Video of my message to Liberty University: “Facing the Fire: Standing For Christ In An Age of Evil.” When it comes to the Holocaust, we say “Never again.” Yet America has aborted 55 million babies. Is darkness not falling? Is judgment not coming? What do we think will happen?

Rosenberg-LibertyOn Friday, March 21st, I had the honor of addressing more than 10,000 students at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia with a message titled, “Facing The Fire: Standing For Christ In An Age of Evil.” 

(To watch the 29 minute message, please click here.)

Opening with Daniel chapter three, I shared the biblical story of three Jewish men — Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego — who were thrown in a fiery furnace by an evil tyrant because they refused to bow down a worship a false god.

Sharing some lessons from the Holocaust, I shared several true stories of the real heroes — Jewish and Christian — who inspired the novel, The Auschwitz Escape

Then, noting that “darkness is falling” in Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and around the world, I also urged these students to love God and love their neighbors and stand boldly and courageously for Jesus Christ and the Word of God, no matter what the cost.

One of the most important elements of the message, for me personally, was reminding the students that in my lifetime, Americans have aborted 55 million babies. If this is not stopped, in the next few years, Americans will have murdered 60 million people.

“Consider the implications of that number,” I told them. “That will mean that Americans will have killed ten times more people than the number of Jews that the Nazis murdered during the Holocaust.”

We know the judgment that came upon Nazi Germany because of what they did, I noted. What do we think is going to happen to America?

Unless we repent, America will be judged. Unless we change course and God grants us mercy and forgiveness, America will implode. It’s only God’s grace that He hasn’t judged us already. I made it clear to the students that I don’t know when that judgment will come. That said, all the evidence suggests we are overdue.

We must study the Word of God and draw lessons from the stories of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. We must also study the Holocaust and draw lessons from the stories of the heroes like Rudolf Vrba, Fred Wetzler, Pastor Andre Trocme and others. But we must also look deeply into our souls and determine whether we are willing to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and love our neighbors as ourselves. Are we willing to love and protect and rescue the needy and the poor and the suffering, even if they don’t believe what we believe, even if they never choose to follow Christ? Are we willing to resist the evil tyrants of our day? Will we refuse to bow down to false gods and humanist systems, even if we are imprisoned, tortured or executed?

The lessons from the Book of Daniel, and the lessons from the Holocaust, are not ancient history that have no bearing on our lives in our times. Evil is rising today. We, too, will face the fire, and the question is: Will we bow before Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image, or will we stand for Christ and His Word?


Joel C. Rosenberg’s Blog

France is Israel’s new best friend when it comes to the Iran threat. Here’s why.

French President Hollande is suddenly Israel's new best friend.

French President Hollande is suddenly Israel’s new best friend.

(Jerusalem, Israel) — The French are suddenly Israel’s new best friend.

With P5+1 negotiations with Iran set to begin again on Wednesday, the Israelis are increasingly concerned the Obama administration is going to sell them out, accepting a disastrous deal with Tehran just for the sake of a deal.

That’s why top leaders here were thrilled that French President Francois Hollande arrived in Israel on Sunday and vowed to block any nuclear deal that did not require Iran to give up its capacities to build nuclear weapons. Israeli leaders rolled out the red carpet for the French leader at Ben Gurion International Airport, and publicly thanked Hollande for standing firm against a bad deal with Iran.

Indeed, a curious new alliance is emerging in the Middle East between Israel, the French, and the Arab states in the Gulf — most notably Saudi Arabia — all of whom are determined to stop Iran from getting The Bomb, and all of whom see President Obama as unable or unwilling to do the job.

Relations between France and Israel have been topsy-turvy over the years. Sometimes the French have been staunch allies, but not always, and not consistently. Anti-Semitism inside France is spiking so severely in recent years that many French Jews are emigrating to Israel.

“France favors an interim agreement with Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, French President Francois Hollande said Sunday in Israel, but such an agreement would only be signed if Tehran would abandon its ambition to acquire a nuclear weapon,” reports the Times of Israel. “Speaking at a joint press conference after a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, Hollande said that as long as Iran does not prove it has taken serious steps toward curbing its nuclear program, sanctions would not be relieved.”

“Words are not deeds,” the French president stated. “We’re against proliferation, and in Iran there is a will to enrich uranium to weapons-grade level.”

