Questions Nobody is Asking

Questions Nobody is Asking
Vol: 105 Issue: 30 Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The world’s reaction to the multiple threats portending the end of the world as we know it is nothing if not puzzling to me. 

After seventy days of dithering, the White House finally decided to allow foreign-flagged vessels to help with the oil spill cleanup. But not until after Hurricane Alex formed in the Gulf, suspending operations.

It is an inescapable conclusion, given the evidence, that White House deliberately sabotaged any meaningful cleanup effort to this point.  Why?  Instead of demanding answers, the media is avoiding the question altogether.  

They aren’t pretending Obama is doing a good job or anything so childishly transparent as that.  While even Obama’s most ardent worshippers have begun to question his competence, nobody is questioning his motives.  Why?

That is puzzling to me. 

The birth certificate controversy is another one of those things that just makes you want to pull your hair out in frustration.   To date, Obama has yet to clear up the mystery surrounding the circumstances of his birth.  

The solution is laughably simple and direct.  It is such an easy fix that Obama’s refusal to apply it should trump every other possible argument.  

How hard is it to produce a legal birth certificate?   But that isn’t the unasked question that puzzles me  – I already know that answer. 

The unasked question that puzzles me is why nobody in the mainstream is asking?   Many of Obama’s former worshippers have shifted sides.  And there is no doubt that Obama’s policies are unpopular enough in some circles as to warrant discussion of impeachment.

However, the Constitution imposes a pretty high standard for impeaching the President of the United States.   Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution is both detailed and specific:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the impeachment of the President for gross incompetence.    But Section 1 Article 2 is equally detailed and specific — and a lot less difficult:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The provision for being a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 was necessary because anyone thirty-five years old in 1787 could not BE a natural born citizen of the United States. 

The United States did not exist in 1752.  Obama was not alive in 1787.  So there is no loophole allowing for naturalized citizenship – only natural born.  

The question that puzzles me does so because it is such a simple one.   Why investigate him for impeachable offenses without first investigating his eligibility? 

It is a much simpler hurdle.   All it would take is a court order to Hawaii ordering the production of a government document for examination by a federal judge. Why won’t anybody, including the president’s most rabid opponents, even consider the question?

What is puzzling to me about the question is that obtaining the answer, one way or the other, is in the best interests of every single American, whether pro-Obama or totally opposed to him.  

Moreover, it is even more clearly in Obama’s best interests to put this controversy behind him by providing the documentation necessary.   He no longer needs a red herring like the birth certificate controversy to distract attention away from his real agenda.  

The multiple crises facing the nation are distraction enough.  If anything, producing a valid birth certificate would decimate his critics, reenergize his administration and take the wind out of the sails of the Tea Party movement.  

But nobody is asking why he doesn’t just produce it and be done with the controversy.   

Given that polls say two thirds of the country disapprove of the direction Obama is leading the country, why would anyone (the Right in particular) be afraid to ask the question? 

The only logical reason for not asking is out of fear of the answer.

Assessment:

One would think that as Christians see the developing signs that the Lord is preparing for His return that we would be exhorting one another to seek comfort in trusting in the promises of Christ to the Church when they see these things ‘begin to come to pass.’

So I am equally puzzled by the increasing volume of email from Christians exhorting me instead to warn the Church to make preparations to survive the judgments of the Tribulation Period.  

The logic of this line of thinking puzzles me.

IF the Church is under the same judgment as is the world during the Tribulation then is that not an exhortation to thwart the will of God?   If it is God’s will that the Church undergo judgment for sin during the Tribulation, then the logic of exhorting Christians to try and beat God at His own game eludes me.

Conversely, if it is NOT God’s will that the Church undergo the same judgment for sin,  then the logic behind denying a pretrib Rapture is equally elusive to me.  It seems to me an exhortation to do for myself what God did not.

The same logic applies to the volume of emails attacking the doctrine of eternal security.   I am saved by grace, but my salvation must be preserved through my subsequent works.  Again, it exhorts me to do for myself what God did not. 

Both arguments fly in the face of both the promises of God and the best interests of the Church.  It puzzles me.   If eternal security is a false doctrine, then salvation by grace through faith is impossible, since Christians still sin after salvation.

The Bible does not differentiate between levels of sin.  There is no Biblical support for one sin being worse than another. 

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 3:2)

If eternal security is a false doctrine, then it follows that if one sins after salvation with an angry thought, one is as guilty of sin before God as if one murders his brother.   I cannot find a Scriptural exemption for ascending or descending levels of sin having any bearing on salvation. Or any way to recover salvation once lost.

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”  (Hebrews 6:4-6)

What does “it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance” mean?  Impossible is one of those words that is hard to misinterpret.  Paul says that it is impossible because renewing them would put the Son of God to an open shame.  What could openly shame the Son of God? 

“Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1^st Corinthians 1:8)

His failure to confirm you ‘to the end’ and keep you blameless, perhaps?

There is nothing in Scripture that says that the Church won’t go through tribulation – it has gone through tribulation since the 1^st century.  Jesus promised that in this world we would have tribulation in the sense of hard times, but also exhorted us to “be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

So it puzzles me that as the skies darken and the evil days approach, I am exhorted to trust Jesus less and myself more while preparing myself to thwart God’s judgment against me during the Tribulation.

The days ahead are undoubtedly evil days for the United States.  And there is no reason to believe that nothing bad will happen until after the Rapture of the Church takes place.  

Bad things have happened throughout history.  The Lord sends the rain on the evil and the righteous alike.  The purpose of the Rapture is not a ‘Great Escape’ — it is to remove the restraining influence on evil during the Tribulation Period.

The Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians that the antichrist will not be revealed until after the Restrainer (Holy Spirit) has been ‘taken out of the way’ and the Bible promises that the Holy Spirit will indwell individual believers until the Lord returns. (2nd Thessalonians 2:7)

So the removal of the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be accomplished without the removal of the believers He indwells. 

Without the doctrines of eternal security and the pretrib Rapture, I would be in constant fear of losing my salvation and hopeless in the face the horrors of the Tribulation Period.  

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15)

There is no bondage more powerful than fear. And nothing as hopeless as having lost one’s salvation.  

“But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.

If this does not describe the resurrection of the dead in Christ then I am puzzled as to what it does describe.

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. 

The Apostle Paul underscores the Divine nature of the revelation by signing it “by the Word of the Lord.”  If this is a recent doctrine invented in 1820 by J.N. Darby, then I am puzzled about what doctrine is being revealed ‘by the Word of the Lord.’

“For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”

 If this does not describe the catching up of believers into the clouds by Jesus Christ, then I am puzzled as to what it does describe.  

Finally,  if this does not refer to the catching up occurring before the beginning of the judgments Jesus said were “great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matthew 24:41) then I am puzzled by the passage’s conclusion.

“Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1st Thessalonians 4:18)

If my salvation depends on my finishing the Work of the Cross on my own and my future includes enduring the most terrifying time of spiritual testing in the history of humanity while bereft of the indwelling Holy Spirit,  then ‘comfort’ is the furthest thing from my mind.

It isn’t fear that inspires comfort.  It’s faith.

Followup from yesterday’s OL 

I am humbled by the response to the probable evacuation of the Dead Zone with so many of our members stepping up to the plate and offering alternatives to a FEMA evacuation camp.  

The discussion is moved over behind our firewall into the Member’s Only Discussion Forum.  Winky Taylor has undertaken the project of maintaining an OL emergency list of contact information in the event something ‘happens’ to the internet.

I encourage you, if you’ve not done so already, to go to our member’s forums on this thread, click on Winky’s contact information (it is linked to her name beside “Posted By”) and email Winky with your contact information.   The list is updated and forwarded on to us. 

Don’t post your email address or other personal information directly — use email.  We’re behind a member’s firewall, but I think it prudent to take precautions nonetheless. 

And may our God bless and keep us all according to His will.  

Maranatha!

The Dead Zone

The Dead Zone
Vol: 105 Issue: 29 Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Omega Letter is a daily journal of current events as viewed from the perspective of Bible prophecy and written as they occur.   We went online on October 14, 2001 and so our archives are something of a daily record of the 21^st century.

