The Christian’s relationship to U.S. government


Christians concerned about speaking out publicly about a corrupt government NEED to read this post by Bob Livingston. Mr. Livingston very effectively contrasts and balances the concept of making a difference in government when the Bible also tells us to be subject to those in authority because earthly authority exists to thwart evil and protect community peace.

 

JRH 6/19/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

The Christian’s relationship to U.S. government

 

By Bob Livingston

Posted on June 19, 2017

Personal Liberty

 

U.S. Flag & Bible

 

“We must obey God rather than men

 

And thus spoke the Peter the apostle to the council, (Luke 5:29 NASB) in response to the high priest’s questioning about why he and the apostles were teaching Christ in the temple in defiance of the council’s instruction the day after an angel of the Lord released them from their prison.

 

And that’s the example the Christian must follow.

 

But in Romans 13, Paul tells us that we must be in subjection to the governing authorities.

 

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:1-7 (NASB)

 

Some of our more conservative brethren would tell us that there is little we can or should do or say in response to an abusive government because it is “established by God.” In fact, I know many of our conservative brothers and sisters who don’t even bother to follow politics at all or even vote, preferring instead to be content with being “in subjection.”

 

I have even seen some claim that if we so much as question the authority of our “leaders” or point out the corruptions of the politicians and government institutions that we are engaging in a spirit of rebellion; and not just rebellion against earthly authorities but against God. But is it? If we write or speak about corrupt government institutions, politicians or bureaucrats, are we acting contrary to God’s word in Romans 13?

 

To be a Christian, we are to be like Christ. In Matthew 23, Christ told His disciples that the scribes and Pharisees had seated themselves in Moses’ chair (had taken for themselves Moses’ authority) and they (the disciples) were to do what the rulers told them to do, but not do as the scribes and Pharisees did, because they were hypocrites. The scribes and Pharisees claimed to follow the law and held the people to the law but did not follow it themselves.

 

That sounds very much like the political class of today who walking the halls of power in the District of Criminal and in most state capitols.

 

Then Jesus called out the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites in the eight “woes” he uttered as recorded in verses 13 through 29, pointing out their wrongdoing.

 

The Apostle Paul was imprisoned, stoned, beaten and left for dead for obeying God rather than man. In Acts 22 we read that after Paul was seized in Jerusalem because he “preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place (Acts 21:28 NASB),” he was taken away by Roman guards at the direction of the Jews and stretched out with thongs so as to be scourged. The text reads:

 

But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman.” The commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” And he said, “Yes.” The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.” Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains. Acts 22:25-29 (NASB)

 

What Paul did here was to invoke his rights as a citizen. He did so again in Acts 25:11 when he appealed to Caesar over his imprisonment, defying the Jewish ruling authorities, who he believed he had not wronged.

 

So clearly our example in Scripture is we can use the legal rights available to us under the laws.

 

Now back to Romans 13. America’s is designed as a citizen-oriented representative government, not a monarchy or dictatorship. The Constitution was created as chains to bind men’s powers. Every politician in America swears an oath to abide by it. The powers they have they get from the Constitution.

 

So understanding Romans 13 in context of American government we should read Romans 13 this way, as Chuck Baldwin has pointed out:

 

Every person is to be in subjection to the [U.S. Constitution]. For there is no [Constitution] except from God, and [it is] established by God. Therefore whoever resists [the Constitution] has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed [the Constitution] will receive condemnation upon themselves. For [the Constitution is] not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of [the Constitution]? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for [the Constitution] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore [the Constitution] is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for [the Constitution is a servant] of God, devoting [itself] to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:1-7 (NASB)

 

The 1st Amendment protects (to some extent) our freedom to engage in speech and to petition government for redress of grievances. When we point out in speech or writing the corrupt nature of politicians and government institutions, and how they have exceeded the authority granted them under the Constitution, we are doing no more than Christ did when he called out the scribes and Pharisees, and no more than Paul did when he invoked his rights as a Roman citizen under Roman law.

 

So we can be politically active and not be in violation of God’s law. Telling our friends and neighbors that our institutions and politicians are corrupt is not a violation of God’s law. Guaranteeing our ability to inform others of the government’s transgressions so they can petition their representatives intelligently is precisely one of the 1st Amendment’s purposes. Engaging in political discourse or pointing out corruption is neither a violation of man’s law nor God’s. And we are to obey the law whether the “leaders” do so or not, as Christ told his disciples.

 

But we should also remember Paul’s admonition in Titus 3:2-5.

 

“…to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us…”

________________

Bob Livingston founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

 

© 2017 Personal Liberty ®

 

WAKE-UP to the Danger of Islam


Voting for Trump is a good first step to waking up!

 

John R. Houk

© August 11, 2016

Wake up America

I found a couple of videos while doing my G+ Community surfing thing. One is addressed to Americans from a former Muslim who has definitely found the fire of Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior. The second video is addressed to the Finnish people in particular and to Europeans in general. The guy giving a speech in Finland is speaking English with Finnish subtitles.

 

BOTH videos are about the dangers Islam presents to America and the West in a John10:10 kind of fashion:

 

The thief [i.e. the devil] does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I [i.e. Jesus Christ the Son of God] have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. (NKJV)

 

JRH 8/11/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

VIDEO: They are coming to kill you!’ Former Muslim warns America of the dangers of Islam

 

 

Posted by Lisa’sRaptureReady

Published on Jun 27, 2016

 

Message from Her

 
NO MORE BEING A PEOPLE PLEASER! RATHER GOD PLEASER!

 

I made my choice. What about you?

 
I came to a point that I had to make a decision. Whether I have to please Christ or people. Whether I had to open my mouth to expose evil or stay quiet and watch the devil at work. There is a price tag to please God. There is also a price tag to stand up and speak up. The hate messages I receive daily are the evidence of I am not a people pleaser. When I was a Muslim, I was addicted to approval of others. I had a serious problem with rejection. Who doesn’t? I used to be a people pleaser. I was a slave of a false religion and under oppression. That all got me to a position of a door mat Until I said, ” No more”. Enough is enough. I prefer to speak the truth and please God than serve the enemy by being quiet. And it is so much easier to please God than people. It feels good to be in His will even though you are persecuted and insulted by many. There is freedom in Christ. Use your freedom to serve God rather than man. Wake up! Stand up! Speak up! The time has come!

 
The Messiah is coming

 
Prepare the way for Holiness
(Hebrews 12:14) • R • E • P • E • N • T •

++++++++++

VIDEO: ‘I Know You’ Anti-Islam Finnish MP tells the TRUTH about Muslim immigrants in Europe

 

 

Posted by Liam Liam

Published on Aug 8, 2016

 

Another Christian Genocide


ISIS_Christian_Genocide

Justin Smith writes of the impotent actions of the Obama Administration to engage ISIS concerning the Islamic genocide against Christians.

 

JRH 4/10/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Another Christian Genocide

Defend the Faith

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 4/9/2016 1:35 PM

 

Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” __ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

Christians are the primary focus of the Islamic State murderers in Iraq and Syria, who are also committing heinous acts against the Yazidis and other Muslims. Entire Christian communities are being eradicated through the most abhorrent and abominably evil acts imaginable. The Christian population of Aleppo, Syria, once numbering half a million, is now reduced to approximately 35,000. Virtually every last Christian has fled Mosul, Iraq, after being given “the choice” to convert to Islam or die. Christians qualify in many more significant ways to receive refugee status than any other people, and America and other predominantly Christian nations must provide them with immediate protection and sanctuary, or watch Christianity in the Middle East disappear.

 

While Muslims can move easily from one nearby Muslim nation to the next, Christians have nowhere to go, no safe haven, and any attempt to flee often ends in death. They cannot seek shelter in U.N. camps, hiding in private homes and secluded “safe-houses,” instead they are attacked by Muslim “refugees” and killed by islamofascist jihadists, who raid the camps. And due to their inability to leave the country for fear of discovery on the trails of death, Christians have been denied “refugee” status through a technicality; this technicality has allowed the Obama administration to do absolutely nothing for five years, in the face of the worst Christian genocide since the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire.

