Special Report: The Tyrants of Tolerance

Special Report: The Tyrants of Tolerance
Vol: 98 Issue: 18 Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Southern Poverty Law Center is the self-appointed champion of civil rights and self proclaimed leader in advancing tolerance in America.   There is an entire section on the website devoted to the subject of ‘teaching tolerance’.   

I watched Bill O’Reilly interview the director of the SPLC on his program last night — it was utterly chilling.  He had J. Richard Cohen on the program as a followup to a segment earlier this year in which Cohen vowed to pressure CNN until it fired anchor Lou Dobbs. 

O’Reilly bet Cohen it would never happen and later invited Cohen back after Dobbs stepped down to acknowledge Cohen won the bet and to ask him how he did it.

Cohen then explained the tactics he used to have Lou Dobbs silenced.  Far from learning about tolerance, what came to mind was the famous quote by 19th century German poet Heinrich Heine: “Wherever they burn books, in the end will also burn human beings.”

Sixty years after his death, Heine’s books were among those piled up by the Nazi brownshirts as Jewish “hate literature” and burned in giant public bonfires.  It was the Nazi way of silencing their critics.  In the 21st century, the practice of silencing one’s critics has been transformed into a shining example of progressive tolerance.

The ‘right’ kind of tolerance, that is.  The SPLC-approved version.  The SPLC website is festooned with signs about “Standing Strong Against Hate” and even included a handy “Hate Group Map”.

Listed among the SPLC’s designated hate groups in the New York Region are The Catholic Families News, The Council of Conservative Citizens, the Jewish Defense League, and Tony Alamo Christian Ministries.  

I just picked New York at random — the SPLC has hate groups in every state.

The Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t have a definition of hate but if you click on the link for ‘general hate’ it takes you to a page listing entitled “Active US Hate Groups in 2008”.  

There one finds listed such hateful groups as Chick Publications — the publishing group that produces those little evangelistic comic book tracts people usually leave in bus stations and public restrooms.

I’ve seen some of them. They are truly hateful — they say that if you don’t get saved through trusting Jesus Christ then you’ll go to hell — which it says is just what you richly deserve.  That sounds pretty hateful, even if they do explain how you can go to heaven instead.   

Especially to atheists.   They get real mad at the idea of being tossed into a hell they don’t believe exists just because they reject the offer of a mythical heaven and a God-given Savior.

They think it’s hateful and intolerant to exclude them.  And just as hateful and intolerant to offer them the chance to trust Jesus.  Like they need forgiveness!  The nerve of those hateful people!

I have to admit that I don’t know much about Tony Alamo or Catholic Families or the Council of Conservative Citizens.  Maybe they are hate-mongers with innocent sounding names.

But if one looks around, it doesn’t take long before one runs across more well-known purveyors of hate and sedition.

The  SPLC’s “Intelligence Report” alerts the public to such anti-government subversives as Sean Hannity, Chuck Norris, US Rep Michelle Bachman [R-Mn]  Texas Governor Rick Perry and Fox Business reporter Cody Willard.  

In an editorial warning of” The Return of the Militias‘ editor Mark Potok first explains how the evil militias first raised their shaved heads,

“Sparked by a combination of anger at the federal government and the deaths of political dissenters at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas.” 

Randy Weaver was a hater.  So who cares if his wife and son were murdered by FBI snipers?   David Koresh was a hater.  So who cares if the FBI shot up a building full of women and kids and then beseiged the place until all 81 of them died in a fire?

The SPLC exists to guard against intolerance and injustice. Not to whine about a few deaths at the hands of the Clinton administration.  If it were the Bush administration,  well, Potok can’t say, because:

“by early this century, the Patriots had largely faded, weakened by systematic prosecutions, aversion to growing violence, and a new, highly conservative president. . .

“A key difference this time is that the federal government — the entity that almost the entire radical right views as its primary enemy — is headed by a black man.”

You see, the folks at the SPLC aren’t racists. But they can’t imagine the possibility even exists that everybody else isn’t.  So if you don’t trust the government, it isn’t because the government has proved itself untrustworthy under the control of the Marxists and socialists and communists and anarchists and pedophiles that make up Obama’s legions of commissars.

It’s because Obama is black and you are a racist. The implication is, if Obama wasn’t black, you’d probably be ok with the rest of it. 

I’m not defending hate groups.  I don’t know anything about any of the groups listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and I am sure some of the groups on the list that I would agree belonged there, I suppose.  But I’d include one name the SPLC left off.  

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s.  Probably an oversight.

As I listened to SPLC director J. Richard Cohen rail against Lou Dobbs as a vile, hatemongering liar who dared to question Barack Obama’s birth circumstances and spread vicious lies against “the undocumented”  I felt a cold chill of fear run up my spine and tighten the hairs at the back of my neck. 

The guy sat there and bragged about how his organization, dedicated as it is to tolerance and justice, was able to pressure CNN to fire Lou Dobbs because the Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t agree with his point of view.  

Because Lou Dobbs was intolerant of dissenting viewpoints.    Dobbs kept insulting undocumented immigrants by calling them ‘illegal aliens.’ And worse, publicly demanding that existing US immigration law be enforced!

It was like listening to a guy explain how burning books is wrong, but sometimes necessary, in order to keep book authors from spreading hate, which would create a generation of haters who might one day burn books. 

You can’t teach tolerance while tolerating intolerance.   It’s er, untolerable. 

The hypocrisy was stunning, but no less stunning than watching Barack Obama lecturing China about the importance of tolerating opposing points of view — while simultaneously boycotting Fox News because of its opposing point of view.

So let’s get back to Lou Dobbs. Up until now, I didn’t give much thought to CNN firing him.  Truth to tell, I am surprised it took CNN that long.  CNN had long since abandoned any pretense regarding its bias. 

They had long since fired or forced out the rest of the conservatives on the network, like Bob Novak and Tucker Carlson, and pretty much anybody else that doesn’t share CNN’s unblinking embrace of man-made global warming, immigration reform, Marxist class warfare, socialism and the Democrat party.

It was only after the Cohen interview with Bill O’Reilly that it really hit me.   The Lou Dobbs firing was a 21st century book burning.     Once the fire gets started,  it will need a lot of fuel.

Cohen brought the matches and there will always be plenty of other champions of tolerance with him, willing and able to help find more fuel to keep the fire hot.  

But the historical lesson being ignored here is a profound one. Once started, these kinds of fires always burn out of control. 

Call it the Heinrich Heine Principle of Tolerant Tyranny.

Lies in Hypocrisy

Lies in Hypocrisy
Vol: 98 Issue: 17 Tuesday, November 17, 2009

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. . . ” (1st Timothy 4:1)

This is one of several places in Paul’s letters where Paul emphasizes the importance of the point he is making by attributing it directly to the Lord, as if dictated rather than inspired. 

Another example of this Divine dictation is found in 1st Thessalonians 4:15 where Paul is talking about the Rapture.

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. . . “

That isn’t to say that the rest of Scripture is not the Word of the Lord — of course it is.  

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2nd Peter 1:20)

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. . .” (2nd Timothy 3:16)

“Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.” (Proverbs 30:5)

The point isn’t that the rest of Scripture is any less literal but rather that these mentions are more like attention-getters — “Hey — the Spirit is speaking expressly!  Listen up!”   “Hey, pay attention!  This comes by the Word of the Lord!”

So, the Holy Spirit of God expressly spoke to Paul about the growing apostasy of the last days.  The thing is, that apostasy in order to be apostatic, must arise from a position of great faith.    Do you follow?  You can’t fall away from a faith you never had.   The distance of the fall is dependent on the depth of one’s faith. 

And for it to be a prophetic sign,  it must also be as widespread as it was deeply held.  

Paul says that only some depart from the faith,  but that departure must by definition be a radical one — a departure so radical that the faithful can point to it and say, “See!  That’s what the Holy Spirit of God was speaking about!  Expressly that!”

And for it to be a sign to the faithful,  those some must be pretty visible and the departure pretty surprising.

I’m trying to think of an example. . . . ah! What about this!  Imagine there was once a country founded under the authority of the Creator God Who granted all men certain inalienable rights.

I never tire of the novel ways that liberals find to ‘disprove’ the notion that America was founded on Christian principles, without ever realizing that the sanctity of their own liberty depends on the fact that it was.

Since God, (and not government) endowed you with your rights, then only God, (and not government) can take them away. That is what makes our rights ‘inalienable’.

It is easy to prove some of the Founders were not Christian —  Thomas Paine was an admitted atheist (to name one example, there are more)  but to then  argue that somehow proves the Founders did not intend for America to be a Christian country requires the suspension of credulity.

Founder John Adams said of the Constitution, “This Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people only. It is wholly unsuited for any other.”  

It is only within my lifetime that any serious debate has been entertained regarding which ‘religion’ Adams was referring to.   It is unlikely that any of the Founders personally knew anybody who wasn’t Christian.   There weren’t a lot of Muslims, Buddhists or Jews making big social or religious waves in colonial America.

(Come to think of it, it is only within my lifetime that any serious debate has been entertained about whether or not it is moral to kill one’s own baby in the womb.   And its only within the lifetime of my children that anybody has questioned what the definition of marriage is. Coincidence?  I don’t thnk so.)

