Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Israel Hate Drives Palestinians. How Can One Make Peace With Someone Who Wants To Kill You?

Christmas Hijacked by Anti-Israel NGO’s to Fuel Hate and Violence

“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.” (Psalm 101:7)
Masquerading behind banners for peace, politicized NGO’s and famous charities are capitalizing on the Christmas season with anti-peace campaigns, many of which glorify terrorism, against Israel.
According to watchdog organization NGO Monitor, these organizations are using holiday and religious themes to demonize Israel, including offensive Christmas carols, religious imagery and inflammatory holiday messages to appeal to their followers and a worldwide audience.
“For almost 15 years political NGO’s have driven a campaign to delegitimize and demonize Israel, using the rhetoric of human rights and international law as a facade to enable their attacks,” explained NGO Monitor spokesman Aaron Kalman to Breaking Israel News. “The strategy, formulated and initiated at the 2001 Durban Conference, calls for economic sanctions and other means to ‘punish’ Israel, and the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is the result of this strategy.”
Many of these organizations are directly funded by European countries, such as Sabeel, which receives funding from Sweden and the Netherlands. Other well known “peace” organizations, including Adalah-NY, the Amos Trust and Kairos Palestine, abuse Christmas messages as part of a global campaign against Israel.
“Taxpayer money, mostly from Europe but also from the US and Canada, is disbursed as grants to both Protestant and Catholic humanitarian aid organizations,” Kalman told Breaking Israel News. “In turn, these funds are transferred to highly politicized NGO’s involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
The messages of these anti-peace campaigns fail to recognize the deadly terrorist attacks against Israel at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Many of these groups have yet to condemn what has become almost daily car ramming, stabbing and drive by shooting attacks.
In one such instance, pro-Palestinian Al Quds University, which receives funding from the EU’s Partnerships for Peace program, set up a “martyrs tree” in which the Christmas tree was decorated with photos of terrorists who had died while carrying out attacks against Israelis.
image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/palestinian-terror-martyrs-tree-christmas.png
Palestinian religious leaders stand next to a Christmas "martyrs tree" at Al Quds University. (Photo: YouTube Screenshot)
Palestinian religious leaders stand next to a Christmas “martyrs tree” at Al Quds University. (Photo: YouTube Screenshot)
The Amos Trust, a UK-based anti-Israel NGO, use their annual Bethlehem Pack, which contains theological teaching used to promote advocacy against Israel, including indoctrination messages for children, to issue political messages of hate against Israel disguised as Christmas teachings.
“Greetings to you this Christmas season from the little town of Bethlehem. This little town, the place where the Prince of Peace was born continues to face daily hardships,” the Amos Trust wrote. “Just this year alone, in the surrounding beautiful villages, hundreds if not thousands of olive trees were burned by illegal Israeli settlers for absolutely no reason but to humiliate and damage the source of livelihood for hundreds of Palestinian families.”
In yet another political message disguised as religion, the Amos Trust wrote, “For peace to come to Palestine and Israel, we must speak out about the injustices faced by Palestinians and support them with our prayers, both at Christmas and throughout the year.”
According to Kalman, the hijacking of faith and religion by these NGO’s are a great cause for concern. “Political NGO’s are hijacking holidays and faiths meant to promote peace and understanding in order to excuse terrorism and create antagonism, even hatred,” he told Breaking Israel News.
“Not only are the actions by these NGO’s morally wrong, but they also push the prospects of peace even further away,” he added.
Kalman explained that while these NGO’s are pushing an anti-Israel agenda, their “problematic initiatives advance anti-Semitic motifs,” he told Breaking Israel News. “At a time when the Vatican is taking historic steps regarding relations with Jews and Israel, it is troubling to see extreme political groups attempting to undermine these important efforts.”

