Why We WON T See a Birth Certificate

Why We WON T See a Birth Certificate
Vol: 114 Issue: 8 Tuesday, March 8, 2011

What if somebody came up with undeniable proof that Barack Hussein Obama wasn’t legally eligible to be President?  What do you think would happen?  Do you really think it would make a difference?

If we are to take the Constitution at face value, then Obama isn’t eligible to be president no matter where he was actually born. A ‘natural born citizen’ is called for by the Constitution to prevent a dual citizen of divided allegiance from capturing the presidency. 

Obama’s father was a subject of the British Commonwealth, making Obama a British subject at birth under both British and US law at the time — whether Obama wanted to be or not.

His mother was too young to convey natural-born status on her own, since she had not lived in the US continuously for six years after age sixteen – she was but eighteen when Obama was born.  

So whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii is only relevant in the ‘gotcha’ sense – he isn’t eligible anyway. I can see why the left is undisturbed by Obama’s ineligibility. 

But why is the Right seemingly so complacent?  Why have they given up? 

Bill O’Reilly has ‘pronounced’ Obama a legal citizen and labeled anyone who questions his citizenship a ‘far right loon.’  The same for Glenn Beck. 

And everybody else in America who doesn’t want to share the O’Reilly Label.

The mainstream prefers the pejorative invented by Obama’s people.  Modeled after the 9/11 conspiracists that believe the US faked the 9/11 attacks that call themselves “truthers” – those who question the obvious earned for themselves the label, “birthers.”

At least, the label “truthers” makes some sense – its adherents believe that they were lied to.  I don’t think there is anybody on earth that denies Barack Hussein Obama was actually born – they only question where

And not everybody asking questions about the birth certificate are questioning IF he was born in Hawaii.  The majority of those labeled as ‘birthers’ have a different question.   

That question is “WHY?” 

Why the secrecy?  Why the cadre of attorneys tasked with keeping Barack Obama’s history from being examined?   It is easy enough to assume Obama was born in the US. 

And there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support a Hawaiian birth.

There are newspaper announcements, historical recollections, the solemn testimony of Hawaii’s former and present governors and the testimony of the Hawaiian keeper of registrar records who attested to having seen the actual copy.

Not to mention the posted copy of the Obama birth certificate.  Some people say it is a forgery – mostly self-appointed experts. Others that say it is genuine are actual government officials. 

Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie, (an Obama friend and crony) claimed that as soon as he was elected, he would trot down to the Hall of Records and demand Obama’s birth certificate and put this whole thing to rest.

Once elected, however, Abercrombie gave an interview in which he suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

One thing is certain. 

Nobody has examined the actual document purported to be posted on the internet. It could be a forgery.  Or it could be real. There is no way of knowing.

And that’s the plan.  By design.

Assessment:

I believe that there are a number of good reasons why we will NOT see the birth certificate issue dealt with during the Obama presidency.  Or even afterwards.

These same reasons explain why even guys like O’Reilly and Beck have joined the scoffers. 

The first reason is logical.  Obama ran against Hillary Clinton.  If there was any provable dirt on Barack Obama, the Clintonistas would have found it.  Personally, I find that among the most convincing reasons, which is why I listed it first.

The second reason is more sinister.  I believe that the birth certificate posted online is a deliberate forgery, but not to hide the real one.  The birth certificate conspiracy works for him.  

The “birther” label is something of a psychological operation conducted against the people of the United States.  It is used to smear the Republicans in general as “birthers,” conspiracy nuts who have given themselves over to right-wing conspiracy theory.

As a psyop, it has been so successful that any mention of this issue inspires in many a visible sense of revulsion.  By refusing to release the vault copy Obama has created a carnival of conspiracy. 

The effect is the same regardless of which possibility is true.

The longer Team Obama allows the issue to bubble under the surface, the more it divides the country.  Ultimately, anybody who questions Obama’s eligibility looks a bit nuts and any challenge from the right on any issue can be funneled down the birther road.

Look at how well it worked!  You tell me. Has the focus on the birth certificate taken our eye off the ball on questions pertaining to the source of his funding for Harvard and his Pakistan trip in 1981?  Or not?

If Obama is not legally eligible, is it truly POSSIBLE to keep that a secret?  This is where it all breaks down for me – I don’t think that it is.    

But if he did, nobody in authority – on either side — is going to say so publicly now.  Or ever.