(I’m not trying to blow our horn, here. There is a point I want to make, so bear with me.)   Over the years, we’ve published the OL day in and day out, from literally hundreds of locations both here and from abroad.

In all that time, the Omega Letter Daily Briefing has had but one writer and one researcher for every single one of the two thousand, eight hundred and fifty-nine briefs in our archive database.   (That would be moi — your humble correspondent.)

Since the OL is a daily project, it is a more or less constant process.  Every event, every conversation, every newly discovered fact from history, every social, political or environmental upheaval is a potential OL topic of interest — so the research never stops.

Researching the OL takes me a lot of places I don’t want to go and teaches me a lot of stuff I really don’t want to know.  

I say all that to make the following point: What I have learned over the past few weeks concerning the BP oil spill in the Gulf has shaken me more than any event we’ve discussed over the course of the entire 21^st century.  

The information being withheld, if true, is so catastrophic that it is literally a case of the country not being able to handle the truth.

That said, I’ve done my level best to confirm the following information but the political smokescreen surrounding it leaves me with less than 100% confidence – but only slightly less.  I could be taken in by a hoax and I pray that is the case, but I don’t think so.

BP estimates that the oil reservoir pouring into the Gulf could contain as much as two billion barrels of oil, currently spewing out at something on the order of 100,000 to 160,000 gallons per day.  At that rate, the spill, if left uncapped, could continue to foul the Gulf for four years before running dry.

And it appears that capping the well is not and never has been an option.  Because of the pressure, capping the wellhead would rupture the well pipe causing oil to flood out into the strata below the sea floor. 

The erosion process would cause the oil to erupt through the sea bed creating a literal and unstoppable volcano of oil and mud.   When the Deepwater Horizon exploded, it ruptured the well pipe a mile beneath the surface.

With pressures that could be as high as 100,000 psi, plugging the well will force the oil out into the seabed floor and only meters from a large methane gas bubble some 15 to 20 miles wide.  

Even if they do nothing, eventually that methane bubble will migrate to the well.  When that happens, it will explode up the well pipe creating the same catastrophe as if they plugged it.

Unless BP’s relief well effort can relieve the pressure, when that gas bubble hits the pipe it presents one of two scenarios, both of which are unthinkably catastrophic.  (And BP is rumored to have quietly advanced their expected completion date for the relief well to sometime around Christmas.)

In the first and seemingly most catastrophic, the gas explodes under the sea floor, creating a massive upheaval and collapse that could trigger a tsunami that could wash away the Gulf Coast up to fifty miles inland.

In the second, the escaping cloud of deadly methane gas could be blown ashore, displacing the oxygen and suffocating uncounted Gulf Coast residents.    The sudden rush of gas to the surface could also theoretically trigger a tsunami.

Former Shell Oil CEO John Hofmeister confirmed on Fox News last week that the use of high explosives and possibly a small nuclear device are being considered as a last resort on the theory that the blast would crush the borehole and seal it.

But it has never been done and nobody knows for sure if it will work or if it will trigger an even greater underground explosion.   It gets worse.

There are roughly 3400 active drilling platforms out in the Gulf, many of which have been there for decades.   When a well runs dry, they move the platform to another honey hole until it runs dry.  This means there are uncounted numbers of vast empty underground caverns beneath the sea floor of the Gulf. 

Most of these drilling rigs are sucking oil from the same ultimate giant oil deposit under the Gulf of Mexico’s continental shelf, meaning they are all interconnected.

When you take something out and don’t replace it with something else, it dramatically alters the dynamics under the seafloor.   These cracks and fissures could collapse in a domino effect in the event of an underground explosion, either natural or man-made, also triggering the risk of a Gulf tsunami. 

And a dead zone from Mexico to Florida.

Assessment:

Admittedly, these are worst-case scenarios, but there are no best-case scenarios under consideration.  Oil contains chemicals and volatile gases that are both toxic and carcinogenic.   Gulf Coast residents that are able to smell the heavy oil are undoubtedly breathing in these gases at the same time.

There are persistent rumors of a FEMA plan to evacuate at least eighteen cities along the Gulf Coast.  In April, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal asked the feds to “fund 6000 soldiers and airmen on active duty” to:

“provide security, medical capabilities, engineers and communication support in response to this threat. Currently, our Soldiers and Airmen are staging for and are engaged in the planning of the effort to evacuate and provide security and clean up for the coastal communities expected to be impacted by the oil spill.”

On June 9^th the FAA closed the airspace over the Gulf of Mexico to all unauthorized aircraft.  There is now a 200 mile radius dead zone in the Gulf due to the spill. 

FEMA is rumored to be quietly making plans for the mass evacuation of New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Mandeville, Hammond, Houma, Belle Chase, Chalmette, Slidell, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pensacola, Hattiesburg, Mobile, Bay Minette, Fort Walton Beach, Panama City, Crestview, and Pascagoula.

There is a risk of toxic rain resulting from the combination of methane and the poisonous Corexit oil dispersant. FEMA officials fear it will poison coastal fresh water reservoirs, lakes, streams and rivers.

Let me say now that most of this is rumored, but if FEMA DOESN’T have evacuation plans in place for the Gulf Coast, then FEMA is criminally derelict in its duties.  

And I cannot envision a scenario short of permanently capping the well by lunchtime today that won’t ultimately require the evacuation of at least some of the Gulf Coast shoreline.  

I am trying very hard not to get all conspiracist or overly sensational in today’s report and it is hard not to sound like I’ve lost my mind – even I think it sounds a little nuts.  Until you look at the situation and try and come up with an alternative scenario that doesn’t.

This old earth is in already in a state of mass upheaval; earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis are practically daily affairs somewhere on the earth.   The earth’s magnetic field is decreasing rapidly and may be signaling a coming catastrophic magnetic polar shift.

We are emerging from a solar minimum and headed into a solar maximum that astronomers predict could result in catastrophic solar ejections that threaten to engulf the earth with a giant EMP pulse sometime around the end of 2012.

The Gulf oil spill has the potential to poison the entire Gulf of Mexico and left uncapped, within a couple of years possibly the rest of the world’s oceans.  A couple of years from now would be sometime in the middle of 2012.

The word ‘catastrophic’ applies to practically every scenario, financial, political, environmental or extra-terrestrial.   It is hard to see how humanity will manage to elude all the looming threats and emerge intact on the other side.

Particularly since ALL of it was forecast in advance as part and parcel of the overall scenario that points to the soon return of Christ.   

Revelation 8:8-9 forecasts the third part of the seas will become as blood, killing a third part of the creatures in the sea.   That judgment is followed by the poisoning of a third part of the world’s fresh water.

Jesus warned of signs in the sun, moon and stars. He said that unfolding events would cause men’s hearts to fail them with fear and cause the nations to cower in fear and confusion.

But Jesus said that while these things will confuse and terrorize the lost, He said they should be signs of encouragement to the Church.  

What it means is that the world will soon see the Son of Man coming in power and great glory at His Second Coming.

“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.” (Luke 21:24:26)

But having given the broad outline through to the end, Jesus got down to specifics insofar as what it means to the Church on this side of the Tribulation.   We are witnessing the conspiracy of seemingly unconnected events that are leading precisely to the conditions Jesus described.   

But His message to the Church isn’t the same message He gave to those who will be preserved through the Time of Jacob’s Trouble. 

“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)

For the Church, the message is both simple and direct.  When we see these things BEGIN to come to pass, then it’s time to prepare for lift off!  

Maranatha!

One Final Thought. . . .

While we’re waiting for the trumpet, we still need to get together in the forums and come up with a plan. We have many OL families in the affected areas.  In the event the unthinkable DOES happen, the worst place they could end up is in a FEMA evacuation camp. 

There are many more OL families living in the relatively safe zones.  We need to meet in our forums and hammer out our OWN evacuation plans for our brothers and sisters in the Dead Zone as an alternative to FEMA’s.  (We have some room.).

If you live in the Dead Zone, where will you go?  How can we help?   What can we do?  Let’s get together and work out a plan before the order to evacuate is given. 

NOW I’m starting to understand at least part of the reason that God has raised up such a unique fellowship of believers as ours.  The Lord knows we need each other. 

