The Days of Noah

The Days of Noah
Vol: 114 Issue: 31 Thursday, March 31, 2011

“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matthew 24:37)

To get a look at that distant, future, generation who would witness the return of Christ, Jesus tells us to look to that distant, past generation who witnessed the Great Flood.

The story of the days of ‘Noe’ or, Noah, begins with Genesis Chapter Six in which the ‘sons of God’ took wives from the ‘daughters of men’ (6:2).

First, the ‘sons of God’ – those are men, right?  That’s what many would argue today. 

During the reign of Alexander the Great, all subjects of the Greek Empire had to learn Koine Greek – including the Jews.  That required translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. 

Those tasked with the translation were seventy of the greatest Hebrew scholars of the time – the time, remember, being some 300 years before Christ.  So those doing the translating were well acquainted with ancient Hebrew and its Greek equivalents.

When the Jewish scholars set about translating Genesis 6:2 they translated “sons of God” as “angels of God.”  There are some that quote Matthew 22:30 as evidence that Genesis 6:2 can’t be angels because Jesus said angels cannot marry or procreate.

But Jesus is speaking of obedient angels in heaven. Genesis 6 is speaking of fallen angels in their lost estate. 

Whenever angels are seen by men — as in Gen 18:1-19:22, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-7, Acts 1:10-11 — they are always pictured as male.  In the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah the angels were irresistible to the Sodomites. (Genesis 18:1, 19:22)

Another objection to the angels as the sons of God is rooted in John 1:12 which says that:

“as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become the sons of God, even to them which believe on His name.”

Does that nail it? Not really. While the Church has the power to become the sons of God by the Power of Christ, Jesus said to look to the “days of Noah”.  That must have some relevance.

Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Job 2:6, 2:1, and Job 38:7 are the only Old Testament (pre-Jesus and pre-Church) references to the ‘sons of God’ and in every case, it refers to ‘angels’ — without exception.

There are references to the ‘sons of God’ in Romans, Philippians and 1st John as consisting of the Church, the power to BECOME the ‘sons of God’ is unique to the Church Age, and was unknown in Noah’s day.

The ‘daughters of men’ means exactly that — the daughters of men. Making ‘wives’ of them is not figurative, either, as Genesis 6:4 says ‘they bare children to them’ that the Bible says later became the ‘mighty men which were of old’.

In Genesis chapter 2, God promises a Redeemer who would be the ‘seed of a woman’. Clearly, if Satan could pollute the human bloodline, he could break God’s prophecy. Note that 6:8-9 say that Noah ‘found grace in the eyes of the Lord’ and that he was a ‘just man and perfect in his GENERATIONS’.

God chose Noah out of His grace, Noah was not necessarily good or deserving, rather merely ‘a just man’ BUT he was ‘PERFECT in his generations’ — untainted by the polluted bloodline of the angelic intermarriage.

Since Scripture doesn’t say such angelic intermarriage takes place in the last days, most folks see Jesus’ comment about Noah as prefiguring the Rapture.

That’s true, but is lots more there than that. Genesis Chapter 6 describes the most direct and unfettered contact between human beings in general and the spirit world recorded in the entire Bible — apart from those recorded in the Revelation during the Tribulation Period.

Jesus said, “As it was in the days of Noah . .”

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (6:5)

It can be argued that television is imagination in a box. There, we vicariously live out all our dreams and fantasies. Somewhere on the cable dial, there is something for the imagination of everybody’s heart. . .

So take a look at what is the imagination of the thoughts of THIS generation’s heart. Porno, ‘slasher’ movies, Madonna, Brittany Spears, demon movies, movies about Satan — THAT’S the ‘imagination of our hearts’ continually.

Our culture is inundated with spirit guides, alien encounters, and open satanic worship. It will continue and it will increase.

If you have read anything of those who are allegedly in contact with the ‘aliens’ and ‘spirit guides’ you will notice the same claims coming through that these beings are going to show themselves physically to those on earth soon.

A similar, but seldom noted parallel is the unholy offspring of Genesis 6 and DNA and cloning research.

The corruption of the human race was the main reason for the Flood and we are in the process of corrupting it again.

In Luke 17:28, Jesus says of the last days; “Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot.”

The inhabitants of Sodom wanted Lot to turn the angels over to them (Genesis 18:-19:22). The thought behind this is that the men of Sodom thought that sexual union was possible. 2 Pet 2:4-5 and Jude 6-7 also throw some light onto this passage.

Jude tells us that the angels abandoned their proper abode and then contrasts their actions with that of Sodom and Gomorrah, who ‘in the same manner’ went after strange flesh.

The term ‘strange flesh’ means to go after an unnatural sexual union. For the men of Sodom it was each other, but for these fallen angels it was inter-marrying with human women.

In any case, the parallel between Sodom and this generation’s moral code is self-evident.

Jesus also said that in the last days the signs and wonders performed would be so great that ‘even the elect would be deceived if it were possible.’

The Bible warns,

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Peter 3:2-3)

Peter also uses the example of the Flood and the times of Noah to illustrate the importance of understanding the times in which we live.

It is not a stretch to argue that the strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians could be tied to the emergence of an alien spaceship or direct visible contact with aliens (which in reality are demonic encounters).

Maybe it sounds nutty, but it does tie in with the days of Noah, and Hollywood has certainly been getting people used to the idea in the last decade or two.

It would also be a ‘powerful delusion’ strong enough to shake people’s belief to the core. Except that Jesus reminds us that all these things have been prophesied in advance — so that your hope will be firmly rooted in the truth of God’s word.

While other Christians scoff, argue that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s Plan, that they’ve been hearing ‘for ages’ that the Lord is coming back, or that prophecy was all fulfilled back in AD 70, keep this thought in mind:

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” (2 Peter 1:19)

The ‘days of Noe’ was clearly not intended to be taken symbolically or even figuratively – the Lord intended it to be understood literally.

 “And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

Now, watch how the coming of the Son of Man is described by the Son of Man.

“Then two shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”

Most prophecy teachers are disinclined to see this as a picture of the Rapture on the grounds that it proposes a fifty-fifty split between those who are taken and those who are left.

But Jesus doesn’t say that every other person will be taken.  Jesus gave two illustrations: one of two guys working in the field, and the other of two women working in the mill.

I’ve seen the Rapture depicted dozens of times in movies, documentaries and so forth – I’ve even been involved in producing a couple of recreations myself.

That’s the only way the illustration makes sense – as an illustration.

The pilot disappears, leaving the co-pilot sitting beside him.  The mailman disappears as he is handing a lady her mail – his stuff falls to the ground while she stands there staring.

That doesn’t illustrate that only pilots and mailmen will be raptured – the illustration isn’t even those raptured – since they disappeared, what would that illustrate?

The illustration is from the perspective of those who are left behind, not those who are taken.  To them, it will look like almost everybody.

If ever there were a time in history that approximates the days of Noah, this is it.   Not because we’re eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage – that is a sign appropriate to any generation. 

The picture in Noah’s day was of Noah giving the warning and the world, mesmerized by the machinery of evil, rejecting the warning, was taken totally by surprise when the rains came.

“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.” (Genesis 8-9)

Noah was NOT perfect – he was perfect in his generations, meaning his bloodline was unpolluted.  Noah “found grace in the eyes of the Lord’ and Noah walked with God.

Christians are saved by grace, and that not of ourselves, but it is the gift of God.  Lest any man should boast [of himself]. (Ephesians 2:8-9)  Like Noah, Christians have found grace in the eyes of the Lord (through Christ our King.)

And because of that unmerited grace, there is therefore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, that walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1)

We are not perfect, but our bloodline is unpolluted, washed clean and pure by the Blood of the Lamb through the grace of God. And by virtue of the indwelling Holy Spirit, we “walk with God.”

The imagination of our hearts (movies, TV, etc) is only evil continually.   Our intellect creates the machinery of war, the epitome of evil by design. 

The signs are everywhere, and there is no shortage of Noahs out there giving the warning.   As it was in the days of Noah, so it is today.  Noah and his family were ready.

“Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.” (Matthew 24:44)

Nobody else was.  And then the rains came. 

The Mystery of Iniquity

The Mystery of Iniquity
Vol: 114 Issue: 30 Wednesday, March 30, 2011

There is a principle of internet behavior known as “Godwin’s Law.” Basically, it states “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis approaches.”

It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

I tend to agree that comparing somebody to Hitler does Hitler’s uniquely depraved evil an injustice – nobody else could be as evil in exactly the same way as Hitler, except perhaps the antichrist.

But sometimes, the comparisons make themselves.

Hitler was a fascist.  The Nazis were fascists.  But fascism isn’t the same as Nazism.  Modern fascism was the invention of Italian nationalists during WWI, but as a political philosophy it has no particular nationality. 

See if any of this sounds familiar to you.  

  • Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.
  • Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state.
  • Fascism is anti-communist, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentary, anti-conservative, anti-bourgeois and anti-proletarian, and in many cases anti-capitalist.
  • Fascism rejects the concepts of egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favor of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will.

Austin Hill noted in a Town Hall column the other day that President Obama’s views and agenda since his election generally follow three main schools of philosophical thought.

The first is that of economic collectivism – “sharing the wealth” as he told Joe the Plumber.  The rights of group, or collective, supersede the rights of the individual.  Obama declared free universal health care a ‘basic human right’ – to be paid for by wealthy individuals.

Obama adheres to the principle of “moral relativism” rejecting moral absolutes in favor of the assumption that values and cultures are not objectively good or bad, but rather everything is relative. 

Thus, Obama could explain with a straight face that Islamic terrorism should be understood in the context of American hostility towards Muslim countries following eight years of ‘Bush imperialism.’

