It s All In the Headlines. . .

It s All In the Headlines. . .
Vol: 96 Issue: 30 Wednesday, September 30, 2009

For many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Last month, as part of the administration s full court press to pass the Democrat health care bill, Obama met with the leaders of prominent liberal religious groups to explain why Jesus would vote for the plan.

Obama informed the group, (called Faithful America and included mainstream Protestant and Catholic leaders), of “a core ethical and moral obligation: that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother’s keeper, that I am my sister’s keeper.”

Among today’s headlines is a story about group of cheerleaders at a Catoosa County Georgia high school who put up a banner saying Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The school received a complaint, and evidently fearing someone might read the message and worse, heed it the school banned the banners as a violation of the 1st Amendment!

(They have their brains on backwards. The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.)

Evidently, the Left finds no fault with using God to endorse a policy position, but is horrified at the prospect students may decide to worship Him.

During the presidential campaign, TIME Magazine ran a cover story article (July 12, 2007) entitled, How the Democrats Got Religion.

In this campaign season, if Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards are any measure, there will be nothing unusual in Democrats’ talking about the God who guides them and the beliefs that sustain them.

Clinton has hired Burns Strider, a Congressional staffer (and evangelical Baptist from Mississippi) who is assembling a faith steering group from major denominations and sends out a weekly wrap-up, Faith, Family and Values.

Edwards has been organizing conference calls with progressive religious leaders and is about to embark on a 12-city poverty tour.

In the past month alone, Obama’s campaign has run six faith forums in New Hampshire, where local clergy and laypeople discuss religious engagement in politics.”

Hillary s faith and family values steering groups are gone now. I don t know if evangelical Baptist Burns Strider is guiding the State Department or if he is among America s unemployed millions.

John Edward s publicly-revealed hypocrisy is almost staggering in its breadth and scope. While campaigning for the little guy in the name of religion, multi-millionaire trial lawyer Edwards made his wife Elizabeth s terminal cancer a campaign asset while he was simultaneously carrying on an affair that ultimately produced an illegitimate child.

“Science is a gift of God to all of us,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during a debate on increased embryo-research funding, “and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure.”

Then she went to Rome to lecture the Pope on the morality of abortion. Science is a gift from God. Pregnancy, on the other hand, can be cured . Science has taken us to a new place, all right.

Obama s religiousity was an issue from the beginning. Is he a Muslim? No, he says he s a Christian. His pastor s anti-American rants, together with his affiliation with the Nation of Islam, made it necessary for Obama to resign from that church.

And now that s he s president, he doesn t have to go to church anyway. So he doesn t. I heard a joke the other day that proves the adage about truth in humor.

“You know the difference between God and Obama? God doesn’t think he’s Obama.”

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

The New York Times reported today that despite the public show of unity, there is deep division and continuing debate among American, European and Israeli allies over how far along Iran s nuclear program really is.

The Israelis believe Iran has resumed the weaponizing process that marks the final stages of construction of a nuclear bomb. The White House publicly accepts the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that declared Iran had halted the program and probably hasn t restarted it yet.

The Germans believe the weapons work was never halted. The French believe the IAEA is suppressing information they have about Iran s program.

Iran has called for the destruction of Israel and has promised to wipe Israel off the map. At issue is whether Israel will strike Iran militarily, or as part of an allied strike aimed at destroying, rather than disabling, Iran s nuclear program. Complicating the decision are the interconnected alliances between Iran and Russia, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Venezuela.

The recent meeting of governments at the UN General Assembly highlighted the division of nations over the issue when representatives of eleven countries walked out on Ahmadinejad but 182 remained seated and politely applauded.

Africa is gripped by famine on a scale not seen in almost two decades, according to a recent UN report. World-wide, more than a billion people are underfed. Worldwide, famine claims 16,000 children per day, according to UN figures. More than 5 billion people worldwide live on less than $3000 US per year.

In New York today, hundreds of health-care workers marched on Albany to protest against a mandate that state health care workers be vaccinated against the dreaded H1N1 flu virus. The World Health Organization has declared the H1NI flu virus a pandemic and world health emergency.

A killer tsunami slammed into the coast of American Samoa yesterday, with dozens dead and dozens more missing and feared washed out to sea. Four tsunami waves 15 to 20 feet high reached up to a mile inland. Hundreds more were injured. Entire villages were wiped from the face of the earth.

The tsunami was spawned by an undersea magnitude-8.3 earthquake centered about 125 miles off Samoa s coast. The earthquake itself had already destroyed much of the island before the wave struck a few minutes later.

Five years ago, an earthquake so powerful that it reshaped the earth s surface and actually disrupted time generated a tsunami that claimed so many lives that the true toll may never be calculated. Five years later, it stands at more than one quarter-million dead in eleven countries around the Pacific Rim.

For many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:5)

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. (Matthew 24:7)

You tell me.


Twenty years ago when I was writing the television program, This Week in Bible Prophecy it took me a whole week to find enough material related to Bible prophecy in the news to fill a half-hour program.

There is enough material in today s OL to fill a half hour television program and the problem wasn t finding the material, it was deciding which material to use because there is so much of it.

Think about what I mean by material . I mean evidence drawn from the pages of today s headlines that conform to the prophecies of the Bible for the last days.

Do you remember after 9/11 when there was a sudden spike in interest in Nostradamus prophecies? Some of his quatrains, after extensive reworking, seemed to prophesy the 9/11 attacks on New York, almost. Sort of.

And the crowd went wild! Nostradamus has done it again! It s amazing! Nostradamus books have never been out of print and a sort of cult religion has sprung up around the French priest.

The Mayan calendar seems to suggest that the world will end on December 23rd, 2012. Astronomers say there is an immense black hole in space radiating high energy gamma waves. In 2012, the alignment of the sun, the black hole and the earth could put earth in the path of these killer gamma waves

Lesser-known prophecies about the end of the world in 2012 include the Planet X, or Nibiru. Nibiru is a planet on a collision course with earth that is the real cause of all the seismic activity, climate change, etc.

A 10th century Catholic priest named St Malachy is said to have accurately predicted every pope to sit on the throne since Malachy s death. According to St Malachy, the pope to follow John Paul II would be a Benedictine.

The current pope took the papal name, Benedict. St Malachy says the next pope, Peter the Great, will be the last.

Each of these alleged prophets and the prophecies have their True Believers yet these same True Believers would scoff at Bible prophecy. There are entire television networks dedicated to strange and mysterious stuff like prophecy.

But whenever it comes to Bible prophecy, it is from the perspective that there must be an alternative explanation for its accuracy apart from the existence of God. Even mainstream Christianity scoffs at the idea of Bible prophecy being fulfilled in our generation.

But EVERYBODY is talking about the antichrist. Is Barack Obama the antichrist? Is he NOT the antichrist? But notice that the idea that the antichrist is just around the corner is not up for debate.

They know. But they don t want to know. So they don t.

I was having a discussion with an old friend the other day in my backyard and the topic turned to Bible prophecy. My friend is a childhood buddy I still see occasionally, but he is militantly anti-Christian.

He likes to believe in something out there, and so he allows room for that something to maybe have influenced the Bible prophets. In the course of the explanation of a particular prophecy, I mentioned born-again and his eyes narrowed.

It was remarkable to me. Here s a guy who can accept there is a something and acknowledge that the prophecies of the Bible look exactly like the headlines, but cannot bring himself to recognize God for Who He is.

He s always been a bit bull-headed, but an otherwise bright guy. I ve known him since childhood, he trusts me and he trusts my word. But he can t bring himself to trust the God he so clearly recognizes.

There has been more evidence available for the existence of God in this generation than in any other since the Lord walked this earth. Jesus proved His authority by many miracles, then was rejected, even by many of the eyewitnesses to those miracles.

But the Bible says that after His resurrection, many of those eyewitnesses became witnesses for Christ. It was the fervor and dedication and fearlessness of those first century witnesses that gave inspiration to the Church for centuries to come.

Over the course of the 20th century, mankind has produced many miracles of science and medicine that has established, in the minds of many, the authority of man. It was to this generation that the Lord revealed His authority through the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

Satan has his counterfeit prophets and prophecies witness the millions who will marvel at the prophecies of Nostradamus and scoff at those of Ezekiel.

This too, is prophesied, together with the reminder that while Satan can make educated guesses, God has certain foreknowledge. That s how we can tell St. Paul from St. Malachy.

