theway2k

John R. Houk

© February 7, 2010

The relatively novice German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has some interesting thoughts of the direction the European Union should be taking. Westerwelle believes the EU should develop a military under the command of the EU Parliament with the ability to mobilize for military crises that might affect the (inter)national interests of the EU members.

I have some thoughts on an EU military but first allow me to discuss Westerwelle from the brief gleanings I found doing a Google search.

From an American perspective he seems to be quite the enigmatic politician with some political and social leanings that an American might have a brain malfunction in grasping.

Westerwelle appears to be a Conservative Market man after the tradition of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He is pro-get the terrorists in the GWOT action. Westerwelle seems to be a pro-Israel politician in a continent experiencing a resurgence of anti-Semitism. Westerwelle’s political Party is the Free Democratic Party (FDP). The FDP is considered a Liberal Party. In America that would imply a Leftist agenda. As already noted Westerwelle has led the FDP into pro-business (anti-privatization) and a military solution toward the GWOT in Afghanistan. The political mix even becomes more enigmatic. Westerwelle is Germany’s first High Office holder that is openly homosexual. Evidently the FDP must be akin somewhat to American Libertarianism in this respect: Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative. Other Libertarian similarities end there since Westerwelle believes in a strong military to address foreign security; however Westerwelle’s vision stretches beyond Germany. Westerwelle is promoting a military for the EU.

The FDP has a Party Election Platform which could read like a Libertarian Centrist Platform in America. It is called the FDP Election Manifesto.

Lower Taxes

Financial Supervision: Really this is financial reform on how big business has been able to cook the books

Economic Policy: Less pressure on small business in the realm of hiring and firing and a reform of business taxes.

Foreign Policy:

-Nuclear disarmament

-Removal of American Nukes from German soil

-Strengthen ally ties to America

-Move away from “cosy” ties to Russia

-Support military deployment to Afghanistan

-NO Turkey allowed in the EU

Civil Liberties: Strengthen citizen rights from government intrusion. This would be the effect of repealing the Patriot Act in America.

Now here is some musing on the EU developing an integrated military that would transcend traditional European nations who have sovereignty.

How would an EU military under an inter-continent command affect American National and Security Interests? Certainly an issue between the U.S. and the EU would arise as to the nature of the existence of NATO. Would an EU military exist to bolster EU economic interests? An example might look something like when British and French forces would go to places affecting national interests in historical imperial days. What would the EU do to protect EU economic interests?

Would the institution of an EU military be the initiation of a confederated national government under EU auspices? If you are a Biblical Prophetic scholar (or armchair scholar), what would an integrated one national European Union mean? It would mean the reemergence of the ancient Roman Empire. If you are an eschatological Christian you might think the return of Christ would be imminent.

Before Christ returns traditional Protestant Pentecostal Prophetic teaching relates that Satan’s anti-Christ would come to persecute the Believers in the Risen Savior Jesus Christ the Son of God the Father.

Has anyone noticed that the rumors of wars and natural disasters seem to have multiplied to the potential of something catastrophic?

I am somewhat confident that others in the EU share Guido Westerwelle’s vision of a militarized EU. I am not going to search them out right now; however could it be that Westerwelle or someone of the same vision may wittingly or unwittingly be ushering in the anti-Christ or the embodiment of evil himself. Yeah I know it is gloom and doom dark musings.

Anyway, the studious geopolitician (or armchair) should be fascinated if the militarizing of the EU occurs. The very paths of how a militarized EU would evolve are plenteous.

JRH 2/7/10 (Hat Tip: Above Top Secret)

Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) as reported at Christian Newswire wonders a valid point. If homosexuals, feminists and Muslims are murdered in a public venue; there would be some highly publicized media attention crying prejudice and intolerance is alive and well in America. I would further state if it was a Christian (lunatic or not) murdering the above types of lifestyles and religionists, the media clamor would even be exponentially higher.

The question implied by Dr. Cass: Why is there so much media significance attached to enemies of morality and to a religion that violently believes it is superior to all other religions?

The basis of Dr. Cass’ wondering is that two Christians witnessing at Boynton Beach in California were mercilessly shot death after witnessing to an 18 year old. The kid even finished his murder spree with an execution style coup de grace in the head of one victim.

JRH 2/6/10

John R. Houk

© January 30, 2010

The practice of homosexuality is a vile affront to the will of God.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”[b]

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

 
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1: 16-32 NKJV)

Now I realize this passage of Scripture is not focusing on homosexuality, BUT it certainly includes homosexuality as the practice of a reprobate mind rebelling against the will of God.

No matter how much a homosexual tries to spin the Bible does not reference homosexuality as wrong, one has to be at a moron level of intelligence to believe a homosexual apologist on this issue. Look at an example of a Christian Apologist writing for Newsweek attempting to spin Scripture in a homosexual slant. The person denies the Bible ever references a negative connotation toward the practice of homosexuality, that the Bible does not emphasize a marriage is between a male and female and that Jesus and Paul the Apostle never condemned homosexuality.

The Newsweek writer’s article is totally bogus! The Word of God does condemn homosexuality in the Old and New Testament. Even though many Old Testament Patriarchs practiced polygamy and polygamy was not denounced in the New Testament (except for Ministerial Offices), marriage was still between male and female. I challenge any homosexual apologist to find where polygamy is between one male and multiple males or between one female and multiple females. If any place close to homosexual matrimony it is in cases which God’s wrath destroyed areas or peoples who practiced homosexuality – Sodom and Gomorrah for example.

Although Jesus never publicly condemned homosexuality, neither did he really publicly condemn other sins. Rather the mission of Jesus born of the flesh was to bring humanity to a place of deliverance from the bondage of sin that separates humanity from God Almighty. HELLO! Homosexuality is one of those sin bondages that separate a human from God. Lambert Dolphin in a huge essay demonstrates that Jesus indeed was NOT a supporter of homosexuality.

