Clinton hits back: Nothing to do with terrorism

Who is being delusional?

Reblogged from carolineglick.com

Friday, November 20th, 2015



On Tuesday night Channel 10 broadcast an interview with PLO chief and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas in which Abbas admitted publically for the first time that he rejected the peace plan then prime minister Ehud Olmert offered him in 2008.

Olmert’s plan called for Israel to withdraw from the entire Old City of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, and from 93.7 percent of Judea and Samaria. Olmert also offered sovereign Israeli territory to the Palestinians to compensate for the areas Israel would retain in Judea and Samaria.

Abbas said his rejection was unequivocal. “I didn’t agree. I rejected it out of hand.”

For years, the story of Abbas’s rejection of Olmert’s 2008 offe has been underplayed. Many commentators have insisted Abbas didn’t really reject it, he just failed to respond.

But now the truth is clear. Abbas is not interested either in peace or in Palestinian statehood.

Abbas’s many apologists in the Israeli Left insist that he didn’t reject the plan on its merits. Rather, they argue, Abbas rejected Olmert’s offer because by the time Olmert made it, he was steeped in criminal investigations that forced him to resign from office eight months later.

Hogwash, says former AP reporter Mark Lavie. Following the interview’s broadcast Lavie countered that if Abbas was truly interested in establishing an independent Palestinians state, he wouldn’t have cared about the political fortunes of the Israeli prime minister. He would have taken the offer and run knowing that, as Olmert said, the likelihood that he’d get a similar offer in the next 50 years was nonexistent.

The most notable reaction to Abbas’s admission was the reaction that never came. The Israeli Left had no reaction to his interview.

Abbas is the hero of the Left.

He is their partner. He is their moderate. He is their man of peace. Abbas is the Palestinian leader to whom every leftist politician worth his snuff, from opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog to the Meretz Knesset faction make regular pilgrimages to prove their devotion to peace.

Their man in Ramallah received the most radical offer ever to see the light of day. And rather than accept it, he rejected it out of hand and refused to meet with Olmert ever again, and he openly admits it.

The Left’s non-response is not surprising. Abbas’s decision to end all speculation about whether or not he is a man of peace is merely the latest blow reality has cast on their two-state formula.

The Left’s policy of land for peace failed more than 15 years ago when Abbas’s boss Yassir Arafat preferred war to peace and initiated the worst campaign of terror that Israel had ever experienced.

Yet for the last 15 years, the Israeli “peace camp,” has never wavered in its view that despite it all, Israel must rid itself of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Rather it members has grown angrier and angrier at their own people for abandoning them and less and less willing to agree that there is anything – including Israeli statehood itself – that is more important than giving up Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

The Left’s reactionary position was on full display last Thursday at the annual “peace conference,” hosted by the far left Haaretz newspaper.

Last year, the conference’s audience attacked Jewish Home Party leader Naftali Bennett both verbally and physically when he presented his plan to apply Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria. This year it was Tourism Minister Yariv Levin’s turn to be assaulted.

Levin was subjected to constant catcalls from the audience, whose members called him “Goebbels” for arguing that the two-state formula has no chance of bringing peace and that the time has come to consider other options.

But Levin’s claims were simply common sense.

This week the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion published its most recent survey. The results were no surprise. Indeed, they were more or less consistent with historical survey results.

According to the PCPO data, 63 percent of Palestinians oppose holding peace talks with Israel. 58 percent think Mahmoud Abbas, whose term of office ended in 2009, should resign. A majority of Palestinians support a new assault or “intifada” against Israel. 42 percent of Palestinians support the use of terrorism against Israel.

Also this week, ahead of the Jerusalem Post’ Diplomatic Conference held Wednesday, the Post published a new poll of Israeli public opinion. According to the data, 46 percent of Israelis support a policy of separating from the Palestinians through the establishment of a Palestinian state. 35 percent of Israelis support applying Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. For Israelis under 45, the numbers are reversed.

Today a majority of Likud Knesset members and all members of the Jewish Home’s Knesset faction oppose Palestinian statehood and support applying Israeli law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria.

Rather than deal with the fact that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis support their two-state model, the Left has decided to ignore both.

The Haaretz conference last week hosted a panel discussing whether the two state paradigm remains viable. In his remarks, Prof. Shlomo Ben Ami, who served as foreign minister in 2000 during the failed Camp David peace summit, explained that given the Israeli and Palestinian publics’ rejection of the two-state formula, (but especially the Israeli rejection of it), the UN Security Council determine Israel’s final borders. In other words, from Ben Ami’s perspective, withdrawing from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is more important than maintaining Israel’s independence and governing in accordance with the will of the people.