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/57008/christmas-hijacked-anti-israel-ngos-fuel-hate-violence-jerusalem/#3ywStLBoc85PmbkK.99

This Administration Gets Worse And Worse, By The Minute

Never mind Obama, what Kerry just did smells like TREASON to me

kerry_sad
Ok, I have said this before and it’s almost a rhetorical question, “on whose side is President Obama and his administration?” I mean the president’s response to the Islamic terror attack in San Bernardino is stricter gun control and an executive order on background checks.
Last time I checked, the weapons in the San Bernardino jihadist attack weren’t purchased illegally — and California has some of the strictest gun laws. And we’ve shared here the countless violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of the Iranian nuclear deal. Yet, the Obama administration presses on and states they will not rescind the agreement.
Now we have a new and interesting development between the militant Islamists of Iran and the Obama administration.
As reported by Fox News, “Republicans on Monday blasted Secretary of State John Kerry for suggesting in a letter to his Iranian counterpart that the administration could help the country get around new visa restrictions passed by Congress.
“Instead of bending over backwards to try to placate the Iranian regime, the White House needs to be holding it accountable for its recent missile tests, its continued support for terrorism, and its wrongful imprisonment of Americans,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said in a statement to FoxNews.com.
At issue are tightened security requirements for America’s visa waiver program, which allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the U.S. without visas. Under changes in the newly signed spending bill, people from those countries who have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan in the past five years must now obtain visas to enter the U.S.


Top Tehran officials, however, complained the changes violate the terms of the nuclear deal, which says the U.S. and other world powers will refrain from any policy intended to adversely affect normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran.”
So folks, let me explain, the Iranians are complaining that our tightening of our visa waiver program is in violation of the Iranian nuclear agreement. Now, ain’t that a daisy! Actually, it shows the abject disrespect the clerics and ayatollahs have for President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry. And to think that John Kerry would issue a letter to a representative of the country that is the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism saying that he would assist them in undermining our Congress — unbelievable. Folks, I could give a rat’s behind about the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran — and what idiot wrote that into the Iranian agreement in the first place?
We have a global security issue and the last thing we need are folks able to exploit our visa programs and gain entry into America. Think about it, how did Tashfeen Malik gain entry into America? Yes, a fiancé visa program. Mohammad Atta and several of the 9-11jihadists were in the U.S. on student visas.
So I ask again, on whose side is John Kerry and President Obama? Do they truly believe an agreement with the Iranians is such a grand achievement — an agreement than Iranian leaders have used as less than toilet paper?
Again, understand that Kerry is issuing a letter to an Iranian official stating that he will assist them in circumventing our legislative process. Has John Kerry truly lost his mind and forgotten the concept of checks and balances? Does he really believe he can just tell the enemy — and that’s what Iran is — that he will aid and abet them?
Actually, one could consider Kerry’s letter as violating U.S. statute and providing material support and comfort to the enemy. That, ladies and gents, is not a stretch to prove. And why is Kerry is so concerned about Iran, yet we still have some five Americans unjustly held by the Iranians?
To me, that would have been reason number one not to enter into any agreement with Iran. Then again, I’m not President Barack Obama who can stand with the parents of Bowe Bergdahl in the Rose Garden and speak of not leaving Americans behind — while hypocritically doing just that in Iran.
Apparently the five Americans held in Iran interfere with Obama’s agenda – they’re just an obstacle, or as he referred to the losses in Benghazi, a “bump in the road.”
In Obamaworld, nothing matters unless it enables his objectives and designs.
“Kerry responded to these concerns in a Dec. 19 letter to his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif — and suggested the administration could simply bypass the rules for Iran. “I am also confident that the recent changes in visa requirements passed in Congress, which the Administration has the authority to waive, will not in any way prevent us from meeting our [nuclear deal] commitments, and that we will implement them so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran,” he said.
Kerry’s letter to Zarif assured that the U.S. would “adhere to the full measure of our commitments.” As for changes to the visa program, Kerry floated several alternative options for easing any impact on Iran – including waiving the new requirements. “To this end, we have a number of potential tools available to us, including multiple entry ten-year business visas, programs for expediting business visas, and the waiver authority provided under the new legislation,” he wrote.”
If John Kerry and Barack Obama, believe they can just waive a Congressional measure relating to our security, my response would be simple — cut back funding to the State Department directorate that would be issuing visas. There has to come a point in time when Congress realizes that the Obama administration does not respond to words and strenuous rebukes.
After this last Omnibus spending bill, it’s clear Obama and Kerry have little respect or regard for the GOP-led Congress. Clearly Obama views them as the Rodney Dangerfield Congress.
I want some liberal progressive to explain how they can support such a letter by Kerry. If you do, then it’s apparent this nation can never allow another liberal progressive socialist to EVER occupy the White House.
If appeasing the Iranians is more important, if having a document to tout as a faux political achievement, regardless of the incessant violations, is more vital, if these things weigh heavier than five Americans being held hostage and the security of our nation — then this entity we now know as the modern Democrat Party is not in keeping with the principles and values of this Constitutional Republic, America.
The only deduction is that the Democrat Party is not on the side of America.