 

Some of America’s finest citizens, such as Patrick Kelly (Knights of Columbus) and Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) finally pressured Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama to give an official U.S. declaration on March 17th that the Islamic State is committing genocide against Christians, Yazidis and Muslims. Rep. Rohrabacher’s ‘Save the Christians from Genocide Act’ (HR4017) passed the House and Senate last month, after receiving motivation from the December 4th, 2015 letter to Secretary Kerry, from thirty religious leaders, scholars and experts working with the Heritage Foundation, that documented “ISIS assassinations of Church leaders; mass murders; torture … and systematic rape of Christian girls and women.”

 

Dr. Jerry Johnson, an ethicist and president of National Religious Broadcasters, suggested [CS Monitor version]: “If some anti-Muslim group was gathering up the Muslims, putting them in cages … dousing them in gas and lighting them on fire, or lining them up and beheading Muslims simply because they were Muslims, quite frankly … our government would have declared this an outrage and a genocide a long time ago.”

 

Despite Secretary Kerry’s statement, “What Daesh (Islamic State) wants to erase, we must preserve”, no one should view this too optimistically. The Obama administration was fully aware of the Christian genocide five years ago, and yet, Obama’s Cabinet stubbornly refused to create a viable strategy to destroy these islamofascist murderers. Obama’s defacto policy favored Muslim “refugees” and blocked Christians, and it will not change much now.

 

America has witnessed Obama’s unconditional love of all things Islamic, like the Muslim call to prayer, and we have heard him apologize to the Middle East for “Western imperialism”. He has repeatedly claimed that the chaos, violence and murders committed by Islamic State terrorists are not “Islamic” and the Islamic State jihadists are not “Islamic”, when the historical evidence has documented torture and beheadings as the Muslim’s preferred method of proselytism from the 7th century right into the present. No one should be astonished that for Obama, genocide is not genocide if it’s committed against Christians.

 

If only reluctantly, the Obama administration declared this Christian genocide, and the U.S. is now obligated legally, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 [TreatiesUN.org], to “take all measures to prevent genocide which [are] within [its] power and which might [contribute] to preventing genocide.” But, this obligation does not require direct military intervention, so the world should expect only the bare minimum effort from this administration and possibly the next: However, HR4017 does require Homeland Security to assign a heightened refugee status to these victims of genocide and to expedite visas for them.

 

Samantha Power observed in her 2002 book ‘A Problem From Hell’, that “No U.S. president has ever made genocide prevention a priority, and no U.S. president has ever suffered politically for his indifference to its occurrences.”

 

Americans may not have “religious tests” for our compassion and immigration/refugee policies, however, an accurate security test must now necessarily convince Congress to block Obama’s plan to give 10,000 Syrian “refugees” entry into America by September 30th, unless they are verified to be Syrian Christians. While Christians pose absolutely no threat to America, the Syrian Muslim refugees contain a fifth column [Two more perspectives on 5th Column Muslims HERE and HERE] that hates us and wants to kill us and destroy our way of life; so essentially, they are imposing a religious test, with the endgame being a Christian holocaust.

 

In January 2016, Nadia Taha [The Freedom Fund], a 21 year old Iraqi woman, testified about her brutal rape and enslavement by Islamic State terrorists, before the United Nations Security Council in her effort to convince the international community to intervene. She recalled, “That night, he beat me up, forced me to undress, and put me in the room with six militants … They continued to commit crimes to my body until I became unconscious.”

 

Last April in St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis stated that “Our brothers and our sisters … are persecuted, exiled, slain, beheaded, solely for being Christian … I truly hope that the international community doesn’t look the other way.” Now, one year later this evil persists.

 

“If the world hates you, you know that it hate Me before it hate you. _ John 15:18 … If they persecute Me, they will persecute you. _ John 15:20

 

With so many hundreds of thousands of Christians forced from their ancestral lands and murdered by Muslims, is it too late to save Christianity in the Middle East? Only time will tell, but time is running out.

 

Americans and people of the Free World, who care, simply have to do everything within their combined ability to save the Christians of Iraq and Syria and stop the spread of this intense and insane regional war to other regions. Whatever one’s situation, send any aid at hand to relief organizations, similar to the Barnabas Fund [About and Donate], who are sheltering, feeding and even evacuating Christians to the West. Move our leaders to send more and better resources to national guard equivalents like the Peshmerga [Breitbart 3/16/16], who are fighting the Islamic State. Move world leaders to eradicate the Islamic State. And should these efforts fall far short, young Christian men and women might also consider going to these areas to help and/or fight, not as mercenaries but as Defenders of the Faith: Christmas Day 2014 was the first time in 2,000 that the bells did not ring out in the city of Mosul.

 

By Justin O Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links are by the Editor and all text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Christian-Americans Let Votes Be a Voice to Leadership


Marines capture Derna 1805

Islam is at War – Respond to IT!

 

John R. Houk

© March 13, 2016

 

The Knights of Columbus and In Defense of Christians (IDC) collaborated recently on a near 300-page report on Muslims committing genocide against Christians. I first heard of this report on Fox News but I was reminded today of it by an email update from ASSIST News Service (ANS) entitled “NEW REPORT SHOWS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE AGAINST CHRISTIANS BY ISLAMIC STATE”.

 

The was compiled expressly for Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department. The Knights of Columbus and IDC used the report as a pretext to call on America to step up to the plate and publicly declare genocide is occurring against Christians in the Middle East with a particular focus on ISIS as the perpetrator.

 

In early February 2016 Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said this about calling the slaughter of Christians genocide:

 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted Thursday that the Obama administration’s hesitation to label the Islamic State’s persecution of Christians and other religious minorities as “genocide” is because of the legal ramifications behind such a designation. (White House Details Why Obama Won’t Call ISIS’ Slaughtering of Christians ‘Genocide’; By SAMUEL SMITH; Christian Post; 2/5/16 11:13 am)

 

He said WHAT? “Legal Ramifications”!

 

Christians and other non-Muslims (ISIS classifies Shias as non-Muslims also) are being slaughtered en masse and Obama is looking at the legal ramifications of labeling the slaughter as genocide.

 

The Christian Post further reports Earnest’s representation of Obama:

 

… Earnest assured that “administration lawyers” were looking into the possibility of a genocide designation.

 

“There are lawyers considering whether or not that term can be properly applied in this scenario,” Earnest said. “What is clear and what is undeniable and what the president has now said twice in the last 24 hours is that we know that there are religious minorities in Iraq and in Syria, including Christians, that are being targeted by ISIL terrorists because of their religion and that attack on religious minorities is an attack on all people of faith and it is important for all of us to stand up and speak out about it.” (Ibid.)

 

So it is important for Obama to bring Muslims displaced by war in Syria-Iraq for their safety BUT he has to think about it when it comes to Christians being slaughtered by Muslims.

 

Obama wants to look the other way while Christians are killed yet he made sure to assure American voters he was a Christian prior to his 2008 election. Before his 2008 election as President he was concerned enough of what Americans thought about his faith that he went out of his way to let voters know he was a committed Christian:

 

“I’ve been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for almost 20 years,” Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. “I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. Whenever I’m in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some silly e-mail … send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this is all crazy. Educate.” (Obama sets record straight on his religion; By AP; NBCNews.com; updated 1/21/2008 10:49:46 AM ET)

 

Obama was the 20-year member of a Church pastored by Jeremiah Wright who preached Black Liberation Theology – Hate Whitey and G-d damn America – and was cozy with Father Pfleger and racist anti-Semite Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan.

 

I think this gives a bit more insight into Obama checking into the legal ramifications of naming the extermination of Christians as genocide in the Middle East.

 

So what exactly is wrong with stating the obvious about genocide in the Middle East? The obvious is Islam promotes war with the West and these days against Israel and America the land of the free and the home of the brave (unless Obama screws up America more than any real American can fix). So let’s get over offending Islam and perhaps really begin offending the haters of America with WWII-style rules of engagement and smack these guys around even if civilians foolish enough to support radical Muslim movements or governments get in the way.

 

But John, one might say, that’s not politically correct when we should respect diverse peoples and cultures in this new global age we live in.

 

Man that is some horse-pucky that will end the American way of life before Obama transformationists do.

 

Well John, another might say, can you name anytime in America’s history when war or military action was used because of the doctrines of Islam? Why should Obama be the first American President to understand that Islamic doctrines are not only harmful to American National Security but also to American Interests at home and abroad?

 

Some trace the lineage of the Democratic Party back to an earlier President. So it is a bit insightful to understand the political climate that President lived in to make a decision about Islam.