As for the insinuation that Paul never condemned homosexuality, the Scripture quoted above (Romans 1: 16-32) was written by Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Hence Paul indeed includes homosexual as a vile sin.

Our own President uses the political correct concept of multiculturalism and diversity to place the homosexual agenda on his agenda. The President has taken the anti-Christian and Anti-Biblical stand that speaking out against homosexuality is hate speech. Leftists in general are under the delusion that speaking out against homosexuality is similar to the racism that is expressed toward minorities. The voting bloc of note is equating African-American bigotry with anti-homosexual writings and speech. The Movie Media and Network TV have done their utmost to propagandize Americans that homosexuality is normal contrary to Biblical Scripture. The pounding of Mainstream Media (MSM) for Americans to accept homosexual normalcy is the biggest reason national acceptance has increased. It is significant that a majority of States in the Union have passed laws (mostly initiated by citizens) to declare Marriage is between a male and female. This is a rebuff to the practice of homosexuality. An Activist Judiciary has done its best to over turn any law (mostly citizen Initiatives) concerning anti-homosexual marriage. Some State Judiciaries have enacted laws legalizing homosexual marriage which is beyond the scope of the Judiciary. Making laws on a State level is the purview of Legislators and Citizen Initiatives. The Judiciary role is to interpret law rather than create law.

It is apparent that President Obama’s Leftist czar system of extra-legal government is dominated by a Left agenda to transform America. The radical czar in relation to this post is Obama’s Safe School Czar Kevin Jennings. Jennings is a homosexual activist which Leftists and homosexual activists claim is being smeared by America’s Slanted Right. If one Googles “Kevin Jennings” and associate the search with Gay, homosexual or homosexual agenda; one will find a huge amount of support from Left and homosexual websites and blogs. You see Jennings is a homosexual activist himself. All the Leftist and homosexual praise stems from education awards, denials of association with NAMBLA and a denial of Jennings’ hate of all things Christian. The apologist praise for Jennings is just as slippery as the Leftist and homosexual activist twisting of Biblical Scripture.

The MSM, homosexual activists, Secular Humanists and Obama’s Administration all have an agenda to validate homosexuality as normal. It is time for the majority of Americans that have not been affected by pro-homosexual propaganda to shed off political correct fears and confront the homosexual agenda straight-on. One way to do this is to support former Navy Chaplin James Klingenschmitt’s Pray in Jesus Name Project. The Pray in Jesus Name Project is usually more concerned with religious freedom (Klingenschmitt received the Navy boot for praying “in Jesus’ Name”); however Klingenschmitt has a petition out pertaining to homosexuality because of President Obama’s agenda to make homosexuality normal and protected within the Military. Hence the Clinton compromise of the ‘90’s of “Don’t ask don’t tell” will be jettisoned by the Obama Administration. Klingenschmitt is taking a stand by circulating and Internet petition. You can read and respond to the petition HERE.

JRH 1/30/10 (Hat Tip: Human Events paid advertisement)

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

Obama: State of the Homosexual Union

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt

Sent: Jan 29, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Website: Pray in Jesus Name Project

URGENT NEW PETITION: SELECT HERE TO SIGN AND DEFEND OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, and we will fax your personalized petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen, (saving you hours of labor!)

OBAMA ENDANGERS TROOPS LIVES by REPEALING “DON’T ASK-DON’T TELL”

President Obama pledged in his State of the Union Address to promote open homosexual aggression within the ranks of the military, by directly recruiting Congressmen and Senators in 2010 to overturn the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that saves troops lives and already guarantees equality.  Ignoring a letter signed by over 1,150 retired military flag and general officers, who asked Obama to enforce the 1993 Clinton-era law that currently prohibits open homosexual aggression in the military, Obama instead sacrificed military readiness, unit cohesion, and safety of all American troops, to prioritize his special relationship with less than 1% of the American population who claimed to be homosexual in the last census.

“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay men and women the right to serve the country they love,” Obama boldly misled, repeating the vow he made during a speech Oct. 10th before a gay rights group.  (The truth is homosexuals already now have the right to serve, so long as they keep their sexual aggression to themselves.)  “If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different than anyone else,” Obama said oxymoronically, defining “equality” and “values” as a sudden endorsement of illegal acts of sodomy long banned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Joint Chiefs sat stone-faced silent, aghast at Obama’s plan, but powerless to publicly oppose their own Commander-In-Chief.  We must be their voice…

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

As a former Navy Chaplain and Air Force Academy graduate, having served during wartime combat operations, in close quarters with Sailors onboard a combat cruiser, and having personally counseled both straight and homosexual service members, I can personally attest the last thing our Sailors need is a lack of trust or suspicion toward their fellow shipmates.  Our uniformed service members’ very lives depend daily on their ability to trust each other, without worry about being ogled, made advances upon, or violated by those with whom they share common sleeping quarters and showering facilities, 24/7 both on and off duty.  Friends, do you care about protecting our military’s trust, unit cohesion, and saving our troops lives?  Take action today…

Kevin Nix, spokesman for the pro-homosexual Service members Legal Defense Network, which is spearheading the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal effort, told the Washington Times the House bill now has 182 co-sponsors, just short of a majority.  “We’re just trying to get to 218 to show that the bill is ready,” said Mr. Nix, who added that senators plan to introduce a bill shortly.

“We expect a bill introduction for the first time in 16 years,” he said. “We definitely expect a hearing this year. There are still things that need to happen, but we are definitely on the brink of a bill in the Senate.  We want repeal done in 2010.  Done, to the president’s desk for a signature.”  A spokesman for pro-homosexual Congressman Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA), who is leading the repeal campaign in the House, said he has commitments from 16 members in addition to the 182 co-sponsors, totaling 198 votes, just short of a majority.

In the Pentagon however, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway has emerged in internal deliberations as the most outspoken opponent of permitting gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military, according to the Washington Times.

“Most of the senior brass holds deep reservations about President Obama’s pledge to end the ban on gays in the military, especially in the middle of two wars that have put extra stress on the military, down to the platoon level, where soldiers and Marines would be expected to bond with openly gay colleagues,” the Times reported.