Meet me in the forums and let’s come up with a plan.

Enemies of The Cross

Enemies of The Cross
Vol: 105 Issue: 28 Monday, June 28, 2010

In 1897 Irish novelist Bram Stoker published his most famous work, “Dracula” about an aristocratic Transylvanian vampire that stalked the night (and the nightmares) of Victorian England. 

Although the novel, Dracula enjoyed great literary reviews, it wasn’t until Hollywood turned it into a movie script that the vampire legend became part of popular Western culture.

Stoker chose the name “Dracula” primarily because the name means “dragon” or “devil” in Romanian.  Stoker’s vampire hunter, Dr. Van Helsing, explains why his crucifix would protect him from the count:

“There are things that so afflict him that he has no power … as for sacred things, as this symbol, my crucifix … to them he is nothing, but in their presence he take his place far off and silent with respect.”

In the classic film version, Bela Lugosi would hiss and snarl and back away from a crucifix; in later movies, any cross would do, including two crossed sticks.

In Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend (1954), the protagonist, Robert Neville, notices that only some vampires fear crosses. He eventually concludes that these vampires were Christian in life. They fear crosses because they believe that they ought to. Neville explains,

 “As far as a cross goes—well, neither a Jew nor a Hindu nor a Mohammedan nor an atheist, for that matter, would fear the cross.”

This interpretation appears again in Roman Polanski’s The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967). Here, a woman presents a cross to an undead Jew who merely laughs and states, “You’ve got the wrong vampire.”

What made Dracula such a hit in Victorian England and early 20^th century America was the contrast between absolute evil, represented by Dracula (dracul – the ‘devil’ Dracula – ‘son of the devil) and absolute good, represented by the Cross of Christ.

The absolute evil of Dracula was utterly powerless when confronted by the symbol of the Cross of Christ.  When facing it, even the immortal undead Count Dracula had no choice but to bow his head and back away.

That is what thrilled the audiences of yesteryear.  Not the power of the undead.  The Power of the Cross.

As society secularized, movie vampires became increasingly immune to either crosses or holy water.  In the modern Twilight series, one vampire actually keeps a large wooden cross in his study.

Modern audiences are more impressed with the power of evil to triumph over good. 

Assessment:

Last year, the vicar of a church in England’s West Sussex ordered a large sculpture of a crucifix removed from outside the church because “it was scaring young children.”

The sculpture once located at the side of St John’s Church in Broadbridge Heath, has now been given to Horsham Museum.  The Reverend Ewen Souter told the BBC;

“Children have commented on how scary they find it and how off-putting they find it as a symbol outside the church.”

I can sympathize and even agree with the principle that the empty cross symbolizing a risen Christ is more powerful, but removing a crucifix because it scares little children hollows any theological justification. 

It is the job of the Church to teach Christ crucified in order to explain the purpose of the miracle of His Resurrection. 

That same week, the vicar of another English church, this one in Cheshire permitted the British TV show, Coronation Street to film a wedding scene at the altar of St Mary’s Church. 

Reverend James Milne later called the decision by the producers to hide the cross displayed on the altar so as to avoid offending viewers ‘a disgrace.’

In Spring Lake, Illinois, Reverend Ian Lawton, pastor of the Christ Community Church ordered their cross removed from the steeple after changing the name of the organization to the C3Exchange.

Lawton said the changes were designed to reflect the church’s growing diversity and the open-mindedness of the church members.  One of the problems with being too open-minded is that if you’re not careful, your brains might fall out.   That seems to be the case with C3Exchange.

“Our community has been a really open-minded community for some years now. . . We’ve had a number of Muslim people, Jewish people, Buddhists, atheists. … We’re catching up (to) ourselves.”

Lawton said the church decided to change its name about a year ago and began taking ideas from members. He said the new name was chosen because the church is on Exchange Street, and “our community is a place where people can come to exchange ideas.”

He said the church is considering painting a heart, a globe and the word “exchange” on its exterior wall on the side where the cross stood, to symbolize “one love” for “all people.”

“The cross,” Reverend Lawton said, “has become a negative symbol for a lot of people.”

Lawton outlined his plan for ‘dechurching’ the former Christ Community Church building’s interior over the next year, replacing Christian-themed banners and rearranging the building’s layout.

“We want to make the whole experience from the moment people walk in the church … to match our inclusive identity,” he said. “We’re not trying to change anyone, because we say, ‘Come as you are.’”

Which begs the question, ‘Why bother?’

“Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1st Corinthians 2:8)

Ephesians 2:8-9 says that salvation is a gift of grace through faith and not of works, lest any man should boast.   One doesn’t need to be a theologian to be saved.  One needn’t ever attend a church of any description to be saved.

But apart from the Cross, there is no salvation.   The Scriptures say that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and that even one sin is too many to have fellowship with God. 

Sin is punishable by death.  Jesus lived a sinless life and paid our sin debt on the Cross.

“For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” (Ephesians 2:14-16)

The oldest lie in the Book is the one used to tempt Eve; “Ye shall be as gods.”  We want to believe we play a role in our salvation, which would give us God-like power.  

“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” (Galatians 6:14-15)

The Cross is the symbol of God’s power.  The Cross symbolizes the reality that God does all the work.  It robs the enemy of his most effective tool. The enemy hates it.  So the world hates it. 

 “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient . . .” (Romans 1:29)

As the crosses come down, the minarets keep going up.  It’s irrational, but that is the nature of the supernatural.  The evidence is all around us. 

“For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.” (Phillipians 3:18-19)

The enemies of the Cross aren’t winning.  They are separating themselves from the Cross in preparation for the coming judgment. 

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,  that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but took pleasure in unrighteousness.”  (2^nd Thessalonians 2:7)

These are the last days.  They are supposed to be ‘perilous times.’

Like A Slow Motion Train Wreck

Like A Slow Motion Train Wreck
Vol: 105 Issue: 26 Saturday, June 26, 2010

What is wrong with these people?  I think that is a fair question to ask of a person who cheerfully advocates policies that are all but certain to result in self-destruction.

Timothy Geithner does represent the United States, right?  These United States?  Measured against his comments to the BBC concerning America’s economic future, it’s hard to tell.

If he is talking about these United States and not some fictional America in a post-apocalyptic mini-series, America’s biggest financial problem isn’t the mortgage crisis.  

It’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.  Well, maybe Geithner isn’t America’s biggest financial problem – but only because we’ve got so many – most of which can be laid directly at Geithner’s feet.

In an interview with the BBC, Geithner essentially told the Brits that America’s best days are behind her and not to look for the US to pull the world out of its economic malaise.

He said that the world “cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past” and that other major economies would have to help share the load.

I have to agree in principle; the administration’s handling of the economy has been like a slow-motion train wreck.  It’s like watching the engine going over the trestle, transfixed and unable to look away as the rest of the train is pulled over the brink.

What I don’t understand is why Geithner – and the rest of the administration – feel it necessary to go abroad to air our dirty laundry.  

In 1950 Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg first articulated the proposition that “politics stops at the water’s edge.”   In 1950 the White House was held by Democrat Harry Truman and America was at war with North Korea.

Vandenberg’s point was that America’s official voice be unified so as to speak with maximum authority against those who seek to divide and conquer us.  In his early legislative career, Vandenberg was a fiercely Republican partisan.

During the Roosevelt administration Vandenberg opposed every Roosevelt proposal identified by a set of capital letters (NRA, AAA, WPA, etc) and was a staunch opponent of US involvement in the war in Europe – until Pearl Harbor. 

From that moment forward, Vandenberg was an American first and a partisan second and so he remained until his death in 1951.  Vandenberg’s principles didn’t change but his perspective did.  Domestic partisan politics stopped at the water’s edge. 

When it came to the international arena, America was the United States.   

It wasn’t that Vandenberg was bipartisan.  “Bipartisan” is one of those words that is so self-contradictory as to render it effectively meaningless.   To be bipartisan is to simultaneously hold conflicting views.

As John Hawkins explained it in a recent TownHall column, “Five Reasons Moderates Are Wrong About Bipartisanship“:

“It’s like one side has brought the ingredients for a chicken pot pie and the other side is back from the supermarket ready to make a chocolate cake. Then people say, “Gee, why don’t both of you get together and make one dish out of all that?” How can that work? Not only does each side disagree with their opponents, they believe their “solutions” will damage the country.”