When the panel’s moderator expressed concern that the mass expulsion of Israelis from their communities in Judea and Samaria, which the two-state formula requires would cause a civil war within Israeli society, Ben Ami just shrugged his shoulders.

“I don’t delude myself. I never deluded myself that this would be a boy scouts’ trip,” he said.

“You can’t do this through consensus….Consensus is the great enemy of leadership,” he said.

Ben Ami continued, “War unites, peace divides…A leader who wants to make peace will always have a split nation behind him.”

MK Meirav Michaeli, who serves as the Zionist Union’s Knesset faction head said for her part that the greatest obstacle to peace is Israel. Ever since Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, Israel hasn’t had a leader willing to do what it takes to make peace.

In Michaeli’s view, when the Left next forms a government, it will need to adopt – as is opening position in negotiations – the position that Israel shares responsibility for the fate of the so-called “Palestinian refugees.”

Michaeli explained, “Israel needs to be part of a coalition that will find a solution,” for the descendants of the Arabs that left Israel during the 1948-1949 pan-Arab invasion of the infant state of Israel.

Michaeli also insisted that Israel needs to stop demanding that the Palestinians recognize the Jewish state’s right to exist. Israel should suffice instead with a Palestinian acknowledgment that it does indeed exist.

It goes without saying that there has never been, and there never will be a majority of support in Israel either for Ben Ami’s position or for Michaeli’s position. This is the reason that they prefer to ignore the Israeli people and wait for “the world” to save “the peace” for them.

This brings us to the 46 percent of Israelis who would like to separate from the Palestinians and let them have a state.

The only reason that a plurality of Israelis still supports a policy that has failed continuously for the past fifteen years is because the Israeli Left has blocked all discussion of alternative policies.

Over the past twenty years, the Left has implemented three policy initiatives: the peace process with the PLO from 1993 to 2000, the unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000 and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. These policies never enjoyed the sustained support of the majority of the public.

To the extent they ever mobilized the temporary support of bare majorities of public, they did so only because the media campaigned continuously on behalf of these initiatives. Not only did key all the mass circulation newspapers and all major broadcast media outlets support these plans, they blocked all debate about them. Opponents were demonized as extremists.

And this brings us to the 35 percent of Israelis who support applying Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.

It is this virtual blackout on coverage of opposing views that makes the results of the Post’s opinion poll remarkable. In the absence of almost any public discussion of the possibility of applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria aside from the self-generated publicity of advocates of the position, more than a third of Israelis overall, and a plurality of young Israelis supports it.

Over the past week, Netanyahu has been asked his opinion of the prospects for unilateral Israeli actions towards the Palestinians three times, once in Washington and twice in Jerusalem. Netanyahu’s responses have been enigmatic. But collectively they lend the clear impression that the premier does not support unilateral Israeli withdrawals from Judea and Samaria and at least in principle, does not oppose the sovereignty model.

In his remarks at the Post’s conference Wednesday, Netanyahu said cagily, “There are all sorts of unilateral moves in all sorts of directions. Wait and see. And they are not necessarily in the direction you think.”

Speaking to the Likud’s Knesset faction on Monday Netanyahu clarified his remarks on the subject last week in Washington saying, “I didn’t say unilateral withdrawals. I said unilateral steps. You can imagine what I mean – states are disintegrating and we will protect our interests.”

Sitting next to Ben Ami at the Haaretz conference was the lone non-leftist on the panel. Halachic expert Malka Puterkovsky said that in her view, Israel should apply its sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria. Doing so, she argued, will not risk Israel’s future as a Jewish state.

Both the audience and her fellow panelists reacted to her statements with a the same extreme hostility with which they responded to Bennet and Levin.

When Ben Ami —  the man who thinks it is more important for Israel to expel some one hundred thousand Israelis from their homes than avert a civil war, and prefers borders forced on Israel by the UN to Israeli democracy and independence – was asked his opinion of Puterovsky’s position, he called the notion of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria “delusional.”

We need to take Netanyahu’s coy responses to questions about unilateralism as an invitation to begin a serious public discussion of the option. The public wants this discussion and we need this discussion.

As for how the peace camp will respond, well, there are worse things than aving reactionaries call you “delusional.”
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

Read more: http://thelightseed.blogspot.com/#ixzz3sBJGtnVu

What does the Bible really say about taking in Syrian refugees?

