A Vatican document released Tuesday blamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the occupying of lands for fomenting most of the conflicts in the Middle East, driving Christians out and making life difficult for those who remain. -Haaretz
Well, we could all figure that out. War is always horrible, and those who are caught in the middle are always driven out. The question becomes—who’s fault is the war?
It criticized the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, saying it had made life difficult both for daily life and religious life since access to holy places are restricted.
Citing both the Israeli-Palestinian and Iraqi conflicts, it said: “The solution to conflicts rests in the hands of the stronger country in its occupying and inflicting wars on another country.”
“Violence is in the hands of the strong and weak alike, the latter resorting to whatever violence is within reach in order to be free,” it said.
Israel, of course. Given Roman Catholicism’s strong dominist leanings, this isn’t much of a surprise, though. The existence of Israel has always been an embarrassment to the dominist, and, “your enemy is my enemy, even if you’re not my friend.” Victor David Hanson nails it.
The reality? Hating Israel as a unique aggressor is simply predicated on five unspoken truths: 1) rampant anti-Semitism (one can hate Jews by the loftier notion of being “anti-Zionist”; 2) fear of radical Islamic terrorists; there are apparently no radical Tibetans hijacking planes or blowing up Madrid train stations due to Spanish ties with communist China; 3) oil, oil, oil. The Cypriots cannot enlist the Greeks to withhold 500 billion barrels of oil in the Aegean from world markets. If such a fantasy were true, Nicosia would be on the front pages; 4) Israel is Western, like the U.S., and in a most un-Western neighborhood, so hating Israel is a mechanism of hating the U.S. on the cheap; 5) demography. If there were a billion-person Orthodox community energized by a half-billion Greek-speakers, we most certainly would wish to solve the “Cyprus crisis”.
Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve
John Remington Graham
This is an interesting and thorough single issue book about the causes and results of the American Civil War. The theme here is that the American Civil War was essentially agitated by the large banking interests in order to build a large Federal debt that could then be used to build a central bank, and hence control the US through it currency. The evidence presented runs along two lines; evidence that the US would have split peacefully if various people hadn’t intervened to make emotions run high, and evidence of the state of the US before and after the War. A lot of this is information I’d never seen before.
The case laid out by the book is generally forceful and interesting. In the end, I’m certain there were specific people who wanted the US Civil War in order to make money, and to build a strong central bank. I don’t believe it was the only reason for the Civil War, and I’m certain the course of events were really driven by a number of factors, so any “single issue” examination will be incomplete.
Reading this book will expose you to another entire view of the Civil War, and provide a new perspective. Whether or not the evidence presented supports the case the author makes in its entirety is something you’ll have to decide for yourself.
Al Gore become a multimillionaire railing about reducing our lifestyle in accord with the pseudoscience of his climate-change gurus? John Edwards built a mansion to better voice his sermons on “two nations”? From his estates, John Kerry limoed and jetted in Kennedy-fashion to warn us about a cruel jobless vision of George Bush’s America?
A zillionaire Gates family, that has ensured there will be no federal inheritance taxes on their $50 billion, lectures on the benefits of higher inheritance taxes; a speculating Soros expounds on capitalism’s sins; a billionaire, tax-savvy Buffet laments the too-low federal income tax; a multimillionaire, low-ratings Katie Couric bristles at Palinism as her network lays off hoi polloi. And on and on.
Yet rarely is voiced the common denominator. High Liberalism is now a psychological manifestation, by which the very rich, immune to both the realities of tough living and the hurt of high taxes, finds solace, self-worth, penance even, by sympathy for big government entitlement for the less fortunate whom they connive hourly to avoid. Prep schools are jammed with the children of those who damn charter schools and vouchers; environmentalism’s most articulate advocates of small is better live in ways undreamed by the masses they wish to rein in. The greatest advocates of public expenditure, whether a Rangel, Geithner, or Daschle, are quite busy ensuring that they themselves will not have to pay for it all.
The reality is the same thing that underlies liberalism’s psychological manifestation underlies the growing hatred of Israel and Jews: self-hatred. The soul that refuses to accept truth will love lies, and the soul that loves lies will love self-destruction.
Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And the LORD said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” -Genesis 18:23-26
Most of the commentaries I’ve ever read put this forward as a prime example of intercessory prayer; Abraham is praying for God to spare the city because of Lot, his nephew. Some commentaries even note there might have actually been ten people in Lot’s extended family, which is why Abraham stopped at ten righteous.