Thomas Jefferson

That early President was Thomas Jefferson the third person to hold the Office of POTUS. He was elected to two terms of Office serving between 1801 – 1809. As one of the Founding Fathers Jefferson penned the text to the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wasn’t directly involved at the Constitutional Convention that eventually formed the Constitution our nation has operated under since 1789. Jefferson’s lack of involvement was largely due to his diplomatic status to France first as a trade commissioner and eventually ambassadorial role replacing Benjamin Franklin.

 

Although Jefferson had no direct tie to the making of the Constitution he was still an influence because the primary framer of the Constitution – James Madison – modeled the framework a lot from Virginia’s State Constitution in which Jefferson was very involved in.

 

This excerpt from Constitution Daily sums up Jefferson’s thoughts from France on the new Constitution while the then 13 States debated its ratification:

 

While in Paris before the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson closely followed developments in the United States. He corresponded with individuals who would eventually contribute to the formation of the Constitution, like Madison and John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers.

 

 

… On June 6th, Madison wrote a letter to Jefferson with a list of the individuals attending the Convention, but explained that he couldn’t reveal more about the substance of the ongoing debates because the delegates agreed that the proceedings should be kept secret.

 

Jefferson expressed his frustration with the secrecy of the Convention, but he did share some ideas with Madison while it was ongoing. For example, Jefferson wrote to Madison on June 20th explaining why the federal government should not be given the power to veto laws passed by the states. This federal power was not included in the final draft of the Constitution despite Madison’s support of the idea.

 

On September 6th, Madison wrote a letter to Jefferson detailing some key provisions that were going to be included in the Constitution, as he reasoned that by the time the letter would arrive in France the details of the Constitution would be made public. Madison explained how state and federal governments were to be organized, and noted that some of the provisions may “surprise” Jefferson.

 

On December 20th, 1787, after the Constitutional Convention was over and while the ratification of the Constitution was being debated in state legislatures, Jefferson wrote a letter to Madison objecting to key parts of the Constitution. Among other things, Jefferson was concerned that the document lacked a Bill Of Rights and failed to establish term limits for federal officials. In earlier correspondences to other acquaintances, in 1786 Jefferson extolled government protection of civil liberties and wrote, for example, that “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press”. Jefferson also was a proponent of protections for religious liberty and wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which passed the Virginia General Assembly in 1786.

 

By the fall of 1788, Madison was convinced that the inclusion of a Bill Of Rights to the new Constitution would be prudent. While advocating for a bill of rights, Madison relied upon an argument first articulated by Jefferson – that a list of rights would help give the judiciary the power to ensure that other branches of governments would not infringe on citizens’ civil liberties. (A quick look at Thomas Jefferson’s constitutional legacy; By NCC StaffConstitution Daily; 11/24/15)

 

Supporters of the Constitution were called Federalists and those that opposed a central government stronger than the authority of State governments were labeled Anti-Federalists. George Washington and John Adams were the first and only Federalists elected to Office under the eventually ratified Constitution. After Constitutional ratification the Federalists tended to favor the new nations wealthy elites and a stronger central government. The Anti-Federalists became the camp that favored States’ rights over Federal or national government authority and lined up more with land owners that weren’t necessarily wealthy but were self-supporting agrarians in some fashion or another. Federalists gravitated around Alexander Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists gravitated around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

 

After the Constitution took effect the label “Anti-Federalist” gave way to the notion of a Republic with democratically elected leaders. Hence without any real political organization the group found the label or Democratic-Republican who under the simplicity of colloquialism were simply called Republicans. Modern historians will often write Democratic-Republican to differentiate from the Republican Party which exists today and whose first POTUS holder was Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860 and served from 1861 – 1865 with his second term cut short by assassination.

 

My point is the new nation was divided into political factions that were not organized politically as they are today. Ironically factions were divided between those that favored Britain or France who were still in hostility in which the American Revolution was only a subset of the decades of hostilities that existed between Britain and France. By the time of Jefferson’s Presidency, the French Revolution dethroned the French King that aided American Revolution victory. The new France devolved into violent retribution against France’s Nobility class in the name of egalitarian fraternity and democracy which ended with the despotism of Napoleon Bonaparte.

 

During these early years of the American Republic the new Federal government concentrated on domestic issues and a reduced military presence which meant no money to create a navy fleet. Foreign trade protection was first done by the British navy and after the American Revolution a short time of French protection. Definitely by the time of Bonaparte’s reign American foreign trade received no protection from either Britain or France.

 

When Americans attempted trade efforts that brought them within the reach of North Africa, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea pirates began boarding American commercial vessels, stealing goods, kidnapping or killing Americans AND placing captured Americans who couldn’t pay ransom into slavery.

 

Guess what kind of culture these pirates came from? If you haven’t guessed yet how about a clue. In the modern age which culture still kidnaps, kills and enslaves (particularly sex-slaves today)?

 

There is only one answer – ISLAM!

 

What was Thomas Jefferson’s experience and/or knowledge of Islam? An excerpt from DownTrend.com shows Jefferson’s first contact with a Muslim as while on a diplomatic mission in Great Britain:

 

In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain. They asked this ‘diplomat’ by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the ambassador) replied that Islam:

 

Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Interesting Look Back At First American War Against Islam; By JOSEPH R. CARDUCCI; DownTrend.com; 10/11/14)

 

A Patheos article penned by an atheist explains Jefferson’s outrage also before becoming POTUS at having to pay ransoms and tribute to Islamic Barbary Pirates:

 

Jefferson attempted to create a coalition of tribute-paying European countries who would each contribute one or more war ships and jointly patrol the Mediterranean for Barbary pirates. Sometime before July 4, 1786, Jefferson drafted the Proposed Convention against the Barbary States to arrange the matter. … Jefferson’s proposal to spread the risk was met with a lack of interest from both the American Congress and European nations. As a result, America continued to lose ships to Barbary piracy for several more years.

 

It wasn’t until Jefferson became president that the U.S. ceased paying tribute and quietly launched the newly formed American navy to combat, particularly, the aggression from Tripoli. Thus began the first Barbary War in 1801, which ended in 1805 with a treaty that put a stop to the tributes and cleared the Mediterranean for the safe passage of American merchant ships. (In 1807, Algiers started taking American ships again, and it took until 1815 for America to address it militarily. This second Barbary War lasted two days and finally put an end to piracy from North Africa.)

 

 

Jefferson was the only founding father to take an active interest in Islam. He purchased his own copy of the Koran long before America’s encounters with the Barbary. His copy of George Sale’s English translation of the Koran was shipped from London in 1765 and can be viewed today at the Library of Congress. There is some speculation that this is a second copy because Jefferson possibly lost his first copy in the May 26, 1771, fire at his mother’s home. The Koran in the Library of Congress contains no written notes or comments by Jefferson (possibly because it’s a second copy), and his initials are his only inscription, although they appear curiously close to some verses regarding warfare. (Thomas Jefferson’s Struggle with Islamic Brutality; By Hemant Mehta; Patheos; 10/29/15)

 

Jefferson’s next step was after he became President. He cancelled the tribute blackmail and went after the Islamic Barbary Pirates for attacking, killing and enslaving Americans. Monticello.org gives a decent rundown of the Islamic Barbary Pirates in relation to Thomas Jefferson through at least the First Barbary War. At Monticello.org you will discover the USA bowed to paying extortion tribute to the Barbary semi-autonomous states through the first two Presidents even while Jefferson was Secretary of State.

