The Academy Award-winning filmmaker directing the "Four Blood Moons" docu-drama has said he was drawn to the project because of his fondness for "Jews and the House of Israel." The film is based on the bestselling book of the same name written by Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee.
Keith Merrill, who won an Oscar for his 1973 documentary "The Great American Cowboy," made the remark in a statement emailed by Lovell-Fairchild Communications publicist Michael Conrad to The Christian Post.
He explained that he had "several" reasons for wanting to work on the "Four Blood Moons" movie project. more >>
As the world reacts with shock and horror at the increasingly savage deeds of the Islamic State (IS)—most recently the immolation of a captive—U.S. President Obama's response has been one of nonjudgmental relativism.
Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 5, Obama counseled Americans to get off their "high horse" and remember that Christians have been equally guilty of such atrocities:
Unless we get on our high horse and think this [beheadings, sex-slavery, crucifixion, roasting humans] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. more >>
A bad deal on Iranian nukes would be so catastrophic to global security that presidential resistance to a related speech – by the leader of an allied democracy, who may be the greatest expert on the issue – should leave everyone speechless.
The Obama administration's outraged accusation that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu violated protocol by accepting House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to address Congress is preposterous: Bibi's speech before Congress in 2011 came about in the exact same way with no similar Obama outrage (predictably, given the upcoming 2012 election). And The New York Times advanced this "violated protocol" narrative all too willingly, only to correct itself as inconspicuously as possible, revealing yet again its own anti-Israel agenda. Ironically, Obama's main, if not only, motivation for visiting Israel in 2008 (and promising policies far from those he eventually adopted) was to gain the support of Jewish voters, back when he needed them to win the presidency.
Now Obama is trying everything in his power to unseat Bibi, including what he accuses Bibi of doing: meddling in another democracy's domestic politics. Whitehouse Spokesperson Josh Earnest's inadvertent slip about hoping that Bibi gets voted out in Israel's next elections was just the appetizer. The Obama administration will boycott Bibi on his next trip and is boosting the profile of his political opponents, as Obama-linked strategists actively support Israeli campaigns to defeat Bibi (after already slighting the democratically elected leader of America's top Mideast ally on countless other occasions). more >>
A pro-Israel group says "shame" should be on any member of Congress who decides to skip next month's address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Last month, Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, invited Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress regarding the possible removal of economic sanctions against Iran.
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu makes the case for renewed Iran sanctions with greater expertise and insight than any other leader on the world stage today," David Brog, executive director of Christians United For Israel, told The Christian Post. more >>
Truth matters. That's why during the lunch hour at a northern Israeli kibbutz, I skipped a group event to set the record straight about the first few days of my headline-making trip in Israel. It seems that those vilifying it are misinformed.
I've been traveling with people who represent many faiths, ethnicities, ages, and even have friends and relatives whose lifestyles and/or political beliefs are quite different than theirs. And we are witnessing first-hand the reality of Israeli daily life that most Americans cannot comprehend.
Imagine the state of New Jersey, approximately the same size in square miles as Israel, under constant threat of attack by all of North America. Next imagine not only being blamed for being attacked but also having no one come to its aid. That is Israel's situation. more >>
As the anniversary of 9/11 has once more been observed with solemnity and promises of eternal remembrance, the question of how the West should understand the religion of the terrorists who then and now swear destruction for America remains a disquieting issue.
What has become the stock response – that Islam is a religion of peace – contains, however, a serious flaw. Even Islamic scholars, like Sahar Aziz of Texas A&M, argue that "these terrorists are not related to religion" and that terrorism is instead "a complex political problem." This is echoed in official foreign policy statements, such as the keystone speech on September 10, when President Obama stated that ISIL is not "Islamic" and that "no religion condones the killing of innocents." Other authors take a slightly more balanced view, calling terrorism a "complex problem" in which religion is a "symptom" rather than a cause.
These various explanations center on a premise that religion is not and even cannot be the motivation behind terrorist attacks. However, these arguments appear far less credible when examined in the light of Islamic history, Quranic scripture, and, perhaps most clearly of all, the statements of the terrorists themselves regarding their own actions. The evidence points not only to a logical association between Islamic religious teaching and terrorist violence, but also to a unique relationship between Islam and violent conquest which is not associated with any other religion (as key differences are present, though usually ignored, between past Islamic wars and the Crusades or the European Wars of Religion). While acknowledging the complexity of the problem of terrorism, it is thus essential to question realistically the premise of peace that is currently guiding our foreign policy and which, if not corrected with a more balanced view, may have long-lasting consequences for the West. History provides us with a "two-eyed" perspective. more >>