| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Standing in support of Israel, Jews, and believers in all the nations, in the name of Jesus (Yeshua). Sharing biblical truth, encouragement, news and prophecy.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
The IDF: Israel's Divine Protection ✡ "A Wise Man is Strong" - ISRAEL365
Palestinian Woman Becomes Christian, Defends Israel - Israel Today
Palestinian Woman Becomes Christian, Defends Israel
Sunday, October 30, 2016 | Israel Today Staff
Sandra Solomon is the niece of Saher Habash, one of the founders of the ruling Palestinian party Fatah and a leader in the campaign of terror known as the Second Intifada.
She was born in Ramallah and later lived in Saudi Arabia. In both places, Solomon was raised to seek violence against the Jews. As a child she was taught to “hate the Jews, hail Hitler and praise the Holocaust,” Solomon said this month in an interview Israel’s Channel 2 News.
Speaking at an event earlier this summer in Canada, where she now resides, Solomon confirmed why genuine peace between Israel and the Palestinians is slipping further out of reach:
“They blame Jews for everything. They rejoice in the killing of Jews. There is no respect, no love, no peace, just anger and hatred for others.”
As a young woman, Solomon quickly became acquainted with the harshness of Islamic Sharia Law, and disturbed over the utter intolerance for all non-Muslims, not just the Jews.
Some time after moving to Canada, she converted to Christianity and became an ardent defender of the reborn Jewish state.
“The State of Israel was created not to be erased but to stay,” she said.
Asked by her Israeli interviewers if she does not fear for her life given that most of her family is calling for her blood, Solomon replied: “I stand behind what I say and I will tell the truth even if it leads to my death one day. I will at least know that I’ve had the honor to die for the truth.”
Want more news from Israel?
Click Here to sign up for our FREE daily email updates
Click Here to sign up for our FREE daily email updates
POLL: Israelis Now Prefer Trump, Decry Biased Media Coverage - Ryan Jones ISRAEL TODAY
POLL: Israelis Now Prefer Trump, Decry Biased Media Coverage
Sunday, October 30, 2016 | Ryan Jones ISRAEL TODAY
That according to a survey conducted by the Israeli polling company Maagar Mochot last week.
Overall, 54 percent of respondents said Trump would be better for Israel, while 46 percent said the same of Clinton.
Interestingly, it was Israeli Arab respondents who really pushed the numbers in favor of Trump. An overwhelming 74 percent of Israeli Arabs who expressed an opinion preferred Trump. Among Jewish respondents, a far slimmer 51 percent majority chose the Republican candidate.
When it comes to local media coverage of the US election, and it is being covered nearly as heavily as an Israeli election, survey respondents decried what they perceived as biased reporting.
A 45 percent plurality said the Israeli media is treating Clinton more favorably, 28 percent see the coverage as balanced, and just 27 percent feel Trump is getting a boost.
The new November issue of Israel Today Magazine takes a more in-depth look at local Israeli attitudes toward the US election and the candidates.
Don’t miss out - CLICK HERE TO READ IT NOW!
Want more news from Israel?
Click Here to sign up for our FREE daily email updates
Click Here to sign up for our FREE daily email updates
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy: Peace or Danger Ahead? - CBN News Gary Lane
10-25-2016
WASHINGTON -- As Barack Obama prepares to leave the White House, how will his foreign policy efforts be judged by history?
Will he be seen as a presidential peacemaker or a feckless leader who created a more dangerous world?
On January 20, 2009, Obama unveiled his foreign policy vision within moments of his swearing in as the nation's 44th president.
"Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint," he said. "America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace."
"Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint," he said. "America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace."
Nine months later, the Nobel Committee awarded him the peace prize, not for his accomplishments, but for what he intended to do on the world stage.
Now as Obama prepares to leave the White House, some security experts are questioning his foreign policy accomplishments and the consequences of his actions.
Foreign Policy an 'Utter Failure'
Foreign Policy an 'Utter Failure'
Supporters of the president's policies say he's leaving behind a more peaceful world and eventually the Middle East will be a safer place. But his critics on Capitol Hill say nothing could be further from the truth: he's created a big mess for the next president.
"He received a prize for a naive worldview that we know in 2016 has been an utter failure," former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz said.
During his first inaugural address, the president said he'd take steps to end America’s wars.
"We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan," Obama said.
Despite that promise, peace didn't come to Afghanistan. The president wanted to withdraw all U.S. forces by late 2014. But instead a resurgent Taliban wreaked havoc on the country, so Obama reversed course. Today, more than 8,000 Americans still remain there.
In Iraq, the president withdrew all American troops by the end of 2011, despite being warned repeatedly by top government officials and military advisors – including his own Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta – about the potential consequences.
But Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine says the president had no choice.
"Iraq didn't want our troops to stay and they wouldn't give us the protection for our troops," Kaine insisted.
Panetta has since written in his book that although an agreement was difficult, it could have been done.
The Rise of ISIS
Critics, including GOP vice presidential candidate Mike Pence, say Obama’s premature withdrawal from Iraq helped lead to the rise of the deadly Islamic terrorist group ISIS.
