BBC Begins the Global Warming Climbdown

Here is a story from the BBC admitting that the over-wrought predictions of Arctic ice disappearing any day now were likely wrong.

Ice floating on the Arctic Ocean melted unusually quickly this year, but did not shrink down to the record minimum area seen in 2007.

That is the preliminary finding of US scientists who say the summer minimum seems to have passed and the ice has entered its winter growth phase.

2010's summer Arctic ice minimum is the third smallest in the satellite era.

Researchers say projections of summer ice disappearing entirely within the next few years increasingly look wrong.

Read the rest here. Those of you who couldn't sleep because you were having nightmares about the drowning polar bears can nod off with a clear conscience now. Whew.

Did You Know That Only "Right-Wing Extremists" are Opposed to Anti-Semitism?

Watching Muslims learn the lingo of Western liberalism and then turn it against Western liberals in their quest to overthrow the West and establish Islamic Supremacist theocracies is to overdose on irony. For example, a conference recently wrapped up at Yale University on the recent rise of anti-semitism around the world. The conference highlighted Muslim involvement in rabid anti-semitism and so incurred the wrath of Muslim critics:

No sooner had a three-day conference on contemporary anti-Semitism at Yale University ended than voices of disapproval arose over a perceived bias and even latent racism of the event. Sponsored by the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism (YIISA) and bringing together some 110 scholars to present papers relevant to the theme of "Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity," the conference had as its seemingly benign and productive objective a furtherance of the initiative's primary role of identifying and seeking to explain current manifestations of the world's oldest hatred.

The need for such a conference, though distressing, seems to be justified based on both anecdotal and statistic studies, including a 2009 report by the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University, which noted a doubling of anti-Semitic incidents from the prior year: 1,129 in 2009 compared to 559 in 2008. Equally troubling were the 2008 findings of the European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and Security Franco Frattini, which revealed that of the documented anti-Semitic incidents on the European continent, Muslims were responsible for fully half, a statistic made more alarming by the fact that European Muslims, based on being only 3%-4% of the population, committed 24 to 32.3 times the number of anti-Semitic incidents as European non-Muslims.

So where did these "voices of disapproval" come from? Well, surprise, surprise: it was Muslims accusing the scholars at the conference of "racism" because they documented the fact that Muslims are disproportionately guilt of anti-semitic acts.

None of this seemed to matter to critics of the Yale conference, who were incensed that many of the scholars who participated were "right-wing extremists" articulating "odious views" about the perpetrators of anti-Semitism, according to Maen Rashid Areikat, the U.S. representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization. "As Palestinians, we strongly support principles of academic freedom and free speech," Mr. Areikat wrote, without a hint of irony, in an indignant open letter to Yale's president, Richard Levin. "[H]owever[,] racist propaganda masquerading as scholarship does not fall into this category."

So now if you criticize Islam for anti-semitism that makes you a "right-wing extremist" because of course only right-wing extremists would ever defend Israel or attack anti-semitism! Sure you support free speech and academic freedom. That must be why you are trying to shut down conferences that shine a light on your dirty little secrets: "academic freedom for me, but not for thee."

It grows increasingly difficult to tell the Western Leftists from the Muslim theocrats every day.

What is a Moderate Muslim?

Ben Shapiro at Townhall has had enough of Michael Moore's support for radical Islam and he executes a nice smackdown using both humor and logic. In the course of his entertaining rant of a post, however, he states clearly just exactly what needs to be emphasized in this whole debate.

Western societies don't need to worry only about actual terrorists - the people who strap on bombs and blow themselves up. We also need to worry about those who teach the religious doctrines which inspire the terrorists, those who provide the financing for the terrorists networks and those who give the terrorist cause legitimacy by repeating their anti-Western rhetoric and rubbing shoulders with terrorist organizations like Hamas.

But what is a moderate Muslim anyway? Shapiro gets it exactly right.

