CNN = PRAVDA

President Trump has been attacked for himself, attacking the Media, calling it "Fake News".

He went so far as to call much of the "Main Stream Media" (MSM) the "enemy of the people".

Between his last acusation and the revoking of Jim Acosta's, an alleged reporter (I say "alleged" because he's more of a commentator than a reporter), press pass, Trump has become the recipient of the ire of even the "fair and balanced" Fox News.

I can't find his tweet (one of a bazillion) per se, but nevertheless, he argues that he has only challenged the veracity of the media and left it up for the people to decide. Furthermore, he pointed out that getting into the business of censorship can be very dangerous.

Allow me, if you will, to suggest that whenever lies are perpetrated by the media, the media is an enemy of the people and whenever truth is presented by the media, the media is a friend of the people.

At face value, Trumps denunciations of the media as "enemy of the people" appear to be totalitarian in nature. But may I suggest why this is not the case?

Back in the days when the Soviet Union (a blatantly repressive Communist regime) was in its hey day, it's chief source of information was a periodical called "PRAVDA". Pravda means "the Truth". Was it the truth? Many would say that such was absolutely not the case. I, for one, would say that it was the propaganda wing of the Communist party. In fact, it was indisputedly the case! Pravda reinforced the party line (agenda as it were). If a fact disagreed with the party's agenda, it was kept hidden. If a fact supported the party's agenda, it was placed on the front page.

The Communist government of the USSSR and PRAVDA worked hand-in-glove. One DID NOT criticiize the other.

Might I suggest "Be happy that Trump and the media are at odds".

When the government and the media are compliant with one another, that's when you should worry.

I dare say, the MSM tended to only praise Obama.

May I suggest to you that the MSM IS the American version of PRAVDA, and when the media agrees with the government and the government agrees with the media, THAT IS WHEN YOU SHOULD BE WORRYING.

I Want What Cory Booker Wants - Sorta

 · 

When I became a grandfather I realized that I was fundamentally a liar. And I lied to my children as well.

I sang sweet lullabys to them with words like:
"rock abye baby on the tree tops
When the wind blows the cradle will rock.
When the bow breaks the cradle will fall
and DOWN WILL COME BABY C R A D L E   A N D   A L L.

The first thing that I wanted my children to learn was that they had come into a world that was safe and secure... where they were surrounded by love.

SUCH IS NOT THE CASE!

This world is cruel and it leads in only one direction: 

D E A T H.

Do I want a world without walls? ABSOLUTELY!

But the population of this world is not prepared to have a world without walls.

That day will come. In Zechariah 14, after THE great and devastating battle, it says that:

"Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles."
(Zech. 14:16)

So let me ask: "How is the Festival of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) celebrated?" WITHOUT WALLS. Former enemies of Jerusalem are to come to the Holy City and camp out in booths made of nothing but sticks, to worship the King of Kings and learn from His Law about how people can live together in peace. Instead of walls, former enemies are left exposed and defenseless before one another and before God.

Believe it or not, I want exactly what Cory Booker wants. But I know that the world is not ready for what we want. I dare say that what Cory Booker wants at this present time will only lead us inevitably to that devastating war that Zechariah predicts. I also know that beyond that war is a glorious future in which the world government will "rest upon the shoulders" of the just, yet compassionate Messiah, Jesus.

In Light of the New Wave of Immigrants Coming Just In Time for the Mid-Term Elections

I'm posting this picture again. Several years ago, a friend, whom I respect, who's deeply involved in the foreign mission field, unequivocally said "we must let needy immigrants in." In one sense, I can understand her passion and sense of "Christian" charity. By the same token Jesus DID say, "be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves."

I pondered the immigration problem in light of the present push towards globalism and realized that it could, very well, be a ploy, exploiting human misery as a battering ram for the purpose of destroying national borders. Hence, I came up with the attached "picture." I concede that it does reveal a strong element of synicism but I'm actually encouraged that Trump modified one of my points by, rather than "bombing the crap" out of those who make it difficult for those who seek asylum here, providing economic pressure on them instead. In the meantime, Congress has definitively refused to come up with a solution by law.

I post this because the subject is, once again, coming to the forefront in light of the fact that, just in time for the mid term elections, a swarm of Honduran "refugees" is coming to "knock on the national doors" and I believe that, in spite of the need for compassion, what I'm pointing out here needs to be entered into the equation as well.

Colin Kaepernicks "Taking a Knee" Misdiagnoses, and Exaserbates a Serious Problem

In 2017 457 white people were shot to death by police.

