Matt 5:17-20

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Nine

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Ten

There are numerous books about the life and teachings of Mohammad so I will talk about him sparingly and limit myself to two very important points:

1) The Koran does not claim to be an alternative to the Bible but rather a sequel to the Bible. This little known fact seems lost in a sea of ignorant discussion today. Islam claims that in addition to the Koran, both the Old and New Testament are the word of God.¹ Jesus is described in the Koran as a holy prophet but not an incarnation of God Himself.² The test for a prophet in the Old Testament is that he must be accurate in everything he teaches (Deut. 18:22). Jesus taught that He was God (John 14). If Jesus was lying, He was not a prophet, but Islam claims He was a prophet. If Jesus was telling the truth, then He is God. But Islam claims He wasn’t God. Either way, we have a rather serious contradiction. A matter of theology to be sure and this series is concerned more with the morality of Islam than the doctrine of Islam but the lofty claims of the Koran and subsequent contradictions to the Bible are worth noting, especially from a book that influences so many lives around the world.

2) People often defend Islam by suggesting the violent verses of the Koran are being taken out of context. Well, yes, human beings certainly are notorious for taking statements out of context. In fact, the Bible, itself is misquoted quite frequently. For this reason I am sympathetic to the question of context. But sympathy doesn’t make us the victims of a hanging question without an answer. The correct context to any literature is the author himself. What the author originally meant to say and what his readers originally understood him to mean is the correct interpretation of any writing. Now, Mohammad did not write the Koran. He recited it and his followers wrote the words down after his death. If we want to question whether or not Mohammad intended his recitations about waging war to be taken literally, we have only to look at his life. Mohammad not only talked about violence in the name of religion, he declared war in the name of religion! This settles the question of context.

It is true that many verses in the Koran also talk about making peace. This is because Mohammad was originally hoping to spread his new movement peacefully. When this did not happen, when not everyone found the words as soothing and as spell binding as he had anticipated, when he found that he needed to conquer places like Mecca by force, and that this was the only way he would get individuals to accept Islam, Mohammad suddenly received new revelations from Allah and by an amazing coincidence these new teachings not only condoned force but commanded Jihad. Jihad refers specifically to the forceful spreading of Islam.

And so, when people try to change the subject by ignoring the war like verses of the Koran and instead bring up the peaceful verses, it should be immediately pointed out that these contradictory teachings exist side by side because Mohammad tried to spread his religion in contradictory ways.

And now we will take an honest look at the commands of the Koran:

“Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to unbelievers but merciful to one another.” Surah 48

I’d say those words are fairly clear, wouldn’t you? But wait! There’s more! Here’s what the Koran says about the Jews:

"The most implacable of men are the Jews and the pagans" Surah 5

Those words were first spoken in the 600’s. They have nothng to do with Irsael’s “illegal occupation of the West Bank” in 1967.

The Koran also forbids friendship with Jews or Christians.

“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship will become one of their number. God does not guide the wrong doers.” Surah 5

And here is the Jihad command itself. Note: Infidel is defined in the Koran as anyone who refuses the teachings of Mohammad.

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you...Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home ....They uttered the word of unbelief and renounced Islam after embracing it.” Surah 9

Back to the subject at hand: The Arabs resent Israel because they resent a non-Muslim country in the Middle East. Americans once recognized this. So did many other countries of the world. But such a successful P.R. campaign has been ignited against Israel, that today people are believing lies about boarders and separate states and refugees. In fact, these excuses were made up for useful idiots. I do not intend these words as a derogatory phrase. Useful idiot is an actual term coined for those who unwittingly assist an agenda because they do not understand the agenda and instead are listening to propaganda.

One of the reasons we have so many “useful idiots” in America today is because of Post Modernism. Post Modernism has been influencing our universities for many decades now with its ideas of moral relativism.

It is next to impossible in a university environment to call Islam evil, to or to call any movement evil.

This leads to our next true/ false question.

True or False: The events of 9-11 have led Americans to the conclusion that Islam is dangerous.

ANSWER: False:

Oh sure, for a while after 9-11, schools were returning to prayer and universities were even asking Christian campus ministers to lead memorial services. It lasted about five minutes. And in time, for some reason, Islam to come out smelling like a rose.

In public schools, a new common tradition has kids participating in “dress up like a Muslim day”. Interesting how we never heard of this educational/cultural experience before planes were rammed into the World Trade Center. But now it’s a reoccurring part of the school curriculum. Can you just imagine if we tried that with Christianity? “Hey kids. Everybody wear a cross tomorrow. It’s just for education’s sake.” The ACLU would be over there so fast it would make your heads swim!

As for universities? They are more puzzling than an episode of The Twilight Zone. College professors derail Christianity at every opportunity. But everything they hate about the Bible, and I mean EVERYTHING THEY HATE ABOUT THE BIBLE is also found in the Koran. What religious doctrines do college students absolutely despise today? Hell? The Koran talks about hell. In fact, The Koran describes hell more graphically than the Bible does. How about the role of women in religion or the submission of women to men in religion? The Bible is often accused of chauvinism, falsely I should say, and yet the Koran really does say demeaning things about women.

“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them.” Surah 4

I would think today’s feminist organizations would be up in arms over Islam’s treatment of women. 80 percent of Arab women believe wife beating is both routine and normal. (“Have we Been Beaten By Our Wives Today?” Jerusalem Post Aug 30, 1991)

Phyllis Chesler, author of the book, The Death Of Feminism came on my radio show as a guest. During this fascinating interview, she shared about her unsuccessful attempts to get leading feminists to denounce the treatment of women at the hands of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, What Miss Chesler discovered was that liberals were more afraid of perception than reality. They did not want to be perceived as being Pro-Bush and this somehow meant that they could not criticize Islam.

Let me put this as straight as I possibly can. If feminists cannot recognize that women are being demeaned and persecuted in Muslim countries more than anywhere else on earth, they should give up the cause. Has feminism been reduced only to a movement about the right to an abortion or the right to be a lesbian? Do feminists not care when young girls get their fingers cut off for refusing to wear certain coverings? Is it not a human rights issue when women, after being raped, are then murdered by their own families as “honor killings”, because they were seen in public with men, even in the so called peaceful Muslim countries like Jordan?

Are you catching on? Islam has become a Politically Correct religion. Post-Modernism has crippled our nation morally. It has left a large, moral vacuum. Vacuums always get filled. If you don’t fight for your standard of morality, somebody else is going to come along who will push theirs. Paradoxically, when discussing Christianity or the Republican Party or George Bush, college professors are quite willing to use words like evil. But in another context, the response is always, “Who are we to judge? Maybe Osama Bin Ladin’s mother never bought him a sled when he was a kid.”

How can we call Islam evil if there is not such thing as evil?

I had a chance to visit Ground Zero (formally the World Trade Center) practically one month to the day after 9/11. The smoke was still coming up out of the ground and workmen were pulling up debris all through the night. A husband and wife from California began talking to me from behind the fence where a few of us “spectators” were standing. This couple had a friend who had been at work in one of the towers that fateful day. She was now dead. I’ll never forget what the woman said to me. “I’m just trying to understand why they hate us so much.”

“Maybe they are just evil and they enjoy hating,” I replied.

The expression on her face was one of astonishment. Clearly I had given the wrong answer. It must have been something we did. It was our oil policy or something. Nobody could be this evil simply for evil’s sake.

We are at war, people! They do not merely object to Israel’s existence. They object to our existence too. If the war was only about armies and weapons we would win in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, this is also a war of ideas and on that front, we are losing hands down! If we are incapable of calling anything evil (besides George Bush) how will we recognize evil? This is why so many people are quick to reconsider whether the Holocaust really happened. The idea of a civilized nation calmly sitting down and planning the death of an entire race is inconceivable.

What I am saying is this: Post Modern America has tilled the ground, making it ripe for a religion which seeks to expand and conquer. It makes the terrorist’s job easier! Although their philosophies are different as night and day, Islam and Post-Modernism are involved in a strange, dangerous partnership, a partnership unconscious to the gullible Post-Modernist, a partnership being exploited by Muslim fanatics.