And Paul said that before the coming of the antichrist, the ministry of the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the way so that that Wicked might be revealed.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (2nd Thessalonians 2:10-11)

Since the Holy Spirit is the Comforter that Jesus promised would indwell me until He comes, the Church must be taken out of the way, too.

Then, there won t be anybody left that knows the difference between Ezekiel and Edgar Cayce.

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:8)

It’s all in the headlines.

Whistling Past the Graveyard

Whistling Past the Graveyard
Vol: 96 Issue: 29 Tuesday, September 29, 2009

At the start of his first joint meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama said his special envoy, George Mitchell, will meet with Palestinian and Israeli negotiators next week.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will report on the status of those efforts next month, he said in New York.

It is past time to stop talking about starting negotiations, Obama said before talks that included the two leaders as well as senior officials from the U.S., Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Talks must begin and begin soon.

Obama, who pledged to take a direct role in pursuing Middle East peace, is attempting to restart negotiations on the major issues that divide Israel and the Palestinians: territory, borders, the future of Jerusalem, and Palestinian refugees.

The main problem for the Israeli side, Netanyahu s words of praise notwithstanding, is that Obama closed the door for further negotiations in his UN speech.

Instead of assuring the world that America stands with Israel against her enemies, he railed against her for being an obstacle to peace. He referred to Israeli communities outside the 1949 armistice lines as illegitimate.

In essence, he warned that Israel cannot expect the US to support it if it doesn t surrender all the land demanded by the Palestinians

The only thing he required of the Palestinian side is that they end incitement against what he called the Jewish State . Were it anybody but Obama, that comment would constitute a US recognition of Israel s legitimacy as a Jewish state.

Israel has fought hard to obtain that recognition, since it makes a powerful argument against the so-called Right of Return demanded as a condition of peace by the Arab side.

The Right of Return would grant instant citizenship to several million Arabs. Outnumbered demographically, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state at the very next election.

But while two of Israel’s top peace demands are recognition as a Jewish state and an end to Palestinian incitement, observers noted that Obama did far more to damage Israel’s legitimacy by highlighting the “occupation” and Jewish settlements as the root of the conflict.

“The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security: a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967,” said Obama.

America does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlements.

There was no mention of the events that brought about the so-called occupation itself. Israel was invaded by the combined armies of the Arab Legions, including Jordan, who held the West Bank, Egypt, who controlled the Gaza Strip and Syria, who used its Golan Heights to shell northern Israeli cities and towns.

After six days of intense combat, Israel captured these territories and annexed them to prevent them from being used to stage another war of annihilation against the Jewish State.

The president, from the platform of the UN, called for a contiguous Palestinian state. That can only be accomplished by dividing Israel. He called on Israel to end their settlements and essentially give in to all of the Palestinian demands.

There s not much left to negotiate.


I have argued in the past that the role of the Church is to be watching for signs of the return of Christ and that signs pointing to the coming of the antichrist are useful only in that the Rapture happens first.

So if we see signs pointing to the antichrist, we can know it means the Lord is preparing to come for His Church. Of course, there are good and well-meaning Christians who believe the Rapture happens after the revelation of the antichrist.

I happen to disagree with that interpretation for reasons that I ve articulated many times the timing of the Rapture is not the focus of today s discussion.

The focus today is on how close we appear to be to the Tribulation Period. According to the Prophet Daniel, the antichrist will confirm a covenant between Israel and her enemies. That event starts the countdown to the 2nd Coming of Christ 2,520 days later.

There is a general understanding that the antichrist will be a prince of the Roman Empire. He will be a prince of the people Daniel predicted would destroy the city and sanctuary, an event accomplished by the Roman legions in AD 70.

According to Rupert Furneaux s book, The Roman Siege of Jerusalem the troops involved came from all over the Empire. Titus marched on Jerusalem from Caesarea with 2 legions, the XII Fulmnata and XV Apollinaris.

He was joined by Vespasian with the X Fretensis Legion and the V Macedonica. The force was augmented by some 60,000 auxiliary troops from all over the Empire.

So while the antichrist will be a prince of the Roman Empire, that doesn t necessarily demand he be a Roman, an Italian or even a European.

He could also be a Syrian or an Arabian – or an African. And while Scripture does indicate a revived Roman Empire, nowhere does it say it will have the same boundaries. Should America join the EU, he could even be an American.

Here is a little of we know about the coming antichrist from the Bible;

1) He will rise from obscurity (a little horn (Daniel 7:8); 2) He will speak boastfully (Daniel 7:8 Revelation 13:5); 3) He will blaspheme God; (Daniel 7:25, 11:26 Revelation 13:5, 2nd Thessalonians 2:7); 4) He will oppress Jews and Christians (Revelation 13:7) 5) He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself (Daniel 7:25); 6) He will try to change the laws; 7) He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors (Daniel 11:37).

It all sounds terribly familiar, doesn t it? I received a really interesting video by email that posed the question: Did Jesus Reveal the Name of the Antichrist? The video argues that the following verse contains the name of the antichrist.

And He said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. (Luke 10:18)

Intrigued? I’ll post the video in the briefing forum for your review, but here’s a thumbnail summary. Although this verse was written in Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic, the most ancient form of Hebrew.

The premise is that heaven in the verse means the same thing as heights . Indeed, Isaiah 14:14 says, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

The word translated as lightning is Strong s #1299 baraq . The word translated in Isaiah 14:14 as heights is Strong s #1116; bawmaw . The Hebrew letter waw is transliterated into English as either an o or a u . It is used as a conjunction to join two thoughts.

So, according to the filmmaker, Jesus, speaking in Aramaic would have said, I saw Satan as Baraq O Bawmaw . Interesting.

Do I think that Jesus identified Barack Obama as the antichrist? I don t know I have my doubts. Luke has Jesus saying I saw Satan fall from heaven, not from ‘the heights’. And Strong s translates Luke from Greek, not Aramaic, and ‘heaven’ in Luke 10:18 is translated from #3770 ouranios, meaning ‘heaven’ not ‘heights’.

So it could be. But it is ambiguous enough that it’s no smoking gun.

But here s the thing. We re talking about it. The antichrist is close enough to making his appearance that we re on the lookout for him. But the Bible says that when the antichrist comes, he will be received as the Messiah. The whole world worshipped the Beast Revelation 13 says.

The Church won t worship him. They can t be fooled by him. The Bible says that the next time Jesus puts His foot on the earth, it will split the Mount of Olives in two. So if a guy says I m the Christ, and the Mount of Olives is intact, a Christian would know he s a fraud.

But at the same time, the antichrist won t necessarily know he s the antichrist until after he is indwelt by Satan. So the antichrist is most definitely alive somewhere in the world today, but he may not know he is Satan s man.

The issue isn t that Barack Obama is the antichrist. Or that Javier Solana is the antichrist. Or whoever else s name might pop up in the coming weeks as a good candidate.

The issue is that nobody is laughing at the concept of a coming antichrist. Just at the candidates being offered for consideration.

The whole world knows instinctively, it seems that the time is right. They just don t want to acknowledge it. Because if there is a coming antichrist, there must also be a returning Christ.

It’s like whistling past the graveyard — recognizing that demands a decision they aren t yet ready to make.

So they laugh. Nervously.

Buying Time Might Be Too Expensive

Buying Time Might Be Too Expensive
Vol: 96 Issue: 28 Monday, September 28, 2009

According to US intelligence assessments, the greatest threat facing the United States today is not Russia. It s not China. It isn t even North Korea.

Instead, the US intelligence community s National Intelligence Strategy assessed Iran as America s greatest strategic threat.

“Iran poses an array of challenges to U.S. security objectives in the Middle East and beyond because of its nuclear and missile programs, support of terrorism, and provision of lethal aid to U.S. and coalition adversaries,” the document, released on Sept. 15 by the Office of the National Intelligence Director, said.

The national intelligence community consists of some 200,000 intelligence officers from all branches of US intelligence-gathering services. The document is put together as a kind of majority report, but is assembled by a team responsible to the National Intelligence Director s Office.

This is the same team of geniuses that reported in 2007 that Iran had ended its nuclear weapons program, cutting off the Bush administration s case against Iran at the knees.

After the brutal beating the Bush administration took for trying to get out ahead of the enemy in the Iraq War, it is unsurprising that they decided, back in 2007, to let the next administration handle it.

Now it s the next administration’s turn. And they are finding its a lot easier to talk about the last administration than to take any risks of its own.

