Christian Zionists Teach Jewish Heresy

November 14, 2014

http://youtu.be/fJt2MWYKXqY


Reza Aslan on Islamic Terrorism

October 1, 2014

Prof. Reza Aslan on Islamic terrorism. Although he is a MSM favorite (even CFR writer) he makes a valid point.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152410206006167&set=vb.26595441166&type=2&theater


My Jewish Bloodlines

October 1, 2014


Finally, A Legal Organization Defends Free Speech In Canada For Persecuted Christian Editor

September 28, 2014

Please Support the OCLA Petition in Defence of Arthur Topham by RadicalPress.com

 

OCLAFriends

OCLA_logo_only_250

Dear OCLA Supporter,

Please take a moment to read and consider signing OCLA’s petition in defence of the civil rights of Arthur Topham, a BC man who is currently being prosecuted under a “Hate Propaganda” section of Canada’s Criminal Code. The petition is online at the following link: http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

OCLA has the position that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These sections allow egregious violations of the civil rights of liberty, just process, and freedom of expression. Under these provisions, a person can be jailed without the Crown being required to prove any actual harm to a single identified individual.

Mr. Topham was arrested in front of his spouse, detained, subjected to a home-invasive seizure, and faces jail time if convicted, for expressing his highly unpopular views.

OCLA’s public statement on this matter is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCLA-statement-re-Arthur-Topham.pdf

Please read OCLA’s letter to the BC Attorney General asking her to withdraw her consent for this prosecution, which is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf

 

Yours truly,

 

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

•••

QUOTE OF A COMMENT ON THE OCLA PETITION
“The belief that ideas are a prerogative of any self-chosen element of society is repugnant, intellectually and morally indefensible and insulting to any citizen who has both the right and responsibility to consider all available evidence, pro or con, on any issue of possible public concern or interest. The crucially important issue is that all citizens must be free to communicate their views and the right of all citizens to do so must be assured. Anti-”Hate” legislation is a transparent political measure meant to serve the interests of its sponsors who obviously are willing to employ almost any form of sophistry, cajoling, deception and intimidation to achieve the suppression of views which they do not like. Each citizen must be accorded the elementary respect as being sufficiently intelligent to assess the validity or otherwise of expressed views. Many of these issues have been debated by seers and saints from time immemorial and the debate certainly does not belong in a criminal court but rather in the court of informed public assessment. Informed assessments can only be made in light of full disclosure of evidence – on every ongoing process in the affairs of mankind. State suppression of ideas is a clear and inevitable route to tyranny and people who support such repression are a threat to civilization. I think that I am sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable to hear an idea and accept, reject or consider it without any “assistance” from the State or those who exercise influence upon and behind the State apparatus. Anti-”Hate” (which can mean almost anything depending upon one’s perspective) legislation is an affront to the intelligence and integrity of every citizen and a violation of the historic assumption that truth is paramount and can only be found by diligent and unimpeded individual enquiry. The motives of persons or groups which attempt to suppress comment or criticism are patently suspect and transparent and such conduct does not go unnoticed or help their cause in the court of public opinion. By all means, do stay proceedings in this case and do not initiate them in any comparable situations. I do not need to be told what to think.” - Wallace Klinck

The Man From Galilee

September 14, 2014

ControversyofZion[MW note: If you've never read this book, read it now. You'll then understand why the Holy Land bombs Palestinians out of existence, all with the prayers and blessing of so-called Christian Zionists.]

Source: The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed

The Man from Galilee (chapter 10)

When Jesus was born the vibrant expectation that a marvellous being was about to appear was general among the Judeans. They longed for such proof that Jehovah intended to keep the Covenant with his chosen people, and the scribes, reacting to the pressure of this popular longing, gradually had introduced into the scriptures the idea of the anointed one, the Messiah, who would come to fulfill his bargain.

The Targams, the rabbinical commentaries on the Law, said: “How beautiful he is, the Messiah king who shall arise from the house of Judah. He will gird up his loins and advance to do battle with his enemies and many kings shall be slain.”