 

Early in June, barely three months after the inauguration a small squadron — three frigates and a schooner — sailed for the Mediterranean under Commodore Richard Dale. If they found on arrival that war had been declared, the squadron was to protect American shipping from the corsairs and to “chastise their insolence … by sinking, burning, or destroying their ships and vessels wherever you shall find them.” It was also to blockade the harbor of any of the regencies that had declared war on America and, to the extent possible, was to convoy merchantmen when asked.  In addition, Commodore Dale was to take to Algiers and Tunis letters, gifts for the rulers, tribute payments in the case of Algiers and assurances to both rulers that overdue tribute was soon to be forthcoming on other vessels. And, he was to go to Tripoli. There he would deliver the President’s letter to the pasha and, if still at peace, could give Cathcart money for a gift to the pasha.18

 

Jefferson’s letter to Pasha Qaramanli emphasized “our sincere desire to cultivate peace & commerce with your subjects.” Also mentioned was our dispatch to the Mediterranean of “a squadron of observation” whose appearance [we hope] will give umbrage to no power.” The squadron’s purpose, the letter explained, was to exercise our seamen and to “superintend the safety of our commerce…[which] we mean to rest…on the resources of our own strength & bravery in every sea.”19 Meanwhile, Secretary Madison wrote American consuls in the Mediterranean that the President, convinced “of the hostile purposes of the Bashaw of Tripoli” was sending a naval squadron to protect our commerce in the Mediterranean and to respond appropriately to any powers who declared war on the United States.20

 

Unfortunately, the pasha had not waited to hear from the new president. Yusuf Qaramanli declared war on the United States on May 14, 1801 by chopping down the flagpole at the American consulate in Tripoli.21

 

On arrival at Gibraltar July 1, Commodore Dale learned we were at war with Tripoli. During the next few months, squadron vessels blocked two Tripolitan corsairs in Gibraltar, delivered goods and messages in Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, escorted American merchant ships, and briefly blockaded Tripoli harbor. In the only real action that year, the schooner Enterprize engaged and soundly defeated the Tripolitan ship Tripoli off the coast of Malta on August 1.22

 

… Two months later Congress passed an act authorizing him to instruct naval commanders to seize Tripolitan goods and vessels, and to commission privateers to aid in the effort.23

 

During the following three years the pasha maintained his demands and the United States, rotating ships and crews, maintained its naval presence in the Mediterranean as well as diplomatic efforts to make peace. In 1802 Jefferson was reportedly of the view “that the time is come when negociations [sic] may advantageously take place.” He was to be disappointed.24 Tripolitan corsairs evaded the blockade and American merchantmen were captured. Most escaped their captors; only one was carried into port, the Franklin, in 1802, and the five Americans on it were quickly ransomed. In Algiers, Richard O’Brien sarcastically remarked without comment: “It is asserted that there are at sea, at present, six sail of Tripoline corsairs & it is asserted that the frigates of the United States & those of Sweden are blockading Tripoli.”25 Nor did the blockade stop Tripoli’s trade with other Barbary powers. It did, however, interfere with it, and the other rulers sided with the pasha. The possibility of Tunis and/or Morocco entering the war became a serious concern off and on throughout 1802.

 

… “They know they cannot meet us with force any more than they could France, Spain or England,” he wrote from Monticello at the end of March. “Their system is a war of little expense to them, which must put the great nations to a greater expense than the presents which would buy it off.”26 He was still as much against buying peace and paying tribute as he had been since first dealing with Barbary in 1784; it was a matter of principle. But one had to be practical as well as principled.27

 

 

The most important naval action in 1803 involved the frigate Philadelphia, which ran aground near Tripoli in October. The pasha imprisoned the 307-man crew and refloated and repaired the stricken vessel. Before they could make any use of her, though, on February 16, 1804 a U.S. navy team under Lt. Stephen Decatur slipped into Tripoli harbor after dark and set fires on board that totally destroyed the Philadelphia. The loss of the frigate weakened the American squadron, while captives from the Philadelphia gave the pasha new leverage and prospects of substantial ransom.31

 

When news of the Philadelphia’s loss reached America, Jefferson and his colleagues began looking for a way to send at least two more frigates to the Mediterranean. Congress rallied behind the President and the navy, approving a new tax and new expenditures for the war.32 After initial political and public criticism of the president due to the devastating loss, widespread public support was stimulated by Stephen Decatur’s successful stealth mission under Tripoli’s guns.33

 

… in 1804, he decided the current squadron was not big enough to do the job. Newly-appointed Commodore Samuel Barron would command eleven vessels, “a force which would be able, beyond the possibility of a doubt, to coerce the enemy to a peace on terms compatible with our honor and our interest.”35  The expanded squadron would be more than twice the size of the original one three years earlier and its mix of frigates, brigs and smaller vessels would be better suited to its mission.

 

 

After arriving on the scene, if Barron judged it expedient he was authorized to support an overland attack on Tripoli by forces supporting the restoration to power of Hamet Qaramanli, an older brother ousted in a 1796 coup by Pasha Yusuf Qaramanli. That idea had been proposed in 1801 by James Cathcart and also by William Eaton who knew the exiled Hamet in Tunis when he was American consul there. The proposal had received qualified approval from Secretary of State Madison in 1802.37

 

 

Barron had doubts about involving Hamet, but Eaton and Captain Preble persuaded him. November 16 Eaton sailed on the brig Argus to find Hamet in Egypt. Barron may have expected Eaton to bring Hamet to Syracuse for a consultation40—that is unclear—but having eventually located him, Eaton helped the ex-pasha put together a collection of a few hundred armed Arabs and Greeks, mostly mercenaries under a handful of disparate leaders. Eaton, Hamet and several marines marched their “army’ nearly 500 miles through the desert along the southern shore of the Mediterranean and, on April 27, 1805, they captured the town of Derne, some miles east of Benghazi. The Argus and two sister ships supplied them with provisions along their march and actively supported them in the taking of Derne (where Hamet had been governor three years before under his brother Yusuf). In the meantime, the American blockade of Tripoli had been maintained through the winter and spring.

 

… Then, May 18, he wrote Tobias Lear that, from what he had learned of Hamet Qaramanli, he could no longer support the plan involving the ex-pasha. He noted that the condition of some of his vessels and periods of enlistment of his personnel precluded another winter of blockade, was concerned about the fate of the American prisoners held by the pasha, and thought it time to respond to encouraging hints from Tripoli favoring negotiation. Not mentioned, but no doubt also on his mind, his health would not permit him to lead an attack on Tripoli that summer.42  Indeed, he handed command of the squadron to Captain John Rodgers less than a week later.

 

Lear sailed from Syracuse for Tripoli May 24th. Negotiations began shortly after his arrival, preliminary articles were agreed June 3 and the American captives from the Philadelphia were embarked on US vessels June 4. The final document was signed on the tenth. It involved neither payment for peace nor annual tribute. Based on the difference between the numbers of captives held on the two sides, ransom of $60,000 was agreed, well below the limit given Lear. Far to the east, the Americans, Hamet and his close associates left Derne on board American naval vessels June 12.  The Senate ratified the treaty April 12, 1806.43

 

There is MORE before and after this excerpt (The First Barbary War; Original article by Elizabeth Huff, August 2, 2011; revised and expanded by Priscilla and Richard Roberts, September 26, 2011. Monticello.org)

 

The Battle of Derna circa April 27, 1805 is what sealed the deal of the First Barbary War. The details of which are worth the read but I’ve already exceeded the purpose of writing about America’s first encounter of military action against Muslim principles of humiliating and dishonoring non-Muslims.

Stephen Decatur boarding Tripolitan gunboat reduced size

Apparently Obama has much in common with President Thomas Jefferson in that Jefferson listened to his advisors to use diplomatic efforts – including extortion payments – to negotiate a peace deal with the Islamic Barbary Pirates. However, Jefferson did finally come to the conclusion that the lack of military was costing the American National Interests more than diplomacy and extortion money. Hence the Marines sailed to the shores of Tripoli to kick some Muslim butt free Americans enslaved by Muslims and at least force an agreement not to attack American commerce.

 

The Second Barbary War (aka Algerine or Algerian War) had Congressional approval March 3, 2016. Two Commodores were given fleets to take action. Commodore Stephen Decatur (same guy who as a Lieutenant led the assault on Derna and the Tripoli raid that torched the captured the ship Philadelphia in the First Barbary War) got their first and engaged the Algerian Dey’s fleet, defeated it and forced a surrender by June 29, 1815. The Algerian Dey signed the terms of the Treaty July 3, 1815. (See Wikipedia, U. of Michigan and USWars.net)

 

The thing Obama is missing about Islam is you have to severely spank it to get its leaders – whether from a nation or terrorists. If you want to stop the genocide of Christians and stop importing American-hating Muslim from Syria-Iraq, a severe military response will be REQUIRED.