Not what the left, the media and quite a few Christians would have you think.

By Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives  November 20, 2015
Reblogged from canadafreepress.com

---

It’s always problematic when you look to the mainstream media and other left-wingers for an understanding of what Scripture says. To listen to them, you’d think Jesus was concerned with little more than sending checks to the poor, installing solar panels on roofs and surrendering to any and all foreign enemies.

That’s why it’s been easy for those who only crack a Bible when they’re looking for something to justify an agenda to claim that “Christian compassion” demands we take in Syrian refugees without regard for the potential threat of ISIS terrorists who slip in among the crowd.
Is that what the Bible actually says? Of course not, and David French does a nice job of getting the conversation started over at National Review:

Indeed, Scripture draws a clear line between the responsibility of the individual and the role of the state. Individuals are to forswear vengeance, leaving justice to earthly rulers as God’s “agents of wrath” who bring “punishment on the wrongdoer.” The state has an affirmative responsibility to protect its citizens, even to the point of bringing a sense of “terror” to those “who do wrong.” There is no contradiction between personally welcoming the “strangers” among us while our leaders endeavor to protect us from a genocidal terrorist force that uses refugee status as a shield and disguise to perpetrate brutal attacks against innocent civilians.

This is not to say that Scripture creates a paradigm of compassionate individuals and heartless governments. Throughout the Bible, entire nations — not just individuals — are condemned for injustice, including unjust treatment of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. But to say that the only way to meet that standard is to open our doors to migrants when we know our enemy intends to plant terrorists within their ranks is once again to read far too much into Scripture.

French is quoting Romans 13, which lays out clear lines of responsibility for governments - particularly the imperative to protect the innocent from wrongdoers. Now that might seem to contradict Luke 10, in which Jesus teaches the importance of being a neighbor to someone in need, even if that someone comes from an enemy camp.
But there is actually no contradiction. As liberals often do, they take directives aimed at individuals in the Bible and try to make them the responsibility of the state. More than that, they insist that the only way the directive can be fulfilled is in the manner they prefer.

What was extraordinary about the actions of the Samaritan in Jesus’ parable is that Samaritans and Jews typically would not associate with each other, yet in this case the Samaritan who found the Jew beaten alongside the road picked him up, tended to his wounds and brought him to an inn - where he instructed the innkeeper to look after him and even paid the bill. And yes, that is absolutely the sort of love and compassion to which we are called as Christians, even when we’re talking about someone we typically regard as an enemy.

But it’s important to recognize a couple of things. First, the Samaritan did not take the man into his own home. He paid the bill, but he did not in any way put himself at risk of harm from the man. Even more importantly, the Samaritan made a free choice of his own will to help the man.

What the left wants to do in the case of the Syrian refugees is use the power of the state to force an entire nation to welcome people into their midst without any effort to ensure that members of ISIS with evil intentions were filtered out. That’s not compassion. That’s national suicide. And if you think God wants nations to commit suicide, just skim through the Old Testament and consider the many instructions He gave to Israelite kings to attack foreign armies - even killing and plundering those they conquered. When it came to warfare, God instructed the kings of Israel to be pretty ruthless in dealing with their enemies.

The Syrian refugee situation is a tricky conundrum because there surely are many among the group who have no evil intentions and genuinely need help. America should want to help. But there are ways to do that without risking our own security. It would make more sense for them to be resettled in majority Muslim countries anyway, and we can do a lot of things to support that process.

But the responsibility of government is to protect its people from harm, and the government is well aware of the fact that previous terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by people who slipped in as refugees or asylum-seekers. Knowing full well that this one of the enemy’s tactics, and doing absolutely nothing to prevent them from succeeding at it, is not “Christian compassion.” It’s a dereliction of duty.

We can help and we should. But not by putting ourselves in jeopardy. If individuals are called by the Lord to take a risk and help a potentially dangerous person, then those individuals should trust the Lord. But for the leaders of our nation to decide that we all have to take that risk is neither scriptural nor moral. It’s just plain wrong.

Hal Lindsey - Prophecy Update - 11 06 2015

What is Yoga?

Reblogged from www.truthbehindyoga.com

Did you know yoga is not a series of stretches? It is actually an ancient religion with its own god, practices, and doctrine. The poses and breathing are only one aspect of the religion. These components have only recently become popularized, but the religion of yoga has been practiced for thousands of years. 

