Bachmann: America ‘cursed’ by God ‘if we reject Israel’

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I really wish people like Bachmann, as nice as a lady as she is, couldnt influence politic's.
America was America long before the re-creation of Isreal; And if America cut all ties, and tax payer funds to Isreal (Who I've heard is lucky enough to not have to pay any taxes thanks to Americans footing the bill in a "Show of support", I think America might keep on keeping on.

At a Republican Jewish Coalition event in Los Angeles last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann offered a candid view of her positions on Israel: Support for Israel is handed down by God and if the United States pulls back its support, America will cease to exist.

Republican Jewish Coalition? I've never heard of this group, but it's in Los Angeles? I am personally at a loss of words for American Jewish coalitions, considering they're political history in America, has mainly been counter to the Conservative/Traditional American family/values.

1).

For congressional and senate races, since 1968, American Jews have voted about 70–80% for Democrats; this support increased to 87% for Democratic House candidates during the 2006 elections.

2).

Many Americans are familiar with the term Jesusland, and it’s connotation that (the Democratic-voting) half of America is so ideologically different than the (Republican-voting) other half, that it should secede and join with the more liberal Canada. There would than be two redrawn nations in North America - the United States of Canada and Jesusland.

The quote is from AthiestParents.com

One can easily go look through the politic's of these states. The Historically Conservative states have done well, while the liberal leaning ones appear to be on the verge of a meltdown.

I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.

So without Isreal, America wouldnt be who we were? I dont believe George Washington 'blessed' Isreal when he was President, yet he certainly kicked the crap out of the tyrannical Brits, if Im correct AMERICA!!!!!

I try to read the Bible as a Pagan, but especially as a student of History, language, culture and Theology.

I've come to two conclusions regarding "Isreal".

1). Is the Archetype, those who believe in God, but also accept Jesus Christ are Isreal.
By the time Jesus came down to free man of sin, Judeism was a mockery of itself, Jesus even said that those who are, are not, but liars.

I believe, perhaps with best favored that those who adhere to the Christian Doctrine are "Isreal" as the soul, but as God intended.

2). Isreal, the land was not to be permanant; But the Isrealites would spread out, and Found great and powerful Nations, none like the world had ever known before, which again, I think goes back to those who accept Jesus Christ; Why would God favor those who dont accept his sons sacrifice over those who do?


Link to story

Link2

Link3

Link4

[SIZE=+2]THE NAMING OF AMERICA: FRAGMENTS
WE'VE SHORED AGAINST OURSELVES[/SIZE]
BY JONATHAN COHEN



A[SIZE=-1]MERICA[/SIZE], we learn as schoolchildren, was named in honor of Amerigo Vespucci, for his discovery of the mainland of the New World. We tend not to question this lesson about the naming of America. By the time we are adults it lingers vaguely in most of us, along with images of wave-tossed caravels and forests peopled with naked cannibals. Not surprisingly, the notion that America was named for Vespucci has long been universally accepted, so much so that a lineal descendant, America Vespucci, came to New Orleans in 1839 and asked for a land grant "in recognition of her name and parentage." Since the late 19th century, however, conflicting ideas about the truth of the derivation have been set forth with profound cultural and political implications. To question the origin of America's name is to question the nature of not only our history lessons but our very identity as Americans.

The records of Scandinavian expeditions to America are found in sagas — their historic cores encrusted with additions made by every storyteller who had ever repeated them. The Icelandic Saga of Eric the Red, the settler of Greenland, which tells how Eric's son Leif came to Vinland, was first written down in the second half of the 13th century, 250 years after Leif found a western land full of "wheatfields and vines"; from this history emerged a fanciful theory in 1930 that the origin of "America" is Scandinavian: Amt meaning "district" plus Eric, to form Amteric, or the Land of (Leif) Eric.

Other Norsemen went out to the land Leif had discovered; in fact, contemporary advocates of the Norse connection claim that from around the beginning of the 11th century, North Atlantic sailors called this place Ommerike (oh-MEH-ric-eh), an Old Norse word meaning "farthest outland." the Norse Ommerike derives from the Gothic Amalric, which, according to them, means "Kingdom of Heaven.")

