Whether the Jewish community in America sees it or not – and despite solid evangelical support for the state of Israel and Jews everywhere - there is a growing danger that Americans outside the evangelical community (which accounts for app. 24.4% of the total U.S. population) – are turning anti-Semitic. A traditional, old-style leader of liberal causes in the United States, Robert Ehrlich, reports that a poisonous brand of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish progressivism has gained a stranglehold on the Democratic party. Jews are alarmed. Rachel Zoll, AP (Associated Press) news, writes:
"American Jews gathered recently to wrestle with how they should confront an election-year surge in anti-Semitism, a level of bias not seen in the U.S. for decades. At a national meeting of the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish civil rights group, about 1,000 people listened to talks expressing shock at the hatred expressed during the presidential campaign and questioned what they thought was a high-level of acceptance by other Americans."
Yehuda Kurtzer, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America – a Jewish education and research organization - writes:
"I'm struggling right now in this American moment. I wonder whether I have been — and I think the answer is probably yes — a little bit naïve'."
The anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish progressive movement has reached epidemic proportions on US college campuses - and the evangelical community has been powerless in stemming this phenomenon.
Zoll goes on to report that in addition to the virulent anti-Semitism on college campuses, the "on-line" community's reporting on Israel has turned almost totally negative. Zoll continued her reporting:
"During this past year, anti-Semitic imagery proliferated on social media, Jewish journalists were targeted and long-standing anti-Jewish conspiracy theories got a fresh airing." [Please see our article, "A Fourth Illusion Broken: Dealing with the So-called 'Illuminati Myth' and Its Underlying Anti-Semitism."] [PRESS HERE]
Zoll goes on to say:
"In addition to the online intimidation, reports of anti-Semitic vandalism and other attacks have risen. Last week, the day after the election, a Philadelphia storefront was sprayed with a swastika and the words "Sieg Heil 2106," which means "Hail Victory," a common Nazi chant. These developments have stunned U.S. Jewish leaders, who in recent years had been more focused on anti-Semitism in Europe."
American Jewish leaders see alarming parallels between what happened in Germany which led up to Hitler and what is happening today in the larger American community.
Dr. Karl Wiebe, a prominent JEWISH socialist in Germany in the 1920s and even the 1930s, commented on the growing "Jewish Problem" of that era; he maintained that the anti-Semitism of that period was not merely a German problem, but a world-wide problem and that its seeds could be found in every culture of the world; in 1938 – six years into the Hitler era in Germany - he wrote:
"Since the day when the National Socialists [Nazis] came into power in Germany , thereby placing the solution of the Jewish problem in the forefront of German politics, public opinion the world over has become increasingly interested in that problem.
"Antisemitism has been frequently described as a phenomenon exclusively confined to Germany, as a National Socialist [Nazi] invention which must necessarily remain incomprehensible to the rest of the world. But today it is evident that the Jewish question is by no means a purely German question; that it causes on the contrary grave anxiety to statesmen in many countries, and that in many lands a pronounced anti-Jewish reaction has already set in."
"Hence everyone who discusses Germany's attitude towards the Jewish question is at the same time dealing with an important problem of contemporary international politics, and having regard to its far-reaching significance is duty bound to carefully investigate that question" [meaning the growing world-wide anti-Jewish 'problem'].
Wiehe goes on to say:
"It is a mistake to believe that the Jewish question has only arisen within the last few years, or, indeed, that its origin is to be sought in modern times.
"The Jewish question is not an invention of National Socialism, nor is it derived from the antisemitic movements that marked the close of the nineteenth century. If National Socialism can lay claim to any originality in the matter, then only because the National Socialist Party was the first to deduce the logical conclusions from a historical fact. The present German attitude towards the Jewish question is based on the experience made by Europe in the course of two thousand years. And this experience has been a particularly bad one for Germany, especially during the last few decades.
"The Jewish question undoubtedly dates back some two thousand years. Strictly speaking it is even older; namely, as old as the history of the Jews. The Jewish question arises everywhere where the nomadic Jewish race comes into contact with other peoples having a 'settled abode.' This historical fact is admitted by the Jews themselves. The Judische Lexikon, which is the standard work of the German Jew's published long before the advent of National Socialism to power-confirms the historical continuity of the Jewish question throughout the centuries when it writes (vol. III, column 421): 'the problem is as old as the association of the pronouncedly differentiated and dissimilar Jewish people with other peoples'."
