[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet Status: Not Logged In; Sign In International News See other International News Articles Title: American-Israeli Rabbi compares Obama to Haman Source: Jerusalem Post URL Source: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Am ... compares-Obama-to-Haman-395457 Published: Mar 30, 2015 Author: GREER FAY CASHMAN, JEREMY SHARON Post Date: 2015-03-30 09:47:44 by redleghunter Keywords: None Views: 1569 Comments: 19 Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, on Saturday night compared US President Barack Obama to Haman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Mordechai. Speaking at the Jerusalem Great Synagogue, the American-born Riskin said that he could not understand what was going through Obama’s mind. “The president of the United States is lashing out at Israel just like Haman lashed out at the Jews,” he said. “I’m not making a political statement,” he clarified, “I’m making a Jewish statement.” When a woman in the audience shouted out that he was being disrespectful to the US president, she was booed by the crowd. Riskin said he didn’t need any help from the audience. “I am being disrespectful because the president of the United States was disrespectful to my prime minister, to my country, to my future and to the future of the world.” Just as Mordechai was focused on saving the Jews of Persia from destruction, he said, so Netanyahu is focused on saving Israel and the world from destruction. He said more than once throughout his address that he was proud of Netanyahu, and added that he did the right thing in speaking to Congress “even if it angered Obama.” Riskin drew an analogy between the conquest of Babylonia by ancient Persia and the armed conflict between Iran and Iraq. In relation to Iran, he said that the only difference between Iran and the Islamic State was who would be using power to control the world. Closer to home, he said that one of Israel’s greatest tragedies is that the rabbinate is enmeshed in politics. Alluding to Shas leader Arye Deri, Riskin declared that he didn’t know how someone who went to jail for bribery could be put back into the same place without ever admitting to his guilt or expressing remorse. Riskin insisted that this was not compatible with Jewish philosophy. “What we’re all about is compassionate righteousness and moral justice,” he said. “We have to have a free voice that is not politically fettered.” Riskin was not the only prominent rabbi to criticize Obama over the weekend for his diplomatic policies. The World Values Network, founded and run by American rabbi and public figure Shmuley Boteach, took out a full page advertisement in The New York Times on Saturday comparing the deal being drawn up with Iran on its nuclear project to the Munich Agreement signed in 1938 by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain with Adolf Hitler, widely seen as an act of appeasement that emboldened the Nazi leader. The Times ad bore a picture of a pensive-looking Obama with an inset picture of Chamberlain holding aloft a copy of the Munich Agreement that he infamously declared to represent “peace for our time,” just 11 months before Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland marking the beginning of the World War II. The ad described Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “terror overlord” and a “Hitler-wannabe,” and said that the deal being discussed with Iran would “enable the world’s foremost sponsor of terror to become a nuclear power.” It called on Obama to demand that Khamenei personally and publicly repudiate his threats against Israel, that Iran cease support for terrorist groups and for the US president not to approve a deal that “allows the potentially catastrophic one-year-weapons-breakout period, which endangers Israel, the Middle East, America and the world. Poster Comment: For those who want a profile on the Haman of the Bible: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther+1&version=KJV Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15. #5. To: redleghunter (#0) The Rabbi's analogy is bad. Haman wrote up the order to exterminate the Jews. He didn't just despise them, he wanted them all dead and sought to do it directly by legislation he authored. That's not Obama. Obama is not actively seeking to slaughter the Israelis. He is simply indifferent to them. The comparison with Neville Chamberlain is also quite imperfect. Chamberlain's performance at Munich was embarrassing, in hindsight. But Chamberlain saw Hitler's aggressiveness in taking more than the Sudentenland, and Chamberlain's government launched Britain's rearmament. It was Chamberlain who presided over the declaration of war on Germany over Poland. Chamberlain resigned just as the Germans were invading France, and Churchill took over just in time to preside over a disaster. Still, the RAF, the Royal Navy and Army were put on a war footing and rearmed under Chamberlain. Chamberlain made a grand strategic error in trusting Hitler would keep his agreement. That's true. France made the same error. So did Stalin. But Chamberlain was not completely blind. He saw Hitler break the terms of Munich. He rearmed his country. He drew the line at Poland and declared when Hitler attacked. He showed poor judgment at a crucial time, but the steps he took to rearm Britain DID put Britain in a position to be able to survive the onslaught, if only just. Chamberlain really was an English patriot. He'd seen the horror of the First World War and wanted to avoid that for his country again, and if that cost some small countries some territory he was willing to trade their territory for peace, yes. But he was not a complete fool. He also rearmed Britain and prepared for a war that did come. I don't see what Obama is doing as being really anything like Chamberlain. Chamberlain didn't CONNIVE at giving Hitler the Sudetenland. He recognized that the Germans did have a point: it was full of Germans, and World War I had ended with an ethnic sorting that left Germany with Germans outside its border. Hitler had a point. He didn't give over all of Czechoslovakia. Hitler took that - and Chamberlain knew that he could not deal with him anymore, and drew the line of war at Poland, and went to war too, even though he saw it was a disaster. And he rearmed Britain. I don't see Obama's motives as being the same, and I don't see him taking the backup steps in case his policy fails. Chamberlain took a risk to avoid war, but he DID prepare for war. Obama? Not so much. He looks almost like an ADVOCATE for Iran against our ally. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   11:40:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Vicomte13 (#5) The Rabbi's analogy is bad. Haman wrote up the order to exterminate the Jews. He didn't just despise them, he wanted them all dead and sought to do it directly by legislation he authored. Maybe not from the Rabbi's foxhole it is not so bad an analogy. redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-30   13:59:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: redleghunter (#13) Maybe not from the Rabbi's foxhole it is not so bad an analogy. Well, then the Rabbi would be saying that Obama explicitly wants the Jews of Israel destroyed in a nuclear holocaust, and that he is purposely giving the Iranians nuclear weapons so that they can exterminate the Jews, because Obama hates Jews and wants to see them all slaughtered with nuclear fire. That's what Haman would do. Obama's not going that far. The Rabbi sounds like W: "If you're not with us, you're against us." I hear a lot of that logic used. When it is used on me, generally if I was neutral before, I do become an enemy of whoever uses it. If somebody is trying to blackmail me or use verbal extortion to force me into supporting his side, I am likely to, for the moment, side with the other side. In time I usually settle out to where I was: neutrality. If I'm neutral and you want me to join your side, you have to offer me something I want. Otherwise I'm going to judge things on the merits. What are the merits here? (This gets back to the grand strategic issues we were discussing before.) Well, I'm going to put the religious issue front and center. The Muslims do that, and so do the Jews. And so do the Israel-as-prophesied Christian fanatics. I am an American taxpayer, and as such I am funding what this government does, funding its foreign aid, and foreigners all around the world who are locked in struggle (like Israelis and Arabs are), are going to judge me personally liable for what my country does, and hold me liable for it by violence or diplomatic means, if they can and if they choose to. Therefore, I have a personal stake in all of it, and I have the right to my own opinion. My opinion is based on my own interests, which I will not subordinate to the interests of other people. I am a Roman Catholic American citizen of Northern Midwestern upbringing and current New England residency. My ancestry is Basque, Celt, Nordic, Alsatian and Dutch. As such, I have no religious claim at stake in the wars of the Middle East. I do have religious principles that generally concern violence and killing and war and money and oppression that universally apply. I have no ethnic or ancestral stake in the Middle East. I have no financial ties there. The only tie I have to it - the only reason I've been over there twice in harm's way, and generally have to fund military and political operations over there, and have myself and my family and my countrymen personally at risk, is because the United States is involved in these wars of other people. I worked at Ground Zero and was there that day. A military friend of my was killed at the Pentagon also on that day. So, besides being over there on military operations because of those people's fight, I've had 3000 people die before my eyes because of those people's issues, and I've lost a classmate to it. My own life was directly in the hazard as well, and through me, the security of my family, my child. I have a lot of stakes in this, and therefore, when it comes to my opinion on the matter, I feel that I have the absolute sovereign right to my own opinion on the matter, and I will not subordinate it to anybody else's interest. So, moving through my hierarchy of interest. Judaism has been a false religion since the Jews rejected Christ. God rejected them, destroyed their temple and slaughtered their priesthood, scrambling the survivors such that the even if a thing called the "Temple" were ever rebuilt, it would have no legitimacy under the Torah, for only the lineal lines of Aaron can minister at the altar, and those lines are utterly lost, erased by the Roman destruction in two Jewish wars. Now, the Israelites were destroyed in two pieces before: the Northern Kingdom by Assyria, and the Southern Kingdom by Babylon. BECAUSE the Northern Kingdom had abandoned the one true altar and priesthood, set up their own high places and their own priests, God destroyed them UTTERLY. He left no continuous remnant, no exiles, other than those of the northern tribes who fled into Judah and were, thereby, reincorporated back into the One True Rite, of the Temple. The rest of the Northern Tribes were erased from history and could never be reconstituted. When God also destroyed Judah for its sins, using the Babylonians to do it, God specifically preserved a remnant, exiled to Babylon, where they remained together, and relearned their faith. He then provided Cyrus the King of Persia as the vehicle for them to return to Jerusalem, and they did, in time. This was ordained by God, as was the rebuilding of the City, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the resumption of the rites. But when Jesus