This passage shows what the Judeans had been led to expect. They awaited a militant, avenging Messiah (in the tradition of “all the firstborn of Egypt” and the destruction of Babylon) who would break Judah’s enemies “with a rod of iron” and “dash them in pieces like a potter’s vase”; who would bring them empire of this world and the literal fulfilment of the tribal Law; for this was what generations of Pharisees and Levites had foretold.

The idea of a lowly Messiah who would say “love your enemies” and be “despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows” was not present in the public mind at all and would have been “despised and rejected,” had any called attention to these words of Isaiah (which only gained significance after Jesus had lived and died).

Yet the being who appeared, though he was lowly and taught love, apparently claimed to be this Messiah and was by many so acclaimed!

In few words he swept aside the entire mass of racial politics, which the ruling sect had heaped on the earlier, moral law, and like an excavator revealed again what had been buried. The Pharisees at once recognized a most dangerous “prophet and dreamer of dreams.”

The fact that he found so large a following among the Judeans shows that, even if the mass of the people wanted a militant, nationalist Messiah who would liberate them from the Romans, many among them must subconsciously have realised that their true captivity was of the spirit and of the Pharisees, more than of the Romans. Nevertheless, the mass responded mechanically to the Pharisaic politicians’ charge that the man was a blasphemer and bogus Messiah.

By this response they bequeathed to all future generations of Jews a tormenting doubt, no less insistent because it must not be uttered (for the name Jesus may not even be mentioned in a pious Jewish home): Did the Messiah appear, only to be rejected by the Jews, and if so, what is their future, under The Law?

What manner of man was this? Another paradox in the story of Zion is that in our generation Christian divines and theologians often insist that “Jesus was a Jew,” whereas the Judaist elders refuse to allow this (those Zionist rabbis who occasionally tell political or “interfaith” audiences that Jesus was a Jew are not

60

true exceptions to this rule; they would not make the statement among Jews and seek to produce an effect among their non-Jewish listeners, for political reasons).[1]

This public assertion, “Jesus was a Jew,” is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour.

The English abbreviation, “Jew,” is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for “Judahite” or “Judean,” which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun “Jew” cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as “A person of Hebrew race”); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world). Read more


Zionism vs Dominionism

August 10, 2014

Both Eric Cantor and Michele Bachmann have extreme religious views.  In Cantor’s Zionism  God expressly desires a piece of land in Middle East be ruled and occupied by Jews.  Bachmann’s  Dominionism asserts that Christians should play a special role in the American Republic.  However, the major news outlets have treated their religous beliefs very differently.  While it is open season on Bachmann, Cantor’s Zionism is off limits.  In a bizarre marriage of extremism, Zionism and Dominionism are joined at the hip; one never speaking a word against the other.  But which one is truly dangerous for America?

Michele Bachmann

David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, and Jann Wenner, editor of  Rolling Stone, have a problem with Michele Bachmann’s religion.  Two recent articles by both magazines focused almost exclusively on her religious convictions, which, in the words of Matt Taibi make Mrs. Bachmann “batshit crazy. Not medically crazy, not talking-to-herself-on-the-subway crazy, but grandiose crazy, late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy”.

Recent American history has for the most part avoided deep discussions regarding the “validity” of personal religious beliefs in politics.  This is no longer the case and a can of worms has been opened by The New York Times, The New Yorker, Newsweek and Rolling Stone that will have implications for all the political forces in Washington, not just the Christian right.

Taibbi’s piece came out first, and he painted her  in very Taibbiesque colors as a politically shrewd religious fanatic. The copycat hatchet job in The New Yorker came off as boring and tactless with far too much cringe factor.  Ryan Lizza’s 8,500 word piece began with the shocking revelation that the middle aged Bachmann is careful not to be photographed in casual clothes.

The New Yorker of years gone by could have summed up Michele Bachman’s religious beliefs with a terse sentence describing how God spoke to her and told her to become a tax attorney for the IRS: enough said.  The remaining 8,450 words could have been spent on William James or the origins of Lutheran communities in Texas.