Liberals simply don't understand the Muslim world. They're under the bizarre misimpression that if a Muslim isn't actively strapping a bomb to his chest, he's a "moderate." By that standard, Imam Rauf -- the man behind the ground zero mosque -- is moderate, despite the fact that he refuses to condemn Hamas, associates with terrorist funders and anti-Semites, and believes that United States foreign policy was responsible for 9/11.

The truth is that there are three groups of Muslims: those who are terrorists; those who agree with terrorists and support them with money, rhetoric or time; and those who are truly moderate. Only group three is worth cultivating. And group three would never have the gall to build a mosque at ground zero, let alone preach to the American public about their supposed racism for opposing such a mosque.

Once we accept that there are three groups of Muslims instead of two and that the second group is in many ways as dangerous as the first, we are ready to have an serious, adult debate about the Ground Zero Mosque. The issue is whether Imam Rauf and his mysterious backers belong to the third group or to the second.

If it turns out (as a great deal of factual evidence seems to indicate) that Rauf is clearly in the second group, it should be a no brainer that he should be ostracized, hounded, opposed and shamed into retreating. In fact, if Rauf really is in the second category, building the mosque (or whatever they are calling it this week) would be a second victory for Islamism at the same site.

A Challenging and Interesting Perspective on Glenn Beck

Andrew Walker over at Mere Orthodoxy has posted a video clip featuring the often iconoclastic, but always interesting, Doug Wilson offering what I think is a profoundly true and challenging perspective on Glenn Beck.

Basically, Wilson is asking why Reformed people are failing to fight the pretentious statism so rampant today and leaving the field to a poorly educated Morman to fight the dragon that we (of all people in the world) ought to be fighting. He is surely right in saying that those who sit back and snipe at Glenn Beck and never get around to joining the battle need to be called out. My suspicion is that a secret yearning for cultural approval and status lies at the root of this reluctance to engage the enemy. What do you think?

Ask Doug: Glenn Beck from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

I know that not all Evangelicals and Reformed Protestants have been sitting on the sidelines. Credit should be given to those leading the Manhattan Declaration movement and those who are are willing to stand up and be counted. Yet, Wilson is still right (in my view) in implying that Evangelicalism is largely lethargic and confused and the Reformed are holding back inexplicably. What say you?

Tolerance, Bridge-Building, Dialogue: OK, Let's Have Some!

Imam Rauf claims he is a "moderate" and wants to "build bridges." But so far his project has polarized America, stirred up antipathy to Islam and made enemies out of neighbors. It doesn't exactly sound like a smashing success so far, does it? Maybe he needs a little advice on what Americans would consider "moderate" when it comes to religion.

Camie Davis at American Thinker shows what a real moderate Muslim would look like.

Now that Imam Rauf is back from his goodwill tour across the Middle East, I have a quick question for him. Is the bridge he's building a one-way street or a two-way street?

If it's a two-way street promoting religious tolerance, then I can only assume he'll be packing soon for a goodwill tour part II. After all, there are a few other places to extend that ever-talked-about bridge in order to further spread his message of religious tolerance.

Stop one: Gaza. Perhaps Imam Rauf could tell the women in Gaza that it's not a good idea for them to celebrate and pass out candy to children upon hearing that Hamas murdered four Jews. And while he's at it perhaps he could tell Hamas to become a little more tolerant of the Jews' existence.

Stop two: Jerusalem. The Imam could set-up a charity for the eight Jewish children who were orphaned after their parents were murdered by Hamas. It's likely the Imam has many oil-rich, moderate Muslim friends who would jump at the chance of making a statement against terrorism by supporting the victims of terror.

While in Jerusalem, the Imam could also check on the status of the planned Jewish "community center," that Jews want to build on the Temple Mount. After all, there can never be too many places of worship or community centers. However, until Park Project 5771 in Jerusalem is complete, the Imam could at least go to bat for Jews who are not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount.

Stop three: Iraq. I feel certain that the Christian women and young girls in Iraq, who are being systematically raped by Muslims, would welcome the Imam speaking about religious tolerance on their behalf.

Read the rest here. Instead of blaming America for 9/11 and hanging out with people who claim that 9/11 was an inside job by the US government, maybe Imam Rauf could focus on promoting tolerance among violent, extremist, terrorist types and their theological advisers and enablers.