Since there is nothing inherently bad about terrorism, Obama could see no reason why he shouldn’t, for example, have a sit-down meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The third school of philosophical thought that dictates Obama’s thinking is Obama’s assumption that global well-being is more important than the interests of any one nation, even his own. 

President Obama closed his Monday night address to the nation about why America is involved in the Libyan Civil War with an explanation of what it “says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.”

Think of it as the Obama Doctrine for the use of military power.  That doctrine, as he laid it out Monday night, is this:

“The United States can have a moral responsibility to intervene abroad when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are.”

See?  America ‘can’ have a moral responsibility to intervene abroad’ – or it cannot.  What determines that intervention isn’t our safety, but rather, our interests and our values, as determined by the President, and not necessarily the Congress.

The Obama Doctrine gives the president the authority to take the country to war at his discretion, based on his evaluation of what America’s interests and values abroad might be.   

(Jay Leno joked the other night that the Obama Doctrine for committing US troops is called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “)

Presidential ‘doctrines’ are supposed to summarize and clarify America’s national policy.  So America’s national policy is that the president can use military force – or not. 

It depends on the color of Obama’s mood ring.  Or something.   

The Obama Doctrine sets aside both the Constitution and the Congressional War Powers Act, which gives the President the right to wage war for sixty days without Congressional approval. But that only applies when responding to an attack or if the nation is under imminent threat.

Under the Obama Doctrine, only the President has the right to wage war, when and how he chooses, based on his perception of what is in the national interests.

Obama worked the phones to get approval of the Security Council before going to the Arab League to get their approval.  But he didn’t bother to address the American people or even consult with the Congress before committing US forces.

Instead, as Americans went to war, he went on a five-day tour of Latin America with his family.

The president described his reasoning in his Monday night speech, which, unlike his predecessors, was not delivered from the Oval Office:

“(W)hen innocent people are being brutalized; when someone like Gadhafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region; and when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives — then it’s in our national interest to act. And it’s our responsibility.”

In other words, under the Obama Doctrine, America’s national interest is internationalist imperialism.

Ironically, that is exactly the opposite of what he promised the electorate while running for office and what he promised the world after being elected.

He spent his first year on the Obama World Tour telling the Muslim nations that the age of American imperialism is over – unless, based on Obama’s own criteria, American imperial power is necessary to protect . . . ummm . . . just those that Obama feels deserve protection.

The UN mandate that Obama sought authorized the international community to take whatever measures necessary to stop Libyan government forces from advancing on Benghazi and slaughtering the rebels.

As Obama made a point of saying, (after he had made a point of saying the opposite) regime change is not the mission objective.  The mission objective was strictly limited to stopping Ghadaffi from using his air power to slaughter civilians.

In his Monday speech, Obama told the nation, “Tonight, I can report that we have stopped Ghadaffi’s deadly advance.” 

Mission accomplished? President Obama’s “mission accomplished” speech was delivered on Monday.

On Tuesday, pro-Ghadaffi forces pounded the rebels into a full retreat, chasing them back out of all the towns they had captured over the weekend.

And American missiles are again pounding Libyan military positions – positions held by the rebels only two days ago.


I opened with a discussion of fascism, mainly because that is the preferred pejorative of the Far Left (where Obama lives) to describe conservatives specifically and Republicans in general. 

Obama comes far closer to fitting the definition of a fascist than any occupant of the White House since FDR.

Columnist Austin Bey has a column at TownHall that summarize Obama’s newly-articulated war doctrine perfectly in a single sentence;

“Once again, it’s time for Candidate Obama, circa 2007-2008, to condemn President Barack Obama. For that matter, the April 2009 Obama avatar should also sneer at the current version — if he can’t find the time to attend a Washington-area protest demonstration.”

Obama hasn’t sought a Congressional declaration of war — or even sought Congressional approval – because he knows that Senator Obama would have certainly refused to give it to him.

After all, what would Senator Obama say to a policy that requires us to spend $55 million per day on a mission that doesn’t seek regime change – as long as Ghadaffi steps down.   It doesn’t matter what Obama says our goals are.

In fact, nothing that the president has said about Libya really matters.  He said that it would be an ‘international’ operation, that America would not take the lead, and that his intention was to turn the operation over to NATO.

For NATO to lead violates its own charter. Any NATO military involvement must be unanimous. Any one of NATO’s 28 members can theoretically veto NATO involvement. 

Except when America wants to use NATO for cover.  NATO member Turkey opposed military action against Libya.  (Who cares? It’s only Turkey!)

Obama arranged to have a three-star Canadian general take command of NATO operations in Libya. 

According to Reuters, that Canadian general, Charles Bouchard, said of the handoff, “this is a very complex operation…the exact date is soon.”   

Exactly. The exact date is soon.  And “days, not weeks” has morphed into “weeks, not months.”  (Anybody want to bet on how long before the White House starts saying, “months, not years”?)

Obama is hoping nobody will notice that America provides 22% of NATO’s budget.  Or that the Commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command is a US admiral. Or that the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe is always an American officer.  That ought to fool everybody!

Since regime change is not Obama’s goal (something he hasn’t fully explained to Secretary Clinton, who thinks it is) and since stopping Ghadaffi is supposed to be in America’s national interest (something he hasn’t fully explained to Secretary Gates, who thinks it is NOT) one wonders how things will turn out if Ghadaffi hangs on to power.

We don’t know who ALL the rebels are, but we know that some of them are al-Qaeda, others are Hezbollah.  And so last week, arming the rebels was unthinkable. Obama swore we’d never do that!

This week, the White House is discussing the possibility openly, which in this environment, can only mean that we are already arming them. 

Obama swore that the one thing that would never happen is that he would never put American “boots on the ground.”  (Apparently, the White House has ordered US Special Forces target acquisition operators on the ground in Libya to start wearing sneakers.)

So we have American Special Forces working with the “rebels” – many of whom were only recently killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We are ARMING them and hoping they will seize power in Libya. 

Do you ever look around at the mess we find ourselves in and ask yourself, “Is this really happening?”

If you step back and take in the Big Picture, what we’re looking at is a textbook example of the Apostle Paul’s strong delusion in action.

2nd Thessalonians 2:11 says, “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” To discover which cause that Paul is referring to, you have to back up a verse.

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”

The mainstream media didn’t like the emerging narrative that suggested the One was really a Marxist with racist tendencies and a fascist agenda who may or may not even be eligible to hold his office, so they created a new one that was better suited to their bias.

Barack Obama would have the most responsive administration, he was a different kind of politician, he would have the most open and honest administration, he would ban lobbyists and special interests, end American imperialism and replace war with diplomacy, etc., etc.

As it turns out, they aren’t liking the delusion that much, either.

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming . . . “ (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8)

 That ‘mystery’ doesn’t seem quite so mysterious, anymore. 

The ‘New’ McCarthyism

The ‘New’ McCarthyism
Vol: 114 Issue: 29 Tuesday, March 29, 2011

One of the best (and most fun) reference works I ever owned was called “The People’s Almanac” written by David Wallace and Irving Wallenchinsky.  It was actually a series of three books, published in 1975, 1978 and 1981. 

“The People’s Almanac” was like a bound version of the internet — before there was an internet.  It had great features. 

One feature listed the best epitaphs in America.  I can still remember the one I liked best – from a tombstone in Waynesville NC. (I’m working from memory, here.)

“Come, blooming youth as you pass by;
And on these lines do cast an eye;
As you are now, so once was I;
As I am now, so you will be;
Prepare yourself to follow me”

It’s a pretty cool epitaph, made even cooler by the scrawled addition from some anonymous punster;

“To follow you I am not content . . . How do I know which way you went?

Another favorite is from a tombstone in Cripple Creek, Colo – (I visited this one) “Here lies a man named Zeke – Second Fastest Draw in Cripple Creek”.

Another from Tombstone, reads:  “Here lies Lester Moore, Four Slugs From a .44 – No Less, No More.” 

But my favorite is over the grave of this unhappy woman:

She lived with her husband for fifty years, and died in the confident hope of a better life”

Another of my favorite sections in this wonderfully entertaining reference series was the section entitled, “People Who Became Words.”

Among the contenders were people like Robert Bork – who gave us the phrase “to be borked” – or “to be ambushed by one’s colleagues” or American legend Jim Bowie, who gave us the Bowie Knife, or Rev. Archibald Spooner, whose sermons gave us the term, spoonerism.

“Spoonerism” describes a verbal blunder involving the switching of the initial sounds of a pair of words.  A couple of spoonerisms as examples: “drain bamage” “joking smacket” “teepy slime” or the famous West Bestern hotel chain.

Listed among the “People Who Became Words” was Wisconsin Republican Senator Joseph A. McCarthy.  Senator McCarthy is sort of unique in this category, in that his was the only name I could find that became something of a swear word.

To hurl an accusation of “McCarthyism” at a politician is just about the worst possible thing you can say about him.  

“McCarthyism” defined means: the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.”

Joseph McCarthy is one of the most lampooned, maligned and criticized politicians of the 20th century.  McCarthyism became a word in 1950 after he opened an investigative committee nicknamed HUAC, for House Un-American Activities Committee.

McCarthy is remembered for heading up what was called a “witch hunt” – looking for Communists in government, the media and entertainment.  The fact that he found plenty of them is largely ignored.

To the average American, Joe McCarthy was a hero. But he was hated beyond measure by the media and the American Left.  McCarthy wasn’t hated because he smeared innocent people.  He was hated because he identified the guilty.

A few examples of McCarthy’s “victim” and the positions they held within the US government during the height of the Cold War.