Liberals will read an article like mine and immediately dismiss it as being paranoid and Islamophobic. (a new Politically Correct word, invented by Muslims who take their cue from Post-Modernism, because they see "useful idiots" using similar terms).

Interestingly enough, the last time Al-Queda sent a letter to the United States, it said, “Americans. Be on notice. Convert to Islam or die.”
It did not say, “Gee, you liberal Americans. We really appreciate your attempts to understand us.” No, the letter was speaking to all Americans, even the Liberals. You see, Liberals keep defending the terrorists by explaining what they really want and how we could understand them better if we would only sit down and talk to them. I take a rather old fashioned approach myself and allow the terrorists to simply speak for themselves. They say if you let an evil person talk long enough, sooner or later he will explain exactly what he plans to do.

Read Part Twelve in tomorrow’s blog.

Footnotes:

1) See Koran 2:174-77, 5:44-7, 65-70, 10:35-9.

2) ) See Koran, 5:70-74, 4:171-73.

Bibliography

1) From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters

2) The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Middle East

Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D

3) Philistine, by Ramon Bennett.

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Twelve

Tags: faith and family

Email It |

Print It |

Trackbacks (0) |

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Ten

Posted by Bob Siegel on Friday, March 14, 2008 12:26:42 AM

NOTE: This is Part Ten of a series. For your convenience, the first nine parts are linked below, followed by today's article.

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part One

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Two

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Three

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Nine

True or false: Arab nations only object to America because of its support of Israel.

ANSWER: False!

Have you ever witnessed a Middle East chant? The crowds shout, “First we will fight the Saturday people, then we will fight the Sunday people!”

Jerusalem Prophecy Digest Vol 19

“Saturday people” refers to the Jews with Saturday being an obvious reference to the Jewish Sabbath. Sunday, of course, points to the Christian community, the day they attend church, commemorating the resurrection of Jesus.

The Muslim world does not hate America because of Israel. Indeed, the Muslim world hates us for the same reason it hates Israel and this reason, (if you’ll pardon me for speaking a painful truth) is Muslim.

You are now very prepared (over prepared) for the next section of our true/false quiz.

True of False: The Koran is a peaceful book, and its author, Mohammed, was a peaceful man.

ANSWER: False!

I know this smacks against the popular disclaimers of the day. I know we are supposed to say that Islam is actually a very peaceful religion and that only a handful of terrorists are misrepresenting the religion. May I make the most important suggestion you will ever hear? Stop worrying about what sounds Politically Correct and concern yourself a little more with what is going on in the world. Wake up, before it is too late!

After all, on what do we base the premise that Islam is a peaceful religion? Why do we keep repeating that statement as though it were true? I’ll tell you why. Because Muslims keep telling us how peaceful they are! That’s it! But they do not offer a shred of evidence. What Muslim government would we point to today as an example of human rights in action? And how many countries of alternative governments with large Muslim populations are getting along peacefully with their Muslim citizens? Maybe its time we pay less attention to what Muslims say and more attention to what they do!

The Arab world does not hate us because of Israel and the Arab world does not hate us because we want their oil. The Arab world hates us because they serve a hateful religion. Period!

The following quote is from Ramon Bennett (a Christian who lives in Israel, not a Jew or Arab. This quote is from the early 1990’s, long before 9/11. This brave writer tried in vain to warn a sleeping Western Civilization:

“I have expressed for a number of years my belief that Islam is the Western world’s most potentially dangerous enemy. Long before the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Communist ideology, I had said that communism did not nearly equal Islam’s threat to the west. I have repeatedly warned of what lies ahead unless definite steps are taken to curb the increasing momentum of fundamental Islam, but my warnings have thus far fallen upon deaf ears.”

(Philistine, Ramon Bennett, Pg. 42)

Undoubtedly you will want to tell me that there are millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. Indeed, you have met many of them. I believe you. I have met many peaceful Muslims as well. But this does not mean there is any such thing as a “moderate Muslim.” It means there is such a thing as a nominal Muslim. What is the difference? Just as there are people who consider themselves Christians, simply because they were born in America or have some kind of church background and just as these people have no real knowledge or understanding of Jesus Christ and His teachings, likewise there are literally millions of people who are born into Muslim countries, who would call themselves Muslims if you asked for their religious affiliation, but who, in reality, have no idea what the Koran actually teaches. On the other hand, one who genuinely understands the Koran realizes it leaves no room for moderation. I have interviewed many Muslim scholars on my radio show. Some of them are ex-Muslims and even ex-terrorists. Others were brought up in the Middle East and had a broad exposure to Islam. They will all tell you the same thing: One who understands the Koran understands the commands to conquer the world in the name of Islam. They are to offer people the choice of converting or dying. This is the destiny of their cause. This is the teaching of their prophet, Mohammad. If they say otherwise, one of two things is going on: They are lying (and they are actually taught that the ends may justify the means during a time of warfare) or they have not truly studied the Koran. When terrorists site the Koran, they are not “hijacking” a peaceful religion and they are not misquoting their scriptures. Neither are they pulling anything out of context. Instead, they are being brutally honest.

So yes, there are peaceful Muslims, many peaceful Muslims. But these are Muslims who understand Islam about as well as The World Council of Churches understands and obeys the Bible. In terms of honest, literary criticism, the terrorists are reading the Koran more honestly and more accurately than the nominal Muslims. In terms of safety and irony I am grateful that so many Muslims are in fact nominal.

I once shared the gospel with a nominal Muslim from Saudi Arabia. I met him at Cal State Stanislaus. He was there as an exchange student. Eager to learn more about the Bible and wanting to give his life to Jesus, he still took Jesus’ command to count the cost very seriously. I’ll never forget the words of this brave young man. “You need to understand. If I become a Christian and return home and if it is discovered that I am a Christian, they will cut my head off, literally!”

He did become a Christian and he did return to Saudi Arabia, our “allies,” that “peaceful Muslim country” that “helps us” in the war on terror. I do not know what ever became of my friend.

I have met many such Muslims who hunger and thirst for God, who want to live in peace like so many others. I have no quarrel with them. In fact, they have my respect. But saying that I have met peaceful Muslims is not the same as saying that Islam is a religion of peace and this is a very important distinction to make.

When a religion has a body of scripture, it is actually quite simple to determine the religion’s teaching. To settle this question, we must look to the source, the Koran itself.

Read Part Eleven in tomorrow’s blog:

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Eleven

Bibliography

1) From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters

2) The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Middle East

Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D

3) Philistine, by Ramon Bennett.

Also From Bob Siegel

Jihad Drill

How a Reformed Jew Became an Evangelical Christian Part One

How a Reformed Jew Became an Evangelical Christian Part Two

How A Reformed Jew Became an Evangelical Christian Part Three

How a Reformed Jew Became an Evangelical Christian Part Four

How a Reformed Jew Became an Evangelical Christian Part Five

The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the Internet.

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Trackbacks (1) |

Would Obama's Christianity Be Recognized by Jesus?

Actually, Al Gore Did Not Win the Popular Vote

Posted by Bob Siegel on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:02:30 PM

I won’t predict which party will win in November, but I will predict this: If the Democrats lose they will claim that the Republicans stole the election. Why not? It worked in 2000 so they tried it again in 2004. In fact, pamphlets about how to claim voter fraud were handed out by the Dems in 2004 prior to Election Day! Say what you want about the Democrats, they know how to plan ahead.

Perhaps this would be an appropriate moment for us to catch our breath and review what actually happened in 2000, since it’s used as the proto-type to voter fraud debates and, (like many historical precedents) it is based upon mythology.

Myth One: Bush stole the election by going to court.

Not so! Bush won the Florida election every way it was counted. It was Gore who first brought the matter to the courts and it was the Florida State Supreme Court who ordered a new recount (a recount that was only going to count certain districts) The United States Supreme Court overturned the Florida ruling. The liberal press loves to talk about the “conservative” Supreme Court which took Bush’s side but we hear little about the Democratic Florida Supreme Court that was taking Gore’s side.