Update:
Now Rauf is blaming Sarah Palin for stirring up hatred of Muslims. He is obviously going to the mat for liberal support. What is next? Channel Saudi oil money to Democratic candidates? Facilitate a terrorist attack on an Alaska pipeline?

But the inconvenient truth here is that Sarah Palin speaks for the majority of Americans (polls range between 63 an 71% of the country) and President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg speaks for a minority of radical, liberal elitists. My sense is that Muslims who are used to watching European elites roll over and play dead as they push the envelope are discovering that Americans are not so inclined to sit down and shut up while their country is occupied and humiliated.

Folks Who Cling to Their Liberalism and Antipathy to People Who Aren't Like Them

I've just read the second opinion piece in the mainstream media today that is critical of the Ground Zero Mosque Imam. Interesting . . . I predicted that a turning point may have been reached the other day when Imam Rauf implied that the mosque had better go ahead . . . or else. That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

But the reason I call attention to this piece is the way in which William McGurn, writing in the Wall Street Journal, skillfully draws the connection between Iman Rauf and American liberalism. His closing line is beautiful!

Here is an excerpt:

For American liberals, that two out of three Americans oppose the construction of an Islamic center on its current cite occasions no second thoughts. To the contrary, it likely confirms a view of the American people as dangerous yahoos. In fact, it probably confirms the liberal view that the war on terror is less a war against radical Islamists than a more general battle between moderates and extremists of all varieties.

Yesterday at the Council, Imam Rauf made this explicit. "The real battlefront, the real battle that we must wage together today," he said, "is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is between moderates of all faith traditions against the extremists of all faith traditions."

Now, the world has its share of Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other religious extremists. Sometimes that extremism leads to violence. At least in America, however, to compare this to the sustained, organized international war crimes planned and carried out by Islamic extremists beggars belief.

No one walks the streets of Manhattan fearing a Methodist may blow up his office, hijack his flight, or kill his son fighting in Afghanistan. Unless you are Angelina Jolie or the dean of Yale Law School, this is not only true but obvious. . . .

Yesterday at the Council, Imam Rauf made this explicit. "The real battlefront, the real battle that we must wage together today," he said, "is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is between moderates of all faith traditions against the extremists of all faith traditions."

So here we are, with the grievances on all sides more aggravated than assuaged by this latest experiment in liberal bridge-building. If the president and the mayor and the imam sound bitter about the 71% of New Yorkers who would like to see the Islamic Center moved, we shouldn't be surprised. It's what happens to folks who cling to their liberalism and their antipathy to people who aren't like them.

I don't know about you, but I'd say that McGurn has said it about as well as it can be said.

A Marvellous Speech on Faith in Public Life

This is quite simply one of the most impressive speeches I have ever read from a politician in modern times. It is logical, informed, fearless and literate.

Rick Santorum, former US Senator from Pennsylvania and currently Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, recently gave this speech on the place of religion in public life and politics in Houston, TX, where 50 years ago John F. Kennedy gave his famous speech to reassure voters that he would not allow the Vatican to determine US policies. As Santorum shows, Kennedy opened the door to secularization and compromise by a generation of Catholic politicians who have failed to bear a faithful witness in the public arena.

Here is how it begins:

Three pictures hung in the home of my devoutly Catholic immigrant grandparents when I was a boy and I remember them well -- Jesus, Pope Paul VI and John F. Kennedy. The president was a source of great pride and a symbol to Catholics that all barriers had finally been broken. What my family and maybe even candidate Kennedy at the time didn't realize was that in a key moment in that election of 1960 right here in Houston, Kennedy began the construction of another, even more threatening wall for our society -- one that sealed off informed moral wisdom into a realm of non rational beliefs that have no legitimate role in political discourse.