Returning to what the Spirit speaketh expressly, for this prophecy to be a valid prophecy, it has to be referring to something or somewhere specific.   Christianity is the historically dominant religion of the West, but it has never been the dominant religion of the whole world.

Historically,  “Christendom” has been synonymous with European Catholicism and later, the Reformation.  But the first settlers arrived on America’s shores in a flight from institutionalize “Christendom” in search of freedom to practice Bible Christianity.

America’s Christian heritage dates to the day the first Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock — its reputation as a Christian country is denied only by its own population.   But the rest of the world recognizes America  by the abundance of America’s blessings. 

That is how America earned its historical reputation as the world’s most Christian country in the first place.


I’ve been watching the media covering the reemergence of Sarah Palin and I keep hearing the Spirit’s express warning to Paul echoing in my mind.   Not that I think Sarah Palin is the fulfillment of some specific Bible prophecy or anything nuts like that. 

Palin is just a great example of my point. She seems to bring out the liars and hypocrites in droves, even at the risk of exposing themselves openly as the liars and hypocrites that they are.  

The Left hates Palin for not aborting her Down’s Syndrome baby — in their eyes, making the baby fair game for criticism.  Palin’s daughters were verbally abused by the media in ways one could not have imagined. 

Reporters tracked down her church and played her Pentecostal leanings for laughs, even reporting on a private worship service.

I heard Bob Beckel on Hannity last night disparaging Sarah Palin’s book, her family and pointing out a ‘cheesecake’ Newsweek cover shot of Palin in running shorts as evidence she “isn’t ready” for the White House.

I recall a photo-op shot of a shirtless Barack Obama frolicking in the surf in Hawaii during the campaign that graced the cover of almost every liberal newspaper.  “Presidential Pecs” read one headline.

Palin actually posed for the photo for a magazine called “Runner” extolling the joys of running so the running shorts photo was totally appropriate. Newsweek simply reran the photo on its cover, giving exactly the impression Beckel was reinforcing.

Beckel’s sexist insinuation was that Palin was using her legs to divert attention away from her empty head — on the principle that anybody that pretty must be stupid.

Where are the feminists?  Why is the National Organization of Women silent in the face of such open misogyny?   Where are the editorialists raging against the perpetuation of the male-dominated glass ceiling?


The Obama administration decided to bring the five masterminds of the 9/11 attacks to New York to stand trial in a civilian court, replete with the Constitutional protections affored American citizens.  According to the administration,  they did it to “send a message about American justice” to the enemy.

I heard Chuck Schumer defend the decision by saying that “When KSM  (Khalid Sheik Mohammed) hears the verdict of ‘guilty’  he’ll know he’s lost.”  What an idiotic statement!    KSM knew he lost when he was captured and sent to Gitmo, never to be heard from again.

Now he gets to showcase his cause in a public trial in which most of the evidence against him will be inadmissable.    The Democrats aren’t bringing the 9/11 plotters to New York to try them for the 9/11 attacks — these guys are mostly lawyers!    They know the odds now favor the plotters. 

They claim they are doing it for America.


What they are doing is TO America.  KSM and his crew are just window dressing.  The Democrats are planning to try George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.  They are just using the plotters to get at them. 

The fact that it risks forcing the acquittal of the murderers of more than 3,000 Americans is irrelevant to the real goal.  To use George W. Bush to win another election for the Democrats.

Speaking of Schumer, yesterday he blamed the Fort Hood attacks on ‘loophole’s’ that allowed ‘terrorists’ (suddenly he’s a terrorist, but only in this limited application) to buy a gun!  

Hasan was a major on active duty in the United States Army.  Schumer’s contention that taking guns away from US Army majors will make us safer redefines ‘idiotic’.  The gun didn’t commit the massacre.  The Islamic-inspired terrorist holding it did.

If the laws against murder don’t prevent murders, then what logic is there in passing laws against guns?  Such laws serve only to disarm the law-abiding (which is the group the Left fears even more than terrorists or gangsters).

The lies are transparent.  The hypocrisy breathtaking.  The risks are enormous.  In this generation, hypocrisy is so institutionalized and part of the mainstream that it even has a user-friendly label.  A label that encompasses everything the Spirit expressly wanted the generation of the latter days to recognize.

It allows for a clear conscience by legitimizing lies and hypocrisy and encourages the demonization of people of faith, as long the faith in question is Christian.  All other ‘faiths’ are welcomed, even encouraged.

It’s called Political Correctness.

It even has its own police.  And they know where you live.

Special Report: PA To Unilaterally Declare Statehood?

Special Report: PA To Unilaterally Declare Statehood?
Vol: 98 Issue: 16 Monday, November 16, 2009

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat’s accused Israel on Saturday of stalling the implementation of the “two-state solution” and said the Palestinians would consequently declare statehood unilaterally and then seek recognition from the UN.

“Now is our defining moment. We went into this peace process in order to achieve a two-state solution,” Erekat said. “The endgame is to tell the Israelis that now the international community has recognized the two-state solution on the ’67 borders.”

In response later that day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that seeking unilateral international recognition would “unravel” the existing agreements between the two sides.

“There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral attempts outside that framework will unravel the existing agreements between us and could entail unilateral steps by Israel,” Netanyahu told a press conference gathered for the occasion. 

The Palestinian intention is to unilaterally claim the entire parcel of land lost by Jordan to Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem — on the grounds that, since negotiations are taking too long, the Palestinian side should be declared the winner by universal acclamation.

Let’s quickly revisit the original predicate for the PA’s pending declaration before moving on.  Israel captured Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 War. 

In late May, 1967 the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with materiel and troop support provided by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria mobilized and began massing troops along Israel’s borders.

On June 5th, 1967 Israeli forces launched a preemptive strike on those troop concentrations and airfields in Egypt and Syria.  On June 6th, Jordan attacked West Jerusalem via the West Bank while Egyptian forces attacked from the Sinai and Gaza Strip and Syria via the Golan Heights.

When the ceasefire was signed on June 11, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.  

On June 18, 1967 the Israeli cabinet voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace agreements.   In reply, the Arabs convened the Khartoum Summit where they voted unanimously that there would be “no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel.”

The Syria’s Golan, Egypt’s Gaza and Jordan’s West Bank were strategic corridors through which Israel remained vulnerable to attack.   The Khartoum Summit’s resolution was a promise of future attacks via those same strategic corridors.

So Israel annexed the Gaza Strip together with its Egyptian citizens, the West Bank and its Jordanian citizens and the formerly Syrian Druse villages in the Golan Heights to prevent them from being used in furtherance of the Khartoum Summit’s resolution.  

The Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians were refused repatriation by their respective governments. Those who attempted to repatriate themselves were interned in ‘refugee camps’.  Those who preferred freedom to internment remained on the captured territory and became “Palestinians”.

Hindsight demonstrates the military wisdom of retaining those strategic buffers. 

On October 7th, 1973 while Israel was observing its most somber high holy day of Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria, with materiel and troop support from the same antagonists as last time,  plus the open support of the Soviet Union, launched a sneak attack against Israel.

Even Cuba participated, providing more than 1,500 troops while North Korea reinforced the Arabs with 20 pilots and 19 support personnel.  Both the Cuban and North Koreans enaged the Israeli Defense forces directly in combat on several occasions.

By October 20, Israel had trapped the Egyptian Third Army in the Sinai desert and was poised to destroy it.  To the north, with Israeli forces closing in on Damascus, Syria was preparing a massive counter-attack.  On October 24, the UN imposed a ceasefire in place.   

Those were the historical circumstances as they occurred, without bias or revision.  Prior to the Six Days’ War, the only people known to history as “Palestinians” were the Jews.  Following the Six Days’ War, ‘Palestinians’ were the Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians abandoned by their respective governments.

Every single event that has transpired between Israel and the rest of the world since June 11, 1967 has been aimed at recovering the territories lost to the Israelis for use as staging areas to implement the ultimate goal of annihilating the Jewish State.

After forty-two years of failed terror campaigns, several wars,  thousands of skirmishes, kidnappings, hostage takings and more than six thousand blind rocket attacks to no avail, the odds are good that the UN will simply agree to roll the clock back unilaterally.

In terms of real politick, even if the PA did unilaterally declare statehood, and even if the UN did recognize an independent Palestinian State,  not much would change on the ground for the Palestinians.  

The UN could agree to Palestinian claims of Israeli-held territory, but without agreement by Israel, the UN is forbidden by Charter to enforce the territorial claims itself.   A unilateral declaration by the Palestinians would also amount to a quitclaim to the PA’s most precious demand — the so-called “Right of Return.”

The “Right of Return” is a demand that Israel agree to accept Arabs and their descendants displaced by the 1948 War of Independence.  Without agreement from Israel and with the existence of a Palestinian state, there is no possible way short of war to force Israel to open its borders.

The question can’t be settled by who has the oldest claim — Israel wins that one hands-down.  And it can’t be settled by how has the most recent claim — Israel wins that one, too.  Jordan possessed East Jerusalem for less than twenty years before losing it to Israel in 1967. 

The UN’s 1947 Partition Plan, even if the Arabs had not rejected it,  doesn’t give the Arabs a claim to Jerusalem — the 1947 Partition made Jerusalem an open city under international supervision, taking it away from both Arabs and Jews.

Before that, it was mandated by the British.  Before that, by the Ottoman Turks. Before that, the Malemukes, Saladin, then the Crusades, going back to the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Babylonians to its foundation by King David of Israel.