I said at the outset that it is easy to see why the MSNBC’s and NYTimes of this world would want to keep Obama’s secrets for him.  But what about Bill O’Reilly? Glenn Beck? 

And what about the Republican majority?  Don’t THEY have the power?  Why not use it?

If Obama is not eligible then it means much more than simply removing him from office, which by itself would be enough to spark a real civil war.  It would mean negating every action taken by the federal government since January 20, 2009. 

You think the economy is in bad shape now?  Imagine its condition if everything from January 2009 to the present was simply undone. 

All the trillions of dollars earmarked, spent, borrowed or loaned by the Obama administration would have to be undone.  Of course they can’t.  The financial chaos would be unimaginable.

No laws signed by Obama would be enforceable, no budgets legal, no international agreements valid – at this point in time, it is not just conceivable, but probable, that America could not survive. 

By way of analogy, imagine you are the eldest child of a large family of siblings in Victorian America.  You suddenly discover that Father has had an affair.  Mother does not know.  

Remember, this is Victorian America.  If Father leaves, the family is alone. Mother is on her own with all the kids.  No court is going to order and enforce child support provisions.

As the eldest child, where is your responsibility?  To your father?  Your mother?  To your siblings? 

Do you confront Father?  What do you say?  “I’m telling Mother?”

Do you actually tell Mother, knowing that in either case, you risk breaking up your family and throwing your siblings into poverty? 

Or do you simply hope that Mother doesn’t find out until after all your brothers and sisters are grown and out of harm’s way?

This is the reality facing the Republican leadership and the honest media.   It is a brilliant trap and there is no escape from it.  Nobody knows the truth – and that’s the way it has to be. 

In any other likely scenario, it is hard to see how America could possibly survive.  And THAT’s why I think Beck, O’Reilly and pretty much everybody else that has thought it through to the end has decided we’re better off not knowing. 

Jack Nicholson was right. In this case, we really can’t handle the truth.  It is utterly brilliant.

Dare I say, diabolically brilliant?

How Charlie Sheen is Like Glenn Beck

How Charlie Sheen is Like Glenn Beck
Vol: 114 Issue: 7 Monday, March 7, 2011

The New York Times is floating the suggestion that Glenn Beck’s program on Fox is on thin ice with the network and his contract may not be renewed when it comes up this year.  Do you believe it?  Me neither.

It is just wishful thinking. Liberals hate Glenn Beck almost without being able to articulate why.  Most simply call him names or attack his personal traits or character. 

I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody mocked Beck for crying on-air.  It sort of sets up the dividing line, doesn’t it? 

His detractors mock Glenn Beck for crying on-air.  His supporters cry with him as they realize what he is saying is true.  

The NYTimes column’s author, David Carr, makes no secret of his personal animus towards Glenn Beck, comparing him to Charlie Sheen from the outset.   I suppose he was just trying to be cute:

“Almost every time I flipped on television last week, there was a deeply angry guy on a running tirade about the conspiracies afoot, the enemies around all corners, and how he alone seemed to understand what was under way.”

“While it’s true that Charlie Sheen sucked up a lot of airtime last week, I’d been watching Glenn Beck, the Fox News host who invoked Hezbollah, socialists, the price of gas, Shariah lawGeorge SorosPlanned Parenthood, and, yes, Charlie Sheen, as he predicted a coming apocalypse.”

“Mr. Beck, a conservative Jeremiah and talk-radio phenomenon, burst into television prominence in 2009 by taking the forsaken 5 p.m. slot on Fox News and turning it into a juggernaut. A conjurer of conspiracies who spotted sedition everywhere he looked, Mr. Beck struck a big chord and ended up on the cover of Time magazine and The New York Times Magazine, and held rallies all over the country that were mobbed with acolytes. He achieved unheard-of ratings, swamped the competition and at times seemed to threaten the dominion of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity at Fox.”

I don’t want to get into defending Fox News personalities – that isn’t the point.  The point is that when it comes to Fox News, if the truth gets in the way, the New York Times is more than willing to step over it. 

Bill O’Reilly is many things, but one thing he is not is a conservative.  He claims to be a registered Independent.  I frankly believe his sympathies lie more with the Left than with the Right, but he is fair enough in his approach that one can never be quite sure.

Sean Hannity is clearly and unapologetically a Republican partisan spin doctor.  Hannity makes no claim of being fair and balanced – he dropped any pretense of bipartisanship when he and the deeply-annoying Alan Colmes parted ways.  