Fifty years ago this Sunday JFK delivered a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to dispel suspicions about the role the papacy might play in the government of this country under his administration. Let's make no mistake about it -- Kennedy was addressing a real issue at the time. Prejudice against Catholics threatened to cost him the election. But on that day, Kennedy chose not just to dispel fear, he chose to expel faith. Let me quote from the beginning of Kennedy's speech: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

The idea of strict or absolute separation of church and state is not and never was the American model. It was a model used in countries like France and until recently Turkey, but it found little support in America until it was introduced into the public discourse by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v. The Board of Education in 1947. (Black, by the way, was a Catholic-hating former member of the KKK who ironically enough advocated this strict separation doctrine to keep public funds from Catholic schools.)

Read the rest here. If this man runs for president, the US would have to be crazy not to elect him.

Apparently They Don't Call Them "Orthodox" for Nothing!

Well, in a speech at Lambeth Palace Metropolitan Hillarion of the Russian Orthodox Church blasted the heresy, worldliness and immorality running rampant throughout Western Anglicanism with the Archbishop of Canterbury sitting in the audience. David Virtue reports:

In a groundbreaking address at Lambeth Palace before the Nicean Club that included the Archbishop of Canterbury, Russian Metropolitan Hilarion blasted those parts of the Anglican Communion experimenting with sexual innovations saying they threatened continuing dialogue with the Orthodox Church.

In surprise remarks that observers say embarrassed Dr. Williams, Hilarion ripped Western Anglican liberals who have deviated from heterosexual marriage calling it "an abyss that divides traditional Christians from Christians of liberal trend."

The Patriarch praised "traditionalists", especially in the South and the East, saying the recent 2nd All African Bishops' Conference held in late August had it right when they affirmed the Biblical standard of the family as marriage between a man and a woman as its foundation. "One of the purposes of marriage is procreation of children some of whom grow to become the leaders of tomorrow," he said.

"Nowadays it is increasingly difficult to speak of 'Christianity' as a unified scale of spiritual and moral values, universally adopted by all Christians. It is more appropriate, rather, to speak of 'Christianities', that is, different versions of Christianity espoused by diverse communities.

"All current versions of Christianity can be very conditionally divided into two major groups - traditional and liberal. The abyss that exists today divides not so much the Orthodox from the Catholics or the Catholics from the Protestants as it does the 'traditionalists' from the 'liberals'.

"Some Christian leaders, for example, tell us that marriage between a man and a woman is no longer the only way of building a Christian family: there are other models and the Church should become appropriately 'inclusive' to recognize alternative behavioral standards and give them official blessing. Some try to persuade us that human life is no longer an absolute value; that it can be terminated in a mother's womb or that one can terminate one's life at will. Christian 'traditionalists' are being asked to reconsider their views under the slogan of keeping abreast with modernity.

"Among the vivid indications of disagreement within the Anglican Community (I am reluctant to say 'schism') is the fact that almost 200 Anglican bishops refused to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference. I was there as an observer from the Russian Orthodox Church and could see various manifestations of deep and painful differences among the Anglicans."

Heresy absent

"Today the notion of heresy, while present in church vocabulary, is manifestly absent from the vocabulary of contemporary politically-correct theology - a theology that prefers to refer to "pluralism" and to speak of admissible and legitimate differences," he opined.

"Indeed, St Paul himself wrote that 'there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval' (1 Cor. 11:19). But what kind of differences was he referring to? Certainly not those which concerned the essence of faith, church order or Christian morals. For, in these matters, there is only one truth and any deviation from it is none other than heresy."

Dialogue Threatened

"Today the Orthodox-Anglican Dialogue itself has come under threat. It is especially lamentable because this dialogue has had a long and rich history, beginning with the numerous talks at various levels held between Orthodox and Anglicans from the 17th century.

Hilarion voiced concerns about the fate of this dialogue. "We appreciate the proposal Archbishop Rowan Williams made this year to exclude from the dialogue those Anglican churches which failed to observe the moratorium on the ordination of open homosexuals. But we regard this proposal as not quite sufficient to save the dialogue from an approaching collapse. The dialogue is doomed to closure if the unrestrained liberalization of Christian values continues in many communities of the Anglican world.

"We are equally concerned about the fate of bilateral relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church of England," he stated.