Yoga means “to yoke.” It is often explained that this means the goal of yoga is to yoke together mind, spirit, and body. But that is not the truth of the term. "Yoga" actually refers to the goal of the practice: to attain "ultimate knowledge" by losing one's sense of self and uniting with the Divine (or Supreme Consciousness, Godhead, or other names depending upon the tradition) in much the same way a drop of water loses itself and becomes one with a body of water, like an ocean or a puddle. 

The term “yoke” also explains the yoking of energies, or spirits, that are invoked to aid in the deepening of practice. These energies are invited into the practitioner and their practice in multiple ways: by the practice of worshiping deities and energies with poses of the body (for example, the sun salutation is a series of movements that pays homage to the sun god), by repeating mantras (each sound, word, and phrase invokes its corresponding spirit), of specific breathing exercises (Ujai breathing is one example, also called “Serpent Breath” or “Breath of Fire”), or by setting the intention to invite the spirit of a specific teacher, loved one, or deity to yoke with the practitioner and help deepen the practice. This is where Christians are encouraged to plug in Jesus and make it a practice for him.

But yoga is not a universal, religiously neutral practice that Christianity can be plugged into, as is being propagated. Yoga is an ancient spiritual pagan practice. The religious doctrine and the practice it outlines are completely opposed to Biblical teachings. Yoga was thought to have been practiced for some time before its religious text, called the Yoga Sutras, were recorded around two thousand years ago. This text explains paths of practices with the final goal of ultimate "freedom" from all attachments and sense of self--of becoming one with god and reaching "ultimate knowledge."

The Lord of the Bible repeatedly and strictly commands against having anything to do with pagan gods. He tells us that they are not gods at all (He is the only real God), but demonic forces disguising themselves as deceptive powers (see Bible). The pagan god of yoga, called Ishvara, is claimed by the Yoga Sutras to be the source of all knowledge (Yoga Sutras, 1.25). This god Ishvara is represented by the symbol and sound of "Om" (1.27). Practitioners are instructed to repeat this name (mantra repetition) to deepen their practice (1.28-29). Practicing the movements of yoga paired with breathing techniques and meditation are also said to deepen the practice (2.46-55). I was taught across varying New Age paths that meditation was necessary to develop in order to "open" oneself and to "progress" on the spiritual path. Yoga is one of these paths. The Yoga Sutras expands on reaching the goal of ultimate knowledge by practicing meditative exercises.

The Yoga Sutras outline a path of sorcery and divination through developing meditation. These practices are repeatedly and adamantly prohibited in the Bible. The Lord reveals that the truth behind these practices is that the "knowledge" and "power" are coming from demonic spirits, often masked to appear as esoteric experiences of light and goodness (see Bible). The Yoga Sutras explain that by following this yogic path, the practitioner can attain special abilities to tell the past and future (3:16, 3.22), discover spirits and communicate with master spirits (3:25, 3:32), enter into another person's body (3:38), levitate (3:40), speak with animals (3.17), discover knowledge of past lives (3.18), read the minds of others (3.19), not feel hunger or thirst (3:30), and other attributions of sorcerers and mediums. According to the Yoga Sutras, mastering of meditation lays the groundwork for these powers and leads to what is called "absolute knowledge of all that can be perceived" (3.5). It states that one can also open oneself to such "supernatural powers" with drugs, mantras, and yoga (4.1).

The possibility of supernatural powers and "wisdom," of earning one's way to ultimate freedom may sound exciting and appealing to some. It is supposed to sound appealing because it is a trap. Demonic forces are behind these supernatural experiences of seeming peace, light, and supernatural knowledge and powers. I both experienced this firsthand and discovered numerous scriptures in the Bible explaining this reality. It is the goal of these powers to keep people separate from the real and living God, the only God--the Lord--who says one can't earn his or her way to freedom no matter how hard he or she may try. It's something the Lord gives freely to anyone as a gift. One simply has to choose to accept by faith that Jesus is who is says he is: the only path, the only Savior, the only God. For more on this, see Salvation. 

What About My Yoga Class?
The yoga we know in yoga studios and gyms is one of the practices along this path outlined in the Yoga Sutras. The path encourages meditation to quiet and open oneself to the spiritual, esoteric realm. Yoga is a movement meditation. See Yoga "For Jesus" and "Exercise Only" for more information.

