Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13

When Charity is Labeled Hate: Guidestar and the Southern Poverty Law Center
Jun 30th, 2017
CommentaryJOHN STONESTREET/BREAKPOINT.ORG
Categories: Contemporary Issues

While Iran routinely threatens Israel (such as the recent revelation by satellite photos that Iran targeted a Star of David in a ballistic missile test) and its Lebanese terror proxy, Hezbollah, has a vast arsenal of rockets pointed at the Jewish state, experts say the Islamic Republic was sending messages elsewhere through its first missile strike on another country in three decades.

Iran struck Islamic State targets in Syria on June 18, in retaliation for Islamic State's twin terror attacks against prominent Iranian institutions June 7. Iran had not launched a missile strike on another nation since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.

Situated nearly 1,800 kilometers (1,118 miles) away from Israel, Iran reportedly has missiles capable of reaching the Jewish state. 

The precision-guided Zolfaghar missiles Iran fired Sunday into the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor have a range of about 750 kilometers (466 miles). Iran proceeded to showcase Zolfaghar missiles Friday during anti-Israel "Al-Quds Day" rallies.

The Israeli government has ongoing concerns about Iran's nuclear program, ballistic missile program and state sponsorship of terrorism, but the Iranian missile strike in Syria seemingly had little to do with the Jewish state.

Dr. Raz Zimmt, an Iran expert at two Israeli think tanks, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and the Forum for Regional Thinking, told JNS.org Iran's missile attack was "a direct response to the [June 7] terror attack in Tehran and a message both for domestic, regional and international use."

Zimmt explained that, internationally, Iran "wanted to send a message that it considers its missile capabilities to be vital to its national interests, especially in light of the growing U.S. criticism against this capability." The U.S. Senate passed new sanctions against Iran's ballistic missile program June 15.

"The Iranian regime wanted to send a message to its rivals, especially the Saudis, and to a lesser extent, in my view, Israel, showing its strength as a regional power," Zimmt said.

Missile Accuracy 'the Lesser Issue'

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot said the Iranian missile launch was "smaller" than what was reported and achieved "far from precise hits." 

Yet accuracy "is the lesser issue," said Dr. Eado Hecht, a military expert at Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

"If [the Iranians] launch towards targets in an Israeli city, then it really does not matter on which street the missile falls--their capability of hitting a target area the size of Haifa or Tel Aviv is a given," Hecht told JNS.org.

Hecht said the strike in Syria demonstrated Iran's ability to reach a target area as far as 700 kilometers (435 miles) away. 

That does not prove Iran can strike Israel with its missiles, but the regime is assumed to have such a capability, according to Hecht, who added that it is difficult for the Jewish state to gather information on Iranian missiles solely from test-launches.

Overall, Iran's "message is more to others rather than to Israel" through the strike on Syria, said Hecht.

"I think demonstrating this capability and the willingness to use it was directed more to the Saudis than to Israel," he said.

Iran Showcases Its Strength

INSS analyst Zimmt said he sees the recent escalation between the Shi'a power of Iran and the Sunni power of Saudi Arabia as contributing to Iran's efforts to showcase its strength.

"Iran considers current developments in the region as an expression of a combined effort by the Saudi-American-Zionist alliance to curb its influence in the region, while it continues its own efforts to expand its influence," he said.

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) military force has come under criticism domestically following the Islamic State terror attacks in Tehran, "so it had to react," said Zimmt.

"The bottom line," he said, "is that Iran always tries to turn a challenge or weakness, such as the terror attack, into an opportunity to show its strength."

So What Was Iran's Missile Strike in Syria Really About?
Jun 30th, 2017
CommentaryARIEL BEN SOLOMON/JNS.ORG
Categories: The Nation Of Israel

While Iran routinely threatens Israel (such as the recent revelation by satellite photos that Iran targeted a Star of David in a ballistic missile test) and its Lebanese terror proxy, Hezbollah, has a vast arsenal of rockets pointed at the Jewish state, experts say the Islamic Republic was sending messages elsewhere through its first missile strike on another country in three decades.

Iran struck Islamic State targets in Syria on June 18, in retaliation for Islamic State's twin terror attacks against prominent Iranian institutions June 7. Iran had not launched a missile strike on another nation since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.