Read it all here. The Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of the US have reduced themselves to the status of liberal Protestant sects and abandoned true catholicity and orthodoxy. The Church of England seems to have committed itself to the same path to irrelevance irrevocably. Now it reaps what it has sown. Sure Williams must be embarassed, but how could he be surprised?

Geert Wilders' Speech at Ground Zero on 9/11

Geert Wilders is a leading Dutch politician and head of the Freedom Party. He lives his life under death threats from Muslims because he is leading a movement to oppose the take-over of Europe by Islam. He stands for Western ideals like free speech, religious freedom and liberal democracy. He opposes theocracy, sharia law and totalitarian rule by Muslim religious leaders. For this he is villified and hated by the secular, establishment Left in the Netherlands.

Nevertheless, the people increasingly vote for him in increasing numbers in every election.

Here is Wilders' speech at a rally held on 9/11 at Ground Zero.



He exposes the real agenda of the Ground Zero Mosque project as Islamic triumphalism. He asks the unanswerable question of why an inter-faith center promoting tolerance is not being built where it is really needed: in Mecca.

Inman Rauf's Protection Racket and Freedom of Speech

I predict that Inman Rauf's comments on Larry King Live the other night will prove to be a turning point in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy by turning public opinion firmly against the project and requiring Rauf and his shadowy financial backers to back down. For the record, he said:

Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the self-professed bridge builder “devoted to peacemaking,” is now claiming that the Muslim world will erupt in violence if he withdraws his plan for the Muslim community center and mosque he intends to build right near Ground Zero.

Rauf told Soledad O’Brien on CNN’s “Larry King Live” that:

If we move that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.

Rauf went on to say that the violent reaction in the Muslim world could be worse than it was to the Danish cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad in a negative light.

O’BRIEN: But the controversy itself–
RAUF: So the Cordoba house —
O’BRIEN: –though, right, isn’t that causing to some degree an instability and a risk, a risk of safety? I mean, there’s an address now that has become the flash point for a lot of anger. Isn’t that a risk to Muslims and Americans?
RAUF: There is a certain anger here, no doubt. But if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And we have a much larger footprint in the Muslim world. If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something which could really become very, very, very dangerous indeed.

Instead of trying to calm down the Muslim world, whatever the ultimate fate of his prized project turns out to be, the bridge builder warns us that we better do things his way or there will be security risks for the United States and Americans abroad.

Inman Rauf is playing the oldest game in the books; you would think he was raised in Chicago. "Listen, I'm really sympathetic and I'd like to help you out. But you know there are some crazy guys out there and they hurt people. If you could just help me out a little, I could take care of those guys for you. Nice little G-20 Western democracy you have here - it would be a shame if anything happened to it."

On the other hand, Reuters reports that Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, is to present an award to Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard despite threats from barbaric Muslims who talk openly of violence and murder. Merkel's comments (at the end of this quote) should be a lesson to appeasing, cowardly, leftists in the US:

Organizers of the M100 Media Prize to be awarded at Potsdam near Berlin said the cartoons had "triggered an international controversy about freedom of speech and sparked worldwide, partly violent demonstrations of Muslims who felt insulted."

Most Muslims consider any depiction of the founder of Islam to be offensive, and the Danish cartoons portrayed Mohammed with a turban shaped like a bomb. At least 50 people died in ensuing riots by enraged Muslims in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Westergaard stood by his work "invoking the right to freedom of speech," said the M100 prize committee, praising the Dane's "courage to stand by these democratic values and defend them, notwithstanding threats of violence and death."

The Organizers issued a statement from Merkel saying that, at a time when Germany is marking 20 years of unity after the fall of East Germany's communist regime, her country was "still conscious of what the lack of freedom implies."

That is the message we need to hear. Freedom of speech is essential to democracy, which is why Islamists hate it so passionately. When ever one of these controversies arises (and they seem to be arising every other day lately) the focus needs to be on Muslim violence and the need for Muslim leaders to unequivocally condemn such violence if they want to be taken seriously in the public debate on religious freedom.