The bottom line on both pieces is that Michele Bachmann is dangerous because she actually believes in her religion, and that will not do for Mr. Remnick and Mr. Wenner; they would much prefer she became a Unitarian.  Both are convinced that we cannot actually have people really believing this stuff running for president.

The New York Times editor, Bill Keller, jumped on the bandwagon with his editorial:  “I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed..”

Newsweek/The Daily Beast was not to be outdone with their double whammy Newsweek cover of the crazed Bachmann and  Michelle Goldberg’s article explaining how Bachman and Texas governor Perry are dominionists and dangers to the Republic.  “..the GOP is now poised to nominate someone who will mount an all-out assault on (the separation of church and state). We need to take their beliefs seriously, because they certainly do.”  According to Goldberg these overtly Christian candidates are on the fringe because they believe a country that is 90% Christian should be governed by Christians and be culturally biased toward Christianity.

It’s clear that our mass media is not thrilled about Michele Bachman’s religion.  But to what extent is Michele Bachmann’s  religion really dangerous?  Has it started any wars or cost the taxpayer anything?  Is it guiding our foreign policy or alienating the United States from large swaths of the world?

Keller from the The New York Times opens the floodgates for asking tough questions about our political leadership’s religious beliefs:

“This year’s Republican primary season offers us an important opportunity to confront our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life — and to get over them. We have an unusually large number of candidates, including putative front-runners, who belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans.” 

Eric Cantor

Eric Cantor is not running for President but he is the House Majority Leader and third most powerful person in the House of Representatives.  In a recent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Cantor’s office made the following statement:  “Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington.” The official statement goes on to say that “that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”

This statement is remarkably dangerous, and possibly treasonous.  Mr. Cantor is basically telling the world that his office will serve as a check on the President on behalf of Israel.  The second part of the statement is ludicrous.  How is the United States reliant on Israel for its security?  It’s a perfect example of how endlessly repeating a piece of rhetoric somehow makes it true.

Is Mr. Cantor convinced that the United State’s strategic geopolitical interests are intertwined with Isreal’s because of his religious beliefs or did he come to that conclusion through sound strategic thinking?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a tough chat with Netanyahu following Joe Biden’s humiliation in Israel, when, unbeknownst to him, the Israelis announced new settlements in Jerusalem during his visit.  Later, the administration made a statement that said the “relationship” between the United States and Israel depended on the pace of negotiations with the Palestinians.  An infuriated Senator Chuck Schumer, the third ranking Democrat in the Senate, made this statement.

“That is terrible,” Schumer said today. “That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans—Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew–would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, ‘If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this,’” Schumer said.

Mr. Schumer is willing to take the side of Israel over the Presidential administration of his own party because of his allegiance to Israel.  What is the relationship with Israel doing for the United States?  Is Mr. Schumer’s  support of Israel directly related to his religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of many of his constituents?

AIPAC is sending 20% of Congress to Israel this summer.  According the The Washington Post

“A record 81 House members, about a fifth of the chamber, are spending a week in Israel this month, courtesy of a foundation set up by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby.”

Considering Congress’s brilliant performance this summer with the debt limit, do they have nothing better to do then spend 10 days being lobbied by the Israeli government?  Are they there because Israel supplies us with oil or because of someone’s religious beliefs?

Michele Goldberg of Newsweek/The Daily Beast said we must take Michele Bachmann’s and Governor Perry’s “beliefs seriously, because they certainly do”.  But will Perry and Bachmann get us into a regional war because of their beliefs?

The Arab Spring has invigorated the democratic aspirations of all peoples of the Middle East and its logical last act will be the West Bank and Gaza.  Egpyt’s religious  fundamentalism is no longer under the firm hand of the American supported Mubarak.  Syria’s Assad is desperately holding on to power against the Sunni majority and is certainly capable of making a diversionary attack on Israel to maintain his control.  Finally, when the millions of disenfranchised Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and refugee camps in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan rise up, Israel could very well face a a battle on several fronts.  Should the United States commit itself to a multi-front war against practically the entire Middle East because of Eric Cantor’s and Chuck Schumer’s religion?

