The REAL Reason for Violence in the Middle East

 

It is not so difficult to figure out why there is always such violence between Muslims and Jews, provided you know either the actual history or are familiar with the story of Abraham - considered the Father of both religions.

Sorry anti-Semites - these facts may tick you off.

Abraham's wife was barren, so Abraham had an illegitimate son (Ishmael) with an Arab hand maiden. Later, God reportedly intervened and allowed Abraham's barren wife to have a son (Isaac). Now there were two sons - Ishmael, an Arab, and Isaac, a Jew.

At one point Abraham is ordered to sacrifice Isaac - either by God, as a test of faith, or by Satan, to eliminate the righteous. But at the last moment by God's intervention an angel stopped him.

Years later, blind and on his death bed, Abraham called for his son, Isaac, to bestow upon him the entire wealth and land Abraham had accumulated, since Isaac was his only legitimate heir. But Ishmael came instead, and fooled his blind father into thinking he was Isaac. And Abraham mistakenly bestowed the inheritance upon Ishmael.

Ishmael, the Arab son, had stolen Isaac's inheritance.

Ishmael went on to lead the Arab tribes (from which Muhammad was descended), while Isaac went on to lead the Jewish tribes (from which Jesus was descended).

To insure that he would keep that which he had stolen, Ishmael spent his life trying to destroy Isaac and the Jews.

Fast forward a few thousand years, the Disciples of Jesus write the Books of the Bible, and a few hundred years later Muhammad writes the Qu'ran, bringing the Arab tribes together to form a caliphate and to destroy all Jews and infidels. The violence against the Jews continued with a passion, as Arabs still feared losing that which they had stolen. The fighting between them has never stopped, and will not until one or the other - or both - are destroyed.

The Crusades began because the Arabs waged war against the Jews and were intent on taking Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. As Christians, King Richard and the Knights Templar waged war against the Arabs (and lost).

ALL the violence in the Middle East is instigated by the Arab Muslims, intent on destroying every vestige of the Jewish people, as they represent the true heirs of Abraham. In fact, the Qu'ran actually requires the destruction of the Jews. The Bible, on the other hand, does not call for the destruction of the Arab tribes.

What we have here is the eternal war between two sons, one Good, the other Evil. And when the "End Times" come, it will be brought about by these two factions in their final battle to destroy one another, and the entire world will be caught up in it.

/

Obama - Christian or Not

A schill recently posed a question to Donald Trump stating that President Obama is a Muslim in an attempt to create a "gotcha" for Trump. But that is not the real story here. The story is whether or not there is any credence to the man's assertion that Obama is a Muslim. Here are the facts:

1) Mr Obama was born and raised during his formative years as a Muslim. He admits that.

2) At a later age Obama claims to have converted to Christianity

3) He still claims he is a Christian.

And here is where many find a problem. What a person learns in his formative years (through age 7) stays with the person, as those are the core beliefs and experiences upon which all future experiences are judged. It is the lens a person sees through, and it is nearly impossible to erase those early beliefs. Therefore, it is highly likely that Obama's beliefs, and certainly his actions, are colored by those early beliefs.

Moreover, a lot of people take exception to calling the church of Reverend Wright, which Obama attended for 22 years, as being in any way Christian. It is a church where hate and bigotry is preached.

But the most powerful indictment is Mr. Obama's actions. You can call yourself whatever you wish, but you are judged by your actions, not your words. And it is impossible to discount that President Obama has acted in ways that discriminate against Christianity. Many of his actions directly attack Christianity at every level.

And we cannot turn a blind eye to his constant favoring of Muslims in his actions - it seems every foreign policy decision he has made in the Middle East has favored Muslims over Christians, even backing the Muslim Brotherhood, not taking out ISIS, pulling out of the Middle East, the Iran Deal, and his disdain and disrespect of the Israeli government. His disdain for Israel is apparent.

And that is the case for those who claim he is still, in his heart, Muslim. His actions, not his words, would so indicate.

BUT...

And here is something to chew on before a person chooses to indict Mr Obama...

In America, a person is innocent until PROVED otherwise. If a person says he is innocent, he is to be believed, until and unless evidence is produced that proves something different. Whereas Obama states he is Christian, we are obligated to accept that until proof comes out to the contrary. And while there is substantial circumstantial evidence that he is Muslim at heart, that does not constitute proof.

So, here is my take - Mr Obama has converted to Christianity, but he was raised Muslim and those early core beliefs remain with him, affecting his decisions and actions and making it difficult for him to actually BE a Christian. As it says in the Bible, "No man can serve two masters". If a person's brain says "Christian" but his heart says "Muslim", there is a tremendous struggle within.

And until Mr Obama is able to resolve that within himself, there will always be doubts as to where his faith truly lies. And in the meantime, we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

/

Would Extraterrestrial Visitors Be Friendly?

Most people who believe there is alien life (which may or may not have visited us) believe they are likely to be friendly. They figure any society that has advanced so far must have long ago lost any need for aggression. As with almost all liberal thought, that is absurd, for two indisputable reasons.

1) All life, regardless of its form, consumes other life in order to survive. All life must have a source of fuel. Whether an animal that feeds on other animals, or on vegetation, or even vegetation that feeds on the decaying remnants of life, all living things must feed.

That said, any species that becomes dominant on their planet, if left unchecked, and simply by virtue of that dominance, will eventually reproduce beyond the planet's ability to sustain the numbers. The only way to avoid starvation and to expand is to go to war and take the resources of others. War and killing is nature's way of keeping a dominant specie in check. This is the First Law of Nature - survival of the fittest. The strong will live, the weak will perish. Cruel, perhaps, but every bit as necessary to survival as eating. Every living thing must be "prey" to some other living thing, and when you are at the top of the food chain, the only predator that can keep our numbers in check is ourselves.