But two things have always puzzled me about this way of reading the story. First, if Abraham’s concern was for Lot, why didn’t he simply say so? He could have as easily asked God directly about the fate of Lot, rather than going through this process of asking about a decreasing number of righteous people. It’s possible, perhaps, that Abraham is no longer certain of the state of Lot’s soul by this point, and that he was afraid of asking directly, but this just doesn’t seem right within the context.
The second is God already knew He wouldn’t find even ten righteous in the city. Why allow Abraham to go through this line of questioning, if God already knew the answer? There must be a reason. It only deepens the mystery when we go back and read about God’s decision to tell Abraham about the destruction of the cities of the plain; we find God’s thinking isn’t centered around Lot at all.
The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” -Genesis 18:17-19
God is thinking about Abraham’s future, and the way he would teach his children, not Lot! If we consider all of this together, what appears to be going on here is God is using Sodom as an object lesson in justice for Abraham. If Abraham is going to teach is children justice, he needs to have an example of justice to learn from.
What is it God taught through this lesson to Abraham?
First, the world, at large, is not nearly as righteous as we might think. While Abraham was certain enough that there were ten righteous people in Sodom, he discovered there was not.
Second, someone who doesn’t appear to be righteous, or we might not think of as righteous, might actually be. We know Lot was considered righteous, because he is called righteous in the New Testament.
…he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard)… 2 Peter 2:7-8
We should not be so quick to judge between the righteous and the unrighteous in this world, for we don’t know which is which; only God does.
Third, God will always treat the righteous different from the unrighteous. The key here is to see the lesson in parallel with Job, and understand that the reward for being righteous is not always in this life, or always visible in a way we can understand. We can trust God to do just as Abraham asked, not to treat the righteous and the wicked alike; Sodom provides a visible example of the reality behind what we see.
After months of negotiation, a Jewish scholar from Odessa was granted permission to visit Moscow. He boarded the train and found an empty seat. At the next stop a young man got on and sat next to him.
The scholar looked at the young man and thought…
This fellow doesn’t look like a peasant, and if he isn’t a peasant he probably comes from this district. If he comes from this district, he must be Jewish because this is, after all, the Jewish district. On the other hand, if he is a Jew where could he be going? I’m the only one in our district who has permission to travel to Moscow.
Wait – just outside Moscow there is a little village called Samvet, and you don’t need special permission to go there. But why would he be going to Samvet? He’s probably going to visit one of the Jewish families there, but how many Jewish families are there in Samvet?
Only two – the Bernsteins and the Steinbergs. The Bernsteins are a terrible family, so he must be visiting the Steinbergs. But why is he going?
The Steinbergs have only girls, so maybe he’s their son-in-law. But if he is, then which daughter did he marry? Sarah married that nice lawyer from Budapest and Esther married a businessman from Zhadomir, so it must be Sarah’s husband.
Which means that his name is Alexander Cohen, if I’m not mistaken. But if he comes from Budapest, with all the anti-Semitism they have there, he must have changed his name. What’s the Hungarian equivalent of Cohen? Kovacs.
But if he changed his name he must have some special status. What could it be? A doctorate from the University.
At this point the scholar turns to the young man and said, “How do you do, Dr Kovacs?”
“Very well, thank you, sir” answered the startled passenger. “But how is it that you know my name?”
This is an odd pair of stories, but I think there is actually a connecting link between them.
Yet there is another, more subtle, factor that may attract men to Islam: traditional male roles are well preserved in the religion. This may appeal to Western men who find it difficult to assert their “masculinity” in what [...]
Narrative 23, the first of two parts on the Cities of the Plain in Genesis 19 is up for your perusal and study. This part contains various pictures of the area around Sodom, and discusses Genesis 19 up to the point where the Angels have had enough, and are about to destroy the Cities, just [...]
Mr. Sowell’s clarity is like a fresh wind in a desert; I’ll definitely read this book, just as I have all of his other writing. I would argue the problem he deals with here, “intellectuals,” is a problem in all of human life, not just government. It extends to the legal world, where we are [...]
“Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.” (Luke 21:36)
I believe the rapture of the church could happen at any moment, and that it will definitely happen before the Great [...]
A bunch of hollywood types are coming to a public school near you. And they aren’t there to help your kids adopt your values. Why am I not surprised?
Left-wing celebrities have teamed up with one of America’s most radical historians to take control of the classroom in the name of “social justice.” Parents, beware: This [...]
Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ
J. Ed Komoszewski, Robert M. Bowman
The entire premise of this book is to expand the proofs for the deity of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) from the Scriptures themselves. Given the Scriptures as being true and accurate accounts of His life, how can we [...]
.jpg)
Recent Comments