came, he brought a new covenant. He is the ONE true path, the way. In his last week of life, he pronounced the final doom on Israel in several different ways: the cursing of the fig tree, the parable of the wicked tenants, the parable of the feast, the promise of the destruction of the Temple, and the prophesy of the throwing up of the walls against Jerusalem - and his instruction to Christians to get out when that happened. Quite unlike the case with Babylon, but very much like the case with the Northern Kingdom of Israel, THIS time God did not save any remnant. The Temple was destroyed, and all of the implements were too (the Babylonians carefully took them to Babylon and the Hebrews returned with them). The Babylonians brought high ranking Hebrews with their knowledge of who they were, their records of families. But God's destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem, and the further leveling and destroying after the Bar Kochba revolt under Hadrian, destroyed virtually everything. It destroyed things so completely that the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible we have dates from 1010 AD. The family records were lost, the priesthood itself was lost. Biblical Israel, with its priestly rites, CANNOT be restored: God made it impossible by wiping away the necessary knowledge to reform it. The Roman destruction of Judah was as complete a wiping away as the Assyrian annihilation of the Northern 10 tribes. Any claim that despite Jesus' clear statement that now he is the ONLY way, and his clear condemnation, and God's complete fulfillment of the prophesy of complete destruction, carried out in that very generation by Titus and the Romans - all of which fulfills the doom warned of in Deuteronomy 28 - any claim that in spite of the clear finalty and sole path remaining under the only surviving convenant - the NEW One with Jesus - that somehow the Sinai covenant stands and the Jews, apart, with their rites intact, which have nothing to do with the New Covenant, nevertheless have a holy land claim to exclusive possession: any such claim is a direct defiance of the judgment of the King: Jesus Christ, and of his Father, the God of Heaven. It is false, it is blasphemous, and it has no place in any argument. The best religious argument is that the Jews, as Jews, have lost their land claim to Israel and have no right to be there at all. Their ancestors were the evil tenants, and judgment was pronounced on them: the vineyard was taken and given over to others. The ONLY claim that people of Jewish heritage have to the land of Israel now is simply the claim that, as descendants of Abraham, that land is their inheritance. THAT is true. THAT has not been wiped away. The Sinai Covenant IS gone, its expulsion terms executed by God. All that remains is a residual claim to the land by Abrahamites, but they include both the Jews AND the Arabs. Isaac and Ishmael have their claim to the land, as circumcised descendants of Abraham. The Jewish claim to the land is no stronger than the Arab. They both have the right to LIVE there. Neither was given the right by God to RULE it. He promised Abraham that his seed would inherit and live in the land. He did not promise them sovereignty in it. So, if they obtain sovereignty in it, as each has over part of it, then they may rule it, but only subject to the general laws of God, which have not killing or oppressing people front and center. Jews have no better religious claim to that land than Arabs do. The Arab claim of a tie to Mohammed is the claim of a blasphemous false religion that denies the divinity of Christ. The Jewish claim of a continuation of their rights under the Sinai Convenant, against which Jesus pronounced doom and God executed, is also blasphemy for the same reason: a denial of the divinity of Christ. So I have blaspheming Jews and blaspheming Muslims killing each other as avatars of two false religions over a land that both have the right to LIVE in, side by side, as descendants of Abraham, but that neither was promised the right to RULE. And what are these quarrelling brothers of a common ancestor, inflamed by their respective false and blasphemous religions doing? Breaking the law of the one true God and murdering and oppressing each other over absolute land rights and the right to rule over the whole, which neither has. Once the Jews were rightly broken and expelled by the Romans, as the judgment of God, the land passed over to others, as Jesus ordained it. Arabs of various extractions, and Greeks and Turks and others, lived in it and predominated there for 1800 years. There were always some Jews still in the land, and they had the right to be there too, as descendants of Abraham - THAT covenant is still good. But they had no right to RULE it, under the covenant of Sinai, for Jesus invoked the penalty clauses of that covenant and ended it forever. In World War I, the French and British stripped the Levant from the Ottoman Empire. The British decided to declare that Israel would be a place for Jewish immigration. After the horrors of World War II, the UN stood up and declared that there would be a Jewish State and a Palestinian State. It's an interesting thing that nations feel themselves empowered to tell people where they may live and where they must leave. And if the UN declares the American Southwest to be Aztlan, due to history and patterns of immigration, I do not think that, perforce, the Americans are obliged to accept it. Then things come down to a power argument. And that, of course, really is what the Arab/Israeli fight is all about. Two false religions are behind the absolute intransigence of the positions, and beyond that there are land interests, property interests, old hard feelings - a veritable universe of conflict. And all of that conflict has not one thing to do with me. It's not my religion. It's not my land. The religious