You never see them together on a program or interviewing one another.  There is a reason for that. 

O’Reilly and Hannity don’t belong in the same room.  

On the other hand, Beck is a regular guest on O’Reilly. It isn’t that O’Reilly is saying the same things – O’Reilly regularly mocks Beck and his conclusions.  

Beck isn’t a partisan, either.  The degree that he appears to tilt to the right is the degree to which he makes no pretense of his horror at the direction taken by the left.

But Beck’s beef is with progressivism, which is neither Republican nor Democrat, left or right.  Progressivism baffles O’Reilly – if anything, he seems bemused by it all.

In America, there is the Republican Right and the Democrat Left but progressivism is neither — so it finds a home with both.  “Progressivism” is defined as:

“a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action.”

For example, Teddy Roosevelt was one of the great Republican presidential heroes of history.  Roosevelt was also a dyed-in-the-wool Progressive.

He helped fellow Progressive Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, win the White House when he broke with the GOP during the 1912 Election to run as a candidate under the “Bull Moose” Party.

Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party’s social programs were similar to those of Wilson: women’s suffrage, social welfare assistance for women and children, farm relief, revisions in banking, health insurance in industries, and worker’s compensation and an easier method to amend the constitution.

Roosevelt wrapped it all up in the American flag and split the vote, which enabled Wilson to win with a 43% plurality. 

Had Roosevelt not split the vote, Taft would probably have won by a landslide, the Federeal Reserve would probably not exist and we probably would not have either a progressive income tax or an Internal Revenue Service. 

That is a lot of probably’s, but they are all probably right.  Taft was firmly against all three. 

And Progressivism, left to itself, always grows up to become some form of communism, which is defined as:

 “a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.”

These things are important to understand if one is to understand what Mr. Carr and the New York Times is trying to say about Glenn Beck or Fox News.

The Times’ column is a masterpiece of propaganda. Allow me to offer one glaring example. 

“He still has numbers that just about any cable news host would envy and, with about two million viewers a night, outdraws all his competition combined. But the erosion is significant enough that Fox News officials are willing to say — anonymously, of course; they don’t want to be identified as criticizing the talent — that they are looking at the end of his contract in December and contemplating life without Mr. Beck.”

Anonymously, of course.  Why anonymously?  Because it’s a lie.  

Beck “outdraws all his competition combined” – something Carr says “just about any cable news host would envy.”

What? There is a cable news show host that wouldn’t like to outdraw all his competition combined

So, of course Carr’s source is anonymous.

Any network official that would tell the NYTimes they are thinking of firing their number one cable ratings draw because he offends a segment of the population that doesn’t even watch the program would have to remain anonymous  — to keep Carr’s narrative intact.

“Unlike some other cable hosts, Mr. Beck has a huge multiplatform presence: he has sold around four million books, is near the top of talk-radio ratings, has a growing Web site called The Blaze, along with a stage performance that still packs houses. Forbes estimated that his company, Mercury Radio Arts, had more than $30 million in revenue.

How could a breakup between Mr. Beck and Fox News — a bond that seemed made in pre-Apocalyptic heaven — come to pass? They were never great friends to start with: Mr. Beck came to Fox with a huge radio show and had been on CNN Headline News, so he did not owe his entire career to Fox and frequently went off-message. The sniping between Fox News executives and Mr. Beck’s team began soon after he went on the air in 2009.”

(Following Carr’s reasoning, Geraldo must be an even bigger problem, since he so often goes off-message by advocating for liberal causes)

“Many on the news side of Fox have wondered whether his chronic outrageousness — he suggested that the president has “a deep-seated hatred for white people” — have made it difficult for Fox to hang onto its credibility as a news network.”

Fox is having difficulty hanging on to its credibility as a news network — this is written down as a purported fact?  Is he kidding?   Is it not the number one most-watched most highly-rated cable news network in the world?

What exactly is the problem with Glenn Beck that has the New York Times lamenting his soon demise?

“When I first came here,” he told his audience on Wednesday, “I had this pie-in-the-sky belief that if I told you the truth, if I verified all of my facts and double-checked, and we could make that compelling case with facts to back it up, the journalists in other places would get curious and they’d use their resources and they’d investigate and they’d prove it right and they’d show it too.” Then he shook his head and laughed bitterly.”

Since Carr is one of the journalists that Beck was referring to, Carr didn’t get the irony. 