But most non-Scandinavians were ignorant of these sailors' bold exploits until the 17th century, and what they actually found was not seriously discussed by European geographers until the 18th century.
​

​

The above is non-representive, but it's certainly intriguing. I think it's hard for one to look at America, knowing it's a Nation which was Christian founded, atleast by the settlers/Founding Fathers, and then look at other areas of the time, which were equally Christian, yet never reached the power/beauty that our home country has


Im furthered perplexed by Bachmanns desire to throw in the Founding Fathers as Hebrew/Jewish supporters. If one looks at history, we clearly see speech does not match action - Is this a communist agenda to rewrite history?

Perhaps, a short synaposis of Andrew Jackson is in order.

President Jackson is the only president in United States history to have paid off the national debt.

Opposition to the National Bank

The Second Bank of the United States was authorized for a twenty year period during James Madison's tenure in 1816. As President, Jackson worked to rescind the bank's federal charter. In Jackson's veto message (written by George Bancroft), the bank needed to be abolished because:

• It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
• It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
• It served mainly to make the rich richer.
• It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
• It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.

Following Jefferson, Jackson supported an "agricultural republic" and felt the Bank improved the fortunes of an "elite circle" of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833.

The First Bank of the United States was founded in 1791 with the support of Alexander Hamiltonhttps://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/#cite_note-1 over the objections of Thomas Jefferson.

Every so often, the History Channel will do a spoof on Andrew Jacksons life, including afew snippets of his fight with the bank, but also strangely enough include crap about the Rothchild family - Why? I have no idea.

Anyways, two decent videos that always makes me feel abit more patriotic.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJQPA_tsYM]YouTube - The Original White Extremists[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34x_YiSWcE]YouTube - Anthem - Army Officership Commercial[/ame]

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I was browsing another thread, with SavageEagle posting about Obama being a Muslim and anti-jewish - Not saying you are wrong, Brother.


But I have a question, regarding one minor issue which doesnt help answer any questions regarding Obama and his loyalties.

Jews in the Obama Administration

David Axelrod (2009- ) Senior Advisor to the President Jared Bernstein (2009- ) Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice President Rahm Emanuel (2009- ) Chief of Staff Lee Feinstein (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor Gary Gensler (2009- ) Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Elena Kagan (2009- ) Solicitor General of the United States Ronald Klain (2009- ) Chief of Staff to the Vice President Jack Lew (2009- ) Deputy Secretary of State Eric Lynn (2009- ) Middle East Policy Advisor Peter Orszag (2009- ) Director of the Office of Management and Budget Dennis Ross (2009- ) Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia to the Secretary of State Mara Rudman (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor Mary Schapiro (2009- ) Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission Dan Shapiro (2009- ) Head of Middle East desk at the National Security Council James B. Steinberg (2009- ) Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Summers (2009- ) Director National Economic Council Mona Sutphen (2009- ) Deputy White House Chief of Staff

Jews in the Obama Administration



How can one be anti-Jewish and yet surround himself with people he doesnt like?

 

[pudly]

How can one be anti-Jewish and yet surround himself with people he doesnt like?

2 answers:

* How can he live in America considering it's so full of Americans that he feels he needs to apologize for representing?

* Jews have a history of being quite liberal (voting ~85% Democratic) and tend to be very politically active, contributing ideas, labor, and cash to the cause. Obama does not exactly have a history of saying no to those who are willing to give him cash, for example being a huge beneficiary of BP contributions.

 

[irishfan]

How can one be anti-Jewish and yet surround himself with people he doesnt like?

Ask a lot of the older mafiaoso who have had jewish lawyers and accountatnts through the years. A lot of times the prize at the end of the tunnel is worth more to you than your personal beliefs.

As far as the United States turning its back on Israel and being punished by god....well it makes you wonder about some of the things going on right now. Also, there is a phrase in psalms about going away from godly principles and we are doing that more everyday.

Psalms 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

 

[Joe Williams]

I think she's right.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Pudley, that is certainly an interesting take. I do have a problem with Obama and his constant apologizing. Why does he feel the need?
Does he hate American heritage? Whats this agenda being promoted?

I believe History will look back on Obama with one word defined "Mistake".

Ask a lot of the older mafiaoso who have had jewish lawyers and accountatnts through the years. A lot of times the prize at the end of the tunnel is worth more to you than your personal beliefs.