“Hollande went on to lay out four points that his country deemed essential for the signing of an interim agreement,” noted the Times. “France, Hollande said, would demand that all Iranian nuclear facilities be put under international control immediately, that enrichment of uranium to 20 percent be suspended, that existing uranium stockpiles be reduced, and that construction at the Arak heavy water facility be immediately halted.”

“These are essential points that we require for an agreement,” he said. “France requires a serious, stable agreement, verifiable, with all guarantees, and we will stand strong in the face of pressure….”

Last week, “France apparently blocked what its foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, called’“a sucker’s deal,’” noted the Times, although US Secretary of State John Kerry later said it was the Iranians who had chosen not to sign the accord last Saturday. US officials say a deal on the terms presented at Geneva could be signed when the talks resume on Wednesday.”


Joel C. Rosenberg’s Blog

The Ugly Face of Tyranny: Feinstein Comes For Your Right To Speak Freely Online

ugly-face-of-tyranny

Senator Diane Feinstein has taken up the fight for truth and liberty, just as she has done for health care and the widespread disarmament of American citizens.

This month Congess has been debating a new media shield law, which according to its authors, aims to protect journalists and bloggers from being forced to testify about their work should their sources or information come into question.

But Diane Feinstein has refused to support the bill, noting that the law would essentially grant this shield privilege to anyone who chooses to share their opinion on the internet (including those pajama sporting bloggers and news aggregators working out of their basements).

But because freedom of speech, as interpreted by Feinstein, is nothing more than a privilege granted to us by her and her ilk in Congress, she has taken steps to ensure that only those journalists sanctioned by the government will be protected by the new shield laws.

The final hurdle for the Judiciary Committee was defining who is a journalist in the digital era.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to “real reporters” and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.

I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there,” she said.

Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a “covered journalist” as someone who gathers and reports news for “an entity or service that disseminates news and information.”

The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any “legitimate news-gathering activities.”

As noted by Dave Hodges at The Common Sense Show, this very report, for example, is being published by an unlicensed and unofficial news-related web site, and therefore, would not meet the stringent guidelines set forth by Feinstein’s new amendment.

In the definition introduced in Feinstein’s amendment, somebody writing for a small town paper with a circulation of 30 would receive First Amendment protections, but quality news people such as Steve Quayle, John Stadtmiller, Jeff Rense, Doug Hagmann, Stan Deyo, Michael Edwards, Alex Jones, George Noory and Matt Drudge would not be considered journalists and therefore, the First Amendment would not apply to this group of aforementioned newsmen.

With the passage of this amendment, our sources would not be privileged and many of our sources would dry up. But Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper can take bribes from the CIA to not cover certain stories, yet Feinstein thinks they deserve protection as authentic journalists.

And for those out there who don’t have a blog or web site where they share news, videos, information and criticisms of government, consider that the Feinstein amendment doesn’t refer to just web sites. It covers all internet venues. It’s not about how the information gets out there, it’s about the individual or organization disseminating it.

So, should you choose to share an opinion in the comments section on this web site or post on your Facebook or Twitter page, you would, just as this author, fall outside of the Constitutional protections of the First Amendment.

Your comments, if critical of government or big business interests, would not be protected by shield laws. You see, you’re not capable of forming an opinion or citing appropriate references for your argument. To do that, you must be licensed by the State or approved by a court.

But the government can’t do that, right?

They’ve already tried and failed on their first attempt, but what if this law would have passed?!

John McCain previously introduced a bill that would fine bloggers up to $ 300,000 for “offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards”.

If the bill would have been successful, this legislation would have marked the end for previously unrestrained opinions. Hiding behind the pretense of protecting our children, McCain’s legislation was referred to as the “Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act.” The legislation demands that a Stalinist-type army of informants and spies will browse various websites looking for inappropriate internet material which might pose a threat to children. McCain’s internet army would then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities and subsequent bloggers could be fined $ 300,000 or have faced jail time.

Anyone who has participated in online comment boards is keenly aware that they are very difficult to moderate. Some articles and news events may receive thousands of comments. Yet, one oversight by the moderator, one day off from the internet, could spell doom for the financial future of a blogger. What citizen can afford to take that chance? Hence, your right to self-expression has been sacrificed. Your first amendment right to self-expression is technically still intact. However, the personal affordability to exercise free speech would have been severely jeopardized

Common Sense Show

While McCain’s bill died a horrible death, and rightly so, Feinstein’s amendment essentially aims to do the same thing, though monetary fines for journalistic transgressions are as of yet undefined.

You see, as is always the case with our Congressional benefactors, the devil is in the details.

Take, for example, health care. For years the establishment pushed for universal, affordable health care for all Americans. The efforts really started back in the 1990′s with the failed Hillary-care movement. But it didn’t really die. In fact, calls for free health care got louder and louder, and in 2008 they came to a head with the election of Barack Obama, who promised just that for Americans. It took nearly 20 years, but they did it, and millions of Americans thought they had won a victory.

But, lo and behold, after legislation to cheapen and improve our health care was passed, we began to see the fine print come to fruition. And all those folks who vehemently supported an affordable care option are now wondering what the hell happened. As was revealed in recent days, costs aren’t going down. Just the opposite, in fact. For many Americans who rallied behind the President those costs are going to double, triple, or quadruple!

Now they are pushing forward with new restrictions on speech. And just as no one thought they’d actually be paying more for health care after the legislation was passed, no one really believes the government would go so far as to eliminate our ability to open discourse.

As with Obamacare, it’s all in the details – the fine print and the complementary regulations to follow.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is government double-speak for, “you’re about to get screwed.”

Guess what Feinstein’s version of the Media Shield Law is going to do.

Disclosure: This report has been published by an unlicensed and unregistered journalist-blogger-commentator. It has not been sanctioned by the United States government. Under new legislation pending in Congress, this report, as well as those who comment and share it online may be determined by a future court to be criminalistic or terroristic in nature and subject to penalties under U.S. Law. 

Hattip to the following outlaw alternatve media outlets: The Common Sense Show, The Organic Prepper, The Daily Sheeple


SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You

When it comes to obscenity, Eric Holder trumps Miley Cyrus

Guest post by Larry Sand

When it comes to obscenity, cheating kids out of a good education is far worse than a salacious dance act.

While it is a sad spectacle to watch a gawky 20 year-old stick out her tongue and sex it up in front of millions on national television, the 62 year-old U.S. Attorney General’s act is far worse, as his will do much more lasting harm. He waves his magic wand and poof – thousands of poor children are chained to the confines of failing schools in Louisiana.

Miley Cyrus would appear to be a lost puppy whose father claimed in 2011 that she was influenced by Satan. On the other hand, Eric Holder would seem to be under the spell of the teachers unions and the overrated god of diversity.

The Holder story has its roots in May when the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that:

the current method of funding the statewide school voucher program is unconstitutional. Act 2, part of Gov. Bobby Jindal‘s 2012 package of education reforms, diverts money from each student’s per-pupil allocation to cover the cost of private or parochial school tuition. The act authorizes both the Louisiana Scholarship Program and the new Course Choice program.

In other words, the voucher program is sound, but the court thought its funding mechanism wasn’t constitutional. So on June 6th, the Louisiana House and Senate compromised on a budget that allowed the program to use funds not allocated through the state’s funding formula.

Problem solved, right?

Not quite.

Later in June, the teachers unions School Choice Enemy No. 1 promptly swung into action.

The Louisiana Association of Educators and several local teachers associations have filed a class-action suit charging that the state owes local school boards $ 199 million as a result of the Louisiana Supreme Court decision striking down part of the state’s voucher law.

Okay, so we are still dealing with funding issues, not the legality of vouchers.

But then in August, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder dropped the bomb and The Wall Street Journal pointed out its stunning irony,

On nearly the same day the Attorney General spoke in Washington to honor the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech, his Justice Department sued to block the educational dreams of minority children in Louisiana.

Late last week, Justice asked a federal court to stop 34 school districts in the Pelican State from handing out private-school vouchers so kids can escape failing public schools. Mr. Holder’s lawyers claim the voucher program appears “to impede the desegregation progress” required under federal law. Justice provides little evidence to support this claim, but there couldn’t be a clearer expression of how the civil-rights establishment is locked in a 1950s time warp.

Passed in 2012, Louisiana’s state-wide program guarantees a voucher to students from families with incomes below 250% of poverty and who attend schools graded C or below. The point is to let kids escape the segregation of failed schools, and about 90% of the beneficiaries are black. (Emphasis added.)

Impeding desegregation? On what grounds does the Justice Department make this claim? Cato’s Jason Bedrick explains,

In Tangipahoa Parish, for instance, Independence Elementary School lost five white students to voucher schools, the petition states. The consequent change in the percent of enrolled white students “reinforc(ed) the racial identity of the school as a black school.”

Five students! According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 143 white students out of 482 students at Independence Elementary School in 2010-11 (the most recent year for which data is available). Assuming that recent enrollment and racial composition is the same and that no black students received vouchers as well, that’s a shift from 29.6 percent white to 28.9 percent white. Though the students at Independence almost certainly would not have noticed a difference, the racial bean counters at the DOJ see worsening segregation.

But the DOJ is not content merely to prevent white students from exercising school choice. The petition also cites Cecilia Primary School, which in 2012-13 “lost six black students as a result of the voucher program,” thereby “reinforcing the school’s racial identity as a white school in a predominantly black school district.” In the previous school year, the school’s racial composition was 30.1 percent black, which the DOJ notes was 16.4 percentage points lower than the black composition of the district as a whole. According to the NCES, in 2010-11 there were 205 black students out of a total enrollment of 758, so the school was 27 percent black. Assuming a constant total enrollment, the DOJ’s numbers suggest that there were 228 black students in 2011-12. The loss of six black students would mean the school’s racial composition shifted from 30.1 percent black to 29.2 percent black as a result of the voucher program. Again, imperceptible to untrained eye but a grave threat to racial harmony according to the Obama administration’s Department of Justice.

These are the only two schools cited directly in the DOJ’s petition, so presumably they represent the two cases with the largest impact. A footnote reveals that “The net loss ranged up to thirteen students per school.”

Why is Holder doing this obscene dance?

Is he so smitten with the concept of diversity that he is letting it take precedent over the needs of poor kids in failing schools? Could be, but then again, as noted above, the voucher-driven diversity realignment is miniscule. Or, is he doing the bidding of the teachers unions who are powerful political allies? Maybe both. But whatever the motivation, the lawsuit stinks, and the harm it will inflict on mostly underprivileged, minority children is tragic.

What Holder and his ilk don’t seem to understand is that most parents are not stricken with the diversity obsession, and simply want the best education possible for their kids. If you ask any parent of any ethnicity if they rather their kid get a first class education at single-ethnicity school or a mediocre-to-lousy one at a rainbow-school, we all know what the answer would be.

Louisiana’s gutsy governor Bobby Jindal put it all into perspective in an interview with Neil Cavuto,

My parents came here over 40 years ago in search of the American dream, confident if you worked hard, it didn’t matter what race you were, didn’t matter who you knew. That’s what we’re trying to deliver for our kids. And that’s why it’s just ridiculous to me that the Obama administration would side with teachers unions over these young children.

Cavuto then asked Jindal if he thought that the teachers unions were pushing the issue because vouchers endanger their jobs. Jindal responded,

Oh, absolutely. Look, they tried, they tried to take us all the way up to the state Supreme Court to stop this program. The teachers unions did. The program is still here. They tried recalling our speaker of the House and me and some others. And we’re still here. The reality is, teachers unions, when we started this statewide, said that parents don’t have a clue when it comes to making choices for their kids. (Emphasis added.)

That’s their world viewpoint. These government unions think the bureaucrats know better. I have met with the moms. And, Neil, it would break your heart that they’re working multiple jobs. They want their kids to have a better quality of life than they have had. They’re trying to do the right thing. They’re telling me this is the first time my kid is bringing home homework, my kid is going to school with discipline. My kids are talking about for the first time thinking about going to college, the first one in our families to graduate from high school. They’re talking about becoming the first ones.

As we all know, Martin Luther King concluded his famous speech 50 years ago with the inspirational words, “Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last.” But if Mr. Holder and the teachers unions get their way, a bunch of school kids and their families in Louisiana will remain shackled to their failing schools, guaranteeing that their shot at achieving the American dream and true freedom will be next to impossible. Dr. King would be outraged.

 

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.

Doug Ross @ Journal

What are Israeli leaders learning from the President’s vacillations on Syria? They’re on their own when it comes to Iran.

obama-netanyahu-WHUPDATED: (Washington, D.C.) — It is not exactly starting off as a happy New Year in Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Security Cabinet have to be mortified by what they are seeing unfold — not in Damascus, but in Washington.

