ACTION

Note the similarities between this agenda and the so-called "Progressive" Democrat Socialists in the United States today.

Both Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, the fathers of communism, were Jewish by birth. The were also atheists by choice. Many of the early supporters of communism were Jewish; that is to say, Jewish by birth, but atheists by choice.

This is where the crux of the matter with anti-Zionists lies. They refuse to differentiate between those who were born Jewish, but espoused atheism. Not all Jews are atheists, just as not all people who call themselves Christians truly espouse the faith. Many politicians tell the world they are Christians, but only because of political expediency. They do so to court the votes of the largest voting block in the U.S., evangelical Christians; at the expense of those who are ignorant to their debauchery.

An interesting parallel in America today is those who consider themselves to be Christian, but their actions and belief systems will tell you different. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton tell the world they are Methodists, but their actions and lifestyle say otherwise. There is NOTHING Christian about their lives. Bill is a philandering, unrepentant adulterer, while Hillary is an AC/DC (bisexual) lesbian; both of which are counter to the Christian belief system.

You are not BORN a Christian, anymore than you are born a Methodist. It is a conscious CHOICE. Anything else is hypocrisy of the worst kind.

I support the RIGHT of Israel to remain a free state. That does not mean I support atheistic Jews or Marxists.

This documentary film, produced by the Jones e-Global Library, delineates militant atheism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

According to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, militant atheism was the official religion of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was analagous to an established church. The goal of the Soviet Union was the liquidation of religion and the means to achieve this goal included the destruction of churches, mosques, synagogues, mandirs, madrasahs, religious monuments, as well the mass deportation to Siberia of believers of different religions.

Under the Soviet doctrine of separation of church and state, detailed in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, churches in the Soviet Union were forbidden to give to the poor or carry on educational activities.

They could not publish literature since all publishing was done by state agencies, although after World War II the Russian Orthodox Church was given the right to publish church calendars, a very limited number of Bibles, and a monthly journal in a limited number of copies. Churches were forbidden to hold any special meetings for children, youth or women, or any general meetings for religious study or recreation, or to open libraries or keep any books other than those necessary for the performance of worship services.

Furthermore, under militant atheist policies, Church property was expropriated. Moreover, not only was religion banned from the school and university system, but pupils were to be indoctrinated with atheism and anti-religious teachings.

For example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism and memorize anti-religious rhymes, songs, and catechisms, while university students who declined to propagate atheism lost their scholarships and were expelled from universities. Severe criminal penalties were imposed for violation of these rules. By the 1960s, with the fourth Soviet anti-religious campaign underway, half of the amount of Russian Orthodox churches were closed, along with five out of the eight seminaries. In addition, several other Christian denominations were brought to extinction, including the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Evangelical Christian Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Before the Russian Revolution, there were more than fifty thousand Russian Orthodox clergymen, by 1939, there were no more than three to four hundred left. In the year 1922 alone, under the militant atheistic system, 2691 secular priests, 1962 monks and 3447 nuns were martyred for their faith. According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, 61,000,000 people were killed under the Communism of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Due to the militant atheistic campaigns against Judaism, the religion was inaccessible to its followers; most Soviet Jews focused on a national identity, which fueled a mass dissident movement. Marxist-Leninist militant atheism resulted in the administrative elimination of the clergy, the housing of atheist museums where churches had once stood, the sending of many religious people to prisons and concentration camps, a continuous stream of propaganda, and the imposing of atheism through education (and forced re-education through torture at various prisons).

Specifically, by 1941, 40,000 Christian churches and 25,000 Muslim mosques had been closed down and converted into schools, cinemas, clubs, warehouses and grain stores, or Museums of Scientific Atheism.

Rev. John Hagee on Militant Atheism

LENGTHY BUT READ AND HEED.  WOW.  THIS SAYS IT ALL.

  Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Rabbi from Teaneck, N.J. It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtful explanation of how our nation is changing. The article appeared in The Israel National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats. The Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard.

 Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is the spiritual leader of Congregation

Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey.

 The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.

 And fewer people voted.

 But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

 Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win. That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

 The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

  Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both dis-incentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

 The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because

they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government.

 Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese.

 They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

 It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

 That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism.

 That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.

 During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!”

 Truer words were never spoken.

 Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.

 Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws.

 He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.

 Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

 Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises.

 It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups.

 If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future.

 The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.

 For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.

 A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until

the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.

 But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the

last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.

 The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution. If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.

 ==============================

 Then this next came a few minutes later! ! !

 ----------------------------------------------------

 If you are part of the 47% don’t read or forward.

 Something's wrong here !!!

 This is exactly why Mitt Romney said that 40 something % of the people are too dependent on the government. They have learned to work the system.

 A Ford Dealer's Report - From Tom Selkis' (Latham Ford) Facebook - True story yesterday at the dealership.

 "I'll try to make this as short and to the point as I can. One of my salesmen here had a woman in his office yesterday wanting to lease a brand new Focus.

 As he was reviewing her credit application with her he noticed she was on social security disability.

 He said to her you don't look like you're disabled and unable to work.

 She said, well I'm really not. I could work if I wanted to, but I make more now than I did when I was working and got hurt (non-disabling injury).

She said the gov't sends her $1500.00 a month in 1 check. And she gets $700.00 a month on an EBT card (food stamps), and $800.00 a month for rent..

 Oh yeah, and 250 minutes free on her phone. That is just south of $3500.00 a month.

 When she was working, she was taking home about $330.00 per week.

 Do the math and then ask yourself why the hell should she go back to work.

 If you multiply that by millions of people, you start to realize the scope of the problem we face as a country.

 Once the socialists have 51% of the population in that same scenario, we are finished.

 The question is when do we cross that threshold if we haven't already, and there are not enough people working to pay enough taxes to support the non-working people? Riots?? Be prepared to protect your homes.

 She didn't lease the Focus here because the dealer down the road beat our deal by $10.00/month.

 Glad to know she is so frugal with her hard earned money."

@@ and if you in ignorance say, "Come now, the Nazis weren't real socialists," then you in your inexperience haven't examined the platforms of those National Socialists Nazis. They wanted pretty much what Barack Obama wants, including hurting their political enemies.

$$ Here's Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.'s essay: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html