WHY KEEP OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY OUT OF THE MILITARY?

Four reasons:  1) Allowing open homosexuality especially hurts unit cohesion and would cost American lives in war, damaging the trust shared in close proximity, common sleeping quarters and showering facilities that are unavoidable in close combat.  2) Men and women do not share the same showers for obvious reasons, so why force men to share showers with openly homosexual men?  This fact alone would hurt recruiting.  3) The rampant spread of the HIV-AIDS virus contaminates the blood often shared by necessity on the battlefield.  Soldiers requiring blood-transfusions and medics would be immediately endangered.  4) “Gay promotion quotas” would soon be forced upon presently impartial promotion boards, causing a burdensome rise in sexually-charged “equal opportunity” complaints against commanders, especially those who offend gays by inadvertently speaking of their traditional Judeo-Christian faith.

But Marine Commandant General Conway has gone further than others in stating his opposition to a change in policy, according to a former official who was privy to private conversations on the matter. “He feels very strongly that [removing the ban] would be disruptive, and he opposes it,” he said.  But if Congress changes the law, the General must implement the law.

Obama campaigned during his election to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy signed into law by President Clinton. The policy ended the practice of asking prospective recruits about their sexuality, allowing homosexuals to freely serve, but prohibited openly gay men and women from talking about their sexual urges while serving.  Repeal would allow them to share their sexual urges with their fellow soldiers, creating needless and divisive tension in the ranks.

The House Armed Services Committee will likely hold a hearing on a repeal bill in the spring, meaning the earliest floor vote could come before the middle of 2010, as part of the 2011 Defense Armed Services Authorization or Appropriations spending bill. Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee had planned a hearing in 2009, but none was scheduled. The White House will likely soon submit a repeal bill to the Hill.

The four-star chiefs of the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army have said little on the topic in public and have not been pressed by Congress to provide their professional opinions. All four declined to answer when asked for their personal opinions on the ban by The Washington Times, except to say they will abide by the law.  They’ve been silenced for fear of upsetting Obama, who would likely force their immediate retirement.

“They are not going to talk until it’s time to talk,” said a senior officer inside the Pentagon, who added the chiefs will discuss any specific legislative proposal in private with the chain of command - meaning Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the president.

Adm. Mullen, who as Joint Chiefs chairman is the president’s top military adviser, has expressed concern about carrying out the president’s wish.  “I think it’s important, as we look to this change, that it be done in a way that doesn’t disrupt the force at a time where it’s under a lot of stress,” Adm. Mullen told the Military Times in May. “And that, to me, means in a measured, deliberate way, over some time — to be determined. And I don’t know what that would be.”  (I know how and when….never risk our troops lives.)

The Times reports Gay rights groups cite recent polls that show the public now supports repealing the ban, unlike in 1993, when polls showed the opposite. That year, Congress stopped Mr. Clinton’s bid to change what was then only a regulation. He ended up signing the ban into law.  The Pentagon discharged 633 men and women under the ban in fiscal year 2008. 

Gallup reported to the Washington Times in June that 58 percent of the conservatives it polled favored allowing openly gay men and women to serve. Overall, 69 percent of adults support ending the ban, Gallup said.  (That’s a good reason to forward this email widely, to begin educating our friends on why the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law must remain.) 

Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness and argues in favor of the ban, pointed a reporter toward a recent article she wrote for the American Thinker.

“Consistently small numbers and percentages of people discharged due to homosexuality contradict any claim that a national security emergency justifies repeal of the law,” she wrote.  “And it is not convincing to hold up the small, dissimilar militaries of foreign nations, none of which have adopted the extreme agenda being proposed for our military, as role models for America’s forces. Nor does it help to ignore the stated opinions of more than 1,150 retired flag and general officers and current military personnel.”  Our military is not a ground for new and radical social experimentation, especially ones that endanger lives.

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

God Bless you, in Jesus’ name,

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt

_______________________________

Confront the Homosexual Apologist with Truth

John R. Houk

© January 30, 2010

_____________________________

Obama: State of the Homosexual Union

P.S. Prefer to sponsor us by direct mail?  Please mail postal donations to:  The Pray In Jesus Name Project, PO Box 77077, Colorado Springs, CO 80970.  Please don’t wait.   Our troops lives, trust, and cohesion depend on our voice.  Please take action, sign our petition today, and we’ll automatically deliver your message!

Disclaimer: The views of Chaplain Klingenschmitt, who was honorably but involuntarily discharged from the Navy in 2007 after facing court-martial for praying “in Jesus name” in uniform, (but was later vindicated by Congress), are his own personal views, not the views of any political party, government, or organization.

Wallbuilders

The assault on Christianity is an unfortunate continuing process. Amazingly a Baptist Professor at a Baptist University (Mary Hardin Baylor) who is the Dean of Humanities at said college is a huge proponent of Leftist revisionism of American history. Dr. Derik Davis even goes so far as to demand that to mention the importance of Christianity in American educational history is unconstitutional and falls into the realm of government endorsement of Christianity which in Davis’ opinion is counter to the First Amendment.

The view that the First Amendment prevents the mention of Christianity in all things related to the U.S., State and local government is a phenomenon that is really post mid-1960’s in a Leftist Secular Humanism entrenchment in American politics.

David Barton who has often been a member of State text book approval boards takes issue with Dr. Derek Davis in his ballistic attack toward Barton’s view.

JRH 1/16/10

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

Is Teaching American History is Unconstitutional? 

According to Baptist Professor Derek Davis and his cronies,
apparently the answer is “Yes!”

By David Barton

Email Sent: 01/15/2010 03:20 PM

Sponsored Website: WallBuilders

Occasionally, the Secular and Religious Left go beyond their normal anti-religious bigotry to make claims that are just too outrageous to be ignored. This week provided such an example. (While this email is longer than normal, I think you’ll find it filled with useful and interesting information.)

Several months ago, I was one of six expert reviewers appointed by the 15-member elected Texas State Board of Education to give input into the drafting of the 2010 history and social studies standards for textbooks. (This is a task I have previously performed in other states.) Although these standards we formulate will initially apply to Texas students, they will soon become the standards used in textbooks across the nation.

Last year, writing teams of Texas teachers drafted the 2010 proposed standards. We, the expert reviewers, were asked to point out where we thought changes should be made; the State Board of Education would then make their decision about which (if any) of our hundreds of proposed suggestions to adopt.

When I reviewed the proposed standards, I found many reasons for concern. The writing teams had recommended the removal of Nathan Hale, Daniel Boone, and General George Patton; they eradicated Columbus Day, Martin Luther King Day, and Christmas (but they did add Diwali as a holiday). They also declared that to say there was “an American love of individualism, inventiveness, and freedom” was to express inappropriate “value language,” and they also rejected the concept of identifying specific beliefs that contributed to our “national identity.” In fact, they declared that students needed to be shaped “for responsible citizenship in a global society,” but not citizenship in American society. And instead of an emphasis on the positive things about America (i.e., American Exceptionalism), America was often shown as fault-ridden – as a global villain.

I made known my opposition to these and other positions in my official reviews and offered suggestions for positive change. My first review (from July, 2009) is posted on the state website, as is my second review (from September 2009).

Those two official reviews were 43,538 words in length, and contained three mentions of Christianity. In the first review, I pointed out how early colonial Christian leaders such as William Penn and Roger Williams insisted on having written constitutions to limit the government; I also showed how American Christians and Jews cooperated together in the American Revolution. In the second review, I noted the current polling on religious affiliation in America to demonstrate that the mention of Christmas should be reinstated in the standards. Those three simple mentions of Christianity caused the Left to explode.

Groups such as the Texas Freedom Network (the state arm of the radical People for the American Way) joined with other radicals in the Religious Left to denounce my mentions of Christianity. They nationally distributed a press release of outrageously false claims that were soon parroted by ABC, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, etc.

On Wednesday, January 13, the Texas State Board of Education met to begin the process of voting on the final recommendations for social studies textbooks; many of the board members know me very well and are very familiar with the lies of the Left (having themselves been subjected to them on many occasions). Hopefully, they will reinstate traditional American heroes and patriotic values, focus on the teaching of history rather than modern pop culture, and include coverage of good characteristics about America. Not surprisingly, however, the anti-religious secularist bigots made known their presence (and their ridiculous claims) at the meeting.

One of those in the Religious Left is Christian secularist, Dr. Derek Davis, Dean of Humanities at Mary Hardin Baylor (a Baptist University) and director of the school’s Center for Religious Liberty. Although he heads a department at a major Christian university, he is a national evangelist for a completely secular public square; and based on his previous statements, he apparently wants to see all mentions of Christianity confined, like pornography, to the privacy of one’s own personal life.

Dr. Davis amazingly asserts in the Houston Chronicle that a mention of Christianity in American history standards will “violate the Constitution” because it will portray “the United States as a Christian nation in some legal sense.”

While there is no such recommendation in the standards, consider the stupidity of what he purports. According to Dr. Davis, it would “violate the Constitution” if the history texts were to include information from the more than 300 court rulings over the past two centuries that have declared America to be a Christian nation. Imagine! He believes it would be unconstitutional to let students know what courts have affirmed for 200 years!

He similarly believes that it would be unconstitutional for students to see the public declarations of American presidents on the same subject – declarations such as:

Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on that God Who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty [i.e., the Civil War]. 1 PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN

No candid observer will deny that whatever of good there may be in our American civilization is the product of Christianity. 2 The teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teachings were removed. 3   PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT

America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture. 4  PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON

American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . the fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago. 5  PRESIDENT HERBERT HOOVER

If the spirit of God is not in us and if we will not prepare to give all that we have and all that we are to preserve Christian civilization in our land, we shall go to destruction. 6  We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a Nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. 7  PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT

This is a Christian Nation. More than a half century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land. 8  In this great country of ours has been demonstrated the fundamental unity of Christianity and democracy. 9  PRESIDENT HARRY TRUMAN

We are Christian nations, deeply conscious that the foundation of all liberty is religious faith. 10  PRESIDENT DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

In these last 200 years, we have guided the building of our Nation and our society by those principles and precepts brought to earth nearly 2,000 years ago on that first Christmas. 11  PRESIDENT LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON

Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . that we have a charge and a destiny. 12  PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON

Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible. 13  PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN

According to Dr. Davis, it would “violate the Constitution” to present these, or the hundreds of similar statements by our elected presidents, or to tell students what our federal and state courts have repeatedly declared! Amazing!

Apparently, Dr. Davis (and the others among the growing group of militant so-called “Christian” secularists) has not read the Constitution – or even the decisions by modern liberal Supreme Courts that have held that history cannot be censored simply because it is Christian. Nevertheless, Dr. Davis and his cohorts have found it a useful tactic to claim that something with which they disagree is “unconstitutional.”

We need to stop the use of this ridiculous tactic. How?

FIRST, begin with the wise recommendation of Founding Father John Jay:

Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country. . . . By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them. 14

SECOND, the next time the Left claims something is “unconstitutional,” insist that they prove it by citing the relevant part of the Constitution.

FINALLY, when the intolerant anti-religious bigots try to intimidate Americans from presenting an accurate view of American history, let’s make our voices heard on talk shows and in letters to the editors, denouncing their attempt to rewrite American history and censor expressions of religious faith.

It’s time for some new voices to be heard in the debate – the voices of common sense, well-informed citizens who have no agenda but to see the best for our great country. It’s time for your voice to be heard!

God Bless!

David Barton

_______________________

NOTES:

[1] Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, editor (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), Vol. IV, p. 271, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

[2] “Our Nation, A Product of Christianity,” Springfield Republican, 1884.

[3] Theodore Roosevelt: The Man as I Knew Him, Ferdinand Cowle Iglehart, D. D. (New York: The Christian Herald, 1919), pp. 307-311.

[4] Woodrow Wilson, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Arthur S. Link, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1977), Vol. 23, p. 20; “An Address in Denver on the Bible, May 7, 1911.”

[5] American Presidency Project, “Herbert Hoover: Radio Address to the Nation on Unemployment Relief, October 18, 1931″ (at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22855).

[6] American Presidency Project, “Franklin D. Roosevelt: Address at Dedication of Great Smoky Mountains National Park, September 2nd, 1940″ (at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16002).

[7] American Presidency Project, “Franklin D. Roosevelt: Statement on the Four Hundredth Anniversary of the Printing of the English Bible, October 6th, 1935″ (at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14960).

[8] American Presidency Project, “Harry S. Truman: Exchange of Messages With Pope Pius XII, August 28, 1947″ (at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=12746).

[9] American Presidency Project, “Harry S. Truman: Address at the Lighting of the National Community Christmas Tree on the White House Grounds,” December 24, 1946″ (at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=12569).

[10] American Presidency Project, “Dwight D. Eisenhower: Address Before the Council of the Organization of American States, April 12th, 1953″ (at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9816).

[11] Presidency Project, “Lyndon B. Johnson: Remarks at the Lighting of the Nation’s Christmas Tree. December 22, 1963.” (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26587).

[12] American Presidency Project, “Richard Nixon: Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, February 1st, 1972″ (at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3597).

[13] American Presidency Project, “Ronald Reagan: Proclamation 5018 – Year of the Bible, 1983, February 3rd, 1983″ (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=40728).

[14] John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890), Vol. I, pp. 163-164, from his Charge to the Grand Jury of Ulster County, September 9, 1777.

_________________________________

To sign up on the WallBuilders email list and receive future information about historical issues and Biblical values in the culture, visit http://www.wallbuilders.com/.

Contribute to WallBuilders.

Don’t forget to listen to WallBuilders’ daily radio program, WallBuilders Live!, the intersection of faith and culture, or you can download the daily podcast. Visit http://www.wallbuilderslive.com/for more information.

My fellow Christians of all denominations and creeds, have you heard or remember the appeal for Christians to ban together to fight against the anti-Christian sentiment of the Left? There was an original 140 signatories who made their appeal and labeled it the Manhattan Declaration. The Declaration had three truths as a platform to combat anti-Christian or Christophobic sentiment:

1. The sanctity of human life 

2.  The dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife 

 3. The rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Below is an emailed update on the Manhattan Declaration with an appeal to spread the word to gain an influential amount of signatures that will make the anti-Christian Left a bit nervous.

JRH 1/15/10

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

Letter to all signers of the Manhattan Declaration

Dr. Robert George
Dr. Timothy George
Chuck Colson

Sent: January 13, 2010 7:35:00 PM

Manhattan Declaration

Dear colleague,

Thank you for your support of the Manhattan Declaration.

It is off to an amazing start - over 370,000 signers and growing. And it is indeed historic: Evangelicals, Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox Christians uniting to give common witness to the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage, and religious liberty for all persons.

But we need your help: our goal is one million signatures.

The marketing pros tell us we will never get to a million signatures without expensive advertising. But we want to prove them wrong. And we can: just think if each person who has signed the Declaration were to get just two others to sign. That would be one million people standing arm in arm in defense of the most vital moral truths in our society.

Remember, too, we are not just collecting signatures; we seek a movement of people defending the truth in the public square. We are already witnessing signs of this: Christians in Mobile, Alabama called us 13 days before Christmas to tell us they were planning a large ecumenical gathering for the 23rd of December. I (Chuck Colson) agreed to speak. At 6:00 AM on December 23, 2,000 citizens, led by clergy from all over the city, gathered in a packed hall in the Convention Center for a rousing rally. Seldom have I seen so much excitement in one room - and all of this was accomplished just by word of mouth with only 11 days to organize!

Just ten days ago, Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, Archbishop Wuerl of Washington, DC, Archbishop Dolan of New York and Archbishop Kurtz of Louisville reached out to all of their brother Catholic bishops asking them to spread this document throughout their dioceses and encourage their clergy and faithful to study it and join as signatories.

The Archbishop of Detroit has planned a grassroots effort throughout his archdiocese. The Bishop of Phoenix has already organized a grassroots effort there.

We are also receiving many reports of evangelical gatherings in a number of areas - and many evangelical pastors referring to the Manhattan Declaration in their sermons.

This bold and exciting movement needs to reach 100 or 200 cities in America. Why not? Can you help? We are urging you to encourage your pastors and community leaders to do what these other cities are doing. Organize ecumenical meetings organized around the Manhattan Declaration; get other concerned citizens to join the effort. Get on the internet or phone and ask friends to join you. If you let us know you want to organize something we can help link you up with others in your area.

As with any grassroots movement, the strength and energy has to come from the people. We have no staff and limited budget. We’re people who care passionately and deeply about life, marriage, and liberty. So here’s what we are asking you to do.

• Pray fervently. Great movements of faith have always spread on the wings of prayer.

• Know the issues. If you study this Declaration - and a study guide is available on our website - then you can winsomely explain and defend it to your neighbors and friends. The document itself makes a great apologetic defense for these moral truths.

• Look for resources on this website as we’re able to post them, and search the websites of the Christian organizations that offer resources in these three areas. You can see the names of the various leaders who have signed the Declaration and then visit their websites.

• Of utmost importance, get your own church involved. As pastors preach, the movement will spread. Prayer meetings and Bible studies on the Declaration are being conducted in many churches, which is a great step.

• Make full use of Facebook, Twitter, and all the devices available today for social networking. Or just go to gatherings in your own community and speak out on this issue. Cultures are changed over the backyard fence, the barbeque grill, and in hair salons - always from the bottom up. Do everything you can possibly do to educate others.

• Organize local gatherings like the one in Mobile. If you want an audio or video of Chuck Colson’s talk at the event, you will be able to see it on the website in the next few days. You can also read a firsthand report on how they did this.

• If you are a pastor or ministry leader let us know if you would like to be added to the Additional Signers list on the website.

Just think what might happen in our land if one million courageous Christians declared their uncompromising allegiance to Jesus Christ and to biblical faithfulness on some of the most urgent moral issues of our day.

May God give us the strength to do what He is so clearly calling us to do. From our perspective, this is a cause worth giving every last ounce of effort and energy we have.

Dr. Robert George
Dr. Timothy George
Chuck Colson

Go to Contact Us to request additional information or with questions.

Here are some excellent devotional thoughts from Queenie. I am guessing many of you in Christian circles on Ning Groups may have already read this.

JRH 1/8/10

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

Answered Prayer

By Queenie Guzman-Fernandez

Sent: January 6, 2010

Yehweh Ning Group

READ | Matthew 7:7-11

In His Word, our Father commands us to pray continually (1 Thess. 5:17). And He promises that when we ask, we will receive (Luke 11:9). Yet how often has silence seemed to be the answer to our prayer requests?

The Lord wouldn’t tell us to pray if He were not going to respond. In fact, He points out that any father who loves his children gives them what they need and what is good (vv. 11-13). As our heavenly Father, He will provide so much more. But if we want God to respond, we must meet three important conditions.

First, we need to have a right relationship with Jesus Christ by trusting Him as Savior. But some people choose to live in ungodliness even after salvation. Scripture states, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Ps. 66:18 KJV). This doesn’t mean we can never make a mistake—God understands our frailty. But we must repent of all known sin and avoid continuing in it.

Second, we must make the right requests. First John 5:14 reminds us to ask according to God’s will. In other words, we can share our desires while submitting our hopes to Him. Over time, certain yearnings may lose their appeal or give us a check in our spirit. Third, we should pray specifically and with confidence. When making requests aligned with God’s will, we can be sure He’ll answer.

Our heavenly Father tells His children to pray and assures that He will respond. As you present your requests, ask Him to show you if anything is getting in the way of His answer.

I can do ALL things through Christ Jesus who strengthens me!

The road to success is not straight. There is a curve called FAILURE, a loop called CONFUSION, speed bumps called FRIENDS, red lights called ENEMIES, caution lights called FAMILY.  You will have flat tires called JOBS!

But, if you have a spare called DETERMINATION, an engine called PERSEVERANCE, Insurance called FAITH, a driver called JESUS, then you will make it to the place called SUCCESS!

DLH 1/8/10

Edited by John R. Houk

© December 26, 2009

Below are a series of interrelated private messages sent to me via the YEHWEH social network. I am sharing these as a post because together these messages are amazingly profound. They demonstrate that perfection is always to be striven for although the destination probably will not be discovered in this life.

The point is not to allow the trap of discouragement press you down to accept defeat. Defeat is the trick the devil uses to bring humanity into the state of existence the Lord Jesus exacted upon Satan between His death and His Resurrection.

T. L. Osborn often said the devil is de-feeted as a play on words of the word defeat. I believe Osborn’s meaning was Jesus conquered the devil removing slew-foot’s ability to move against a Christian who understands who he/she is in Christ; viz. one who is more than a conqueror in Christ Jesus.

Don’t allow one to convict you of weakness. Satan is the accuser of the Brethren. Jesus is the Redeemer of the Brethren hence there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

Is the knowledge that the devil is defeated a license to sin? God forbid! Rather knowing the devil is defeated is a responsibility to continuously work toward living the Way of Christ.

And this is the reason these communications below are so profound.

JRH 12/26/09

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

Queenie Guzman

12/26/09

But the path of the [uncompromisingly] just and righteous is like the light of dawn, that shines more and more (brighter and clearer) until [it reaches its full strength and glory in] the perfect day [to be prepared].
— Proverbs 4:18

I have not arrived, and neither has anyone else. We are all in the process of becoming. For much of my life I felt that I would never be okay until I arrived, but I have learned that is not the truth. My heart desires to be all God wants me to be, and I want to be like Jesus. My flesh does not always cooperate with me. In Romans 7, Paul said the good things he wanted to do, he could not do and the evil things he did not want to do, he always found himself doing. He said he felt wretched. I can relate to that—how about you? In verse 24 he cried out, “Who will release and deliver me from [the shackles of] this body of death?” Then in the following verse, as if he had received an answer that was a revelation to him, he says, “O thank God! [He will!] Through Jesus Christ (the Anointed One) our Lord!”

Yes, we all have a way to go. I was distraught about how far I had to go, and it seemed Satan reminded me of it daily, sometimes even hourly. I carried a constant sense of failure, a feeling that I just was not what I needed to be, that I was not doing good enough, that I should try harder—and yet when I did try harder, I only failed more. I have now adopted a new attitude: “I am not where I need to be, but thank God I am not where I used to be. I’m okay, and I’m on my way!”

I now know with all my heart that God is not angry with me because I have not arrived. He is pleased that I am pressing on, that I am staying on the path. If you and I will just “keep on keeping on,” God will be pleased with our progress. Keep walking the walk. A walk is something taken one step at a time. This is an important thing to remember.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BettyJo

12/26/09

Ah my Sister, the enemy has used this same tactic on my, I am sorry to say, for a long time he got away with it. Then Father God started to show me in Ephesians and Colossians that He chose me before he made the earth, before he created the angels of which some became my enemy; one in particular. But I have news for him, I have a birth certificate, he does not. I belong here because my Father God sent me on a mission. One he knew well in advance where I would miss the mark and where I would be right on target and still, he chose to send me here because sending me here brings Honor and Glory to him and makes him happy. He chose to send me here. My Savior defeated the enemy and thru my Savior I to can defeat the enemy with the WORD of God. I am not the loser my enemy says I am, he is and I have proof; my Savior took back everything the enemy stole from us, it’s written in the WORD. He is a defeated foe and we are more than conquerors thru Christ Jesus our Lord. We are ever learning and ever growing, even when we don’t feel as though we are; we still are. Glory to GOD!

