Friday, April 23, 2010

New Light on the Dangers of Millennialism to our Military

A young Army Major's masters thesis is making the rounds. Some believe his essay presages the persecution of Christans by the anti-Christ Obama. Others see in his thinking a message that goes beyond the dangers of Christian millennialism and touches upon the perils our country encounters by endorsing or cursing any
fundamentalism, without rationally engaging the issues through clear thinking.

Maj. Brian L. Stuckert, U.S. Army, submitted and defended a masters thesis in May 2008, titled Strategic Implications of American Millennialism (pdf). It has begun making the rounds this month, being taken up by a wide array of people discussing, damning or defending it.

Maj. Stuckert 's abstract begins:

Since the beginning of the Republic, various forms of millennial religious doctrines, of which dispensational pre-millennialism is the most recent, have shaped U.S. national security strategy. As the dominant form of millennialism in the U.S. evolves, it drives changes in U.S. security policy and subsequent commitment of the instruments of national power. Millennial ideas contribute to a common American understanding of international relations that guide our thinking irrespective of individual religious or political affiliation. Millennialism has great explanatory value, significant policy implications, and creates potential vulnerabilities that adversaries may exploit.

His conclusions and recommendations are prefaced with a well-known quote by Lt. Gen William Boykin, from 2003:

“The enemy is a spiritual enemy. It’s called the principality of darkness. We, ladies and gentlemen, are in a spiritual battle, not a physical battle. Oh, we’ve got soldiers fighting on the battlefields, we’ve got sailors, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen out there fighting against a physical enemy. But the battle this nation is in is a spiritual battle, it’s a battle for our soul. And the enemy is a guy called Satan – Satan wants to destroy this nation. He wants to destroy us as a nation and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.”

Maj. Stuckert then goes on:

A 2003 survey found that more than two-thirds of evangelical leaders view Islam as a religion of violence bent on world domination. Following the events of September 11, 2001, many Christian opinion leaders began to speak of President Bush’s election and policies as “divinely inspired.” This attitude can present challenges to rational decision-making processes. While some political commentators have theorized that the administration’s unwillingness to admit errors is the result of arrogance or political calculation, it is more likely that the administration believes they are doing the will of God and will be vindicated in the end. In other words, intelligence or analysis that seems to support invasions or other administration policies are interpreted as an affirmation of God’s will, while information is to the contrary is viewed with suspicion – perhaps an effort by Satan to deceive or mislead.

As President Carter explained to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, what people believe as a matter of religion, they will do as a matter of public policy. There is a tendency on the part of Americans to view foreign policy and international affairs as a “clash of moral opposites.” This tendency may make it difficult for U.S. policy makers and strategists to perceive and act upon subtleties that may lie outside our conceptions of moral absolutes. Military leaders have the difficult task translating this religiously tinged policy into successful strategy and operations. War is primarily about politics. While geography and technology play a role, in order to be successful military leaders must be able to see the political goals as clearly as possible. Because of the influence of pre-millennialism, it can be difficult for military leaders to see themselves and their government accurately and state policy goals objectively.

Reading the reactions at blogs like firedoglake, Down with Tyranny!, Huffington Post and mondoweiss to U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer's recent statements on a radio program that sometimes caters to Jewish millennialists (the Zealots where prototypical millennialists. I'm sure Schumer, if asked if he's a Zionist "Zealot" would answer "Yes!" without giving the term much thought.), I'm struck by how much more push-back Schumer is getting now than he ever has, when indulging in attacks on Israel policy critics who have not only the US's best interests at heart, but, are showing common sense.

Christian Fundamentalists might have common sense when it comes to washing their clothes or changing their socks, but when it comes to formulating policies involving Israel and weapons of mass destruction and whether or not Iran is really mentioned in Revelations, they never have any common sense. None.