A new report from the Bipartisan Policy Center says the Obama administration is dragging its feet while time is running out to deal with Iran while it is still conventionally possible.

The report released on Sept. 15 said Iran would need no more than seven weeks to produce enough highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.

“The Islamic republic will be able to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2010, leaving little time for the United States to prevent both a nuclear weapons-capable Islamic republic and an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities,” the report, titled “Meeting the Challenge: Time is Running Out,” said.

The report was signed by former Senators Daniel Coats and Charles Robb as well as [Ret.] Gen. Charles Ward. It called on the Obama administration to draft harsher sanctions and prepare for the prospect of military action against Iran in 2010.

The center, formed in 2007 to draft bipartisan policy recommendations to the White House, warned that Teheran was accelerating its air defense program in an effort to foil any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“The U.S. military is more than capable of launching a devastating strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities,” the report said. “Only the credible threat of a U.S. military strike will make a peaceful resolution of the crisis possible.”

The report, an update over a study released in 2008, said Gulf Cooperation Council states have become increasingly alarmed over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The panel said Obama must prepare to institute harsh sanctions against Iran by the end of September.

“We are alarmed by how much progress Iran has made toward obtaining nuclear weapons capability and remain skeptical about the sincerity of Iran’s new-found willingness to negotiate,” the authors said in a statement.

“We hope that the bipartisan strategy we propose can help guide our government to resolve this difficult and urgent national security challenge.”

The report warned of the prospect of an Israeli military strike on Iran unless the United States acts first. And Teheran’s effort to obtain the advanced S-300 air defense system from Russia, would provide Iran with a long-range air defense capability, unless the US acts before the systems become operational.

“Driving the timetable for U.S. action should be Iran’s accelerated nuclear progress, Israel’s perception of that progress, the possibility of Russia selling Iran its advanced S-300 anti-aircraft weapons system and the importance of U.S. credibility and strategic interests,” the report said.

“Should we fail to act decisively to curtail Iran’s nuclear program in the near-term, or if it appears likely that Iran is about to obtain game-changing military technology such as Russia s S-300 anti-aircraft system Israel, more likely than not, will act on its own.”

The report said the U.S. military could launch a punishing air campaign on Iran from neighboring Afghanistan. The center said the repercussion of such a U.S. attack would be much less than in 2008 when oil prices reached nearly $150 per barrel.

“The Pentagon can maintain tactical and even strategic surprise by bringing in troops and materiel to the region under the cover of Afghanistan,” the report said.

“Special Forces and intelligence personnel already in the region can easily move to protect key assets or perform covert operations. Conflict may reveal previously undetected Iranian facilities as Iranian forces move to protect them. Moreover, nuclear sites buried under mountains may survive sustained bombing, but their entrances and exits will not.”

“The Islamic republic is likely to have almost 9,000 operational centrifuges in place before the end of 2009 and could have up to 15,000 by 2010,” the report said.

With such a centrifuge fleet, Iran could produce enough highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb in seven weeks at the latest, the report said.

Whether or not the Obama administration will take the report seriously is an entirely different question. The memo from General McChrystal to the White House said that without an additional 30,000 troops, the US would lose the war against the Taliban and lose Afghanistan.

Faced with this dire prospect, the administration decided to conduct a comprehensive review of the war in Afghanistan.

The strategy review is expected to be completed in a couple of weeks and will be followed by a decision. It is worth noting that President Obama has not actually spoken to General McChrystal personally in 70 days.

But he s given 120 speeches about health care.


Secretary of Defense Bob Gates told CNN on Sunday that there is no military option that does anything more than buy time against Iran. If I m understanding it right, the US Secretary of Defense has just pronounced our doom.

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Iran will use that nuclear weapon. If there is no way to prevent Iran from eventually obtaining a nuclear weapon, then nuclear war is therefore inevitable.

Obama may be prepared for the US to live with a nuclear Iran. And just for the sake of argument, let s say that Israel can be convinced to stand down and let the US take the lead.

If Iran gets the Bomb, then Egypt will have to. So will Saudi Arabia. And not everybody will be happy if the Egyptians or Saudis have the Bomb, so they will have to get their own. There is no way to prevent the rest of the Arab Middle East from arming themselves against a nuclear Persia. It is a Catch-22.

Washington has to convince Tehran that this time, it really, really, really means business and that the line in the sand is real. Especially in light of the disclosure of Iran s newly-revealed parallel nuclear facility near Qom.

At the same time, Obama has to convince Israel to allow sanctions to work. It is no easy thing to convince Israel to bet its national life on the efficacy of UN sanctions.

Striking Iran will be no cake-walk, even though Saddam s Iraq was able to beat the Iranians to a standstill during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. Military efforts against Iran present profound difficulties. They begin with the costs of an Iranian reprisal following these strikes.

Closing the Straits of Hormuz could short-circuit whatever economic recovery progress is being made globally. Iran claims to have sleeper-cells buried in deep cover inside the United States for use as reprisal squads.

Iran s tentacles are spread deep and wide. It has forces in place from Beirut to Kabul. Whatever damage might be inflicted on Iran won t be enough to stop Hezbollah or Hamas from retaliating, either against Israel or against US interests in the region.

Iran seems determined to provoke an attack.

Over the weekend, it test-fired upgraded versions of the Shehab-3 and Sajjil missiles, both of which have sufficient range to strike Israel and could be modified, if not modified already, to deliver a nuclear payload.

Iran doesn t seem to have an end-game, like, say the North Koreans do. Pyongyang developed its nuclear program for use in blackmailing the West into paying them not to continue development and enrichment.

Pyongyang doesn t want to have to use its weapons once they re gone, they re gone. As would be Pyongyang within a matter of minutes after their launch.

Iran s end-game appears to be war. It doesn t want to discuss concessions. It isn t interested in trading its nuclear program for the lifting of sanctions. Iran doesn t want improved relations with the West.

It appears that Ahmadinejad and the rest of the mad mullahs end-game is war. There is no effort to curtail Ahmadinejad s threats against Israel by the clerics that allegedly run things in Iran. Ahmadinejad s rants appear to have the full blessing of the ruling elite.

They appear unconcerned, or at least, at peace with, the idea that Ahmadinejad believes it is his destiny to start the war of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam who will return to ride at the head of a vast Islamic army of conquest.

Ahmadinejad believes Mahdi Army will ultimately defeat the infidel world and usher in a period of Islamic peace and tranquility a kind of Islamic Millennial Kingdom while Ahmadinejad and his cronies go straight to Paradise.

But to get there, they have to start a global conflagration impressive enough to summon him from his ‘occultative’ state.

In essence, what is confronting the West is the dilemma facing military commanders in the field, but on a much grander scale. The difficulty with negotiating with suicide bombers is that there is nothing to negotiate.

If they win, they die. If they lose, they die. When the object is to die fighting, there is little more that can be done except accommodate them.

In such a case, it s generally best not to leave the details up to the suicide bomber.

Survey Says: “Lie To Me”

Survey Says: “Lie To Me”
Vol: 96 Issue: 26 Saturday, September 26, 2009

Six years ago, we published an E-book under the title, Bodyguard of Lies. The main premise of the book was that an increasingly gullible public would deliberately choose lies over the truth when they found the truth unpalatable.

That was in 2003. George W. Bush had just invaded Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, no WMD arsenals were found, although huge stockpiles of chemicals were discovered, along with boxes of nuclear research papers.

But Bush was already despised by the Left for not letting Al Gore steal the 2000 election in Florida. So despite the fact that EVERY intelligence agency in the world prior to March 2003 believed Saddam had WMD, the public sold the myth that Bush knew what nobody else COULD have known except Saddam.

The liberal-dominated media built the case that Bush was not taken in by Saddam s disinformation campaign like the British, French, Israelis and Italians were. They argued instead that Bush knew the truth and lied to make his case for war.

At first, the public was resistant, being somewhat discomforted by the knowledge he couldn t have known what nobody else did. And besides, why start an unnecessary war?

The media blitz was so intensely anti-Bush that by mid-2003, had their been a global popularity contest between them, Saddam would have won hands-down. So any suggestion that Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, would ever offer aid and comfort to al-Qaeda was roundly dismissed.

By imposing this imaginary reality onto Saddam s character and goodwill after-the-fact, any noble motive on America s part was effectively blocked from consideration. The media preferred the myth that the evil Bush and his Haliburton cronies invaded Iraq to steal Iraqi oil so America would have a steady supply of cheap oil.