As far as the United States turning its back on Israel and being punished by god....well it makes you wonder about some of the things going on right now. Also, there is a phrase in psalms about going away from godly principles and we are doing that more everyday.

Psalms 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

You may have a point. Look at all the vices tolerable in Society.
The liberal/communist/Athiest agenda to attack God is appearant, as is the downfall.

Disfavor? maybe

But then again, when a civilization evolves into trash, through vice and morality, what can we expect?

 

[antsi]

As a Christian, I believe there are generally blessings to doing the right thing, and undesirable consequences to doing the wrong thing.*

If we criticize Israel out of political expediency, or simply because evil people hate Israel, then we're doing the wrong thing and there will probably be negative consequences. Same applies if we befriend and support Israel in doing wrong, just because there is a wealthy and active pro-Israel lobby in the US.

If we criticize or support Israel because their actions merit criticism or support, then we're doing the right thing and there will likely be positive consequences.



* I do believe there are at least a few non-Christians who subscribe to this belief as well.

 

[Son of Liberty]

As a Christian, I believe there are generally blessings to doing the right thing, and undesirable consequences to doing the wrong thing.*

If we criticize Israel out of political expediency, or simply because evil people hate Israel, then we're doing the wrong thing and there will probably be negative consequences. Same applies if we befriend and support Israel in doing wrong, just because there is a wealthy and active pro-Israel lobby in the US.

If we criticize or support Israel because their actions merit criticism or support, then we're doing the right thing and there will likely be positive consequences.



* I do believe there are at least a few non-Christians who subscribe to this belief as well.

Exactly we should look at their actions, and make decisions accordingly. Not just support them just because they are Israel.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Well any critique of Isreal is usually called Anti-semitic by Isreal/American Jewish groups; Kind of similar to when people spoke up against Affirmative Action, and then got called racist.

A darn good effective way of shutting up the opposition because nobody wants either labels.


I dont know if it's morally correct to even think of being critical of Isreal, even when they are wrong

 

[jbombelli]

Personally, I support Israel because they're fighting Muslim extremists whose sworn goal is to kill every last one of them and erase their entire country from the map. Tens of thousands of those very same people danced in the streets when the twin towers came down, celebrating the deaths of my friends and countrymen. I changed that day. I became an entirely different person. Prior to that, I had a live/let live attitude, and really leaned more towards the Palestinians. Now? I hope they all die. Every last one of them. And please note, that is NOT in purple.

Besides, where do you think those Muslim extremists will focus their attention next, once Israel would be gone? Here, that's where. Nothing would be hunky dory if Israel suddenly ceased to exist. Nothing. They would simply focus their attention on us. Anybody who thinks they wouldn't is fooling themselves.

How did we get here, you might ask? It doesn't matter how we got here, because that attitude will not be changed. It's too late for that. They train their children from birth to 1) hate Jews, 2) hate America, and 3) that Allah will accept them into Heaven if they kill Jews and Americans. You cannot win their "hearts and minds" because those belong to Allah.

Next, the West has had problems coming from that part of the world for well over 2000 years. Who was it that fought at Thermopylae, again? The Greeks and who? Oh yeah, the Persians. There has never been peace there, and there will never be peace there.

Finally, If the Palestinians laid down their weapons today, there would be peace tomorrow. If the Israelis laid down THEIR weapons today, there would be genocide tomorrow. THAT is why we should all back Israel.

 

[LPMan59]

Personally, I support Israel because they're fighting Muslim extremists

this.

I don't have the religious reason to support them and i dont really care for some of their internal workings. BUT, i agree whole-heartedly with the above statement. and we need a strong ally in the region willing to do what is necessary.

 

[jdhaines]

this.

I don't have the religious reason to support them and i dont really care for some of their internal workings. BUT, i agree whole-heartedly with the above statement. and we need a strong ally in the region willing to do what is necessary.

I agree.

Also, as an Athiest...I would probably still join Jesusland. Just because I disagree with most of you on this board regarding your God....I share the ideas for the future of this country FOR THE MOST PART with you. You are the group that I'm siding with if the SHTF. When things are calm and settled, we can quietly argue about God and theology over cigars and bourbon (For the Catholics at least ). Until then, I'm with you to take back America.