Myth Two: Al Gore won the popular vote.

People love to alter the premise of an argument right in the middle of a debate. Once it is pointed out that Gore, not Bush, brought the election before the courts, they switch gears and talk about how it doesn’t really matter, because Gore won the popular vote anyway. Let’s put aside the fact that this is irrelevant, since we live in a country where elections are decided by the Electoral College and not the populous. Let’s also put aside the fact that Democratic publicists, prior to the election, were fearful that the situation would be reversed, that George Bush would win the popular vote, and lose the Electoral College. Anticipating this scenario, they went out of their way to remind us that the Electoral College was a “time honored tradition.” Putting all this aside, the truth is, Al Gore did not actually win the popular vote!

Now, some of you are saying, “Bob, what are you talking about? Of course Gore won the popular vote.”

No, he didn’t. Not really. Let me tell you why. Because, we weren’t taking a popular vote! We were participating in an Electoral College vote. Oh sure, in any such election, we can read the popular statistics that go along with each state. But this is nothing but a shadow, debris left over from the Electoral College. Let me explain: Nobody entered that election thinking of it as a popular vote because we knew the results would be tallied differently. Since we did not think of it as a popular vote, a true popular vote was never taken. For example, a Republican living in California pretty much knew that Gore would win California. No matter how many popular votes went toward Bush, Gore would still get more and thus gain ALL of the Electoral College votes. For this reason, many Republicans figured that at the end of the day, their vote would not really count for much. If there was the slightest inconvenience in getting to the polls, they probably said, “The heck with it. What’s the point?”

Likewise, a Republican living in Texas, knew that Bush would take Texas. If he was unable to make it to the poll with ease, there was little to worry about. Bush was going to win without his help so why sweat it? You see, state by state we knew it was “winner takes all.” But if the country had been told that we were going by the popular vote alone, far more people would have voted. Whether you lived in a Democratic state or a Republican state, you would have known that your vote could be much more important.

Face it. Gore did not win the popular vote because we did not agree as a country to take a popular vote. Yes, there was a popular vote of sorts that mirrored the Electoral College and yes, Gore won that, but had we been told that the popular vote was going to be the vote that counted, who knows how it would have gone? I’m not saying Bush would have won. I’m just saying, we’ll never know. So we may as well forget all this nonsense about how Gore “truly won” and just stick to the rules we all agreed to ahead of time.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious obvious.

Also from Bob Siegel:

The Barak Obama Quiz
Obama: Good Words Indeed, But...
Updated Republican Manifesto: Advise to John McCain That Can Save the Republican Party

Politically Correct Quiz

Jihad Drill

The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the Internet.

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Nine

Posted by Bob Siegel on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:09:44 PM

NOTE: This is Part Nine of a series. For your convenience, the first eight parts are linked below, followed by today's article.

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part One

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Two

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Three

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Ten

The PLO was chased out of Jordan in 1970, from Lebanon in 1982 and from Syria in 1985. During this turbulent period, they murdered literally tens of thousands of people!

Evans and Novak interviewed a Lebanese doctor whose farm had been seized by the PLO and transformed into a military outpost. According to this report, the PLO would invade apartment complexes, removing the inhabitants to make room for the storage of ammunition and explosives. Fathers were shot in front of their own families. This was followed by the routine, ongoing rape of innocent females. 100,000 such rapes are estimated but it may have been as many as 300,000.

Lebanese surgeon Dr. Khalil Torbey said:

“I treated men whose testicles had been cut off in torture sessions. I saw like men dragged through the streets by fast moving cares to which they were tied by their feet. I know of cases of people being thrown into acid tanks and reduced to unrecognizable masses of porous bone. Many young girls came to me for abortions after being raped by PLO gangsters.”¹

^{Professor Augustus H. Strong shares a harrowing tale:}

“The PLO killed Susan’s father and brother and raped her mother who suffered a hemorrhage and died. They raped Susan many times, cut off her breasts and shot her. Later found without her 4 limbs. So battered had to be amputated. Now she has only the upper part of one arm.” (Quoted by Professor Augustus H. Strong in Morey The Islamic Invasion)

How did the world chose to deal with Yasser Arafat, the murderer and rapist? By awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize. After all he shook hands once with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzuk Rabin. In fact, Arafat has denounced terrorism many times. Here is an example of how he used to call for “peace.”

“I as Chairman of Palestine Liberation Organization hereby once more declare that I condemn terrorism in all its forms.”

Sounds great so far. Unfortunately, he went on to say;

“I also offer a reverent salute to the martyrs who have fallen at the hand of terrorism and terrorists, foremost among whom is my lifelong companion and deputy, the martyr symbol Khalili-al-Wazir (Abu-Jihad who planned and directed some of the words massacres of Israeli citizens.) ²

Get it? Terrorism was defined by this weasel as what Israel had done to the PLO, not what the PLO had done to Israel.

One of today’s tired Politically Correct phrases says, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

How clever! Wow! Yeah, I get men like George Washington confused with Yasser Arafat all the time! Unfortunately, these mindless sayings are quite effective if repeated often enough.

Read Part Ten in tomorrow’s blog.

Footnotes:

1) Philistine, Ramon Bennett pg 77

2) Philistine, Ramon Bennett, Pg 89

Bibliography

1) From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters

2) The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Middle East

Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D

3) Philistine, by Ramon Bennett.

Also From Bob Siegel

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Trackbacks (1) |

The Barak Obama Quiz
Obama: Good Words Indeed, But...
Updated Republican Manifesto: Advise to John McCain That Can Save the Republican Party

History is Written By the Victors? Give Me a Break

Posted by Bob Siegel on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:26:45 PM

I have another tired but popular Politically Correct phrase to retire: History is written by the victors. I generally hear this repeated by college students. They say it with a smug looking arrogant smile. But the smile slowly disappears when I suggest they are merely repeating something they heard from one of their instructors and chances are they never investigated this peculair notion on their own.

The idea is that victors whitewash their history and never say anything negative about the courses of action chosen by their own country.

Let's take an example from Roman history. We have the Roman version. We also have the Greek version, writers who lived under Roman suppression. We have the Jewish version, Jewish historians such as Josephus and Philo who were able to tell us how their people "enjoyed" being conquered by Rome and paying taxes to Rome. We have the writings of the Christians who were persecuted for centuries under the Romans. We have the writings of Roman cynics and satirists (Seneca, for example) who were very critical of Rome. Face facts! One couldn't ask for a more comprehensive record of ancient Rome from the widest variety of opinions and perspectives.

What about the history of ancient Israel? Have you ever read the Old Testament? You could not find a stronger condemnation of Israel's sin. The only problem is these scriptures were written by Jews, Jews who were being painfully honest.

And for those of you who think you know of a history that has been unfairly changed, I have a simple question for you. How exactly do you know it's been changed? Is it because you know of another people who wrote an alternative record? Well, if that is the case you just threw out your first argument, did you not? If there is more than one version, then the history was not entirely written by the victors, was it?

You see, there is an agenda behind this nutty and unscholarly idea. The agenda is that people want to re-write American History primarily and the wider Western History secondarily. It is part of the Politically Correct onslaught to make us feel bad about our own culture. America is to be painted as nothing but a slave trading, Native American slaughtering nation. I have even heard students say things like,"If the Germans had won World War Two, we'd have a whole different version of who was right, America or Germany."

Are you catching the horror here? We have a new generation that doesn't even know how to critique the Nazis, these same Nazis who actually confessed to their atrocities at the Nuremberg Trials (Oh, that's right. You'd have to know something about history to be aware of that little confession.)

When I grew up, I did not hear about a perfect America. I heard about an America that was guilty of many things. I also heard that we were a people with great ideas and a wonderful constitution who in time alligned our practices with our founding document. I did not learn that Thomas Jefferson was a saint but neither did I learn that he was a devil because he owned slaves. I learned that he was a man who wrestled with his own skeletons as any of us do, a man who hated slavery but found it difficult to simply release every slave without his plantation collapsing financially. But he hated himself for putting money ahead of people and he lived as a tortured human being.