claims on which both sides stand are false, so as far as I can see they HAVE no valid claim. It's a test of brute force between two distant, strange, hostile theologies, philosophies and ethnicities. There are similar conflicts between Tamils and others on Sri Lanka, and between various African tribes, and between Presbyterians and Catholics in Ireland, and in the Ukraine. None of these disputes has validity before God (God doesn't authorize slaughtering each other over such things. So, there's no moral imperative in these cases to force me to care for one cause or another. There IS a moral imperative not to kill. These disputes are resolved by resort to force. I see no reason for my blood, my body, my treasure, my kinsmen's or countrymen's blood, or all of our security, to be placed in the hazard for two strange and faraway peoples' false religions and unjust causes. That's the starting place: I see no justification in the causes, so I am unwilling to support them financially, and - here's the issue - I am unwilling to allow my country to go do it, and thereby place myself, my family, my country, in the hazard, as targets, of unjust people fighting unjust causes. If they're fighting for Zion or for Allah, they're fighting for blasphemy. Why should I abet it? I will not! If they're not, then they're just fighting for land and power and wealth and control. And why should I abet THAT either? It has nothing to do with me, other than the fact that by putting my foot into it, I and mine suffer blowback. For what? My security and my nation's security are positively HARMED by getting involved in other people's unjust fights. So, what's left then? Well, I've heard men who don't seem to know any more than I do, tell me that "our national interests demand..." Who defines "our national interest"? Them? Why them. I say that it is in our national interest not to be in debt, not to be spending millions meddling in unjust fights abroad, not to be getting our people killed, and not to be inviting retaliation. The mafia is in Sicily and they retaliate. Do we intervene in Italy to fight it? No. It's not our fight. What makes the battle between two false religions over a desert our fight? Some might say "oil". Oil. The Europeans and Japanese and Chinese import lots of oil from there. We import from Mexico and Canada and Venezuela and produce our own, and we could use pressure to develop things like nuclear power too. WE don't need the oil. Our ECONOMIC COMPETITORS do. So, if there is fighting that needs to be done, crassly, over oil, why should WE be dirtying our hands and our souls, and spending money, to go fight so that the massive economies of our competitors can have cheap and steady oil flows. No. It is in OUR interests for the Chinese, Japanese and Europeans NOT to have completely reliable oil, so that THEY spend THEIR treasure and blood to secure it. If THEY want to intervene in the Middle East, and have tensions with each other and with the locals, that is THEIR affair. I am unwilling to have the United States - MY people and MY money, going to make life EASIER for the British and Germans and Japanese and Chinese. To the contrary, it would be in OUR interests to see the British, German and Japanese and Chinese economies all damaged by a percentage point or two having to build the naval forces to go protect their interests. There's no reason for US to do it. The REAL interest driving this is the desire of big swinging dicks in the Pentagon and the State Department and CIA to control all of the force pieces on the chessboard, so that everybody RELIES on us for the security. This, then, we think is in our "national interest" because its lets our security geeks and muscleheads be the arbiter of people's defense. The catch in all of it, though, is that our security geeks and muscleheads are not the arbiters of anything. They are the cannon fodder. The government actually decides who and how to use our force based upon the power of the financial interests that control the country. And their interests are aligned internationally, and NOT covalent with MY interests, and the interests of my kin, or American flesh and blood. America has no vital interest in the Middle East at all. The murderous war of two false and blasphemous religions is not something we should be involved in. Colonial wars over territory should not be our affair. WE don't need the oil. The people who DO need it need to either spend all the money to procure it, or fade and fall as economic competitors, leaving market share to us. And our security geeks' and muscleheads' desire to be big swingin' dicks needs to be emasculated in order to save money and blood. Some say "the enemy will follow us here". No they won't, not if we don't permit their immigration. And they are far less likely to want to if we are not actively involved in fighting over there. Risk is a fun game. It's also for children. We do not need to be playing Risk with US national assets. We need them OUT of over there and those bad causes, and invested HERE at home. And as for the financial interests? Well, they're REALLY the root of the problem. They are skewed both towards the Jews and towards the Oil Arabs. The proper answer is for everybody else to say, as a nation, "No, we're not going to get involved in that." From the rabbi's foxhole, comparing Obama to Haman may not be a bad analogy. But from mine, or from any objective analysis of what is best for America, it is. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   15:55:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Vicomte13 (#14) Obama's not going that far. .....Yet..... redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-30   16:18:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 15.         There are no replies to Comment # 15. End Trace Mode for Comment # 15. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com