  • Mary Jane Keeney, a United Nations employee, and her husband Philip Keeney, who worked in the Office of Strategic Services;
  • Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to President Roosevelt;
  • Virginius Frank Coe, Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund
  • William Ludwig Ullman, delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;
  • Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury (and head of the Silvermaster network of spies);
  • Harold Glasser, U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;
  • Four staff members of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, a Senate subcommittee on labor rights chaired by former Senator Robert La Follette, Jr., whom McCarthy defeated for election in 1946;
  • Allan Rosenberg, Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board; argued cases before the United States Supreme Court.

None of these names mean much now, but they were the cream of the Marxist intelligentsia in America during the 1950’s.  And they were all Communist sympathizers.

Of the 110 names that McCarthy gave the Tydings Committee to be investigated, 62 of them were employed by the State Department at the time of the hearings.

The committee cleared everyone on McCarthy’s list, but within a year the State Department started proceedings against 49 of the 62. And by the end of 1954, 81 of 110 names on McCarthy’s list had left the government either by dismissal or resignation.

Thanks to Joe McCarthy, the State Department and other sensitive federal agencies dismissed nearly 4,000 employees in 1953 and 1954, although many of them shifted to non-sensitive departments.

Summarizing the 1952 testimony of former Soviet courier Elizabeth Bentley, who had identified 37 Soviet agents within the U.S. government, the subcommittee also said that “to her knowledge there were four Soviet espionage rings operating within our government and that only two of these have been exposed.”

In October 1953, a Soviet defector named Colonel Ismail Ege estimated that a minimum of 20 spy networks were operating within the United States in 1941-42, when he was chief of the Fourth Section of Soviet General Staff Intelligence.

Joe McCarthy was the first American politician to take on the American Left directly. Although he was right about the extent of Communist infiltration into the United States government, when the Left-controlled media was done with him, he left office a broken man.

McCarthy was censured by the Democrat-controlled Senate by a vote of 67-22 in which the Democrats voted unanimously.

Joe McCarthy died a broken man at age forty-eight of hepatitis at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

The Venona Project was a long-running secret code-breaking operation run jointly by the US and British governments. Venona was not publicly disclosed until 1995 and its disclosure was fought tooth and nail by liberal Democrats who knew what it would reveal.

Venona specifically references at least 349 people in the United States—including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents—who may have cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies.

It is generally believed that McCarthy had no access to VENONA intelligence, but VENONA supports the view that the individuals investigated by McCarthy’s HUAC were indeed Soviet agents.

Joe McCarthy was right. 

So if history establishes that Joe McCarthy was right and that he probably saved America from being overtaken from within by Communist fifth-columnists, then why is “McCarthyism” still the greatest insult that can be heaped upon a political agenda?

Because they have too much invested in the fake narrative – to admit they were wrong now would be to admit they had been duped.  That is the same reason that nobody in the mainstream dares to question anything about Obama’s nativity and dances around the issue of his incompetence.

To the mainstream, Obama isn’t an incompetent bumbler, he is an unfortunate victim of the American racists that elected him!

(According to the 2010 Census, only 12.2% of Americans are black, but Obama got more than fifty percent of the vote; black, white, brown, red and pink.)

But if Obama’s critics aren’t racists, or anti-something, then the spotlight shifts from his critics to the target of their criticism.  That would never do. 

Because that exposes the mainstream liberal media for the useful idiots that they are. 


Last week, Representative Peter King held the first Congressional hearing investigating the incidences of homegrown terrorism in America.  Here’s how the reliably liberal New York Times described it.

“Attacked by critics as a revival of McCarthyism, and lauded by supporters as a courageous stand against political correctness, the hearing — four hours of sometimes emotional testimony — revealed a deep partisan split in lawmakers’ approach to terror investigations and their views on the role of mosques in America.

Republicans drilled down with questions about whether Muslims cooperate with law enforcement, and singled out a Washington-based advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, casting it as an ally of terrorists.

The New York Times doesn’t say why King cast CAIR as “an ally of terrorists” —  but the reason is because it is an ally of terrorists! 

The Times did tear a strip off Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Decency, portraying him as the “Republican star witness” that “rankled fellow Muslims.” 

Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, wants to hold hearings to examine claims of anti-Islamic bias – particularly by Rep. King.  But his star witness, Farhana Khera, is connected to the legal firm, “Muslim Advocates” which has links with Hamas and CAIR.

“Our Constitution protects the free exercise of religion for all Americans,” Durbin said in a release announcing the hearing. “During the course of our history, many religions have faced intolerance. It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter’s commitment to religious diversity and to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.”

What if the religion to be freely exercised openly demands, as a condition of membership, the overthrow of the United States government and its replacement with Sharia?  That’s ok.

What if the religion to be freely exercised was Christianity

What if it opposes gay marriage?  That’s not ok, is it?  What if it opposes abortion?  That’s not ok, is it?  What if it claims exclusivity?

What if it claims that membership in a particular religion is the only way to heaven?  That’s not ok, is it?  Of course not!  Freedom of religion does NOT allow for such intolerant, discriminatory practices!

That kind of bigotry has no place in America.  Does it?   


The Devil LIKES Being in the Details

The Devil LIKES Being in the Details
Vol: 114 Issue: 28 Monday, March 28, 2011

A member of the OL family that lives inside Syria emailed me over the weekend. He asked me to comment on the ongoing meltdown across the region.

Our brother lives in Damascus, capital of Syria. I don’t want to identify him further out of concern for his safety, but I can only imagine how confusing things must be from where he stands.

The Obama administration, which took a pass on helping Iran’s rebellion, backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, sided with it again in Libya, just announced it was leaving the Syrian demonstrators to Assad’s tender mercies.

No wonder he’s confused.  I’m confused. In Libya, the United States is firing $1.6 million cruise missiles at Libyan forces like they were free. 

Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said categorically that the US won’t intervene in Syria the way that it has in Libya.  Why not? 

“Each of these situations is unique,” Clinton explained during a whirlwind tour of the mainstream Sunday talk shows.

Ah!” said the mainstream media. “We thought that every situation was identical. That explains it. Thanks.”

Elsewhere on the dial, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was asked if the Libyan civil war in some way impacted vital American national interests, as the President said in his weekly radio address. 

“No, no,” Gates replied.  “It was not a vital national interest of the United States. But it was an interest: the engagement of the Arabs [Arab League], the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake. . . “

“You have had revolutions on the east and the west of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. So you had a potentially destabilizing event taking place in Libya that put at risk, potentially, the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt. And that was another [U.S.] consideration.”

Ok, so Libya isn’t in America’s vital interests. In fact, the only interest America has in Libya, according to the Secretary of Defense, is the general humanitarian question. 

And then there was the other US consideration articulated by Secretary Gates  — “what if the Libyan civil war destabilized Tunisia and Egypt?”  

Ok, I’m now officially confused. I thought it was Tunisia and Egypt that destabilized Libya?  

On ABC News Hillary Clinton invoked the “Iraq Defense.”

“Imagine [if] we were sitting here, and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled with nowhere to go or overwhelming Egypt while it is in its own difficult transition,” she said.

That’s not so hard to imagine.  In 1992, Saddam’s military all but exterminated the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq. (They are still digging up mass graves.)

 “If we were sitting here [passively], the cries would have been, ‘Why did the United States not do anything?'”

That’s not what the cries were when the US invaded Iraq, despite Saddam’s record of exterminating whole segments of his population.  Then, the cries were “No blood for oil.”  

Despite protests to the contrary, the United States has taken sides in the Libyan civil war without having the first clue who the Libyan rebels are.   

Mostly, they are the Muslim Brotherhood – the same Muslim Brotherhood that supported jihadi attacks against Americans in Iraq.

I continue to be fascinated (the way a bird is when it sees a snake) by the way the media instantly embraces claims from the Brotherhood that they are really closet Democrats.

The West has nothing to fear from the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, according to Hresha.  Like their counterparts in Egypt, they would embrace multiparty democracy.

“I’ve lived for many years in Canada and the UK, and that’s exactly the political system that we want,” Hresha said.

Well, maybe not exactly like Canada and the UK.

Hresha says that if his organization forms a political party, it would seek to legislate according to Koranic principles, which would include, for example, a continued ban on the sale of alcohol.

CNN is pretty much typical of the dewey-eyed liberal hopefuls that are just positive that this time, the Muslim Brotherhood is really our new best friend.

“A more prominent role for the Brotherhood in Libya could dent support for al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, especially in eastern provinces that have witnessed significant radicalization in recent years” reported the former Clinton News Network.

The Muslim Brotherhood gave birth to al-Qaeda. Ayman al Zawahiri was radicalized by the Muslim Brotherhood.   

In Syria, home to the largest chemical and biological arsenal in the Middle East, all of which are pointed at Israel, CNBC reports,

“The new American ambassador in Damascus, Robert Ford, has been quietly reaching out to Mr. Assad to urge him to stop firing on his people.”

With 61 people confirmed killed by security forces, the country’s status as an island of stability amid the Middle East storm seemed irretrievably lost.

For two years, the United States has tried to coax Damascus into negotiating a peace deal with Israel and to moving away from Iran — a fruitless effort that has left President Obama open to criticism on Capitol Hill that he is bolstering one of the most repressive regimes in the Arab world.”

I suppose this is sort of what our Damascus brother is wondering about.  Why is the US, UN and Arab League so focused on Libya, when the real threat is the heavily armed Syrian regime also actively seeking nuclear weapons?

How does this square with Bible prophecy and the whole ‘Islamic antichrist’ theory?

The Bible says that in the last days, the world will be divided into four spheres of political influence, but the global power will be concentrated in the government run by the antichrist. 