I also learned that the problem of human nature, is a universal problem, not a uniquely American problem.

I once spoke with a college student, telling him about a quote I had read from a Cherokee. This quote was pre-Revolutionary War and the honest Cherokee admited that violence was the nature of the tribe, that if conflicts did not exist with other people, they would need to go out and invent some kind of conflict to satisfy their natures. The student immediately dismissed the quote. He did not even want to hear the source. If it said something against Native Americans, if it said something contrary to what he had learned in college, he was simply uninterested.

"We cannot live without war. Should we make peace with Tuscarous we must immediately look out for some other nation with whom we can engage in our beloved occupation." ( A Penguin History of the United States 54 early 18th century)

No, it is not true that history is written by the victors. It is true that history is being re-written by a bunch of anti-American, Politically Correct Marxists who deny the ability to know truth in one breath and teach new truth from the other side of their mouths at the exact same time.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Also from Bob Siegel:

Would Obama's Christianity Be Recognized by Jesus?

The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the Internet.

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Eight

Posted by Bob Siegel on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:38:19 AM

NOTE: This is Part Eight of a series. For your convenience, the first seven parts are linked below, followed by today's article.

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part One

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Two

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Three

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Nine

True or False: Israel is illegally occupying many Arab lands today.

Answer: False:

In 1967, 9 different nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq), declared war on Israel and promised to exterminate every Jew.

“Egypt is ready to plunge into a total war that will be the end of Israel.” (Radio Cairo, May 17, 1967)

Surprising the world with a preemptive strike, Israel defeated the Arabs in just six days. At that time, their territory was expanded to the West Bank, The Golan Heights, The Gaza Strip and the Sinai. This territory is frequently referred to as a part of Israel’s “illegal occupation.” I tend to hate that term and I argue against it for the following reasons:

1) When we think of occupying countries, what usually comes to mind is an aggressive empire seeking to conquer and expand, not a tiny little nation that expanded its boarders only as a means of survival, to prevent her untrustworthy neighbors from attacking again.

2) Most of this land had been legally offered to Israel in the Balfar Declaration anyway, before Great Britain sold it behind Israel’s back.

3) Historically, the land had been the home of the Jews for literally thousands of years.

4) The United Nations has become so corrupt, I no longer accept their standard as to what is legal or illegal.

True or False: The PLO was created only to take back what Israel stole, not to annihilate Israel.

ANSWER: False

First of all, the PLO was created, not by a Palestinian, but by Egyptian President Nasser who shamelessly admitted that its goal was the “Liquidation of Israel.” The PLO was founded in 1964. Israel’s “occupation” followed the Six Day War in 1967. You can do the math, can’t you?

Of course, the most well known name in association with the PLO is Yasser Arafat. He was not a Palestinian either. Arafat was born in Cairo in1929

His Grandfather Mahmoud –Al-Hussein was cousin to JajAh.Hussein Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, friend of Adolph Hitler and Nazi operator during WWII.

Concerning the Jews, Arafat said, “Surely the judgment of Allah is reserved for them until Palestine is transformed from the House of War to the House of Islam.”

Arafat and his friends basically created modern day terrorism, as we know it. In 1951, Arafat joined the Moslem Brotherhood which later assassinated Anwar Saddat for signing a peace treaty with Israel. In 1957, after the Moslem Brotherhood was outlawed, Arafat fled Egypt and made his way to Kuwait in order to avoid arrest.

In 1969, Arafat became chairman of PLO Fatah and other PLO splinter groups that executed hundreds of attacks around the world. Before I describe his exploits in detail, let me give a warning: If you have a weak stomach, you may not want to read on.

Read Part Nine in tomorrow’s blog.

Bibliography

1) From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters

2) The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Middle East

Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D

3) Philistine, by Ramon Bennett.

Also From Bob Siegel

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Trackbacks (0) |

The Barak Obama Quiz
Obama: Good Words Indeed, But...
Updated Republican Manifesto: Advise to John McCain That Can Save the Republican Party

The Day The Constitution Became Unconstitutional

Posted by Bob Siegel on Friday, March 07, 2008 10:14:55 PM

Home Schooling in California was just made against the law for all intents and purposes. How? Why? Because some new legislation was passed? Because some ballot measure was actually voted on by the people of California through that vanishing practice, once called, Democracy? Nope. Wrong on both accounts. A judge made the ruling. It seems some abusive parents were brought to his attention. Rather then simply punish the abusive parents; he noted that they were also home schooling their children. Are you following the logic so far? Since one home schooling family proved to be abusive, that must mean they all are. Of course Judge Soloman The Wise must have forgotten how many public school teachers have been arrested for abuse. Nobody ever suggested that we close down all public schools as a result. But now, parents are not allowed to educate their own children without teaching credentials. Never mind that Home Schooled children test better than public school children, on national scores. They still need parents with that magic teaching credential. Oh, and the last time we checked, the new laws forbidding hate speech in the public school system, will see to it that nobody gets a teaching credential unless they subscribe to multi-culturalism and sensitivity training. Translation: The government has found a way to make sure your children accept homosexuality. You see, it’s always that same old skunk underneath. The Militant Gay Agenda is just livid that any corner of the world exists that speaks against their lifestyle. They and their activist judge advocates have been looking for an excuse to go after Home Schools and they finally found one. All in the name of tolerance, of course.

Oh, I saved the best for last. The judge ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not give parents the right to educate their own children. Exactly where the constitution gives the state that right, he failed to mention. You see, these egotistical judges think the rest of us are all so stupid, with our religious superstitions, they know what our kids need better than we do. But I don’t suggest they are anti-religion. After all, they think they’re God. I suppose we could get together and try to stop this ruling by adding a new amendment to the California Constitution. But truthfully? It wouldn’t matter. After the amendment was ratified, a judge would rule the new constitution to be unconstitutional.

Also from Bob Siegel:

Would Obama's Christianity Be Recognized by Jesus?

The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the Internet.

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (2) |

Trackbacks (0) |

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part One

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Two

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Three

The Best Way Bush Can Help Israel Is To Stop Helping Israel

Posted by Bob Siegel on Friday, March 07, 2008 10:08:22 PM

Another terrorist attack in Israel. This time, 8 innocent students at a Jewish seminary were mercilessly shot to death by a couple of Arabs. Pouring salt in the wound, the snake organization Hamas has proudly claimed responsibility for the shooting. You know, the same Hamas that was elected by the Palestinians! Here’s that wonderful Bush doctrine in action: If countries of the Middle East could only get a taste for Democracy, that will destroy the attraction of terror for sure. Unfortunately, Democracy does nothing to do away with pure hatred and scorpion style evil. Nether does appeasement. There have been grand celebrations on the streets of Gaza, the same Gaza where missiles have been fired into Israel almost every day since the Jews turned the land over to the “poor persecuted Palestinians who wanted nothing more than a state of their own.”

How is the world supposed to respond to this? Like the United Nations? Pretending for a minute that it would even matter to anybody in the world if the United Nations actually condemned this act of treachery and cowardice, the motion for such a condemnation was blocked by Libya, a dictator run country that heads the U.N. Security Council. Not that wicked nations have always held this place of honor. Don’t forget, Syria was once the head of the Security Council too.

I suppose another response is to simply throw up our arms, praying for the families and lamenting the tragedy. Well, I’ll tell you, if we’re going to keep accepting tragedies maybe the term, tragedy should be more properly defined. Horrible as these killings were, the killings themselves are not the greatest tragedy. Neither is the U.N.’s failure to respond, the greatest tragedy. Neither are the Palestinian celebrations the greatest tragedy. The greatest tragedy is that America will insist Israel continue to make deals with these people. Everybody knows full well the Palestinians will never accept Israel’s right to exist. Everybody knows full well that terrorist attacks will continue one day after Israel signs any new peace treaty. We know that will happen like we know the sun comes up every morning. And still we make stupid demands of Israel. Oh sure, I can expect such whimpering from Jimmy Carter, that narcissistic, anti-Semite, whose policies appease terror the way a battered wife enables her abusive husband every time she drops the charges against him. But we expect better from George Bush . We expect him to do more than force Israel to do the very thing he vowed he would never do, make deals with terrorists or countries who harbor terrorists. If Israel refuses, she loses the good favor of the United States. She also loses the high opinion of the world (like she ever really had it in the first place). If Israel does not continue talks with the Palestinians, she will be accused of “obstructing the peace process.” The Palestinians will be accused of nothing, absolutely nothing. You see, murdering people is not enough for world condemnation. Giving up on peace? Well, there's plenty of condemnation for that!