Situated nearly 1,800 kilometers (1,118 miles) away from Israel, Iran reportedly has missiles capable of reaching the Jewish state. 

The precision-guided Zolfaghar missiles Iran fired Sunday into the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor have a range of about 750 kilometers (466 miles). Iran proceeded to showcase Zolfaghar missiles Friday during anti-Israel "Al-Quds Day" rallies.

The Israeli government has ongoing concerns about Iran's nuclear program, ballistic missile program and state sponsorship of terrorism, but the Iranian missile strike in Syria seemingly had little to do with the Jewish state.

Dr. Raz Zimmt, an Iran expert at two Israeli think tanks, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and the Forum for Regional Thinking, told JNS.org Iran's missile attack was "a direct response to the [June 7] terror attack in Tehran and a message both for domestic, regional and international use."

Zimmt explained that, internationally, Iran "wanted to send a message that it considers its missile capabilities to be vital to its national interests, especially in light of the growing U.S. criticism against this capability." The U.S. Senate passed new sanctions against Iran's ballistic missile program June 15.

"The Iranian regime wanted to send a message to its rivals, especially the Saudis, and to a lesser extent, in my view, Israel, showing its strength as a regional power," Zimmt said.

Missile Accuracy 'the Lesser Issue'

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot said the Iranian missile launch was "smaller" than what was reported and achieved "far from precise hits." 

Yet accuracy "is the lesser issue," said Dr. Eado Hecht, a military expert at Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

"If [the Iranians] launch towards targets in an Israeli city, then it really does not matter on which street the missile falls--their capability of hitting a target area the size of Haifa or Tel Aviv is a given," Hecht told JNS.org.

Hecht said the strike in Syria demonstrated Iran's ability to reach a target area as far as 700 kilometers (435 miles) away. 

That does not prove Iran can strike Israel with its missiles, but the regime is assumed to have such a capability, according to Hecht, who added that it is difficult for the Jewish state to gather information on Iranian missiles solely from test-launches.

Overall, Iran's "message is more to others rather than to Israel" through the strike on Syria, said Hecht.

"I think demonstrating this capability and the willingness to use it was directed more to the Saudis than to Israel," he said.

Iran Showcases Its Strength

INSS analyst Zimmt said he sees the recent escalation between the Shi'a power of Iran and the Sunni power of Saudi Arabia as contributing to Iran's efforts to showcase its strength.

"Iran considers current developments in the region as an expression of a combined effort by the Saudi-American-Zionist alliance to curb its influence in the region, while it continues its own efforts to expand its influence," he said.

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) military force has come under criticism domestically following the Islamic State terror attacks in Tehran, "so it had to react," said Zimmt.

"The bottom line," he said, "is that Iran always tries to turn a challenge or weakness, such as the terror attack, into an opportunity to show its strength."

Ramming the Ten Commandments: a Prophetic Picture of America
Jun 30th, 2017
CommentaryMICHAEL BROWN/ASK DR BROWN
Categories: Warning

It was the act of only one man who drove his vehicle into a Ten Commandments monument in Arkansas, but it reflected the sentiments of a growing number of Americans: "We do not want the Ten Commandments in our midst, nor do we want the God of the Ten Commandments in our midst." 

In that sense, the destructive act of this individual reflected the attitude of tens of millions of Americans. This is not simply a decreased interest in the Bible and the God of the Bible. This is outright rebellion.

Enough with God's laws and standards. Enough with His moral principles. Enough with His prohibitions of idolatry and adultery and murder.

We will do what we want to do, when we want to do it, and no law - or God - will tell us otherwise.

The America we want must have no connection to its Judeo-Christian roots, no connection to the moral values of many of its Founders, no connection to the Scriptures which so influenced their thinking.

We will worship created things more than the Creator, and we will be full of covetousness and greed. We want our idolatry.

We will have sex with whomever we want to, whenever we want to, in any combination and sequence. And if we so desire, we will call these relationships "marriage," and neither God nor man will tell us anything different. We want our adultery.

We will kill our babies in the womb if we so choose, and anyone who defies our wishes will be trampled underfoot with derision and scorn. We want our murder.