2) Add to this the simple fact that all technology and advancements are the result of survival needs and war. Someone invents a spear, so his adversary must invent the crossbow, which, in turn results in an adversary inventing a gun. The gun results in an adversary having to invent bombs, then planes to drop bombs, and then rocket-powered bombs like those Hitler used against London.

Those rocket bombs led to rocketry for space exploration, which, in reality, is really a race for dominance in space for purposes of "defense" and war, and gaining resources.


Despite the ideological people who try to claim space exploration is for "scientific and educational purposes", that is actually a ruse. All scientific and educational research is conducted for one reason - the same reason: SURVIVAL. We need room to expand. We need resources to sustain our growing number. And that brings with it a need for aggression. If you are not superior, you become prey. And humans do not fare well as prey.

Our space exploration has been made possible only from a need to survive, which requires superiority. Created by war and aggression.

When you combine both of these facts of nature, you would realize that only the ultimate predator would ever be capable of space exploration.

For example, because our own resources are dwindling, we are already considering the possibility of mining on asteroids to take what we need. We are even considering the colonization of other celestial bodies. You either move forward, or perish.

We should assume that in the event there is other intelligent life "out there", that they, too, are motivated by survival. They, too, must consume. Any living thing that does not consume will perish. In short, there is only one viable way for any dominant life form to survive - by conquest.Think of the "Old West". White men needed the land to expand. They needed the gold to pay for the expansion. So the native Americans were conquered. Just like the Aztecs before them. Hitler, Napoleon, Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great, Caesar - throughout history, progress was marked by conquest.

It still is. That is what the First Law of Nature (survival of the fittest) means.

/

Senator Paul's Wrongheaded View on Cuba

I have a lot of respect for Rand Paul, as I share a lot of the libertarian views. But on The Kelly File tonight, he said that opening trade with Cuba would get rid of Cuban Communism, as it would flood the masses with capitalist treasures. He erroneously compared it to opening trade with China in the '70's, and how that was such a good thing.

What Senator Paul apparently has not noticed is a) China, after 40 years of trade with us is still communist, and b) they have amassed HUGE wealth from their one-sided trade with the U.S. - and they are using our money to build a vast war machine. And there can only be one reason for that - to become THE super power, at our expense. We are paying them to eventually destroy us.

Is that what America wants? Is that good for us?

Senator Paul might want to get his head out of the clouds long enough to actually SEE how opening trade with China has actually worked, rather than how it "appears" to have worked. Look below the surface, and check the underbelly, and I guarantee it would scare the Hell out of him.

And somehow he expects opening trade with Cuba would have the opposite effect.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result each time.

/

Democracy vs Republic

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government"....        

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law  - this case, the Constitution.   A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule).   A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury.   To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority.   As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive.   When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true.   The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy.   They repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a Republic.

 Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution.   It was F.D.R. who began calling America a Democracy, in an attempt to initiate a government ruled by the majority. He could not do the socialist things he did under a Republic.

Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths..."

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. Thomas Jefferson referred to a democracy as "elective despotism".

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution

And therein lies the truth that those in our government today do not want the people to know or understand. But it is increasingly important that we DO know and understand, and be willing to fight for our Republic.

NBC's Ed Shultz Again Talks On Subject He Knows Nothing About

NBC's Ed Schultz has once again decided to run his mouth on a subject that he obviously knows nothing about - Christianity and the Holy Bible (which he obviously has never really read).

His latest rant against Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson is so misinformed as to make Schultz look like the backwoods rube he thinks Robertson is.

According to Schultz, Robertson is no different from ISIS because, like ISIS, Robertson says they should convert or die. What the Schultz neglects to mention is the context - that ISIS is in the business of murdering innocent people, and under any civilized society, such people are supposed to be exterminated. It is not Christians who are crucifying children and putting their heads on stakes, or cutting off people's heads with a knife.

And when Schultz decides to bring religion into it by suggesting no decent religion would exercise the "convert or die" mantra, he obviously does not know that the God of Christianity states, "When you come upon heathens, ye shall smite them, kill them, drive them to the ends of the Earth." God understands evil, and knows it should be destroyed at every turn. He even says if your son is evil, he must be put to death.

Now tell me, Schultz, if you can manage it - would you not call ISIS and other radical Islamists who murder innocent people "heathens"?

If not, then perhaps you are the heathen.

In any case, you have no business commenting on Christianity or the Bible until you actually READ it.

Yeah, I know - I really should not engage in a battle of wits with someone who is only half prepared.

MO Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson WAY off base

Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson, now in charge of security in Ferguson, MO said:

"When this is over, I'm going to go in my son's room. My black son, who wears his pants sagging, who wears his hat cocked to the side, got tattoos on his arms, but that's my baby."

Johnson added: "We all need to thank the Browns for Michael. Because Michael's going to make it better for our sons to be better black men."

I guess the Missouri State Highway Patrol is really hard up to have such a racist idiot as a Captain. The fact remains, and the video proves it, that Michael Brown was a thief and a bully, and if Captain Johnson wants to THANK him for that, then perhaps Johnson should resign from law enforcement.

As for their sons to "be better black men", why not simply start by having them try to be better MEN. It is the task of the parents to do that. Color has nothing to do with morality, and Michael Brown is not exactly a role model for anyone except perhaps budding gangsters.