I anticipate 2010 being beautiful in the Lord. This year was one of my most blessed years of my life; if not the best. Next year will be even more so. My goal is to sing praises and bring honor and glory to the ONE and ONLY TRUE LIVING GOD! AMEN and Hallelujah. Jesus is Lord: and coming soon!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

DaughterOfZion

12/26/09

Thank you for this message of hope. We Believers need to keep our eyes on the prize and celebrate each victory as they come. This life that we have is a purposed life - purposed by The Lord God Himself. Life is a journey - a pilgrimage. We must yield to His guidance daily - sometimes moment by moment. The enemy knows how powerful we are through the power of Christ, but he also knows how to manipulate our emotions and pervert our thoughts. It’s our job to stand firm in the Word and let the Word be our authority. There’s a time for stillness and a time to defend. The Lord our God just asks that we do the very best we can and He will take care of the rest.

Peace and grace be with you from God the Father and Lord, Jesus Christ~+~

Father, Son & Holy Spirit = One God

John R. Houk

© December 24, 2009

The preacher of old Charles Spurgeon gave an awesome Christmas Day sermon in the year of our Lord 1859. In writing it is quite long so I am sure when it was delivered it also was long winded. It would be good to read the whole sermon but for meditation purposes contemplate on the sections that speak specifically to the explaining the Scripture Isaiah 9:6.

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given”

Spurgeon explains the reasoning for “born” and “given.”

“Born” has to do with Jesus born in the flesh as the Son of man.

“Given” has to do with Jesus being given as a gift to humanity as the Son of God among us. In this sense it is important to meditate that as the Son of God Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Lord has no beginning and no ending. The Lord Jesus Christ is the incarnated God who emptied Himself briefly of His Godly attributes to live as a sinless human to be offered as a sacrificial price to pay the penalty inherited from the first Adam. This is one reason Lord Jesus is metaphorically called the last Adam (not second).

JRH 12/24/09

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

A Christmas Question

Charles Spurgeon

Delivered on Sabbath Morning, December 25th, 1859

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.”—Isaiah 9:6.

UPON OTHER OCCASIONS I have explained the main part of this verse—”the government shall be upon his shoulders, his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God.” If God shall spare me, on some future occasion I hope to take the other titles, “The Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” But now this morning the portion which will engage our attention is this, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given.” The sentence is a double one, but it has in it no tautology. The careful reader will soon discover a distinction; and it is not a distinction without a difference. “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given.” As Jesus Christ is a child in his human nature, he is born, begotten of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. He is as truly-born, as certainly a child, as any other man that ever lived upon the face of the earth. He is thus in his humanity a child born. But as Jesus Christ is God’s Son, he is not born; but given, begotten of his Father from before all worlds, begotten—not made, being of the same substance with the Father. The doctrine of the eternal affiliation of Christ is to be received as an undoubted truth of our holy religion. But as to any explanation of it, no man should venture thereon, for it remaineth among the deep things of God—one of those solemn mysteries indeed, into which the angels dare not look, nor do they desire to pry into it—a mystery which we must not attempt to fathom, for it is utterly beyond the grasp of any finite being. As well might a gnat seek to drink in the ocean, as a finite creature to comprehend the Eternal God. A God whom we could understand would be no God. If we could grasp him he could not be infinite: if we could understand him, then were he not divine. Jesus Christ then, I say, as a Son, is not born to us, but given. He is a boon bestowed on us, “For God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son into the world.” He was not born in this world as God’s Son, but he was sent, or was given, so that you clearly perceive that the distinction is a suggestive one, and conveys much good truth to us. “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given.”

This morning, however, the principal object of my discourse, and, indeed, the sole one, is to bring out the force of those two little words, “unto us.” For you will perceive that here the full force of the passage lies. “For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given.” The divisions of my discourse are very simple ones. …

… It is a fact that a child is born. Upon that I use no argument. We receive it as a fact, more fully established than any other fact in history, that the Son of God became man, was born at Bethlehem, wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. It is a fact, too, that a Son is given. About that we have no question. The infidel may dispute, but we, professing to be believers in Scripture, receive it as an undeniable truth, that God has given his only begotten Son to be the Savior of men. But the matter of question is this: Is this child born to us? Is he given to us? This is the matter of anxious enquiry. Have we a personal interest in the child that was born at Bethlehem? Do we know that he is our Savior?—that he has brought glad tidings to us?—that to us he belongs? and that we belong to him? I say this is matter of very grave and solemn investigation. …

… It is, then, I say, really a matter of serious questioning with all men who would be right at last, as to whether this child is born to us, and this Son given to us?

…

But I go forward. If this child is born to you, you are a child, and the question arises, are you so? Man grows from childhood up to manhood naturally; in grace men grow from manhood down to childhood; and the nearer we come to true childhood, the nearer welcome to the image of Christ. For was not Christ called “a child,” even after he had ascended up to heaven? “Thy holy child Jesus.” Brethren and sisters, can you say that you have been made into children? Do you take God’s Word just as it stands, simply because your heavenly Father says so? Are you content to believe mysteries without demanding to have them explained? Are you ready to sit in the infant class, and be a little one? Are you willing to hang upon the breast of the church, and suck in the unadulterated milk of the Word—never questioning for a moment what your divine Lord reveals, but believing it on his own authority, whether it seemed to be above reason, or beneath reason, or even contrary to reason? Now, “except ye be converted and become as little children,” this child is not born to you; except like a child you are humble, teachable, obedient, pleased with your Father’s will and willing to assign all to him, there is grave matter of question whether this child is born to you. But what a pleasing sight it is to see a man converted and made into a little child. Many times has my heart leaped for joy, when I have seen a giant infidel who used to reason against Christ, who had not a word in his dictionary bad enough for Christ’s people come by divine grace to believe the gospel. That man sits down and weeps, feels the full power of salvation and from that time drops all his questionings becomes the very reverse of what he was. He thinks himself meaner than the meanest believer. He is content to do the meanest work for the church of Christ, and takes his station—not with Locke or Newton, as a mighty Christian philosopher—but with Mary as a simple learner, sitting at Jesus’ feet, to hear and learn of him. If ye are not children, then this child is not born to you.