The Bible portrays the antichrist’s government as one of global reach and scope.  It will be the richest and most advanced government on earth at the time. 

The Bible says that the antichrist’s power will be so minutely centralized that he will be able to restrict the ability to buy and sell down to the individual level

That requires a massive, computerized infrastructure, total control of a world-wide economy, and the ability to enforce worship as a condition of economic participation. 

Are we witnessing the formation of the antichrist’s government in the collapse of the Arab Middle East?  Is the antichrist’s government the Muslim Brotherhood?  It doesn’t qualify.  It cannot qualify and still be Islamic. 

A Muslim couldn’t worship a man and still be a Muslim.  A Muslim could not demand worship of himself and still be a Muslim. If the Mahdi demanded worship of himself, he would be exposed as an infidel.

It is entirely possible that the Mahdi plays a role in the Bible prophecy – but as the king of the south, not the antichrist. The antichrist’s government’s principle weapon is peace — not war.  

Daniel says “by peace [he] shall destroy many’ and the Apostle John symbolizes him as a rider on a white horse carrying a bow (signifying power) but no arrows, symbolizing a bloodless coup.  

It is clear that the United Nations would love to assume the role of global government, but the United Nations doesn’t qualify, either.  Every single time it attempts to involve itself (like in Libya) it proves itself incapable of handling the job.

Or any job handed to it.

According to Bible prophecy, the Arab nations surrounding Israel will form a coalition of nations that will launch an all-out war against Israel.   

Interestingly, Libya isn’t part of that coalition – Libya is part of the Gog-Magog alliance.

When the Arab coalition attacks Israel, it will be utterly destroyed as a viable political force. The prophet Isaiah hints that the destruction of the Edomite coalition will involve nuclear weapons.   

It is after that war that Israel is pictured as living in a period of temporary peace and safety, a “land of unwalled villages” as described in Ezekiel 38.  

There is no crossover between the membership of the Edomite coalition of Psalms 83, etc. and the members of the Gog-Magog Alliance. 

Every member of the Edomite coalition is Islamic.  Gog-Magog’s Persia, (Iran) Libya, Ethiopia (Islamic North Africa) and Togarmah (Turkey) are Islamic; Russia is not.

None of the nations that are named as part of the Edomite coalition are mentioned during the Tribulation – but after that point, Israel is pictured as living in peace and safety.  These are all powerful arguments against an Islamic antichrist.

Where the Middle East meltdown does fit the prophetic outline, however, is as a springboard FOR the antichrist.  Edom’s war with Israel clearly suggests mushroom clouds over the Middle East. 

The prophet Daniel says a prince of the people that destroyed the Temple would then impose peace between Israel and the many.  

If that describes the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (which did not split from Rome until two centuries later and was therefore powerless in AD 70,) then why link his identity to the Destruction of the Temple? 

I have no doubt that the meltdown in the Middle East is part of the overall outline of Bible prophecy.  The administration’s desperation to put the whole thing under NATO is significant. NATO is Europe.

But all of this is relevant to us in the here-and-now in but one respect.  It signals the lateness of the hour.  That is more than just a turn of phrase – the hour is so late that we can almost smell the sulfur.

The topic du jour is the coming of the antichrist in real terms, and not just hypothetical ‘what-ifs’.  

There are actual contenders instead of the usual “Prince Charles is the antichrist because his coat of arms looks like the first beast of Revelation” (Tim Cohen) or King Carlos of Spain because his name adds to 666 in ten languages.

But beyond the relevance of pointing out that everything is trending according to the outline of future history in the Bible the identity of the antichrist or the religion of the false prophet is largely speculative.

The only point for the Church in noting the nearness of the antichrist according to the signs is that it means the Rapture is even closer.  

We are to note the signs of the times — they were given as a warning. 

But the warning isn’t to the Church – it is to the lost.   The signs were given to the Church to establish the credibility of the warning. That is the purpose for Bible prophecy. 

“The Bible predicted this and that and this and that are so. So you can trust the part that says Jesus is coming soon.”  

The evidence, no matter how one focuses on the details, suggest that whoever the antichrist might be, he has his choice of world systems available – and eagerly awaiting him with open arms.

But before he can be revealed, the same Bible says the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit must be taken out of the way. And with the Restrainer go His vessels.   

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

Keeping The Faith

Keeping The Faith
Vol: 114 Issue: 26 Saturday, March 26, 2011

Today’s Omega Letter isn’t for everybody.  If things are going fine in your Christian life, your faith is strong, and you are confident of your standing before God, then maybe you can skip this one.  You probably won’t relate to it anyway.  

But if you sometimes lay awake at night wondering if maybe you really aren’t good enough to be saved, or maybe you’ve misunderstood something and maybe you really aren’t saved, then you might want to read on.

Faith is at once as simple as a recipe for boiling water and as complicated as a recipe for coq au vin.  It really depends on how many ingredients you think necessary.  

For some, faith means, “Jesus said it, I believe it and that settles it.”  That pretty much sums up their Christianity. They don’t feel the need to examine their faith on a regular basis, or in some cases, at all. 

I know of people who never go to church and never talk about Jesus and who live life pretty much the same as if they had never heard of Him. You wouldn’t know that they were Christians unless you brought the subject up. 

But when the subject comes up, some seem to be more at peace with their salvation than many serious, mature and dedicated Christians that are constantly worried about losing their salvation.  

Do you not know people like that?  Are they really saved?  They think they are.  Although a lot of Christians I know would say they are not. 

Conversely, I know many mature, well-studied, serious and dedicated Christians that are constantly reexamining their faith and never completely sure if it measures up.  For them, faith is a deeply complicated subject that involves all kinds of additional steps and support mechanisms.

Do you not know people like that, too?  

The writer of Hebrews defines faith as “the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) 

When you go to work on Monday, it is because you expect a paycheck on Friday.  The paycheck is the substance of things hoped for, and the fact you show up on the job is the evidence that you’re expecting to be paid.

If you didn’t have faith that there’d be a payday, then your lack of faith would be evident when you didn’t show up.  

This is where faith and works get confused. You don’t go to the job in order to have faith in your boss.  You go to the job BECAUSE you have faith in your boss.  

That is what the Apostle Paul meant when he wrote; “The just shall live by faith.”  They don’t live by faith because they are just.  They are just because they live by faith.  It is faith that justifies. 

But faith in what?


 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

Have you ever wondered if you were losing your faith? (If not, then why are you still here? I told you this one isn’t for you.)

The first question to be asked and answered is so simple as to often be ignored.  Where did you put it?

Is your faith in your ability to keep the Word?  If so, then your faith is in yourself – no wonder you waver so much.

Is it in your pastor or Bible teacher? That’s a pretty dangerous place to put it, since he is, by definition, a prime target on the enemy hit list. 

You would be surprised how many prominent Christian leaders suffer faith crises – especially the ones that seem to have it the most together.The more prominent or effective the teacher, the more intensely the enemy focuses his attack. 

Look at how many prominent men of faith have fallen — and fallen hard — from Jimmy Swaggart to Ted Haggard. Are they lost now?  Were they ever really saved?  

Think of how that affected their followers: Was I following a false doctrine?  Am I now?  

Paul says that a man is “justified by faith.”  What does that mean?  Faith in Jesus?  What does that mean?  Does faith mean simply believing that He lived and died and was resurrected on the third day? 

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19)

So clearly, faith isn’t the same as simply believing.  Satan believes

If your faith is in the indwelling Holy Spirit to keep you from sin, then what does it mean when you do sin? (for you certainly will.)   Is the Holy Spirit faithless?  Or are you?  If you are faithless, then how can you be saved? 

If your faith is in Jesus Christ’s Promise that “him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out” well, that sounds too easy to be true sometimes, doesn’t it? Especially when there are so many others all around you that don’t seem to have the same struggles that you do.  

That by itself is enough to cause a major faith crisis.  Here you are, struggling through, knowing how many times you fall in the course of a single day, while other Christians seem to have it nailed. 

I’m not going to soothe you by telling you that you’re doing it right.  Or that you can’t do better.  Or that you shouldn’t do better. Because you likely aren’t, probably can, and certainly should.

But if your faith is in your ability to perform, then no wonder you question it.  That is why salvation is by faith that, by the grace of God, Jesus did it all — because you can’t do any of it.  

Salvation is about having faith that you can trust the promises of God. Faith that He will perform them, not faith that you will.   

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6)

Those are both pretty much unambiguous, black-and-white statements.  How much faith must one have to be saved? How faithful must one be to stay saved? Jesus said faith the size of a mustard seed could move mountains. 

Can you move mountains?  

Rome’s On-Schedule Revival

Rome’s On-Schedule Revival
Vol: 114 Issue: 25 Friday, March 25, 2011

The catastrophic earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan should have caused the Japanese yen to weaken against the US dollar.  But instead, the yen rose against the US dollar for five consecutive days after the earthquake.

Currency speculators expected Japan to bring back some of the money Japan has invested in the US to pay for rebuilding.  The speculation ended when the world’s leading finance ministers and central bankers intervened in the currency markets to prop the dollar back up.

But even with international intervention, when measured against a ‘basket’ of currencies including the euro, yen, pound and Canadian dollar, the dollar is down seven percent since January and 14 percent since June.

What does that mean?  Well, suppose you invested $10,000.00 in US currency at 5% last June.  You haven’t yet made $500 in interest, (it’s still three months until June) but your original $10,000.00 is only worth about $8600.00 today. 

So your savings saw a net loss of almost ten percent, even with a higher-than-average five percent annual return.

Economists say that is a good thing. Companies that export goods become more competitive because their products are cheaper on the international market.  That helps Americans sell more stuff abroad.