Yes, we will do what we want to do when we want to do it. We declare ourselves free. 

Ironically, the man in question, Michael Tate Reed, who livestreamed on Facebook as he drove his vehicle onto the Arkansas statehouse lawn, allegedly yelled "Freedom!" as he crashed into the Ten Commandments monument less than 24 hours after it was erected. (He was previously charged with a similar attack on a Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma in 2014.)

The reality is, the more we depart from God's laws, the more we find ourselves in bondage, far less free than we were before. Rather than shouting "Freedom!", Reed should have shouted, "Bondage! Self-destruction! Captivity! Decline!"

Reed claimed that such monuments are a violation of the separation of church and state, a phrase not found in the Constitution (something that seems to have escaped Justice Sotamayor this week) and, more importantly, a phrase that meant the opposite of what Reed envisions.

In truth, the so-called wall of separation was there to keep the State out of the Church, not the Church out of the State. And the idea that having a public Ten Commandments display would be a violation of American principles would be totally foreign to our Founders.

While doing research for my new book, Saving a Sick America: A Prescription for Moral and Cultural Reformation (due out in September), I was struck by how big a role the Bible played in early American

education, from the colonies to the late 1800's. I was also struck by how deeply biblical principles influenced our Founders, even though they did not want America to be a theocracy.

In other words, they were not trying to impose the biblical faith on the nation (which certainly included a significant minority of irreligious people, even back then), nor were they trying to impose biblical morality on the populace by judicial decree. 

Instead, many of the Founders were convinced that the Bible was filled with practical wisdom and that God's commands brought life, not death. To the extent we would embrace these principles as a Democratic Republic, the better.

Consider this extraordinary quote from our second president, John Adams: "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance and frugality and industry, to justice and kindness and charity towards his fellow men, and to piety and love, and reverence towards Almighty God. 

In this commonwealth, no man would impair his health by gluttony, drunkenness, or lust--no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards, or any other trifling and mean amusement--no man would steal or rile or any way defraud his neighbor, but would live in peace and good will with all men--no man would blaspheme his maker or profane his worship, but a rational and manly, a sincere and unaffected piety and devotion would reign in all hearts. What a utopia, what a paradise would this region be." 

Today we are told that the Bible is an evil book and the God of the Bible an evil, bigoted, petty tyrant. Such tyrants deserve our scorn. That is that attitude aflame in many American hearts today.

In sharp contrast, Samuel Adams, one of the leaders of the American Revolution, stated that the rights of the colonists "may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law-giver and head of the Christian Church [Jesus], which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

Because of that, Adams could say, "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. 

While the people are virtuous they can not be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader."

Michael Reed not only represents that "general dissolution of principles and manners." He articulates it in a full, frontal assault, thereby speaking for millions of Americans.

We do best to quickly re-erect that Ten Commandments monument and, more importantly, recapture the life-giving beauty of God's commandments in our own hearts and lives. 

That is the only hope of our nation.

Editors Note....It seems to me the our society has passed the hour of grace. Not for individuals but for our society as an entity. I do not presume to speak for God in this matter but it seems to me that the pattern of Israel's apostatsy applies here.

Dinosaur Fossils Found in Marine Rocks...again
Jun 30th, 2017
CommentaryTim Clarey, Ph.D.
Categories: Creation - Evolution

Another spectacular dinosaur fossil discovery baffled paleontologists who deny the historical accuracy of the book of Genesis. New Scientist recently reported the identification of a T. rex-like dinosaur from Upper Cretaceous system rocks in North Africa. What confounded the scientists were the phosphate-rich rocks in which the bones were found-rocks indicative of deposition in an open ocean.

The new species was dubbed Chenanisaurus barbaricus by its discoverer Nick Longrich of the University of Bath, UK.....He added, "This find is unusual because it's a dinosaur from marine rocks-it's a bit like hunting for fossil whales and finding a fossil lion. It's an incredibly rare find-almost like winning the lottery." But the discovery of a dinosaur in marine rocks should be no surprise to Longrich and his colleagues, as a group of paleontologists had concluded earlier that nearly all Cretaceous dinosaurs across Europe were buried in marine rocks.