At the present time, the world views Israel as an occupation force on Palestinian land.  As an occupying force, Israel is therefore obligated to the security and well-being of those under occupation.  It is on this basis that every pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel resolution passed down by the UN since Security Council Resolution 242 has relied. 

If the Palestinians are not a stateless people under occupation, but rather citizens of  an independent sovereign state, then the obligations for Palestinian security and well-being pass from Israel to the United Nations.

Additionally, by declaring statehood unilaterally, the PA officially renounces Oslo, freeing Israel from every subsequent agreement and understanding entered into with the PA or the international community to this point.

The Oslo Agreement, which forms the only legal basis for a Palestinian claim to statehood, granted the Palestinian Authority autonomy over about 40% of the West Bank, including the main cities of Ramallah, Jericho, Nablus and Hebron.

The only way that the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem can be enforced is to take it from Israel by force.  But in such a case, Israel would not be fighting an uprising within its own borders, but against a sovereign state.

What would it take for the PA to gain UN recognition?   The process requires a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly and the acquiescence of all five Permanent Members of the Security Council.  Any one of the Permanent Five could veto the PA’s admission.

Last week,  Haaretz reported that PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad had reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration concerning US recognition of its independence.

So a unilateral declaration of statehood, together with UN recognition, would seem to lend itself more to Israel’s favor than to the Palestinian side.   But that is assuming that the UN will observe its own Charter prohibiting it from interfering in the internal affairs of a member nation.

To this point, it hasn’t.  And according to Bible prophecy,  it won’t.  The scenario unfolding before isolates Israel as much as it relieves it of responsibility.   On one side is Israel.  On the other side, an independent Palestinian state backed by the power of the United Nations.

The central issue of debate will be sovereignty over Jerusalem.  Why will the world support the Palestinian claim?  

For the same reason that the New York Times wouldn’t reprint the famous Danish cartoons.  For the same reason that we’re pretending that Major Hasan’s massacre was inspired by the first contagious case of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

For the same reason that we dare not speak the name of our enemy.  Because the West is slowly deciding that it might be better to switch than fight.

That is why the Palestinians are confident of US support for statehood despite Israeli objections.  Because the cost of supporting Israel is too high.

This is exactly how the ancient prophets said it would unfold in the last days.   Zechariah warned that any nation that burdened themselves with the question of Jerusalem would be cut in pieces.   One by one, Israel’s allies would fall away until Israel stands utterly alone and without recourse.

Ultimately, the Bible says that Middle East will stand upon the brink of total annihilation when a leader will rise up from the revived Roman Empire and confirm a seven year peace agreement between Israel and her enemies, predicated upon the formula of land for peace.

To confirm a covenant, that covenant must previously exist. One can only confirm what already exists.  The word translated ‘confirm’ means “to make strong”.  The covenant that needs confirmation is, according to Daniel, to run according to a seven year timeline.

There is only one failed covenant of seven-years duration predicated upon a formula of land-for-peace.  The Oslo Agreement, signed in 1993 was set to expire exactly seven years later with an agreement on permanent borders and the final disposition of Jerusalem.

The agreement collapsed in 2000 when Yasser Arafat started what the Israelis call the ‘Oslo War’. Every subsequent agreement, including the two-state solution, has been built on the terms of the original Oslo framework.

A US-supported declaration of Palestinian statehood, according to PM Netanyahu, erases every agreement between Israel and the Palestinians built on the Oslo framework, bringing both sides back to where they were on September 13, 1993.  At the start of a failed seven-year peace covenant.  

One that needs needs a new broker.

What Politics Has To Do With Prophecy

What Politics Has To Do With Prophecy
Vol: 98 Issue: 14 Saturday, November 14, 2009

Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced on Friday that the administration intends to grant amnesty to some fourteen million illegal aliens now inside the country.  

How many of them are terrorists?  The government can’t know.  How many of them are criminals?   The government can’t know that, either.  How many of them have infectious diseases?  Don’t know.

The government can’t know any of these things because the fourteen million illegal aliens are by definition also undocumented.  Suppose you are from the Third World but are wanted in your home country for some terrible crime.  

So you sneak into the United States under an assumed name.  Since you are already a criminal, breaking US immigration law is hardly a deterrent.  

Now you’re inside the US illegally, and the Department of Homeland Security offers you amnesty on the immigration violation and you become a legal resident under the name you assumed when you broke into America.  That’s the name that will undergo any proposed criminal background check, not your real one.

Napolitano told  a panel discussion at the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. on Friday:

“A tough and fair pathway to earned legal status will mandate that illegal immigrants meet a number of requirements—including registering, paying a fine, passing a criminal background check, fully paying all taxes and learning English.   These are substantial requirements that will make sure this population gets right with the law. It will help fix our broken system.”

It is precisely this kind of logic that guarantees the system will remain ‘broken.’ 

Backing up to the beginning of the ‘problem’ — it began because illegal aliens found a hospitable climate in the US and not much appetite for enforcing immigration law.

Particularly after Bill Clinton noticed that illegal aliens tended to vote in US elections and that they tended to vote Democrat. 

Illegal aliens were transformed into ‘undocumented immigrants’ by the PC police, ostensibily to avoid attaching a ‘stigma’ to those aliens who came to America illegally. And to ingratiate themselves with them.

The fight over whether or not voters should have to prove citizenship in order to cast their ballot is purely partisan.  But it is neither logical nor rooted in any sense of imaginary Constitutional privacy.

The Democrats shrewdly calculated that if they appeared to be the party of illegal aliens, illegal aliens would come out  in droves to vote for their patrons.  So they oppose voter-checks.  Why else would any American object to voter ID?     

You need it to drive.  You need it to obtain documents.  You need it to rent a movie or buy a six-pack.  The Democrat agenda includes national health care, which will require a national ID, although nobody is talking about that aspect, since that requirement sunk Hillarycare in 1993. 

Because the illegal vote breaks their way, the Dems have actively opposed any effort to either control the borders or deport those who violated them.  At least once a year,  the Democrats offer up some kind of amnesty plan under the guise of ‘immigration reform’.

“Immigration reform” is another one of those smoke-screen phrases thrown up the by Left to disguise the actual intent.   The phrase is repeated so often that it loses any objective meaning.   

Nobody is talking about reforming immigration policy when they talk about ‘immigration reform.’  “Immigration” is something that starts abroad with an immigrant applying to enter the country.  

Since Napolitano’s ‘immigration reform’ only applies to those who are already here, it doesn’t reform immigration law. Instead, it sets a policy for selective enforcement of the laws already on the books, violating the Constitution in the process.  

‘Immigration reform’ is Democrat double-speak for ‘election theft.’  The Dems have to know that they are going to get hammered next election.  The agenda is being set entirely by the Far Left liberals in Congress. 

But a new Gallup Poll says that only one American in five (20%) self-identifies as ‘liberal’ as opposed to 40% who identify themselves as ‘conservative’ and 30% who claim the label of ‘moderate’.   

Together, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid make up the most liberal triumvirate to ever control the reins of government.   Pelosi and Reid were elected in ’06 — Obama in ’08, primarily by a combination of liberal and moderate voters.

In both elections, the moderates voted against George Bush more than they voted for the liberal candidates.  In 2010, they won’t have George Bush to hide behind, Dick Cheney to demonize, or Karl Rove to investigate.  

Everything the Democrat Party has  ‘accomplished’ this past year has been unilateral, pushed through by their supermajority in both Houses of Congress. The Dems now own the economy, the war in Afghanistan, the climate change legislation, the deficit and the unemployment statistics.

Apart from the liberals who share the objective of transforming America into anything except what it always was, where are they going to get the votes they will need next year?  

They plan to get them the old fashioned Democrat way.  

The way they have secured the inner-city poor’s vote.  The way they have secured the black vote.  The way they have managed to secure the senior vote.  And the way they plan to secure the illegal alien vote.

They’re going to buy them.


I know that sometimes you get sick of Obama — I get emails from people all the time saying things like, “Obama bad — I get it — why not cover Bible prophecy stories?”

In my estimation, there’s probably no storyline more indicative of how far we’ve progressed along the Bible prophecy timeline than the current US political situation. 

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, America was at the height of its power; politically, militarily and financially. 

The European Union was struggling with unification — it was still so fractured (and fractious) that any comparison with a revived Roman Empire seemed ludicrous.  

According to Bible prophecy, Europe was supposed to assume global supremacy.  Russia is pictured as a regional power.  America played no role whatever.  Somehow, Europe had to increase while the Soviets and Americans decreased. As of 1990, Bible prophecy was stalled. 

Until Saddam Hussein’s invasion.  The Saudis, fearing they were next, invited America to defend them from what was at the time, the world’s fifth-largest — and most combat-experienced — military force on earth. 

The Soviet Union was reeling from its defeat in Afghanistan, but remained very much the world’s ‘other’ superpower.

Nobody was prepared for what came next.  

Saddam Hussein promised the “mother of all battles”. The United States ordered sixteen thousand body bags — and had contracts for tens of thousands more as needed.  The Russians quietly fed Saddam intelligence info and supplied him with GPS-jamming devices and other counter-measures.

Everybody anticipated a bloodbath on both sides. 