My advice to Israel: Just do what you have to do. Do what you need to do. Do what is right. The world will hate you no matter what action you take and the Arabs will try to kill you no matter how much flowery talk you participate in with our State Department. You may as well just do what’s right.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Also from Bob Siegel:

The Barak Obama Quiz
Obama: Good Words Indeed, But...
Updated Republican Manifesto: Advise to John McCain That Can Save the Republican Party

AND:

Would Obama's Christianity Be Recognized by Jesus?

The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the Internet.

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

The Barak Obama Quiz
Obama: Good Words Indeed, But...
Updated Republican Manifesto: Advise to John McCain That Can Save the Republican Party

Who Says There Have Been No Attacks In America Since 9/11?

Posted by Bob Siegel on Thursday, March 06, 2008 6:50:15 PM

On my radio program, I have defended Bush as often as I have criticized him. When it comes to our boarders and when it comes to settling the Israeli/Palestinian issue, he has been abysmal. I have also protested our administration’s policy of tying U.S. soldiers’ hands behind their backs and making them fight a Politically Correct war.

But I am always one to give credit where credit is due. When people tell me that Bush has kept our country safe (that is, safe within our own boarders) from new Al Queda attacks, I must agree and I must congratulate him on a job well done, especially since he has accomplished as much despite our lunatic, self interested, grandstanding, Democratic Congress who would care about doing the right thing only after polls and focus groups reported that integrity had become fashionable.

Still, at the risk of sounding unappreciative, I must point out, that even though we have not been attacked on our shores by Al Queda, we have been attacked! No, the perpetrators did not belong to any formal terrorist groups but such non-membership status is of little comfort to the families of their victims. Oh, by the way: Isolated, as these events seemed to be, there was one unifying factor: They were all Muslims. I know. I know. Islam is really a religion of peace. That phrase has become so obligatory; people practically repeat it in their sleep. It deserves a place in literature, right next to: “Come and see the Emperor’s fantastic new clothes!”

How soon we forget. Right after 9/11 a Muslim flew a small plane into a building in Florida. A Muslim also shot several people at Israel’s LAX terminal. Oh, and the snipers on the east coast who killed 13 people and terrorized the nation over a period of several weeks? Remember how fun that was? And the kid who tried to run people over with his car on a college campus? And the other kid who tried to blow people up at a Penn State football game? How about the shootings at a Jewish pre-school? Oh yeah. I almost forgot about a recent one: The cab driver who murdered his own daughter as an honor killing.

Look, I’m not blaming Bush for every act of evil. He isn’t God and he has kept us as safe as he possibly can (if we mercifully ignore his loose boarder policy). But I do think we should call things as they are. Attacks against Americans in the name of Islam have continued and continued on our own soil. We need to admit this is going on. We are at war! It is not a war against terror. That is too broad of a phrase. It sounds like the war on drugs. It’s an absolutely useless term. Neither are we at war with Al Queda. That phrase is too specific. We are at war with Islamo-Fascists. No, not all Muslims but the peaceful ones are doing a sad job of correcting their reputation and I am getting tired of issuing such a disclaimer every time the subject comes up. Not all Germans were Nazi’s either but during World War Two, guess who we were at war with? That’s right, Germany. And today, our war is with Islam. Call it Militant Islam if it helps you sleep better at night. For me, I would sleep better if we could just call things as they truly are. After all, no country ever won a war without first agreeing on who the enemy was. As Europe finds ways to appease Muslims by instituting Sharia Law, maybe we should be a little more vigilant about protecting our homeland while there is still time, while it is still against the law to murder in America, despite terms like “honor.”

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Also from Bob Siegel:

Would Obama's Christianity Be Recognized by Jesus?

The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the Internet.

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Seven

Posted by Bob Siegel on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:03:55 PM

NOTE: This is Part Seven of a series. For your convenience, the first six parts are linked below, followed by today's article.

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part One

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Two

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Three

Some 5-7000 Jews lived in Palestine under the Ottoman Empire before the British took over.

Prior to the first major wave of Jewish immigration in 1882, only 250,000 Arabs lived in the area and the majority of them were fairly new arrivals themselves.

Between the First and Second World War, the Jewish population increased by 375,000 and the Arab population by 380,000.

After the partition vote from the United Nations, Israel declared its Independence on May 14, 1948. One day later, five Arab armies invaded Israel from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

Jews pleaded with Palestinian Arabs to remain in their homes. Although many of the Arabs did flee or join the invading armies, a considerable portion of Arabs remained in Israel. This interesting fact is seldom discussed. About 300,000 Arabs fled Israel and about 160,000 remained. Today Israel still contains a vital Arab population and these Arabs have more rights in Israel than any other Arab in any Arab country! In fact, shortly before Yassir Arafat’s death, when there was talk (once again) under the Bush administration, of a “separate Palestinian state” the Arab citizens in Israel were asked if they wanted to move, renouncing their Israeli citizenship, and live in the Palestine sector. Guess what they decided! Some of them probably fell on the floor laughing before saying to the Israeli government, “Oh, I’m sorry. You were serious.”

In 1948, when Israel beat the odds and defeated five invading nations, the problem of refugees came up. We always hear about the Arab refugees from Israel. But they were not the only refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands too. All of the Jewish refugees were welcomed into Israel where as Arabs who wanted to resettle in Arab countries were (for the most part) denied admission. Jordan was an exception but even in Jordan most of the refugees were confined to camps. They lived in that condition all the way up to 1967, when Israel annexed Jordan’s West Bank. Prior to 1967 there was no significant ongoing discussion amongst the countries of the world regarding Jordan’s treatment of the “poor Palestinians.”

On December 11, 1948, the United Nations drafted and ratified Resolution 194. This was a call for the Arab states and Israel to resolve the refugee/resettlement issues but the condition was that all returning citizens would agree to live in peace. Receiving no such guarantee from the Arabs, Israel decided to postpone repatriation until her neighbors would recognize her right to exist.

Although as a general rule, the Arab refugees left Israel on their own, there are always exceptions to the rule during times of war and there were a few (extremely few) cases of Arabs being forced out of their homes by the Israelis. Some of this is understandable since most Arabs were siding with five nations that vowed to annihilate every last Jew. One such case is the forced evacuation of the village, Biram. But even in this situation, the Arabs relocated to a nearby village and they did remain in the country of Israel where they reside to this day. Recently, the Israeli government has taken a more sympathetic interest to their complaint and a positive solution may still be in the horizon.

But such rare occurrences must not cause us to ignore the fact that most of the Arabs who chose to remain in Israel were never forced to leave. They became citizens with full rights and privileges!

Nevertheless, the world was about to be deceived by the most brilliant, most sinister, most destructive historical revision to ever surface on our planet. Realizing that they were unable to win a real war against Israel, the Arabs waged the war of public opinion instead. The pawns? Arab refugees soon to be re-named “Palestinian refugees.” And the leader of their cause would be a man who was not even born in Palestine.

Don’t miss Part Eight in tomorrow’s blog.

Bibliography

1) From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters

2) The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Middle East

Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D

3) Philistine, by Ramon Bennett.

Also From Bob Siegel

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Trackbacks (3) |

Does the Bible Really Speak About the Future?

Would Obama's Christianity Be Recognized by Jesus?

Posted by Bob Siegel on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 3:30:12 PM

It’s time to stop all this nutty talk about whether or not Obama is truly a Muslim. He says he isn’t and I take him at his word.