But Bush turned the oil fields back over to the Iraqis and the price of oil skyrocketed. The next motive ascribed to Bush for the invasion of Iraq was to vindicate his father s failure to remove Saddam in 1991.

The media had to pretend that the UN mandate under which the Gulf War was authorized expired when Iraq withdrew its forces from Kuwait. But they didn t mind pretending — if it helped sell the ridiculous premise that Bush was so juvenile and petty that he d fight a war just to make his daddy proud of him.

Don t be distracted this isn t a defense of George Bush. But it is an accurate representation of the facts vs. the myth. Over the course of just six years, the myth has become the truth and the truth the myth.

We were there through the whole time. We saw it unfold. Nobody can explain how Bush could have known the truth any earlier than his intelligence services did. But from that moment forward, the myth is that he is Bush the Liar.

Maybe he lied somewhere along the line, I don t know. But he COULDN T have been lying about Saddam s WMD unless he knew the truth. At best, he could only have been as mistaken as everybody else was.

But the preferred reality was the one that suited the anti-Bush liberals in the media. If the preferred reality didn’t line up with the facts, they’d just create new facts that would.


As I said at the outset, this isn t intended as a defense of the Bush administration. There are so many lies in circulation that it would take decades, should the Lord tarry, to sort out whether it is worthy of defense or not.

It is intended as an re-examination of the principle of the Big Lie. I just thought it might be more illustrative if we used one that we witnessed unfold before our eyes as an example of how effective it is in application.

There is the truth that we instinctively know; Bush could not know what the CIA didn t know, so he couldn t have lied . And there is the truth we ve been conditioned to know; Bush lied for reasons too complex for ordinary Americans to fathom.

It was on the back of this particular Big Lie that the current administration rode into Washington. Obama has repeated it in some form on every occasion, in every speech. He is here to restore America s prestige after it has been so tarnished by the Bush administration blah, blah, blah, etc.

A new poll confirms that in the New America, the public is aware that the media is manipulating the truth, but that most don t mind, provided they prefer the manipulated version.

Two-thirds of Americans surveyed by the Sacred Heart Polling Institute agreed with the statement, Objective and fair journalism is dead. Only 24% say they believe all or most of what they see on the news.

Eighty-six percent of Americans strongly or somewhat agreed that the politics and policy positions of journalists influence what and how they report to the public.

When you consider that two-thirds of Americans also agreed with the statement that the health of our democracy is directly tied to the health of journalism these findings sound even more ominous.

Another interesting finding is that just over half said that it is bad for democracy that only six companies own almost all the major media outlets in the United States. To me, what was interesting wasn t that just over half thought it was bad. What was interesting is that it indicates nobody seems to appreciate what that means.

It means that those who control those six companies controls everything you see and hear. Last weekend, the White House shone a spotlight on the media as propagandists by appearing on every major Sunday talk show but Fox News.

The survey had some rather interesting findings when it came to Fox News. Thirty percent named Fox News as the news organization they trusted most. But twenty-six percent identified it as the one they trust the least.

I thought was interesting because it indicates that Republicans all watch Fox and Democrats all watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC or CBS.

If news was simply reporting the facts, rather than selectively reporting manipulated facts, then one s choice of news outlets would be rooted in programming preferences, not ideological perspective.

The Constitution demands a free press independent of either political ideology or government control. In six short years, we ve witnessed both vanish before our very eyes.

In the past nine months, we seen the fruits of those ideological labors. Schoolchildren singing hymns to Barack Hussein Obama. A political atmosphere in which if a network doesn t obey the White House, it can be excluded from participating openly with any objections summarily dismissed as whining .

Look at how far we ve fallen and look at how quickly it was accomplished. According to Bible prophecy, the antichrist will exercise complete control over all aspects of a person s life.

His control of a global media machine is alluded to by the Apostle Paul in his ascension to power the Apostle John describes its use by the False Prophet to deceive the masses and by the antichrist to display the bodies of the Two Witnesses.

Don t miss the significance of the fact that NONE of this was even imaginable in Paul s day. None of it was even possible a generation ago. Adolf Hitler s control of the media was limited by existing technology.

Today, global deception is not only possible, it is so routine that it blends into the white noise of politics so that we barely notice. Or care. Benjamin Netanyahu proved that when he exposed it from the podium of the UN while the world yawned impatiently.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2nd Timothy 4:3-4)

I used to think it couldn t happen here.

Thunderin In

Thunderin In
Vol: 96 Issue: 25 Friday, September 25, 2009

Some years back, my younger brother worked for a local plant that manufactured parachutes for both civilian and military customers. (He used to work there. Now the plant is in Mexico but that s a different story.)

Since that was where they made parachutes, my brother joined a local sky-diving club. He got pretty good at jumping out of airplanes; he made dozens of jumps without incident.

Until the first incident. Somehow, he got turned around or distracted — he was never been quite sure which. In any case, he didn t or couldn t pull his ripcord.

In skydiving, they call hitting the ground with your chute still neatly folded and packed thunderin in — and that s what he was doing when an automatic altimeter deployed his emergency chute just in time for him to land safely.

One of the guys he worked with told him that was the first time that altimeter gizmo worked properly they were still having problems with it back at the lab.

Disproving my working theory that my brother was dumber than a bag of hammers, he surprised me by deciding to take up fishing.

But I can only imagine what it must have been like for my brother at the moment he realized he was thunderin in everything suddenly accelerating, the ripcord oddly out of play. . . but the faster everything went, the more he said it felt like slow motion.

That sense of thunderin in — a helpless, sinking realization of everything so out of control at such breakneck speed that it feels like slow motion that is the sense that overwhelmed me as I was watching Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu give his address to the United Nations General Assembly yesterday.

We ve already discussed Libya s Ghaddaffi and his 96 minute diatribe, and Iran s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad s invocation of the Mahdi to lead the Islamic hordes to victory against the Western infidel.

Libya s crazyman peppered his rant with accusations that the US engages in biowarfare while Iran s crazyman accused Israel of inhuman policies and of dominating global political and economic affairs .

It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions, he ranted.

Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet. . . . (Ezekiel 38:5)

Last week, the Obama administration capitulated to Russian demands to abandon plans to install missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland. The Bush administration fought hard to get the Czechs and Poles to go along in the face of an almost-livid Kremlin.

Regardless of the justifications offered since, the fact is that Obama backed down, leaving the Poles and Czechs twisting in the wind, and without Russia having to do a thing in return.

Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought: (Ezekiel 38:10)

Obama s speech to the UN made it painfully obvious that what is important to the Obama administration is for the world to like him, not respect him. (Oh, and America.)

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev made it equally obvious that Russia understood the Obama Code as articulated from the UN podium the day before.

He, (Obama) stated that no single country can or should attempt to dominate another, Medvedev said. This is absolutely right. However, these agreed approaches need to be implemented in some way.

The Russians couldn t agree more no country should attempt to dominate another. Except . . . Irresponsible regimes should not have any opportunity whatsoever to cause disputes between other countries, Medvedev added.

Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil? (Ezekiel 38:13)


There were 2,540 news stories returned to me using the keywords Netanyahu UN speech according to Google s news aggregator. However, the only ones I got to read there are the four Google selected for its main page.

Clicking on the link to the 2,450 stories behind them took me to the list of stories about Obama and Iran. To get beyond the four stories selected by Google (is it a coincidence the first one was from Manar the Palestinian News Agency?) I had to go to Yahoo.

Interesting. . . .

Netanyahu blistered the assembled UN delegates who gave audience to Ahmadinejad after his denial of the Holocaust and his threats to annihilate the Jewish state.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?”

“A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.”

“What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong.

And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army: And thou shalt come up against My people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against My land . . .

I literally wept as Netanyahu restated his nation s case against the United Nations;

“When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?”

“The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us my people, my country – of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Netanyahu accused the UN Human Rights Council of morally hanging, drawing and quartering Israel and giving it an unfair trial, to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. (Zechariah 12:3)

When my brother failed to open his chute on time, the spectators on the ground knew it probably before he did by the time that he realized he was thunderin in, it was too late. Had the altimeter fail-safe not fired at the last moment, he d have rode it all the way to the ground.

Taking the various speeches at this year s UN General Assembly as a whole, there is that same sense that we re thunderin in.

Iran all but declared war on Israel from the podium of the UN General Assembly while most of the delegates sat politely and nodded.

The US has taken itself out of the debate, promising instead to disarm and disengage so that soon the whole world will be our friend, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama.

Israel didn t just plead for peace, it gave the United Nations one last chance to prove itself before . . . and that s where they left it.

The whole world is thunderin in over Israel and Iran — and this General Assembly was the altimeter fail-safe.

I don t think it fired in time.

Last Train For Crazytown

Last Train For Crazytown
Vol: 96 Issue: 24 Thursday, September 24, 2009

The hardest part of this column is this sentence, because after watching yesterday s General Assembly speeches, I scarcely know where to begin.

The most entertaining speech was given by Libya s Muammar Ghadaffi, or Khadaffi there are about eight different ways I ve seen his name spelled the only consistency is that daffi is always in there somewhere.

As it happens the UN General Assembly is currently being chaired by a Libyan diplomat, Ali Treki. It was Libyan Treki that had insisted that all heads of state speak for no longer than 15 minutes.

Awkward for Treki when it was The Boss s turn. Treki introduced Ghadaffi to the United Nations as Moammar Ghadaffi , (or something spelled similarly, preserving the daffi part) The King of Kings and Leader of the Revolution.

(I don’t recall if there were any trumpets)

When Ghadaffi’s tirade went over an hour, poor Ali Treki sent a note to the Leader of the Revolution reminding him of the fifteen minute rule. Ghadaffi threw the note (and probably Treki s death warrant) over his shoulder and babbled for some ninety-six minutes.

The Libyan terrorist leader and mass murderer offered a few words of high praise for the Great Obama, Kenyan Son of Africa, to whom he also referred to as my son on several occasions.

Ghadffi also had a few words of sympathy for those diplomats suffering from either jet lag — or from infection by US-engineered bioweapons like the H1N1 flu.

(Photos of the podium released after his speech showed that at least some of it had been jotted down on a cocktail napkin. Honest.)

Ghadaffi s babble went on for so long that it threw the rest of the UN schedule completely out. By the time that Mahmoud Iminajihad made it to the podium, it was well after seven o clock.

Ahmadinejad opened his remarks by calling on Allah to ” . . .hasten the arrival of Imam fit-Mahdi and grand him good health and victory and make us his followers and those who attest to his rightfulness.


To the Twelvers the largest sect within Shia Islam — Iman fit-Mahdi is a combination of messiah and military genius. Some Islamic scholars say it is the Mahdi that is identified in the Christian Bible as the rider on the white horse of Revelation 6:6.

Belief in the Mahdi is central to both Sunni and Shi ite Islamic eschatology. The Mahdi (means guided one ) is the redeemer of the world. He accomplishes this redemption by taking his place at the head of a vast Islamic army of conquest before the Islamic Resurrection Day.

This conquering army, with the Mahdi leading the way and Isa (Jesus) at his side, will rid the world of error, injustice and tyranny, convert the infidel world to Islam and ultimately usher in a period of world-wide Islamic paradise.

While the Mahdi is as common to Islam as the 2nd Coming is to Christianity, there are variations. Ahmadinejad is a member of the Shi ite Twelvers They believe the Mahdi is the 12th Imam from Mohammed, who was born in 868 AD and was hidden by Allah at age five.

The hadiths say that he is in occultation meaning, awaiting the time decreed by Allah for his return. As to the time of his return, the hadiths say he will not return in an odd-numbered year.

(Before you wipe the sweat from your brow in relief at this being 2009, it s 1430 on Islam s calendar.)


Ahmadinejad has said on many previous occasions that he believes it is his religious duty, just as it is your religious duty as a Christian to share the Gospel, to start the war that summons the Mahdi — if he doesn t, he can t be certain of paradise.

Now, let s assume that the little dictator really believes that. I mean, he believes it like you believe Jesus is coming again. Except Ahmadinejad believes he has a singular mission and that he was personally chosen by Allah to fulfill it.

And why wouldn t he believe that Allah chose him? After all, he is the leader of the proud Persian Empire whose history stretches in an unbroken line back to the conquest of Babylon in the 7th century before Christ.

And out of all the Islamic world, did not Allah furnish him with nuclear weapons? And if that isn t enough, Ahmadinejad is clearly every bit as nuts as Muammar Ghadaffi. But since he is a nut with a nuke, he s way scarier.

When Ahmadinejad told the world body; Clearly, continuation of the current circumstances in the world is impossible, he was speaking of Israel.

It was at about this point that the various delegations began — one at a time so as not to mute the impact to get up and walk out. So some of them didn t hear him close his speech with promises of a coming world peace.

These will all come true under the rule of the Perfect Man, the last Divine Source on earth, Hazrat Mahdi (Peace be upon him); an offspring of the Prophet of Islam, who will re-emerge, and Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) and other noble men will accompany him in the accomplishment of this, grand universal mission.

I m sure they would have been as relieved as I was.


The scenario is so eerily reminiscent of the political atmosphere of the 1930 s that it almost seems like a movie remake.

You know, where the filmmakers take some historical situation and re-write it for the modern era and explore the what-if possibilities?

I once saw one starring Rutger Hauer that was set in Adolf Hitler s Germany in 1964. It was interesting but the movie didn t really take off. You can t make stuff like that up. The truth is always stranger than fiction.

In the movies, America s leader would stand bravely against these dictatorial regimes, shake his fist defiantly, and as the various delegations walked out, ordered his Pentagon to prepare for war.

In the real world, America s leader apologized to the dictators for rightly despising his country. But it wasn t his fault. It was because of the evil George Bush. Oh, and the American people, too, but only until they saw the light and elected him to lead them.

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

Bad America! And no wonder Ghadaffi and Ahmadinejad are so cranky!

(“But don t worry. My country used to be evil, but now, I m here. I am come to inject some character into my sorry nation and to redefine our cause.”)

For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months. On my first day in office, I prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture by the United States of America. (Applause.)

I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers.

Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states — Israel and Palestine — in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected.

It was all about the O. . . . I did this, I did that, and look at what a better place the world already is, thanks to Me it was as embarrassing as it was untrue.

He promised at various times, to reach out to Russia, Iran, North Korea, Haiti, Congo, East Timor and even promised to pursue a lasting peace with the Sudan.

We will pursue a lasting peace in Sudan through support for the people of Darfur and the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, so that we secure the peace that the Sudanese people deserve.

(As soon as those pesky rascals in Khartoum finish up their genocidal slaughter of the non-Muslims they are busy pursuing right now)

President Obama s obligatory nod to freedom and human rights was to quote from the UN Charter that has been routinely ignored since its adoption sixty-one years ago in 1948.

Obama pointed out that, as compared to other systems of government, like fascism, communism, oligarchy, monarchy, and dictatorships of various religions and creeds, well, democracy s not perfect, either.

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions. And I admit that America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy.

(“So, if your cultural path says women are not full persons, mandates honor killings, stones people to death for crimes like blasphemy and adultery, then you need to know that the New America, under Me, respects you for it.”)

I guess that means that gone are the bad old days were America only promoted democracy selectively .

(I ll leave you to ponder what that means, but it seems kind of suspicious and sinister, like we only promoted democracy to people who cling to religion and guns and have antipathy towards those who aren t like them.)

Ghadaffi closed his speech by praising Obama, son of Africa. Ahmadinejad closed his speech by praising the Mahdi who would soon bring the peace of conquest to Obama, son of Africa.

I have to admit that Ghadaffi, Leader of the Revolution, scared me. So did Ahmadinejad, Bringer of the Mahdi. But the scariest speaker was Obama, son of Africa.

Obama closed his speech by promising: The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation — one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations.

(Not like the old chapter in which the old, bad America ran roughshod over those rights and responsibilities. This is America with an ‘O’.)

Far from admitting the UN has failed miserably at every single mission it has undertaken since the Korean War, Obama praised the UN for its good will and effectiveness and promised to work toward was sounds suspiciously like rewarding their incompetence with more power.

The United Nations does extraordinary good around the world — feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, mending places that have been broken. But it also struggles to enforce its will, and to live up to the ideals of its founding.

(“Hey! Let s give the UN more authority to enforce its will. That s another great idea! It all sounds great. Force Israel to make peace with her bitterest enemies. Reach out with both hands to our bitterest enemies. Forget about democracy it doesn t work anyway.”)

The central theme of Obama’s speech appeared to be that the only reason America is worthy of a second chance in the court of world opinion was because it was wise enough to elect him.

Obama s America is a new America, not like the old America that ran roughshod over everybody, but a new America filled to overflowing with Obamalicious goodness.