And I guess just to be complete. I disagree that any supreme beings would care in the slightest that we turn our backs on Isreal. From a purely logical standpoint...those are some TOUGH SOBs and good on them for fighting the crazy muslims.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Brother, I agree that the Muslim religion is a problem for Americans but also Europeans. Aside from Isreal, Europe is the next biggest target - Usually the victims arent in mass, but individuals. Look at the UK, never before have I seen such a p*** poor execuse of people, allow foreigners to rule over them all over Political correctness.

Some parts that I'd like to address though.

Next, the West has had problems coming from that part of the world for well over 2000 years. Who was it that fought at Thermopylae, again? The Greeks and who? Oh yeah, the Persians. There has never been peace there, and there will never be peace there.

Finally, If the Palestinians laid down their weapons today, there would be peace tomorrow. If the Israelis laid down THEIR weapons today, there would be genocide tomorrow. THAT is why we should all back Israel.

1). In the year 465 BC Xerxes was murdered, Son of Darius.

[SIZE=+2]The Persian Empire (538 BC - 331 BC) caused the demise of both Babylon and Egypt[/SIZE]



1) Cyrus captures Babylon (538 BC); Darius retakes Babylon (521 BC) after a revolt (2) Cyrus tolerates Babylon religion (538 BC), but Xerxes suppresses it (476 BC) (3) Darius calls himself "a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage" (4) Xerxes' religious policy, with relation to Egypt and Babylon
Link

2). Xerxes I of Persia (English: /ˈzɜrksiːz/; Old Persian: خشایارشا (Ḫšayāršā), IPA: [xʃajaːrʃaː]; also known as Xerxes the Great, was the fourth Zoroastrian king of kings of the Achamenid Empire.

3). Zoroastrian Religion. Notice, that Magi in the Bible were the three wisemen who came and gave gifts of Jesus's birth.
Link1
What is Zoroastrian in a nutshell Wiki

4). Iran, is by in large, despite the misleading information is NOT ethnically Persian, but Arabic. The main religion being Muslim, is symbolic of this.

The Iranian languages form a sub-branch of the Indo-Iranian sub-family, which is a branch of the family of Indo-European languages. Having descended from the Proto-Indo-Iranians, the Proto-Iranians separated from the Indo-Aryans around in the early 2nd millennium BC. The Proto-Iranians are traced to the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex, a Bronze Age culture of Central Asia. The area between northern Afghanistan and the Aral Sea, and is hypothesized to have been the region where the Proto-Iranians first emerged, following the separation of Indo-Iranian tribes.



https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/#cite_note-Panshin-0
By the 1st millennium BC, Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Parthians populated the Iranian plateau, while others such as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians and AlansBlack Sea. populated the steppes north of the The Saka and Scythian tribes remained mainly in the south and spread as far west as the Balkans and as far east as Xinjiang.



The division of Proto-Iranian into an "Eastern" and a "Western" group is attested in the form of Avestan and Old Persian, the two oldest known Iranian languages.

Above, I bolded and reded for you to remember.

Scythian/Iranic Warriors


Link1

Many of the Scythians had full body tattoos with extremely intricate tribal designs, depicting both real and imaginary beasts as well as events from their mythology. Looking like the forerunners of modern-day Hell's Angels, the fierce appearance of the Scythian nomads had a formidably terrifying effect on the people whose lands they invaded.

Herodotus

Herodotus wrote about an enormous city, Gelonus, in the northern part of Scythiahttps://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/#cite_note-41

The Budini are a large and powerful nation: they have all deep blue eyes, and bright red hair. There is a city in their territory, called Gelonus, which is surrounded with a lofty wall, thirty furlongs

Link



​

I will say that it's undoubted that the Military Force of which invaded Greece was not made up of entirely Ethnic Persians, but of mixed people.
Xexers is reported to have laxed on the laws which is former Kings were very strict, on who could fight.


There is alot information communist leave out regarding the history of whose what and whom. Ethnic Persians are a minority in the Middle East, and the Ethnic religion of the Persians is outlawed in Iran; Which had to go to India because the Religion is Pagan.

 

[jbombelli]

Brother, I agree that the Muslim religion is a problem for Americans but also Europeans. Aside from Isreal, Europe is the next biggest target - Usually the victims arent in mass, but individuals. Look at the UK, never before have I seen such a p*** poor execuse of people, allow foreigners to rule over them all over Political correctness.

Some parts that I'd like to address though.