But the religious discussion is far from over. When Obama says he is a Christian we must carefully ask, “Exactly what does that mean?” After all, Christianity has been around for over two-thousand years. Many different kinds of denominations, movements and cults have taken on the name, Christianity. In some of these organizations, the doctrine does not even remotely resemble the teachings of the Bible. And so, when Barak Obama says he is a Christian, I humbly ask, “What kind of Christian?”

This has been a fair question for quite some time in as much as Obama attends Trinity United Church of Christ, a congregation that teaches black supremacy, displaying the kind of racism that not only smacks in the face of Jesus but any shred of human decency. Some have tried to defend this church by saying they are being misunderstood or taken out of context. But when their pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, gives an award to the Hitlerate Louis Farrakhan, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that their reputation is well deserved.

I know. I know. Obama finally denounced Farrakhan, but it seemed too little too late. He held that option open for a very long time, dancing around it until Hillary forced the issue at a recent debate.

Now granted, his church’s connection with Farrakhan is so obvious, it barely warrants another blog, so allow me to add a new wrinkle to this conversation. Even without all the racial overtones, there is something else about Trinity United that is not being discussed. Trinity belongs to The World Council of Churches. Do you understand what The World Council of Churches is? They are the liberal branch of Christianity, where pastors downplay miracles, downplay the need for salvation through Jesus and essentially adapt any current, left wing, Politically Correct ideology. They reject the Bible as being God’s literal word. They are Christian in name only. In fact, the famous Jesus Seminar (which concluded that Jesus did not really rise from the dead) was made up, for the most part, of clergy from the World Council of Churches.

This unusual shift of affections began around the turn of the Twentieth Century when many people who grew up in a Protestant America became fascinated with certain philosophies which had been popular in Europe for years and were now spilling to the shores of the United States. Feeling that they had outgrown such “archaic” ideas as a sin nature, or a miracle, some pastors sought to reinterpret the Bible from a more modern point of view. As the Scriptures became “demythologized” the remaining task for the Christian was to offer social services and leave out all talk about heaven, hell or a need to be born again. This reconstructed version of the Christian mission became known as the Social Gospel.

Reacting to the Social Gospel was a group that crossed denominational lines, known as the Fundamentalists. Taking their name from the Bible “fundamentals” ( sin nature, miracles and anything else shined off by Liberal Theologians) the Fundamentalists over reacted by shying away from many programs of social reform, fearing that such actions would water down Christ’s message. Their return to an honest interpretation of the Bible was admirable, but they were so careful not to be classified as Liberals that they went too far.

Interestingly enough, the two positions became much more extreme and polarized after their original leaders passed away. Walter Rauschenbusch, an architect of the Social Gospel, did believe in a supernatural conversion experience. On the other hand, William Jennings Bryan, the most well known and outspoken Fundamentalist, honestly felt that the gospel should leave its imprint upon society and its corresponding economy.

Later in the 1950’s, people like Billy Graham sought a happier medium by creating an offshoot of the Fundamentalists known as Evangelicals. Evangelicals concede the church’s obligation to make society a better place. Evangelicals believe that one can practice social reform without compromising the spiritual elements of the gospel. Today it gets a bit confusing because most people use the words Fundamentalist and Evangelical interchangeably. Many with a Fundamentalist mentality call themselves Evangelicals. Likewise, Evangelicals, claiming to believe in a literal interpretation of God’s word are labeled Fundamentalists and are accused of being uninterested in the poor and the needy.

Can one grow up in a liberal church and still develop conservative doctrine? Anything is possible and certainly Obama (like all of us) has been exposed to a wide barrage of teachings over the years so we should certainly allow him to speak for himself about his own beliefs. Unfortunately, when he does this, my suspicions are verified. Only recently, while commenting on homosexuality, Obama said he preferred the Sermon on the Mount to “some obscure passage in Romans.” Undoubtedly, the Roman passage in mind was Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. Obama was not clear which part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) he was referring to but it is safe to guess that he meant verses 7:1-2 which contain the famous phrase, “Judge not, lest you be judged.” This is the favorite Bible verse of many because they somehow think it grants them license to ignore all those other Bible verses. You know. The ones that condemn sin.

The idea here is that Jesus’ words somehow trump Paul’s. This displays a complete ignorance of the Bible. It also reveals affinity for the liberal theology so rampant in the World Council of Churches.

First of all, Paul’s words are anything but obscure. They could not possibly be more clear:

Rom 1:26-27

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

How do Paul’s words square with the teachings of Jesus? It’s true that our gospel accounts do not record Jesus speaking about homosexuality directly. But Jesus did confirm the divine inspiration of the Jewish Holy Scriptures (referred to in those days as The Law and The Prophets) and insisted that the Israelites continue to honor God’s Law. In fact,He taught this devotion to the Law in the very Sermon on the Mount which Obama claims to accept.

Matt 5:17-20

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Since Jesus was authenticating the entire law, that authentication included the specific law about homosexuality:

Lev 18:22

"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

And so, the Apostle Paul’s teaching was no different than that of the Jewish law. Some still like to dismiss Paul because he was not one of Jesus’ original disciples. That is true, but he encountered the resurrected Christ later (Acts 9). The original disciples were given special authority by Jesus (John 20:22-23). But keep in mind that one of these authoritative disciples, Peter, later authenticated the words of Paul, even to the point of equating Paul’s letters with scripture!

2 Peter 3:15-16

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 1He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Incidentally, the verse about judging gets taken out of context all too frequently. The Bible actually commands us to make judgments. (1 Cor 5) and Jesus was not forbidding the making of a judgment. He was forbidding self righteous hypocrites who saw another person’s sin but did not see their own. If we would judge our own sin, we could also judge someone else’s.

Matt 7:1-5

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

See? We are allowed to remove the speck from our brother’s eye. It’s just that we have to remove our own log first.

Is Obama a real Christian in the Biblical sense of the term? Would Jesus view Obama as one of his true followers? Only God can see a man’s heart and only God knows how the man will fare on judgment day. Still, some pretty major clues have been offered and so far we can safely conclude the following about Obama’s Christianity: He attends a church that is part of The World Council of Churches, the liberal brand of Christianity that does not view the resurrection of Jesus as important. Neither does it emphasize sin. Conveniently, these churches tend to uphold any loose, modern idea of morality and seem to have little place for Biblical morality. They cherry pick their doctrines and accept only the parts of the Bible they like as being the real word of God. Obama himself demonstrates this by claiming that Jesus’ words are more inspired than the rest of the Bible. But Jesus Himself taught quite the opposite. He accepted the entire Old Testament and He commissioned His disciples who (along with their disciples) wrote the New Testament.

Finally, Obama’s specific church is a racist, black supremacist organization which promotes the Nazi Louis Farrakhan. So just exactly what kind of Christianity does Obama truly adhere to?

One can call himself a Christian and still have nothing to do with Jesus. My source for that provocative statement? Jesus. Since Obama likes the Sermon on the Mount, perhaps we would do well to close this article from Jesus’ own words in the Sermon on the Mount.

Matt 7:21-23

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Scripture taken from THE HOLY BIBLE

New International Version NIV

Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.

Other posts about the Bible and Christianity, its relationship to other religions and its relationship to today’s culture

My Brief Time In the Occult

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:34 AM

How a Reformed Jew Became An Evangelical Christian Part One Posted at 1:17:45 PM on Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Part Two: How a Reformed Jew Became an Evangelical Christian

How a Reformed Jew Became an Evangelical Christian: Part 3

How a Reformed Jew Became an Evangelical Christian: Part Four

How a Reformed Jew Became an Evangelical Christian Part Five

Does The Bible Teach An Age of Accountability?