Instead, the US military cut through the cream of Iraq’s military forces like a hot knife through butter.  The devastation wrought by American weaponry never before seen in combat rocked the world.  The display of military power was so awesome that it resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It frightened the Europeans so badly that it revitalized the unification effort, with Jacques Chirac teaming up with Boris Yeltsin, hoping to create a multi-polar alliance as a counter-balance to the American superpower.

It even frightened the Democrat establishment, enabling Bill Clinton to defeat George Bush to win the White House in 1992.   Do you recall 1992?   That was when the biggest problem facing America was what to do with all the money freed up by the end of the Cold War — the so-called ‘peace dividend.’

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” (1st Thessalonians 5:3)

As long as America is the world’s sole remaining superpower, Bible prophecy remains stalled.  Now comes the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Axis whose collective policies seem aimed directly at the heart of America. 

Their policies of wealth redistribution through climate change legislation, the incredibly naive nuclear arms reduction policies, their indecision over Afghanistan and their weakness in the face of Iranian belligerence are all taking their toll on America’s superpower status.

The weaker that America appears in the face of the Islamic threat, the stronger it makes the European Union and the more credibility it gives Russia in the Islamic world.

American politics plays a pivotal role insofar as Bible prophecy is concerned for two reasons.  The first is because America plays no major role in global politics in the last days.  So as long as America was Ronald Reagan’s shining city on a hill,  Bible prophecy cannot move forward.

The Soviet Union has collapsed. Post-Soviet Russia has assumed the role of patron and protector of radical Islam.   The European Union has expanded to include 27 associate and observer members and is well on the way to global superpower status.

The United States is in disarray, on the verge of economic collapse, totally polarized and on the verge of civil war.    The politics of the next few years will determine whether or not America will assume its prophetic role as a subordinate player, allowing the Bible’s scenario to move forward.

In previous generations, politics didn’t play so large a role because so few of the political players were in place.  Today, they are all assuming their proper alliances and arranging themselves according to the political worldviews forecast for each.

Russia is aligning with the Muslim states because that is with whom Ezekiel predicted they would form an alliance.  That’s politics.   Europe is continuing its ascent, in large part because the United States has been distracted by the wars and the economic impact that comes with them.

And America’s political establishment appears to be deliberately steering Good Ship America onto the rocks — clearing away the last obstacle to the Bible’s Tribulation scenario moving forward.   

The Roman Empire’s final collapse took decades — first the collapse of the political establishment, causing it to divide into the Western and Eastern Empire. 

The Vandals and Goths had been pecking at the edges of the Roman Empire for decades when Rome decided instead to invite the barbarians into a power-sharing agreement.   

Emperor Romulus Augustus was promptly replaced by a barbarian emperor, Odoacer, whose anti-Roman policies finally resulted in the Empire’s total collapse in 476. But what ultimately brought it down wasn’t overspending,  overexpansion or even civil unrest. 

What finally pushed over the Roman Empire was immigration reform.

Waterboarding America

Waterboarding America
Vol: 98 Issue: 13 Friday, November 13, 2009

In prepared remarks this morning from Japan, President Obama referred obliquely to the Fort Hood Massacre as a ‘tragedy’.  One can forgive the President.  English is not his mother tongue.  Maybe he doesn’t know what it means.

But the press corps does — or should — yet that is the universally-preferred adjective of the mainstream media,  suggesting that they have been instructed by the White House to repeat it at every opportunity. 

A ‘tragedy’ is primarily a style of drama in which a sympathetic main character  “is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.”

If the Fort Hood massacre is a tragedy, then the main character, in this case, Major Hasan is to be viewed as a sympathetic character, victimized by life. 

Using ‘tragedy’ in a sentence is helpful.  “The attack was a senseless tragedy.”  

If Major Hasan had a psychotic break and simply snapped, then it would be ‘senseless’ because it was without motive and ‘tragic’ because all concerned are victims, particularly Hasan.

Next sentence.  “Major Malik Hasan Nidal was the perpetrator of an unlawful tragedy.” Now, that is “senseless” in that it makes no sense.

Major Hasan did not perpetrate a deliberate, pre-meditated tragedy.  He perpetrated a deliberate pre-meditated murder.  The growing mountain of evidence says that Hasan had direct contact with al-Qeada via more than a dozen emails. 

His military record reveals he tried to get out of the Army on the grounds his first loyalty was to Islam, not America.  On the day of the shooting, he brought his own gun to the post, then prayed and and cried out “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire.

There are lots of adjectives that describe such an act; Islamic terrorism, murderous fanaticism,  Islamo-fascism, an act of war or premeditated murder.   “Tragic” would only describe the act if Hasan didn’t mean it. 

If there is anything tragic about the Fort Hood Massacres, it is both the government’s incompetence and the Left’s politically-correct doctrine.    The most popular headline theme for more than a week running reads along the lines of “What Made Major Hasan Snap?”

Had Hasan been a fan of Glenn Beck, carrying the Bible or if he had attended an anti-abortion rally or tea party protest, there would be no media mystery.  He would immediately labeled a ‘right-wing Christian extremist’.   

It would seen that the real tragedy here is to be found in the fact the government knew that Hasan was a radical Muslim with jihadist leanings but was reluctant to move for fear of being labeled anti-Islamic.   

That Hasan’s army colleagues suspected he was capable of such an act but said nothing for fear of being politically incorrect.

It was tragic that a group of Army doctors sat through a one-hour PowerPoint presentation given by Hasan extolling the virtues of Islam while vowing to decapitate infidels and “pour boiling oil down their throats” and nobody officially questioned his patriotism for fear of violating the rules of political correcness.


Last spring,  the president gave an address to the Islamic world from Cairo that was billed as an effort to ‘set the record straight’ about America’s relationship with Islam.  

He informed the Islamic audience that America is “not a Christian country,” but in some inexplicable way, is instead “one of the world’s largest Muslim nations.”

In the text of his speech, Obama praised the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli as a positive contribution by Islam to American history because the treaty made Tripoli “one of the first to recognize the new American Republic.”   

The Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated between the Islamic warlords in Tripoli and the John Adams administration.   It was made necessary due to the prevalence of Islamic piracy along the Barbary Coast.   

To avoid having to take the nation to war, President Adams agreed to pay millions of dollars to the Muslim pirates in exchange for an agreement not to interfere with United States shipping and stop the practice of selling captured American Christians into slavery.

In essence, the Tripoli Treaty was an Islamic imposition of dhimmi status under terms then accepted by the United States Congress. That President Obama considers it to be a positive contribution to America’s history was not lost on his intended audience.

To cap the history lesson, the pirates took the tribute payment, but continued to attack US shipping until President Thomas Jefferson sent in the Marines under the command of 1st Lt. Presley O’Banion. 

(From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli — that line commemorates the Marine victory at the Battle of Tripoli)

O’Banion and a force of just eight US Marines and about 500 mercenaries captured Tripoli in 1805, ending the First Barbary War. 

The Treaty of Tripoli was exactly the OPPOSITE of an Islamic contribution to US sovereignty. It was an agreement by the United States government and Congress to pay tribute to the Islamic warlords of the Barbary Coast.

Referring to the Tripoli Treaty as a positive contribution by Islam to American history is like referring to pre-Civil War slavery as a positive contribution to the America civil rights movement.  

It is only positive in the sense that in order to have a civil rights movement, you first have to have the underlying civil rights violations.

Back in June, 2004, we published a commentary under the title, “Surviving Future Shock.”  It seemed so relevant to what I’ve been feeling as I watch things unfold that I resurrected it as today’s “Deja Vu” feature on the main page.

The term “future shock” was coined by secular futurist writer Alvin Toffler in 1970 and defined as “the shattering stress and disorientation that we induce in individuals by subjecting them to too much change in too short a time.”

Of particular interest to this discussion is his explanation to the effect;   “Man has a limited biological capacity for change. When this capacity is overwhelmed, the capacity is in future shock.”

My capacity for change was already overloaded when Barack Obama promised “change we can believe in” without telling us what change he had in mind while America replied, “Yes, we can” without a clue of what that meant.

The sense that America’s government is totally out of synch with reality has been like a constant drip, drip, drip — it is like we’re being waterboarded until we lose the capacity to resist.  Everything is backwards — terrorism is defended, patriotism attacked,  traditional American values are ridiculed, and the Constitution is irrelevant.

In a pep talk to Congress Saturday to shore up Congressional nerve to defy both their electorate and their oath to the Constitution,  Obama likened voting against their constituents and with the White House to the hardships of military life that led to the “Fort Hood tragedy” (there is that word again).

Obama compared the hardships endured by soldiers to “casting a vote that might lose an election for you.”     According to reports by New Jersey Democrat Robert Andrews,  Obama mocked the Tea Party Tax protestors, quipping to the assembled Democrats:

“Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down healthcare? All it will do is confuse and dispirit. … and it will encourage the extremists.”

This is the President of the United States speaking of American citizens exercising their rights to peaceful protest.  The term “teabag” was immediately picked up by the left as a pejorative for the Tea Party movement.

“Teabagger” is a term used to describe an extremely offensive sexual sex act that occurs between two men.   Most Christian conservatives don’t know what it means, but you can bet that those who are throwing around the term certainly do.

Also note that from Obama’s perspective, opposing his policies is the same as being “anti-government” — a far cry from the Left’s former position during the Bush administration was that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” 

Finally, see how the dots connect:  “teabaggers” “anti-government” “extremist”.   