This September the United Nations will be voting on whether it should recognize Palestinian statehood.  This measure will pass the general assembly by an overwhelming majority but it will  be vetoed by the The United States in the Security Council, enraging Muslims across the world and causing lasting anti-Americanism.  Geo-politically it’s  a losing position, yet the United States will sacrifice it’s own well being for that of Israel.  This is a clear example of how religion effects politics, yet Mr. Remnick, Mr. Wenner, Ms. Goldberg and The New York Times will not question the religious beliefs of Mr. Cantor and Mr. Schumer.

September 11 and Iraq

During the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks little will be heard on why we were attacked.  Were we attacked because of Michele Bachmann’s religion?

Robert Frisk of The Independent addresses this directly.

“But I’m drawn to Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan whose The Eleventh Day confronts what the West refused to face in the years that followed 9/11. “All the evidence … indicates that Palestine was the factor that united the conspirators – at every level,” they write. One of the organisers of the attack believed it would make Americans concentrate on “the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel”. Palestine, the authors state, “was certainly the principal political grievance … driving the young Arabs (who had lived) in Hamburg”.

The motivation for the attacks was “ducked” even by the official 9/11 report, say the authors. The commissioners had disagreed on this “issue” – cliché code word for “problem” – and its two most senior officials, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, were later to explain: “This was sensitive ground …Commissioners who argued that al-Qa’ida was motivated by a religious ideology – and not by opposition to American policies – rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict… In their view, listing US support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qa’ida’s opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy.” And there you have it.”

The war in Iraq was part of an agenda created by neo-conservatives in the 1990’s.  The neo-conservatives  aligned themselves with Israel for religious reasons, and they used the events of 9/11 to promote their agenda for a new Middle East. There is no escaping that the neo-conservative agenda was forged in large part do to religious beliefs, beliefs that eventually led to hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, thousands of dead soldiers and millions of refugees, many of whom where Christian.

American support for Israel has no strategic logic, only a religious one.   This begs the question, which religion is the true danger to the United States?

Matt Taibbi writes that “Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.”  He may be correct, but  is she dangerous?  Mr. Cantor believes that a family in Miami Beach that can demonstrate its Jewishness has every right to pickup and relocate to a settlement in the West Bank  while a Palestinian who was born there, whose parents and grandparents where born there must remain in a refugee camp because he is a member of the wrong religion.  This is abhorrent to any American yet Mr. Cantor and Mr. Schumer insist we must support “the relationship”.


Is Michele Bachmann’s Religion a Danger to America?

It most certainly is.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth

One only has to imagine the founder of said religion on a return visit.  A thirty-three year old carpenter in the days before power tools with a visceral dislike for money changers could make quite a scene on the Goldman Sach’s trading desk.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled. 

Would he be hobnobbing at the Council on Foreign Relations and taking AIPAC junkets to Israel or would he be with the disenfranchised in Palestinian refugee camps?

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 

Would he be brainstorming with the neo-cons to dream up new wars or would he be standing with those that say enough already?

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Would he be in Davos or Jackson Hole conspiring to make billions for bankers and the mega-rich or would he be comforting those out of jobs, out of homes and out of luck?

Mr. Remnick and Mr. Wenner are right to fear Michele Bachman’s religion, because if by some miracle the country actually heard and followed its message, quite of few of our current cultural, political and economic leaders would find themselves in the wrong side of history.

Is Michele Bachmann Authentic?

The founder of Mrs. Bachmann’s religion was never one to beat around the bush.  A wealthy, well dressed scribe wanted to follow Jesus, but Jesus would have none of him.

Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”

Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

The fox is cunning- all men have cunning and to get as far as Mrs. Bachmann has in politics, we can safely assume that the fox can rest in her.  The birds of the air are pride and she, like all people, certainly has her share of it.  The question is, does the spirit have a place to reside in her as well and this can only be answered by Mrs. Bachmann and the founder of her religion.

The more important question is whether we as a nation have left room for the founder of Michele Bachmann’s religion to rest his head.  Mr. Remnick, Mr. Wenner, The New York Times and many others think he has too much room.

We should be so lucky.

 

The is article was edited by Jim Horky

Posted by Robert Bonomo

Labels: AIPAC, Dominionism, Eric Cantor, Michele Bachmann, religion, Zionism

5 comments:

  1. AnonymousSeptember 13, 2011 at 10:19 PMReply
  2. I am an evangelical Christian (born-again, Bible believing), but Bachmann’s dispensational eschatology (mindless zionism, pro-jewishness) is repellant and recent in the Protestant church (100yrs. or so). In spite of her supposed seriousness vis-a vis Christianity she is not above answering direct questions (especially ones that impinge on her religious world-view) like a slippery political hack.
  3. RealityZoneSeptember 16, 2011 at 11:37 AMReply
  4. I cross posted this over to my blog.
    If you do not approve, please let me know and I will take it down.
    Thanks
    RZ.
  5. AnonymousOctober 25, 2011 at 5:42 PMReply
  6. Clever but incredibly biased. Both are so pro Israel I can see either nuking Iran and bringing on WW3 as “God’s Will” . And to use Christ’s words to defend dominionism is intellectually insulting. To ignore the danger of a government policy dominated by ANY religious philosophy is to ignore the whole purpose of separation of Church and State.
  7. Robert BonomoOctober 25, 2011 at 5:58 PMReply
  8. I am not defending dominionism nor Bachmann, I hope I made this clear: for example, “could have summed up Michele Bachman’s religious beliefs with a terse sentence describing how God spoke to her and told her to become a tax attorney for the IRS: enough said”.

    Why is it intellectually insulting to use Christ’s words to point out how un-Christian we are? How many dominionists support Israel, the rich, the War in Iraq and the occupation of Palestine? Is that Christian? My point is that the Dominionists, Christian Zionists and the like are far from Christian.

    People are afraid to use Christ’s words because they are branded as fundamentalists, not ready for intellectual prime time. Your comments makes my point. So who can quote the Sermon on the Mount? Only Palin and Bachmann? Sad, very sad indeed.

  9. Ross TaylorJanuary 25, 2013 at 3:14 AMReply
  10. You have made your content quit clear. There’s no way to mistake your points of interest. I enjoyed this writing very much and I agree with your ideas. Thank you.
    Alabama Land Surveyor

Sinister Site In The Holy Land

July 2, 2014

The Vigilant Citizen solves the mystery of the Israel Supreme Court: Why its price is secret.

When you study those types of buildings, you quickly realize that the same themes inevitably reappear: illumination, pyramid, ascent, the number 13 or 33 , phallic/yonic symbols, etc. This building has it all and more.

Here is what he says about the trampled cross in the court:

Trampled Cross

6-24-2009 11-22-17 AMAt the center of the parking facilities are pathways shaped like Christian cross. Jerry Golden has mentioned that this cross has been specifically placed to be trampled on by visitors. He is most probably right. In a building where spiritual symbolism reigns supreme, there are effectively little chances that the layout of those pathways haven’t been thoroughly thought out by the architects. In other words, this can’t be just a coincidence. The visitors have to go down the stairs – symbolically “descend” to lower spheres – to reach the cross. As you might have noticed, the importance of the act of ascending and descending in this building is very important. This is not an exception.

Occult secret societies have historically been at odds with the Christian church who repeatedly persecuted and accused them of all sorts of heresies. During the Middle-Ages the Knights Templar (ancestors of Freemasonry) have been accused by the Archbishop of Canterbury of numerous anti-Christian deeds, including “trampling the Cross under foot” during their initiation processes. Are they poking back at Christianity with this symbol?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers