Putin Doesn’t Threaten Our National Security, Obama Does

Don Feder

Vladimir Putin isn’t the Easter Bunny. On the other hand, he isn’t Joseph Stalin. It takes a truly fevered imagination to see Russian forces in the Crimea as a prelude to Russian tanks rolling across Europe toward Berlin and Paris.

Putin is a power player who cares more about Russia’s national interests, and Russian minorities in his near abroad, than in that mythical force known as world opinion. Would that America had a president who cared more about our interests than in promoting globalism and the left’s social agenda.

The Crimea’s population is 60% ethnic Russian. For most of the past 800 years, the Ukraine has been Russian.

An independent Ukraine disappeared in the 12th century. It reappeared briefly after the Bolshevik Revolution, only to be crushed by the Red Army and not emerge again until the fall of the Soviet Union. All of this fuss about the “territorial integrity” of a state born yesterday.

The Russian-backed government in Kiev came to power democratically, but was ousted by the Maidan mob. We’re told that the interim government is pro-Western and pro-EU.

When Reagan was president, the expression pro-Western meant something. It meant pro-representative government, pro-human rights and pro-Western (Judeo-Christian) values.

Today, it means a willingness to accept same-sex “marriage,” abortion on demand, an anti-religion ethos – the agenda of the EU’s cultural commissars  -- and the economic dictates of the Brussels bureaucracy.

Putin doesn’t want to see the EU -- and, possibly, NATO --- on his doorstep. Do you blame him? If someone overthrew a democratically elected, pro-American government in Ottawa and replaced it with an interim regime hostile to our interests, that contained neo-Nazi elements and which immediately moved against English-speaking Canadians, it would irritate us too. It would, that is, if there was an American in the White House.

But don’t I care about a possible Russian annexation of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine (with its Russian-oriented, Orthodox population), conservatives who are still fighting the Cold War ask me? Not really. I’ll tell you what does concern me:

Obama’s hollowing out of our military -- Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced plans to slash the army’s active-duty personnel by at least another 70,000. Some support aircraft and cruisers are also slated for mothballs. The Marine Corps will lose 8,000 of the few/the proud. In 2013, defense spending was 4% of GDP -- taking us to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. The president doesn’t think we need a military, just a marker for drawing red lines.

Obama’s life style-friendly military -- If Putin doesn’t take us seriously, is it any wonder? The headline in the March 2 Stars and Stripes beams: “Gay, lesbian troops perform in drag at Kadena Air Base” in Okinawa. The publication disclosed that the drag show was “in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered troops.” Doubtless, this will do much for the morale of the non-LGBT troops. But as then-Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey, Jr. said at the time of the Ft. Hood massacre (which the administration still refuses to call a terrorist incident), diversity is the New Action Army’s most important product. Perhaps we could deploy an elite unit, armed with vibrators, to the Crimea to counter Spetsnaz commandos.

Muslims in the Obama White House -- including Arif Alikhan (Deputy Executive Director for Policy in DHS), Mohamed Elibiary (Homeland Security Advisory Council), Rashad Hussain (Special Envoy to the deeply anti-Semitic Organization of the Islamic Conference), Imam Mohamed Magid  (Obama’s Sharia Law advisor, on loan from the Islamic Society of North America, with its Brotherhood ties) and Eboo Patel (on the Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships). A Muslim who takes his religion seriously must put loyalty to Dar al-Islam above allegiance to an infidel state.

The suicide pact Obama and Kerry are determined to force on Israel -- Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu arrived in the U.S. Monday to the administration’s threats. If Israel doesn’t participate in a negotiated surrender (leading to Jihadistan on its borders), Washington won’t be able to contain the “international fallout,” the White House warned. Unlike the Ukraine, Israel’s territorial integrity is in our national interest, as our only friend in a region with a lot of people determined to destroy us.

Obama’s metastasizing autocracy -- We fret about democracy in the Ukraine while Obama treats the Constitution as a series of suggestions. For the president, the three branches of government are him, his pen and his telephone.

Putin is a strong man. Obama is a weak man (except when it comes to bullying our allies). Obama venerates multilateralism. Putin is willing to go it alone. Obama is committed to the entire LGBT agenda (including gay “marriage”). He’s also the only sitting president to address Planned Parenthood, such is his commitment to abortion without borders. Putin believes the foregoing is the road to national annihilation.

Where does the threat to America lie?

Don Feder is a former syndicated columnist, consultant and writer.

Source: American Thinker

Recommended Reading:

Has Obama failed to advance leftism in America?

Homeland Security: More Insecurity for Christians?

Russia’s Right Turn

Moscow has reclaimed its 19th-century conservative role

William S. Lind

An unfortunate legacy of the Cold War is the negative attitude some American conservatives yet harbor toward Russia. Conditioned for decades to see Russia and the Soviet Union as synonymous, they still view post-communist Russia as a threat. They forget that Tsarist Russia was the most conservative great power, a bastion of Christian monarchy loathed by revolutionaries, Jacobins, and democrats. Joseph de Maistre was not alone among 19th-century conservatives in finding refuge and hope in Russia.

Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is emerging once more as the leading conservative power. As we witnessed in Russia’s rescue of President Obama from the corner into which he had painted himself on Syria, the Kremlin is today, as the New York Times reports, “Establishing Russia’s role in world affairs not based on the dated Cold War paradigm but rather on its different outlook, which favors state sovereignty and status quo stability over the spread of Western-style democracy.”

In his own Times op-ed on Syria, Putin wrote, “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it.” Sen. Robert A. Taft and Russell Kirk also doubted it.

Moscow appears to understand better than Washington that the driving foreign-policy requirement of the 21st century is the preservation of the state in the face of Fourth Generation war waged by non-state entities, such as those fighting on the rebels’ side in Syria. Russia has rightly upbraided Washington for destroying states, including Iraq and Libya.

When Putin came to power following the chaotic Yeltsin years, there was a real possibility the Russian state itself would disintegrate. Putin’s greatest achievement, and the reason for his popularity within the country, is that he saved and strengthened the Russian state instead. Blinded by their worship of the clay god “Democracy,” Washington elites cannot perceive the importance of what Putin did, but conservatives should. Russia can be an effective ally against Fourth Generation entities, and conservatives prefer states to stateless anarchy. Russia’s new-old conservatism is evident not only in its foreign policy but at home as well. In September the Financial Times reported:

Vladimir Putin called on Russians to strengthen a new national identity based on conservative and traditional values such as the Orthodox church yesterday, warning that the west was facing a moral crisis. … Mr. Putin said Russia should avoid the example of European countries that were ‘going away from their roots’ by legalizing gay marriage and excessive ‘political correctness.’

“People in many European countries are ashamed and are afraid of talking about their religious convictions,” Putin is quoted as saying, with religious holidays “being taken away or called something else, shamefully hiding the essence of the holiday.”

“We need to respect the rights of minorities to be different,” he added, “but the rights of the majority should not be in question.” American conservatives can only dream of an American president saying such things. Should we not cheer a Russian president who dares to defy “political correctness?” 

The world has turned upside down. America, condemning and even attacking other countries to push “democracy” and Jacobinical definitions of human rights, is becoming the leader of the international Left. Russia is reasserting her historic role as leader of the international Right. This is a reversal of historic importance. American foreign policy should be based on America’s interests, not on affinity for any foreign power. But putting America first does not require being hostile to Russia or anyone else. On the contrary: American conservatives should welcome the resurgence of a conservative Russia.

William S. Lind is director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. 

Source: The American Conservative

Recommended Reading:

Sochi and The Left’s Human Rights Hypocrisy

In defense of Russia’s law on homosexual propaganda

Good News from Russia: Russians Made Homosexual Agenda Roll Back

Socialism and High Taxes: Did Russia Learn Its Lesson?

Bestselling Hitler book promoted in Pravda

St. Petersburg Russia law questions if gay rights are human rights?

Sochi and The Left’s Human Rights Hypocrisy

Don Feder

There should be an event at the Sochi Olympics where advocates posing as journalists, celebrity nitwits and politicians can compete to see who can wail the loudest and longest about the supposed horror of Russia's dreaded anti-gay law, while Pussy Riot plays in the background. Extra points will be awarded for absurd and offensive analogies to the Holocaust.

Western gay groups protesting Putin over Russian law banning gay propaganda

In a February 7 commentary in USA Today, four Congressmen took a break from raising the national-debt limit to discuss their grave concern. "We are especially disturbed by the discriminatory practices in the Russian Federation regarding gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons." They vaguely allude to the nation's anti-propaganda law, which discourages promoting "non-traditional sexual relations," without explaining that it concerns attempts to indoctrinate children.

In an open letter to the British newspaper The Guardian, more than 200 "prominent international authors" lament the Russian law. "The chokehold that the Russian Federation has placed on freedom of expression is deeply worrying and needs to be addressed in order to bring about a healthy democracy in Russia," sniffs Salman Rushdie.

I thought when the duly elected representatives of the people passed a law by a vote of 436 to 0 (with one abstention) that was democracy in action. But, apparently, it's only democratic if Rushdie and his prominent international friends approve of the result.

And what would leftist hysteria be without Holocaust comparisons. "These new anti-gay laws are disturbingly similar to the anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws Hitler passed before the 1936 Olympics," raves CNN contributor LZ Granderson. The similarity exists only in LZ's fevered imagination.

In The Daily Mail, another Brit periodical, gay writer Andrew Pierce calls actor Stephen Fry's fondness for genocide analogies here "deranged in its lack of proportionality." Where are the death camps? Pierce asks. "Even more shamefully, Fry is downgrading the significance of the Holocaust by comparing it with a ban on gay pride marches."

During the communist-era, liberals told us we had to be understanding of Soviet eccentricities – like gulags. Now that Russia isn't red any more, relativism is out. Corporate America, which pushed East-West trade and détente in the 1980s, is now lecturing the Kremlin on human rights.

Syrian Christians are being slaughtered with abandon. A third of the population has been exiled. But that pales compared to a ban on men in bikini briefs grinding their way through the streets of Moscow. The Media Research Center notes that while NBC has been all over the Russian child-protection law, the network has yet to report on the plight of Syrian Christians.

A word about that law, which wasn't initiated by Putin and passed the State Duma without a single dissenting vote: It does not outlaw homosexuality. Dozens of gay clubs operate openly in Moscow. The only prohibition is publicly promoting homosexuality to minors.

For example, two homosexuals are not allowed to stand outside an elementary school with a banner that says: "Hey kids, sodomy is swell – and you should try it!" Each violation by an individual is punishable by a fine that's the equivalent of $50.00. Violations of the Nuremberg laws, which had nothing to do with Jewish parades in Berlin, were punished by imprisonment and hard labor.

Why would Russia, with a declining population, be concerned about promoting these "non-traditional lifestyles" to children? Might it have something to do with the British medical journal The Lancet's report that a male homosexual is 18 times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual – or those notorious homophobes at the Centers for Disease Control disclosing that in 2010, men who have sex with men (as they delicately put it) accounted for 63% of new HIV infections in the U.S.?

"We must all raise our voices against attacks on lesbian, gay, bisexual , transgender or intersex people." says UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. "We must all oppose the arrests, imprisonments and discriminatory restrictions they face." Must we?

Western gay groups protesting Putin over Russian law banning gay propaganda

At the United Nations and throughout the West, discriminatory restrictions on traditional believers who object, however mildly, to non-traditional life-styles are the order of the day.

The left believes in popular sovereignty – within narrowly defined limits. In the United States, between 1998 and 2012, the voters of 32 states passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. This represents 50 million votes for maintaining the integrity of the institution on which civilization depends. On average, the referenda passed by two-to-one majorities.

Despite that overwhelming expression of popular sentiment, state and federal courts (SCOTUS included) have been working overtime to negate the will of the people. When he's through remaking Russia, perhaps Rushdie will help to "bring about a healthy democracy" in America.

Christians who refuse to participate in a travesty that violates their deeply held beliefs are pulverized by judges and bureaucrats drunk on the heady elixir of sexual rights.

The New Mexico Supreme Court fined a photographer $6,638 for declining to photograph a lesbian "commitment ceremony." For refusing to host a gay "wedding," the Vermont Human Rights Commission – which bears a striking resemblance to a People's Revolutionary Tribunal – fined the Wildflower Inn $10,000 and required its owners to place $20,000 in a charitable trust for lesbians. The Washington State Attorney General is pursuing a florist for a similar offense.

When did engaging in non-traditional sexual relations become a human right? Where is the sodomy clause in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The 1948 UN declaration calls the family (defined as mother, father and children) "the natural and fundamental group of society, and (as such) entitled to protection by society and the state." Fat chance, when family rights conflict with the imperative to advance the left's sexual agenda.

In 2005, Lexington, Massachusetts father David Parker was arrested and led away in handcuffs when he refused to leave school grounds to protest his 6-year-old son's initiation into the regime of tolerance by being forced to read "Who's In A Family?" ("Heather Has A Bisexual Mommy and A Transgendered Daddy"). A federal judge dismissed Parker's civil rights suit, ruling that under the state's new gay marriage law, schools have a positive duty to indoctrinate students and a right to keep parents in the dark.

Late last year, the U.S. Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which extends "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" rights to the workplace. If ENDA is enacted, a male employee will have a legal right to wear a dress to work. Objecting to same will be a civil rights violation punishable by heavy fines.

California's bizarre-beyond-belief bathroom bill is on hold, pending the outcome of a referendum triggered by opponents collecting 619,000 signatures on a repeal petition. The law allows boys who "feel like girls" to use the bathrooms and changing rooms, and shower with, those who not only feel like girls but in fact are girls. And Putin would deny such progress to his people? For shame, I say!

Both California and New Jersey now have bans on reparative therapy. Under penalty of law, parents are forbidden to take their children to a counselor for unwanted same-sex attraction. State Sen. Ted Lieu, the law's sponsor, admitted it was intended as an "attack on parental rights… because we don't want to let parents harm their children."

Chai Feldblum, who Obama placed on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, tells us that when religious beliefs conflict with the rights of sexual minorities, she would have "a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

Here's another gem from Comrade Chai – whose thinking reflects the reigning cultural ethos: "Just as we do not tolerate private religious beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT people," says the former law professor. Russia's child-protection law is mild compared to this type of thought-control.

In a recent address, Putin observed: "Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values." The Russian President admonished, "Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation." Putin could never make it in U.S. politics, being too grounded in reality.

Last week, Ban's boys at the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child ordered the Catholic Church "to review its position on abortion, which places obvious risks on the life and health of pregnant girls" – unlike abortion, which has a salutary effect on 16-year-olds.

The committee also urged the Vatican to re-think its opposition to faux marriage, which "fails to recognize the diversity of family settings," and inevitably leads to "stigmatization of and violence against… adolescents and children raised by same sex couples."

But what are the deeply held beliefs of 1.2 billion people, and a 2,000-year-old institution, against the imperative of sexual-orientation/gender-identity "equality," opposition to which is, after all, a lot like cattle cars and gas chambers.

As my friend and Russian pro-family leader Alexey Komov likes to say: "Under Reagan, America helped to save us from communism. We'd like to return the favor."

Source: GrassTopUS

Recommended Reading:

In defense of Russia’s law on homosexual propaganda

Good News from Russia: Russians Made Homosexual Agenda Roll Back

Socialism and High Taxes: Did Russia Learn Its Lesson?

Bestselling Hitler book promoted in Pravda

St. Petersburg Russia law questions if gay rights are human rights?

“Palestinian Messengers”: How Christ and Christians Are Used for the Palestinian Cause

By Julio Severo

Last Christmas, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Jesus was a “Palestinian” messenger.

Even though Jesus was never a Palestinian or an advocate of a Palestinian cause, Abbas and his Muslim colleagues want to use Him to “ecumenically” unify Christians and Muslims to secure their cause.

Christ has never been a Palestinian messenger, but there has been a number of Christian individuals and groups associating themselves with a Palestinian message. Knowingly or not, they have been used as Palestinian messengers.

WCC and Liberation Theology

The most notorious group is the World Council of Churches (WCC), which espouses Liberation Theology, which “portrays Israel as the colonial oppressor and the Palestinians as the victim of imperialism.” Its ecumenical meeting in Brazil in 2006 “ecumenically” gathered together gay, witchcraft and Palestinian activists.

Ecumencial WCC meeting in Brazil in 2006: witches with gay activists

Rev. Walter Altmann, the Moderator of the WCC Central Committee, is an example of the WCC radicalism. He said, “A particular interest of mine has been to seek convergences between the theology of the Reformation and liberation theology.”

Rev. Walter Altmann at WCC

Altmann, a Brazilian, is former president of the Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil, the biggest Lutheran synod in Brazil (700,000 members). Though significant, its numbers pale in comparison to other groups in the Brazilian evangelical world. According to “The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements: Revised and Expanded Edition” (Zondervan 2010), Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals account for more than 45,000,000 members in Brazil.

Ecumencial WCC meeting in Brazil in 2006: Palestinian banners

Altmann’s Lutheran Church is mostly ecumenical, pro-Palestine, anti-Israel and liberal. In 2006, its most prominent seminary had Luiz Mott, the father of the homosexual movement in Brazil, as a main speaker. In stark contrast, Brazilian Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal churches, staunchly pro-Israel and generally anti-ecumenical, have been at risk of being defiled by the theological influence of Protestant denominations which promote Liberation Theology, as exposed in my e-book “Theology of Liberation versus Theology of Prosperity,” available free of charge here: http://bit.ly/15AJmMC

Prominent gay activist Luiz Mott in the largest Lutheran theological seminary in Brazil

In a WCC interview, Altmann noted “the growth of Pentecostal churches” and lamented that “many of the new churches reject ecumenism and campaign against it.” Ecumenism, which goes hand in hand with the Palestinian cause, has been supported by the political and theological Left. WCC and its ecumenism have depended primarily on money from the decaying and leftist old-line Protestant denominations of North America and Western Europe.

Altmann celebrated that Liberation Theology had strongly influenced the ecumenical movement and the WCC during the 1970s and 1980s.

In Brazil, Pentecostalism and orthodox Roman Catholicism are hostile to Liberation Theology, ecumenism and the Palestinian cause. In contrast, old mainline Protestant denominations, like the Lutheran Church in Brazil, which was headed by Rev. Altmann, embrace Liberation Theology, Palestinian activism and leftist political involvement.

When Cuban tyrant Fidel Castro hailed Jesus as a “great social revolutionary” to Altmann in 1999, the Lutheran minister, who had several dinners with Castro, saw no problem. Why, then, would the WCC see any problem with Abbas saying that Jesus was a “Palestinian messenger”?

Under ecumenism, it is very easy to accept Jesus as a “great social revolutionary” or “Palestinian messenger.”

Bethlehem Bible College and “Christ at the CheckPoint”

Under ecumenism, Christian-Muslim efforts have been developed by the World Council of Churches, the Vatican and the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), as noted by the “WEA Theological News” (October 2012 Vol 41 No 4). Some of these efforts involve Palestinian Protestants who are adherents of Palestinian Liberation Theology.

Under the headline “Promoting Biblical Truth by Networking Theologians,” “WEA Theological News” highlights Bethlehem Bible College and its founder and president, Bishara Awad, in a very positive light, for propaganda purposes.

Bethlehem Bible College hosts the “Christ at the CheckPoint” conferences, partly to advance Christian-Muslim relations. Many of its speakers are prominent Western leftist Protestant leaders and Palestinian prelates adherent to Palestinian Liberation Theology.

In his article “Countering Anti-Israel Evangelism,” Mark Tooley writes:

“The last several years anti-Israel evangelicals have hosted a ‘Christ at the Checkpoint’ conference in Bethlehem featuring some prominent U.S. evangelicals. Last year's included evangelist Tony Campolo, a spiritual counselor to President Bill Clinton, and Florida mega church pastor Joel Hunter, a spiritual counselor to President Barack Obama. The next ‘Christ at the Checkpoint’ is March 2014 and will feature Geoff Tunnicliffe, head of the World Evangelical Alliance. There will also be a Dallas Southern Baptist pastor, despite his denomination's strong support for Israel. Additionally speaking is Gary Burge of Wheaton College, himself a prominent author critical of Israel who teaches at America’s most prestigious evangelical college. Anti-Israel sentiment among evangelical elites is strongest in academia and in international relief and missions groups.”

Bishara Awad, founder of the Bethlehem Bible College

British writer Paul Wilkinson, who attended it as an observer, noted:

“That movement has developed a staggering, frightening pace in recent years. I was in Bethlehem March 2012, at an evangelical conference called the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference. Over 700 evangelicals, all the names I’ve mentioned already, Gary Burge [and] Stephen Sizer were there; there was Joel Hunter, who’s one of the spiritual advisors to Barack Obama; Tony Campolo, the chairman of the World Evangelical Alliance was there, the head of the Lausanne Movement was there, all giving support to the Palestinians, all condemning the Israeli occupation.”

Another World Evangelical Alliance leader involved in “Christ at the Checkpoint” is Thomas Schirrmacher, who was a speaker at this conference in 2012. Schirrmacher rejects the charge that “Christ at the Checkpoint” is anti-Israel. Instead, he argues, it is about “reconciliation.”

Messianic Jews Reject “Christ at the Checkpoint”

His view is a far cry from the official view of conservative Jews. Leaders of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, International Messianic Jewish Alliance and the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues, representing the mainstream Messianic Jewish movement, issued a joint statement prior to the 2012 Christ at the Checkpoint conference. They declared the following, “The conference claims to seek peace and reconciliation, but reflects biblical interpretations that deny the ongoing validity of God’s covenants with the Jewish people… We recognize and are deeply concerned with the struggle of Palestinian Christians. What we object to is a conference that is explicitly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, which seeks to promote itself as a conference on peace and reconciliation.”

Their statement also said:

“The Messianic Jewish community worldwide, standing in the place of our forefathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets and apostles who authored the Scriptures, view the modern re-emergence of supersessionism/replacement theology as a serious theological error, which has fueled anti-Semitism throughout history. It needs to be exposed and rejected by Christians worldwide. This theology, if left unchallenged, will eventually result in the continued suffering and persecution of our Jewish people, whether inside or outside Israel. Any effort for peace and reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, even within the Yeshua-believing community, must recognize that the gifts and calling of God toward our Jewish people are irrevocable and still in effect today.”

Stephen Sizer: Churches that Side with Israel Are an “Abomination”

Even though Schirrmacher chose not to listen to these conservative Jews, there were other red flags. The Jerusalem Post reported: “Among the speakers was Rev. Stephen Sizer, a British minister who has spoken out harshly against Israel and met with radical Muslims, including Hezbollah.” Sizer is not alone in championing the cause of Palestinian liberation theology throughout the Muslim world. Two of his closest friends and colleagues within the anti-Israel ecumenical movement are Gary Burge and Donald Wagner, one of whom was also a speaker at “Christ at the CheckPoint.” Burge and Wagner are ordained ministers within the Presbyterian Church (USA), the world’s biggest pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality Presbyterian denomination, which has called for boycotts against Israel. They have been very active in the ecumenical Evangelical Christian-Muslim Dialogue.

Yasser Arafat and Stephen Sizer

In his personal blog, Sizer signed and published a document entitled “Joint Declaration by Christian Leaders on Israel’s 60th Anniversary.” The declaration decries the situation of Palestinians, then appeals to a kind of reconciliation:

“Let us commit ourselves in prophetic word and practical deed to a courageous settlement whose details will honour both peoples’ shared love for the land, and protect the individual and collective rights of Jews and Palestinians in the Holy Land.”

The original, supreme Declaration on Israel, the Bible, makes no provision for joint possession of the Holy Land by Jews and Romans, Jews and Canaanites, Jews and Palestinians, etc. Such joint possession violates the original and only intent of Israel’s Creator. On the contrary, His promises for Israel throughout the Bible, even in the New Testament, have no room for a joint venture between Jews and Palestinian-Arab-Muslims or Liberation Theology Christians.

Even so, Sizer’s Declaration was signed by many Calvinists and other traditional Protestants, including Geoff Tunnicliffe, General Secretary of World Evangelical Alliance. Although the Declaration and Sizer seem to defend “reconciliation,” there other motivations. The Rosh Pina Project said, “If you are a Messianic Jew or Israeli Arab Christian who support the government of Israel, which is inherently Zionist by its very history and nature,” Sizer says:

“There are certainly churches in Israel/Palestine that side with the occupation, that side with Zionism. One of my burdens is to challenge them theologically and show that they’ve repudiated Jesus, they’ve repudiated the Bible, and they are an abomination.”

According to the Rosh Pina Project, in a November 2013 telephone debate between Messianic Jewish scholar Michael Brown, who is an American Pentecostal leader, and Stephen Sizer hosted by Moody Radio asking if Christian Zionism is Christian, Brown at 50:20 minutes challenges Sizer about claiming Jewish and Arab Israeli followers of Jesus who support their nation, Israel, are an abomination. Initially Sizer flat-out denies he even said it. Brown provides the quote that the Rosh Pina Project broke in 2011, Sizer accepts he said it, but he added that he was “comfortable” with it being a true quote.

Is Thomas Schirrmacher “comfortable” with this liberal gang? Schirrmacher is a Calvinist and director of the Martin Bucer Theological Seminary in Europe. Yet, just because Burge and Wagner are also Calvinists, should he close his eyes to be with them as a speaker in a Palestinian event dominated by Palestinian Theology Liberation adherents?

Walid Shoebat, Palestinian and Former Muslim Brotherhood Member

Palestinian Christian Walid Shoebat, in a piece in WorldNetDaily entitled “Evangelicals for Hamas,” has also denounced “Christ at the CheckPoint,” whose motto is “resistance against the Israeli Zionist occupation.” He has denounced specifically the relationship of this conference with Hamas. According to International Christian Concern (ICC), “Hamas, in association with the Muslim Brotherhood, is controlling the Gaza Strip by force of arms, and is cracking down on Christians and restricting their freedom of worship. It is also trying to force them to abandon Christianity and convert to Islam.” ICC also explains that “there are ongoing attacks on churches and Christians in the Gaza Strip because Hamas considers Christians ‘infidels.’”

According to Shoebat, a former Muslim Brotherhood member:

“Christians are declining in Palestinian controlled areas. Bethlehem was 80 percent Christian and today it is less then 1 percent. Yet Israel is blamed even though the decline has not affected Muslims, while the Christian population in Israel has not declined a single percentage point. The Christian emigration is a result of persecution by Muslim Hamas and the Palestinian Authority that began their program of intimidation and land grabs, including Christian centers that were turned into headquarters for terrorists and thugs. In Gaza, the only Christian bookstore was closed and its owner, Rami Ayyad, was shot in the head by a Hamas fanatic. The birthplace of Christ, Joseph’s Tomb, and Joshua’s grave were all desecrated by Muslim terrorists.”

Christians and even Muslims in Israel are not immigrating to “Palestine.” But, if given the opportunity, Christians (and even Muslims) in the lands occupied by the Palestinian Authority would immigrate to Israel.

Shoebat says:

“Historically and biblically, there was never a Palestinian civilization or culture. Yet this is the core of the Bethlehem Bible College doctrine. Palestinianism, including the twisted brand of Christianity it incorporates, is designed to eradicate the Jewish presence and nothing more. This theology supports a divided state solution for Israel and even supports recognition of the Hamas terrorist organization as the ‘legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.’ Hamas is a terrorist group which seeks the destruction of Israel. According to the United States government, Hamas is considered a terrorist group.”

Shoebat also explains what students are taught in Bethlehem Bible College, founded by Bishara Awad:

“So how does the Awads view Zionism? Yousef Ijha, a graduate from Bethlehem Bible College (Awad and Ijha can be seen [here]), presented his dissertation titled Study on Christian Zionism which was accepted for his graduation. He writes in his dissertation: ‘Herzl established the first Zionist Congress in 1897, and succeeded in gathering the Jews of the world around him including the shrewdest of Jews to issue forth the most dangerous plan in the history of the world The Protocols of the Elders of Zion derived from sacred Jewish teaching.’ All that, while ignoring that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent document.”

Not only fraudulent, but probably the main tool used by the KGB to spread anti-Israel hatred in Muslim nations. According to Daily Mail:

“The Protocols book, Pacepa claims, became ‘the basis for much of Hitler’s anti-Semitic philosophy.’ The KGB, he writes, disseminated ‘thousands of copies’ in Muslim countries during the 1970s.”

“Christ at the CheckPoint” and Its Propaganda against the Israeli Wall

Obviously, its dissemination was not designed to bring “reconciliation” between Israel and Palestinians. So why did Bethlehem Bible College never repudiate it? In fact, why does Bethlehem Bible College portray the Israeli Wall, even in its “Christ at the CheckPoint” propaganda, as an “apartheid wall”?

A Gatestone Institute report demolishes the false propaganda by saying:

“In 2005, a young Palestinian woman called Wafa al-Biss was badly burned in a domestic fire, taken to Israel’s Soroka Hospital, and treated there for months. When discharged, she was given a permit to return as an out-patient. Some time later she headed for the hospital wearing a suicide belt with the aim of exploding it among the doctors and nurses who had treated her, as well as however many children she could find. She was caught at a checkpoint and imprisoned. Earlier this year she was released as part of a prisoner release agreement [under US pressure]. Within hours she was speaking to Palestinian children, urging them to put on suicide vests and kill as many Jews as possible. And some people wonder why the Israelis need a security barrier.”

The Gatestone Institute report also says:

“It is a lie to say that Israel is an apartheid state and that the wall is an apartheid wall. It is a security barrier, just like dozens of others around the world, none of which is ever called an ‘apartheid wall.’”

Yet, Bethlehem Bible College and its founder, Bishara Awad, insist on depicting the Israeli checkpoints, not the radical Muslim Palestinians, as the real problem.

Thomas Schirrmacher and Confusion in Brazil

If Thomas Schirrmacher believes that “reconciliation” is a key component of “Christ at the CheckPoint” conferences, and its efforts to overthrow the Israeli wall, how will he be able to counter the liberal, Marxist and anti-Israel orientations in the ecumenical movement? How will he be able to see anti-Israel feelings in Burge and Wagner, who were his comrades and speakers at “Christ at the CheckPoint”?

His personal website has an exclusive ecumenical page and has also a page devoted to “Christ at the CheckPoint,” and Paul Wilkinson, in his booklet “The Church at Christ’s CheckPoint,” exposes the true agenda behind this conference. He quotes Schirrmacher saying:

“The WEA [World Evangelical Alliance] is ‘willing to do everything,’ including co-operate with the Palestinian Authority.”

Schirrmacher is scheduled to be a main speaker in the first International Congress on Fundamental Civil Freedoms in Brazil. The congress will be held in March in Brasilia by ANAJURE. What will he bring to ANAJURE? More from his ecumenical experiences? Will these experiences include “reconciliation” efforts?

ANAJURE has had enough problems. In fact, the most important test for ANAJURE, founded in 2012, and its interest to defend fundamental civil freedoms was when Congressman Marco Feliciano, who is also a Pentecostal minister opposed to abortion and the gay agenda, was viciously attacked by the powerful Brazilian Left because he had been appointed to head the Human Rights Committee in the Brazilian Congress in March 2013. In a press release, the ANAJURE president did not defend him, but questioned his appointment and personal motivations. In an exclusive interview, Congressman Feliciano explained that he was betrayed by ANAJURE.

ANAJURE has had enough problems. Its event with Schirrmacher has been propagandized by Ultimato, an old Protestant Liberation Theology magazine founded by Presbyterians in Brazil. Its positions on Israel are similar to Sizer’s views, focusing on “reconciliation.”

How then would Schirrmacher’s “reconciliation” views help ANAJURE and Brazil? How would his pro-Palestinian-Arab-Muslim ecumenical experiences help ANAJURE and Brazil?

Brazil has had enough of pro-Palestinian-Arab-Muslim and anti-Israel sentiment in its socialist government and many of its Protestant leaders, including Walter Altmann.

I hope Schirrmacher’s participation in an ANAJURE congress will not undermine the important Pentecostal resistance to the leftist Protestants’ overture to Liberation Theology, including its Palestinian-Arab version, and to anti-Israel sentiment, allegedly in the name of “reconciliation.”

Schirrmacher has been involved in high-profile Christian-Muslim ecumenical efforts with the Vatican and the World Council of Churches. In fact, he has been a speaker at WCC events.

Under the banner of ecumenism, it is very easy to embrace replacement theology, which says that Israel was replaced by the Church and all God’s promises to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are now invalid for Israel. Some high-ranking Calvinist theologians in ANAJURE espouse this stance. These theologians are from the Mackenzie Presbyterian University. In fact, the main sponsor of the ANAJURE event is Mackenzie. You can learn more about this Calvinist university here and here and here.

Mainline Protestant churches and members are the main victims of ecumenism and its apostasies. In 2008, then US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice, the famous daughter of an American Presbyterian minister, visited Brazil. Her Israeli-Palestinian politics were guided by her Calvinist replacement theology. She came to Brazil to strengthen the roots of the Afro-Brazilian religions, which are considered “witchcraft” by the Bible.

Brazilian sorceress and Condoleezza Rice

There is no contradiction for Calvinist Rice and other liberal Protestants to strengthen witchcraft, gay activism and Palestine and, at the same time, to weaken Israel. WCC is just an example of such apostasy.

Ecumenism Fosters Palestinian Cause

Ecumenism has been a catalyst for the Palestinian cause. The Lutheran Church of Altmann and other mainline Protestant denominations played a major role in the “World Social Forum - Free Palestine” in 2012. This event, held in Brazil, was the world’s biggest pro-Palestine socialist event.

Palestinian Liberation Theology adherents and Latin American Liberation Theology Protestants and Catholics gathered together, in their common leftist faith, to advocate their common Palestinian cause.

In May 2013, Bishara Awad, the Palestinian activist behind “Christ at the CheckPoint,” visited Brazil and some of its churches. He was the main speaker at Open Doors and at a major ministers’ meeting, under the ecumenical cloak of “reconciliation.”

The Brazilian socialist government sees the socialist and Palestinian claims as legitimate, including any reference to Jesus as a “great social revolutionary” or “Palestinian” messenger. The “World Social Forum - Free Palestine” had the same view. Of course, Awad and his “Christ at the CheckPoint” colleagues just would agree too. As to Schirrmacher, does he see just “reconciliation” in all of this?

Excepting for Altmann and his mainline Protestant comrades (who have become socialist and Palestinian messengers), Brazilian evangelicals, who are mostly Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals, have resisted the ecumenical efforts to align themselves with the socialist political view and the Liberation Theology view of Jesus being a “great social revolutionary” or “Palestinian” messenger.

I am indebted to three articles by Dr. Mark Tooley as sources for my article. I am indebted also to Paul Wilkinson, James Sundquist, Don Hank, Ingo Haake and to Walid Shoebat and their documentation.

Portuguese version of this article: “Mensageiros palestinos”: Como Cristo e os cristãos são usados para promover a causa palestina

Source: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Recommended Reading:

Anti-Israel Activist Speaks at Open Doors Brazil

A Charismatic Response to “The Growing Crisis Behind Brazil’s Evangelical Success Story”

Brazil to Host World’s Biggest Pro-Palestine Event

Palestinian Gays Want World Boycotts against Israel

What every Christian should know about Israel