Assessment:

I don’t watch Glenn Beck every day.  And I don’t want to appear as if I am defending Glenn Beck, the person.  That is precisely the way that guys like Carr and publications like the New York Times want the debate to be framed.

If they can frame the debate about Glenn Beck the person, then they needn’t address the issues he raises, (which is why I found it so ironic that Carr concluded his piece by blissfully quoting an indictment that so clearly includes Carr).

On the other side of the coin are those who marginalize Beck on religious grounds because he is a Mormon. If he can be discredited because he is a Mormon, then nobody need address the issues he raises . . . because he is a Mormon. 

You see how brilliant it is.

Take today’s Omega Letter.  It isn’t a defense of Glenn Beck, exactly.  It sounds like it is, but what it is supposed to be is a defense of the truth of what he says.  But the New York Times’ piece didn’t attack the truth – it ignored the truth to attack the truth-tellers.

Could it be possible that nobody fact-checks Glenn Beck?  It seems unlikely.  So look around the internet for reports from those who claim that they have

The biggest mistake Beck’s attackers ever made was to go after his ‘misrepresentations.’ Everybody makes mistakes from time to time.  Making a mistake on a detail is not the same as being wrong on the whole premise.  

There are literally tons of sites that attack him for misquoting mostly-irrelevant dates or figures — and one that takes him to task for criticizing Obama’s use of a teleprompter when Beck himself uses one on his television show.  

I’m not making this up. That is what qualifies for a rebuttal for Beck’s contentions about the role of the Money Trust, the selling out of America by the administration, the background information about ‘czars’ like Van Jones,  John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Carol Browner and so on.

If Beck gets fact-checked about his teleprompter, then what is illuminative are the facts that AREN’T disputed by the White House.  Beck is able to do five one-hour shows a week on his material, while legions of unfriendly fact-checkers struggle to come up with a single disprovable fact they can point to.

What is disturbing about Glenn Beck?  Is it those things the left can identify as ‘factual misrepresentations’?  Or is it the things that it cannot?

The attack on Glenn Beck, like the attack on Fox News, is a substitute for an attack on the facts it presents. 

The New York Times’ hit piece is aimed at the personalities, not the information, because the information is true.

As I said at the outset, I don’t want this to be seen as a defense of Glenn Beck or a defense of Fox News. The attacks are against Glenn Beck – nary a word is wasted on trying to disprove his charges. 

The White House launched an all out war against Fox News last year, going so far as to question its claim to be a news organization, but not once contesting the facts that prompted the criticism. 

There is an old saying that aptly describes the efforts being directed against Glenn Beck individually and against Fox News corporately.  It’s called “shooting the messenger.”  Why?

Because they can’t control the message.

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. . .” (1 Timothy 4:1-2)

But I don’t think the Apostle was necessarily referring to Fox News. Although he may have been referring to reporters that can’t tell the difference between Charlie Sheen and Glenn Beck.  

Share the Blame? With Whom?

Share the Blame? With Whom?
Vol: 114 Issue: 5 Saturday, March 5, 2011

Two American servicemen were shot dead and a third is fighting for his life after a man stormed a military airport bus and opened fire.  

The gunman, identified as Arid Uka, gunned down his first victim as he stood in front of the bus before shooting the driver as he sat behind the wheel.

The suspect’s uncle told the London Daily Mail that his nephew was born in Germany and was a devout Muslim that worked at the airport.  The suspect’s grandfather is a religious leader at a mosque in Kosovo.

The suspect reportedly shouted “Allah hu Akbar” which means, “Allah is great” and firing nine shots before his weapon jammed.   At the time he was arrested, he was carrying both the handgun and a knife.

All the servicemen aboard the bus were dressed in civilian clothes. Eyewitnesses said the man infiltrated himself among the GI’s aboard the bus as if he were one of them. 

Once inside, they said he began shouting Islamic slogans before drawing his gun out of a shoulder bag and opening fire.

There are several important points I want to make before going on.  The suspect worked at the airport. That’s very important because his job did not involve carrying weapons.  This suggests that he brought the weapon to work for a specific reason. 

The suspect was a devout Muslim.  The suspect boarded the bus by pretending to be an American soldier. 

He shouted Islamic slogans and began killing Americans. The suspect’s job had nothing to do with the American military transport bus.  This means he had to seek Americans out.

I say all that in advance of this question:  What do YOU think his motivation might be?  I mean, really.  Do you suspect robbery?  How about a lover’s quarrel?  Maybe he was disgruntled?  Maybe he had a hangnail?  