In 2017 223 black people were shot to death by police.¹

In 2010 the White population in the US was 196,817,552

In 2010 the Black Population in the US was 37,685,848.²

Assuming that comparatively little change has taken place in the population numbers between 2010 and 2016, the percentage of blacks killed by police amounted to 5.92 per 1 million people in 2017.

Given the same assumptions, 2.3 white people per 1 million people were killed by police in 2017.

5.92 people shot dead is tragic.  In a perfect world, no one would be shot dead, but in our fallen world, 5.92 people for every million people is quite miniscule. 

Nevertheless, put another way, in 2017 if you’re black, you would have been 3 times more likely to be killed by a policeman than if you were white.

Colin Kaepernick attributes this statistic to the assumption that cops hate black people.  By “taking the knee” during the Pledge of Allegiance at football games he sought to raise awareness of police brutality towards black people.

To bolster his assertion of police bias, he points to the disproportionate rate at which blacks as opposed to whites are arrested for committing violent crimes.³

These are unfortunate statistics but they are irrefutably true. 

Are these statistics true because, indeed, cops hate black people? As much as Colin Kaepernick would like to hold to this argument, I don’t think so.

Is it because black people are simply a more violent or inferior race?  Again, I don’t think so.  Blacks have turned out brilliant scientists, inventors, statesmen, jurists and people who excel in just about every other field. 

Is it because of a high level of poverty that blacks face in American urban areas?  Again, I don’t think so.  Other ethnic groups have endured similar levels of poverty without resorting to violence.

Allow me, if you will, to introduce another statistic.  In 2016 the percentage of black homes that consisted of only one parent was 62%.  In contrast, the percentage of white homes that consisted of only one parent was 24%.⁴ The ratio of black single parent homes to white single parent homes is approximately 3 to 1, the same ratio as black to white deaths by police and not unlikely a similar ratio of black arrests to white arrests.

The problem facing the black community in America is not police brutality or racism on the part of police.  That may have a part in it, but if so, it is miniscule. The majority of the problem is the scarcity of positive role models, fathers in particular.  One of the many benefits of positive role models, aside from love and acceptance, is respect for authority.  Police are, in American culture, designated to be authority figures.  If an authority figure gives an order, he Is to be obeyed.  A defiant response to a police order is only going to increase the likelihood that one is going to get himself killed. Furthermore, evidence supporting my suggestion is that arrest rate, whether black or white can be correlated to whether or not a child grew up in a home with one or two parents.⁵

Of late, I’ve been doing considerable studying of history and historical events.  I’ve established an axiom that whenever a problem arises, if presumptions are made concerning the root cause of the problem tragedy results.  This axiom, I would hold, applies to current events as well.  In 2014, as many of us recall, a young man named Michael Brown, was killed by a police officer by the name of Darren Wilson.  The circumstances that led up to his shooting were pretty much ignored in the black community and yet, calls were made to “tar and feather” officer Wilson, who, as it turned out, had acted in self-defense.  Rioting ensued. Young Mr. Brown’s death was attributed to a “white, racist cop” and a narrative generalizing the notion that “cops are racist” was broadcast across the country.  Of course, other anecdotal incidences of cops killing black youth were played up in the media, but, beginning with the tragic death of Michael Brown, consistent with my proposed axiom, tragedy ensued.  

Another statistic confirms my axiom.  In the year 2014, there was a sharp increase in urban violence.⁶ This, of course, was the same year that Michael Brown was killed, Black Lives Matter made its way onto the national scene, and massive demonization of the police was pushed.

Are there anecdotal incidences of police misuse of power?  Absolutely!  As I write this essay, the death of Botham Shem Jean, an upstanding citizen who happened to be black, and was murdered by a white policewoman who apparently had mistaken him for an intruder, is fresh in the minds of most Americans.  This incident is beyond tragic!  What were the circumstances that led up to this horrific event?  Did the policewoman have an innate hatred or fear of black men?  Why was it that she mistook the victim’s apartment for her own?  Was she on drugs, medication or was she drunk?  At this time, any assumption is merely speculation.  God willing, the truth will come out.  No doubt, such incidences need to be prevented, and hopefully more can be learned to stop such incidences in the future.

But Mr. Kaepernick does a disservice to the black community by, with a broad stroke, transferring blame for its woes upon the police.  It is a presumptive approach to problem solving and only, as I’ve stated, exacerbates the problem.

Although I’m not black, and my suggestions may, thus, go unheeded, allow me to, nevertheless, offer at least two solutions.

1.       Legislation has been passed which I believe has weakened the black family.  It would require further essays and further research to confirm it, but I’m of the opinion that this legislation dates back to LBJ and the “Great Society.” Such legislation ought to be reversed.

