard Williamson. Such diversions are but a smokescreen for those whom Lenin famously called “useful idiots” to keep them diverted from following the scent on the track to the ultimate Vatican story, the coming takeover of Jerusalem by Rome!

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.