The Florida pastor who threatened to burn the Koran has flushed out the hypocrisy of leaders like Obama and Bloomberg, who appeal to the principle of religious freedom when it advances the interests of Muslims and then do a 180 degree turn about when the principle of religious freedom appears to go against Muslim interests.

Those who argue, like General Petraeus, that Pastor Jones' actions imperils troops in Muslim countries are simply acting in a cowardly fashion. It isn't one little congregation in Florida that Islamists object to: it is America and the ideals upon which it was built. And to imagine that the West can ever do enough to appease Islamists so they won't attack us anymore is ridiculous. If we don't stand for free speech and freedom of religion, including when Islam is ridiculed or attacked, then we are not standing for truth and right.

Liberal Pacifism is Not Biblical; It is Embarasingly Shallow

William Willimon, in a Christianity Today interview, discusses the question of whether or not the US should stay militarily involved in Afghanistan.

"After an acrimonious debate about the Iraq war at the United Methodist Church's annual conference a couple of years ago, I declared a series of "Bishop's Conversations about War" all over Alabama.

I'll never do that again. I opened each discussion by saying, "We are going to talk about this war as Christians." I soon learned that it is virtually impossible for us to talk about war using any specifically biblical or Christian referent.

Most people were in favor of the war. We are a democracy; we are powerful; we have a responsibility to spread freedom and democracy around the world; when our government calls, we have a patriotic duty to offer our children. Missing was any reference to Scripture, church teaching, or any other specifically Christian criterion.

. . .

As a Christian, I'm forced to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that all presumptive lordlets are not. So when our President declares that we have a responsibility to fight, to destroy, to force democracy and our brand of freedom anywhere, I wish I had the guts to ask, "Who is this 'we' of whom you speak? We are Christians; Jesus gives us some odd definitions of 'we.'"

I'm not sure that Christians in America could do much to stop these Bush-Obama Near Eastern wars without end. But could we have at least contributed to the national debate by offering an occasional, "But Jesus says that …"?

In our attempts to be good, responsible members of a democracy, we have given away the store. While we say Jesus Christ is Lord, we let Caesar call the shots."

Now, where to start. CT asked a perfectly coherent, though difficult, question regarding American foreign policy which can be discussed ethically. Willimon ducked that discussion and, like a fundamentalist who waves his proof text in your face insisting that it says so right here, he assumes (not argues) that Jesus would tell his followers to tell the US government to withdraw immediately from Afghanistan and that the US should never have invaded in the first place.

So let's try to imagine Willimon's Jesus saying what Willimon thinks he would say. Here is how I think it would go:

War is bad; killing people is bad and you ought not to do it. You should join a liberal peace and justice group right away to lobby the US government to withdraw from Afghanistan and stop fighting the terrorists in the mountains of Pakistan as well.

If you would just read the Four Gospels and look at how I never stopped talking about the oppressive power of Rome and the need to lobby Caesar to stop the war in Persia, the war in Gaul and the endless, expensive and totally unnecessary border skirmishes with the so-called "barbarians," you would have to re-order your priorities. I told you the barbarians were just people with a culture different from your own whom you should respect instead of demonizing as the "other."

As you know, I was against this war from the beginning. Overthrowing the Taliban was a huge mistake. Sure they blew up Buddhist statues, practiced female genital mutilation and trained terrorists to fly planes into buildings but who are you to act like your culture is superior? Every time you overthrow an oppressive, violent, tyrannical government you just stir up the Muslim street and create a recruiting bonanza for radical Islam.

All that stuff I ordered you to do like preaching the gospel, baptizing and teaching them to obey can wait. This is more important. You aren't going to bring peace to the world by evangelism and catechism, you need a PR strategy, a manifesto and computerized voter lists. Above all, you must remember to demonize Bush; the polls say there is still value in it. Have some famous sports figure record a robo call. Organize a march on the White House; that is where all the power is.

I'll be waiting to hear how it goes because I really want peace and you know that politics is the only way, the only truth and the only way of life. And you can't do politics up here where I am.