Christianity, Judaism and Islam: Comparison Posted at 2:33:20 AM on Sunday, January 20, 2008

Subsiding All The Passion Over "The Passion"

Friday, January 11, 2008 11:29 PM

Peace In The Middle East? I believe in the Tooth Fairy Too Posted at 12:19:09 AM on Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Was Jesus Gay? Posted at 1:40:29 PM on Friday,

Three Questions That Test Your Friend's Opinions Posted at 5:08:47 AM on Monday, December 24, 2007

What is the Unforgivable Sin and How Do I Know If I've Committed It? Posted at 1:39:18 PM on Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Does The Bible Teach That God Is Everything or that God Created Everything? Posted at 11:07:40 AM on Friday, December 28, 2007

Was Jesus A False Prophet? Posted at 11:43:45 AM on Friday, December 21, 2007

Cherry Picking Our Doctrines Posted at 3:49:31 AM on Tuesday, December 18, 2007

St. Bob's Epistle To The Calvinists Posted at 1:15:38 AM on Monday, December 17, 2007

How Do We Know Which Manuscript Copies Truly Belong In The Bible?

Friday, January 11, 2008 1:5

Why Are There Different Versions of the Bible?

Is The DaVinci Code Something to be Taken Seriously?

How Does One Become a Christian?

Are Christian Ministers Just In It For The Money?

I'm Not Doing It For the Warthog and the Pine Cone

Calling God Allah: What's In A Name?

If You Don't Like Her, Take It Up With Jesus

Why This Evangelical Christian Minister Does Not Support Huckabee

So What If He's A Mormon?

Was Joseph Smith Really a Prophet of God?

Is Mormonism Really a Cult? Let's Finally Settle This Once and For All

Oh, That Horrible Christianity!

Pro-Choice Christmas Card?

Is Persecution Good For The Church?

Was Judas Forgiven?

Can A Christian Be Pragmatic?

Oh Yeah? Well David Did Alot of Stupid Things

Score Another For The Religion of Peace

Don't Protest! After All, "Agenda" Is Your Middle Name

A Politically Correct Thanksgiving Message For Kids

Evidently Christians Don't Hold A Monopoly On Stupidity

Behavior Not Even A Christian Apologist Can Defend

How To Cause A Muslim Freudian Slip

“The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the Internet.

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (3) |

The Barak Obama Quiz
Obama: Good Words Indeed, But...
Updated Republican Manifesto: Advise to John McCain That Can Save the Republican Party

Boycotting Girl Scout Cookies? What's Next?

Posted by Bob Siegel on Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:19:20 AM

Have you heard the latest? National Action against Obesity has called for a boycott of Girl Scout Cookies. Evidently it is wrong for a high profile, non-profit, public service organization to be contributing to our national health crisis.

Speaking as just one person, I try to watch my weight and I haven’t had a good fattening cookie in a long time but now I am determined to buy a box or two of the famous chocolate mint.

Is nothing sacred? Now a kid can’t even sell a stupid cookie? What are they supposed to sell instead? Watercress sandwiches? Tofu Surprise?

What’s next? Should children discontinue lemonade stands unless they are government regulated with forty percent of the profits from each glass going into the kid’s Social Security Tax?

And when’s the last time we checked on Barbie dolls? Isn’t it about time the Mattel Company acted more responsibly by having Barbie sue Ken for sexual harassment?

Oh…How did I forget Bubble Gum? The Bazooka Joe comic strip in the gum wrapper should be replaced with a word or two about tolerance. Maybe throw in the word sensitivity at the same time.

Will we ever again just let kids be kids? Not so long as we are allowing idiots to be idiots.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Also from Bob Siegel:

Jihad Drill

The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the Internet.

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (4) |

Trackbacks (0) |

The Barak Obama Quiz
Obama: Good Words Indeed, But...
Updated Republican Manifesto: Advise to John McCain That Can Save the Republican Party

Don't Write the Clintons Off Quite Yet

Posted by Bob Siegel on Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:50:17 PM

A few months ago, I predicted Hillary would win the nomination, despite Obama’s surge in popularity. With all that’s happened these last few weeks, I’d be a fool to stick with that position and even stupider to bet money on it in Las Vegas.

Still, at the risk of sounding stubborn and with the desire to merely sound rationally speculative, I must say, don’t rule the Clintons out quite yet. They are good at what they do. They know how to handle their enemies. I have to believe Bill and Hillary are spending quality time in some creepy mansion with a big organ in the dungeon, planning around the clock, sipping coffee until all hours of the night with a small circle of confidants and trusted advisors. The goal? Taking out Obama, this man who dares to champion “civil rights” in a smoother way, thus stealing the Presidency from a woman who is the rightful heir. After all, she supported her husband Romeo when he was caught for the fiftieth time with his zipper down. And she was promised the Presidency if she would just stand by her man. If she doesn’t get the Presidency now, what was it all about? Why was she wasting her time with that baboon for the last eight years?

How will they try to take Obama out? Do I imply that they would hire a hit man? No. I’m not suggesting anything so drastic. I’d like to believe there are some courses of action even beyond the Clintons. I will say this: If the man met his demise without her help, through a plane crash or a bolt of lightening from the sky, I doubt Hillary’s tears would be as genuine as they were the night she lost the Iowa Caucus. I can just see her now, speaking at Obama’s funeral, offering a lovely eulogy, talking about what a great man he was and vowing to bring his followers into the fold, thus unifying the Democratic Party.

But Hillary cannot count on Obama having a timely death. And so, assuming this woman is not as evil as she often appears, Hillary will instead have to find a less violent way to eliminate her rival. Most likely, it will be through the digging up of some old scandalous, skeleton or the manufacturing of the same if no such "National Treasure" can honestly be unearthed. The trick, of course, is to make it look like the new smoking gun came from John McCain’s headquarters. Should anything be traced back to Boris and Natasha, the gig is up.

I can’t read minds. I could be misjudging the Clintons. Maybe Bill and Hillary are actually happy for Obama. And maybe they are planning nothing, nothing at all, other than to see the primaries through and be good sports when the outcome is decided. Maybe they anticipate bowing out gracefully. Maybe they care only about the good of the country and the kids. Remember? The kids. They are just doing all of this for the kids. Ambition and delusions of godhood have nothing to do with it. And if Obama can feed kids warm lunches just as well, they are happy for Obama.

NOTE: Fully admiting that the first part of this article sounded like espionage fiction, I must also point out that the last paragraph sounded like fantasy. I have an easier time believing in Frodo and Sam as they hike Mt. Doom.

Also from Bob Siegel:

Jihad Drill

The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the Internet.

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: election

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Six

Posted by Bob Siegel on Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:43:24 PM

NOTE: This is Part Six of a series. For your convenience, the first five parts are linked below, followed by today's article.

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part One

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Two

The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part Three

TheTruth About Israel and Palestine: Part Five

How was the term Palestinian used during the modern day exodus of Jews into the Holy Land? Prior to 1948, the land had not yet been renamed as Israel. Since the Roman nickname, Palestine had been around for two thousand years, people were used to the title but this was not a designation adapted by the Arabs. As a matter of fact, Jewish settlers referred to themselves as Palestinians. What did the Arabs living in Palestine call themselves? Hold on to your seats for the big surprise: They called themselves Arabs. There was no Palestinian identity in their mind. The idea of a Palestinian nationality for Arabs in the Holy Land didn’t raise its head until the 1960s. It was a publicity ploy invented by the notorious thug and terrorist, Yasar Arafat (who himself was not even from the Holy Land, but rather, Egypt). We will discuss Arafat and his strategies later. For now, all that’s important to understand is that under British dominion, the Jews were known as Palestinians and the Arabs in Palestine were known as Arabs.

After World War Two, we were never the same again globally. The United Nations was created in an attempt to prevent any similar future catastrophes. The aftermath of the Holocaust also generated a worldwide sympathy for Jews, a sympathy that seldom existed before. However, mercy toward Jewish refugees wasn’t entirely worldwide. It came primarily from a rebuilt Europe rising out of Hitler’s ashes and from the United States. The Arab nations refused to even consider the idea of a Jewish state in Muslim lands. New Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq were now part of the United Nations, but they were outnumbered. When the U.N. put pressure on Great Britain to fulfill its promise to the Jews; a country of their own, discussions broke forth over what to do with that remaining 25 percent of Palestine, which had not been turned into Jordan. The Arabs insisted they were entitled to the remainder of the land. The United Nations placated to them without entirely giving in. A vote was taken and it was decided that the remaining 25 percent of Palestine would be partitioned, creating both a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews agreed to this proposal and decided to call their new home, Israel, a proud title from long ago, before their Roman conquerors had renamed the land. The Arabs gave no name to their side of the partition because they rejected the United Nations’ decision, promising, in no uncertain terms, that if the land was partitioned, every Arab country would unite, attack, crush and destroy the new Israel before it even had a chance to take its first breath.