The Vandenberg Doctrine simply expressed the proposition that America is bigger than the sum of its parts.  That doctrine was abandoned by the Democrats following Al Gore’s defeat in Election 2000.

The John Kerry campaign was waged primarily in the international media. The international media was so engaged that when George Bush was re-elected, the international media wondered aloud;

“How could 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?”

Americans were evidently stung by the global approbriation over the country’s refusal to elect a far-left quisling in 2004 since they rejected a bona-fide conservative war hero in favor of an unknown Chicago liberal based entirely on the fact that America had never had a black president.

Recall the words of Vice President Joe Biden while himself still a candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. . . I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

The problem with elected a candidate based entirely on the basis of his race is now manifest.  Everything is about race.  Arizona passes a law requiring the state to uphold federal immigration law and Obama chooses to criticize the law as ‘racist’ — and does so from abroad.

In the past two years the administration has taken America’s dirty laundry to the Europeans so often that even the Europeans are getting tired of it.   

America elected Barack Obama in 2008, fully aware he was rated the most liberal member of the US Senate in 2007. But in recent years, European and OECD countries have been leaning center-right: Merkel in Germany, Sarkozy in France, Berlusconi in Italy, Harper in Canada.

Obama’s manifest criticisms of his own country from abroad have not won America any new friends and they have cost us a lot of old ones.  Europe loved to hate George Bush, but they at least knew where he stood.

While Obama offers criticisms of his country, counting on the Bush Derangement Syndrome to innoculate himself from blame,  the effect has been to bring reality into focus.

Iran is about to go nuclear and has rockets that can reach Europe.  Roving bands of juvenile jihadi warriors patrol the streets of European capitals burning cars and looting shops whenever they feel Islam has been sufficiently insulted.

Europe’s fifty year experiment with socialism has so priced European goods out of the market that nobody can afford to buy them, including Americans.

And the Europeans have recognized the limitations of the diplomacy-only foreign policy being espoused by US administration officials abroad every time a microphone is thrust before them.

Viewed from the secular perspective, America is a slow-motion train wreck.  But viewed from the perspective of Bible prophecy,  what looks like a horror show is really evidence that the Lord is about to return.

According to Bible prophecy, in the last days, the preminent power in the world will be headquartered in Europe.  There is no reference in Bible prophecy to any nation resembling the United States of America, with the exception of the description recorded in 2nd Timothy 3:1-6.

So while I watch the engine going over the trestle, it is with a sense of resignation and (almost) a sense of anticipation.   What the administration is doing to America is nothing short of catastrophic — but is exactly in line with the prophecies of Scripture for the last days.

For believers, there is an enormous sense of comfort to be had from knowing that all the things we are seeing take place are not occurring in a vacuum but are instead part of the Divine Plan of the Ages. 

The plan was outlined in the Scriptures in advance specifically so that when the Church sees all these things begin to come to pass, we will know that our redemption draws near.  (Luke 21:28) 

“Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.”

“Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.”  (James 5:7-8)

If there is any comfort to be had from watching America’s slow motion train wreck, it is in the knowledge that we’re not on it when it hits bottom.

“For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 

“Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1^st Thessalonians 4:16-18)

Hell Burgers — What Else?

Hell Burgers — What Else?
Vol: 105 Issue: 25 Friday, June 25, 2010

When the president of what used to be the world’s most Christian country meets with the president of what used to be the world’s most atheist country, where is a good place to eat?

Hmmm. Something appropriate to the occasion, but something casual that will make for a good photo-op.  How about a burger?  What’s more American than a hamburger? 

 

Now, where to go?  Someplace that screams, “America!” would set just the right tone. 

 

Where?  Let me see. . . Wait!  I’ve got it!  How about Ray’s Hell Burger!

 

According to the blog DC Foodies.com, Ray’s Hell Burger’s the third in a series of eateries started by Washington area restaurateur Michael Landrum, and all called Ray’s. 

 

There are literally thousands of restaurants in Washington, DC.  Out of all the choices available, our president chose one that honors hell. 

 

If there is one thing that one can bet the farm on, it is that nothing this White House does is by accident and everything about this White House is long on the symbolic.   

 

 This picture of the president standing in front of what looks like a  pyramid shape in the background was taken as he spoke in a Georgetown church. 

 

The pyramid shape was there to block out a symbol of Jesus — at Obama’s request. The gold “IHS” monogram inscribed on a pediment in the hall was covered over by a piece of black-painted plywood, and remained covered over the next day.

 

The Washington Times’ Belief Blog asked the university about the presidential request.  The White House replied saying: 

 “The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches. . . Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context.”

The White House reply failed to explain how the Name of Jesus could be seen as “out of context” in a church!  Indeed, the only part that really appears out of context is the spectacle of Barack Obama standing in a pulpit.

 

Having used his choice for lunch to symbolically assure Russian President Medvedev that the two men were spiritual kindred, they got right down to business.

  

First, the president assured Medvedev that the United States would strongly support Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization.  From 2000 to 2003, Russian entry into the WTO was Vladimir Putin’s Number One priority.

 

By 2004, Putin dropped the effort, announcing that membership in the WTO was not in Russia’s best interests.   Had Russia been a member of the WTO when it invaded Georgia in 2008, it would have faced WTO sanctions.

 

But that was when the evil Bush was running US foreign policy.  Now that Obama is in charge, the Russians evidently believe they have nothing to worry about.

 

They settled their differences over a Hell burger.

 

Assessment:

 

No doubt there are those that will think I am making too much out of Obama’s culinary choices.  I admit I’ve never eaten at Ray’s Hell burger and it may be true they make a h*ll of a burger, but the fact is that I wouldn’t eat there if it were across the street from my house.

 

I also wouldn’t eat at a place called “Satan’s” or a place called “The Sin Burger” or a place called even at a place called “God’s.”  I believe there is an entity named Satan.  I believe in the reality of sin.  And I believe that God is a real Person.

 

I especially wouldn’t eat there because of the symbolism — particularly if I were the president.  The best reason is embodied in this USAToday headline from May 6, 2009.

 “Obama Goes To Hell and Back, All For a Burger.”

As noted earlier, symbolism is of extreme importance to the Obama administration.  The first thing Obama did when he purchased a used Boeing 757 for use as his campaign aircraft was to remove all the American flags painted on the fuselage and replace them with his own campaign symbol — a rising sun.

 

There is a publication on the internet called “The Muslim Sunrise” which bears the following quote from Mohammed: 

“In the latter days, the sun shall rise from the West.”

If one wanted to graphically depict that statement using today’s symbolism, what would be better than an image of the Muslim sunrise over a representation of an American flag?

 

Can it really be that obvious?   That’s the thing that throws me for a loop. 

 

If wanted to dispel the suggestion that I was a Muslim impersonating a Christian,  the last thing I would do is surround myself with Muslim symbology. 

 

If anything, I would go out of my way to avoid any possible connection.   But when it comes down to it,  if the circumstances of my birth were being questioned, I would release my birth certificate, too.  

 

And the last place I’d choose to host a Russian president would be called “Ray’s Hell Burger.”

 

What have we done?

Ensuring The Worst Case Scenario?

Ensuring The Worst Case Scenario?
Vol: 105 Issue: 24 Thursday, June 24, 2010

One of the most enduring features surrounding the Gulf Oil Spill now entering its third month of belching oil from the seafloor is the fact that no matter how bad the most recent worst-case scenario speculation, the next one will be even more terrifying.

The base-line measures of the crisis have steadily worsened. The estimated flow rate keeps rising. The spill is already worse than anybody could have anticipated and there remains no end in sight.

According to point man Admiral Thad Allen of the US Coast Guard, the reason that BP stopped pumping mud into the well in last month’s “top kill” effort was fear the effort would damage the casing and open new channels for oil to leak into the rock formations.

“I think that one thing that nobody knows is the condition of the well bore from below the blowout preventer down to the actual oil field itself,” Allen said last week. “We don’t know if the well bore has been compromised or not.”