But according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, it’s all about partisan Republican extremism, accusing them of linking Major Hasan’s terrorism to the heath care debate. 

Adolf W Bush“Imagine five years ago somebody comparing healthcare reform to 9/11,” Gibbs asked rhetorically of reporters last week.  Imagine just a few years ago, had somebody walked around with images of Hitler.”George W Hitler

Really?   One can’t imagine.  (Good thing we have pictures, then.   Otherwise, nobody would be able to know what American extremism looked like, would we?)

 Al Gore routinely referred to President Bush’s internet supporters as ‘digital brownshirts.’  Obama likens them to angry mobs bent on destroying America.  Anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist.  

Democrat big-wig and former NAACP chairman Julian Bond described conservative Republicans this way:  “Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side.”  

And if you think Major Malik Nidal Hasan is an Islamic terrorist just because he is an Arab-American of Palestinian descent and devout Muslim who shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ before opening fire, then you are an Islamophobic bigot.

Change has certainly come to America.  And with change comes a new enemy of the American people to replace the existing extremist Islamofacist one.   If you are starting to worry that maybe the new enemy is you, you’re not alone. 

That’s what the Left thinks, too. 

It Ain’t Easy, Being Clean

It Ain’t Easy, Being Clean
Vol: 98 Issue: 12 Thursday, November 12, 2009

Among this morning’s emails was one from an OL member asking me to comment on Matthew 12:43-45.  It wasn’t any more specific than that,  but the first words that came to mind as I was re-reading the verses became the title of today’s brief. 

Because it ain’t easy, being clean.

“When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.  Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.”

I was amazed at how little commentary has been offered on these verses — not many of those in my library had anything to say — those few that did mostly focused on the meaning of the phrase “walking through the dry places”  or applied it to the unsaved Jews of that time. 

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible had such difficulty sorting out these verses that it complained, “The general sentiment which our Saviour here teaches is much more easily understood than the illustration which He uses.” 

Barnes’ ultimately decides that the Lord is teaching that it was about the Jews’ request for a sign from heaven that would prove Jesus was the Messiah, therefore:

 “though He should give them such a sign–a proof conclusive and satisfactory; and though for a time they should profess to believe, and apparently reform–yet such was the obstinacy of their unbelief and wickedness, that they would soon return to them, and become worse and worse.”

It’s a reasonable interpretation, in the context of Matthew 12:38: “Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from Thee.”  

But if that is what the Lord intended, then I’d have to agree with Barnes — He picked a pretty obscure illustration.

There is a principle in philosophy known as “Occam’s Razor” for its originator, Sir William of Occam, expressed as “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” or, entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” 

Summarized, “Occam’s Razor” concludes that that the simplest and most obvious explanation tends to be the best one.   Had Barne’s applied Occam’s Razor to Matthew 12:43-45 he would have been less piqued at the Savior for His ‘obtuse’ reference.

Sometimes we miss what the Lord is saying because we’re too busy trying to figure out what He is trying to tell us.  

It’s a sad commentary on the effect political correctness has had on the English language that it is necessary to clarify what I mean by ‘equal’ before going on.   “Equal” means “the same” as in “two plus two equals (is the same as) four.” 

In my intended meaning in this context, equal means ‘the same’ in the sense that things that are different are not the same.

That said, we all come to the Lord equally soiled and we are all washed equally clean by the Blood of Redemption.  That is the one and only time in our existence in which all men and women are truly equal.  

We were equally lost and we were equally saved.  We all tremble equally under the shadow of the Cross.

But as individual saved Christians, we become as unique from one another as our fingerprints.  Before we were saved,  we were equal in that we had no relationship with God. 

As Christians, we aren’t part of a religion, but instead, we enter into a unique personal relationship with Christ.

Think about what that means.  You have a personal relationship with lots of different people — and no two relationships are the same — every one is different.  Even among members of the same family, there are relationships that can bear a strain, and those that are as fragile as glass.

My relationship with my grandfather was warm, but formal and proper.   My brother, on the other hand,  could joke and kid around with him in ways that, had it been me, would have made both of us uncomfortable.  Same grandfather, two different relationships.

At the point of salvation, the Bible says that we don’t simply change our relationship with God, but rather, that we are  actually transformed  into  new creatures. 

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”  2nd Corinthians 5:17

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.”  Galatians 6:15 

So, once we were all equally lost.   We came to Christ equally desperate for salvation.  We came away equally clean, in that all our sins were washed away.   Then we became brand-new creatures, no longer the same, in that each of us entered into a unique personal relationship with Christ.

Because we are unique individuals within an unique individual relationship, some Christians mature much faster than others.  Some Christians can’t get enough of the Word of God — others think an hour a week at church is plenty.   Others don’t go to church at all.    

One can substitute one’s own judgement as to whether or not somebody is saved based on that kind of criteria — and lots of Christians do. 

Personally however, I think that substituting my judgment for God’s is not only foolish, it is dangerous.  I know that my own relationship with Jesus is different than it is with others because I’ve heard other Christians pray.  They don’t all pray the way that I do.  

I’ve seen the way other Christians live.   They don’t all live the way that I do.    I’ve seen the way other Christians worship.  They don’t all worship the way that I do.   

On the other hand, I’ve also spent a lifetime in this world surrounded by lost and dying sinners.  The only thing different between them and me is that I know I’m forgiven. 

I notice that we still all sin the same way.  

I don’t have much trouble grasping what the Lord was telling His disciples.  It wasn’t delivered in a vacuum.  The Lord was speaking to flesh-and-blood men about flesh-and blood-issues.   I am flesh-and-blood.  What are my issues?  

The Lord is real and I am real.  Our relationship is real.   It’s me that He is talking to.  I find that is the best place to begin when trying to understand Scripture. Not where it applies to others. Where it applies to me.

When I first got saved, I was instantly delivered — I suspect my story is not that unique.  I was instantly delivered from my most besetting sins — for a time. 

When I first got saved I was a young policeman in Texas.  I was on fire for the Lord.  I quit smoking. I quit drinking.  I quit swearing.  I was ready to stand before the Bema Seat and hear the words,  “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”  

One day a cigarette rolled out from under the car seat of my police patrol car as I braked at a stop light.  That was when I discovered how good I was and what a faithful servant I was.

Before my shift was out,  I had lighted that cigarette.  Before the night was out, I was in a drunken contest with my friends down at the local cop bar to see who could tell the dirtiest joke.  

I don’t know how it happened — it just did. One day I was Joe Christian and the next I was Joe Carnal.     

The honeymoon was over.  Those demons to whom I had ceded sovereignty over my lusts and addictions had been evicted — until I invited them back in.    

I hadn’t had a cigarette in months — it would be many years before I could make that statement again.  I suddenly found it almost impossible to form a sentence without swearing.

It went from bad to worse to worst.  I would attempt to force myself into a mini-revival — it was almost like a drug addict trying in vain to recapture that first ‘high’ — but that which had been handed to me as a gift became a daily struggle. 

But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”  2nd Peter 2:22

Of course, that was thirty years ago.  I’ve spent the last twenty years deeply immersed in Bible study, and have been in full-time Christian service almost that long.  The Lord has blessed me well beyond what I deserve — He has allowed me to study with some of the greatest Bible teachers of this generation.

And since I have been blessed so richly and so undeservedly, out of sheer gratitude,  I have conquered all my demons and no longer struggle with sin.  

(And YOU can, too!  Just send a stamped, self-addressed envelope and five dollars to . . . .)

Wouldn’t it be nice?   Would that it were true!  But it ain’t.  I still suspect my struggle is more difficult than it is for most Christians.  (I bet some of you think yours is tougher than mine.)

I know that  I can think of a dozen Christians off the top of my head that I think are more spiritually-minded and have better self-control than I do.  

But here’s the thing.  I’d also bet they each have lists of their own — and I’ll even bet that some of those lists include me among their ideal Christian examples.  Their lists are wrong.    So is my list.    

You can’t judge a book by its cover, as the old saying goes. But that doesn’t stop us from trying.

Everybody has their own struggles and no two struggles are the same.   What is simple for one person is a struggle for another.   I know a fat guy who has no struggle not being gay.  I know a congenitally skinny guy who has no struggle with the sin of gluttony, but he drinks like a fish. 

The Apostle Paul also had his struggles with sin. “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”  (1st Timothy 1:16) 

Paul even took his struggles directly to the Lord Jesus Christ, as I am sure that you have, and I have.  Paul was blessed above what he deserved with spiritual insights and revelations from God.  

“And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.  For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.”

Pay close attention to Paul’s reasoning.   He believed that the thorn in his flesh, (which he described as the messenger of Satan), was there to keep him humble.   Paul evidently felt he was humble enough — so much so that he took it to Christ on three separate occasions.

Note the Lord’s reply to Paul’s prayer.  “And He said unto me, My grace is sufficent for thee, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.”

Returning to our original topic, the intended lesson of these three verses is to remain vigilant and guard the entrance to the heart.   The man whose heart has been cleansed is not invulnerable.  

And there is a penalty for returning, like the dog, to his own vomit.  The Lord says that the state of that man is worst than the first.  That doesn’t mean that person is lost — he is still the same new creature he was on the day he was saved and transformed.

But it was a lot easier when first he was delivered from that unclean spirit.  Anybody who was delivered from smoking but then relapsed and tried to quit again knows exactly how much harder it is the next time. 

But it doesn’t mean that you’re on your own.  The Lord isn’t finished with you yet — but it can sometimes feel like it.  We’re up against a lot more than just our own lusts and desires.  Sometimes, just being delivered is too easy.

It ain’t easy being clean.  But it isn’t supposed to be.  If it wasn’t a struggle, then the victory wouldn’t be so sweet.  

E.T. Phone Rome?

E.T. Phone Rome?
Vol: 98 Issue: 11 Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The Vatican is hosting experts in the fields of physics, biology and astronomy to discuss the newly-developing study of astrobiology. 

(Think of it as an advanced form of evolutionary theory in which scientists hypothesize about the origin of extra-terrestrial life).

In case you were concerned that maybe somebody discovered extra-terrestrial life whose origins could be studied and maybe you missed it,  don’t worry.   You didn’t. 

This is the study of evolution.  The fact something hasn’t been proved to exist presents no barrier to inventing an explanation for it. 

Many of the exhibits in natural history museums are of creatures that evolutionary scientists claim existed before the development of man.    They are recreated in minute detail — only nobody ever saw one.   

We have no idea what they looked like, let alone how they got there or where they went.  

The solidest science we have concernng evolution boils down to an educated guess that would blow up completely in the face of actual evidence to the contrary.   But human arrogance being what it is,  the less we know, the more we replace the question marks with educated guesses that eventually become accepted as fact.

Questions like “Who are we?” and “Where did we come from?” and “Are we alone in the universe?” have been asked and answered throughout history. 

The questions remain the same, but the answers are only as reliable as the next credible guess or the first piece of irrefutable contradictory evidence.

The problem with answering the question through science is that science has to begin after the beginning and pretend that they didn’t.  Take the Big Bang Theory.   It begins with the Big Bang explosion that was responsible for the creation of the Universe. 

But it can’t explain into what the Universe exploded.  What was there before the Universe exploded into existence?  What contains the Universe now?   Who set off the explosion?  How did solid matter come into existence out of nothing?   Science can only explain it from the “KABOOM” forward.  

Why?  Because it is beyond man’s capacity to imagine that which does not exist.   One cannot imagine a new prime color for the rainbow because none exist.  Man cannot imagine what came before the Big Bang because man cannot imagine non-existence. 

Non-existence is the absence of the physical.  Nobody alive has ever existed outside the physical world (with one notable Exception).  There is only one scientific explanation for non-existence.  It’s called non-existence — because that’s about as far as our understanding can go with it. 

If it exists, we can describe it, think about it, visualize it, try to explain it, by using terms relative to our own existential experience.  We can imagine pink elephants because elephants exist and pink exists.  

We can imagine ET by injecting ET into our our existence.  The hunt for ET is a hunt for life as we understand it. Most scientists are looking for things like water and single-celled life forms.  

But the Vatican conference is taking it to the next level. Thirty scientists, including non-Catholics, from the U.S., France, Britain, Switzerland, Italy and Chile attended the conference, called to explore among other issues “whether sentient life forms exist on other worlds.”   According to an AP report:

In an interview last year, Rev. Funes told the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano that believing the universe may host aliens, even intelligent ones, does not contradict a faith in God.

“How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?” Funes said in that interview. “Just as there is a multitude of creatures on Earth, there could be other beings, even intelligent ones, created by God. This does not contradict our faith, because we cannot put limits on God’s creative freedom.”

The questions of life’s origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration,” said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.

Funes, a Jesuit priest, presented the results Tuesday of a five-day conference that gathered astronomers, physicists, biologists and other experts to discuss the budding field of astrobiology — the study of the origin of life and its existence elsewhere in the cosmos.

Funes said the possibility of alien life raises “many philosophical and theological implications” but added that the gathering was mainly focused on the scientific perspective and how different disciplines can be used to explore the issue.

Chris Impey, an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona, said it was appropriate that the Vatican would host such a meeting.

“Both science and religion posit life as a special outcome of a vast and mostly inhospitable universe,” he told a news conference Tuesday. “There is a rich middle ground for dialogue between the practitioners of astrobiology and those who seek to understand the meaning of our existence in a biological universe.”

The idea that we’re not alone in the universe is not without considerable support.  One cannot ignore the tens of thousands of eyewitness accounts of UFO’s, including thousands of hours of video footage of what appear to be aircraft unlike anything that exists on earth.

But all that these reams of evidence actually prove is that the objects are unidentified. In a weird sort of way, the harder they are to identify, the more convincing the premise that they are extra-terrestrial.  

It is a form of “knowledge” in which the less we actually know about the phenomenon, the more we think we do.

The Big Bang is all about what we don’t know triggering what we claim to understand perfectly.   The Vatican’s conference is all about developing a doctrinal and scientific understanding of what we can’t even identify.  

The only credible source for answers to questions like Who are we?” and “Where did we come from?” and “Are we alone in the universe?” would be one working from the perspective of personal knowledge, not from the absence of any knowledge whatsoever.

So it seems more than a little odd that the Vatican would turn from the Bible, which answers all three of these questions, to the scientists whose efforts to answer any them simply raises additional unanswerable questions.

One of the earliest descriptions ever recorded of a UFO reads this way:

I saw a great storm coming from the north, driving before it a huge cloud that flashed with lightning and shone with brilliant light. There was fire inside the cloud, and in the middle of the fire glowed something like gleaming amber. . .   As I looked at these beings, I saw four wheels touching the ground beside them, one wheel belonging to each.  The wheels sparkled as if made of beryl. All four wheels looked alike and were made the same; each wheel had a second wheel turning crosswise within it. The beings could move in any of the four directions they faced, without turning as they moved. The rims of the four wheels were tall and frightening, and they were covered with eyes all around. – Ezekiel 1:4-7, 15-18 (NLT)

What Ezekiel was describing were four angels — the cherubim that stand guard around God’s Throne.  The wheels within wheels, the ability to defy the rules of gravity, the impossible speeds,  the rims of the wheels encircled with eyes . .  does it sound familiar? 

The fact the Vatican would turn from the Bible to science for answers to existential questions is simultaneously stunning, yet somehow unsurprising.  The Vatican has been the number one choice of Bible scholars throughout history as the probable host of the religion of the False Prophet during the Tribulation.

According to Revelation 13, the False Prophet is pictured has having two horns like a lamb, but who speaks as a dragon, clearly symbolizing a kind of counterfeit Christianity espousing a Satanic form of doctrine. 

A doctrine that finds no conflict between theology and the belief in the evolution of extra-terrestrial life is not Biblical.  The entire theme of Scripture posits man as a unique creation of God.   The earth is presented as the dwelling place of Satan and his angels. 

In this setting, Satan’s rebellion, ie, “I will be like the Most High” is permitted to play out to its logical conclusion. Satan wanted to rule and be worshipped — God permits it within the closed environment of earth to prevent sin from escaping into and corrupting the universe.

The ultimate purpose is to demonstrate that God’s judgement against sin as the ultimate corruptor of all creation was justified.  The secondary purpose was to allow mankind to choose whether to embrace or reject fellowship with God.

The introduction of an extra cast of extra-terrestrial characters into the Biblical narrative undoes it completely.   Will these aliens be perfect, even as God is perfect?  Or will they be as flawed and sinful as we?    Will they have their own version of a Redeemer?  Or are they unredeemable? 

Does God love them as He does man?  Why didn’t He mention them?   (Or maybe He does).

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.  – Genesis 6:4

For me, the significance of this story isn’t whether or not there are UFO’s.  If something is flying that can’t be identified, then that is a UFO.  There are lots of things flying that defy identification.  Saying “there are UFOs” is hardly the same as believing in intelligent alien life — UFO’s are unidentified until they are identified. 

Daniel says the political antichrist will be a prince of the revived Roman Empire of the last days.  The treaty that eventually resulted in the restoration of the old Roman Empire was the 1948 Benelux Treaty.

The Apostle John says that the antichrist will have complete control of a global economy so centralized that he will be able to restrict the ability to buy or sell down to the individual level. 

The computer age began with the invention of the transistor in 1948.  The global economy was born out of the 1948 General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trades that is today the World Trade Organization.

The Apostle John says that the False Prophet will head up a global religious system that will have the trappings of Christianity but the doctrine of Satan.  The World Council of Churches was created in Amsterdam in 1948.  

Central to all Bible prophecy is the existence of Israel, whose miraculous restoration in 1948 continues to reverberate throughout the community of nations fully sixty years later.  

The modern UFO era began with the Air Force’s ‘Operation Blue Book’ in 1948 following an unexplained series of sightings by credible pilots over the Arizona mountains and the alleged crash of a UFO in Roswell in 1947. 

Now we find the Vatican arguing that perhaps the existence of extra-terrestrial beings from outer space might inhabit these strange sightings from the heavens — without creating any conflict with Bible theology.

And they are right, in a curious sort of way.

According to Bible prophecy,  among the events that will signal the soon return of Christ are “strange sights in the heavens”.   They are forecast to come in conjunction with the fear of falling asteroids,  weird solar activity, the fear of global warming,  the rise of global government,  the rise of apostatic Christianity and the coming of a strong delusion.

And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

Maybe by watching for the False Prophet to arise from Rome, we’re looking in the wrong direction. 