The same holds true for other religions' fundamentalists. Although our constitution holds that one cannot demand religious tests as part of gaining an office, I really feel uncomfortable with people who believe in the End Times being allowed within a mile of a thermonuclear device or its launch codes.

Thursday, the Pentagon announced that Rev. Franklin Graham has been disinvited from speaking at the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer:

The U.S. Army rescinded its invitation to evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer.

Graham, son of Billy Graham and this year's honorary National Day of Prayer Task Force chairman, is being criticized for comments he has made in the past expressing his belief that Islam is a dangerous religion.

Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesman cited Graham’s previous comments that he wants Muslims to know that Jesus Christ died for their sins. Collins said the remarks were “not appropriate,” according to the New York Times.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations pressed the Pentagon to rescind Graham's invitation. Michael Weinstein, founder of MRFF, wrote that the Pentagon choose a more inclusive speaker for the event in a letter to the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on April 19.

In a statement released April 22, Graham said that he regrets that the Army felt it was necessary to rescind their invitation. “I want to express my strong support for the United States military and all our troops. I will continue to pray that God will give them guidance, wisdom and protection as they serve this great country,” Graham said.

Naturally, Sarah Palin,Graham's cookie delivery co-host to the Alaska Bush in early 2009, has come to his defense, through her facebook ghost writer:

My, have things changed. I was honored to have Rev. Franklin Graham speak at my Governor’s Prayer Breakfasts. His good work in Alaska’s Native villages and his charitable efforts all over the world stem from his servant’s heart. In my years of knowing him, I’ve never found his tempered and biblically-based comments to be offensive – in fact his words have been encouraging and full of real hope.

It’s truly a sad day when such a fine patriotic man, whose son is serving on his fourth deployment in Afghanistan to protect our freedom of speech and religion, is dis-invited from speaking at the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service. His comments in 2001 were aimed at those who are so radical that they would kill innocent people and subjugate women in the name of religion.

Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. Yes, things have changed.

- Sarah Palin

Coupled with the recently publicized concerns by senior U.S. military over the dangers of being tied too closely to Israel in our foreign policy decisions regarding broader issues of the Middle East and beyond, maybe we are seeing signs of a Pentagon emerging from the terrible eclipse of rational thinking known as the George W. Bush administration.

As in some of the newest, youngest, major voices in the dialogue over our country's adherence to Israeli wishes regarding the illegal occupation of the West Bank, Israeli expansion there, and the siege of Gaza, hopefully a new generation of leadership in our military will show more independence, common sense and spine than their predecessors, who are now approaching retirement.

The more U.S. policy is separated from fundamentalist thinking, rhetoric and personalities, the better.

Other blogs important to Alaskans, touching aspects of these stories today:

The Mudflats (2X)

The Immoral Minority

God's Own Party?


Anonymous said...

Thank you, Phil. Very informative. I'm so glad these people are finally being exposed. Between all of you bloggers, the message must be reaching a lot of people.


Anonymous said...

You know, besides the truly fringe batshit crazies, who else pays any attention to this lunacy ?

That wingnut Stuckert's lunatic exaggerations have been floating around the net for more than a year.

It's just more of the thousands of viral bits of lunacy spinning around the internet. There's nothing to it.
It's a fantasy, played up as if it actually had any relevance or resonance with anyone but a fringe bunch of lunatics.

Boykin, we know he's a lunatic, and he's been sent into retirement, the Pentagon busted him for his zealotry, (the same reason given by his wife when she left him, she said he'd gone religion insane.)

Hell, even Bush ran from Boykin, ....he's just a lunatic playing in the margins of sanity.

Would Palin expect to act like a lunatic ?


Besides the lunatic fringe, who cares about this irrelevant idiocy?

It's all spectacle and illusion. There's no 'there' there.


Mark said...

Once again in the interest of full disclosure I have to point out that when Hooper Bay lost its old school and a bunch of houses, Franklin Graham was there THAT AFTERNOON and pledged that Samaritans Purse would build some new houses. And they did. And without much fanfare, I might add.
Cookies in RSM, yeah. Big deal.
All I know is he built new houses for people I am close to and didn't ask for anything in return.
As for the rest of it, no comment.
Mark Springer

Philip Munger said...


Thanks for your comment about the reaction to the Hooper Bay fire.

Anonymous said...

PA and the other so-called "progressive" blogs would like you to believe that Graham's trip with Palin to Hooper Bay was his first in Alaska.

It was not, not even close, Franklin Graham has been doing charity work in Alaska since the early 1970's.

It's so easy for somebody from Palmer to cast aspersions on the work that Mr. Graham has done in rural Alaska. Perhaps Phil, you should move out to Hooper Bay for a year and see things from their perspective as to whether Mr. Graham is truly an evil man or not.

Progressive indeed !

Anonymous said...

Not to stir racist fires here, but what is the general ethnicity of those in Hooper Bay?

alaskapi said...

Good deeds by the organization and Mr Graham himself do not absolve him of responsibility for other activities anony @ 5:54.
None of us are all good or bad.
Why the all or none attitude?

Chris said...

Interesting thesis. I certainly don't disagree, and would add on that "American Exceptionalism" (whether it be Wilson or Reagan) could easily be a riff on the same sort of theme.

I'll say based on my personal experience that there are some other difficult factors for the military. When you're getting mortared, shot at, looking at dead bodies and otherwise doing the day-to-day routine -- oh, and by the way, you're deployed with an absurd ops tempo and wish you remembered what a holiday at home was like -- religion starts to look awful good. Except for the small percentage of folks who are abnormally amoral and detached (yes, they are out there), most people under the difficult circumstances of war need something to hang on to. This is a good and healthy thing and it gives people inner strength and even helps then behave in a moral fashion.

The problem comes when you need sober and detached reasoning or analysis. What was a strength for a younger guy that helped him endure some really tough conditions can become a liability later in a career. I've met mid-grade officers who are convinced that the current situation unfolding in the Middle East is an end-times prophecy and who saw no problem with the "secret bible codes on M-16 optics" flap. While those sorts of simplistic viewpoints can be really, really helpful when you're trying to motivate yourself to go on another convoy or trying to figure out why another 18 year old is not coming home, they do not help sober analysis. These days, those views (as helpful as they can be) can cause problems at younger ranks these days with the "strategic corporal;" you don't want pork eating crusaders running around who are going to alienate the locals. You also don't want to create a unit ethos that is based on religion that works for 70% of the personnel but alienates the rest of the unit. So it is a fine balance, one which is difficult to maintain in a diverse, all volunteer force engaged in COIN operations -- especially as the ones with strong ideological conviction have the fortitude to stick around and the ones without a touchstone of some sort have a higher tendency to get out.

Of course, religion isn't the only mindset bias that you come across... There are other ideological blinders and cultural assumptions which can be just as limiting. But it is a common one.

Caveat: I do not care what Freeper -- or anonymous commentators with a similar grasp of sentence structure -- have to say on this or any topic until he/she demonstrates that they can get through seven days without a rude personal attack.

Anonymous said...

Anon...I believe the people in Hooper Bay are mostly Yupik. What are you trying to infer?

Philip Munger said...

PA and other progressive Alaskan blogs did not at any time assert that Franklin Graham came to Alaska initially to go out to the lower Yukon with Palin. I've been corresponding with Alan Boraas and others about Graham for some time - long before February 2009. I have no idea where you got that notion from.

Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, Chris, ...once more into the breach, huh.

You can take your caveat, (which you delude yourself into thinking isn't just more of your pretentious crap,) and sit on it.

Cheers' you say, and oh, here's my own little prissy dig which you think you can slide in by calling it your 'caveat', when it's only your firing the first volley in a new thread.

Piss off you pretentious hypocritical twit.

As to your oh so sage burbling,

....when you're talking of that solace religion gives you while your 'getting shot at or mortared', you left out that you're bombing, killing, maiming, gassing, and sowing conventional, biological, chemical and radioactive death yourself,

...this evangelical lunatic religion can give you something to 'hold onto' ?

Good and healthy, giving you the 'inner strength' and a sense of 'morality' while you wage illegal and unnecessary wars of Empire on sovereign nations ?

Ain't you a peach.

Sober detached reasoning or analysis ?


We just can't have pork eating crusaders you say ?

You betcha, the non-pork eating crusaders are oh so much more preferable when on the modern day crusades.

Crusades don't raise any question, it's all in how you wage them.

We surely don't want to 'alienate' the locals while we bomb their wedding party or commit wholesale slaughter of their entire family.

It's a fine balance all right.

Idiocy, fanatical religious idiocy, or just plain old fashion idiocy, shined up and hiding behind the pretentious insane and idiotic opining of morons.


Anonymous said...

anon @ 10:38

One key phrase should be noted in your statement and should be highlighted.

Graham promised someone else's money would build those houses.

Not his money, but money raised telling people they should buy their salvation.

It's not like Graham used his own money to build that house.

Charity work is to be commended,

...but shady money schemes built on religious guilt or promises of salvation, all masquerading as 'non-profit 'religious charity' is not so commendable.

There's a few questions about 'non-profits', and especially Graham's.

Graham probably could afford to build a few houses out of his own pay, he pulls down more than a million dollars a year just in 'salaries'.

Graham earned more last year than any other leader of an international relief agency based in the United States. That includes eight with larger budgets, giving more of their money to such projects as building houses.

Last year, Graham's compensation rose 21 percent, at the same time 10% of the workers at his 'non-profit were laid off and given the boot.

Someone's else's money built those houses,

and the money ?

...the money for the charity work likely came from people who'd been harangued and browbeat by the prositlyzing and the lurid evangelical claims of imminent doom and apocalyptic destruction Graham. Old people for the most part, too infirm and not able to determine what's really going on.

In addition to Graham, four more of his immediate family have their snouts in the pay trough.

Don't try to con anyone that Graham's 'charity' is supposed to be mixed up with any comparison to doing good deeds, or spreading the good word.

Graham's running a hustle, just like Palin.



Polarbear said...

Phil: Looks like your blog has acquired a wormtongue infection. Will drop by occasionally to see if you have exorcised it. Best wishes.

Anonymous said...

...priggish sanctimony doesn't address the outrage of moronic justification for genocide and slaughter.

Do 'drop by', polarbear... Perhaps you'll find something to speak of besides your smug self-righteous promotion of your own ego.

Meanwhile, war is being extemporized and externalized as if invasion and slaughter can be managed to give it the illusion of genteel and gentrified justification and respect.

Tooodle oooh, toots, Barbara Bush says, ...'don't let those unpleasant realities trouble your pretty little mind.'

....perhaps you could go 'shopping' instead.


( ....the allusion to exorcism might have a bit of baggage attached, eh ? ...a bit of the dog whistle ?}


Anonymous said...

I was at an event recently where a two star army reserves general said: "...and bless our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, over there doing God's work." No one batted an eye...

A curious Alaskan

Polarbear said...

Freeper: If you conducted yourself in a public meeting, in person, in the manner you conduct yourself on this forum, you would be asked to leave, and the participants in the public meeting would approve. If you doubt that, then I challenge you to attend an Anchorage Borough Assembly Meeting or an Anchorage School Board Meeting, and conduct yourself in the same manner that you write on this forum. I suspect you probably have been booted off of other blogs and forums. Phil's management of PA is his to implement, of course. In my opinion, your foul mouth, extremism, and lack of civility are ruining PA. I just hope nobody associates you with progressives. I certainly do not.

baja said...

Hey Freep,

You obviously have a lot of time on your hands, why not maintain your own blog account instead of coat tail riding on Phil's well recognized efforts?