And now let us take the second sentence and put a question or two upon that. Is this son given to us? I pause a minute to beg your personal attention. I am trying, if I may, so to preach that I may make you all question yourselves. I pray you let not one of you exempt himself from the ordeal but let each one ask himself, if it true that unto me a Son is given? Now, if this Son is given to you, you are a son yourself. “For unto as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” “Christ became a Son that in all things he might be made like unto his brethren.” The Son of God is not mine to enjoy, to love, to delight in, unless I am a son of God too. Now, my hearer, have you a fear of God before your eyes—a filial fear, a fear which a child has lest it should grieve its parent? Say have you a child’s love to God? Do you trust to him as your father, your provider, and your friend? Have you in your breast “The spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father?” Are there times with you when on your knees you can say, “My Father and my God.” Does the Spirit bear witness with your spirit that you are born of God? and while this witness is born, does your heart fly up to your Father and to your God, in ecstacy of delight to clasp him who long ago hath clasped you in the covenant of his love, in the arms of his effectual grace? Now, mark my hearer, if thou dost not sometimes enjoy the spirit of adoption, if thou art not a son or daughter of Zion, then deceive not thyself, this Son is not given to thee.

And, then, to put it in another shape. If unto us a Son is given, then we are given to the Son. Now, what say you to this question also? Are you given up to Christ? Do you feel that you have nothing on earth to live for but to glorify him? Can you say in your heart, “Great God, if I be not deceived I am wholly thine?” Are you ready to-day to write over again your consecration vow? Canst thou say, “Take me! All that I am and all I have, shall be for ever thine. I would give up all my goods, all my powers, all my time, and all my hours, and thine I would be—wholly thine.” “Ye are not your own: ye are bought with a price.” And if this Son of God be given to you, you will have consecrated yourself wholly to him; and you will feel that his honor is your life’s object, that his glory is the one great desire of your panting spirit. Now is it so, my hearer? Ask thyself the question. I pray thee, and do not deceive thyself in the answer.

… If unto me a child is born then I have been born again; and, moreover, I am now in consequence of that new birth, a child. If, again, a Son has been given to me, then I am a son; and again I am given to that Son who is given to me. I have tried to put these tests in the way that the text would suggest them. I pray you carry them home with you. If you do not recollect the words, yet do recollect to search yourselves, and see, my hearers, whether you can say, “Unto me this Son is given.” For, indeed, if Christ is not my Christ, he is of little worth to me. If I cannot say he loved me and gave himself for me, of what avail is all the merit of his righteousness, or all the plenitude of his atonement? …

…

________________________

Jesus: Born and Given

John R. Houk

© December 24, 2009

____________________________

A Christmas Question

Copyright © 2001 by Phillip R. Johnson. All rights reserved.

The European Union (EU) has decided to impose its multiculturalist sympathies for Arab terrorists that call themselves Palestinians. The EU has decided to meddle in Israel’s sovereignty by declaring the West Bank (Judaea and Samaria to Israel), Gaza and the formerly Jordanian occupied portion of Jerusalem to be formed into a Palestinian State. In the EU’s estimation the formerly Jordanian occupied portion of Jerusalem will become East Jerusalem and the capital of Palestine.

Evidently it is politically incorrect to do to the Arabs what the Turks did to the Greeks and what the Islamic Middle East did to Jews.

Greeks had been basically brutally oppressed by Ottoman Turks since the Muslim conquest of the Byzantine Empire in the fifteenth century. Greece finally found liberation from the oppressive grip of Muslim Ottoman Turkey in 1832. The Allies won World War I in 1918. The Ottoman Empire was a part of the defeated enemies which included the now defunct Austro-Hungary Empire and the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm. The Greeks were enticed by Britain to invade the defeated Ottoman Empire as incentive for the Ottoman government to fulfill all of the peace treaty that it had signed with the Allies. So it went in 1919 the Greeks invaded Ottoman Turkey to reclaim her heritage. The half-a-million or so Turks that remarkably still resided in free Greece began to feel the heat of centuries of abuse toward Greeks. Unfortunately for Greece, British military support did not actually come. The Greek forces met defeat after defeat. By 1922 Ataturk was the big dog in Turkey as the Ottoman Sultanate and Muslim Caliphate were eventually abolished. Ataturk’s terms of winning the war with Greece was the forced deportation of Greeks that resided in Anatolia for thousands of years. I am convinced the Turkish fear was an independent Greece invading Turkey again to reclaim its heritage. With the millions of Greeks residing in Anatolia Turkey, the Muslim Turks feared a Trojan horse in their midst. Over a million Greeks faced death or deportation. Deportation was not a pleasant experience under Turkish management.

After Israel declared independence in 1948 and withstood 5 invading Arab nations (and a few independent armies), Middle Eastern Muslim nations confiscated the property of nearly million Jews and deported them to Israel. It is the height of hypocrisy that Arabs stick to the much publicized propaganda of the “Right of Return.” The EU and America (Democrats and Republicans) have embraced this mythological propaganda. It is an atrocity comparable to promoting the myth of the Russian created documents of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Those pure anti-Semitic documents paint Jews in a bloody light determined to have global domination. Of course that is another Muslim hypocrisy because the authentic documents called the Quran, Hadith, Sira and Sunna promote global domination under Islamic Supremacy.

One has to ask, “Why is the EU mentality so bent on accommodating Islamic domination?” I think the answer lies between economics and the egalitarian concepts multicultural diversity.

OneJerusalem.org sent an email pertaining to this atrocity a couple of days ago. OneJerusalem.org also asks for funds in the email to counter the pressure of the EU nations.

JRH 12/11/09