Do Military Personnel Give Up Their Freedom Of Religion When They Join The Service? We Think Not!




monifa_sterling
Monifa Sterling
A warning is being delivered to the U.S. military for court-martialing Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling for posting a Bible verse in her Camp LeJeune work space.
“If the lower court’s ruling is left unchanged, religious freedom will be subject to the whims of military supervisors and a chilling effect will sweep across the military,” charges the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Chaplain Alliance, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the appeal involving Sterling.
At three places in her work space, Sterling posted a phrase from Isaiah 54:17, “No weapons formed against me shall prosper.”
According to the brief, her supervisor said, “I don’t like the tone,” and told her to take them down.
“When Sterling declined, her supervisor took them down at the end of the duty day. Sterling reprinted and re-posted the messages, but she found them in the trash the next morning. She was then court-martialed,” the brief said.
But the supervisors actions, the brief contends, is contrary to the Constitution and the law.
“No one in our military who goes to work every day to defend our freedoms should then be court-martialed for exercising those very freedoms,” said ADF Legal Counsel Daniel Briggs, a former Air Force JAG officer.
“This case is about Monifa, but it is also about every American who puts on the uniform in service to this country. The question is whether they will be allowed to exercise their faith in the military, or whether they will be denied the same constitutionally protected freedoms they have volunteered to defend and are willing to die for.”
First, the legal brief explained, “the orders clearly lacked a valid military purpose for broadly restricting appellant’s private rights and personal affairs.”
“The orders were not related to mission accomplishment or the maintenance of good order and discipline. The record is devoid off any evidence whatsoever of prejudice to good order and discipline; in fact, every witness whose testimony touched on the issue, stated they never saw anything distracting, agitating, or controversial on or near appellant’s desk.”
Second, the legal standard is that such orders “must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.”
“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution has always protected religious exercise. … In the present case, the orders were clearly unlawful as they had no valid military purpose and conflicted with appellant’s constitutional and statutory rights.”
The censorship also, the brief said, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“The Supreme Court acknowledged Congress’ mandate that RFRA ‘be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution,’” the brief said.
The censorship “substantially burden[ed]” her beliefs, the brief continued.
“It stands to reason that if a substantial burden potentially runs afoul of RFRA, an absolute prohibition must.”
Finally, there was no compelling government interest in the censorship, the document said.
The brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces on the case before the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.
“Congress and the courts have made it clear that religious freedom is truly our first freedom; it must not be watered down and should be burdened only in the most extreme circumstances,” said Chaplain (Col.) Ron Crews (retired), executive director of Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.
“This is just as true in the military. Though it is a unique institution with a mission that must be accomplished, service members cannot be forced to check their faith when they put on the uniform. Their religious freedom is more precious than ever before and must be strongly defended. Those who are willing to give all deserve nothing less.”
Earlier this year, WND reported Michael Berry of Liberty Institute, who is representing Sterling, said Sterling has a good chance of reversing the decision.
“If the government can order a Marine not to display a Bible verse, they could try and order her not to get a religious tattoo or go to church on Sunday,” Berry said at the time. “Restricting a Marine’s free exercise of religion is blatantly unconstitutional.”

Copyright 2015 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/military-warned-over-bible-verse-court-martial/#iDGdsPSvwDd5vVPu.99

Islam's Inner Fight Has Been Going On For 1400 Years And It Is Worse Than Ever




Tracing the current conflict in Syria back to the year 632, when the Prophet Mohamed died
5K
The war in Syria began much earlier than is generally recognised. The conflict actually began in the year 632 with the death of the Prophet Mohamed. The same is true of the violence, tension or oppression currently gripping the Muslim world from Iraq and Iran, though Egypt, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
A single problem lies behind all that friction and hostility. On Tuesday, Britain's leading Muslim politician, the Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi, obliquely addressed it in a speech she made in Oman, the Arab state at the south-east corner of the Arabian Peninsula strategically positioned at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The religious tolerance of the Sultanate, she suggested, offered a model for the whole of the Islamic world. It certainly needs such an exemplar of openness and acceptance.
What most of the crucibles of conflict in the Middle East have in common is that Sunni Muslims are on one side of the disagreement and Shia Muslims on the other. Oman is unusual because its Sunni and Shia residents are outnumbered by a third sect, the Ibadis, who constitute more than half the population. In many countries, the Sunni and the Shia are today head-to-head.
The rift between the two great Islamic denominations runs like a tectonic fault-line along what is known as the Shia Crescent, starting in Lebanon in the north and curving through Syria and Iraq to the Gulf and to Iran and further east.
The division between Sunni and Shia Muslims is the oldest in the Middle East - and yet it is one which seems increasingly to be shaping the destiny of this troubled region as thousands of devotees from both sides pour into Syria. Jihadist al-Qa'ida volunteers on the Sunni side and Hezbollah militants on the Shia, are joining what is fast becoming a transnational civil war between the two factions.
There are around one and a half billion Muslims in the world. Of these, somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent - estimates vary considerably - are Shia. In most countries these Shia are minorities in a Sunni homeland. But in Iraq, Iran, Bahrain and Azerbaijan they outnumber their co-religionists.