Making things worse, the admiral said, was the fact that the blowout preventer is ‘leaning’.

“The entire arrangement has kind of listed a little bit,” he said.   

Bruce Bullock, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, says one of the characteristics of the Deepwater Horizon blowout is its unpredictability. 

He said the deep-sea ‘plumes’ of oil detected by research vessels are probably not from the blowout but possibly from additional leaks caused by either the drilling or the blowout.

Nobody knows how much oil is actually seeping into the Gulf.

“I actually have a document that shows that BP actually believes it could go upwards of 100,000 barrels per day,” Rep Ed Markey [D-Mass] said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“So, again, right from the beginning, BP was either lying or grossly incompetent. First they said it was only 1,000. Then they said it was 5,000 barrels. Now we’re up to 100,000 barrels.”

Senator Charles Grassley [R-Ia) released a BP document entitled “Maximum Discharge Calculation.”  The document was published internally was based on theoretical calculations made before drilling began.

That document says given the most “optimistic assumptions” about the size of the reservoir and the intensity of the pressure at depth and assuming a total loss of well control and no inhibitions on the flow, “a maximum case discharge of 162,000 barrels per day was estimated.”

BP recalculated after the Deepwater Horizon blew up and came up with what it called a “more reasonable” worst-case scenario of between 40,000 and 60,000 barrels per day.  A ‘barrel’ of oil is roughly 42 gallons.

About the only thing that we ARE sure of (we being the public) is that everybody is lying about it.  BP is looking to mitigate the damage to its corporate image and its bottom line.

Members of the Congress are looking for ways to use the oil spill to mitigate the damage to their own re-election prospects. 

Admiral Thad Allen is looking for ways to make it appear that the government’s intervention is helping, rather than hindering efforts at both plugging the hole and cleaning up the damage.

The truth is that every one of them is lying. Nobody knows how bad the spill really is or how many other leaks it may have caused.   At the same time, nobody wants to admit that they don’t know. 

Except Matt Simmons, founder of Simmons and Co. Simmons and Co. is an oil investment firm.  He claims that he does know and that the news is much worse than anybody else believes.

Simmons says the leak that BP is focusing on at the “riser” is not the problem. The real problem is a gaping hole at the “well head,” 8 miles away.

“The riser leak is a deception,” says Simmons. “The hole is in the well head — it’s the well bore.”

“When they [the research vessel Thomas Jefferson] finally got the permission to circle the three-mile radius,” of the well, “once they got up wind [of the blast], within 20 minutes all the crew [of the boat] were nauseous, and several people are still in the hospital. There is benzene coming out of that stuff. If a hurricane finally blows up the Gulf, we could have millions of people die.”

According to Simmons, the ultimate worst-case scenario has not yet even been contemplated.

“We’re going to have to evacuate the Gulf States. Can you imagine evacuating 20 million people? . . . This story is 80 times worse than I thought.”

Only eighty times worse?

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asking the Defense Department for six thousand active duty military personnel to be dispatched to the Gulf to aid the Louisiana National Guard.

Jindal says that the reason he needs federal troops is because the National Guard is busy preparing for just such a possible evacuation.

“Currently, our Soldiers and Airmen are staging for and are engaged in the planning of the effort to evacuate and provide security and clean up for the coastal communities expected to be impacted by the oil spill.” 

If the well isn’t capped soon, the toxic gases from the well, together with the highly toxic Corexit 9500 chemical dispersant being used will eventually force the evacuation of the Gulf States. 

It may already be too late.

Assessment:

Those living in Florida are presently at the highest risk, but the danger also appears likely to spread to all Gulf Coast states east of Louisiana — and possibly even to the entire Eastern half of the United States once hurricane season begins.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has already declared the airspace over the oil spill site to be a no-fly zone until further notice.  As we’re already seen, various sources have indicated that local police, highway patrol, National Guard, US military and foreign troops may be involved in an operation to evacuate the Gulf Coast.

Since the Deepwater Horizon first exploded, the role of the federal government has largely been confined to blaming BP for the spill, demanding reparations for the spill, but nothing to stop the spill.

Had the White House mobilized every oil skimming rig in the country and accepted foreign assistance offers, much of the oil now threatening the American coastline could have been skimmed off. 

Seemingly inexplicably, the White House has largely taken a “hands off” approach — apart from talking about it, that is.  In short, it seems as if the White House is simply allowing the spill to proceed.

The federal government shut down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.

The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

The department says one area where sand is being dredged is an ecologically sensitive section of the Chandeleur Islands! 

So efforts to protect the entire coast from ecological destruction was ordered halted to protect one endangered section of beach. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.

“Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil,” he wrote. “Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.”

Despite his plea, work on the sand berms halted at midnight Wednesday.  Why?

Since September 11, 2001 the United States has been in a state of national emergency, which means that martial law can be declared by the President at any time and for any reason.

A declaration of martial law authorizes temporary rule by military authorities.  Under martial law, civil rights are suspended and civilian courts are restricted or supplanted by military tribunals.

Although a declaration of martial law is theoretically temporary, there are no time limits.  A state of martial law, once declared, can be extended indefinitely.

The forced evacuation of as many as 80 million Americans from the Gulf Coast region would indeed necessitate such a declaration.   In an evacuation, the federal government would determine when and where evacuees would be moved to and for how long.

Martial law would not be confined to the Gulf States — since the evacuees would have to be relocated inland across the United States, so too would military rule.

Under the provisions of martial law, the president could also order the suspension of national elections until the national emergency is over. 

Her’s the real kicker.  The only one that can declare the national emergency “over” and rescind a declaration of martial law is President Barack Hussein Obama.

And suddenly, it all starts to make sense.

Vexing The Soul

Vexing The Soul
Vol: 105 Issue: 23 Wednesday, June 23, 2010

All officers of the United States government from the President of the United States down to the newest Marine Corps recruit take an oath of office that binds them to obedience to the law of the land.

The presidential oath of office is administered by the Chief Justice of the United States on Inauguration Day, amidst much pomp and circumstance, as prescribed by Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight of the United States Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

All members of Congress must also swear an oath before being seated, also in accordance with the Constitution.   The first Congress swore a simple, 14 word oath;

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

Congress being what it is, tinkered with it off and on until 1884 when it adopted the current oath of office taken by members of both Houses upon being seated:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

All executive and judicial officers of the United States, as well as all Federal government employees except the military swear exactly the same oath.

Members of the United States military swear a similar oath, adding an oath of obedience to ranking officers and the UCMJ;

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

There are two things I want you to take note of about the United States federal oath of office.  First, it is an oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution and the rule of law.   Secondly, the oath does not expire.  

The military oath of office requires service members to disobey unlawful orders as defined by the UCMJ because the law is supreme.  “I was just obeying orders” is no defense to prosecution for breaking the law.

Civilian federal employees are bound by oath to both obey and support the Constitution (and the Rule of Law) and to discharge the duties of their respective offices in accordance with the law.

There is no provision in the oath of office whereby federal officials can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. 

The federal oath of office is not ceremonial, but is legally binding. Violating the oath of office is a federal criminal office punishable by removal from office and a prison term.

Over the weekend, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona told his constituents that President Obama told him in a private one-on-one meeting that the reason he would not secure the border with Mexico was because it would damage his push for what the White House calls ‘comprehensive immigration reform’.

It is a variation on organized crime’s ‘protection racket’ whereby, “if you don’t cooperate, something bad might happen to you.” 

Obama’s deputy press secretary Dan Burton responded for the administration by directly calling Kyl a liar. “The President didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it,” Burton told the White House press corps.

It is significant that the denial was not issued by Obama personally. There were only two men in that room and Burton was not one of them.   

In any case, the administration’s record speaks much more loudly than Burton’s denial. 

And in case one is inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, a commercial starring Obama’s Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis explicitly backs the sentiment allegedly expressed to Senator Kyl by the President.

In the commercial,  Secretary Solis informs workers of the federal minimum wage and says all workers “have a right” to be fairly compensated for their labor, including those working illegally!

Solis encourages illegal workers to report violations of minimum wage laws, essentially promising them amnesty from existing federal immigration laws when blowing the whistle.