2.       Boys, in particular, need role models.  Mentoring, coaching, tutoring and other activities on the part of regular good ole’ fashioned American volunteers should be encouraged so that these children can have positive role models to look up to.  Young men with respect for authority won’t endanger themselves by defying authority.  Young men who have examples of people who show responsibility will learn responsibility.

In the meantime, yes, “taking the knee” may have grown out of genuine frustration, but blaming the black communities problems on the police is a dangerous misdiagnosis of the problem.

One Reason Why Muhammad Does not Qualify as a Prophet

God gave Moses 10 Commandments.  The seventh commandment said…

“Thou Shalt not Commit Adultery”

Here is a list of many in the Bible whom Islam says were prophets and their behavior concerning the question of adultery (Muslims may pronounce the names differently or ascribe different names to them).

Adam had one wife.

Seth had one wife.

Enoch had one wife.

Noah had one wife.

Abraham had 3 wives.

              He had a second wife because his first wife couldn’t have children.

              When his first wife did miraculously have a child (Isaac), he sent his first wife away.

              He had a third wife only after his first wife died.

Isaac had one wife

Jacob had four wives only because he’d been tricked by his father-in-law.

David had many wives.

              And although the New Testament says he was a prophet by virtue of the fact that he gave prophetic utterances, his office was                 that of a king. He was not above the law of Moses, and therefore, a prophet chastised him for his adultery.

              Because of his adultery one of his sons temporarily took the kingdom from him, he was

   humiliated in front of  everyone in his kingdom, and his household was divided the rest of his life.

Solomon had many wives

              But he also was not a prophet.  He was a king and because of his adultery his kingdom was divided and all of its wealth was
              lost.

Muhammad (solely a prophet of Islam) had several wives and the Quran was claimed to have justified it. In Surah 33:50 we read.

O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

Surah 33:50

Muhammad married the divorced wife of his adopted son.  His feelings for her were there before she’d ever been divorced. Yet somehow, Allah justified this for him and allegedly gave her to him.  If you're Arabic speaking, you can read about it here.

And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your wife and fear Allah ," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished

Surah 33:37

Even Aisha whose marriage to Muhammad was consummated when she was at the age of 9 pondered the reality that Muhammad managed to get "convenient" revelations from allah justifying his acquisition of a harem.  Of course her testimony doesn’t count because Islam has declared that the testimony of a woman does not bear the same weight as a man. 

You can read about this pondering on her part here.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this:" You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish;
and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (xxxiii. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.

Sahih Muslim 8 3453

CONCLUSION:

Absolutely no individual who both the Bible and Islam agree were prophets had adulterous relationships which would have compromised their proclamations concerning the moral demands of God.  Furthermore, God never condoned adultery.  This is confirmed by the consequences resulting from the adulterous practices of kings.

Muhammad practiced adultery and used the Quran to create the perception that activities which constituted adultery (e.g. The taking of multiple wives, the taking of underage children for wives, the marriage to divorced women) were not, in fact, adultery but, on the contrary, were permitted by God.  By doing so he has led tens of millions of followers astray using the name of allah to justify a practice that God never permitted. And dare I say, God's standards of morality never have changed and never will change no matter who might declare otherwise.

Muhammad’s behavior vastly differs from the behavior of any of the prophets of the Bible.  By that virtue alone, he does not qualify as a prophet.  Evidence would have it that Muhammad used allah and the Quran to justify his own lusts and in so doing, he redefined God's standard of morality which objectively speaking, will not and cannot change in spite of what Muhammad "legitimized".  Rather than leading people towards God which is the role of a prophet, in the name of allah, Muhammad led people... countless numbers of people, away from God.  In light of that alone, Muhammad is neither a prophet, nor is his Quran a genuine "holy book".

An Inherent Anti-Semitic Gentile Interpretation of the New Testament

One day while reading a book on the history of Christianity I ran across the following quote:

The martyrdom of Stephen marked a turning point in two respects: (1) It began the persecution that drove witnessing Christians from Jerusalem into all Judea and Samaria and (2) It moved Saul the persecutor towards personal conversion to Christ.

The authors of this particular book are reputable scholars yet I was alarmed by this quote on a number of levels.  I choose to address only one issue, here, which is what I regard to be the most important one.

In the Book of Acts in the Bible there is an account of a man named Stephen who, while speaking to a multitude of Jewish people, recounts Jewish history as it was recorded in the Tanakch (Old Testament), and uses it to show our (the Jewish people’s) need for an atonement that could only be satisfied through the then recent death and resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus.  In essence those Jews listening to Stephen’s message did not like what they heard and stoned him to death.  Another repercussion of this particular event was that massive persecution broke out against those who believed in Jesus throughout Judea.