35-Karbala-Corbis.jpg
A painting of the Battle of Karbala in 680AD, in present day Iraq, which is remembered by both Sunnis and Shias (Corbis)
What makes Syria different is that there a Sunni majority is ruled by a Shia minority. The Alawites, the sect to which President Bashar al-Assad and much of his army officer elite belong, are Shia. That situation is the mirror opposite of Iraq under Saddam, where a Sunni strongman lorded it over a Shia majority - until the invasion of Iraq, when elections put the Shia in charge, insofar as anyone can be said to be running that chaotic country.
The division between the two factions is older and deeper even than the tensions between Protestants and Catholics which bedevilled Europe for centuries. The two Christian denominations had a shared history for 1500 years. By contrast the rift between the two biggest Muslim factions goes right back to the beginning - and a row over who should succeed the Prophet Mohamed as leader of the emerging Islamic community when he died in the early 7th century.
In the last 10 years of his life Mohamed inflicted total defeat on the pagan tribes of Mecca and by doing so united the entire Arabian peninsula. Around 100,000 people had submitted to the rule of Mohamed and of Allah. Tribal alliances in Arabia in those days usually disintegrated on the death of the leader, or after the short-term military objectives had been met and the spoils divided. Often succession would pass to the leader' s son. But Mohamed had no son, only a daughter. And his inheritance was spiritual as well as political.
The majority of his followers thought his closest associate, Abu Bakr, should take over. They became the Sunnis. But a minority thought the Prophet's closest relative, his son-in-law and nephew Ali, should succeed.
Shia is an abbreviation of Shiat Ali "the party of Ali". Intrigues and violence followed, with Mohamed's widow Aisha (who was also the daughter of Abu Bakr) leading troops against Ali. Eventually Ali was killed, as was his son Hussein, and persecution and martyrdom became ingrained in the Shia psyche. As the years passed rift hardened into schism. The seeds of civil war had been sown.
The two sides agreed on the Quran but had different views on hadith, the traditions recorded by Mohamed's followers about what he had said and done in his life. Diverging traditions of ritual, law and practice soon emerged. A clerical hierarchy, topped by imams and ayatollahs, became crucial in Shi'ism. By contrast, Sunni Muslims felt no need of intermediaries in their relationship with God - an approach which has abetted the rise of extremist zealots like al-Qa'ida. The Sunnis became happy to depend upon the state, which their adherents mostly controlled.
The chief Shia religious festival became Ashura when devotees would beat themselves to commemorate the death of the Prophet's grandson Hussein at the Battle of Karbala in 680. Various Shia sub-sects formed, including the fanatical Assassins, the Alawites in Syria and the Ismailis, whose leader is the Aga Khan. Some mystical sufi movements created a bridge between Sunni and Shia but hardline Sunnis regard the Shia practice of venerating saints and visiting shrines as heretical - which is why Sunni extremists bomb Shias on pilgrimage in places like Karbala in Iraq today.
Yet for much of the 1,400 years since the death of the Prophet the majority of Sunni and Shia Muslims have not routinely allowed their theological differences to create hostility. Some Sunnis included ritual denunciations of Ali in their prayers, but in many times and places the two sects have co-existed peacefully.
From time to time, however, violence has flared in which the Shia, in the main, have been brutally and even genocidally persecuted. In 1514 an Ottoman sultan ordered the massacre of 40,000 Shia. Mughal emperors in India between the 15th and 19th centuries routinely executed Shia scholars, burned their libraries and desecrated their sacred sites. Inter-communal violence has recurred in Pakistan.
There have been periods and places of concord. In 1959 the most influential centre of Sunni scholarship, al-Azhar University in Cairo, admitted Shia jurisprudence to its curriculum. In Azerbaijan, where the Shias are in the majority, there are mixed mosques where both sects pray together. But early in the 20th century the Saudi royal family made discrimination against the Shia official and destroyed most of the Shia holy places. With the rise there of the Sunni fundamentalism known as Wahhabism, severe restrictions have been placed on Shia practice and its leaders jailed. Some Saudi scholars brand Shi'ism as a heresy "worse than Christianity or Judaism".
The fanatics of al-Qa'ida have been nurtured in this Wahhabi ideology. Some of them consider the Shia to be not merely heretics but apostates - and the punishment for apostasy, they say, is death.
Over the years the division has been exploited by outsiders. British colonialists in Iraq in the 1920s used an elite of Sunni army officers to suppress a Shia rebellion, paving the way for Saddam's Sunni minority rule, in which Shia clerics were regularly executed. The legacy has been that most of the 6,000 killings over the past year in Baghdad are Sunni on Shia and vice-versa. Now this ruthless sectarianism has spread to Syria.
Two major developments have triggered the escalation of tension between Sunni and Shia in recent years. The first was the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 when the rule of the pro-Western Shah was overthrown and replaced with a Shia theocracy with Ayatollah Khomeini at the head. Khomeini did his best to build good relations between Shia and Sunni inside Iran but other leaders, religious and secular, have since been more divisive. And Khomeini was from the outset adversarial to the Sunni aristocrats who led Saudi Arabia - calling them American lackeys as well as "unpopular and corrupt" dictators.