1). In the year 465 BC Xerxes was murdered, Son of Darius.



2). Xerxes I of Persia (English: /ˈzɜrksiːz/; Old Persian: خشایارشا (Ḫšayāršā), IPA: [xʃajaːrʃaː]; also known as Xerxes the Great, was the fourth Zoroastrian king of kings of the Achamenid Empire.

3). Zoroastrian Religion. Notice, that Magi in the Bible were the three wisemen who came and gave gifts of Jesus's birth.
Link1
What is Zoroastrian in a nutshell Wiki

4). Iran, is by in large, despite the misleading information is NOT ethnically Persian, but Arabic. The main religion being Muslim, is symbolic of this.


Above, I bolded and reded for you to remember.

Scythian/Iranic Warriors


Link1





I will say that it's undoubted that the Military Force of which invaded Greece was not made up of entirely Ethnic Persians, but of mixed people.
Xexers is reported to have laxed on the laws which is former Kings were very strict, on who could fight.


There is alot information communist leave out regarding the history of whose what and whom. Ethnic Persians are a minority in the Middle East, and the Ethnic religion of the Persians is outlawed in Iran; Which had to go to India because the Religion is Pagan.

Whatever. They still came from the same part of the world. That's the main point I was making.

I should also mention that, according to college profs I had, Iran and Turkey are considered Persia. Now, college professors aren't always right, but that's what was taught in my Middle East Government and Politics course. Iran and Turkey are not actually part of the Middle East, they are part of Persia. As was taught by a Muslim professor, who was from IIRC Qatar.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I'd reckon that a good portion of the middle east might have been Persia; Im not upto date on the geography and borders of the modern or even by that same token ancient nations.

I'd also like to mention that a vast amount of people come from the Middle East Regions.

 

[Randall Flagg]

1. Muslims don't hate Jews, they hate Zionists.
2. not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews
3. not all Jews are Semitic(as you being a non Semitic can convert to being Jewish.)
4. some Jews and Muslims are Semitic, so you can be anti-Semitic against Muslims as well as Jews.


Also not all Jews are for Zionism or the state of Israel, most deeply religious Jews are against Israel and the Zionists due to the understanding that god and not the un would rise up and return his flock to the holy land.

Just google jews against zionism

 

[jdhaines]

1. Muslims don't hate Jews, they hate Zionists.
2. not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews
3. not all Jews are Semitic(as you being a non Semitic can convert to being Jewish.)
4. some Jews and Muslims are Semitic, so you can be anti-Semitic against Muslims as well as Jews.


Also not all Jews are for Zionism or the state of Israel, most deeply religious Jews are against Israel and the Zionists due to the understanding that god and not the un would rise up and return his flock to the holy land.

Just google jews against zionism

Is there anyone else who hadn't heard of any of this? I have some research to do apparently. I always though semitic meant jewish...therefore anti-semitic = against all jews. Learn something new everyday I guess.

 

[antsi]

Well any critique of Isreal is usually called Anti-semitic by Isreal/American Jewish groups; Kind of similar to when people spoke up against Affirmative Action, and then got called racist.

A darn good effective way of shutting up the opposition because nobody wants either labels.


I dont know if it's morally correct to even think of being critical of Isreal, even when they are wrong

This was true when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s - nobody wanted to be seen as critical of Israel.

I don't think it holds any more, though. Especially on the left, it has now become very fashionable to blame Israel for everything that goes wrong in the middle east and to condemn all their attempts to defend themselves. Pro-Israel supporters may still make the accusation of anti-semitism, but it doesn't seem to stick any more. I don't think anyone's really afraid of that label any more.

 

[Expat]

Is there anyone else who hadn't heard of any of this? I have some research to do apparently. I always though semitic meant jewish...therefore anti-semitic = against all jews. Learn something new everyday I guess.

This is one of those semantic issues that gets cloudy. In popular parlance when someone says anti-Semitic, they usually mean anti-Jewish. Technically semite means most of the Middle East and parts of North Africa.

 

[88GT]

I really wish people like Bachmann, as nice as a lady as she is, couldnt influence politic's.

Of all the people in a position to influence American politics, you pick one of the good guys (gals? ) because she doesn't share your feelings on God and Israel?

You must be buddies with e5ranger since he's still holding out for the perfect (according to his standards) representative too.