Quizás también le interese:

• Discernment about "Christian Yoga" and Breathing in contemplative, centering prayer.
• About Mr. Rob Bell. Kriya (Kundalini Yoga) and another Jesus
• The New Age Movement - Beginning in the garden of Eden

Read more: http://thelightseed.blogspot.com/#ixzz3r4wx9Gbw

The True Danger of Preaching False Conversion

Reblogged from www.blogos.org
By Gary Meredith

[NOTE: The following is not offered as a systematic refutation of "false conversion" teaching, nor an attack on its proponents, whose motives are surely sincere. My purpose is to show how this doctrine of questionable value can do serious harm to the Body of Christ.]

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. Acts 15:24

The young believer was apparently having his first serious crisis of faith. He wrote:

I've recently realized that I'm a so called 'false convert' and never really got saved. I've already called upon the name of the Lord for quite some time to save me from my sins with a heartfelt conviction of the gravity of my sin but nothing really happened. I repented from my sinful ways and did quite well in the beginning to abstain from sin but it didn't take long before I succumbed back to some of my sins. I continue to repent, and desire and value the Word of God more than ever, but my momentum and desire to read it starts to lessen. Should I continue to call upon his name to save and regenerate me, and only then follow Him?

Aside from his obvious Christian faith, I was struck by how closely his words paralleled Paul's:

Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Romans 7:21-24

This young man's misdiagnosis of his problem as false conversion — what some preachers call "Hell's best kept secret" — directed him away from the only cure, which Paul reveals in the next verse: "Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:25). Apparently no mature believer had explained to him that he already has been, is being, and will be delivered from sin by his continuously interceding Savior (Hebrews 7:25). His ignorance about the real Christian life, and the false explanation for his struggle with sin, disabled him from resting in and growing in that assurance (Matthew 11:28; Romans 8:35-39; Philippians 1:6).

Years before hearing the term "false conversion," a few young believers opened up to me about their private insecurities regarding their own salvation. It usually went something like this:

Maybe I'm not really saved, that I'm just another unsaved hypocrite. Everyone else at church seems to have a solid walk with the Lord, but I still struggle with sinful thoughts and emotions and failures. If they really knew me they probably wouldn't think I was saved. Our pastor probably wouldn't. He says Christ gives us daily victory over the world, the flesh and the devil — I'm losing all three battles! Maybe I should just leave the church and figure out what I really believe.

The correct response is: You wouldn't care if you weren't saved.

Distress about your sins is a healthy sign of a saved soul, not a symptom of false conversion. Sanctification isn't instant or easy, it's a lifelong, painful, humbling process. Real false converts don't care about their sins and don't know they aren't saved. Our warnings to them fall on deaf ears — ears which cannot hear (Jeremiah 6:10). That's because "the person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:14). False converts may call themselves Christians, attend church and use a lot of "God talk," but most are unaware and unconcerned that they are not reconciled with God and still destined for hell.

False conversion is presented as the reason for rampant immorality in many churches today — drug and alcohol abuse and addiction, sexual sin, divorce and more. That may be partly true (actually, the failure of church leaders to understand and counter the enormous power of modern culture is a fuller explanation).

But Scripture is far more concerned about false teachers than false converts (1 Timothy 1:3; 4:1-2; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1; Galatians 1:6-9). The most dangerous false converts by far are those who infiltrate the Church into positions of leadership in order to tear the flock apart and lead it astray (Matthew 7:15; Luke 21:8; Acts 20:29; Romans 16:17). While the sinful behavior of a few members may infect others, they are a small problem compared to our real enemies, false teachers, who have wiped out entire Christian denominations, leading millions of followers to tolerate and even celebrate, in the name of Christ, doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1) and the evil behavior from which Christ came to set them free (Romans 6:11-18; Galatians 5:1).

Tragically, false conversion preachers re-aim the big guns of church condemnation from the primary target — false teachers — to our weak, stumbling brothers and sisters who desperately need God's love, and ours, starting with the reassurance of the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:77). In extreme cases such preachers may actually serve Satan's disabling function as accusers of the brethren (Zechariah 3:1-2; Revelation 12:10), rather than the edifying role of the Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit for the fruitful conviction of sin (John 16:8; 1 Corinthians 14:24-25; 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5).

Preachers of "false conversion," however sincere, exploit a potent reality: that all of us sin (1 John 1:8-10). So there is always plenty of "evidence" available for every believer that he or she was never saved. That is a lie, and a faith-damaging distortion of the Christian life. It also misses a fundamental reality — that we saints are capable of some very nasty behavior.

J. D. Farag - Mid-East Prophecy Update

John Haller - Prophecy Update - 2015 08 11

Yamandu Costa and Dominguinhos

Amazing Grace - The Fight Song - The Piano Guys