"Peter (the apostle) opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
"But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10;34)
Wiehe was a unique figure of the 1920s and 1930s in that he possessed an exceptional capacity to admit as a Jew that much of the anti-Semitism of the Nazi period was catechized by the anti-Christian views of the Jewish dominated leftist press in the 1920s which attacked Christianity and Christian culture without letup. He writes:
"The Jews have never been able to find a permanent home in which to develop a political and social existence, while on the other hand they have never proved capable of being absorbed by any of the innumerable countries in which they have sought hospitality. This peculiar destiny of the Jews is, however, subject to variations. But these variations, in their turn, are only the perpetual ebbing and flowing of an unbroken tide. There were times in which the Jewish problem appeared definitely solved; in which the Jews appeared to have become completely ASSIMILATE and to have lost their distinct ethnical personality. In such halcyon days no Jewish problem seemed to exist. But sooner or later the illusion was dispelled, and after many years of comparative rest and quiet "The Wandering Jew" was compelled to again resume his eternal wanderings."
Wiehe goes on to explain:
"The first expulsions of Jews on a large scale occurred in the earliest history of Palestine. 700 years before the Christian era the Assyrian King Sarrukin forced the Jews to leave the country, and his example was followed in 586 B. C. by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Persecutions in Alexandria and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A. D. 70 opened a period in which the Jewish question was not less acute than it is today.
"Further milestones in the eternal wanderings of the Jews are the crusades, the expulsion of the Jews from England under Edward I in 1290, and their expulsion from Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic monarchs of Spain in 1492. There is not a single century in which an expulsion of Jews has not taken place. Every nation in Europe has sought to preserve itself against Jewish domination by all the means at its disposal."
Sadly, Wiehe admits that his people (ie., the Jewish people) seem to have a unique ability to offend the nations in which they have sought refuge:
"It is an incontrovertible historical fact that those peoples with a 'settled abode' who throughout the ages afforded hospitality to nomadic Jewish tribes, invariably regarded the latter as an essentially dissimilar race and not merely as a different religious community."
Benjamin Ginsberg, a Jewish political scientist and a professor of political science at the Hopkins Center for Advanced Governmental Studies in Washington, D.C., explains the problem that Jews cause when they attempt to "ASSIMILATE" into the countries in which they have settled:
"If it had been simply a matter of "toleration" that the Jewish community had desired in the countries where they sought refuge, rather than 'full participation', there would never have been any so-called 'Jewish Problem'; but what the Jewish community has always eventually aimed at is 'full participation' in the nations they have sought refuge."
"The fact of the matter is, however, the Jews often dilute the civilizations which they impact - especially the religious undergirdings of these civilizations. However, they do so not necessarily out of any sinister design bent on civilization destruction, but out of motives which aim at their (ie., the Jews) inclusion - specifically, the effort by Jews to mitigate those aspects of the majority culture's religious undergirdings which exclude them, thereby creating what they see as a more 'inclusive' and 'non-threatening' society in which they too can participate as full members while not at the same time being forced to convert'."[Please see our article, "Political Christianity."] [PRESS HERE]
Ginsberg goes on to say (ie., to admit as a Jew) that in the United States, Jewish efforts at diluting the Christian culture of America have proven extraordinarily successful, and so much so that Ginsberg writes:
"... (Christian) religious symbols and (Christian) forms of expression that Jews find threatening have been almost completely eliminated from schools and other public institutions. Suits brought by the ACLU, an organization whose leadership and membership is predominantly Jewish, secured federal court decisions banning officially sanctioned prayers in the public schools and creches and other (Christian) religious displays in parks and public buildings." [Please see Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)]
Ginsberg goes on to warn the Jewish community in America that -
"There has been a price for all this and a growing danger in the white culture - a rage within the larger Christian majority (minus the evangelicals) which appears to be growing rather than subsiding. Jews may say that they are not "anti-Christian" and that their sole aim has been merely to provide an atmosphere in which they can also participate, but the clear result of all their activity over the last sixty years has been to diminish America's majority, Euro-centered, Christian civilization.
"Jews, of course, would retort by saying that the civilization remains for all practical purposes a 'Christian' civilization if only because the great majority of those living in the United States remain Christian; all that they [ie., the Jewish community] has aimed at is the removal of the civilization's 'rough edges'; but to civilization purists, it is precisely these so-called 'rough edges' - the ones that make minorities feel uncomfortable - which must be guarded if the distinctive features of the majority civilization are to be maintained, such as prayer in the schools, the use of public Christian symbols during Christmas and Easter, etc."
Ginsberg's conclusions about the "origins" of modern German anti-Semitism eerily mirror the conclusions of Prof. Wiehe during the Hitler era. Wiehe wrote in 1938:
"The opening of the modern era [1880-1933] seemed to herald a period of permanent peace and rest for the hitherto restless wandering Jew. It was the era of enlightenment, of liberalism, of belief in the ideals of progress and the rights of man. Conformably with the principles in vogue in this era, the Jews only differed by their religion from other citizens, and as such enjoyed equality with the adherents of other religious bodies."
Like the "politically correct" icons in America today, in the late 1880s and early 1900s it was considered best not to even mention the Jewish question and to act as if such a question did not exist.
However, the most farsighted among the German Jews clearly perceived the inevitability of a reaction. Forty years ago [1880s] a leading German Jew, Dr. Walther Rathenau, had criticised the policy of ASSIMILATION and uttered a warning for the benefit of those of his "co-racists" who occupied, or were about to occupy, prominent positions in Germany. Rathenau wrote concerning the Jewish community of the late 1800s and early 1900s:
"They [ie., the Jews] apparently did not even dream that only in an epoch in which all the forces of Nature are artificially enchained, can they be protected against that which their fathers endured.
"That modern Jewry did not heed the many warning voices in its own ranks affords another proof of the fact that the Children of Israel have not learnt, or wished to learn, the lessons taught by their own fate - that they are blind to the errors so often committed by themselves in their self-complacency."
However, there were some very far-sighted Jews who did foresee the TERROR that was about to overtake the Jewish community in the 1930s." Wiehe writes:
"Some forty years ago [late 1800s and early 1900s] a comparatively small number of Jews, headed by Dr. Theodore Herzl, founded what is known as the Zionist movement in the conscious recognition of the uselessness and harmfulness of the assimilation policy, and of the consequences that were bound to follow. The Zionist movement represented an effort to avoid those consequences.
"Influenced by the 'antisemitic' movement that arose in France at the close of the nineteenth century in connection with the Dreyfus case in which a Jewish officer in the French army was unjustly convicted of treason, Herzl proclaimed to the Jewish community the doctrine: A Return to Palestine. Such a doctrine, although backed by the energy inspired by Herzl's lofty persuasive idealism, appeared nothing short of astounding at a time when the so-called ASSIMILATION policy had reached its zenith.
Economically and politically, the influence of West European and North American Jews was decisively against a 'return to the Holy Land', and for these the novel doctrine preached by Herzl was like unto the seed sown on rocky ground and hence unfruitful soil. Blinded by the alluring glitter of an artificial "golden age," the Western Jews had only an ironical smile for what they considered as the vagaries of Zionism, to which, moreover, they were profoundly hostile, AND THIS IS EXACTLY THE ATTITUDE OF AMERICAN JEWS DEDICATED TO ASSIMILATION IN AMERICA RATHER THAN RETURNING TO THE JEWISH HOME LAND.
"The lessons of history have taught us the reason why the attempt to solve the "Jewish Question" by means of the abortive attempt to ASSIMILATE the Jews was pre-doomed to failure. Those lessons have proved to the hilt the utter impossibility of ASSIMILATE the Jews, and have shown the inevitability of the periodical recurrence of 'antisemitism' in consequence."
Leading the attack against Christianity and Christian culture in Germany was Emil Ludwig, whose real name was Cohn [the name of the Jewish tribe that had been dedicated to the Temple Service of ancient Israel]. At that time his books were presumably the most widely circulated works of literature published in the German language.
The following are but a few examples to illustrate Ludwig's attack on Christianity and Christian culture: in his work about Jesus Christ Ludwig developed a frankly blasphemous tone. The title itself, The Son of Man [Der Menschensohn, Berlin, 1928)] is a deliberate anti-thesis to the Christian conception of Christ as the Son of God. Should this not suffice to demonstrate Ludwig's style, the following examples will no doubt convince; they clearly show the methods Ludwig chose to create a blasphemous caricature of the Saviour: he attacks Christ and calls Him a drunkard and a carouser with women; Ludwig writes:
"Wealthy citizens often invited him because he is learned in the Holy Scriptures and because of his reserved conduct. At such occasions he whiles in their company and partakes of their wine; it is strong wine from the vineyards on the hills. He avoids neither festivities nor women and he jests with them. He is also of cheerful disposition and does not scorn the pleasures of the table. When the women anoint him or languorously listen to his words; his heart and dreams of sexual love are realized and he, the Prophet, lavishly distributes His sexual cravings on many of them."
Alfred Kerr is the second most important Jewish personage; he openly and viciously attacked Christianity and Christian culture. In his capacity as critic of the Berliner Tageblatt, he despotically swayed his sceptre over all the theatres of the capital. His word was decisive for the success or failure of actors and personnel.
Kerr discussed the figure of Christ in his book, "The World in Light") Die Welt im Licht (1913). Kerr casts away every vestige of decency and goes over to open derision. No profanation is too tasteless and he even asserts:
"I can well imagine hearing Christ jabbering Jewish jargon. Considering his complete lack of every kind of delicate feeling, it is not surprising that the lyrical poems of this guardian of German culture (meaning Christ) are obscene and repulsive."
This attack on Christianity and Christian culture in Germany unleashed an almost barbaric attack on German Christian culture: the rapid increase in the leftist usurpation of German society and the sexual debauchery it unleashed is easily depicted in the following posters of that era:
Eight years ago, Obama (and later Hillary Clinton) promoted a foreign policy in the Middle East that was TOTALLY at variance with all previous presidencies – both Democratic and Republican. Obama sought to promote "peace" in the Middle East by reaching "accommodations" with state and non-state elements in the area that had been considered enemies of America - EVEN IF IT MEANT SACRIFICING ISRAEL'S NATIONAL INTERESTS.
Muriel Mirak-Weissbach of Global Research assessed Obama's Middle Eastern policy as follows:
"Obama, has repeatedly asserted that he would meet with adversaries of Israel, including the leaderships of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc."
The fact that Obama was pursuing an anti-Israel policy was substantiated by the intervention of former President Jimmy Carter into the politics of the Middle East - which most believe was secretly sponsored by Obama. Carter, who oversaw the Camp David peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in the 1880s, is the author of Peace not Apartheid. It is a scathing attack on the concept of Israel as a "Jewish State" - and labels Israeli intransigence the principle stumbling block insofar as peace in the Middle East is concerned. Indeed, it would not be too much to state that the book calls for transforming Israel into a "secular state" open to immigration from all nations.
In order to understand the perspective from which Obama was coming - i.e., the perspective that was ordering his foreign policy - one must understand the virulently anti-Semitic "South-Side-of-Chicago" politics from which he emerged. The fact of the matter is, as we have said so often before, the associations we keep, the friendships we make, and the institutional relationships we sustain - especially our religious and political ones - go a long way in defining us as persons. As a result - and more often than we care to admit - these relationships imply endorsement, endorsement not only of the people with whom we associate, but more often than not, of their ideas as well. Certainly this is true of political and religious organizations; and the more extreme these organizations are, the more true it becomes. And while the Political Left may recoil at the concept of "guilt by association" - largely because of the excesses of the McCarthy era - they certainly practice it themselves. For example, when it was discovered some eighteen years ago that Lloyd Bentsen - the Treasury Secretary under President Clinton - was a member of an all-white, all-male country club in Texas, he was forced to resign his membership; it was felt that should he continue his membership, he would be passively "endorsing" concepts that were repugnant to important Democratic constituencies.
Even the Political Left – which constantly attacks Republicans for the associations they keep - realizes that association with such organizations more often than not implies, at the very least, passive endorsement; a type of "indifference" which in the long run can often be more damaging than active participation. Again, people (including the Political) seem to instinctively realize that the strands of our relationships, one with another, provide a conduit through which ideas are transmitted; and that these ideas, if left unchecked, have a way of using the web of our personal and institutional relationships to propagate themselves. By such means, ideas introduced initially by only one person or by a small group of persons - if persistently pursued and not actively opposed - have a way of ultimately affecting the ideological fabric of the entire community.
It's with this realization in mind that we now turn to examine the political milieu out from which Obama emerged on the South-Side-of-Chicago. Ed Lasky, no friend of Obama and a member of CUFI (Christians United for Israel) - an Obama-hating organization - writes:
"One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim (i.e., Pastor Jeremiah Wright) who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism. This church is a member of a denomination whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions."
While Lasky is, no doubt, an Obama hater, he's right about the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish political milieu out from which Obama has emerged. Ryan Lizza, senior editor of the liberal New Republic, essentially confirms what Lasky has to say; she writes:
"From Wright and others, Obama learned that part of his problem as an organizer was that he was trying to build a confederation of churches but wasn't showing up in the pews on Sunday. When pastors asked him the inevitable questions about his own spiritual life, Obama would duck them uncomfortably. Reverend Philips put the problem to him squarely when he learned that Obama didn't attend services. "It might help your mission if you had a church home," he told Obama. "It doesn't matter where, really. What you're asking from pastors requires us to set aside some of our more priestly concerns in favor of prophesy. That requires a good deal of faith on our part. It makes us want to know just where you're getting yours from'.
"After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright's church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for 'Buppies' - black urban professionals - and didn't have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity's guiding principles - what the church calls the 'Black Value System' - included a 'Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness'."
"The crosscurrents appealed to Obama. He came to believe that the church would embrace ALINSKY-style organizing and could help answer the nagging self-identity problem he had come to Chicago to solve. 'It was a powerful program, this cultural community', he wrote, 'one more pliant than simple nationalism, more sustaining than my own brand of organizing'."
NOTE: Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a far-left grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky's real claim to fame was as a strategist for anti-establishment '60s radicals and revolutionaries. Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rulebook for '60s radicals. Alinsky had a true genius for formulating tactical battle plans for the radical left. He wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971). It was Alinsky's far-left organizing techniques combined with his use of the black churches that propelled Obama's rise in his years in Chicago.
Then there is the matter of Ali Abunimah, who has been described as close to Obama in the 1990s in Chicago, and who introduced Obama at numerous pro-Palestinian events. Referring to a time period in the late 1990s, Abunimah said that -
"Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation."
"I remember personally introducing [Obama] onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center for the Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that's just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation. [Obama] came with his wife. That's where I had a chance to really talk to him. It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs ... He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel."
Now, if Abunimah was the only friend that Obama had who harbored ill feelings toward the Jewish community and the state of Israel, that would be one thing; but it seems that there is a plethora of Obama associates who harbored the same kind of feelings. For example, the Los Angeles Times devoted a lengthy front-page story by Peter Wallsten headlined, "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama." Jonathan Mark of The Jewish Week in New York City remarked on Wallsten's article:
"The story focused on Obama's time as an Illinois state legislator, just five years ago [early 1990s], when he was ... allied with Rashid Khalidi, the vocal anti-Zionist professor at Columbia University who at the time was living in Obama's Chicago district ... At a farewell party for Khalidi, Obama is quoted as saying that his conversations with Khalidi had been 'consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases'. Wallsten writes that the Obama-Khalidi relationship 'has left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say'. They base that belief on his presence at 'events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed', not unlike those who wonder about Obama's truest self after his relationship with Wright and his anger. 'I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation of the Holy Land by the Jews than either of the other candidates', said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, to Wallsten."
Present at the meeting was Edward Said, the late anti-Zionist professor and member of the Palestinian Authority legislature.
Finally, there are all of Obama's socialist friends that are prominent in the Chicago political milieu out from which Obama emerged; chief among these friends were Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, both leaders in the 1960s terrorist group "Weatherman," a Communist-driven splinter faction of "Students for a Democratic Society."
In his 2001 book Fugitive Days, Ayers recounts his life as a sixties radical and boasts that he "participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970 of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972." He adds:
"There's something about a good bomb ... Night after night, day after day, each majestic scene I witnessed was so terrible and so unexpected that no city would ever again stand innocently fixed in my mind. Big buildings and wide streets, cement and steel were no longer permanent. They, too, were fragile and destructible. A torch, a bomb, a strong enough wind, and they, too, would come undone or get knocked down."
Both Ayers and Dohrn were outspoken in their pro-Palestinian views. And the list goes on and on; for example:
As we said in the first paragraphs of this article, whether the Jewish community in America and her allies in the evangelical community (again, app. 24.4% of the American population) see it or not, there is a growing danger that Americans outside that community are becoming anti-Semitic and now view that state as an apartheid state in the same fashion that South Africa had been prior to black emancipation in that country.
As we said earlier, this is an extremely dangerous phenomenon for Jews. The same pathology of hate that took hold of German civilization is now taking hold of American civilization. The fact is, the political left-wing of the American population [ie., the supporters of both Obama and Hillary Clinton – app. 49% of the American population] views Israel as an "illegal" state; that is a figure more than twice the number of Americans in the evangelical community.
Moreover, Christians who are involving themselves in the fight against the left are in the end only provoking the growth of anti-Semitism in the United States. Evangelicals believe that Trump can stem this tide of anti-Semitism; but the fact is Trump is and never been a "lover of Israel;" nevertheless he needs to appear as such in order to garner evangelical support for his presidency. However, over the long run his real support for Israel is negligible - and that despite the fact that his daughter has converted to Judaism and son-in-law is Jewish.
If – as we in Antipas suggest - Trump is the anti-Christ [Please see our short article, "Trump as Anti-Christ"] then, according to Scripture, he will lull American evangelical Christians into an alliance with himself by promising to support the state of Israel and return the United States to Biblical principles. And isn't that exactly what is happening with the American evangelical community today.
However, in allying the evangelical community with himself, he is in the process of connecting this same community to violent right-wingers who have also allied themselves with Trump (groups such as the right-wing biker gangs, the KKK, radical anti-abortion groups, the Freemen, anti-homosexual groups, etc.) – after all, if Christians fighting for what they consider to be "their rights" in demonstrations across the country, will they warn these groups off if they are providing then with protection at these demonstrations? Probably not, AND THUS THE CONNECTION IS MADE WITH THESE RADICAL, VIOLENT RIGHT-WING GROUPS.
As we have said over and over again, the associations we keep, the friendships we make, and the institutional relationships we sustain - especially our religious and political ones - go a long way in defining us as persons. As a result - and more often than we care to admit - these relationships imply endorsement; endorsement not only of the people with whom we associate, but more often than not, of their ideas as well. Certainly this is true of political and religious organizations; and the more extreme these organizations are, the more true it becomes. People seem to instinctively realize that the strands of our relationships, one with another, provide a conduit through which ideas are transmitted; and that these ideas, if left unchecked, have a way of using the web of our personal and institutional relationships to propagate themselves. By such means, ideas introduced initially by only one person or by a small group of persons - if persistently pursued and not actively opposed - have a way of ultimately affecting the ideological fabric of the entire community.
God help us Christians to dwell in LOVE in today's world. Jesus said:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind ... And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Mat 22:37 and 29)
Note here that the Bible does not discriminate between co-religionists and those outside the faith . Moreover, the Bible goes on to say:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete [give our], it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest [see] thou the mote [speck] that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Mat 7:1-3)
In connection with the above verse one must honestly confront the hypocrisy in today's evangelical community where more than half the congregants have engaged in fornication and adultery. [Please see our article, "GAYS AND LESBIANS IN THE BLOODY HANDS OF CHRISTIAN EVANGELICALS."][PRESS HERE]
The fact is, the New Testament condemns the sin of adultery 18 times (and by Christ Himself, 12 times), the sin of fornication 28 times (and by Christ Himself – 3 times). The sin of homosexuality 2 times (and by Christ Himself – 0 times).
And if Christian should continue their attack against the homosexual community - as they "righteously" contemplate doing so even when homosexuals involve themselves in "committed relationships" - they should remember that when a Christian divorces his or her mate, the Bible SEVERELY warns him or her to remain single and NEVER to marry again. Moreover, the Bible says that those who marry persons who have been divorced are living in sin.
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10-12)
"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."
So much for those almost one-half evangelicals who are divorced and are now living in sin.
In this connection, where is the RAGE against the adultery and divorce of Pastor John Hagee of the giant Cornerstone church in San Antonio, Texas? OR the RAGE against the ridiculous defense mounted by Rick Joyner of MorningStar Ministries of Todd Bentley's divorce and remarriage?
The Bible says:
"Behold, thou art called a Jew [in our case, a Christian] ... and makest thy boast of God," And knowest his will ...
"And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
"An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes ...
"Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
"Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery?... (Romans 2:17, 19-22)
NOW, THAT'S HYPOCRISY - and the Bible goes on to say that it is precisely because of this kind of hypocrisy among "God's people" that -
"... the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles [i.e., unbelievers] ..." (Romans 2:24)
It is not our job as Christians to condemn anyone.
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts (ie., so-called "believers who judge other believers, and even those outside the faith: and then shall every man have praise of God." (I Cor. 4:5)
Not even Jesus did that - indeed, He did not even condemn the woman caught in adultery:
"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
"They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, IN THE VERY ACT.
"Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, HE THAT IS WITHOUT SIN AMONG YOU, LET HIM FIRST CAST A STONE AT HER.
"And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
"She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, NEITHER DO I CONDEMN THEE ..." (John 8:3-11)
As the Bible says:
"God sent NOT his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17)
WE URGE YOU TO TAKE A STAND AND PUBLICALLY WITNESS AGAINST THE CHURCH'S ALMOST UNREASONING SUPPORT OF DONALD TRUMP. SPEAK OUT (ie., WITNESS) AGAINST THE DECEPTION THAT MANY CHRISTIAN LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE PURVEYING.
The WHITE ROSE SOCIETY was a group formed by students Hans and Sophie Scholl and a band of Christian friends and professors. Their common goal was to stand against the Nazi regime that was terrorizing their country in the early 1940's, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TO DECLARE THAT CHRIST WAS THE SUPREME POWER AND NOT ADOLPH HITLER. They secretly wrote and printed leaflets behind a church organ. They would then take as many as 2000 of them at a time and randomly distribute this bold writing in cities such as Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Vienna, Frieburg, Saarbreuken and Mannheim. As a result of taking part in these activities, seven of its members were executed between February 1943 and October 1944.
THE QUESTION HERE, AS IT WAS FOR SOPHIE AND HANS SCHOLL IS THIS: DO YOU FEAR MORE THE WRATH OF MAN OR THE WRATH OF GOD??
Finally, we urge you to download our flyers and pass them out; nail them to trees, lamp-posts; place them on cars, in windows; hand them to your neighbors and friends, etc. Download flyers to be passed out to friends and neighbors and pinned on trees, in windows, on church bulletin boards, etc.
In the light of all that's been happening recently - and we speak here of the Trump presidency, Islamic terrorism, the new anti-Semitism directed against both Jews and the Jewish state (Israel), the growing storm clouds over the Middle east which are harbingers of the coming Gog / Magog War, and that my wife and I can recover fully from our illnesses so that the work of the ministry can continue with vigor. In connection with the work of the ministry, we DESPERATELY need your financial help if we are to continue on with the work God has given us. The help you send will not accrue to any single individual, but will be directed to the effort of the ministry to bring TRUTH to you that you cannot receive anywhere else.
We ask you to bear in mind what the Apostle Paul told those who followed him; that if we have blessed you with SPIRITUAL gifts, is it too much to ask that you would reciprocate with FINANCIAL gifts.
God bless all of you.
IN HIS LOVE,
Shearer is a graduate of the University of California where he earned a Bachelor's degree (1964) and a Master's degree (1967) in history (Davis and Berkeley). He also attended the United States Defense Language Institute in Monterey where he studied German. He served as an intelligence officer in Europe; in Asia he served with the 525th Intelligence Group, Special Operations Branch, and at the Phoenix School at Vung Tau (SEA). In addition, he served as executive officer for the Sacramento field office of the 515th Counter Intelligence (CI) Group in Sacramento and later as executive officer for 515th CI Group's Regional Office in San Francisco. Shearer held Top Secret, Special Intelligence, Codeword security, Eyes Only clearances; also Cosmic, NATO and Atomic clearances.