Maybe he was a member of the Tea Party?

When US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley was asked if he believed it was a terrorist act, Crowley answered the question with a question.  “Was the Gabrielle Giffords shooting a terrorist attack?”

The fact that a US government official that highly-placed would be unable to tell the difference between a paranoid psychotic with no known political or religious leanings and Arid Uka was literally painful to listen to.

Of COURSE the Germany shooting was an act of Islamic terrorism!  What else COULD it be?  But when the President spoke out shortly after the event, he talked about it as if it were a tragic accident.  He said nothing about either terrorism or radical Islam.

Remember when Major Nidal Hasan opened fire on soldiers at Fort Hood?  Then as now, the White House refused to call it Islamic terrorism, instead chastising the nation for ‘rushing to judgment.’ 

One hour after that shooting took place, the FBI issued a statement saying the Fort Hood shooting had NOTHING to do with Islamic terrorism.   

He did the same thing with the Christmas Day bomber.  The guy tried to blow up an airplane by igniting his own underwear while shouting Islamic slogans.  

But the White House went out of its way to avoid mentioning that.  The President didn’t even make a statement until almost a week later.

America has been at war for over a decade – nearly four times as long as it took to force Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan into unconditional surrender.  

Yet the Commander in Chief is still loathe to identify the enemy by name for fear we might anger him.

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

I’m probably not the most qualified to offer tactical military advice, but it seems to me that it would easier to win the war if we weren’t afraid to even call the enemy by name.

Assessment:

President Obama was elected on a promise to restore America’s standing in world opinion.  Specifically.  Even before he was elected, he was more popular abroad than at home. 

Europeans swooned at his speeches.  Foreign leaders lined up to be photographed with him.  Foreign media marveled at his cultural sensitivity and richly diverse background.  

Only nine months into his term, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for, in the words of the citation, “creating a new climate in international politics.”

One way he evidently is accomplishing that feat is by supporting America’s enemies and distancing the country from its allies. The guy seems to have an uncanny ability for seeing things exactly backwards.

In 2009, the Honduran Congress ousted President Manuel Zelaya for what amounted to crimes against the Honduran Constitution aimed at extending both his power and his ability to rule beyond term limits. 

Zelaya’s removal was accomplished legally and in comportment with Honduran constitutional law.

President Obama called Zelaya’s impeachment and removal an illegal coup, even enlisting the leftist Organization of American States in the effort.   In this, Obama allied us with Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, all of whom also supported Zelaya.

At almost the same time, Tehran erupted in mass demonstrations to protest the rigged re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.   Obama said nothing for six long days.

When he finally broke his silence, his reference to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as “President” Ahmadinejad and to Ayatollah Ali Khameni as “Supreme Leader” told the demonstrators what they needed to hear.

Obama recognized Ahamadinejad’s presidency as legitimate while acknowledging Khameni as Iran’s ‘Supreme Leader’.  Since the catalyst for the revolt was Khameni’s legitimization of Ahmadinejad’s election, Obama’s ‘condemnation’ cut the legs out from under the revolution.

When Tunsian strongman (and long-time US ally) Ben Ali was driven from office, Obama commented immediately in favor of the Tunisian revolt.  

When Egyptian strongman (and long time US ally) Hosni Mubarak faced popular uprisings, Obama wasted no time in calling for him to step down.   

When Libyan strongman (and long-time US enemy) Muammar Gaddahfi’s turn came, Obama stood on the sidelines.   He has refused Congressional calls urging the US to impose a no-fly zone as Gaddahfi uses Libyan air power to crush his opponents.

Former Labor Secretary Linda Chavez wrote in a column entitled “Obama Irrelevant on the World Stage” that:

“Obama, on the other hand, has managed to make the most powerful nation in the world look weak and ineffectual. History is being made from Tripoli to Sana, and the United States plays no role. For years, the left has wanted the United States’ role in the world to diminish. Now they are getting their way, thanks to Obama’s reticence.

But the world will not be a better place for lack of U.S. influence. Witness the very different outcomes in the revolution that swept Iran in 1979 when President Jimmy Carter was in power and those that swept Eastern Europe when Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush. The vacuum created by our absence in the current revolutions will likely be filled. Let us hope that is not by the Islamists who will topple secular dictators in order to impose even more brutal religious tyrants. If that happens, Obama will share the blame.”