I don't think many care for what you contribute to the comments here, Freep.

Or, is your true intention to deminish the approachability of the blog? Because that is what you are doing.


I usually look forward to the comments section, but Freep just ruins it. Perhaps I'll just start bypassing this section.

jim said...


Even if this guy is the wikipedia definition of "freeper," it is a shame he won't just be honest about his true point of view and engage in productive debate about the blog's topics. Like, for example, why he probably REALLY thinks Graham walks on water. Don't believe for a second that this guy is actually a liberal or a progressive. I think he hates liberals and progressives and this is his way of maliciously attacking them. He's having fun.

I assume he's just trying to wipe out this blog, or at least the comments section. He's made it practically a full time job. He's consumed it.

If he addresses you, don't make the mistake I made. Don't respond. Even if he is long winded, degrading, and aggravating. He's just trying to screw up this blog.

jim said...

Also, I think our founding fathers (and their wives who quietly advised them), who understood separation of church and state, would have gotten a restraining order (if Graham had been lurking nearby), just to make sure he stayed far away from anything having to do with the creation of a pristine constitution.

Anonymous said...

Polarbear, you want to play mommy, try someone else.

If you don't want to talk about the context of the thread, I'm not interested in your sanctimonious egoism.

Do try to address the subject of the thread next time.



Anonymous said...

and boo hoo,

try to address the topic of the thread,

I know that's difficult for you, but it's better than whining and sniveling.


Anonymous said...

jim, I think you have a pretty good read on the founding fathers and their desire to separate church from state.

They fled a government that practiced religious persecution of it's citizens, they had seen what comes from a state controlled by the church.

They specifically designed a prohibition against allowing that to happen in their new government they were founding.

Between the separation of church and state, and the religious freedom guarantees which enable citizens to pursue whichever religious affiliation they chose outside of government, there's no question of what the founders intended. It's written out clearly and concisely.

But you know what jim ?

I read your second comment before I read what was your comment preceding that comment.

You know, that one where you go off topic and talk of nothing but your insecurity. Where you and boo hoo have that two man circle jerk going....

That comment wherein you practice all the same behavior that you then try to condemn if anyone else should have the temerity to do just what you do ?

You know, that comment. You scrawled it out.

So piss off jim, I can and regularly do address the context of the threads, I always do so honestly, and I always do so adding links and/or quotes, whatever material is needed to provide quantifiable and objective evidence to back up what opinions I advance, especially should it be requested.

And that's why, having and employing that evidence, I feel no compunction not to comment on what a hypocritical moronic idiot you are.

Your pious charade is not only ludicrous, it's transparently dishonest, dishonorable, and wholly disingenuous.

Stick to the context, and provide evidence of some support for your opinions when questioned.

Do that, and you wont' have to wonder why someone calls you a moron.

Provide some evidence to support what you say, and there wouldn't be reason to find that you have no grasp of reality.

Quit your pissy whining and grow a spine, get off your ass, show some character, show some integrity and quit trying to prop up your fantasies,

and you might not get insulted for being as insulting as you are.

Next time you step in your own excrement, see if you can clean it off without pretending maybe you can convince someone or anyone you didn't step in it.


You want to talk context ?

Try doing that.


You want to dance ? I haven't seen you lead yet.

But I'll be more than willing to show you as many more steps as you care to learn.

I think in your case, it would be better if you started off learning to walk by yourself first, before you attempt any more dancing, You haven't shown any ability to dance.

Your imagination far exceeds your ability or capacity.

See if you can't just try to comprehend the context of the threads.

That would be a good start for you.

Work your way up to walking.




Jim said...

Hey folks:

Although we've all read this junk silently, try reading it out loud to someone who has never experienced it before. Usually they can't support their body weight due to laughter. Seriously. Try it.

Anonymous said...

It's clear Franklin Graham is a missionary.

Not unlike the Jesuit missionaries that have a long history in rural Alaska.

Missionaries are salesmen.

What legacy has the Catholic Church left in rural Alaska that might question the motives of funding any community need?

This is just a wild guess, but I would think that large numbers of Alaska's Natives (and other rural residents) are leaving the Church over the sex abuse - or more specifically the lack of remorse coming from the Vatican.

Franklin has a perfect opportunity to harness the need for salvation, promise safe haven from molesters and create a political and religious eutopia in Alaska.

With the great resource wealth here - who wouldn't want to be King for a day?

Anonymous said...

There are many folks who laugh in an attempt to cover up their lack of comprehension.

Nothing new there.


Chris said...

You know, I think I'm done here. Given that I've had comments removed and certain other guests have not, I think our host has made it clear how he wants to run his house, and I won't wear out my welcome. I may occasionally stop by to read some of Phil's interesting posts but I see no point in wasting time or energy trying to engage in dialogue. As a nonpartisan independent voter, I've got to say that this was a great first impression to "Alaska Progressives..."

Best wishes, all! Enjoy the company.


Anonymous said...

Oh gosh and golly, I see some poor besieged soul is, at one o clock in the morning, getting all pouty faced and feeling sorry for themselves.

Dear dear,

....tugs at the old heartstrings doesn't it ? There it is, the middle of the night, it's dark and their's is a cry of agony ringing out, anguished and fretful.

Oh, the humanity....

If you go away, Chris, where oh, where will we ever be able to find anyone voicing the policies and ideas that you've brought here ?

It's not like there's any real difficulty finding someone who tries to justify their part in slaughter in the name of religion, heck, that's pretty much what this thread points out.

It points out that those folks should be exposed and rejected for their extremist beliefs.

Painting it up, shining it up and trying to reword it, won't alter the message, it still comes out, religion is good and healthy, giving you the 'inner strength' and a sense of 'morality', ...while you wage illegal and unnecessary war.

That's the context you wish to frame 'spirituality' ?

Jeebus, a god that will ease your conscience while you take part in invasion and slaughter innocents.

Not my god, and I dare say, not the god of everyone, and not the god I want trying to maintain the cretinous and barbaric idiocy of war.

This thread pretty much says we ought to be promoting a very different policy. Rooting out those who wish to promote religion as salve for war, or a goad for war.

That we need to take that 'good old time religion' out of policymaking processes throughout our government, especially in regards our military policies.

Golly, should you go away, Chris, where oh, where might that other argument be found ?

You know, where could one possibly hear about , god's law should be government law, god is on ours side, we are god's chosen and god will get you through whatever godawful slaughter you choose to wage in his name can be thought of as 'moral',,,,

When the mortars are landing on your head, and you're seeking solace, and according to you, a sense of morality, how do you suppose that squares with the fact that you likely wouldn't be there if you weren't on a mission without moral justification ?

There just isn't any dearth of dogmatic blind people, blind to their own contradictions, and there multitudes of the fully indoctrinated, echoing dogma without conscience, their numbers are legion.

I can see why you don't wish to 'engage' in dialogue, as you say, if you had to try to actually justify the policies and ideas you promote, it would be pretty clear to everyone that independent and non-partisan wouldn't be appropriate to describe what you posit and promote.

( you like polls, chris,

.....poll after poll show that those folks who 'claim' or want to be called 'independents' ?

They're not independent at all, ....and neither are they 'non-partisan. )

And Chris, if you've going to claim to be non-partisan, you probably shouldn't try to maintain the ruse while jabbing the needle at your opposition partisans.

One obviates the other...... It's non-sensical, illogical, it's silly to try to maintain one thing by doing it's opposite.

Wherever you go, do try to maintain your cover better next time if you continue to practice deceit.

Wouldn't want to hear that there was another anguished cry from some poor lost soul at one o'clock in the morning again.


Heather said...

Freeper, you do know that there are different time zones in the world, right?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I do know that, heather,

.... if I'm not wrong, there are 24 standard time zones and another 6 intemediary time zones, for a total of 30.

In those 30 time zones, wars having been waged in almost all of them,

...and war mongering drones live in pretty much all of them too, ....some several of which are trying to justify their wars and slaughtering ways by trying to say their god allows for their wars, condones their wars, and/or their god demands their wars.

There's no real regional discrimination when it comes to the zealots and the dogmatic indoctrinated drones. They're all around. Watch for a short time, and you can find at least one or two anywhere you might go.

Why, heather ?

Did you attach maybe too much emphasis on what time that cry from the wilderness occurred ? Did you think it may be transformed somehow if it had come at another hour of the day ?

That anemic bit of duplicitous whiny yowping could come at any other time of day or night, and it would be just as insignificant as it was at one am local time.

Other than to mark a moment in time, specific times, or time stamps, in this case, there's not much to the hour, any other hour could not, and would not alter the net result.

The same bit of disingenuous twaddle could have been whimpered and wheezed at 4, or 5, or whatever time you pick. It would still be nothing more than a bit of disingenuous twaddle.



Heather said...

Actually, I figured you attached too much emphasis to the time-stamp, given that you mentioned it several times in a particularly negative way.

freeper said...

I'll note that the time stamp was your largest concern.

And because that's the only area of concern you apparently were concerned enough about or compelled to comment on,

....I would further assume that takes more precedence with you, and is of a more immediate concern for you, than to consider, or comment on, whether our wars can be considered fine and dandy if we just manage the public relations campaign in a manner to give our wars the sheen of political correctness, or that we can grant our wars legitimacy based on one or another exclusive religious ideology.

Quite often I'm struck by how limiting some perspectives and narratives are presented.

That's not to say I'm often surprised to see those limiting perspectives.


Anonymous said...


What kind of wine has Mikey Weinstein been drinking?
As an anti-Christian Jewish supremacist and as the president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, he's doing all he can to create an anti-Jewish backlash and help bring about the predicted endtime Holocaust of Jews that'll be worse than Hitler's.
Neither Falwell, Hagee nor any other Christian initiated this prediction. But Weinstein's ancient Hebrew prophets did.
In the 13th and 14th chapters of his Old Testament book, Zechariah predicted that after Israel's rebirth ALL nations will eventually be against Israel and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed!
Malachi revealed the reasons: "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this."
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the hate-filled back-stabbing by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard, Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher etc.) against followers of Jesus such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
Weinstein wouldn't dare assert that citizens on government property don't have freedom of speech or press freedom or freedom to assemble or to petition the government.
But God-hater Weinstein maliciously wants to eliminate from government property the "free exercise" of religion - especially by evangelicals - a freedom found in the same First Amendment. Significantly, this freedom was purposely listed FIRST by America's founders!
And Weinstein wouldn't try to foist "separation of church and state" on strongly-Jewish Israel, but he does try to foist this non-Constitution-mentioned phrase on strongly-Christian America.
In light of Weinstein's Jewish protectionism and violently anti-Christian obsession, Christians in these endtimes should be reminded of Jesus' warning in Mark 13:9 (see also Luke 21:12) that "in the synagogues ye shall be beaten."
Maybe it's time for some modern Paul Reveres to saddle up and shout "The Yiddish are Coming!"

PS - Some, like Weinstein, are so treacherously anti-Christian they will even join hands at times with enemies, including Muslims, in order to silence evangelicals. It was Weinstein, BTW, who put pressure on the Pentagon to dis-invite Franklin Graham from speaking there on the National Day of Prayer!
PPS - Weinstein is an echo of the anti-Christian, anti-American Hollywood which for a century has dangled every known vice before young people. We seriously wonder how soon the lethal worldwide "flood of filth" (global harming!) that Hollywood has created will engulf and destroy itself and help to bring to power the endtime Antichrist (a.k.a. the Man of Sin and the Wicked One)!