Let me stop for a moment to point out some obvious ironies and dispel some popular myths.

Myth One: Israel came into existence illegally.

How can that be if they were granted their country by the United Nations? Look, I’m no lover of the U.N. today. I think it’s an organization that should be shut down. It was a nice idea, but it no longer works. It’s useless at the very least and evil at the very most. But to those who love the United Nations, to those who want to call America’s war against Iraq, illegal because we invaded without U.N. approval, you cannot have it both ways. People from the left who object to the war in Iraq also like to talk about Israel’s illegal existence. Face it, Sam; if the U.N. is your barometer for world legalities, then Israel came into existence legally.

Myth Two: The Arabs in Palestine were never offered a state of their own.

As a matter of fact, they were offered two states of their own! The first one, they accepted and it has remained a state to this day, Jordan. The second state was the partition of the remaining 25 percent of the land. This state, the Arabs turned down. Why did they turn down a chance to have half of this area? Because they figured they were entitled to all of the area. And the decision of the United Nations (the same United Nations that Arab countries had joined and promised to abide by) meant nothing to them.

Radio talk show host, Dennis Prager once had a female journalism student on his program. She was from UCLA and she had just written a Pro-Palestinian article for the school paper. The young lady was Jewish herself. As I said before, Jews today tend to be their own worst enemies. Anyway, in the course of the interview, Prager mentioned that “the Palestinians” had been offered a state of their own back in 1948. The undergrad journalist quickly retorted, “That’s not true! They have never been offered a state of their own!”

“I’m very grieved to hear you say that,” Dennis said. “It bothers me that you would write an article on a subject as important as this and not know the facts.”

It was a chilling conversation. Think about it. If her own journalism professors (who evidently had never corrected her article) were not teaching about what truly happened in 1948 under the auspices of the United Nations, it displays one of two things; either an incredible ignorance which should disqualify them from being college professors, or a dishonest agenda which should disqualify them from being college professors.

This is the kind of historical revision being taught at our universities today: Israel is the horrible aggressor, victimizing the poor, innocent Palestinians.

Not that there shouldn’t be sympathy for at least some of the Arabs who lived in Palestine prior to the U.N. partition. There are always individuals who don’t care about politics and simply want to live in peace. Although many of the Arabs in Palestine sided with neighbor Arab countries and attacked the Jews with thunderous enthusiasm, others were given no choice. They were told by countries such as Egypt, “Join with us or get out of our path, because with or without your help, our soldiers are coming to crush Israel and we need to go through your neighborhoods to do so. Abandon your homes for now. But have no fear. It’s only temporary. In no time at all, the war will be over and you can return to your homes. Indeed, you can expand your terriroty because all of the Jews will be gone.”

IMPORTANT NOTE: The issue with the Arabs was not Israel’s unwillingness to allow a separate Palestinian state. Israel had agreed to the partition. The Arabs had not. The aim of the Arab nations was actually much simpler: The total annihilation of Israel, men, women and children.

If you don’t believe me, examine a few tasty quotations from the time:

From Abid Saud King of Saudi Arabia 1947:

“ There are fifty million Arabs. What does it matter if we lose ten million people to kill all of the Jews. The price is worth it.”

From Azam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arabs League 1947:

“This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian Massacres.”

From Haj Amin El Hussein Mufti of Jerusalem 1947

“ I declare a holy war my Moslem brothers. Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”

From the same person:

“Allah has bestowed upon us the rare privilege of finishing what Hitler began. Let the Jihad begin! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”

Make no mistake about it: The complete, unconditional genocide of Israel was the only true intention of the Arabs. The very notion that they wanted a separate state of their own to live in peacefully side by side with Israel, is a downright lie and bumpkin for the masses. Unfortunately, too many useful idiots have subscribed to this hogwash.

But the war didn’t go quite as the Arabs had planned. Against miraculous odds, Israel actually won the war and the Arabs from Palestine who had joined the armies against Israel now found themselves without a home.

Read Part Seven in tomorrow’s blog.

Bibliography

1) From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters

2) The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Middle East

Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D

3) Philistine, by Ramon Bennett.

Also From Bob Siegel

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: culture of life

Email It |

Print It |

Trackbacks (3) |

The Barak Obama Quiz
Obama: Good Words Indeed, But...
Updated Republican Manifesto: Advise to John McCain That Can Save the Republican Party

McCain Has Integrity? Now I'll Tell One.

Posted by Bob Siegel on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:29:49 PM

I keep hearing about all this genuiness and integrity, which characterizes John McCain. But a recent news story makes me wonder. Actually, I was already wondering. This story just makes me wonder even more.

From the Associated Press 2-26-08 (an excerpt)

CINCINNATI — Republican John McCain quickly denounced the comments of a radio talk show host who while warming up a campaign crowd referred repeatedly to Barack Hussein Obama and called the Democratic presidential candidate a "hack, Chicago-style" politician.

Hussein is Obama's middle name, but talk show host Bill Cunningham used it three times as he addressed the crowd before the likely Republican nominee's appearance.

Now we have a hack, Chicago-style Daley politician who is picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you, all you're going to have in your pocket is change," Cunningham said as the audience laughed.

The time will come, Cunningham added, when the liberal-leaning media will "peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama" and tell the truth about his relationship with indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko and how Obama got "sweetheart deals" in Chicago.

McCain wasn't on stage or, he says, in the building when Cunningham made the comments, but he quickly distanced himself from the radio talk show host after finishing his speech. McCain spoke to a couple hundred people at Memorial Hall in downtown Cincinnati.

"I apologize for it," McCain told reporters, addressing the issue before they had a chance to ask the Arizona senator about Cunningham's comments.

"I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," he said. "My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign."

McCain called both Democrats "honorable Americans" and said, "I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them."

Asked whether the use of Obama's middle name — the same as former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein — is proper, McCain said: "No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."

McCain’s response may have been politically astute and it may have been diplomatically respectful and it may reform him slightly in the eyes of The New York Times. (still licking its wounds after last week's rendezvous with McCain) Nevertheless, pardon me for merely asking a few bone headed questions:

Is it plausible to imagine McCain’s advisors asking anybody to warm up the audience without first examining the man’s character, politics, viewpoint and tone? Were they unfamiliar with the style of Bill Cunningham who has been an outspoken radio talk show host for years? I do want to be open here. Maybe Cunningham’s words came as a big surprise to them. And maybe unicorns exist somewhere as the pets of leprechauns.

My next question: What exactly did Cunningham say that anyone needs to apologize for? He was bringing up some questionable policies and connections of a man who might very well be our next President. If you think the Democratic machine won’t soon be putting McCain through a ringer that makes Cunningham’s remarks sound like Mr. Rogers by comparison, well then I have some land I want to sell you despite the crashed real estate market.

McCain has enough trouble already; unfair age comparisons with a young candidate, unfair speaking ability comparisons with a charismatic candidate, and fair (but only partially fair) criticism from Republicans who feel he is not conservative enough. McCain seems disingenuous in his treatment of Cunningham. But even if I am mistaken in that perception, here’s a thought you can take to the bank: If John McCain wants to win this election, he’d do well to stop biting the hands that feed him. He should worry less about “reaching across the isle “ to his opponents and more about the disaster awaiting us should Barak Obama win. Honestly, has this Democratic revivalist mesmerized the country to the point where McCain is afraid to treat him with anything but kid gloves? Senator McCain, take off the gloves and stop alienating those who are attempting the uphill battle of defending you.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Also from Bob Siegel

Jihad Drill

The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM on KCBQ 1170 on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the Internet.

Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program with questions or comments:

1-888-344-1170

Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net

Tags: election

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |