Stand to for June 3, 2013

Push Back with Prayer

0700 at BJ’s Restaurant

 

1. Opening Prayer

2. Round the Table Individual Prayers

3. Morning Psalm: 51

4. Breakfast Reading: Luke 15:1-10

5. Breakfast is served

6. Breakfast Discussion Topic: "Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country."

7. After Breakfast Voluntary Testimonies

8. Round the Table Individual Prayers

9. Closing Prayer

Betrayal in Benghazi

Posted By Colonel Phil Handley

On May 30, 2013

The combat code of the US Military is that we don’t abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don’t run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying. Among America’s fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.
The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty. Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.
It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi. The White House strategy, with the aid of a “lap dog press” has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming. The recent testimonies of the three “whistle blowers” have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle.
It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference… mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft. This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed “experts” the Administration trot out to make such an assertion. The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don’t just sit on your penguin *** and do nothing. The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base, Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based.
Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local):
When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), he immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.” At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to “stand down.” By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various Command and Control Agencies… and everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on. At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.
So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker support really was not available… what about this:
· When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.
· By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours.
· While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.
· The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM… which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.
· Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, only a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick.
· Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to recover at Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport, only one-half hour away.
· As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act… screw them. It is high time that our “leadership” get their priorities straight and put America’s interests first.
The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive.
Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with “72 virgins”… and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to “tug on Superman’s cape.”
Of course all this would depend upon a Commander In Chief who was more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than getting his crew rest for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. As well as a Secretary of State that actually understood “What difference did it make?”, or a Secretary of Defense whose immediate response was not to the effect that “One of the military tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation.” Was he not watching a live feed from the unarmed drone… and he didn’t understand the tactical situation? YGBSM!
Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to “stand down?” Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the United States of America deserve leadership that really does “have their back” when the chips are down.


Colonel Phil “Hands” Handley, USAF (Ret.) is credited with the highest speed air-to-air gun kill in the history of aerial combat. He flew operationally for all but 11 months of a 26-year career, in aircraft such as the F-86 Sabre, F-15 Eagle, and the C-130A Hercules. Additionally, he flew 275 combat missions during two tours in Southeast Asia in the F-4D and F-4E. His awards include 21 Air Medals, 3 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and the Silver Star.

All In The Islamist-CAIR Family

Posted By Joe Kaufman

On May 30, 2013

When war broke out in Egypt, in January 2011, U.S. Muslim activist Ahmed Bedier knew he had to get involved. Revolution in Egypt was in his DNA, passed down to him and his brothers by his Islamist father. While Bedier attempts to whitewash his and his family’s extremism – and the mainstream media has generally given him a pass – the truth must now be told, including the truth about his al-Qaeda supporting sibling.
Ahmed Mostafa Bedier – the middle name is from his father, Mostafa – moved to the United States from Egypt when he was eight years old, spending his youth in both Illinois and Oregon. When his parents relocated back to Egypt, he elected to remain, as he had gotten used to secular American society.
In time, Bedier headed south to sunny Florida, where he came to be somewhat of a financial success, purchasing real estate, shopping at upscale stores, and driving a fancy BMW.
Around 2000, though, Bedier’s life began to shift dramatically. He became an observant Muslim and started hanging out at a radical mosque, the Islamic Society of Pinellas County (ISPC). By his description, he traded his car for the Quran. He took a position as Outreach Director for the mosque and used it as a stepping stone to become the Communications Director of the Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group with strong ties to Hamas.
Coinciding with his new job at CAIR, Bedier got involved in the well-publicized case of terrorist Sami al-Arian, becoming al-Arian’s unofficial spokesman in the media. Al-Arian was a co-founder and the North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), an organization that targets Israeli civilians with suicide and rocket attacks and has also been responsible for the deaths of Americans. After a long, drawn-out trial, al-Arian was sentenced to prison for his involvement in the terror group.
During a December 2005 television interview of Bedier, when asked if he believed al-Arian’s involvement with PIJ was immoral, Bedier notoriously answered, “To a certain degree. Now, before 1995, there was nothing immoral about it.” This, while prior to 1995, PIJ took credit for five terrorist attacks – attacks which resulted in the murders of eight innocent people.
Today, Bedier is a Florida events coordinator for Islamic Relief (IR). In May 2006, Israel labeled IR a front for Hamas, after arresting the group’s Gaza program manager, Ayaz Ali, for providing “funds and assistance to various Hamas institutions and organizations.” Ali admitted that he had cooperated with local Hamas operatives.
One of the IR events Bedier was involved with was a December 2011 benefit dinner and concert titled ‘Songs for the Children.’ Speaking at the event was Kifah Mustapha, a Chicago-area imam who was named a co-conspirator by the U.S. Justice Department for two federal trials dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas. The Mosque Foundation, the center Mustapha is affiliated with, itself, has been a hub for Palestinian terror-related activity.
No doubt, much of Ahmed Bedier’s life has centered around individuals and groups seeking to do harm to Israel, so when the opportunity arose to throw Israel’s peace partner, Hosni Mubarak, and the rest of his cabinet out of power in Bedier’s birthplace, Bedier couldn’t wait to hop on a plane to assist.
January 25, 2011 marked the “Day of Rage” in Egypt, when thousands of young Egyptians took to the streets to riot and call for the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Muslims from around the world, including members of terrorist organizations, traveled to Egypt to join in the violence.
Ahmed Bedier has a number of family members in Egypt, including his parents, but that’s not why he was there in February 2011. He openly stated on his Tampa radio show, True Talk, in March of that year, “I went to Egypt for the revolution…” And he got what he wanted – the fall of Mubarak.
To mark the end of the Mubarak regime, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood, the main group opposing Mubarak, traveled to Cairo to give a Friday sermon to the revolutionaries.
Qaradawi’s presence was a powerful statement in itself, as he had been banned from entering Egypt for the past three decades. Currently he is banned from entering the U.S. and England. According to The New York Times, over one million people packed Tahrir Square to hear his speech, including his prayer for the re-conquest of Jerusalem by the Muslims. Ahmed Bedier was a witness to it, as he broadcast his radio show live from the event.
On an undated video found on Bedier’s Facebook site, Bedier is standing with U.S. Representative Keith Ellison next to a crowd – also in Tahrir Square – while an elderly man in a baseball cap recites a poem about the revolution. It makes sense for Ellison to be at an event such as this, as he has regularly participated at various radical Muslim functions, including speaking engagements at conferences sponsored by the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society (MAS-Minnesota), at the same time the group was propagating material on its website praising Hamas and calling for the murder of Jews.
Bedier’s younger brother, Abdellatif, accompanied Ahmed on his trip and acted as his cameraman. A picture of Abdellatif along with Ahmed and two other brothers on a boat can be found on Abdellatif’s Facebook page.
One of those brothers, Amir, became very involved in Egypt’s turmoil, so much so that he wound up getting shot in the face outside Mubarak’s executive office, where many clashes between police and rioters took place.
Ahmed Bedier created a graphic of the event, containing a photo of a smiling Amir, an x-ray of the bullet that was lodged in his neck, and an illustration of a person depicting where the bullet entered and where it now remains. One of Ahmed’s relatives, Reham Bedeer, posted the same graphic to her Facebook page, appending to it a gruesome photo of Amir lying near-dead on a hospital gurney with blood flowing from his eye.
In recounting the incident, Ahmed Bedier portrayed his brother as a saintly man. He wrote, “Last night my younger brother Amir was shot in the head outside the presidential palace… He went there, not to protest, but to help the injured… When we asked him who he thinks shot him, he did not blame opponents or supporters of [Mohamed] Morsi… WHEN THE MEDIA CAME TO INTERVIEW HIM TODAY AT THE HOSPITAL, because he was the only critically shot but survived, he refused to see them. Because he does not want the media to use his story to fuel more hate. Amir represents the good people of Egypt, the heroes. I’m proud of him…”
Brother Ashraf Bedier called him the “most peaceful person U’ll meet.”
However, just as he has many times in the past, when he’s labeled himself a “civil rights advocate,” Ahmed Bedier was not being honest about his brother. The truth is, Ahmed’s brother, Amir Bedier – the individual Ahmed said he’s proud of and the man Ashraf said is “peaceful” – is a follower of al-Qaeda.
Ahmed’s “hero” brother, just this month, posted to his Facebook page pictures of Osama bin Laden and bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam. In fact, he changed his profile picture from one of him as a youngster playing with his brother Abdellatif to that of bin Laden. Now, his profile photo is that of Azzam.
One of Amir Bedier’s Facebook friends, Mohamed Arafa, ‘Liked’ Amir’s bin Laden posting. Arafa, who claims to be located in New York City, posted a bin Laden picture to his own Facebook page, stating about it in Arabic, “G-d’s mercy be upon you, oh Arab Sheikh, oh Emir of the Mujahideen, Sword of Islam.” He also posted a graphic of a bleeding red Star of David with the caption, “The World’s Leading Terrorist – Israel,” stating about it, “Let’s go guys kill those M****F****.” And he posted different pictures of Hitler, one with the following quote, “I killed half the Jews and left the other half for you to discover why I killed the first.”
Another friend of Amir’s, Karim Gamal, posted photos of bin Laden and current leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to his Facebook page. And he used one of the bin Laden photos for his profile pic.
Yet another Facebook friend of Amir Bedier ironically goes by the name Osama but does not seem to have any affiliation with al-Qaida. It is Amir’s brother, Osama Bedier.
Like his older brother Ahmed, Osama came to the United States with his parents when he was a kid, and like Ahmed, when his parents went back to Egypt, he decided he wanted to keep the U.S. as his home. He created an internet networking and website development company with Ahmed – with two locations. Ahmed ran the main operation out of Tampa Bay, Florida, and Osama ran the sister office out of California, where he had settled and where he currently lives.
When Ahmed became radicalized, the company was abandoned. However, Osama stuck with the computing field, going to work for PayPal and then Google, where he just this month was ousted from his job after his Google Wallet creation had been deemed a failure. His departure from PayPal wasn’t on a positive note either, as PayPal had sued him for allegedly divulging “trade secrets” to Google.
Osama Bedier’s main focus may be computers, but he still has very strong views when it comes to his heritage. This past April, days after the Boston Marathon bombing, following the killing of bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the capture of suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Osama callously tweeted, “Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated” along with a link to the January 2010 article discussing the more-than-three-year-old study. Not one mention of the bombers or victims was made by Bedier.
On the day Hosni Mubarak stepped down as leader of Egypt, February 11, 2011, Osama Bedier, in his excitement, tweeted, “Welcome back [E]gypt, back on the road [to] your historic glory” and “So happy for the people’s revolution in my homeland.”
The revolution Osama Bedier was talking about was being led by the Muslim Brotherhood (mentioned earlier), an Islamist movement whose headquarters is located in Cairo, where the Bediers were born. For many Muslims, an Egypt ruled by Islam is the only preferred choice, even if the ruling group is a terrorist organization.
The extremist attitudes and actions of the Bedier brothers were passed down to them by the patriarch of the family, their father Mostafa.
When his son Ahmed created a graphic of Egyptian presidential candidate Ahmed Shafiq speaking with then-President Hosni Mubarak with the caption, “NO TO AHMAD SHAFIQ – Because a vote for Shafiq is a vote against the Revolution,” Mostafa placed it on his Facebook page and, above it in Arabic, wrote, “Choose Sharia.”
Sharia is the moral code and religious law of Islam. It can be interpreted to include such acts of brutality as the chopping off of limbs, the beating of disobedient wives, the stoning of suspected adulterers, and the throwing of homosexuals from tall buildings. Because of its violent nature, Sharia law has been deemed incompatible with democratic society and Western values, and this has caused some U.S. lawmakers to work to pass legislation banning it from being applied in American courts in cases involving Muslims.
Ahmed Bedier has been one of the leaders in the fight against such legislation, but given his Islamist background we can understand why.
To the joy of Ahmed Bedier and his Islamist father Mostafa, Ahmed Shafiq would lose his election to Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi. Since then, Morsi and his government allies passed a new Egyptian Constitution, which in fact did include Sharia law.
In November 2012, TIME magazine gave Morsi an exclusive interview to discuss a number of subjects, including Morsi’s beginnings with the Brotherhood. About this, Ahmed Bedier posted to Facebook – no doubt, echoing the twisted sentiments of his family – “It’s MORSI TIME!”
Beila Rabinowitz, director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

7 Steps to Teach Theology in the Local Church

By Chuck Lawless

May 22, 2013|4:23 pm

Evangelicals know that theology matters, and we're quick to remind others of this fact. What we're not so quick to acknowledge is the focus of this blogpost: we do a poor job of teaching the very theology we claim is so important. We think that our church members understand and believe our basic doctrine, even while those same members are learning their theology from TV talk show hosts, popular television preachers, or the latest religious novel. Do an anonymous survey of your congregation's beliefs, and see what you learn. If the majority knows and believes basic biblical doctrine, your church is more an exception than the norm.
Consider these steps for teaching theology in your church:
1. Don't assume that your church members don't care about beliefs. Too many church leaders give up on teaching theology before they even try. "Nobody cares about theology any more," they think. Not only does this thinking ultimately question the power of the Word, but it also denies reality. It is precisely because people do care about beliefs that they turn to places and people other than the church for their belief system. Where the church fails, somebody else fills the void.
2. Realize that attending worship and small groups does not automatically lead to doctrinal fidelity. Here, I am NOT suggesting that preaching and Bible study are unimportant to teaching doctrine; indeed, good doctrinal training does not happen apart from preaching and teaching the Word. I am simply arguing that our church members don't typically hear our teaching and automatically connect the dots to form a biblical theology. Teaching good theology must happen intentionally.
3. Include basic theology in a required membership class. In some ways, the best time to teach the basics is when a person first follows Christ or first joins the church-when he or she is most focused on a Christian commitment. Capitalize on that enthusiasm by teaching early the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. Show why the exclusivity of Christ is non-negotiable. Talk about the necessity of the death of Christ. Build the theological foundation early, and build it well.
4. Take advantage of doctrine studies. Churches don't need to "reinvent the wheel" to teach theology. Case in point, Lifeway Christian Resources has developed The Gospel Project (a journey through the basics of biblical and systematic theology over a three-year period), The God Who Speaks (a study of the doctrine of revelation), and Read the Bible for Life (a 9-session study that equips individuals and churches to understand the Bible better). If we believe that theology matters, why not take advantage of already-prepared material and teach a current study? Plan extensively, promote well, and prioritize this type of study.
5. Raise the bar for small group leaders who teach the Word. These leaders have a great opportunity-perhaps one of the best in the church-to influence lives through teaching small groups. Few other leaders have such a ready hearing. For that reason, we must hold group leaders accountable to holy living, sound doctrine, and good teaching. We should not be surprised when members view doctrine as boring after lackluster teachers have taught it. There is simply no excuse for allowing untrained, unfaithful, or boring teachers to drain the life out of Bible studies.
6. Begin in the home. Teach parents biblical doctrine, and then help them teach their own children accordingly. Because Deuteronomy 6:7 and Ephesians 6:4 demand nothing less from believing parents, our churches should work in cooperation with them-not replace them-in teaching theology to the next generation. Provide good resources that teach basic truths at a child's level without compromising scriptural teachings, but expect parents to do the teaching.
7. Be willing to start with the few. Just as Jesus did, focus on the few rather than the many. For example, invite a few men to join you in studying theology one morning each week. Give them the Bible and a basic theology textbook, and challenge them to study the week's lesson. If you prepare and teach well, you will likely be surprised at how interested the men are. Those men and their families will be stronger because they are learning the Word.
What other guidelines or methods do you recommend for teaching theology in the local church?

West Isn't Killing Muslims, But Muslims Are Killing Christians

By DENNIS PRAGER

Posted 05/29/2013

The alleged butcher of the off-duty British soldier, Drummer Lee Rigby, defended his carving up of a living human being by claiming that he was engaging in "an eye for an eye" because the British army is killing Muslims in Afghanistan.
Normally there is no reason to respond to the justifications offered by terrorists and other murderers of the innocent.
But in this case it is important to do so because much of the Muslim world resonates to this argument and because much of the world's left offers this argument.
This is true even though a large majority of Muslims do not support terror and even though leftists do not support it.
Nevertheless, throughout the Muslim and leftist worlds it is believed — and our children are taught this at college — that America, the U.K. and other countries are targeted by Muslims because we kill Muslims.
The argument is morally perverse and a lie.
First, the U.K. and others are in Afghanistan in order to defend Muslims. Brits and other Westerners are risking their lives, and dying, in that country on behalf of Muslims.
Here's a question for Muslims and leftists who buy this argument about the West killing Muslims in Afghanistan: Who are we fighting in Afghanistan?
Which Will It Be?
I thought the Brits and Americans were fighting the Taliban, the people who throw acid in Muslim girls' faces for attending school, the people who murder nurses who inoculate Muslim children against disease.
Now, if fighting the Taliban is to be equated with fighting Muslims, this is a real contradiction of everything much of the Islamic world and virtually all of the left have been contending for years — that the Taliban represent a tiny group of extremists in the Muslim world, and that they have so completely perverted Islam that they cannot even be called Muslims.
Well, you can't have it both ways.
If killing the Taliban is the same as "killing Muslims," then you can't argue that the Taliban don't represent Islam or Muslims.
So, on the issue of the West fighting in Afghanistan, the Muslims and the left need to make up their minds: Is killing the Taliban a service or a disservice to Muslims?
This is the first and last question both groups need to answer. Everything else is commentary.
Living In A Fantasy
Second, if any group here should be entitled to exercise an eye for an eye, wouldn't it be Christians?
It is Christians who are being murdered, and whose communities are being decimated, in the Muslim world.
Christians have lived in the Middle East — in places such as Iraq and Egypt — since long before Muhammad was born.
It is Christians in Nigeria who are routinely slaughtered by Muslims. And it is Christians in Pakistan who are burned alive in their churches.
And what about the 52 Brits blown up by Muslim terrorists in the U.K. on July 7, 2005? How is it that not one Brit decided to take an eye for an eye against any Muslim?
In the real world — as opposed to the fantasy worlds the Organization of Islamic States and your local university are operating in — it is Christians who are being killed by Muslims, not Muslims who are being killed by Christians.
And there's a third lie to this claim of Muslims as victims of the West.
Nearly every one of the tens of thousands of Muslims killed in the last few years has had their life taken by other Muslims — in Syria and Iraq in particular.
There is something of great significance to be learned from this.
In the Muslim world today, it is hatred of the West, not love of — or even concern for — fellow Muslims, that animates Muslim atrocities and terror against the West.
Just as it is Arab hatred of Israel, rather than Arab love of fellow Arabs that animates the Arab world.
Every Muslim and every Western leftist who perpetrates the lie about the West killing Muslims as the source of Islamist terror abets that terror.

Religious Left Organizations

From Robespierre to Stalin (himself a former seminarist), leftists have traditionally been opposed to all religion, viewing it as a threat to their own revolutionary schemes. But in recent decades -- in fulfillment of the Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci’s prediction that communism would gradually make its "long march through the institutions" of culture -- leftists have entered the religious arena and made churches throughout the developed world into captives of radical politics.

One early warning of this evolving movement came in the late 1960s with the appearance of liberation theology, a movement founded on the belief that God makes Himself known particularly through the poor, and that the Bible can be fully understood only when interpreted from the perspective of the impoverished. Centered in Latin America and especially influential within Roman Catholicism, liberation theology advocated political activism, even including revolutionary activity, as a means of applying the tenets of Christian faith.

When socialism and communism had presented themselves candidly as essentially godless doctrines aiming to seize a secular version of the power enjoyed by religion, they enjoyed only limited appeal among a traditionally religious population. But now, reframed by liberation theologians, socialist theory had a new power in church going populations because of its vision of transforming socioeconomic structures -- generally meaning capitalism -- that caused social inequities around the world.

Since the 1960s, the religious left has expanded its reach to embrace the tenets of leftist doctrine in a host of spheres, including: radical environmentalism (depicting capitalism and industry as inherently destructive to the natural world); feminism (supporting "pay equity" and, in some cases, universal access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand); gay rights (supporting a radical redefinition of marriage and family); anti-war movements (viewing the United States as the chief cause of international strife); open borders (supporting amnesty and expanded rights for illegal immigrants); human rights (classifying the United States and Israel as the world’s foremost transgressors); civil rights (characterizing the U.S. as an irredeemably racist nation where preferential policies are needed to counterbalance this intractable trait); criminal justice (viewing crime as a by-product of corrupt social institutions like capitalism); and economics (again, depicting capitalism as an exploitative system that harms the vast majority of the world’s population for the benefit of a small, powerful elite).

Many Christian churches seek to justify the foregoing views by asserting that Jesus Christ himself, were he alive today, would have adopted these same positions. Thus religious leftists propose to combine the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Marx as a way of justifying a socialist revolution designed to overthrow the economics of capitalism and greed. They re-render the gospels not as doctrine impacting on the human soul but rather as windows into the historical dialectic of class struggle.

In the religious left’s ideal, the Marxist State serves as a substitute for Christ, offering a theory of sin (private property) and salvation (collective ownership); a church that dispenses grace (the State, as administered by the vanguard of the proletariat); and a litany of saints (socialists) and sinners (capitalists). And the eagerly anticipated Marxist “revolution” takes the form of wealth redistribution rather than violent looting.

This section of DiscoverTheNetworks examines the worldviews and activities of organizations that seek to advance the doctrines of the religious left. The RESOURCES column on the right side of this page contains a link to the section where profiles of these groups can be found. It also contains links to articles, essays, books, and videos that explore, in depth, the following:

• liberation theology, which holds that the church must stand on the side of the impoverished and the downtrodden, and that it must, if necessary, support the overthrow of social systems -- especially capitalism -- that contribute to their oppression;
• the religious left's affinity for socialist and leftist doctrines;
• the religious left's embrace of radical environmentalism and its agendas;
• the anti-Americanism that is a hallmark of the religious left;
• the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic worldviews that are commonplace among the religious left;
• the religious left's support for open borders, unregulated immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens residing in the United States;
• the religious left's steadfast belief that pacifism is the only morally acceptable way of dealing with aggressors around the world;
• and the religious left's alliance with certain elements in the labor-union movement.

Islam’s War of Annihilation Against Hindus

Posted By Arnold Ahlert

On May 28, 2013

A thought-provoking essay written by Narain Kataria, president of the Indian American Intellectuals Forum, sounds a familiar alarm. “Hinduism Faces Eclipse” reveals that “the anti-Hindu forces within and without India are working in tandem on an insidious mission to destroy our civilization and culture, and obliterate Hinduism from the Indian soil.” Kataria further contends that Indians are not facing terrorism, but worldwide jihad, which he calls a “fully globalized franchise…working overtime to destroy all non-Muslim nations.”
Muslims currently comprise 20 percent of India’s 1.2 billion population, the rest of which is overwhelmingly Hindu. But as Narain points out, Indian Muslims have engaged in a series of attacks on Hindu citizens, temples, religious festivals and unarmed pilgrims. He reminds us that a month after the 9/11 attacks in the United States, a proclamation was issued on Al Jazeera television promising that “Hindu India” would also be targeted for jihad. Two months after that, a suicide squad assaulted India’s Parliament House in New Delhi on December 13, 2001, killing 9 and wounding 18.
Since then thousands of terror attacks have besieged India. The city of Mumbai alone has been terrorized on four separate occasions. On March 12, 1993, 13 separate explosions in various parts of the city killed 257 and wounded more than 700. Most of the terrorists involved received arms and training in Pakistan, and Indian authorities contend the Pakistani intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was actively involved as well. On July 11, 2006, a series of pressure-cooker bombs exploded on commuter trains, killing 209 and wounding over 700. Once again, the ISI was involved, along with the Pakistani Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba, and the Students’ Islamic Movement of India, according to Mumbai police. On November 26, 2008, another wave of terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims targeted two luxury hotels, a Jewish center, a tourist restaurant and a crowded train station. Another 166 people were killed and more than 300 were wounded. And on July 13, 2011 three separate bomb blasts killed 26 and injured 130.
As recently as July 2012, riots in the state of Assam initiated by Muslim infiltrators from Bangladesh resulted in at least 74 deaths. Several Hindu women were raped and then chopped into pieces during the attacks.
Kataria blames these and other atrocities on “India’s decadent culture of political correctness and pock-marked ‘taqaiyah’ of ‘paid news,’ when no national leader dare muster the courage to speak truth.” The New York Times echoed that assertion when they covered India’s 2008 election campaign, noting that the nation’s fight against terror is “complicated by a political landscape in which parties vie for Hindu and Muslim voters’ loyalty.” Kataria told FrontPage that the Indian government “doesn’t understand Sharia,” and that the “politicians are afraid of Muslims” because they have organized highly effective political blocs, capable of removing anyone who would even suggest India is under Islamic siege.
The blocs’ ultimate purpose? “Muslims want to finish India as soon as possible,” contends Kataria.
Incrementalism is one of the key strategies employed by the Islamists. Thus it is no surprise Sharia courts have been successfully established in various parts of the country, including Hyderabad, Patna and Malegaon. As recently as two weeks ago, a Sharia court was set up in terror-scarred Mumbai by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). Sounding familiar rhetoric, AIMPLB secretary Maulana Wali Rahmani contended that Sharia courts do not complete with India’s civil courts. ”On the contrary, Shariah courts will lower the burden of the civil courts where thousands of cases are pending and the judges are overworked,” he said.
Incrementalism is further explained by Times of India senior journalist Ramesh Khazanchi, who cites a series of events, including the banning of “Vishwaroopam,” a film critical of Islam, in Tamil Nadu theaters; the blacklisting of author Salman Rushdie at various literary festivals; and the war-mongering of the Owaisi brothers, leaders of the Muslim group Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM), who have threatened Hindus with annihilation, as more evidence that the “aggressive Indian Muslim has thus been emboldened by the state.”
Kataria notes that Hindus have ignored previous warning signs of such aggression, citing a 1986 court case involving the arrest and prosecution of two Hindus, who published and circulated a poster containing 24 Quranic “ayats” under the heading, “Why Riots Take Place in the Country.” The 24 ayats commanded Muslims to fight against the followers of other religions. The prosecutors submitted that they were distorted versions of what was said in the Quran. Yet the judge ruled in favor of the two men, noting that the ayats were accurate. Kataria explained that neither the Muslim community nor the Delhi government ever filed an appeal against the ruling. “It is high time that the partisan members of the NAC (National Advisory Council) read the aforesaid historical judgment and the relevant ayats of the Quran to understand the growing cult of communal violence, even after partition of the country,” Kataria contends.
The partition to which Kataria refers is the division of India in 1947 into Pakistan and India, after the nation gained independence from Britain. The division was along sectarian lines and, as the official break-up grew closer, a religious civil war ensued. The “Great Calcutta Killing,” during which 5,000-10,000 people were killed and some 15,000 wounded, was precipitated by the Muslim League, which sponsored a “Direct Action” program containing 23 points promoting jihad against Hindus.
In 2011, Kataria addressed that part of his nation’s history. “India was partitioned in 1947 on the basis of two-nation theory as propounded by the Muslim League Party,” he explained. “Pakistan was immediately declared as an Islamic state. The corollary of that action was that India should have been declared a Hindu state. But that did not happen. It was a monumental blunder committed by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Congress Party.” He then explained why such a solution was necessary. “Secularism, as practiced in India, has become synonymous with the Hindu-bashing, while Hinduism has become a dirty word in the lexicon of country’s ‘secular’ fundamentalists.”
Speaking with FrontPage, Kataria reveals that his feelings about Islam remain unchanged. He spoke of being born in Pakistan, “where I was threatened with death if I did not leave.” He claims he has seen “Muslims rape and kill with my own eyes,” even as he “watches Islam capturing countries one by one.” Although he has made America his home for the last 45 years, he remains highly concerned about his country, which he fears is heading towards a religious-based civil war. In his essay, he explains that such a war is “likely to be powered by the twin factors of fast growing jihadi attacks and galloping increase in the proportion of the Muslim population.” Regarding the latter reality, he believes that the combined Muslim population of the Indian sub-continent will be greater than that of Hindus within the next thirty to forty years.
Kataria is highly critical of those in positions of power. “Unfortunately despite centuries-old violent encounters with jihadi Islam neither the Indian government, nor the comatose Hindu leadership, have learnt any strategic lesson,” he writes. “Time has come for Hindu leaders and masses to remember Arnold Toynbee’s famous quote: ‘Civilizations die from suicide, not murder.’ Time has come to face the jihad courageously and stop sleep walking towards [the] suicide cliff.”
Kataria worries that the United States is walking towards the same cliff, for the same politically correct reasons. “I do not want the US to be destroyed by Islam,” he told FrontPage. When asked if so-called moderate Muslims were equally worrisome, he scoffed at the notion. “There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim,” he contended. “That means you don’t follow the Koran.” He believes all true Muslims are “soldiers,” and that the Koran “teaches violence.”
There is no question that Kataria’s views conflict with the prevailing ethos promoted by the Obama administration. One is left to wonder how long Americans will countenance Obama and company’s polar opposite approach, one that consists of such realities as labeling the slaughter of American GIs by Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood as “workplace violence,” the grim determination to keep the word “Islamic” from being attached to the terror perpetrated at the Boston Marathon, or the scrubbing of law-enforcement training manuals of language that accurately depicts the threat we face from global jihadism.
Those who might find some of Kataria’s views offensive might consider how they would feel if terrorist attacks were being perpetrated in America at the same rate they are being perpetrated in India. Kataria worries that someday America will also be subjected to semi-regular terrorist attacks perpetrated by an increasing population of home-grown Islamic terrorists. We ignore his warnings at our own peril.