Maybe he lands there. 

”There is No Dog”

”There is No Dog”
Vol: 98 Issue: 10 Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Oftentimes the first objection raised by the skeptic when introduced to the God of the Bible is the argument that God is not fair.   It is an argument for which I can offer no rebuttal.  God isn’t fair, which is a good thing for the rest of humanity.

But that isn’t something that the carnal mind can understand because it is spiritually discerned.   So to them,  God isn’t fair because a loving God wouldn’t send people to hell.  

A petulant, angry and unfair God could not simultaneously be the loving God of Christianity – – therefore God cannot exist.

If God really loved the world so much that He would send His Son to die for it,  why did He create sin in the first place?  God is the Creator of all, isn’t He?  So He created hell, right?  So that means He created sin, doesn’t it?   

To the carnal mind, these questions make perfect sense, since they confirm the skeptic’s own mental caricature of God.

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:7)

The challenge facing the skeptic is that his judgment of God is rendered according to the skeptic’s own limited understanding.  Sort of like a flea issuing the solemn evaluation that, because he can’t see him, “there is no Dog.”

Clearly, the flea is something of a fool, since the evidence that Dog exists is everywhere around him.  The thick fur that shelters him comes from Dog. The food that he eats comes from Dog.  Without Dog, he would surely die.

Dog is everywhere in his universe, but our flea can only see his tiny piece of it.   And from his limited perspective,  there is no Dog.   But whether or not Dog exists is not dependent on the flea’s opinion — other than to the flea.   

The skeptic’s judgments about God are rooting in a litany of similarly false assumptions. The first false assumption about God is that, because God loves us so much, He ought to let us do what we want.  That is nothing less than deliberate, willful ignorance.

The same kind of permissive kind of love that they insist would characterize a “loving God” — when applied to children, doesn’t produce loving children. It produces spoiled brats.

God’s moral laws have a purpose and are as necessary to the development of human civilization as the laws of physics are to the development of scientific understanding.  But the main purpose of God’s moral laws are to teach us what God requires for us to enter into His kingdom.

It is our obvious failure to keep these moral laws that leads humans to seek redemption and salvation in the first place. We can’t help it. Even an atheist, if he is honest, will admit that at some time in his life, he did or said something he was sorry for. Humans are built that way.

The second false assumption is that we are qualified to judge what constitutes “fair.”

That gives rise to the question; “So why doesn’t God make everyone into perfect beings and allow them all into heaven?”   But that would be totally unfair to all concerned.  It would actually be cruel if God were to do this, since that would force them to accept what their free will choices rejected.

The people who end up going to hell will have done so because they believe they would prefer hell to being forced into the presence of God for all eternity. It is their choice to make, and many make it with eyes wide open.

People like to live in their favorite sins and be accountable to no one for their choices.

They fear that if they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior that God will want them to change their lives and they might have to give up some of their autonomy.

We’ve all witnessed to somebody at some time who said something like, “I’ve a window seat reserved in hell” or, “I don’t mind going to hell. All my friends will be there.”

God isn’t SENDING them to hell.  He is instead honoring their own deliberate choice.  While God  provided a way for man to avoid hell, but He also gave man free will to choose.

Being compelled to worship God isn’t ‘worship’ — it is slavery.

Since God created spiritual beings for the purpose of expressing love, those beings must have complete free will in order to express that love.  But free will allows for the possibility of rejecting God’s mercy and instead demanding (and receiving) judgment by a God of “fairness.”

They protest, “It isn’t fair that only some people will get to go to heaven, while the rest will go to hell.”

In a limited sense, they are right. If God were fair, EVERYBODY would go to hell. Nobody can live a sinless life, even after they are saved and their sins are washed away. The struggle with sin continues until one draws his last breath. 

Therefore, God has made a provision to erase all sins that we have committed in this life and to perfect us by experience so that we will not be tempted to sin in the next life. That vicarious payment for sin is through the sacrifice of God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

Jesus lived the sinless life that God expects of me, then paid the penalty that my sins required on my behalf. That is mercy, not fairness.  Fairness demands equal punishment for believer and unbeliever alike. 

Upon accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, all our sins are erased, and Jesus begins the work of changing us to conform to His image.

Obviously, ‘fairness’ demands that everyone who has sinned and come short of the glory of God be judged according to their works. Instead of fairness, God extends mercy — but only to those who ask for it.  That is where God is ‘fair’.

It is the atheist and the skeptic who will experience their own definition of’fairness’ when they stand before Him.

The skeptic and the atheist scoff at the nature of salvation, saying anything that is ‘free’ is worth what you pay for it. While salvation is a gift of grace and not of works, one can’t exactly say that salvation is free.

There is a cost. 

It will cost you your sin. It will cost you your pride. It will cost you your sense of self, or your selfishness. None of these character traits exist in heaven.

But the skeptic or atheist who prefers to hang onto these traits can choose to go to where these traits will continue to  exist. Every human was created in God’s Image, with an eternal, spiritual component.

We will all spend eternity somewhere. If not heaven, there is only one choice remaining. That is hell.

Does a loving God send people to hell? No. 

What a loving God does is allow us all to make our own choice and then honor the choice we make. People CHOOSE hell.  The atheist or skeptic can choose to stand before a fair God, or a merciful One.

In either case, they can’t blame God then for the consequences of choices that they make now.  That wouldn’t be fair. 

The Third Element

The Third Element
Vol: 98 Issue: 9 Monday, November 9, 2009

The Fort Hood Massacre has re-ignited the debate about the inherent dangers of religious fundamentalism  — not just Islamic fundamentalism, but religious fundamentalism in general.  

First, what is it that we’re actually talking about when we are speaking of the fundamentals of a religion?   According to dictionary.com the word “fundamental” can be understood in seven different ways, depending on context.

As an adjective, it means; serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; affecting the foundation or basis, or being an original or primary source. 

As a noun, “fundamental’ means a basic principle, rule, law or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part.  It can also mean the root of a musical chord or, in physics, the component of lowest frequency in a composite wave. 

But no matter how you use it, it refers to the basic premise upon which all subsequent related premises are constructed.  The synonyms for ‘fundamental’ listed by the dictionary are ‘indispensable’ and ‘primary’.  

By way of analogy, think of the construction of a house.  The foundation is laid first; the rest of the house is built upon that foundation. A house cannot be built without a foundation.  Remove the foundation from the house, (as in the case of a sinkhole or mudslide, for example) and the house crumbles.

That is the same analogy Jesus used to explain the fundamental truths upon which Christianity was later constructed: “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:” (Matthew  7:24)

Joe Lieberman, (I-Ct) went on the Sunday TV talk shows, defying the White House Commissar of Political Correctness by labeling the Fort Hood Massacre an act of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.

Lieberman, the first high-ranking US lawmaker to speak out on the tragedy, told the press: “We don’t know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan has become an Islamist extremist and therefore this was a terrorist act.”

Indirectly criticizing official silence, the senator said that if the news reports were true, “the murder of these 13 people was… the most destructive terrorist act committed on American soil since 9/11.” 

According to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, religious fundamentalism is number one cause of violence against women. 

In 1999, the United Nations created the post of Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, which concluded that “no religion is free from fundamental extremism.”  He specifically cited school systems in some countries that routinely present that country’s own religion as being the only correct one. 

(Like we used to — before ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘extremist’ became interchangeable terms for Biblical Christianity)

According to the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, such a practice constitutes “a virtual hymn to intolerance.”  

The world recognizes no difference between ‘fundamentalism” and “extremism” when it comes to religion.  A few examples of Christian ‘extremists’ quoted at atheism.com as examples are described thusly:

A resource of quotations not only about Christian Extremism, but also a number of quotations from Christian Extremists themselves. Here you can read them explaining the nature of their religious intolerance, the reasons for their hatred, and why they believe that Christianity requires intolerance of and hatred for other people and other beliefs.

The “extremists” cited as examples of Christian ‘hatred’ included: The Family Research Council, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Tom Delay, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, D James Kennedy . . . and James Watt, US Secretary to the Interior under Ronald Reagan.

The quote that earned Secretary Watt a place among Christian “extremists” who promote ‘intolerance and hatred for other people and other beliefs’ was this one:

“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.”


I typed “characteristics of religious fundamentalism” into Google and here’s what I got.  Notice that the words ‘unhealthy’ or ‘dangerous’ are the most commonly seen adjectives.  

But as we’ve already seen, eliminating the fundamentals of a religion means the same thing as eliminating the foundation upon which that religion is constructed. 

In the case of Islam, the fundamentals are contained in the Koran and the hadiths.   In the case of Christianity, the fundamentals are contained in both Testaments. Judaic fundamentals are contained in the Torah and the rabbinical commentaries.

Eliminate the fundamentals and what remains is a religion without a foundation.  Not to worry.  The UN has a plan to insert a new one. 

In April, the UN Council approved a watered-down version of the OIC’s “Defamation of Religion” resolution, eliminating the ‘defamation of religion’ language and replacing it with a reaffirmation of UN guarantees of ‘freedom of expression’.

Reaffirms … the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference, as well as the right to freedom of expression, including … the intrinsically linked rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion….Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.

The document was carefully worded so as to be used to protect Islam from criticism. Under the resolution, Geert Wilders’ “Fitna,” a film depicting violence in many Muslim nations, would be treated as a crime. Even the use of terminology such as Islamo-fascism might be interpreted as incitement.