And if you know anybody who doesn t see things that way, there is a 1-800 number you can use to denounce him before he spreads more harmful disinformation.

Operators are standing by.

The Quantum Mechanics Theory

The Quantum Mechanics Theory
Vol: 96 Issue: 23 Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Continuing our discussion from yesterday, we ve examined the Gap Theory of Creation that postulates the pre-existence of the universe and the possibility that the Genesis story deals with the restoration of the earth after some cataclysmic disaster.

In this theory, God created the universe by an act of His sovereign will, as in the traditional Creation understanding. But this present world isn t all there is (or was) but actually is a kind of do-over.

As I said yesterday, there are clearly things in existence that make the case that the earth is older than six thousand years. For those who want me to provide proof that the world is older than six thousand years, what proof would you find acceptable?

Indeed what proof is there that it is not older? It boils down to faith. But there is nothing in Scripture that definitively says how long it took to create the world. The text says six days but is ambiguous about the length of a day .

The problem is obvious. How long is a day? Is a day is the length of time between sunup and sundown? Isn t the rest of a day is night.

Are they days or nights? The Bible says and the evening and morning are the first day.”

If that is literal, then more problems come up. If the earth is without form and void, then the first day isn t actually literal, since one needs the earth s rotation to define a day .

Personally, I am not certain about these details. But I know that if I argue that God can call a day any length of time He wants because He is God then I ve left the literalist camp.

If it is a figurative day of indeterminate length, then it is not a literal day.

Psalms 90:4 and 2nd Peter 3:8 both say that to the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as to one day.

Taking that understanding allows for a 12,000 year old earth but again, now we ve left the literalist camp in the name of literalism.

Is it a day? Or a thousand years? They are not literally the same.

It is important to understand at this point that I am not challenging the Creation Story. I may be challenging the way you understand it, but I am not challenging the Scriptures. I believe that Creation happened just the way Scripture says it did.

I am simply reexamining the relevant Scriptures to make sure I understand the way Scripture says it happened.

The Gap Theory doesn t contradict Scripture or science. But that doesn t necessarily make the Gap Theory true.


In the eyes of physics, the world used to be a predictable place. Aristotle and Ptolemy laid the foundation for the scientific understanding of the universe, which remained authoritative for one-and-a-half thousand years.

Until the time of Galileo, the Greeks were undisputed in natural science and astronomy. Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton changed this. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) revolutionized physics with his proposition that all bodies are governed by the three laws of motion.

The first law of motion states that a body continues in a state of rest or continues to be moving uniformly in a straight line unless a force is applied to the object.

The second law states that the force applied to an object is proportional to its mass multiplied by acceleration (F=ma).

The third law states that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction.

With these three simple laws, Newton created a whole new model of the universe, superseding Ptolemy’s model of epicycles.

In the 17th century, Marquis de LaPlace introduced the mechanistic universe theory. The mechanistic view sees the universe as an arrangement in which stars and planets interact with each other like springs and cogs in a timepiece, with God overseeing all.

If the initial positions and states of all objects in a mechanically determined universe are known, all events can be predicted until the end of time, simply by applying the laws of mechanics.

From a mechanistic standpoint, our universe operations according to a delicate balance, because only a slight increase or decrease in mass or velocity of the planets would let the planets either spiral into the Sun or wander into outer space.

The mechanistic view demands a design plan and a Designer. There was a necessity for a Creator God who initially put balance into the universe.

At the beginning of the 20th century, a Swiss patent clerk named Albert Einstein imagined what it would be like to ride through space on a beam of light and came to the conclusion that space and time can be visualized as coordinated systems, or reference frames.

The theory became known as the Theory of Relativity . Einstein s conclusions were applied to interactions between matter and radiation, resulting in the development of a new theory called quantum mechanics.

In contrast to Einstein’s Relativity, which is about the largest things in the universe, quantum theory deals with the tiniest things we know, the particles that atoms are made of, which we call “subatomic” particles.

It is all very complicated and it takes a much smarter mind than mine to understand it all, let alone explain it. But the ten-cent version goes something like this.

The Big Bang was set into motion quantum physics has no quarrel with the concept that it was set into motion by God it had to have been set into motion by some intelligence. It can t have just happened .

At the point of the Big Bang, the entire universe was tightly compressed, space, time and matter all scrunched together. Within the expanding universe, all these compressed elements appear normal.

Time moves at a constant speed because light travels at a constant speed. But everything used to be closer together and is now moving further apart.

Observed from our point on the space/time continuum, the universe would be uncountable billions of years old.

But when observed from the perspective of standing on the outside of the Big Bang, the period from the Big Bang itself to the Garden of Eden would be just a matter of days. By the sixth day of creation, the universe s expansion would have slowed to almost the point it is now, as would time itself.

The quantum mechanics theory finds plenty of time for the evolution of man within the six days of Creation. Where evolution science has its problems with quantum mechanics is in the fact that quantum mechanics demands a Creator to set it all in motion.

Ok, so neither quantum mechanics nor the Gap Theory are completely satisfactory. Neither lines up precisely with Scripture, but that isn t the point. The point is what it is in almost every case involving Scripture.

At first, science seems to disprove the Bible. Then, as more work is done in a particular field, the Bible version no longer seems so far off the mark. It isn t a case of making science conform to Scripture or Scripture conform to science. The more we learn, the more they conform to each other on their own.

It is the Bible that is true which is the intended point. Where science and the Bible conflict is in the way each is interpreted.

Now, back to my disclaimer. I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design, the Big Bang, quantum mechanics or the Gap Theory. I tend to agree with the mechanistic universe theory proposed by LaPlace, but in the end, I m a proponent of whatever is the truth.

Is a Creation ‘day’ a 24 hour rotation of the earth? Or is it one thousand years? Or, assuming the earth was without form and void and if light was the only thing created on the first day, some indeterminate period of time?

Do YOU know? For sure? How?

If my faith was rooted in the absolute literalness of Creation as I understand it from the first chapter of Genesis, then my faith is in my own interpretation of subjective material.

That means my faith is mostly in me. That is unacceptable I don t trust me that much I ve known me too long.

Personally, I believe the literal description of Creation. God spoke the universe into existence. He spoke light into existence. He spoke the earth into existence. He formed Adam from the dust of the earth.

I believe that from God s perspective it took six literal days. I don t know if it was six literal days from my perspective.

But the debate shows that faith and science are not mutually exclusive indeed, faith and science are actually in much closer harmony than we are generally given to believe.

And that is the central point it is the ONLY point.

The more we learn scientifically, the more we realize that an Intelligent Designer is necessary. It just so happens that we know the Intelligent Designer Personally.

Which makes us uniquely qualified to introduce Him to others by Name.

The Chaotic Earth Theory

The Chaotic Earth Theory
Vol: 96 Issue: 22 Tuesday, September 22, 2009

One of the areas of Scripture I ve always been least comfortable with in terms of my understanding is the first two chapters of Genesis. I am a Bible literalist I believe the Bible is intended to be taken literally unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

The problem, so to speak, with being a Bible literalist is self-evident some of it is difficult to visualize literally. And there are some things in our existence that difficult to reconcile with the traditional understanding of Genesis.

I know that the earth bears scars that aren t explained by the young earth theory. At the same time, there is no room within Scripture to allow for evolution without tearing the first five chapters of Genesis out of the Bible.

Here s the deal. The Garden of Eden story, as related in Scripture, is either literally true or our redemption is founded in a myth. You can t have a literal Redeemer that shed literal Blood as the price of redemption for a mythical Fall.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit, (1st Corinthians 15:45) The last Adam is Jesus.

That pretty much demands there be a first Adam. And the first Adam could not have evolved, and the Bible still be both literal and true. Neither could Eve. Paul slams that door shut in his first letter to Timothy.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1st Timothy 2:13)

Here we have two literal statements. They are not only literally stated, but taken together they form the bedrock doctrine of Christianity, as we ve already discussed.

The first Messianic prophecy, that the Redeemer would be the seed of a woman, is made in conjunction with the Fall.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel. (Genesis 3:15)

So the first five chapters of Genesis must be a literal account if there wasn t a first Adam, there would be no need for a Second.

On the other hand, it is literally true that there are things on this earth that are unquestionably older than six thousand years or even twelve thousand years, assuming the thousand years is as to one day theory of creation.

In that theory, each of the six days of Creation is really 1,000 years long, plus the six thousand years since Creation would allow for a 12,000 year old earth.