 

JRH 3/13/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND RADICAL ISLAM’S WAR ON THE WEST

America’s historical entanglement with the “religion of peace”

 

By David L. Hunter

Nov-Dec 2015 Issue

Think-Israel

 

Those that assume that radical Islam is a modern phenomenon that became prominent during Bill Clinton’s tenure as president in the 1990s merely scratch the historical surface of America’s complicated political entanglement with the Middle East’s supposed “religion of peace.” In truth, the tentacles of radical Islam go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

 

Historically, Thomas Jefferson was the first U.S. president to go to war against belligerent Islam. The American Revolution from English imperialism had left the fledgling republic deeply in debt. Trade of America’s vast natural resources of lumber, animal skins and crops with Europe was the economic answer. However, European markets, a traditional mercantile system, were not open to American commodities. Complicating matters was the fact that America had no navy to protect American cargo ships from Barbary pirates who were known to kidnap foreigners for ransom. Further, due to American independence, the U.S. could no longer depend upon the British Royal Navy—the greatest in the world at that time—nor the King of England, who customarily paid “tribute” (protection money) to North African pashas and the Sultan of Morocco.

 

In May of 1784 the Continental Congress dispatched Jefferson to Paris first as trade commissioner and later as ambassador to France. Very early on in the process he became aware of an unexpected reality: Christian-American hostages were being enslaved by violent Muslims. Contrary to rumor and the popular belief of the time, these North African predators were not the stereotypical pirates out for booty: wine, women, adventure and song. These “Barbary Pirates” were in fact just typical Middle Eastern Muslims known then as Mahometans or Mussulmen who did not consume alcohol and prayed to Allah several times a day. They crewed the ships of the Mediterranean Sea’s Islamic city-states and their efforts to capture cargo and passenger vessels were both economic and religious. Like today’s terrorists, these predecessors called themselves Mujahidin or “soldiers in the Jihad” and engaged in holy war against the West. Not much has changed in 200 years.

 

The Mujahidin knew the Union Jack, but they didn’t know the Stars and Stripes. Not that it mattered then or now: All foreigners and non-Muslims were targets. Jefferson foresaw the danger and spent the fall of 1784 studying Islam as well as fellow diplomats’ treatment of the long-standing issue. Specifically, in March of 1785, future presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. When they inquired into the Mujadhins’ propensity “to make war upon nations who had done them no injury,” the ambassador replied:

 

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

 

Jefferson argued correctly that paying “tribute” to Muslim extremism would encourage further malfeasance: “infidel” enslavement, hostage-taking and ship hijacking had already plagued Europe for a thousand years. Although John Adams concurred, as America had no standing navy, the circumstance forced the new, debt-ridden nation to pay a hefty 1 million dollar tithe (approximately 10% of the U.S. government’s annual revenues in 1800), a government entitlement program for terrorists that went on for 15 years. Like the monarchies of Europe, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans were focused on Western expansion and did not want those efforts stymied by useless armed conflicts in the Old World. The money guaranteed safe passage of American ships and/or the return of American hostages.

 

Like today in the West’s continuing quest for crude oil instead of developing comparable domestic resources, the price remains high to do business with the barbarous Middle East. In Jefferson’s time, British merchants, British and French royalty and virtually every maritime trading country in Christian Europe capitulated to the extortion rather than shift resources from burgeoning global empire-building elsewhere. However, Jefferson realized that any peaceful arrangement with the Mujahidin was a temporary fix, which would ultimately lead to greater and greater demands.

 

Unlike the Obama doctrine of continued appeasement and hollow political “victories” not worth the paper they are written on, Thomas Jefferson wanted to fight. However, certain precincts of the U.S. government reacted haphazardly to continued acts of terrorism. In late 1793, the mass hijacking of U.S. ships by Muslims had a 9/11 effect on the U.S. economy. Four months later, on March 27, 1794, Congress—after debating the subject periodically over a decade—finally decided to build a fleet of warships: six extra-large frigates. In essence, the United States Navy was born in response to unprovoked Muslim aggression.

 

After 17 years of calling for war against Islamic extremism represented by Barbary piracy, it was not until 1801 as America’s third president that Mr. Jefferson dispatched a naval squadron of four warships to the Mediterranean to engage in a four-year war off the shores of Tripoli. Sporadically, a Western power would bombard Muslim port cities in response to the ongoing threat, but nothing ends the seemingly endless Christian-Islamic religious conflict. As history demonstrates, Obama’s political realities mirror Jefferson’s. However, Mr. Obama’s cowardly head-in-the-sand reaction is in direct opposition to Jefferson’s Reaganesque show of strength.

 

Given the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001, the historic date of September 11, 1683 also comes clearly into focus. That was a turning point in human history: the defeat of the Islamic armies of the Ottoman Empire and the Islamic caliphate by Christian forces at the gates of Vienna. From that moment until the recent times, Christian or Western powers would dominate the Muslim world. Radical Islam seeks to violently overturn that arrangement through modern savagery and continuous warfare.

___________________

Christian-Americans Let Votes Be a Voice to Leadership

John R. Houk

© March 13, 2016

 

Websites Examined for Source Info

 

http://freedomoutpost.com/barbary-wars-how-thomas-jefferson-led-americas-first-war-on-terror/

 

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars

 

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h27b-pirx.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

 

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Republican-Party

 

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/early-republic/timeline-terms/democratic-republican-party

 

http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/l/7/Democratic-Republican-Party

___________________

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND RADICAL ISLAM’S WAR ON THE WEST

 

David L. Hunter is a DC-based freelance writer whose work has been published in The Washington Times, The Washington Post and American Thinker. This article appeared May 19, 2015 in Frontpage Magazine and is archived at 
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257151/thomas-jefferson-radical-islams-war-west-david-l-hunter.

 

The painting by Dennis Malone Carter of American navy men led by Stephen Decatur boarding a Tripolitan gunboat on August 3, 1804 is not part of the original article. The painting depicts Decatur and the Muslim captain (the two men slightly right of center in the painting) in mortal combat; Decatur (in sailor whites) is pulling out a gun; the captain (white turban) holds a sword in his upraised arm. The episode is vividly described in “Stephen Decatur and the Barbary Pirates” on the Extraordinary Lives of Intrepid Gentlemen website and is archived at
http://www.intrepidgentlemen.com/2012/06/11/stephn-decatur-and-the-barbary-pirates/.

 

 

Think-Israel Subscribe Page

Are YOU a Kafir?


Islamic Hate Crime

John R. Houk
© April 6, 2015
 
What is a kafir (kafr, kufar and any similarly translated from Arabic to English)?
 
A kāfir (كافر ; plural كفّار kuffār) is a disbeliever, someone who rejects Allah and who does not believe in Muhammad as the final messenger of Allah.[1][2] Although Christians and Jews are called the People of the Book (أهل الكتاب ahl al-kitab), they qualify as disbelievers[3][4][5] according to the Qur’an. The word “kafir” can be offensive to non-Muslims, as it has roots meaning “concealer” and “ingrate” implying that non-Muslims are liars. It is also often used by Muslims as an extremely offensive curse word. Other terms which are used to refer to non-Muslims include “faasiq” (sinner, corrupt) and “munafiq” (hypocrite). (Kafir; WikiIslam; page was last modified 05:44, 3 August 2013 by WikiIslam user WIBot.)
 
I’m a Born Again Christian Right kind-of-guy with huge Counterjihad sympathies; ergo by Islamic definition I am a kafir.
 
Let’s presume someone is a Left Wing agnostic/atheist with huge critical thought issues about the existence of any religion. YOU would be a kafir.
 
I came across a little 4 minute 23 second teaching moment by Bill Warner that exposes just how much Islam is taught to hate anyone that fits the kafir bill. Warner uses an example of Muslim prayers that utilize the Arabic word “kafir” but which Muslim apologists might hide the meaning with that word by translating it into the English semi-equivalent “unbeliever”. Or further talk about kafir-Jews and/or kafir-Christians with cryptic meanings left for the Muslim to assume and for a non-Muslim think of a nicer equivalent from their own faith.
 
For instance in Christianity the Holy Bible says to pray for enemies. In Islam it says kill your enemies for disrespecting Allah or Mo. In Christianity we are taught that unbelievers of the Resurrection of the Son of God Jesus Christ will pay the price with eternal separation from God in Hell with Satan, the Antichrist and False Prophet. BUT God is the Judge thus an unbeliever has the opportunity to repent of unbelief right up to their last breath to be accepted into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. In Islam if one remains an unbeliever in a state of refusal to submit to Allah, that unbeliever is worthy to suffer a horrible death today because Allah will inflict horrible torture upon the unbeliever in death in hell.
 