But whatever the Council’s true intention, the fact is that it could also be used against Islam — something the Organization of the Islamic Conference failed to consider.

There is a point beyond which no nation or worldview can be pushed before there is a backlash.

The UN’s own Declaration of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the re-defined “Freedom of Expression” resolution demands that all fundamentalists be treated equally. That demands that all fundamentalism be deemed equally dangerous and be equally criminalized.

According to Bible prophecy,  the government of the antichrist is dependent upon his total control of the three major areas of human civilization; control of a global economy,  a global government and control of a global religious system.

The global economy is in place and rapidly centralizing as the world divides itself up into four major spheres of world influence.  The US dollar is rapidly collapsing — the only practical solution is to replace it with a new currency backed by an international monetary union similar to that of the EU and the euro.  

(Or perhaps being forced by economic circumstances to become part of it.) 

The Southern Hemisphere is developing an alliance curiously known as the Non-Aligned Nations Movement that includes most of South America,  and both sub-Saharan and North African nations corresponding to the Kings of the South. 

The Kings of the East are falling into place under the leadership of Communist China and the Russian/Iranian Gog-Magog Alliance is already well developed.  The global economy is a fait accompli and the global government is coming together as a matter of recognized international necessity.

But the Third Element of Bible prophecy — a truly global religion — is still elusive. 

John writes in Revelation Chapter 13 about the False Prophet who will reign together with the antichrist in a kind of power-sharing system in which the antichrist controls the global political system while the False Prophet supervises the global religious system.

The war on terror seems to have two main purposes, from the perspective of Bible prophecy.  The first is to fulfill the promise of Zechariah 12:3 that predicts all those who burden themselves with Jersualem will be cut in pieces.

The British burdened themselves with Jerusalem during the 1917-1948 British Mandate Period.  In 1917, the sun still never set on the British Empire, which was still the most powerful Empire on earth.  By the time the last British soldiers left the Holy Land in May, 1948, the British Empire no longer existed.  

The last British colony to break away from London and declare itself an independent state was the British colony of Burma — the Empire that ruled the world for three hundred years was literally ‘cut in pieces’.

The United States burdened itself with Jerusalem in 1993 when it became a signatory to the Oslo Agreement.  As the US pressured Israel to surrender more and more of her territory in exchange for a peace that never came, US fortunes began to collapse.  

The War on Terror that for most Americans began on September 11, 20001 has drained the nation of much of its blood and most of its treasure.   The United States closed out the 20th century with a budget surplus.  

Israel closed out the 20th century by offering to share Jerusalem with Yasser Arafat and agreeing to surrender all the land it recovered since the War of Independence in exchange for peace.  

Eight years later,  Israel has known nothing but constant war and the United States finds itself on the verge of defeat in Afghanistan and the verge of national bankruptcy at home.

It is entirely possible that a US default on the $42-trillion national debt could well result in the US being ‘cut in pieces’–  to satisfy the claims of international creditors.

The second evident purpose for the War on Terror, viewed from the perspective of Bible prophecy, is to create an international desire for a kinder, gentler, more inclusive global religious system, creating a new foundation to replace the fundamentals of existing world religions.

It is the Third Element that is missing from the prophetic landscape and without that Third Element, Bible prophecy cannot move forward.   But there is no room for a competing fundamentalist religious system.  Not Christian. Not Jewish.  Not Islamic.  

The Bible suggests that it will contain elements of all three, but none of the fundamentals, since the object of worship with be the antichrist.

With Obama in the White House and Pelosi running Congress, America well ahead of the curve in the war against its own religious fundamentalist population.  Christianity is the main target, but the argument that all religious fundamentalism is the same is gaining credibility by the day.

The Fort Hood Massacre may not be the last straw, but the camel’s back is starting to buckle under the added weight.  Eventually,  something has to give.  

The Strange Case of Major Nidal Hassan

The Strange Case of Major Nidal Hassan
Vol: 98 Issue: 7 Saturday, November 7, 2009

I was just finishing putting the final touches on this morning’s Omega Leter when I accidentally backspaced the browser I was editing.  The entire thing vanished — not even the title survived. 

I had been editing live online to avoid transferring formatting from on offline word processor to the brief.

The problem is that today I forgot to save it along the way.  So when the browser went back one page, so did today’s briefing.  Poof!  It’s too bad.  It was great.  Putlizer Prize material.  Witty, clever, brilliant and. . .  gone.   

I was examining the strange case of Major Niidal Malik Hassan.  Major Hassan was an Arab-American of Palestinian descent whose devout Muslim beliefs had already come to the Army’s attention.  Hassan was an Army psychiatrist, assigned to counsel returning war veteran’s at Walter Reid Army Hospital
in DC.

Some of Hasan’s patients complained that he was engaged in proselytizing for Islam, a grave breach of both medical ethics and Army policy.  Had Hasan been proselytizing for Christianity, he would probably have been cashiered.  Even Army chaplains are forbidden to proselytize — especially Christians. 

In Hasan’s case, however, political correctness dictated that he be transferred — so he ended up at Fort Hood, Texas.  He lived in a run-down apartment building where he commonly dressed in traditional Muslim garb.  Many of his neighbors didn’t even know he was in the military, let alone being an Army major. 

Hasan complained of being harrassed for his Muslim faith; indeed, there is some evidence that he was.  A returning Afghan vet reportedly keyed his car and ripped of a bumpersticker praising Islam.    

Hasan had applied for exemption from deployment to either Iraq or Afghanistan, citing mixed loyalties.  Hasan argued that a Muslim who kills a Muslim on behalf of Christians is barred from Paradise, citing the Koran. 

All of this was known to the Army.  A lot of it is in Hasan’s service record. (And should have been in his Army CID file)

Jose Padilla, owner of Hasan’s apartment complex, said Hasan gave him notice two weeks ago that he was moving out this week.  Earlier this week, Hasan asked Padilla his native language. When Padilla said it was Spanish, Hasan immediately went up to his apartment to get him a Spanish-language Koran.  

On Thursday afternoon, Hasan opened fire on his colleagues who were assembled to prep for deployment to Afghanistan.  Four minutes later, thirteen people lay dead, thirty more wounded.  Several of the wounded, according to the Army, are still in danger of losing their lives. 

Hasan was taken down by an extraordinarily professional police officer who continued firing at Hasan even after being wounded three times.   As the gunsmoke cleared, officials were already wondering aloud what could possibly have motivated the attack? 

One thing the FBI was sure of, however.   Within an hour of the shooting, it issued a statement saying that the shooting had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism.

Maybe he was disgruntled.  Maybe he was suffering vicariously from post traumatic stress disorder.   Maybe he had a hangnail . . . 

Are they kidding?


America has been at war for almost eight years — almost three times as long as it took America to pound both the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese to the point of unconditional surrender.  

Almost seven years after defeating Saddam Hussein, Iraq remains at best a conditional victory, since the start of the troop draw-down, Islamic terrorist attacks have increased.  As US forces pull out, Islamic fighters move in.  

Despite the estimated Taliban troop strength in Afghanistan of only 15,000 fighters,  the commander of NATO troops on the ground told the White House that without an additional 40,000 Americans,  the war is in danger of being lost. 

How can this be?  The main reason is that it is politically incorrect to recognize the enemy for who the enemy is — because doing so would create a Constitutional crisis.  That is the reason that US officials are pretending to be baffled as to Major Hasan’s motive for attacking his military colleagues. 

The Constitution expressly forbids Congress from passing a law respecting religion and from prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  That constrains conservatives and Constitutionalists, but it doesn’t explain political correctness.  

It all depends on the definition of religion. As long as Islam is a religion, it is protected by the Constitution. It is, however, also a political philosophy which advocates the violent overthrow of the United States, which is NOT a Constitutionally protected-right. 

The Left, which ordinarily despises religion, regularly refers to Mohammed as either “the Prophet Mohammed” or simply “the Prophet”.  The same Left would never refer to Jesus as “the Son of God” — most won’t even acknowledge that the Temple Mount predates Islam or that Jerusalem is a Jewish city. 

The Left has no problem ignoring the Constitution when ignoring it favors their agenda.  The proposed health care bill shreds the Constitution, requiring individuals to purchase health care with their own money or face fines and imprisonment.  

It is simply a recognition of reality to acknowledge that the Left hates Christianity and everything it stands for. One of Barack Obama’s first public pronouncements to the Islamic world was to deny that America is a Christian country in his speech from Ankara.   The Left went wild.  

It is also a fact that Islam hates Western Christianity and everything that it stands for.  The Koran says so in no uncertain terms, requiring that Christians under Islamic rule be converted, put to death or relegated to dhimmi status. 

The Left would fare no better than the Right under Islamic rule, but ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ is the slogan of all left-leaning revolutionaries.  If Islam will help bring down Christian hegemony, then Islam must be protected at all costs.  

That’s why when an abortionist is murdered, the automatic and immediate assumption is that the assailant is a Christian pro-life activist.  But when a devout Muslim shouts “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire on a crowd of American soldiers, they are ‘mystified’ by what could have possibly motivated such an act.  

One thing for sure.  It couldn’t have been motivated by Islam.  That would be jumping to conclusions.  

Maybe he was a Christian pro-life activist?