There are the remains of humanoids that are undeniably different than modern humans, but are also different than apes. But they are also not the so-called missing links of evolution, since they can t be old enough for evolution s timeline.

The earth bears the scars of an Ice Age scars much older than six thousand or even twelve thousand years. But there still isn t room to allow for evolutionary theory — without having to throw out the doctrinal foundation of Christianity.

If man evolved, there was no first Adam, no original sin, no fall of man, and no promise of redemption. The Bible cannot be true, Jesus cannot be the Son of God, and I remain yet dead in my sins.

Evolution, like Creation, must stand alone one worldview cannot accommodate the other. Fortunately, there is FAR less evidence for evolution than there is for Creation.

The fact is that birds build nests as they have done throughout the history of mankind s experience. Beavers build dams as they always have. Bears hibernate, bees nest together in hives to honey, ants build anthills, and so on.

There is zero evidence of a fossil in transition from one life-form to another and there is no evidence of the evolutionary process at work evolving higher forms of animals within the collective 6,000-year memory of human existence.

Over the course of 6,000 years, man has progressed from plowing the earth with a piece of wood to the development of modern farm implements like the modern combine.

Along the way, we can retrace the various steps that took us from a plow to the combine. We didn t jump from a stick in the earth to a combine/harvester in a single leap.

And whatever is in use today will likely be replaced by an improved version later on. There is a trail that leads all the way back to the plow and points forward to the next great improvement in farming technology.

There are no examples of creatures in the process of evolving, and no evidence of mankind evolving into the next higher order over the course of our six thousand years of human history.

Still, there is plenty of evidence that says the earth is older than six thousand years. It is a conundrum.


If one goes back to reexamine the actual text of Genesis, one discovers a lot that isn t there. The Bible does not say, for example, that the earth was created in its present form.

It says that, in the beginning, the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, let there be light. (1:2-3)

But the Bible does NOT say that the light was sunlight. Sunlight doesn t make an appearance until the Fourth Day (Genesis 1:14) But Genesis 1:5 says that God divided the light from the darkness and the evening and the morning were the first day.

The Chaotic Earth Theory finds a prehistory here in the first few verses of Genesis, primarily based in what Scripture does not say in Genesis.

A young earth creation is not necessary to the creation of Adam and Eve the way the Fall of Man is necessary to the Redemption Story.

Isaiah 45:18 says, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, he created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

The RSV renders it this way; Thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; He is God; that formed the earth and made it; He established it. He created it NOT A WASTE, He formed it to be inhabited.”

The Bible doesn t specifically say what caused it to be a waste after the original creation, but it seems clear that sin pre-existed the Garden of Eden. Satan was already there when Adam and Eve arrived on the scene.

The Bible s timeline demands that Satan and his angels were cast into the earth at some point before the Garden which would be at some point before God said, Let there be light.

A re-examination of 2nd Peter 3:5-6 suggests an alternative understanding to the world that then was and to the flood Peter spoke of:

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, BEING OVERFLOWED WITH WATER, perished.”

This is generally understood as referring to Noah s Flood, but that understanding doesn t necessarily touch on any essential point of doctrine the way that dismissing a literal Garden of Eden does. Maybe Peter was referring to Noah’s Flood, but if so, he took some liberties with the text. Peter refers to a world that then was, but that perished when overflowed with water.

Oddly, Peter says nothing of Noah. And historically, the world didn t perish.

God preserved Noah, his family and the seed of all living aboard the Ark. But the Genesis account described the pre-Adamic earth as without form and void.

Peter does refer to the heavens and the earth which are now and says that this creation will also eventually be replaced with a new creation.

Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? (2nd Peter 3:12)

Peter speaks of this creation being destroyed by fervent heat. God promises Noah that never again will He destroy the earth by a flood. While it is by no means definitive, there is no reason to believe this was the only time the earth was destroyed by a flood.

Just that next time, it would be by fire.

Although I ve found nothing in the text that would preclude the Chaotic Earth Theory, the prophet Jeremiah describes the following scene that seems to describe something very much like it:

“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was WITHOUT FORM AND VOID; and the heavens, and they had NO LIGHT.

I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they TREMBLED, and all the hills MOVED LIGHTLY. I beheld, and, lo, there was NO MAN, and all the BIRDS OF THE HEAVENS WERE FLED.

I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a WILDERNESS, and all the CITIES thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger. (Jeremiah 4:23-26)

It is entirely possible that the evidence that suggests an old earth refers to this period before Adam and Eve. The geological history reveals the earth has spent much of prehistory in cold storage.

Genesis records God saying let there be light on the first day, but the light from the sun, moon and stars doesn t appear until on day four.

Is it possible that the earth pre-existed and that it, and its inhabitants, were destroyed in some pre-Adamic judgment period in a manner similar to the Flood?

There s nothing in Scripture that says it is impossible.

Isaiah describes the fall of Lucifer this way: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isaiah 14:12)

The timing seems odd. Isaiah seems to imply that Satan is cast from heaven for weakening the nations yet Satan was already here when Adam was created.

If one reads through Isaiah 14, it is a judgment against Satan for some very specific actions. I ll synopsize for the sake of space you can follow along, starting with Isaiah 14:12.

Satan is judged for his five I wills in which he speaks out against God. For his sins, he is cast out of heaven, and brought down to hell, not into it, but to the sides of the pit.

There, Isaiah says, he was visible to the nations, whom he deceived, where they mock him, saying, Is this the one that caused all this trouble?

Satan is then cast out of the grave (v 19) and judgment pronounced, thou shall not be joined with them (presumably those who now mock him) because thou hast destroyed thy land and slain thy people (v.20)

So, it is at least POSSIBLE that there was something before the Garden that involved Satan, destruction and death.

And there is no doctrinal damage done to either Judaism or Christianity by the acceptance of a chaotic earth theory into prehistory.

Indeed, it sorts out the interpretive problem with there being light four days before there is sunlight. The earth coming out of deep freeze also explains both the Ice Age and the placement of a firmament to divide the waters .

It explains the findings from Arctic core samples that suggest the Arctic once supported tropical vegetation. It explains a lot of things.

So, what about the Chaotic Earth Theory is it true? I don t know. It could be. So why bring it up? Unlike evolution, the Chaotic Earth Theory could be true and still allow for both a literal interpretation of Scripture and the inclusion of a long geological history.

But I don t know. It is but a theory. I am presenting it as such, and not as doctrinal truth, so please don t ask me to defend it.

There is nothing that necessarily argues against it from Scripture and there is plenty of Bible that seems to lean that way, if not necessarily rising to the level of proof text.

I know that we don t know everything Paul says that we see through a glass darkly but I know that the Bible is true.

It says that God created the heavens and the earth. But nowhere does it tell us exactly when.

Things That Are Different Are Sometimes the Same??

Things That Are Different Are Sometimes the Same??
Vol: 96 Issue: 21 Monday, September 21, 2009

On Sunday, President Obama launched a desperate media blitz of the Sunday talk shows, hoping to gin up some public (or at least some media) support for his failing health care reform platform.

President Obama chose to appear on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Univision to make his case. However, the White House announced that he would not appear on FoxNews, evidently hoping to punish the network.

A White House spokesman said Fox wasn t included because we figured that Fox would rather show Dancing with the Stars .” One wonders about the logic of mocking the very audience Obama is ostensibly trying to reach.

Most of the Sunday hosts were excited about the opportunity, except of course, Fox News Chris Wallace for being excluded.

And maybe Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation on CBS.

“I’m not happy he’s appearing on four other shows — I just don’t like that very much,” Schieffer says. As for the succession of 15-minute tapings at the White House on Friday, Schieffer joked: “It’s kind of like going to Dunkin Donuts: You take a number and they call you when they’re ready.”

The first question posed by the five different anchors of the five different networks flagship news programs of the first post-racial presidency was, Do you think opposition to your health care reform packages is based on your race?

I want you to notice that in every variation of this question, posed by the best and brightest talent the networks had to offer, the assumption was that if there is any racism involved, the racist in the equation is you.

I am making the broad assumption that you don t favor the health care reform plan because it is expensive and ineffective and because the government track record includes Medicare, Medicaid and the Post Office.

If the only reason you oppose the plan is because of the President s skin color then you are probably reading this as second-hand, forwarded from somebody else.

Because if you believe that, you aren t just racist, you are an idiot — and thus doubly unlikely to be a member of our fellowship.

There are far more pressing reasons to fear the health care plan than the president s race, which, incidentally, is an issue that only seems to be of interest to liberals. Every single liberal news broadcaster made race the top issue, as if that were somehow relevant to the question of health insurance.