But it makes everything more expensive at home. And since 70% of the US economy is driven by domestic spending, it means a weaker dollar advantages 30% of the economy at the expense of the other 70%. 

I’m no economist, but that doesn’t seem to me to be a winning equation over the long haul.  It means that a gallon of gasoline costs more.  So does a Japanese TV. Or a bottle of French wine.  Or Canadian lumber.  

So the price of everything at Walmart is going up, but the price of American-made products is coming down.  Sadly, thanks to years of intense liberal efforts to “redistribute the wealth” very little is actually American-made.

Even when it seems like it.

The local GM plant in Tonawanda, New York has laid off most of its work force because of the Japanese earthquake!  

Government Motors employees in Tonawanda assemble the engines, but the parts necessary for assembly are made in Japan. So while Government Motors can claim GM cars are American-made, it is more accurate to say that some of them are “assembled in America.”

In 2008 I bought a Pontiac Vibe from GM.  (Smart move, no?) When Toyota began having its problems, I got recall notices from GM because the Pontiac Vibe is a rebranded Toyota Matrix assembled in America from Japanese parts.

(And when last I checked, the Pontiac Vibe’s value had depreciated to the point that three years into a five-year car loan, the car is almost worth what I owe on it.  But not quite)

What I found most stunning was that many investors are moving out of US dollars and investing in Canadian dollars.   Only ten years ago, a US dollar was worth $1.40 Canadian.  

Today, a US dollar is worth only 97 cents Canadian.  Compared to the American greenback, the Canadian dollar is a safe asset. But not quite as safe as the euro.

According to an economic assessment in the Washington Post, investors are shifting their assets from America to Europe.

“As the euro and other currencies emerge as stronger alternatives to the dollar — and as the United States maintains easy-money monetary policies and high federal budget deficits — the chances of such a shift will increase.

“The dollar is still dominant, but as the European economy comes back and they are ahead of us in getting their fiscal house in order, that could set up the long-feared substantial move from dollar to euro as the dominant global currency,” said Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

So while America remains the dominant economic power of the moment, in the long term, investors are betting on Europe.

According to a new study conducted by the “Comeback America Initiative” using the Sovereign Fiscal Responsibility Index to rank America’s financial situation, America is in pretty bad shape. 

What does that mean? For comparison purposes, the top five are Australia, New Zealand, Estonia Sweden, China and Luxembourg.  The Index ranks 34 countries – America comes in at number 28.

That is according to David Walker, former Comptroller-General of the United States:

“We think it is important for the American people to understand where the United States is as compared to other countries with regard to fiscal responsibility and sustainability,” Walker said in a CNBC interview.

“Americans are used to rankings and they’re used to ranking very high, but frankly in this area we rank very low.” 

How low?  Walker equated the debate in Congress about spending reforms to an argument over a bar tab on the Titanic.

“We need to cut spending. Frankly we need to cut spending more than what has been talked about but over a longer period of time. But what’s imperative is that we need to attach some conditions to increasing the debt ceiling limit that will bring back tough budget controls…”

These are the kinds of long-term trends that form the bedrock evidences that this is the generation that will see the fulfillment of all Bible prophecy and the second coming of Christ.

Trends come and go – but Europe is definitely not a trend.  


According to the Prophet Daniel, the dominant power on earth during the last days will be a revived form of the Roman Empire.  That identification is derived from a single, critically important passage about the people of the prince.

“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.” (Daniel 9:26)

Why is this such a critically important passage?   Beginning with Daniel 9:24, the prophet outlines the entire future history of Israel from Daniel’s present to ours.

“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

“Seven weeks, threescore (sixty) and two weeks: that adds up to sixty nine “weeks.”  Hebrew uses sevens the way the Greeks use tens.

The Greeks count the passage of time in decades – periods of ten years each. The Hebrews counted in heptads – periods of seven years each.  Sixty-nine weeks is 483 years.  

So Daniel is predicting that, from the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah would be received as a prince would be four hundred and eighty-three years.

I said that the identification of the revived Roman Empire was critically important to this passage from Daniel. Here is why.

The Bible tells us that Ezra began his journey to Jerusalem, letter in hand, on the 1st day of the 1st month (Nisan) in the 7th year of the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:9,11).

But Ezra was sent to restore and rebuild the Temple.  Daniel 9’s decree, authorizing the rebuilding of Jerusalem was given to Nehemiah “in the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king.” (Nehemiah 2:5

Nehemiah was given letters of authorization to be delivered to all the governors (v.9) and three days later, (v.11) Nehemiah was in Jerusalem rebuilding the walls. (v.17)

According to Josh McDowell’s book, “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” that first period of sixty-nine ‘weeks’ was fulfilled to the exact moment.

According to modern dating research, the 20th year of the Persian king Xerxes would have been 444 BC. The reference to the ‘month of Nisan’ with no reference to the day indicates the first day of the month.

Using the Hebrew calendar, the first day of Nisan, BC 444 corresponds to the modern date of March 5. Counting forward 483 years from 444 BC to AD 33 is 477 years.

But BC 1 and AD 1 are the same year, so deducting that year leaves us with 476 years. Four hundred seventy-six years times 365.24219879 days is 173,855 days.

McDowell calculates that Jesus was crucified on March 30, AD 33, so there are an extra 25 days to add to the equation, giving a grand total of 173,880 days.

So, from the going forth of the commandment on March 5, BC 444 until March 30, AD 33 was exactly 173,880 days divided by 360 day lunar which equals exactly 483 years.  

Daniel 9:26 goes on to say that after Messiah is ‘cut off but not for Himself’, “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city.”

Within a generation of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah, General [and future Emperor] Titus of Rome led his legions into Jerusalem where the city was sacked and the Temple utterly destroyed.  

Then we come to the final verse – the one about the coming prince of the Roman Empire during the Tribulation Period:

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” (Daniel 9:27)

The coming prince confirms a covenant, or treaty, “with many” and Israel. (The entire prophecy is about Israel.)  The period is “one week.”  Add this week to the sixty-nine weeks and the 70 Weeks of Daniel are completed.  

The sixty-ninth “week” concludes with His ‘cutting off’ at the Cross.  The seventieth concludes with His triumphant return as King of King and Lord of Lords.

Now, to tie it all together.  First, the precision of Daniel’s outline, down to the decimal point, from Xerxes’ decree to the Messiah’s triumphant reception into Jerusalem as ‘Messiah the prince’ on Palm Sunday.

The prophecies of Daniel are so precise that many skeptics have argued that Daniel is really a forgery written by Judas Maccabeus in 163 BC in an effort to explain how Daniel was able to predict the fall of Babylon, the rise and fall of the Persian Empire and the incredible detail with which Alexander the Great’s Greek Empire fulfilled Daniel’s predictions.

For Christians, that argument is demolished by Jesus personally when He refers to Daniel as a prophet.

As we discussed previously, there is a danger in attempting to interpret Bible prophecy in light of current events, rather than interpreting current events in light of Bible prophecy.   (Islam’s Antichrist)

Current events are only current until they change.  Bible prophecy does not change.

There are a number complicated theories about the identification of the antichrist, the timing of the Rapture, the length of the Tribulation, and so on out there. 

To make them work, however, one has to re-interpret the Prophet Daniel. 

To come up with an Islamic antichrist, one must reinterpret the prince as of the people of the Islamic world, not the people of a revived Roman Empire. If the Mahdi is the antichrist, one must forget about a peace covenant. 

If a ‘week’ isn’t seven years, then the Tribulation Period can be whatever a particular theory demands in order to put us in the Tribulation now, or to put the Rapture in the Tribulation later.   

The only really clear identification of the antichrist’s powerbase and the location of his kingdom is found in the Book of Daniel.  John identifies it as a city on seven mountains, which fits Rome as the City on Seven Hills.

But it is Daniel that nails it down by linking the antichrist to the destruction of the city and sanctuary. That can ONLY fit the Romans in AD 70.   It doesn’t fit the Islamic world or allow for an Islamic leader as antichrist.

The first part of Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks covered four hundred and eighty-three years and was accurate down to the decimal point.  

The second part, which deals with a measly seven years, is being dissected and re-interpreted to fit current events. 

Current events — without any interpretation – aren’t as spectacular as discovering an Islamic antichrist or evidence suggesting we’re in the Tribulation now.  

What current events do demonstrate is a slow, inexorable global economic and power shift in Europe’s direction. 

Just as Daniel predicted that it would have to be in the days just before the onset of the Tribulation. 

Soros: Capitalism Replace Communism as Main Threat To Society

Soros: Capitalism Replace Communism as Main Threat To Society
Vol: 114 Issue: 24 Thursday, March 24, 2011

George Soros, writing for the Atlantic Monthly Digital Edition, must have been having a great laugh at his private joke when explaining how the greatest threat to Western civilization is no longer communism.

According to George Soros, billionaire capitalist extraordinaire, the greatest threat to western capitalism is . . . wait for it . . . George Soros!

“Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.”

What is the “threat” posed by capitalism?  According to the billionaire capitalist, capitalism is the new totalitarianism because capitalism is too much like communism or Nazism because it is convinced of its own correctness.

“[Austrian philosopher Karl] Popper showed that totalitarian ideologies like communism and Nazism have a common element: they claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth. Since the ultimate truth is beyond the reach of humankind, these ideologies have to resort to oppression in order to impose their vision on society.

Popper juxtaposed with these totalitarian ideologies another view of society, which recognizes that nobody has a monopoly on the truth; different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace.

These institutions protect the rights of citizens and ensure freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Popper called this form of social organization the “open society.” Totalitarian ideologies were its enemies.”

Soros writes that Karl Popper’s influence caused Soros to develop his own theory of human behavior which he called “reflexivity” which he says he used to develop a theory of history.

Soros explained that having made more money than he could ever spend (thanks to capitalism) he then set out to destroy it and replace it with his own theory by setting up a foundation that Soros calls “The Open Society Fund.”  

He brags that it is now operating in “more than twenty-five countries” – (not sure what that means – does “more than twenty-five countries” mean twenty-six?)  Soros says his toughest nut was South Africa – but admits that he shut down operations in China in 1989 (after Tiananmen Square).

My first major undertaking was in South Africa, but it was not successful. The apartheid system was so pervasive that whatever I tried to do made me part of the system rather than helping to change it. Then I turned my attention to Central Europe. Here I was much more successful. I started supporting the Charter 77 movement in Czechoslovakia in 1980 and Solidarity in Poland in 1981. I established separate foundations in my native country, Hungary, in 1984, in China in 1986, in the Soviet Union in 1987, and in Poland in 1988. My engagement accelerated with the collapse of the Soviet system. By now I have established a network of foundations that extends across more than twenty-five countries (not including China, where we shut down in 1989).

Soros laid out his plan to create what he calls a “New World Architecture” in an op-ed piece published in November 2009.

While international cooperation on regulatory reform is difficult to achieve on a piecemeal basis, it may be attainable in a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.

A new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the international financial architecture after World War II, is needed to establish new international rules, including treatment of financial institutions considered too big to fail and the role of capital controls. It would also have to reconstitute the International Monetary Fund to reflect better the prevailing pecking order among states and to revise its methods of operation.

In addition, a new Bretton Woods would have to reform the currency system. The postwar order, which made the U.S. more equal than others, produced dangerous imbalances. The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.

That was in 2009.  A week before publishing that op-ed, Soros founded the NY City-based “Institute for New Economic Thinking” [Inet] to “make research grants, convene symposia and establish a professional journal.

The purpose of Inet, according to Soros, is to reinvent the global financial markets under the control of Soros and his various organizations.

Soros has been very busy since then, as evidenced by the continuing meltdown of the US dollar – a meltdown spearheaded by Soros and his proxy agents in much the same way that Nathan Meyer Rothschild was able to meltdown and thereby seize control of the British economy back in 1814.

“At that time British bonds were called ‘consuls’ and they were traded on the floor of the stock exchange. Eldest son Nathan Mayer Rothschild instructed all his workers on the floor to start selling consuls. The made all the other traders believe that the British had lost the war so they started selling frantically.

When the stock bottomed, Nathan Mayer Rothschild discreetly instructed his proxies to buy them all back. When news finally reached London that the British had actually won the war, Nathan Mayer Rothschild owned most of England.

On April 8 Soros and a group he’s funded with over $50 million is holding a major economic conference at the Bretton Woods Mount Washington resort in New Hampshire where the current economic order was drawn up as World War II drew to a close in 1945.

Among the featured guests are Soros himself, former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. A Jimmy Carter appointee, Volcker left the Fed in 1987 to become chairman of the New York investment banking firm of Rothschild, Wolfensohn and Co.  

Volcker is currently (and not surprisingly) serving as economic advisor to President Barack Hussein Obama, which explains a lot about America’s current financial situation.   Here is a snippet of Volcker’s biography:

“As of October 2006, he is the current Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the influential Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty, and is a member of the Trilateral Commission. He has had a long association with the Rockefeller family, not only with his positions at Chase Bank and the Trilateral Commission, but also through membership of the Trust Committee of Rockefeller Group, Inc. (RGI), which he joined in 1987. That entity managed, at one time, the Rockefeller Center on behalf of the numerous members of the Rockefeller clan. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the International House in Manhattan, NY. He was a founding member of the Trilateral Commission and is a long time member of the Bilderberg Group.”

Volcker also heads the president’s Economic Advisory Board, and is an advocate for the imposition of a European-style national VAT-style sales tax which he says should be imposed on top of existing taxes.  Europe’s VAT averages some 20% with a maximum cap of 25%. 

Such a tax would allow the government to tax a product at every level of production, from manufacturing to distribution to final sales.  VAT taxes historically result in a doubling of prices — of which half goes to the government.

The Soros event at Bretton Woods is nothing less than an effort to overthrow the current world economic order and replace it with  one more acceptable to – George Soros.

A conference such as this, featuring such luminary speakers as Volcker, economist Jeffrey Sachs (Director of the Soros-funded Earth Institute), World Bank executive Joseph Stiglitz, should be front page news.

But it is getting all the media attention of a Star Trek convention in Anaheim. 


All Bible prophecy for the last days revolves around three main themes; the imposition of a global religion, a global economy and a global government.

During the Tribulation Period, the antichrist will control all three. But the Tribulation Period is only seven years in duration and Bible prophecy seems to indicate that the antichrist seizes control of what are already well-entrenched global systems.

The antichrist doesn’t build a global government – he takes over an existing revived form of what had been the old Roman Empire that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. 

The antichrist doesn’t set up a global religion – he simply takes over an existing centralized religious system that the Bible describes as “having two horns like a Lamb [Christianity] but who spake as a dragon.” 

The Apostle Paul describes it in 2 Timothy 3:5 has having “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”

The antichrist doesn’t set up a global economic system – he simply takes over an existing centralized global economic system — of the kind envisioned by George Soros.

“. . . and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 13:7b-8)

I don’t believe that George Soros is the antichrist.  Some do, but I don’t.  I believe that George Soros is at best a useful idiot who is single-handedly constructing the edifice necessary for him, but Soros himself isn’t the guy.  

He is too obvious.  

And while I don’t have precise Scripture to back it up, I believe that Soros is too old to qualify. The antichrist, false prophet and Satan work together as a counterfeit trinity.  A good counterfeit resembles the original. 

The antichrist is a counterfeit Jesus whereas the false prophet is a counterfeit John the Baptist. Jesus and John the Baptist were both around thirty years old – the age of majority in Jewish tradition.   It seems improbable that the antichrist would be in his eighties.

In any case, what is relevant here is the effort to set up the system that the Bible says will be in place in the last days when the antichrist comes to power.   

It is a political/economic/religious entity much like Soros’ “Open Society” that Soros describes as:

“. . . one which recognizes that nobody has a monopoly on the truth; different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace.”

As Christians, we shouldn’t be looking for the antichrist.  He is Satan’s man. The signs of the times don’t point to the coming of antichrist, they point to the return of Christ.  

The coming of antichrist is itself a sign of the soon return of Christ. The Bible says that the antichrist’s identity won’t be revealed until after the Restrainer is “taken out of the way” but his system will be up and running and ready for him when he is ready for it.

Jesus said that when we see these things BEGIN to come to pass, we are to start to look for our Redeemer because, while we don’t know the day or the hour, we WILL know that it is near, even at the doors.

Our job as Christians is to recognize the signs of the times so we can give the warning before it is too late.  Once the antichrist makes his appearance, there won’t be anything to warn ABOUT. 

Until He is taken out of the way.  

“And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. . . .  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 Thessalonians 2:8, 11-12)

So here’s the warning. If you haven’t already, there is still time to turn your life over to Jesus and invite the Holy Spirit to indwell you and guide you into all truth. 

But time is running out, fast. 

Islam s Antichrist

Islam s Antichrist
Vol: 114 Issue: 23 Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Apart from the total disintegration of the Libyan ‘mission’ – once the Europeans realized America really wasn’t going to lead – there are a number of other issues, some related, some not, but equally worth our attention.

There really isn’t much more to say on the subject.  Having said that, we’ll move on to other topics, for now.

I note that the folks over at Worldnetdaily are getting into the theology business in a big way.  One of their headlines, “Why Beck is Concerned about ‘Islamic Antichrist’ is actually a plug for Joel Richardson’s book, The Islamic Antichrist.

WND cited Glenn Beck’s interview with Joel Richardson in which Glenn Beck “cited a number of similarities between the prophecies regarding the Antichrist of the Bible and the Mahdi of Islamic tradition.”

“You have the bad guy of the Bible, he primarily persecutes God’s people, Jews and Christians,” Richardson responded. Meanwhile the “12th imam,” or Islam’s Mahdi, “causes Jews and Christians to submit to Islam or be killed.”

The WND column notes that the book is co-authored by Walid Shoeblatt, a former Islamic militant who later left Islam after becoming a Christian. According to WND, Joel Richardson is “a human-rights activist, lecturer and artist” who has been “involved in evangelism and ministry to Muslims since 1994.”

I get a lot of emails from folks wanting me to comment on Richardson’s premise, which is essentially that Islam’s Mahdi is the Bible’s antichrist.  

We examined the possibility back in 2004 — long before Richardson’s book was published.

While there are TONS of similarities between the world religion of the antichrist and that of the Twelvers of Shia Islam, I have to reject it as a plausible scenario insofar as Bible prophecy is concerned.

Islamic tradition says the Mahdi will make his appearance riding on a white horse. Richardson links the Islamic Mahdi to the First Seal Judgment — the Book of the Revelation’s rider on a white horse as described in Revelation 6:3:

“And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”  (Revelation 6:3)

Richardson notes that Islamic tradition says that the Mahdi will bring about a war that will kill a quarter of mankind.

Revelation 6:8 says about a quarter of mankind will be killed by the first four judgments of the Tribulation:

“And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.” 

It sounds interesting.  It even sounds almost the same.  But Bible prophecy doesn’t allow for “almost.”

I don’t want to nitpick, but Revelation doesn’t attribute the death toll to the antichrist – it attributes it to the sword, hunger, death and the beasts of the earth.   