As I write this essay, I’ve always thought of Stephen, the Apostles, those believers in Jesus who met daily at the Beis HaMikdosh (Temple), and in people’s homes, the 3,000 who’d come to believe in Y’shua on Shavuoth (Pentacost) and those who were “daily added to their number” as Jews.  In fact there is absolutely no specific mention of a Gentile coming to believe in Y’shua until late in chapter 10, three chapters later*. 

And so I was shocked at reading this books description of the recipients of the post-Stephen persecution as “Christians”.  This description carries with it unique connotations both to the Jewish mind as well as the Gentile mind:  The Jewish mind has been trained to think of the term “Christian” as being decidedly not Jewish.  The Gentile mind, likewise, sees those persecuted as one of them… namely Christians and not Jews (or even Jewish Christians).

The Gentile perception is unfortunate.  For one thing, it denies the reality that those first “Christians” were Jews and for another thing it creates in the minds eye, a “them vs. us” scenario in which the Gentile sees his people, the Christians, as being persecuted by THOSE Jews.  This perpetuates the notion that Jews are evil and "not one of us".  The resulting perspective is one of dispassionate indifference at best towards the persecutors.  The Jewish Christian, on the other hand, sees those who were doing the persecuting as “My Father, brother, my cousins… my family.”  His heart throbs with that of the Apostle Paul who said…

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

Romans 9:1-3

Hence, the Jewish Christian innately loves the people who are persecuting him.**

The repercussions of this “them vs. us” exegesis on the part of the Gentile are far reaching!  It feeds the virus of white supremacy which fallaciously assumes that the early Christians were white Gentiles.  Hence, the Jews who literally gave them their Bible become the bad guys and objects of derision.  These resulting anti-Semitic behaviors and attitudes cause the “unsaved” Jew to believe the false notion that the New Testament is an anti-Semitic book written by Gentiles.  Furthermore, the Christian who takes on this interpretation of the text only causes angst on the part of the Jewish Christian who is allegedly the Gentile Christians "brother or sister in the Lord".  This is because the Gentile has only served to distance the Jewish-Christians loved ones from the Gospel by throwing another roadblock in the path of the Jews identification with the Good News of Jesus.

This “them vs. us” exegesis on the part of the Gentile has to stop! The Gentile must come to grips with and be willing to proclaim the reality that those early persecuted individuals were Jews and thought of themselves as Jews and he must come to the realization that his exegesis of scripture is false and incomplete without input from what is at least the heart of the Jew who is able to help the Gentile “rightly divide the Word of Truth”.

* The Ethiopian Eunuch of chapter 8 was, in all likelihood, a convert to Judaism.

** Admittedly there seem to be exceptions to this rule but I would hold that that’s all that they are… exceptions. 

The Fundamental Problem with the West

In Philipians 4:5 Paul tells the ekklessia "Let your ἐπιεικής, (epieikes) be evident to all men.

According to Strong's Concordance, epieikes can mean "gentle, mild, forbearing, fair, reasonable, moderate".

Personally I like the terms "reasonableness" or "moderate" which is what the King James Version (KJV) uses. I actually see this as a law of Messiah. The "fruit of the Spirit" as outlined in Galatians 5 includes "Temperance" (according to the KJV) a synonm for self-control.

Just as all of the material universe obeys the laws of nature, so too, the spiritual or moral universe ought to obey the Laws of God but it doesn't because of the rebellious nature of man.

What (according to Paul) God requires of the Ekklesia, really is required of mankind in General and when we look around us, man is not inclined towards moderation. The large percentage of women in the West, desirous of abortions to compensate for what can only be termed as licentiousness plus a common proneness towards immodest dress which exists among a large population of women in the West is the very antithesis of moderation.

Evidence of man's inability to attain moderation is Islam which demands that women cover themselves because Islam has not, or has inadequately taught Muslim men self-control. Hence, the onus for restraint falls upon the woman.

In the book of Habbakkuk, the Prophet complains to God that Judah is being invaded by the Babylonians... a wicked and cruel people. In essence, God tells Habbakkuk that He'll take care of the Babylonians but He's using them to punish Judah for her own wickedness, and yet this is part of a process to refine and correct Judah.

I think that what went on in the days of habbakkuk is not too dissimilar to what is going on today. Because the women of the West don't understand the importance of modesty, God is and will use Islam to IMPOSE modesty on them.

The answer to the problems in the West is not yes Trump or no Trump. The answer to the problems in the West remains repentance.