One surah Warner will talk about is Quran 1: 6-7:
 
Keep us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray. (Bold text The Religion of Peace)
 
In the Hadith Bukhari 56: 662 Mo was asked for clarification of the above sura about who are those of “upon whom Thy wrath is brought down” and upon “those who go astray”.
 
Narrated Abu Said:
 
The Prophet said, “You will follow the wrong ways, of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of a mastigure, you too will go there.” We said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?” He replied, “Whom else?” (Meaning, of course, the Jews and the Christians.)
 
Warner will tell you in the video the first reference are Jews and the second are Christians.
 
The very theopolitical religion known as Islam is a hate crime waiting to happen. The Muslim excuses to justify a hate crime against a kafir are all in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. If a Muslim ever tells you that Islam is peace, that person is either an outright deceiving liar or under the delusion of believing a lie.
 
Here are two fantastic analyses of the hate crime religion Islam:
 
 
·         Islam teaches Hate Crimes; By JAKE NEUMAN; FaithFreedom.org; 5/20/13
 
And now to Bill Warner’s roughly four minute teaching moment about Islam’s real theopolitical ideology on kafir.
 
JRH 4/6/15

Please Support NCCR

**************************
Prayers for Kafirs
 
April 1, 2015
 
Since over half of Islamic doctrine is about Kafirs (non-Muslims), it follows that prayers would include Kafirs too, so every day, a Muslim prays for the punishment and suffering of all Kafirs. The prayers also follow the Koranic doctrine that Muslims are not to be a true friend of them. Muslims are to forsake and turn away from Kafirs.
 
Not only are all Kafirs to suffer punishment in hell, but Christians and Jews are singled out to be worthy of Allah’s anger and are condemned in their beliefs.
 
In the end, all references to Kafirs in Islamic prayer are negative, demeaning and hateful.
 
 
 
Posted by Political Islam
Published on Apr 1, 2015
 
__________________________
Are YOU a Kafir?
John R. Houk
© April 6, 2015
________________________
Prayers for Kafirs
 
© 2007-2015 CSPI, LLC
 
About politicalislam.com
 
What is Islam?
 
Islam is a cultural, religious and political system. Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims) since it determines how we are defined and treated. The Islamic political system is contained in the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of Mohammed) and his biography, the Sira.
 
Our Mission
 
Our mission is to educate the world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah.
 
The Five Principles
 
Islam’s Trilogy of three sacred texts is the Koran and two books about the life of Mohammed. When the Trilogy is sorted, categorized, arranged, rewritten and analyzed, it becomes apparent that five principles are the foundation of Islam.
 
All of Islam is based upon the Trilogy—Koran, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (his Traditions).

Most of the Islamic doctrine is political, not religious. Islam is a political ideology.
 
Islam divides the world into Muslims and unbelievers, kafirs.
 
Political Islam always has two different ways to READ THE REST
 

On Neocon, Christian & Jewish World Domination


Pinky and the Brain - World Domination

Brain of ‘Pinky and the Brain’
 
John R. Houk
© January 5, 2015
 
A person going by the pseudonym ‘Phirst Lasname’ placed a comment to the NCCR post “Grand Jury Probable Cause Evidence”. That post is roughly a comparison of the police caused deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and of Eric Garner in NYC. Both deaths were the result of an attempted arrest that was being resisted by Black Americans by White American Police Officers. My position was Brown’s death was justified because of an intimidating robbery followed closely by an extremely life-threatening resistance to Officer Darren Wilson’s arrest. And Garner’s death was unjustified even though he put up a resistance to about four NYPD Officers of which one – Daniel Pantaleo – placed Garner in an illegal (per NYPD rules) choke hold resulting in death. Brown’s crime was robbery and a drug crazed attack. Garner’s crime was selling single cigarettes black market style. To most of America it seems silly to arrest someone for hawking cigs on the streets but it is disdained in NYC because that city charges an exorbitant surcharge on cigarette packs and cartons. A deadly choke hold in Garner’s case is a bit exorbitant for a non-violent white collar black market crime.
 
That lengthy summary of that post was necessary because Phirst’s comment really did not make a lot of sense to that post. Phirst’s comment is a political-racist-Conspiracy Theory diatribe against Neocons, Christians and Jews.
 
Phirst begins his comment with a quote from me as the launching pad for his diatribe. The problem is the quote is from a December 7 cross post that was from United With Israel. He is commenting to my intro:
 
If you have read any posts on this blog pertaining to Israel you know I am an avid supporter of Israel. Also I am a bit off the politically correct path in today’s world in that I do not believe the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians are deserving of a sovereign nation in land originally intended for a Jewish State at the end of WWI AND from a Biblical perspective the Land is promised by God Almighty as the home of the Jews.
 
That being said President Barack Hussein Obama’s treatment of Israel is heinous as both a U.S. ally, the treatment of Israel in light of the Bible, the treatment Israel in promoting the Arab fakers that call themselves Palestinians. Not to mention that these pseudo-Palestinians are nothing but a combination Jew-hating Islamic terrorists and/or those that are Jew-hating supporters of Islamic terrorists.
 
Obama’s throw-Israel-under-the-bus mentality to create a sovereign Palestinian state will set Israel up for the destruction that Muslims around the world pray to their demonic deity Allah to occur. Part of sovereign Palestine fallacy is to rip half of the City of David which is Jerusalem away from the Jewish state to give it to the psycho-pseudo-Palestinians.
 
United With Israel reports that Obama’s insidiousness against Israel continues by threatening sanctions for building homes for Jews in their own Capital City. At the same time Obama continues to placate an Israel-hating Iran by removing sanctions emboldening this Muslim rogue nation to produce nuke Inter-Continent Ballistic missiles.
 
I am going to cross post Phirst Lasname’s diatribe for your reading displeasure, but first I am going to share my thoughts on Neocons, Christian world domination and Jewish world domination.
 
Neoconservative World Domination
 
Neocons are unpopular with both Leftists and Conservatives (particularly Paleoconservatives). The reality about Neocons is that many don’t agree with other. Some Neocons lean toward an affinity for some Leftist ideals, some lean more toward more traditional Conservative ideals yet have an affinity for big government especially in the sense of maintaining a high budget military and some definitely have the appearance of a Neocon yet may identify themselves as a Liberal or Center-Left Liberal or as a Center-Right Liberal or just a mere Centrist Independent. The thing is Neoconservatism have been so vilified that the appellation Neocon has become epithet to a large amount of the Left and Right.
 
The most critical on the Right and who is the most noted Paleocon is Pat Buchanan:
 
‘… [N]eoconservatism [is] “a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology.”’ (Quoted from – quoted in the New York Times on September 8, 2002 and found at Wikipedia)
  
Buchanan’s venom is typical of the detractors of Neoconservatism. Now read a quote from the person considered the godfather of Neoconservatism – Irving Kristol:
 
‘Perhaps the most famous of Kristol’s aphorisms is that a “neo­conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.”’ (The Moral Realism of Irving Kristol; By ERIC COHEN; National Affairs – ISSUE NUMBER 2 ~ WINTER 2010)
 
In full disclosure I have Neocon leanings yet I definitely lean more to the Right than the typical Neocon stereotype. In my youth I was not really a political person but I came from a loyal Dem Party family when it came to voting. My Grandmother was an adult during the Depression and my Mother was a teenager just after the Depression. Ergo my family unwittingly were devoted Dems because they were propagandized to believe FDR delivered America out of the Depression.
 
I grew devoted to Democrat Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson who ironically many of the Neocon persuasion hail Jacksonian politics as a precursor to Neoconservatism. Like the youth of my day I was anti-Vietnam War but not because I felt the war was wrong. Rather I thought the military strategy in Vietnam of maintaining a status quo until the very corrupt South Vietnamese government was able to defeat both the Viet Cong rebels and the North Vietnamese regular army was a defeat waiting to happen – and defeat did come in 1975. Wars should be fought to win with whatever it takes or ultimately a defeat will occur.
 
I favored Unions even though Unions were not a powerful element in Washington State. I was a bit New Agie but hardly dedicated. I thought there might be something to Socialism but Communism I considered an evil of the ages. I held humanist ideals and questioned Christian ideals as outdated. But really the politics of it all was definitely not at the top of my list. I was a party-hearty doper looking for the next party.
 
