For Hamas, More Palestinian Corpses Means More Success by Michael Brown

I hate the fact that so many Palestinian protestors have been killed or wounded in recent weeks. And I’m not saying that Israel has done everything right in the conflict. But for Hamas, this is the only way to defeat Israel. The strategy is as cynical as it is simple.

Hamas cannot possibly defeat Israel militarily. It can inflict pain and terror on a limited basis, but nothing more. Israel would crush Hamas in a matter of weeks or even days in an all-out war.

Hamas can only win the propaganda war, the war of public opinion. But how does it do this as a terrorist organization? Again, the strategy is simple.

Hamas sends waves of young men to defy Israeli orders. The IDF soldiers kill and wound the Hamas-provoked protestors. The media follows Hamas’s script, reporting Israel’s atrocities to the world. Then the nations of the world condemn Israel for “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide.” The more Palestinians corpses and casualties, the greater the success.

Aaron Klein has pointed out that, “Hamas, desperate over its increasingly precarious situation in Gaza and eager to please Iranian paymasters, has escalated the premeditated, openly violent campaign aimed at breaching the Israel-Gaza border and attacking nearby Israeli communities.

“This,” he writes, “while the news media hypes Hamas-provided casualty counts and portrays the Gaza rioters as peaceful protesters frustrated that there is no Palestinian state and angry that the U.S. moved its embassy to Jerusalem. In doing so, the news media are actually advancing Hamas’s cause.”

Writing in England, Melanie Phillips explains that, “The people who caused these deaths are the Hamas themselves. But the people at whose door these dead Arabs should also be laid are the BBC and those in the rest of the British and other media who have acted their part in the script the Hamas has written: to cause as many Gazans to lose their lives as possible, the younger the better, so that the western media will portray Israel as wanton and disproportionate killers.”

She is absolutely right.

Hamas leaders carefully arranged a two-month protest campaign to culminate on May 15, the day of “Al-Nakba,” literally, “the disaster,” which is the Palestinian description of the founding of modern Israel. But with the moving of our embassy on May 14, the climactic protest was moved up one day.

According to one report of these well-organized “protests,” there are tents behind the main crowds for prayer and for food. There, the young men say their final prayers before attempting to breech the security zone and break down the fence. They are ready to become shahids, martyrs, for their cause. They expect to die.

“Hamas members, unarmed but clearly directing some of the young men, are in the crowd. They watch for an area of burning tires and protesters where the protesters have managed to get close to the fence or breach the first line of barbed wire. Some of these professional activists are on motorcycles and they may come and go or drive along the line of protests or observe them from a high point. When they sense that a breach can be made they gather together groups of young men, men who have prepared beforehand for the assault. Like some kind of First World War charge of death, the young men then rush as a group toward the fence.”

Click here to read more.
Source: Christian Post

Top 3 Reasons Why the Popular Evolution Story Is a Myth by F. Lagard Smith

We have Charles Darwin to thank for opening our eyes to the forces of natural selection so useful today in medical research, healthcare, and technology. But Darwin also did us a great disservice, all too blithely extrapolating from observable “bounded” evolution to his Grand Theory of microbe-to-man “unbounded” evolution. In a nutshell, Darwin speculated that, since there is evolution within well-defined species, then all species must surely be the result of evolution. Logical enough, but simply wrong. Darwin’s extrapolation is fraught with a host of problems, at least one of which—in three particulars—is fatal to his Grand Theory.

That fatal flaw? The origin of sexual reproduction. Evolution (and evolutionists) simply can’t explain it, and Darwin himself never even tried. The way he talked around the edges makes one wonder how Darwin could not have considered the difficulty, especially since he candidly addressed a number of other difficulties with his theory. In his books, Darwin discussed sexual selection, gender divergence, and all sorts of matters pertaining to breeding, but, curiously, not a single word about the origin of sex. Did Darwin simply take sex for granted since the biological world is awash with sex? Was he just too close to the problem to recognize it? Or is it possible that this particular difficulty was too much of a threat to his elegant theory to highlight it for his readers and critics? Whatever the explanation, it’s clear that Darwin never seriously dealt with the following three devastating problems with his theory:

1. Natural selection could not have “selected” from genderless asexual replication the DNA information necessary for evolving the very first male and female forms necessary for sexual reproduction. If, as evolution theory teaches, asexual replication was the sole, primitive form of biological reproduction on the planet, in order to move the evolutionary process forward to sexual reproduction it first would have been necessary to evolve separate genders. Male and female forms would have to appear separately, concurrently, and compatibly in order for the first-ever sexual reproduction to occur. Because genderless asexual DNA only enables the production of exact copies, there is no DNA information that possibly could be “selected” to produce never-before-seen gender.

Click here to read more.
Source: Christian Post

Trump’s Porn Star Payoff Timeline, and Why It Matters by Napp Nazworth

To understand why President Donald Trump’s porn star payoff matters, know the timeline of events.

The Timeline:

July 2006: Trump met porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, at a celebrity golf tournament. Clifford claims Trump invited her to his room and they had sex. This was 18 months after Trump married Melania and four months after their son Barron was born.

2011: In Touch Weekly interviewed Clifford about the alleged affair. One of Clifford’s close friends and her ex-husband corroborated the story and all three reportedly passed a polygraph test. In Touch didn’t publish the story at the time because Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue the publication if it did, two former employees told CBS News.

Oct. 7, 2016: Nearly one month before the Nov. 8, 2016, presidential election, The Washington Post reported on a 2005 “Access Hollywood” video in which Trump is heard saying that he can grab women by their private parts and they will let him because he’s famous. An open microphone captured the conversation and Trump was unaware the mic was on.

After the video, several women claimed Trump sexually harassed them. Some of the stories were similar to what Trump bragged about doing in the video.

There was great concern on the Trump campaign team that the video would dampen turnout among politically conservative Christians. Evangelical leaders were torn on what to think about the video. See, for instance, herehere, and here.

Oct. 9, 2016: Two hours before his first presidential debate against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Trump held a live press conference with three women who had accused Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, of sexual misconduct and rape.

Oct. 12, 2016: A Reuters poll showed Trump’s support among evangelicals dropped 12 points since the “Access Hollywood” tape was revealed.

Oct. 17, 2016: Cohen, a lawyer whose only client is Donald Trump, incorporated Essential Consultants LLC.

Oct. 27, 2016: Essential Consultants paid Clifford $130,000.

Oct. 28, 2016: Clifford signs a non-disclosure agreement to keep quiet about the affair with Trump.

Nov. 4, 2016: The Wall Street Journal reports that Clifford was scheduled to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to talk about the alleged affair. The report also said the National Enquirer paid former Playboy centerfold Karen McDougal $150,000 for her story about an alleged affair with Trump, but then didn’t publish the story. Trump campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks claims the allegations are “absolutely, unequivocally,” “totally untrue.”

Nov. 8, 2016: Trump wins the presidential election.

Jan. 12, 2018: The Wall Street Journal breaks the story on Cohen’s payment to Clifford. The White House responded, “These are old, recycled reports, which were published and strongly denied prior to the election.” Cohen accused WSJ of “raising outlandish allegations against” Trump and “perpetuat[ing] this false narrative.” Cohen also sent WSJ a statement signed by Clifford denying she had an affair and received hush money from Trump.

Feb. 18, 2018: Cohen admits to paying Clifford, adding that it wasn’t a campaign expense and he wasn’t reimbursed by the Trump campaign.

March 7, 2018: Clifford sues to invalidate the non-disclosure agreement.

March 9, 2018: Cohen tells ABC News that he used a home-equity line of credit to pay Clifford with his own money.

March 25, 2018: Clifford appears on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” She said her previous statement denying the affair was a lie and confirms she signed a non-disclosure agreement in October 2016 to keep quiet about an affair with Trump.

March 26, 2018: When asked about the “60 Minutes” interview, a White House spokesperson referred reporters to the Trump campaign or Cohen, and reiterated that Trump denied “these underlying claims,” which could have been a reference to the affair rather than the payoff, but the White House was not specific.

April 5, 2018: Aboard Air Force One, Trump says he didn’t know about the payment to Clifford. “You’ll have to ask Michael Cohen,” he said.

April 9, 2018: The FBI raids Cohen’s office, home and hotel room, and seized records related to Clifford and other documents.

April 26, 2018: Trump calls into “Fox and Friends.” Among the many topics, he talks about Clifford, saying that Cohen “represented me” in “this crazy Stormy Daniels deal” and “from what I see, he did absolutely nothing wrong.”

May 2, 2018: Former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani, who is now leading Trump’s legal team on issues related to the Russia investigation, appears on Fox News’ “Hannity” and says that the payment to Clifford came from Trump. The money was “funneled through a law firm, and then the president repaid it.” The next morning Guiliani confirmed that Trump knew he would reveal that information on the show.

May 3, 2018: Guiliani tells The Washington Post that Trump reimbursed Cohen in monthly installments of $35,000. He called it a campaign expense and implied there might have been other payoffs, saying, “That [Clifford payment] and probably a few other situations that might have been considered campaign expenses.”

Click here to read more.
Source: Christian Post

Israel and Iran on the Brink of War? By John Stonestreet and David Carlson

Are Israel and Iran on the brink of war? It’s a hugely important question from a confusing part of the world. I’ll try to bring a bit of clarity.

The Middle East is a complicated place — okay, that’s what’s known as an understatement. Not only is there civil war in Yemen, with Saudi Arabia duking it out with Iranian-backed forces, protests are flaring up in Gaza, and the terrorist group Hezbollah is gaining political ascendancy in Lebanon. The U.S. may be followed by other nations in moving embassies to Jerusalem, and the Trump Administration just announced it is pulling out of the Iranian nuclear deal.

But the most significant and confusing events right now may be in Syria. Syria’s civil war has cost an estimated half-million lives, and has displaced a wave of refugees the likes of which we haven’t seen since World War II.

As I speak, within Syria’s borders are the following cast of characters: Kurds rebelling against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad; Turks seeking to crush any Kurdish idea of forming a state; remnants of ISIS are there, as are Russians, American troops, and Sunni fighters, including Al-Qaeda.

And if that weren’t enough, the Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah is in Syria as well, fighting for Assad. And of course, there’s the Syrian military, with a proven propensity for using chemical weapons on its own people.

But perhaps most ominous of all, forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran — Israel’s sworn enemy — have used the Syrian civil war to attempt to establish a permanent military presence on Israel’s doorstep, complete with Revolutionary Guards, drones, naval bases, and offensive missiles.

Given the consistent threats of Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei to turn Tel Aviv into dust, a permanent Iranian military presence in Syria is clearly a red line for the Israelis.

According to all the analysis I’ve read, neither Israel nor Iran want an all-out war. Okay—I have my doubts about Iran. And the kindling is piling up. A spark of any kind could ignite a major conflagration in the Middle East.

We all should pray that doesn’t happen.

Click here to read more.
Source: Christian Post

Explaining the Gaza Conflict as Death Toll Rises by Jim Denison

History was made Monday when Israel observed its seventieth anniversary as a nation and the United States officially moved its embassy to Jerusalem. However, the day was historic from a very different perspective as well.

Palestinians mark May 15 each year as “Nakba Day” (“Nakba” means “catastrophe”). This designation refers to the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homes or were displaced in the 1948 War of Independence.

In the weeks leading to yesterday’s anniversary, Hamas called for massive demonstrations against Israel and the US. According to Israeli officials, some forty thousand Palestinians took part in “violent riots” yesterday at thirteen locations along the Gaza Strip security fence.

As protesters approached the border fence hurling stones and incendiary devices, Israeli soldiers responded with live ammunition and tear gas dispersed from drones.

The resulting death toll has risen this morning to sixty-one. More than 2,700 were injured in the deadliest violence since the 2014 Gaza war. A senior Hamas official said last night that protests would continue: “This blood will keep boiling until the occupation leaves forever.”

What my Palestinian tour guide experienced

Since I wrote yesterday from Israel’s point of view, today I will overview the conflict from a Palestinian perspective. (For a larger introduction to the region, its history, and its significance, I invite you to read my Israel and the Two-State Solution on our website.)

On one of my travels to Israel, I became friends with our Palestinian Christian tour guide. He and his family lost their home in Jerusalem when Israelis took the city in 1967. He still had shrapnel in his neck from that conflict and sometimes drove past his family’s home with a mixture of bitterness and nostalgia.

In his view, the Palestinians owned the land for twenty centuries, after the Romans expelled the Jews following the Bar Kochba revolt of AD 135. He was largely right.

According to Daniel Gordis’s Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn, there were roughly seven hundred thousand Arabs living in Palestine when Jews began their migrations back to their Holy Land in the latter part of the nineteenth century, a movement known as the “First Aliyah” (“Aliyah” means “ascent”). By contrast, there were twenty-seven thousand Jews living in Palestine, concentrated primarily in Jerusalem, where they constituted a majority.

In the following decades, Jews migrated back to Palestine by purchasing land from the Arabs and/or the Ottoman Empire. By 1946, the Jewish population had grown to more than five hundred thousand, while the Arab population exceeded 1.2 million.

Click here to read more.
Source: Christian Post

5 Reasons We Should Always Support Israel by Jentezen Franklin

I’m thrilled that I was invited to join the celebration of the grand opening of America’s embassy in Jerusalem. This is a historic moment, and the decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move our embassy there is the just and respectful move for the people of Israel. Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s government, and they reserve the right to determine their own capital city, as does any other sovereign nation throughout the world.

Israel has survived as a people and as a nation against all odds. They have suffered unprovoked wars, genocide, slavery and every physical and rhetorical attack imaginable. The reasons for standing with Israel are clear and overwhelming, but in case there’s any doubt, here are the five most important ones:

First, God has promised to bless those who bless Israel. In Genesis 12:3, the Lord says of Israel, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” I firmly believe this promise from God is as true today as it was centuries ago. And I take his promises seriously. There’s no denying God’s sovereignty and his hand both in history and in each of our lives. I dare not test God of the consequences for denying our friendship and support of Israel.

Second, Israel is a strategic ally — helping them helps us. Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East — militarily, economically and technologically. This cannot be overstated. The Israelis regularly provide essential intelligence in confronting the global war on terror and combating Islamic extremists. The Middle East has been a place of near constant upheaval and violence, and it is imperative that we remain friends with the leading power in the region.

Click here to read more.
Source: Christian Post

Will Rosie O’Donnell Serve Time Like Dinesh D’souza? By Rachel Alexander

Left-wing activist and comedian Rosie O’Donnell has been caught contributing more than the legal limit to five Democratic political candidates. She used four variations of her name and five different New York addresses to make the contributions. This may show intent to disguise them.

Federal Election Commission rules limit contributions to federal candidates to $2,700 per election. Donors can max that out in a primary race, then max it out again during a general election for the same candidate. O’Donnell contributed more than $2,700 each to five candidates during the primary race.

The offense is punishable by large fines from the FEC. The FEC can also choose to let a donor move an excess donation from a primary race into the general election or refund it. It doesn’t have to impose the full amount of the fines, and it certainly does not have to criminally prosecute the individual.

O’Donnell’s contributions are similar to what conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza did during the 2012 election cycle. He asked two friends and their spouses to contribute $10,000 each to a congressional campaign, then he reimbursed them. Prosecutors chose to bring charges against him, and he ended up pleading guilty to the felony of making illegal contributions in the names of others. He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house, five years probation and a $30,000 fine.

But prosecutors didn’t need to bring charges against him. Especially not felony charges. Left-leaning Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said at the time, “I can’t help but think that [Mr. D’Souza’s] politics have something to do with it… It smacks of selective prosecution.” Dershowitz told Newsmax, “This is clearly a case of selective prosecution for one of the most common things done during elections, which is to get people to raise money for you. If they went after everyone who did this, there would be no room in jails for murderers.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova observed that the prosecution was unusual considering it involved a single donation made by an individual with no criminal record. David Mason, a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, told Newsmax that the prosecution had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that D’Souza broke the law “knowingly and willfully.” Campaign finance law is complex, and the average person who is not an attorney or working on campaigns might not have known this was against the law. D’Souza said he was unaware it was a campaign violation. I am a former county elections attorney, who worked on several campaigns, and I wasn’t even aware it was against the law until D’Souza’s prosecution.

Four Republican senators wrote to then-FBI Director James Comey and accused the Obama administration of using the DOJ to take down a prominent critic.

The Washington Times notes that in contrast, Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign failed to disclose millions of dollars in contributions and missed deadlines for refunding millions in excess contributions. Yet it was merely fined $375,000 and no one was prosecuted for felonies.

O’Donnell claims she did not know she had exceeded campaign finance limits. Then why did she use four different versions of her name and five different residential addresses?

Click here to read more.
Source: Christian Post