"The sacrifices the American soldier made were squandered in Iraq because this administration created a vacuum in which ISIS was able to grow," Pence said.
Once ISIS was on the scene after Obama's withdrawal from Iraq, it carried out a horrible genocide against Christians, Yazidis and others in Iraq and Syria, causing a humanitarian crisis in the Middle East and Europe.
"You don't walk away from a war when the other team is bringing it to you," Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, explained. "That is, I've heard this president say he wants to get out of these wars, but when they bring it to you have no choice but to lead and to protect the American people."
"You don't walk away from a war when the other team is bringing it to you," Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, explained. "That is, I've heard this president say he wants to get out of these wars, but when they bring it to you have no choice but to lead and to protect the American people."
Pompeo is a member of the House Intelligence Committee. He says Obama and members of his administration refuse to take seriously the Islamic terror threat.
"He told us that al Qaeda was on the run, he has since told us that ISIS was the JV," Pompeo said.
Failures at Home
The failures are also right here at home, Pompeo and others say. When Omar Mateen murdered 49 Americans in Orlando earlier this year, Obama refused to call it an act of Islamic terror.
"There is no magic to the phrase 'radical Islam.' It is a political talking point. it is not a strategy," the president said.
The Center for Security Policy's Fred Fleitz disagrees.
"When we have a president who will not admit that we are at war with radical Islam, who won't even use the term, when we portray this threat as some threat from an isolated terrorist group and not a global ideology at war with modern society and Western civilization, we are never going to beat it," Fleitz insists.
Weak American Leadership
In Syria, critics say feckless U.S. support of moderate rebel groups caused al Qaeda, al Nusra, and the Islamic State to grow in power and influence.
President Obama said he would draw a red line in the sand if Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Assad turned over 1,300 tons of the weapons, but later used a chemical weapon -- chlorine gas -- against the rebels. Obama took no military action.
As a result, Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped up his country's involvement, sending aircraft and troops to help Assad.
Pence says weak American leadership in the Middle East led to Russia's return to the region.
"There's an old proverb that says the Russian bear never dies, it just hibernates," he explained.
"There's an old proverb that says the Russian bear never dies, it just hibernates," he explained.
That bear came out of hibernation seven years after the Obama administration promised a "re-set" of relations with Russia. Putin moved not only in Syria, but also in Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine.
"We watched the Russians take one-fifth of a sovereign nation and America's response was almost nothing," Pompeo said. "That tells Vladimir Putin he has a green light and you've seen him use that power."
In Egypt, Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood took office as president in the summer of 2012. But within months, he had issued a decree that basically gave him unlimited powers.
His opponents called it an "Islamist coup." Egyptians took to the streets to protest and President Obama demanded the Egyptian army restore Morsi and the Brotherhood to power.
Some Egyptians claimed Brotherhood agents and sympathizers in the U.S. government influenced policy.
Mohammed Elibiary served on the president's Department of Homeland Security advisor council. Elibiary had praised a Muslim Brotherhood leader and spoke at a 2004 event honoring Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini.
And the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a group with suspected ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, advised President Obama on immigration and counterterrorism policy.
Parts of Iran Deal Kept Secret
Barack Obama would likely say his greatest foreign policy achievement was the nuclear deal with Iran, but many critics say the administration only accomplished the deal by keeping key parts of it secret.
"In the fall of 2016 we have a nuclear deal that can only be described as an enormous fraud," Fleitz said. "The only way that this deal got through is because the details of it were concealed from Congress."
Pompeo exposed several secret side deals in the agreement.
"This president struck a secret deal with the ayatollah that's really between him and the ayatollah. It's not even signed by either party and that will almost always end in a way that does not serve the American people's interest," Pompeo said.
In the recent vice presidential debate, Kaine said the Iran deal eliminated Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Former President Bill Clinton's CIA director James Woolsey disagrees. He calls it "worse than worthless."
"I think it may be the worst international agreement the United States has ever signed. I think it will enhance Iran's ability to move quickly to have a nuclear weapon to not slow it down," Woolsey insists.
"The reason is Iran can continue to enrich uranium, develop advanced centrifuges, and will have a reactor that produces plutonium that is being redesigned by the Chinese and will not be monitored by a process set up by this treaty," Fleitz explained.
Woolsey is concerned about the cash payments the Obama administration delivered to Iran the same day American prisoners were released in Tehran, ultimately amounting to $150 billion.
"We are turning over tens of billions of dollars to them saying that we are getting away from sanctions, and in part it seems it is more likely what that is, is bribery substantially to the Iranians to release some of our people they have grabbed," Woolsey said.
Pompeo and others believe the money provided by the United States may be used by Iran to spread terrorism and further develop its nuclear weapons program.
Obama Vision Falls Short
So, nearly eight years after his swearing in, America's Nobel Peace Prize winning president has fallen short of his goal of ushering in a new era of peace with many analysts warning that the world is now a more dangerous place than when he entered the White House.