Then I set out to prove the Bible as irrelevant to my than future first wife. I can’t explain how it happened, but I didn’t get past the four Gospels before I became a Born-Again Spirit-Filled Christian in the late 1970s. My old lifestyle definitely did not match my new man in Christ Jesus. So I plunged into studying the Bible eventually heading to Oklahoma to attend RHEMA Bible Training Center (now RHEMA Bible Training College).
 
Becoming a Conservative was not an immediate transformation in my case. In my mind Republican Conservatives were epitomized by Reagan loving nuke button pushing warmongers. I could not bring myself to vote for Reagan in 1980 but I didn’t wasn’t voting Democrat. So I delved into Libertarianism becoming a lover individual choice and a Market Economy. Over the next few years I began to realize Libertarians were dominated by Social Liberals as equally as they were to a Market economy. Again that didn’t match up with the new man Christian I had become. So I shed the Social Liberal Libertarians, kept the Free Market ideals and politically became a part of the Christian Right on a social level.
 
In 1984 I not only voted for President Reagan I relished in the moral-market-Conservatism he came to symbolize. Then came 1988 and my first disillusion with the GOP. Republicans nominated Vice President George H. W. Bush as President – he won. In my mind GHW Bush was a part of the corrupt cabal of Richard Nixon of notorious Watergate infamy. Gerald Ford gave Nixon a blanket pardon to protect him from prosecution. In January 1976 Ford made GHW Bush Direct of Central Intelligence (DCI) which lasted through January 1977.
 
As far as I could find GHW Bush had no direct link to the Watergate cover-up; however Nixon was cozy with Prescott Bush and thus moved GHW up the political ladder of the GOP Establishment all the while GHW being extremely loyal to Nixon even through the Watergate expose of illegal activities and the discovered cover-up.
 
With Ford blanketing Nixon from prosecution, Bush’s loyalty to Nixon and the subsequent Ford appointment of GHW as Director of Central Intelligence; on a personal level I had a great distrust of GHW Bush as Reagan’s VP and subsequent election to POTUS in 1988. In that 1988 election I voted for GHW because the other choice was über Leftist Michael Dukakis. In 1992 Ross Perot was Free Market Conservative enough that I voted for him. This undoubtedly led to Clinton’s victory.
 
By 2000 I had become closer to the Neocons. I went from reading the Objectivism of Ayn Rand to a fascination with Leo Strauss. Although it is doubtful that Strauss would identify himself as a Neocon, the fact remains that many former students and admirers have the label of Neocon. Strauss may have more critics than even the Neocons do. Strauss had an affinity for the ancient philosophers through to the 18th or perhaps early 19th century. Strauss believed that the bottom line of those philosophers was an esoteric teaching that only the intelligent elite might comprehend. But most of the criticism of Strauss is his highlighting of Plato’s Noble Lie. The Noble Lie is the thought the intellectual ruling elite by necessity keep negative info away from the general population to promote a religious and moral mythos that provides inner stability within society itself.
 
I got to tell you though the aspect of Neoconservatism I am all in with is the promoting of the principles of American Exceptionalism even if military action is required to do so. I was originally all in with the concept of nation building with the democratic-republic being taught to formerly despotic nations. I have modified that view with America’s decade-plus long war prosecuted in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated that the American principles of individual Rights, Liberty and Freedom will never stick among a people that totalitarianism is infused into cultures dominated by Islam.
 
Is there a Neocon cabal intent of global domination?
 
NO!
 
Closest thing to a Neocon cabal are a group of people intent on working within the framework of the U.S. Constitution to prevent Marxist principles from ruining America’s Liberty and to have a strong enough central government to maintain a strong military to at the very enforce a Pax Americana within our borders. Everything in between is in flux according to how far Right a Neocon might be. For instance on the issue of immigration would support reform to provide a stable manner of incorporating immigrants into an assimilation of American culture. Yet Neocons will have a difficult time forming a mutual consensus on booting out the current illegals or processing a program that promotes assimilation rather than multicultural diversity. Face it promoting multicultural diversity instills cultural chaos rather than societal common ground.
 
Christian World Domination
 
The closest thing there has ever been a Christian World Dominating polity is when Constantine the Great made Christianity the Roman State religion and made an effort to unify divergent dogmas via Ecumenical Councils.
 
On a personal level I believe the Presence of God was present in the early Councils via the Holy Spirit; however whenever human hands take the reins of interpretation human hands screw up the Will of God on the Divine grand design and only the unfathomable Grace and Mercy of God delays that grand design giving humanity every opportunity to draw nearer to God. There will be a time when the polity and culture of humanity will look closer to the days of Noah. When those days come God Almighty will force the issue of the Divine grand design for humanity and the earth in general.
 
There will be a day of a Christian World Domination but it WILL NOT be by the hands of humanity. Read the last couple chapters of the Revelation of John and discover World Domination will be instituted by the return of Jesus Christ as the Messiah/King who will eventually rule in perpetuity. By the way a message to you Jew-hating White Supremacists, Christians and Muslims: the return of Jesus entails returning Jews first the Land Promised them then to the rest of the nations of the world.
 
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
 
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me,[b] “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
 
6 And He said to me, “It is done![c] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things,[d] and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[e] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21: 1-8 NKJV)
 
12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”[a]
 
14 Blessed are those who do His commandments,[b] that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But[c]outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
 
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”
 
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22: 12-17 NKJV)
 
Check that last two chapters to reading the last three chapters. Hmm … Just read the entire Revelation of John. Now that is Christian World Domination the God-way and NOT the man-way.
 
Jewish World Domination
 
There has NEVER been a Jewish agenda to rule the world. All that religious Jews ever wanted is to return to their homeland once expelled. Secular and dimwitted … err I mean unwitting Leftist Jews that embrace the Zionist movement of the early 20th century and desire a land to live in peace free of the global persecution they have experienced for thousands of years living as a Diaspora among predominantly Antisemitic/Jew-hating Gentiles.
 
If there are any morons out there that use the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as proof positive there is a cabal of Jews intent on World Domination your both deceived and delusional. This document was never written by any learned Jewish elders. It is proven that it is a hoax put together under the administration of Czar Nicholas II (the same executed by Communist Lenin) in the late 19th century which was adopted from a fiction story concocted in France then enhanced in Prussia and finally reaching to Czarist Russia (See HERE, HERE and HERE is a moronic page asserting the authenticity of the Protocols).
 
Jewish World Domination theologically is definitely not a present day phenomena. The true Jewish agenda from the very Orthodox to the Reformed is to better one’s self. From my brief gleaning of information most Jews (primarily the strictest Orthodox through Conservative) believe in some kind of Messiah coming to better the world’s existence, BUT that future Messiah is not of Divine origin as Christian’s do believe in Jesus Christ and His Second Coming.
 
Apparently there is a dispute among Jewish theologians that a Messianic age arrives depending on two sides of a coin. Some believe when the world has achieved a harmonious enough existence a Messiah will emerge to perpetuate that harmony eternally for the Jews and extending to the Righteous Gentile nations (no forced conversions to Judaism). The other side of the coin is the belief that the world becomes so sinfully and politically corrupt that a Messiah emerges to bring global harmony for the Jews and the Righteous Gentiles in perpetuity (Again, no forced Judaic conversions). The key for both sides of the coin is global peaceful harmony for all humanity because Jews and Gentiles alike will just know to do right and eschew doing evil. As a Christian Zionist myself that is the simplest summary I can think of yet I am positive from a Jewish perspective I have not provided a summary that Jews would find acceptable enough. As in theologies it is a bit more complicated.
 
ONE thing is certain though. Like the final outcome a Christian World Domination, a Jewish World Domination has nothing to do ruling by might, human emotional whims nor totalitarian despotism. Rather everyone just knows what is Right.
 
Some good websites that fill in the details of the Jewish “World to Come” (Olam Ha-Ba) are below for my fellow Gentiles and/or Christian Zionists:
 
 
 
 
o   Jewish eschatology – Wikipedia (Very Informative)
 
 
 
With all this being said, you have to know I was a bit annoyed with this guy who goes by the pseudonym Phirst Lasname. His warped sense of reality is pretty summed up by this quote from his comment below:
 
Neocons, Christians? And Jews? Alike, are a lot like arsonists posing as firefighters, a lot like John Orr.
 
I wasn’t sure who John Orr is. Apparently he was an arsonist that actually was an arson investigator: See HERE and HERE.
 