36-Syrian-Reuters.jpg
Division: Forces of Syria's Alawite (Shia) regime (Reuters)
The Iranians and Saudis have been fighting a proxy war in the Middle East ever since.
Today in Iran, though Christian churches are tolerated, the million Sunnis in Tehran have no mosque of their own. There are no Sunnis in top government. Sunni businessmen have difficulty getting import and export licences. Huge numbers of ordinary Sunnis are unemployed. The situation in Saudi Arabia is the exact reverse, with Shia on the receiving end of the discrimination.
From time to time there are attempts to insist that the tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia are not religious. In 2007 King Abdullah of the House of Saud met the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and, with public hugs, spoke of a thaw in relations between the two regional powers - and condemned those who were trying to fuel the fire of strife between Sunni and Shia.
But it changed nothing in the realpolitik. Each oil-producing giant sees the other as a huge obstacle to its national interests. Geopolitics is the reality but religious vision is the tribal badge it wears.
The invasion of Iraq instigated by George Bush and Tony Blair in 2003 was the second big factor in the deterioration of Sunni-Shia relations. Saddam Hussein led a Sunni elite which governed Iraq's Shia majority with a reign of state terror. The US had backed Saddam in Iraq's war with Iran throughout the 1980s, in which half a million troops died.
But after 9/11 the US changed its mind about Saddam, overthrew him and brought democracy to Iraq. The resulting election placed in power leaders from the Shia majority who have excluded the Sunni minority - who have responded with the car bombs which are killing thousands in Baghdad and elsewhere. Al-Qa'ida jihadists have flooded into the country to join Sunni terrorists in attacking the Shia government. And now the polarised sectarian conflict has spilled over into Syria.
When the Arab Spring reached Syria in 2011 it began as a protest against the corruption, nepotism and human rights abuses of the Assad government. But within two years the armed uprising against the regime was transformed.
Rebels motivated by political indignation, who received limited backing from Western governments, slowly became outnumbered by rebel groups with extreme Islamist motivation fighting to create what they call the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
These jihadists have come from across the Islamic world but they are backed by Saudi cash. More recently Shia militants from the Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah have arrived to support the Alawite-led army of the Assad regime. Full-blown civil war is the result.
What all this means is that Sunni and Shia are locked in conflict all across the Shia Crescent. As each side steps up its activities, the other feels more threatened and hardens its response in turn.
Sunni-Shia tensions are increasing across the world as a result. They are on the rise in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Bahrain, Libya, Tunisia, Malaysia, Egypt, and even in London as issues of identity, rights, interests and enfranchisement find sectarian expression.
The tensions are deep-rooted in wider economic and geopolitical concerns. But the risk - given the long history of division and tension - is that predictions of a transnational civil war between Sunni and Shia could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.