"The president thought when he came to office his magnificence and his aura would solve all the world's problems. The fact is, these enemies of the United States hate us regardless of who is in the White House," Fleitz explained.
"They hate our way of life, they hate our country, and they didn't change their way of thought because Barack Obama became president," he said.
And they're likely to pose greater danger for the world and the next American president.
Christian Conservatives, Be Assured That President Hillary Clinton Will Declare War on You - Dr. Michael Brown THE STREAM
Christian Conservatives, Be Assured That President Hillary Clinton Will Declare War on You
AP Photo/Paul Sancya
Make no mistake about it. If you are a conservative Christian and Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, she will declare war on certain aspects of your faith. Your religious liberties will be targeted, and your biblical beliefs will be branded disturbing, if not downright dangerous.
Do not be deceived.
She has made herself perfectly clear on this in the recent past, and we deny this is to our own peril.
Writing for the left-leaning Washington Post, Marc Thiessen, former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush, declared that “Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty.” He began his October 13 column with these two sobering paragraphs:
In a speech not long before she launched her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton made a stunning declaration of war on religious Americans. Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that ‘deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.’
Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency. It is also deeply revealing. Clinton believes that, as president, it is her job not to respect the views of religious conservatives but to force them to change their beliefs and bend to her radical agenda favoring taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.”
Thiessen is not overstating the case, and in light of one recent court case and one pending bill, both in California and both with potential to go to the Supreme Court, the real dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency can hardly be exaggerated.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pro-life pregnancy centers are required to promote abortion, meaning, that if a pregnant woman comes to them not knowing what to do about her pregnancy, along with counseling her about adoption or keeping her own baby, they must also refer her to a local abortion clinic.
Yes, under the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, this is the law; the Ninth Circuit upheld it.
Yes, under the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, this is the law; the Ninth Circuit upheld it.
What an absolute outrage, and what an infringement on religious liberties, since these pro-life centers, which are invariably run by conservative Christians, are being forced to violate their sacredly held beliefs.
Hillary Clinton supports legislation like this, and she would absolutely appoint Supreme Court justices who would support this as well. She has made this abundantly, unequivocally clear for many years, without wavering, and she is the most favored Planned Parenthood candidate in history.
As I wrote previously, if you vote for Hillary Clinton, you will have the blood of the unborn on your hands.
And note also the extreme hypocrisy of this ruling, since abortion clinics are not required to refer their clients to local pro-life pregnancy centers. They are not even required to show the mother an ultrasound of her baby, since that would allegedly infringe on her rights.
God forbid that you remind her that she has a baby in her womb.
In an email announcing the Ninth Court’s ruling, Matt Bowman, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel, said, “It’s bad enough if the government tells you what you can’t say, but a law that tells you what you must say — under threat of severe punishment — is even more unjust and dangerous.”
The ADF is considering appealing the ruling, which, as stated, could ultimately make it to the Supreme Court, but with Hillary as president, you know how the court will rule.
Do you want to facilitate this by helping to elect her to the highest office in the land? Do you want to be one of the people who helped empower her to be president?
This brings me to a major bill in California, SB 1146 which “would officially label private Christian colleges with Christian values, morality, and even dorm policies which conflict with the LGBT agenda as ‘discriminatory,’ and make the colleges liable to state (and federal) lawsuits as well as vicious attacks by activists. . . . The goal is to make Christian colleges surrender their belief systems and force the LGBT agenda onto every facet of education. California is the first state in the US to attempt this outrageous action. If it passes there, it will surely spread to other states.”
This is the exact kind of legislation that Hillary Clinton would promote and celebrate, fully backed by her handpicked Supreme Court justices.
This would also be harmony with her oft-quoted phrase that “gay rights are human rights,” and therefore any group or denomination or nation that opposes the goals of LGBT activism is guilty of opposing human rights. And let’s not forget the pressure Hillary Clinton put on African nations in her 2011 speech in which she made clear that nations across the continent would need to change their policies regarding homosexuality.
Not surprisingly, there was a major backlash to her speech, with John Nagenda, a senior adviser to Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni, stating, “Homosexuality here is taboo, it’s something anathema to Africans, and I can say that this idea of Clinton’s, of Obama’s, is something that will be seen as abhorrent in every country on the continent that I can think of.”
Can you imagine the kind of pressure Hillary Clinton would put on American Christians who remain opposed to same-sex “marriage” and LGBT activism in our children’s schools? After all, if she took it upon herself to tell sovereign African nations what to do, what would she seek to impose on her own country as president? And I haven’t even mentioned the open disdain expressed towards conservative Christians in her campaign’s recently released emails.
So I’ll say it again: Do not be deceived. We already know how a Hillary Clinton administration would view people like you and me.
I do understand that many of you cannot find it in yourself to vote for Donald Trump, but whatever you do, do not vote for Hillary Clinton, and please encourage your conservative Christian friends not to vote for her either. To do so is to hand her the tape to gag your mouths and the rope to fasten your hands.
You have been forewarned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)