Perhaps that is why Obama excluded Fox. They probably wouldn’t have fallen for the ploy of substituting race-baiting for facts about his agenda. Especially since Obama was clearly hinting the racists are conservatives who most likely watch FoxNews.

The president himself pretended to bat the issue away when George Stephanopolis raised it on ABC. Are there people who don t like me because of my race? I m sure there are, he said. Are there some people who voted for me only because of my race? There are probably some of those, too.

Question: What racial persuasion is Obama implying he is sure doesn t like him based on his race? Secondarily, what racial persuasion is Obama implying when he says that some people voted for him only because of his race, — probably”?

It seems clear to me that the ones Obama is sure oppose his health care plan on a mindlessly racial level are the white middle-Americans of the guns-and-religion variety.

As to the some people who voted for him strictly based on race . . . well, he got 95% of the African-American vote. And there are few serious and honest observers that would deny his race played a role in capturing the white liberal vote.

The narrative that Obama is building here is that the racial element here belongs to the conservatives that oppose his policies.

But logic dictates that the people whose racial prejudices cost Obama votes had to be liberal Democrats — not conservatives or Republicans who wouldn t have voted for a liberal Democrat in any case.


Candidate Obama promised to transcend the politics of racial divide. He promised to be a healer, a different kind of politician, one that would reach out and bring folks together.

So he goes on five different networks to suggest that race plays a role in conservative opposition to his agenda.

All in the name of swatting down Jimmy Carter s ridiculous charge that you didn t vote for Obama because you are a racist. Or that opposing letting the government dictate your health care options has anything to do with anybody’s skin color.

This is another one of those cognitive dissonance moments. Cognitive dissonance is that sense of confusion that comes from holding simultaneously contradictory views or opinions.

For example, in the real world, conservatives don t vote for liberals because they oppose the liberal agenda in favor of their own.

Everything about logic and common sense, combined with your own experience and knowledge, tells you the following statement is true. People vote in favor of their own perceived best interests.

Jimmy Carter s charge demands pretending that, if Barack Obama were a far-left Marxist liberal who was white, conservatives would vote against their own agendas.

And the next thing you know, the most important question the five best and brightest anchors of the five liberal networks is: Do you think conservatives oppose your agenda based on your race?

Behold, the power of semantics!

The question itself plants the subliminal suggestion that conservatives are racists who have no political principles of their own.

Then Obama s answer cements it. He is sure some oppose him based on his race, just as some probably voted for him based on his race.

Logically, the liberals that voted against him did so because he is black, since they otherwise would vote for a liberal. And the 95% of blacks that voted for him voted for him because he was black, since 14% of African-Americans voted Republican in 2004.

But for a master semanticist like Obama, logic is no barrier. For much of the past nine months, we ve been reeling under the heavy burden that cognitive dissonance places on one s ability to reason.

Reason says that when the government gets involved in business, the result is the Post Office, not Fedex or UPS. Obama says that his health care plan will be more efficient because the government is involved.

Reason says that the reason Medicare and Medicaid are in such a mess is because of government waste. Obama s solution is to give the government more money.

Reason says that when you can t pay your bills, the solution is to reduce spending and look for ways to increase your income. Obama s solution is to increase spending and pay for it by taxing the income increases out of existence.

The constant effort to hold simultaneously contradictory thoughts in one s head is wearisome it has the effect of wearing one down to the point where it is just to difficult to think without it making one s head hurt.

Obama says the Right is ‘divisive’ and so he punishes FoxNews by refusing to appear on its network. Why else? FoxNews draws more viewers, according to Drudge, than the other five networks combined.

Why did he launch the media blitz? To persuade his opponents. Where did he go? To the five liberal networks that ALREADY support him to the point of subservience.

Cognitive dissonance can be painful after months without letup.

The great propagandists of the 20th century all knew that, and they factored it in to their agendas.

After six years of non-stop cognitive dissonance, the most cultured nation in Europe went completely mad and murdered six million Jews. Only two decades of it and the Soviet Union murdered tens of millions more.

Cognitive dissonance demands one accept as a logic statement that things that are different are sometimes the same .

Men and women are equal, it is said. Anything a man can do, a woman can do just as well. But your brain can’t shake the understanding that the statement cannot be true. If anything, women aren’t equal to men. They are superior.

Men can t have babies.

But just saying that men and women are different makes one a sexist, despite the certain factual statement that, if they were the same, biology says the human race would have ended with Adam and Eve.

And equality of the sexes doesn’t apply to Sarah Palin. She is incapable of public office because she is a mother.

Just ask the National Organization of Women that exists to defend women — unless they’ve either been sexually harrassed by a Democrat president or are themselves running for national office as a conservative.

But that s why you are a racist, because you think that way. . . so maybe there s something wrong with you, after all.

Because you didn t know you were a racist until after you found out on TV that otherwise you d have been a liberal Democrat and . . . is this all really happening in America???

Yes. It is.

Let Them Eat Cake . . .

Let Them Eat Cake . . .
Vol: 96 Issue: 19 Saturday, September 19, 2009

According to historical legend, Marie Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI, reacted to news of a bread famine, reportedly said, then let them eat cake. Actually, what she said was qu il mangent de la brioche, which means let them eat brioche a type of egg and butter enriched bread that was more of a luxury than regular bread.

The irony of the statement was in the fact both are made from flour it was infuriating to the masses and eventually cost Louis XVI the monarchy and both Louis and Marie Antoinette their heads.

The phrase stands in stark contrast to another statement known to have been uttered by the deposed Queen; “It is quite certain that in seeing the people who treat us so well despite their own misfortune, we are more obliged than ever to work hard for their happiness”.

In all probability, the story is an historical myth. The quote was likely lifted from a statement from Marie-Therese, wife of Louis XIV 100 years earlier. But it was attributed to Marie-Antoinette because of its expression of royal callousness to the plight of the people.

Of course, the real story of what took place in 1793 will never been known. The monarchy was overthrown by what would today be called liberal progressives and history is always written by the victorious side.

In any case, the point is not whether or not Marie Antoinette uttered the phrase that resulted in collapse of Louis XVI s France or if it was assigned to her by historical revisionists. The intended message is clear: Even in a monarchy, rulers ignore their constituency at their own peril.


One of the most enduring narratives of the Obama administration since taking office nine months ago is its breath-taking arrogance. It was in evidence during the campaign, but I think that back then, most people misread it as confidence.

Ronald Reagan was confident. He believed in America — and he believed that Americans did too.

Obama’s first official sit-down interview was with an Arab newspaper and was the kick-off to Obama’s Spring Apology Tour. Obama doesn t care what Americans thinks and he s made no secret of it.

Some thought the pre-election guns and religion explanation of why redneck America is anti-immigrant must have been taken out of context.

They couldn t imagine that a mainstream political party could be so dismissive of the core beliefs of so many that the public figured that a display of such arrogant elitism as that comment seemed to reflect just had to have been misunderstood.

Since taking office, the administration has thumbed its nose at its critics as if they were all Far Right crazies. In fact, I take back the as if part the administration and its spokesmen have actually said that.

Opponents to Obama s health care agenda have been labeled angry mobs and un American , stupid , misled , Nazis Astrotruf — and more often than anything else, liars .

“I’ve got a question for all these folks who say, ‘You know, we’re going to pull the plug on Grandma’ and ‘This is all about illegal immigrants’ you’ve heard all the lies. I’ve got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? What’s your answer? What’s your solution? And you know what? They don’t have one.”

That raises a question that I have for President Obama. Who do you think you are talking to? I intend that question without sarcasm. I really wonder who he does think that he is talking to. Who is he calling liars ?

The angry mobs of grannies that Obama seems to admit have a legitimate fear may have the plugged pulled on them . Obama s defense to the charge that Grannie has something legitimate to worry about is, Oh yeah? You got a better idea?

On the Friday before more than a million conservative protestors marched on Washington, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs denied knowing about the planned rally that Sunday, saying, I don t know who the group is.

The arrogance revealed by that statement takes one s breath away. The most consistent estimates of the crowds that day seem to hold somewhere between one and two million Americans. If that many Americans showed up think of how many more must share their view, but couldn t afford to make the trip?

Still, I see cause for some optimism, despite the growing sense of impending doom that began on January 20 (can it really have only been this year?) TIME magazine s new issue is out and Obama s face isn t on it.

Glenn Beck s face is.