To be sure, Israeli leaders are concerned but not surprised by the horrific blood-letting that is underway between the evil Assad regime and the demonic forces of al Qaeda and their Radical Islamic partners. But the Israelis are stunned and dismayed by the vacillating, lurching, confused and chaotic approach to decision-making being taken by President Obama and his top advisors.

Officially, the Israeli government supports the Obama administration’s approach to Syria. “Israel agrees with President Obama that the use of chemical weapons is a ‘heinous act’ for which the Assad regime must be held accountable and for which there must be ‘international consequences,’” said Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador in Washington. “Israel further agrees with the President that the use of chemical weapons promotes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and encourages ‘governments who would choose to build nuclear arms.’”

This statement of official support should not be surprising. Israel is, after all, America’s best friend in the Middle East, and most loyal ally on the planet.

But behind the scenes, Netanyahu and his team have never felt more alone.

If President Obama is so distrusted by the American people and her representatives in Congress that he cannot build solid support for limited military strikes against Syria’s chemical weapons facilities, the Israelis are coming to the painful realization that there is no chance for the President to pull together support for preemptive military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Mr. Obama cannot even persuade former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld or former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton — two outspoken hawks, ready and willing to use military and force against WMD in the Middle East when necessary — to support his limited plan for action in Syria. This just shows how deeply the President is mistrusted by those who would otherwise support bipartisan efforts to take out tyrants and their most dangerous weapons.

That means one thing: the Israelis are on their own, and now they know it.

“Until Saturday, Obama’s Middle East policies were generally regarded by the Arab world as confused and incoherent,” notes the Times of Israel. “As of Saturday, he will be perceived as one of the weakest presidents in American history. That scent of weakness has emphatically reached Iran… Khamenei and his advisers recognize that the likelihood of this administration using military force against a country with Iran’s military capability are very low, if not nonexistent. And they’re not the only ones who realize this. The same conclusions are being drawn by Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet colleagues, who will doubtless have been watching the Rose Garden speech, will have internalized what they had long suspected: that Washington will not be the place from which good news will emanate about thwarting Iran’s nuclear drive.”

“The punch line is that the more that Israel perceives the U.S. as hesitant, the more Israel will be pushed to deal alone with the Iranians, something that the U.S. really did not want,” Michael Herzog, an Israel-based fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the New York Times. “People ask, ‘If this is the case on a relatively simple thing like striking Syria, how will they act against Iran?’ It deepens the question marks.”       

Ari Shavit, a columnist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, told the New York Times that U.S. actions were leaving Israelis with the “feeling of orphans,” and wondering “if there is still a reliable parent in Washington who is really committed, who understands what’s going on and who is willing to act.”

On a radio show this morning, I was asked whether I thought my novel, Damascus Countdown was coming to pass. Not yet, I said. But it’s getting dangerously close. Let me explain:

  • The premise of Damascus Countdown (and the novel that preceded it, The Tehran Initiative) is that an American President tries to persuade an Israeli Prime Minister not to launch a preemptive military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities on the premise that this could blow up the entire Middle East.
  • The Israeli Prime Minister sees weakness, vacillation, and indecision in the President and knows that, regretfully, he cannot depend on Washington to neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat before it’s too late.
  • Fearing a nuclear Holocaust, Israel decides it is all alone, and thus has no choice to take military action against Iran.
  • Then Iran teams up with Syria to launch weapons of mass destruction against Israel from Syrian soil.

No, we are not there (yet) — thank God. But we are getting close. And President Obama’s approach towards Syria is driving us there all the faster.

All the more reason to be praying for the peace of Jerusalem, as the Psalmist commands.

>> Follow the latest news & analysis on Twitter — @JoelCRosenberg

>> To listen to the latest podcast of Syria & other Middle East develop, please click here.

>> To learn more about the New York Times best-selling novel, Damascus Countdown, please click here.

>> To learn more about The Joshua Fund — and/or make a tax deductible contribution to bless Israel and her neighbors with food, clothing, medical supplies, and other humanitarian relief, including war preparations; to provide humanitarian aid to refugees fleeing Syria; and to educate Christians around the world about how to be a blessing to the people of the epicenter — please visit our website, www.joshuafund.net.


Joel C. Rosenberg’s Blog