Phirst is thus comparing Neocons, Christians and Jews to a murderer who killed by fire.
 
CREEP!
 
 
JRH 1/5/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************
Phirst Lasname Attacks Neocons, Christians & Jews
 
Phirst Lasname (pseudonym) FB profile pic 7-11-14
Phirst Lasname from Facebook Profile 
 
 
 
If you have read any posts on this blog pertaining to Israel you know I am an avid supporter of Israel. Also I am a bit off the politically correct path in today’s world in that I do not believe the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians are deserving of a sovereign nation in land originally intended for a Jewish State at the end of WWI AND from a Biblical perspective the Land is promised by God Almighty as the home of the Jews.” [Blog Editor: Old ‘Phirst’ placed this comment under “Grand Jury …” but this quote is actually from my blog post entitled, “Obama Threatens to Punish Israel for …”. The quote is from my intro to a “United With Israel” cross post on NCCR from December 7, 2014.]
 
Is an Israel Firster any better than a blame America Firster?
 
Khazars who call themselves Jews.
 
Land promised by God 3000 years ago, and was lost 300-400 years later. Enter the New Second Covenant. Jesus. Christianity. A clean slate.
 
The new zionist state was created in 1948. Was that the third covenant?
 
WW1, people should listen to the Benjamin H. Freedman 1961 speech, and read his 1974 speech.
 
youtu.be/UH7ti2B8EPc (not spam, very useful information) [Blog Editor: 1 hour and almost 17 minutes of Israel/Zionist-hatred]
 
Israel did 9/11, and everyone right, left and center who is informed and honest, knows it.
Al Qaeda and ISIS/CRISIS are of, by and for the neocon agenda, militant zionism, Israel.
 
When it comes to Benghazi, all means, motive and opportunity points to neocon involvement, and the only beneficiary was at that time was then presidential candidate Mitt Romney…A manufactured foreign policy crisis against Obama was Romney’s “October Surprise” in September.
 
Nothing else adds up.
 
There are few things more insidious than misdirected patriotism.
 
Neocons, Christians? And Jews? Alike, are a lot like arsonists posing as firefighters, a lot like John Orr.
 
Watch the HBO 2002 tv movie ‘Point of Origin’ starring Ray Liotta as John Orr, and you will see how the neocon masters operate.
 
I used to be passionately pro-Israel for years…there was a time when I wanted Benjamin Netanyahu to be president of the United States.
 
But eventually I woke up, and I started to see things for how they actually are.
 
As for Obama, the gay Muslim socialist from Kenya, he must be doing something right for all the zionazis to hate him so much… Maybe it’s because he doesn’t believe in the White Horse Prophecy like Romney does.
 
Obama doesn’t want Apocalypse Now, and all the twisted nihilists and zionazis do, and they hate him for delaying their dream, what every sane person would call a nightmare.
 
Romney was a Rhino? … Does that mean he wasn’t nihilistic enough?… I think he was.
 
You wanna be real patriots?
 
Support the Constitution, RESTORE the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
 
Repeal the so called “Patriot Act”, and ban the TSA.
 
You want to really support the troops?
 
Then, BRING THEM HOME.
 
Do you love your children?
 
Then, DON’T START A NUCLEAR WAR.
 
Stop provoking the Russians in Ukraine, which used to be a democracy until the neocon mafia staged a coup and overthrew the Kiev government. THEN Crimeans voted to secede from the dictatorship in Kiev, which is every people’s right throughout the world, including in America. People have the right to self-determination.
 
If there was a coup in Washington, the states would have the right to break ties with Washington.
 
As for “terrorism”.
 
The neocons ARE the terrorists.
 
The real enemy and threat is militant zionism. The real caliphate is the zionist caliphate.
The real jihad is the neocon jihad against democracy and peace.
 
The war on terror is in truth a war OF terror by Israel, Washington and Riyadh. In that order.
The neocon war of terror is self-fulfilling and a vicious cycle that can only escalate and grow worse until it goes nuclear.
 
You want to win the war?
 
STOP FIGHTING IT.
 
Stop fighting a phantom menace, manufactured enemies like ISIS.
Tell Netanyahu to send his terror army back home, and end the genocidal proxy war against Syria.
 
Make peace with Iran…Iran would be a better ally than a fake enemy.
 
Throw Israel under the bus, and Britain, too — with friends like that, who needs enemies?
_______________________________
On Neocon, Christian & Jewish World Domination
John R. Houk
© January 5, 2015
________________________________
Phirst Lasname Attacks Neocons, Christians & Jews
 
Spellcheck editing by John R. Houk with some spelling ignored
 

Santa Claus doesn’t Visit Pakistan?


Karachi Santa Reuters photo 12-24-14

Karachi Santa Reuters photo 12-24-14
 
What is it like for Christians to celebrate Christmas in an Islamic Supremacist nation like Pakistan? Shamim Masih relates the Christmas experience.
 
JRH 12/26/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************
Santa Claus doesn’t Visit Pakistan?
 
By Shamim Masih
Sent: 12/26/2014 4:03 AM
 
ISLAMABAD: December 25th is a public holiday, but it is in the memory of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of the country, not for the celebrations of Christmas. Pakistan has a population over 180 million people and there are around 20 million Christians. Although there [has not been a] census in the country for many years, this is estimated figure given by different Christian organization and churches around. Most of Christians living in [Pakistan] are quite poor. At Christian festivals, like Christmas and Easter, a big procession takes place like in Lahore, Karachi and Rawalpindi. Before and during Advent, spiritual seminars take place to help people to prepare for Christmas. In many Christian areas, carol singing is performed by various groups. They go from house to house singing carols and in return the family offers something to the choir. Mostly the money collected from such carols is used for charity works or is given to the church. But this trend is gradually fading now due to the wave of terrorism in the country for the last decade.
  
Christmas is not being celebrated in Pakistan like, in EU or other Christian countries. Especially, when there is a Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) (a political party) come into power. Most of the Pakistani Christians believe that the PML-N mind set is pro-Taliban and they [can] hardly bear Pakistani Christians. And this year they proved it, the government didn’t announce any public holiday for Christians. There remained gas and electricity load shedding schedule in its routine. It means Christians of the country enjoyed Christmas with gas and electricity. On the other hand, a special announcement is being made by the government and special [holiday] packages on Eid ul Fiter [or Fitr – in Pakistan: HERE and HERE] and Eid ul Uzha [or Azha or Adha] (Muslim’s festivals) [are] announced usually. The authorities gave another indication of being second class citizens [i.e. dhimmis] and showed their discriminatory attitude toward Christians of the country.
 
Anyway, in the big Christians areas, each house is decorated and has a star on the roof. Christians also sometimes exchange Christmas cakes. Churches are packed for midnight or vigil mass services. After the vigil-mass, in some places there are fireworks which start Christmas celebrations. People wear their best and colorful clothes. Some people dance, exchange gifts and enjoy the special night. But this Christmas is embraced in certain parts of Pakistani society, especially among the wealthy and educated. Paradoxically, the country is also seeing an uptick in violence against Christians as some use the country’s controversial “Blasphemy law” to marginalize and oppress their non-Muslim countrymen.
 
Not everyone is deprived of an opulent holiday feast when it comes to Christmas dinner in Pakistan. The menu reads as if an especially corpulent Santa had [been] providing dinner. Brie and cranberry parcels, roast turkey, gravy, beef, stuffing and mushroom roulade. Spiced pumpkin cheesecake and “Christmas Pie Sundae” complete with orange, almond and whisky sauce cap off dinner for well-connected diplomats and privileged society.
 
This privileged society simply forget their Christian brothers, [who have] no decorations, no best and colorful clothes. The stench from overflowing half-frozen sewers permeates the small neighborhoods. As a nation, we wear our emotions on our sleeve, given to sudden declarations that fizzle out like the ocean surf. Our tragedies forgotten before the wounds have sealed, we continue desensitized.
Be Blessed,
 
Shamim Masih
 
Diplomatic Correspondent, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, UN, F & S, MOST, CADD & Human Rights Activist
 
Daily Khabrian – in Urdu (PakBiz.com description – in English) & Channel – 5 (A project of Khabrian Group of papers)
 
For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending this LINK to a Western Union agent in Islamabad. Include Shamim’s phone – +92-300-642-4560
_______________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Text and links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.
 
© Shamim Masih