In their 2015 report, Zoltan Csiki-Sava and his co-authors reported just that-nearly all Late Cretaceous dinosaurs were found in marine sedimentary rocks, including chalk and limestone beds.Researchers made similar discoveries of ankylosaurian and hadrosaurian dinosaur fossils in marine sedimentary rocks along the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, and all the way north to Alaska.

With all these finds, it's now clear that the discovery of dinosaurs in marine rocks and/or mixed with marine fossils is the norm, not the exception. Why do secular paleontologists continue to be surprised by what they pull out of the ground? It's likely because they have no other viable explanation outside of deep time and evolution for what they observe. If one rejects the possibility of a global Flood event, as described in Genesis, one is left with no other recourse.

However, creation scientists are not surprised that so many dinosaurs are mixed with marine fossils and are commonly found in marine sediments. Dinosaurs were rapidly buried by the salty Flood waters as they engulfed the continents, mixing the sediments, the ocean creatures and the terrestrial animals together. The evidence for the global Flood is found in the phosphate mines in Morocco and all over the world.

Christians Have No Place in Government?
Jun 30th, 2017
CommentaryPNW STAFF
Categories: Moral Decline

Protest and outrage from the gender-radical left are once again the tactic to silence and exclude Christian voices. 

At issue is the invitation, made by the Department of Education, for prominent Christians from the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family to speak at a conference on the active and engaged role of fathers in their children's lives.

The pro-LGBT groups Human Right's Campaign and GLAAD both assert that the inclusion of Christian voices, despite being well-respected and nationally renowned experts on family values, is an affront to their agenda for diverse families. 

Both FRC and Focus on the Family are Christian organizations that promote traditional Biblical teachings on marriage, fatherhood and families and that do not support the radical gender theories questioning the nuclear family. 

Not coincidentally, both organizations do firmly believe that not only should marriage be between a man and a woman but that a child should have an involved mother and father in his or her life.

It is the possession of these beliefs that, in the eyes of Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD, make Christian organizations unfit to express their beliefs, despite decades of experience and the fact that they still represent the majority of US families' views on the value of fatherhood. A spokesperson from Human Rights Campaign said in a statement, "To provide a taxpayer-funded platform for these organizations is outrageous. Families in this country are increasingly diverse, and include those with same-sex parents, and those led by single parents."

Diversity and tolerance, ironically from two advocacy groups whose stated goal is inclusiveness, are the reasons used to justify silencing Christian voices. 

Most incredible of all, HRC and GLADD are attacking the speakers at a conference meant to focus on fatherhood and promote an actively engaged father figure, an extremely vital element in the development of a child. 

They criticize Christians who lecture on the importance of the father on the grounds that not every family has a father figure.

Opposition to the event soon devolved into personal attacks on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos when GLAAD issued a press release that referred to FRC and Focus on the Family as "anti-LGBTQ hate groups" and called DeVos an "anti-LGBTQ activist" and "unqualified to run the Department of Education". 

They extended their criticism to DeVos' decision to rescind an Obama administration order to permit students to use the restrooms of their choice.

The National Parent Teacher Association was also on the agenda with speakers ready to present on the Fathers' Day panel but they are reported to have pulled out due to the presence of the FRC and Focus on the Family, likely due to the controversy caused by HRC and GLAAD.

In the press release President Sarah Kate Ellis stated that "anti-LGBTQ organizations have no place in government business and school-based discrimination against LGBTQ students must never be ignored." 

Conveniently, she has classified two of the most significant Christian groups as anti-LGBTQ in a tactic that is now being used with frightening regularity: accuse your ideological opposition of prejudice and discrimination in order to have them barred from the public discourse of ideas.

The agenda of the gender radicals is clear: Christians have no place in government or society. Those who stand up for and promote the traditional family and the value of both fathers and mothers are increasingly under attack. 

This is not a case of hate speech directed at gay or lesbian children or their parents but instead one in which it is considered offensive to believe that fatherhood is a sacred duty. 

Biblical beliefs on marriage, fidelity, sexuality and parenthood are not only rejected but stigmatized as hateful.

If these "gender advocacy" groups have their way, there will be no Christians left in government or allowed to have a public voice at all. This is their vision of inclusion, acceptance and tolerance.