It is a culmulative death toll resulting from four separate judgments:  it starts with the ascension of the antichrist, who carries a bow but no arrows.  Why is that? 

Because the Prophet Daniel said it would be “by peace that he shall destroy many.”  Not even the most generous interpretation of the Islamic Mahdi depicts him as peaceful.

The Mahdi, according to Iran’s state religion, is Muhammad ibn Hasan, the “righteous descendant of the prophet Mohammed” who has been in hiding for a thousand years.

His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war, bloodshed and pestilence.  That is the reverse order of judgment, according to the Book of Revelation.  Again, close. But only close.

After this cataclysmic confrontation between the forces of good and evil, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace under Islamic rule. The Mahdi is Islam’s messiah.  

But Islam already has an antichrist – the Dajjal.  

“Dajjal will be a Jew. His distinguishing feature is that he will be one-eyed and the word “Kafir” or “unbeliever” will be written on his forehead. . . That he is a Jew is confirmed from another hadis, which says that his followers will be mainly of Jewish religion.” 

According to the Sunan of Abu Dawud #4306, not only will the Islamic antichrist be a one-eyed Jew, he has a few other distinguishing characteristics:

“I have told you so much about the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) that I am afraid you may not understand. The Anti-Christ is short, hen-toed, woolly-haired, one-eyed, an eye-sightless, and neither protruding nor deep-seated.

And just in case some of the faithful still have trouble spotting him in a crowd, Abu Dawud offers this final bit of sagacity:

“If you are confused about him, know that your Lord is not one-eyed.”


The problem with interpreting Bible prophecy to fit current events is that when current events don’t co-operate, it’s the Bible that has to bend in order to keep the narrative flowing smoothly.   

If the interpretation is true, then it will be current events fitting the Bible’s narrative, not the other way around.    

That is the first problem I found with the whole premise.  To make the antichrist a Muslim, you have to bend too much of the Scripture – and ignore too much of Islam’s own teaching. 

The Prophet Daniel says that antichrist will not “regard any god: for he shall magify himself above, but “in his estate” he will honor “a god whom his fathers knew not.”

That doesn’t even sound close to Islam’s Mahdi, who Islam says has been in a state of occultation for 1200 years.   Here is what Islam says about the Mahdi:

“We are told that Jesus will descend to the earth soon after the appearance of the Mahdi; he will join the Mahdi in establishing the Kingdom of God on earth; and he will pray behind Imam al-Mahdi. The true Christians will follow Jesus in accepting Imam al-Mahdi as the leader at the time and become Muslims.”

Finally, the entire premise is based on the similarities between Islamic eschatological tradition and Bible prophecy.  One arrives at similarities by comparing them to each other. 

To compare them demands assigning them equal validity.

Islamic tradition is similar to Bible prophecy because Islam was modeled after Judeo-Christianity.  It often refers to the Koran as the “Third Testament.”   

It is an Abrahamic religion, which means by definition that Judeo-Christianity served as the model.  

Islam was founded sixteen hundred years after the founding of Jerusalem and the construction of the Temple. It was founded seven hundred years after the founding of Christianity and the destruction of the Temple.

So of course there are similarities between Islamic eschatology and Bible prophecy.  That doesn’t validate Islamic eschatology. 

Here is the central issue to be resolved: Did Revelation prophesy of Islam?  Or did Islam simply modify Bible prophecy already long since recorded?

WND is promoting Joel Richardson’s book claiming the identity of the antichrist based on Glenn Beck’s understanding of Bible prophecy. 

Glenn Beck is a fine social commentator and I believe he is a patriotic American.   And he is most likely sincere in his faith, which Beck self-identifies as Mormon.  But that no more makes Beck a Christian theologian than having been sued once would make him a Constitutional lawyer.  

Beck articulated his understanding of Bible prophecy the other day when he attempted to define “immanency” as meaning “Jesus could come 5,000 years from now.”  

Gee.  Is Beck pre-Trib? Post-Trib?  Mid-Trib? Post-millennial? Amillennial?  Does it matter? 

Are we talking about Bible prophecy?  Then of course it matters.

I don’t want to be seen as beating up on Glenn Beck, Joel Richardson, Walid Shoeblatt or Islam.  I am addressing a question regarding Bible prophecy.  

Bible prophecy cannot be molded and shaped and massaged until it fits a particular worldview.  Because Bible prophecy IS a worldview.  While current events may follow the general lines of Bible prophecy, when current events veer in another direction, Bible prophecy does not.

The understanding of the antichrist’s religion as Islam fits neatly,  but only if we make the antichrist a fake Muslim and redefine Islam so that a mere man can claim godhood without violating Islam’s central pillar of faith – “there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.”

Or alternatively, we must change Bible prophecy so that the antichrist can lead an Islamic army into battle with a bow without arrows — without contradicting Daniel’s description of the antichrist as one who confirms a peace covenant between Israel and the many.

Somehow we must make room in this narrative for the Mahdi to rebuild the Temple on Temple Mount, institute a global government, impose an economic/religious mark, enforce a peace treaty with Israel, and do it all with the enthusiastic approval of the governed.

Bible prophecy is not a sport where the rules are subject to change. Nor is it a story that can be rewritten to suit popular trends.  But that doesn’t stop people from trying.  Or from buying into it.

For some, Bible prophecy isn’t spectacular enough – it needs to be spruced up some.  Europe doesn’t look scary enough to be the seat of the antichrist’s government.  

And a European antichrist doesn’t seem nearly as scary as an Islamic one does.  

”Bordering on the Fantastic”

”Bordering on the Fantastic”
Vol: 114 Issue: 22 Tuesday, March 22, 2011

When a member of Serbia’s “Black Hand” separatist group assassinated Archduke Ferdinand in Sarejevo on 28 June 1914, nobody yet knew that would be the spark that triggered the First World War.

Here’s how it all happened.  Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia.  It was intended as a “limited” war to teach the upstart Serbs to respect their betters.  

But things quickly got out of hand:

  • Serbia was allied to Russia, which was treaty-bound to defend them.   Russia rushed to mobilize its forces.
  • Germany was allied to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.   When the Russians sided with Serbia, Germany sided with Austria/Hungary. 
  • France was bound by treaty to Russia.  When Germany declared war on Russia, France declared war on Germany, which also meant a declaration of war on Austro-Hungary. 
  • Britain was allied with France.  The British determined that they had a moral obligation to defend France. Britain was also bound to Belgium by treaty. 
  • When the Germans invaded Belgium, England was at war with both Germany and Austro-Hungary. 
  • With Britain’s entry into the war, her colonies and dominions abroad variously offered military and financial assistance, and included Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.
  • Japan was bound by treaty to Great Britain, forcing Japan’s entry into the war on the side of the Allies.

In 1936, the Italians invaded Ethiopia.  Nobody knew at the time that would set the stage for a global political meltdown, the collapse of the League of Nations and the inexorable slide into yet a second World War.

Nobody was entirely certain what would happen when Austria issued its ultimatum to Serbia – nobody had thought it through.   

When the Italians, Germans and Japanese got up and walked out of the League of Nations, nobody had really thought through what it would mean in the long run.     

But in both instances, the world was divided up into special interest blocs, or alliances.  It was these special interest groups, or alliances, that were responsible for Austria’s “splendid little war” escalating into the War to End All Wars, and its successor, the War to End All Wars Part Two.

In 2011, the world is divided into special interest blocs, or alliances.  The former Soviet Union’s traditional satellite states are primarily in the Arab Middle East and included Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc.

The Russians are so entrenched in this part of the world that the Russian AK47 is a symbol of both militant Islam and Marxist revolution.   

The other day, the United States decided to join France and Great Britain in a splendid little war against Libyan strongman Muamar Ghadaffi. The purpose of American involvement is very specific. 

We are there to protect an unidentified rebel force of which we know nothing from being slaughtered by Libya’s military by destroying Libya’s military capability.

Our military mission IS NOT to capture, kill or remove Ghadaffi from power.   No, no. 

Regime change in Libya is America’s stated policy, but NOT its military mission.   America’s military mission in Libya is to use any means necessary to protect the rebels.

Why?  We’re not really sure, since we don’t know anything about them. 

Are they an oppressed people yearning to be free of Ghadaffi’s yoke? Or are they al-Qaeda? Or some similar anti-Western Islamic group?   

I don’t know – and from what I can learn, neither does anyone else.   

Libya’s former allies in Russia are calling the UN mission “another Crusade”.   The Arab League, which initially pressed the UN for a no-fly zone over Libya, is getting cold feet as the Western Allies continue to grind Libya’s military to dust.

This evidently isn’t what they had in mind.  Nobody is sure WHAT the UN Security Council had in mind when it authorized action against Libya.  Noted the Washington Post:

The confusion over the mission, meanwhile, has spread beyond Libya. On Monday, NATO members bickered over whether what began as a relatively straightforward effort aimed at preventing Gaddafi from launching airstrikes against his people had turned into a more punitive action directed at his military forces, according to a European diplomat.

The disputes appear to have delayed U.S. efforts to turn the command of the operation over to NATO in the next few days. As of Monday evening, it remained unclear when responsibility would shift and who would assume it.

What is America’s objective?  To protect the rebels?  How will we know when it has been achieved? The President was specific when he said our mandate was not to remove Ghadaffi or topple his regime – that is our national policy, but NOT our intention.

Our intention is . . . what was our intention again? 


Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton called Obama’s statement about America’s mission “contradictory to the point of bordering on the fantastic.”  

What happens if the rebels don’t win?  According to American commanders, a scenario that leaves Ghadaffi in power after the dust settles would be in harmony with their mission objectives.  