“You work hard, and you have the right to be paid fairly. … It is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earned. Remember: Every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly – whether documented or not. Call us. It is free and confidential. We can help.”   

The commercial was done in both English and Spanish. One hardly knows where to begin to try and unravel this knot.

It is illegal under federal law to hire “undocumented workers” in the first place.  Employers that hire illegal aliens face stiff federal penalties.   By working in the United States illegally, the employee is breaking federal law. By hiring him, the employer is breaking federal law.  

Federal law imposes a legally-binding obligation on all federal employees to both obey and enforce existing federal law.  It is a federal crime for a federal official to advocate violation of any federal law, including immigration law. 

Judicial Watch reported in April that the Labor Department deployed 1000 new field investigators to enforce;

 “labor and wage laws in industries that typically hire lots of illegal aliens without reporting anyone to federal immigration authorities.”

The federal government’s position then, is that illegal aliens working for wages is in violation of federal law have a right to be fairly compensated under one federal law for breaking another federal law.

A position which is itself a federal crime.

Assessment:

Widespread lawlessness is one of the hallmarks of the last days.  The Apostle Paul calls the antichrist the ‘lawless one.’  In warning of the perilous times to come in the last days, Paul offers this description of the prevailing social conditions of that time:

“men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” (2nd Timothy 3:1-6)

Both the Lord and the Apostle Peter likened the last days of the Church Age to the last days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. . . Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:26,29)

“And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:  (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)”  (2^nd Peter 2:6-8)

That these passages address the Church Age can be determined by their context.  In both references, Lot and his family (representing the Church) dwelt among the lawless (representing the lost) vexing Lot’s soul, until they were delivered from judgment.

“ . . . so also shall it be in the days of the Son of Man.” (Luke 17:26)

The lawlessness of the Obama administration is stunning in its scope.  Glenn Beck runs a regular feature called “Crime, Inc.” in which he connects the dots that demonstrate a criminal enterprise of breath-taking proportions, all the while daring the administration to correct the record.

To date, they have not.  

Glenn Beck’s program reaches more viewers every day than almost any other news program.   According to the Neilson ratings, Glenn Beck’s total market share is 2124 as compared to Wolf Blitzer’s 436 share in the same time slot.

Beck crushes Shep Smith, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Sustern . . . only the “O’Reilly Factor” has a larger viewing audience than does Glenn Beck.  

So what Beck is exposing in his Crime Inc. segments paints a picture of the United States government as being taken over by a Chicago crime family. And it is undisputed by the White House.

Not one of the other cable news programs on any network (including Fox) have picked up on Beck’s allegations.  Not one.  If anything, Beck has become the object of ridicule and derision.

Not a single mainstream news organization or journalist (including Bill O’Reilly) has investigated Beck’s charges.  The only logical reason that makes sense is that it is out of fear that the charges Beck’s hurling around are all true. 

As if to confirm that suspicion, the uber-liberal Salon recently said this in a hit piece about Glenn Beck’s ‘mysterious’ popularity:

“Given Beck’s often apocalyptic worldview, especially since President Obama was inaugurated, I think it’s fair to ask: What does his newfound popularity say about America and about Americans’ current attitudes? I doubt the answer’s one many of us want to hear.”

Funny, that’s what the Apostle Paul said, too.

 “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” -(2^nd Thessalonians 2:10-12)

It isn’t that they don’t know the truth — or they would be investigating it if for no other reason but to prove Beck wrong.  

That explains why, as the Salon piece points out, they don’t want to hear it. They know the truth.

They just prefer the lie.

”You Can’t Handle The Truth!”

”You Can’t Handle The Truth!”
Vol: 105 Issue: 22 Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Only days after hailing the latest round of international sanctions against Iran, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates brought up the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that Iran, under a new set of United Nations sanctions, would become increasingly vulnerable to such a strike unless it halts uranium enrichment.

“Clearly, the purpose of which has come the sanctions and of the UN resolution is, combined with diplomatic efforts, to try and persuade the Iranian government that their security will actually be worse if they proceed with a nuclear weapons program than if they do not, because of proliferation in the region and the potential for military action, whether it’s from Israel or someplace else,” Gates said.

After a few harrowing weeks, some observers believe Iran has emerged from the latest Security Council sanctions stronger than ever. The sanctions don’t stop Iran from importing Russia’s S-300 air defense systems, gasoline or dual-use components. They don’t stop Iran’s state-owned shippers from operating abroad.

In a briefing on June 11 at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Gates said Israel and the United States were engaged in consultations regarding the Iranian nuclear threat. He said the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that Iran could be as little as one year away from nuclear weapons capability.

“We are in very close touch with the Israelis on developments in Iran,” Gates said. “I think everybody agrees we have some more time, including the Israelis. And we will just continue to work it as hard as we can.”

Unlike other administration officials, Gates did not urge Israel to refrain from attacking Iran. In April, Vice President Joseph Biden warned Israel against any such military operation.

Gates’s remarks came after a Security Council vote to impose sanctions on Iran. The administration has already acknowledged that the sanctions do not block Russia from selling the S-300 air defense and other systems to Teheran.

But the defense secretary, who in January warned the White House of Iran’s nuclear program, did not echo the confidence in the sanctions regime expressed by the rest of the administration.

“Most people think that the Iranians could not really have a nuclear weapon for at least another year or two,” Gates said. “I would say the intelligence estimates range from one to three years or so.

“But that’s different than weaponization or a delivery system or anything like that. But clearly, them getting to the threshold of having a weapon is what concerns everybody, not the other things.”

At the same time, the Center for Naval Analysis says the Navy has been ordered to reduce major operations in the Gulf by 2012.   The Center for Naval Analysis report said Washington plans to get out of the Gulf as soon as it completes its withdrawal from Iraq.

The report, commissioned for the U.S. Navy, said the reduced presence in the Gulf was based on the expectation that Washington would reconcile with Iran.

“This reduced demand is predicated on the assessment that there would be a lower threat from Iran, or a similar rogue nation, and Islamic terrorist activity,” CNA said in a report dated March 2010. “Maritime security operations — e.g., piracy — would continue to be handled by coalition actions involving a modest level of U.S. forces.”

Great.  But what if Iran doesn’t want to reconcile with us?

Assessment:

It seems clear that Iran has decided to push the envelope, not just with the US, but with Israel.  Iran says it will dispatch a ship called “The Children of Gaza” on Sunday.

The privately owned ship, which will arrive in waters off the Gaza Strip in about two weeks, will be carrying about 1,000 tons of medicine and food aid, as well as clothing and toys donated by Iranian citizens. It will also be carrying five Red Crescent volunteers and five reporters.

The ship will sail through the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea and enter the Mediterranean Sea via the Suez Canal, according to reports.

Israel’s alleged peace partner, Egypt,  has reportedly refused to close the canal to the blockade runners. (Egypt is also maintaining a blockade of Gaza.)

For its part, the White House believes that it can strike a ‘grand bargain’ with Iran if it downplays its relationship with Israel — ignoring the fact that Iran considers Israel “the little Satan” and reserves the epithet “the Great Satan” for the United States.

One of the main pillars of Iran’s revolution is embodied in its foreign policy slogan, “neither East nor West.”   But that is evidently meaningless as far as the White House is concerned.

The Islamic regimes surrounding Israel have rightly concluded that the president will not lift a finger to help Israel — partly out of weakness and partly out of conviction.   The Gaza blockade exists not to starve the Gazans, but to prevent Hamas from importing weapons it can use against Israeli civilians

That isn’t political rhetoric — it is political reality.  While it is fashionable and even politically correct to hate Israel by pretending to be an anti-Zionist instead of an anti-Semite, it is illegal in many places and unwise in all cases to say anything negative about Islam. 

But it isn’t Israel that is a threat to world peace. It has been said that if the Islamists laid down their arms, there would be no more war.  If Israel were to lay down her arms, there would be no more Israel.   History proves that indisputably true. 

Still the world sides against Israel, preferring to believe what it wants to believe — because it doesn’t like the alternative explanation.   The world would much prefer to believe that tiny Israel is the real threat, because otherwise the real threat is from the Islamic side. 