____________

Liberal pacifism is the attempt to impose the Christian life upon secular nation states as if would be appropriate for such states to act like Christian pacifists and renounce their obligation to defend the nation by force, which is why God ordains human government during the period of human history in which the effects of the Fall have yet to be reversed by the Second Coming of Christ. (Rom. 13:1-7) Liberal pacifism is part of liberal Protestantism and it is a heresy.

Ezra Levant on George Soros

On his website, Ezra Levant has posted his latest column for the Sun newspaper chain on George Soros' attempt to interfere with the creation of a conservative TV news enterprise in Canada.

The first part of the column introduces the reader to just exactly who Soros is. I thought, in light of the recent revelations that Sojourners has received major funding from Soros (first denied, then admitted to be true by Jim Wallis), that it might be interesting to be introduced to the Wallis' new benefactor. After all, we are constantly hearing fevered stories about "the powerful interests who are pulling the GOP's strings" - as if the Democratic Party was just a bunch of ordinary, middle-class Americans fighting big business and Wall Street.

Here is the background of one of the Democratic sugar daddies:

George Schwartz was born in Hungary in 1930 — not the luckiest time and place to be born a Jew.

George’s father Theodore tried to change the family’s fortunes by changing their name to something less Jewish-sounding. It didn’t help. And soon war came.

When the Nazis took total control of Hungary in 1944, the Holocaust followed. In two months, 440,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to death camps.

To survive, George, then a teenager, collaborated with the Nazis.

First he worked for the Judenrat. That was the Jewish council set up by the Nazis to do their dirty work for them. Instead of the Nazis rounding up Jews every day for the trains, they delegated that murderous task to Jews who were willing to do it to survive another day at the expense of their neighbours.

Theodore hatched a better plan for his son. He bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let George live with him. George helped the official confiscate property from Jews.

By collaborating with the Nazis, George survived the Holocaust. He turned on other Jews to spare himself.

George moved to London after the war and then to New York, where he became a stockbroker. He’s rich now. Forbes magazine says he’s the 35th richest man in the world. Maybe you’ve heard of him. He goes by the name his father invented: George Soros.

How does Soros feel about what he did as a teenager? Has it kept him up at night?

Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that. Was it difficult? “Not at all,” Soros answered.

“No feeling of guilt?” asked Kroft. “No,” said Soros. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.”

A Nazi would steal the Jews’ property anyways. So why not him?

That moral hollowness has shaped Soros’ life. He’s a rabid critic of capitalism, but in 1992 when he saw a chance, he speculated against the British pound, causing it to crash, devastating retirement savings for millions of Britons. Soros pocketed $1.1 billion for himself. If he didn’t do it, someone else would, right?

In 2002, Soros was convicted of insider trading in France, and fined millions of dollars. He admitted buying the shares, but denied it was a crime.

Last year, when he made $3.3 billion off the banking collapse, he called the world’s financial crisis “the culmination of my life’s work.”

This is a man who boasted he offered to help his mother commit suicide. Apparently he didn’t see enough death in Hungary.

Soros is a sociopath. But he’s a sociopath with $14 billion, and he likes to spend it on politics.

When your "Christian ministry" gets funded by this type of guy, it is no wonder you look like a Democratic Party front - like the Catholic version of Sojourners called Catholics United. Peter Smith writes at LifeSiteNews.com:

Catholics United is an affiliate of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, an organization funded by atheist billionaire George Soros. Both organizations have been condemned by Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput as front groups for the Democrat party that have “done a disservice to the Church.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue told LifeSiteNews.com that, as Planned Parenthood gave House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “well deserved” award “for her work championing abortion” on July 15, perhaps next year they would like to consider Korzen for the prize.

“Though Korzen may scream all day long about pro-life groups ‘misusing the language of faith to score cheap political points,’ every honest person knows he is a master of expedient politics,” said Donohue. “His latest gambit, funneling George Soros money to Pelosi shills, is just the latest example of his duplicity.”

Archbishop Chaput and Bill Donohue have Catholics United figured out; how come it has taken so long for Evangelicals to come to grips with what Jim Wallis and Sojourners have become?