So how will we know when the mission objectives have been completed?  If Ghadaffi is killed, who will replace him?  Who will decide?  What if the rebel leader to emerge is worse?   It’s entirely possible.

President Obama said that the United States will cede command and control in “a few days” which would be just great – except we don’t know who to cede it over to. Nobody seems to want it.   

“The United States has run into some criticism for the intensity of the firepower used on Libya, which included more than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired on Saturday to take out Libya’s air defenses and allow Western planes to patrol the skies.

Although a U.N. resolution authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, Arab League chief Amr Moussa has questioned the methods used, while Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin compared the air campaign to “medieval crusades.”

It is important to keep in mind that the president is STILL in Latin America, where he has been since the first US airstrike hit Libyan soil. 

“Security analysts say they are unclear what will happen if the Libyan leader digs in, especially since Western powers have made clear they would be unwilling to see Libya partitioned between a rebel-held east and Gaddafi-controlled west.

“Libya will not be a cakewalk,” said Glen Howard, president of the Jamestown Foundation think tank.

It may not be a cakewalk at home, either.  Candidate Obama made headlines when as a “Constitutional scholar” he opined:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”  

George Bush obtained Congressional approval before launching the war in Afghanistan in 2002 and the war in Iraq in 2003 and he still got hammered. 

Congress is furious that Obama committed the United States to a third war based on authorization from the United Nations as if that made Congressional approval irrelevant.  

“In a followup question in its December 2007 interview, the Boston Globe asked Obama if the Constitution gave the president the power to disregard a congressional statute putting some type of limit on the way troops could be deployed.  Here, too, Obama deferred to the constitutional authority of Congress.

“No, the President does not have that power,” Obama told the paper. “To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”

Evidently, Constitutional requirement of Congressional authorization before a president can start a war is secondary to a new ‘core’ principle that makes the United States subordinate to the United Nations,  which is ALSO forbidden by the Constitution.

“The core principle that has to be upheld here is that when the entire international community almost unanimously says that there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader who has lost his legitimacy decides to turn his military on his own people, that we can’t simply stand by with empty words,” Obama told reporters during a trip to Chile. “That we have to take some sort of action.”

The other “core principle”  — the one that says the United States is a republic subordinate to the rule of law as established by Congress has evidently been abolished by imperial decree. We have to take some sort of action, even if we aren’t sure what it should be? 

Watching it all unfold is like watching a movie about how a series of cascading errors and miscalculations conspired together to bring about a world war.  Only it isn’t a movie, it is real life. 

And currently, the United States is involved in three separate and distinct wars that now involve at least twenty different countries and the United Nations.   How does one define a ‘world’ war?   Are we in one now?

And of all the unanswered questions surrounding the Libyan action, the most troubling one is still, “Who is in charge?”

It certainly can’t be President Obama.  He isn’t even home. 

Through a Glass, Darkly

Through a Glass, Darkly
Vol: 114 Issue: 21 Monday, March 21, 2011

As the eleventh year of the twenty-first century drew to a close, there was not an inkling of the unrest now overspreading the Middle East. 

I got an email over the weekend about the Middle East meltdown in which my correspondent asked me how it will affect the Middle East scenario as outlined by Psalms 83.

Indeed, the year began with a discussion of the prospect of the all-out war against Israel that Jordan’s King Abdullah had predicted six months’ before.    

This is the way it appeared to me as of the third day of January, 2011:

“Adding up all that we know so far and throwing in a little New Year’s speculation, one could almost make the case for the Psalms 83 conflict in 2011 — followed by the Gog-Magog War in 2012, assuming the two-year time frame Iran needs to clean up Stuxnet. And no additional sabotage.”

In retrospect, I am very glad I used the words ‘speculation’ and ‘almost’ in that statement and went straight to a discussion about Bible prophecy and historical facts.  

Saves me from having to apologize now, because any speculation I may have engaged in then would most certainly be wrong now.

Nobody could have foreseen that the death of a Tunisian fruit vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi  the very next day would set in motion the chain of events that resulted in US missiles streaking across the skies of Libya two months later.

Bouazizi died from self-immolation on the fourth of January. Bouzazi set himself alight in front of the governor’s residence to protest being humiliated at the hands of local police over a vendor’s permit. 

What sparked the subsequent demonstrations was the sweeping injustice of it all.  Mohamed Bouazizi held a degree in computer science, but was forced to sell fruit on the street.  Then the government attempted to take even that from him.

Bouazizi became the symbol of defiance that triggered the Arab Revolution of 2011. Tunisan President Ben Ali fell within ten days.  Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was toppled a month later. 

By the end of February, unrest had spread to thirteen Arab states; Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen. 

Arab leaders attempted to blame Israel for the unrest.  Speaking to a crowd of government supporters holding a counter-march at Sanaa University,  President Ali Abdullah Saleh trotted out the usual suspects:

“I am going to reveal a secret,” he said. “There is an operations room in Tel Aviv with the aim of destabilizing the Arab world. The operations room is in Tel Aviv and run by the White House,” he said.

“The Americans also talk with the government officials about this (the protests), but they tell them ‘allow these people to demonstrate in the streets’,” Saleh said. “We say that this is a Zionist agenda.”

But something happened that shocked the Arab League to its core.  It precipitated the talks that led to the whole Arab League undertaking a decision to ask the UN to take military action in Libya.

Blaming the Jews didn’t work.


Crowds set fire to the headquarters building of the ruling Ba’ath Party in the Syrian city of Dera’a over the weekend.  It was the third consecutive day of protests against one of the Arab world’s most authoritarian dictatorships.

The demonstrators also set ablaze the main courts complex and two phone company branches.  One of the firms, Syriatel, is owned by President Bashar Assad’s cousin Rami Makhlouf. 

A nearby bank was untouched, indicating the demonstrator’s beef was with the Assad regime, not the system.

Syrian police fired live ammunition into the crowd, killing at least one in Dera’a and wounding scores more, according to reports.

“Thousands gathered in and around the Omari mosque in Dara’a, chanting their demands: the release of all political prisoners; trials for those who shot and killed protesters; the abolition of Syria’s 48-year emergency law; more freedoms; and an end to pervasive corruption. “No fear after today,” the crowd chanted, according to witnesses and human rights activists.”

Syria also attempted to blame Israel, blaming the shootings on “infiltrators pretending to be high-ranking security officials.” 

It isn’t working for the Syrians, either.  It isn’t that the Arab public wouldn’t like to blame Israel.  But that ship has evidently sailed, for now.  

While coalition bombs continue to pound Libya will the support of the Arab League,  Yemen’s army has split — with the commander of the Yemeni first armored division announcing he was siding with the protests and called on the army to protect the demonstrators.

So where does this leave the whole Psalms 83 scenario?  Until the beginning of this year, it all seemed so crystal-clear.   It appeared that the Arab world was poised, as King Abdullah suggested, for an all-out attack against Israel.

The nations that would naturally be drawn into that all-out attack included all the nations named in Psalms 83, Obadiah and Isaiah 17 as combatants in one last pan-Arab effort to annihilate the Jewish state.

Instead, the leaders of virtually all of these states are the ones that are under siege.  Efforts to redirect the anger towards Israel have utterly failed. 

Hamas sent operatives into an Israeli settlement to commit the most heinous atrocity they could think of, in hopes of drawing a massive Israeli military response against Gaza that they could use to refocus Arab attention on Israel.   

They sent murderers with knives to butcher the Fogel family, including a three-month old infant.  Then Hamas fired fifty missiles into Israeli towns, including one that struck the roof of a kindergarten. 

Instead of just provoking Israel to anger, it provoked something in the world’s conscience, for lack of a better word.   Israel retaliated, Hamas complained, and nobody listened.  

Not even pro-Palestinian groups.

“It is a dismal reflection on Hamas that it is violently cracking down on peaceful demonstrators calling for political reconciliation,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director of Human Rights Watch. “This is just the latest instance of Hamas assaulting Palestinians’ fundamental freedoms.”

So what does it all mean?  Is the Psalms 83 scenario wrong?  Did we miss something?   Not exactly.   The scenario outlined in Psalms 83 is yet future and will be fulfilled as the Bible lays it out.  

But it might not unfold the way that some prophecy teachers have speculated that it will. It may not all unfold the way that I have speculated that it will.  This is the hard part when it comes to interpreting Bible prophecy — accountability.

Interpretation necessarily demands a certain amount of speculation when dealing with prophecy, but sometimes people confuse interpretative speculation with the prophecy itself.

Bible teachers can be wrong – especially when it comes to speculative interpretation – but that doesn’t translate into the Bible being wrong.  

People who have bet it all on their interpretation of a particular prophecy can feel that the Bible has let them down, or their faith has let them down, when in reality, it was where they placed their faith that let them down.

Ultimately, the Bible says, there will be a final, all-out pan-Arab attack launched against Israel and it is clearly a different war scenario and one with a different outcome than the Gog-Magog War prophesied in Ezekiel 38.  

But it would appear that all the scenarios that included the present Arab world leaders in it will require reexamination. 

We know that Bible prophecy WILL be fulfilled. But HOW is the stuff of speculation. 

We can only speculate what it means when Jesus says, “men’s hearts to fail them for fear”  — does that refer to faint-heartedness or fatal heart attacks?

Don’t put all your faith in a particular interpretation of HOW Bible prophecy will unfold.  There are things we know, and there are things we don’t know. 

Bible prophecy is deliberately vague – its purpose is to demonstrate to even the least attentive among us that what taking place in this generation is following an organized blueprint.   That is the PURPOSE for Bible prophecy in the last days.

So that when we see these things BEGIN to come to pass, we can know to look up and lift up our heads because our redemption draws near.

And so we can spread the Word to those that don’t.