Nobody wants to believe that.  There are more than 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide.  If only ten percent of them are fundamentalist Islamists, that is potentially 120 million jihadists. 

It is preferable to see Israel as the real threat.  It is delusional, but preferable.  In our politically correct world, the truth is not what is true, but what people prefer to believe is true.  

People prefer to believe that Israel is the aggressor because that scenario gives people hope for peace.  After all, Israel wants peace, whereas Hamas exists only for the purpose of annihilating the Jewish state.

It doesn’t make any sense when one sits down and thinks about it but for those who form their opinions based on 30 second news soundbytes, thinking it through is just too scary.

The media continues to highlight the worst that they can find about America and Israel while ignoring Islamic excesses because they know they have nothing to fear from America or Israel and that the public doesn’t want to know about the dangers posed by Islam.  

In the 1920’s Adolf Hitler coined the phrase “The Big Lie” to describe how to manipulate public thinking.   He said that the public is far more willing to accept a big lie than a small one. 

According to Hitler, the public will swallow a big lie on the premise that nobody would tell a lie that big if it weren’t true.  Soon people begin to repeat the lie.  And eventually, they start to defend it.  

They will even defend it after they find out it is a lie rather than admit that they were fooled. Eventually, the lie becomes the truth and the actual truth becomes irrelevant. 

It worked for the Nazis.   It works for the White House.  And it works for Islam

Remember the scene in the movie, A Few Good Men where Tom Cruise demands “the truth” from Jack Nicholson?  The Nicholson character shot back, “You can’t handle the truth!”

When it was first spoken, that was just a great movie line.  Today, it is the foundation upon which America conducts foreign policy.

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

That time is now. 

The 1st Amendment Protects Radical Opinions, BUT. . .

The 1st Amendment Protects Radical Opinions, BUT. . .
Vol: 105 Issue: 21 Monday, June 21, 2010

On December 16th, 1773, “radicals” from Boston, Massachusetts, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw into Boston Harbor 342 chests of tea.

In response to the rebellion, the British enacted additional punitive measures, labeled the “Intolerable Acts,” in hopes of suppressing the insurrection. Far from accomplishing that outcome, the Crown’s countermeasures led Colonists to convene the First Continental Congress on September 5th, 1774 in Philadelphia.

The Boston Tea Party eventually led to America’s Declaration of Independence which cited the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” saying that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Certain of the Founders were uncomfortable with the Constitution and demanded extra guarantees that would prevent the federal government from growing too powerful.  These extra guarantees are embodied by the first ten Amendments to the Constitution known as the “Bill of Rights.”

They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Briefly, the Bill of Rights guarantees religious freedom by prohibiting Congress from passing laws respecting religion or ‘prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’  The 1^st Amendment prohibits the government from licensing or taxing churches and ministers.

The government found a way around that by introducing charitable tax-exempt status to ministries.  Ministries that accept that 501(c)(3) status  inadvertently surrender much of their 1^st Amendment freedoms.

In 1954, churches were added to section501(c)(3)of the tax code, making those who register, tax-exempt. Technically, churches, who were already tax exempt, registered so they could be tax exempt. 

According to the IRS, “churches are automatically tax-exempt and tax-deductible” without having to apply for tax-exempt status.  A 501(c)(3) classification from the State cannot grant permission to function as a church because the Constitution has already done that.

A 501(c)(3)simply is a legal document that registers the church and brings it under the authority of the State. because when anyone incorporates, they become a creature of the State. The State is sovereign over all corporations and dictates how corporations will conduct business.

By filing corporate papers, the church becomes subordinate with the State. They sign an agreement with the State regarding what they will and will not do or say. The church is allowed to exist so long as it abides by the rulings of the State.

For example, corporate law dictates a mandatory governing hierarchy that every 501(c)(3) organization establishes, President, Secretary, Treasurer, etc.

A yearly corporate tax is paid to the State, which grants the incorporated church the right to function as a church within the State.  All in violation of the Constitution.

Here’s how it all works in practice.  Suppose a ministry has enjoyed tax-exempt status for years under IRS rules that forbid 501(c)(3) organizations from making political statements.

Then along comes a politician whose policies are so at odds with their religious conscience that the minister feels compelled to warn those whom God has placed under their authority and for whom God has made them responsible.

Violating IRS rules can result in the revocation of a ministry’s tax-exempt charitable status.  The revocation of tax-exempt status makes both the minister and the ministry liable for unpaid taxes.  Speaking out could spell the end of that ministry and all the other good it might otherwise be capable of doing.

So it isn’t that hard to justify self-censorship in order to accomplish the greater good.

The IRS even tells the church how it will perform charitable acts within the community. For example, a 501(c)(3) is allowed to give food, shelter, clothing and emergency services. But 501(c)(3)churches are not allowed to give money directly to someone in need.

A 501c3 church is not allowed to make any cash transactions. Every penny must be recorded. The money trail must be exhaustively documented and reported.

And once a church or ministry has registered with the IRS it is like joining the Mafia.  Opting out is not an option.  Once in the system, there is no escaping it.

The irony here is found in the fact that the entire 501(c)(3) registration is entirely unnecessary.

In order to be considered for tax-exempt status by the IRS an organization must fill out and submit IRS Form 1023 and 1024. However, note what the IRS says regarding churches and church ministries, in Publication 557:

“Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023. These include: Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a men’s or women’s organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group. These organizations are exempt automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3).”

The IRS tax-exemption status is the most powerful tool the federal government has in its arsenal against domestic opponents of its policies.  Once it became accepted practice for the federal government to ‘license’ ministry through the IRS in violation of the 1^st Amendment, the 1^st Amendment began to lose any semblance of its original meaning.

So why would any Christian organization even consider it?   In a word, money.   Under 501(c)(3) rules, a person can write a check to them instead of the IRS.  They have to pay it to somebody —  and it feels better to tithe to ministry when one is tithing money that they don’t get to keep anyway.

I regularly get emails from folks tearing a strip off me because the Omega Letter is subscriber-based, rather than relying on donations.

They invariably begin the same way. . . “How dare you charge for the Word of God?”

For the record, I am not a prophet. The Omega Letter sometimes contains the Word of God (when I’m quoting the Scriptures) but the Omega Letter is NOT the Word of God. 

The Word of God is perfect, sharper than any two-edged sword. 

The Omega Letter is primarily the Word of Jack, is hardly perfect and while it can be sharp, I’ve been known to cut myself on it.

The second accusation is that I’m “making money off the Gospel.”  Many of these same people think nothing of paying for a secular newspaper or a secular book.  But the amount of work to produce it is the same as producing a daily Omega Letter. 

(It seems that while they think it is ok for a secular writer like Stephen King to earn millions writing horror novels, it is somehow ‘immoral’ for a Christian to earn a living writing about Christian themes and principles.)  

That being said, the reason the Omega Letter is subscriber-based is partly because it takes money to produce it, but mainly because the monthly-subscription fee acts as a gatekeeper to our forums.

The internet is rife with open discussion forums.  Most of them are ideological battlefields — one goes there primarily to fight.   They have nothing invested and nothing to lose and it shows.   

I have many friends in ministry that head 501(c)(3) organizations   I don’t fault them for it — for the most part, it is a trap that, as noted earlier, once in, becomes nearly impossible to escape.

They didn’t apply for tax exempt status out of greed or some nefarious ulterior motive.  Ministries are expensive to run and most seminaries spend as much time teaching business administration as they do teaching doctrine — including how to maximize their tax-exempt status as a way of expanding their ministry outreach.

I am an ordained minister.  Under 501(c)(3) rules,  the Omega Letter could be registered as an IRS tax-exempt ministry and we would likely never have to worry about money again.  

Every year in March and April we get emails from people who offer to make large donations if we would send them IRS-approved tax-exempt donation receipts. But the trade-off is much too high. 

I’d rather deal with the emails accusing me of selling the Gospel than my actually doing it — in exchange for IRS-exempt donations.

Assessment:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy over the weekend that the government needs “to balance American’s civil rights” against national security interests. 

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.  That was a direct swipe at Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote to the governor of Pennsylvania in 1755:

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

But according to Napolitano, “We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.”

For example, noted the head of the US Department of Homeland Security;

“The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet.”

The legal tools necessary to accomplish that goal are already in place. The Patriot Act gives the government the authority to monitor the internet.  It permits the government to monitor phone calls.   

But it doesn’t give the government the authority to monitor dissent.  Only to monitor terrorism.   It can silence churches and ministries that apply for tax-exempt status, but it cannot (yet) take direct action against dissenters not part of the IRS system.

The argument that trading off liberty for security requires scrapping individual rights (in some instances) would make more sense if the government were to apply that principle to illegal immigration. 

But the perceived ‘rights’ of illegal aliens already take precedence over national security. Thousands of OTM’s (Other Than Mexicans) cross into the country every year.

When Arizona passed a law giving the state the authority to enforce federal immigration law, the same administration now demanding more control over the internet threatened to sue Arizona — for wanting more control over its borders.

In addition, it was revealed over the weekend that dozens of members of the Afghan military sent to the US to learn English went AWOL. Bearing military security clearance badges, they are now somewhere inside the US.

The administration’s mastery of the Hegelian Dialectic, formulated in the 19^th century by German philosopher Georg Hegel is breath-taking.   Obama’s Columbia and Harvard professors are no doubt bursting with pride.

The Hegelian Dialectic is a three part system outlining the principle of governing by crisis.   It is laid out as the thesis, antithesis and synthesis.  

Thesis: To justify the implementation of internet censorship to stifle domestic dissent.

Antithesis:  Use government and media to highlight a crisis whose solution requires government censorship of internet traffic.

Synthesis: Continue to highlight and exacerbate the ‘crisis’ until the population demands the “solution” identified by the thesis.

So, the antithesis is that the internet is ‘exploding’ with ‘hate’ literature that needs to be stifled in order to damage the enemy’s ability to recruit new terrorists.   The synthesis reads something like this.

Of course the 1^st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, BUT. . . “we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet.”

It isn’t terrorism that poses a threat to the Obama administration — it is unregulated dissent.   An act of terrorism would create one of those crises that the administration couldn’t ‘afford to waste.’

They control the churches.  They still control the majority of the media.    But the internet is wide-open. 

So it isn’t open borders that present a threat to national security.   It isn’t the thousands of illegal aliens from Middle Eastern countries that are already in the United States.   

It isn’t the national deficit or the incredible, unsustainable and irredeemable national debt. Or the fact that the majority of it is held by countries like China or Russia.  

.By their estimation, if the government is secure, America is secure.   So the only way to make America secure is for the government to regulate the internet — like they regulate the Church.   After all, the 1^st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, too. 

Provided you have a government permit.

2012 – The Coming ”Perfect Storm”

2012 – The Coming ”Perfect Storm”
Vol: 105 Issue: 19 Saturday, June 19, 2010

In early September in 1859, telegraph wires suddenly began to short out, igniting wide-spread fires across both the United States and Europe.   The Earth had been hit by a perfect solar storm.

A solar storm is created when the sun erupts, sending charged particles racing outward in an expanding plasma bubble of hot gas.   In 1859, four crucial events came together to create that perfect storm.

First the blob of plasma that was ejected hit the earth full on.   Secondly, the magnetic fields of the ejected coronal mass was exceptionally intense.

Third, it hit at unusually high velocity.  A typical solar storm can take two to four days to cover the 93 million miles of space separating the two.  The 1859 storm took less than 18 hours to cover the distance. 

And finally, the coronal magnetic field hit the earth from the opposite direction from the earth’s protective magnetic field called the “solar wind.”

During the 1859 flare-up, solar observers logged almost an entire minute during which the amount of sunlight doubled at the region of the flare.

“Such a strong white-light flare has never been seen since,” says Paal Brekke, SOHO deputy project scientist. “So if this type of flare happened, yes we would know right away.”

But he adds that the orientation of Earth’s magnetic field would not be known. That can’t be determined without some kind of space-based observation platform.  And the orientation of the Earth’s protective magnetic field determines how much damage the earth will sustain.

In August 1972, a 230,000-volt transformer at the British Columbia Hydroelectric Authority blew up when shifting magnetic fields induced a current spike. On March 13, 1989, a storm plunged Quebec into a complete power blackout, affecting millions.

To get some sense of the relative strength of the 1859 solar storm, a space storm’s impact is measured in nT’s or nano-Teslas.   

The storm that fried Quebec’s power grid in 1989 measured 589 nT’s.  The perfect storm in 1859 measured a whopping 1,760 nTs.

According to a new study from the National Academy of Sciences, if a coronal mass ejection creating the size solar storm that hit in 1859 were to strike today, the damage could be catastrophic.

“A contemporary repetition of the [1859] event would cause significantly more extensive (and possibly catastrophic) social and economic disruptions,” concluded the study.

“Impacts would be felt on interdependent infrastructures with, for example, potable water distribution affected within several hours; perishable foods and medications lost in 12-24 hours; immediate or eventual loss of heating/air conditioning, sewage disposal, phone service, transportation, fuel resupply and so on.”

Banks could close for months and international trade could grind to a halt.

“Emergency services would be strained, and command and control might be lost,” write the researchers, led by Daniel Baker, director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

“Whether it is terrestrial catastrophes or extreme space weather incidents, the results can be devastating to modern societies that depend in a myriad of ways on advanced technological systems,” Baker said in a statement released with the report.

Solar activity runs in eleven year cycles between what is called the solar minimum and solar maximum periods.  The next solar maximum is forecast to be on par if not worse than the perfect storm of 1859. 

That storm is forecast to hit the earth some time towards the end of 2012.

 Assessment:

“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.” (Luke 21:25)

At a January 2009 meeting of the American Astronomical Society astronomers discussed a mysterious cosmic ‘roar’ first detected in July 2006.  

NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility in Palestine, Texas launched a balloon-borne instrument that reached at altitude of 120,000 feet at the point where the earth’s atmosphere meets the vacuum of space.

The project’s mission was to search the sky for faint signs of heat from the first generation of stars.  Instead, they detected a ‘roar’ emanating from the distance reaches of the universe.

The discovery prompted Alan Kogut of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center to exclaim to his colleagues that “there is something new and interesting going on in the Universe.”

“The universe really threw us a curve,” Kogut said. “Instead of the faint signal we hoped to find, here was this booming noise six times louder than anyone had predicted.”

Detailed analysis of the signal ruled out primordial stars or any known radio sources, including gas in the outermost halo of our own galaxy.

Other radio galaxies also can’t account for the noise — there just aren’t enough of them.

“You’d have to pack them into the universe like sardines,” said study team member Dale Fixsen of the University of Maryland. “There wouldn’t be any space left between one galaxy and the next.”

The signal is measured to be six times brighter than the combined emission of all known radio sources in the universe.

In October 2003 , the Omega Letter reported on “Sunspot 484” a sunspot ten times larger than the Earth that caused a radio blackout on October 19th.

“Larry Combs, a forecaster with the NOAA Space Environment Center’s Space Weather Operations, said that this region has developed rapidly over the last three to four days. “It’s somewhat unusual to have this much activity when we’re approximately three-and-a-half years past solar maximum,” he said. “In fact, just last week, solar activity was very low with an almost spotless sun.”

The November 4, 2003 issue of the Omega Letter opened with these words:

“The sun erupted three more times in less than 24 hours, bringing the number of major eruptions to nine in less than two weeks. Scientists have been monitoring the solar cycles since 1755. There has never been a string of activity like this.. . .”

The September 12, 2005 Omega Letter discussed the unusual eruption of seven separate solar flares during the midpoint of the current Solar Cycle 23’s minimum cycle. We noted then that;

“By the midpoint of 2000, the number of solar events peaked about 400% above normal. . . . What is particularly fascinating is what is emerging as a pattern of unusual solar activity, dating to about 1948, as noted by the American Institute of Physics in its bulletin number 658 published in 2003 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James Riordon.”

Note closely the three dates mentioned here.  The pattern of unusual solar activity began in 1948.   They peaked in 2000 as we crossed the threshold into the 21^st century.  And NASA is forecasting what may be the most destructive solar storm in human history, due to strike the Earth sometime in late 2012!

“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)