I believe Chavez is being too charitable in saying Obama will only share the blame.  Share it with whom?

Obama came into office promising to strengthen America’s image in the world, especially in the fiery cauldron of the Middle East. He has deliberately toned down the rhetoric in the midst of the war on terror, reaching out to engage despots in a “dialogue” that has produced no fruit and weakened our reputation abroad.

Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confessed before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday that the Obama administration was losing the war for world opinion.

“We are in an information war, and we’re losing that war,” Clinton told Sen. Richard G. Lugar, of Indiana, the panel’s ranking Republican.

According to Bible prophecy, there are but four spheres of global power that will be in existence during the Tribulation Period.  

The Bible identifies the empire of the Antichrist, encompassing the area of the old Roman Empire and headquartered from Rome.

The Apostle John identifies the Kings of the East that will move across the great river Euphrates on its trek west toward Israel.  

The Prophet Daniel identifies the King of the South who will move against the antichrist’s empire during the last days. 

And the Prophet Ezekiel describes the Gog-Magog Alliance that will encompass most of what had once been the Persian Empire in Ezekiel’s day.

Russia is there. China is there. Europe is there.  The nations of North Africa are there.  What is missing from the last days picture is any mention of America, or any nation resembling America. 

Where is America?  The answer to that question used to be a lot more difficult to imagine.

The Simple Truth of God

The Simple Truth of God
Vol: 114 Issue: 4 Friday, March 4, 2011

Is being a Christian something you are?  Or is it something you do?  These are deceptively simple questions but the answers are profoundly important to a person’s relationship with Christ.

I know many Christians who would immediately agree that being a Christian is something one is — before reversing themselves in the next breath by arguing it is really something one does.

Let’s put the question to you in a different way.  Is being an American, or a Canadian, (or a Brit or an Aussie or whatever) something you are?  Or is it something you do?   

How does one do American?  One might do certain things BECAUSE one is an American, like say the Pledge, or vote in elections or show up for jury duty.  But one needn’t do those things to BE American.

One must first be American before he can do any of those things.  And failing to perform any of those things does not affect one’s basic citizenship status. One’s citizenship is not a matter of doing – it is a matter of being.

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” (Ephesians 2:19)

In the beginning, God created man in His Image. God is eternal — existing outside of space and time, He always was and He always will be. So God exists in a kind of ever-present now, for want of a better analogy.

God created the angels in the same way, although they had a created beginning, they were designed to last eternally.

So, we have the two eternal creations of God — the angels, and man. The angels rebelled and were cast out of heaven (Jude 1:6, Job 2:2, Isaiah 14:12). Then Adam and Eve fell, and were cast out of Eden. (Genesis 3:23)

After the Flood, God sought out Abraham, with whom He made a covenant. Through Moses, God established the Law, which in essence, subdivided spiritual mankind and created a new spiritual entity in the Jew.

All mankind was now subdivided into either Jew or Gentile. To this point, there are now three distinct eternal entities; angels and mankind, subdivided into Jews and Gentiles.

Spiritually, they are distinctly different with the only common characteristic being that they are created with an eternal spiritual existence.

Don’t let me lose you now. Here’s the good part.

The Bible teaches that, at the Cross, a fourth spiritual creation came into existence. It is distinct from either Jew or Gentile, but is related to both.

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

Is being in Christ something you do?  Is it a state of doing?  Or a state of being?  

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

At what point does one become that new creature?  When one dies?  Obviously, that cannot be true.  I am a different person today than I was before I was saved.  While I am still alive and kicking, the old man that was me is long-dead. 

I am still flawed and sinful, but I am different, nonetheless.  I am not the old creature I was, even though I am not the perfect sinless creature the Bible seems to say I should be.

And doesn’t the Bible say somewhere that Christians are set free from sin? Most churches I’ve been to excoriate sin and sinners and preach that Christians who continue to live in sin aren’t really Christians at all.

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin,” Paul writes in Romans 6:6-7.

So it would seem that, if we continue to serve sin, we have not been properly crucified with Him, because we aren’t free from sin. So it then follows that maybe we aren’t really saved, but only have a ‘head knowledge’ instead of a ‘heart knowledge’.  

Paul seems to underscore that point, writing,

“Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” (Romans 6:12-13)

So you don’t. You try and try to keep sin from reigning in your mortal body. You fight against obeying the lusts thereof. You yield yourself to God as best you can. You dedicate your body and your members to His service.

You weep at the altar because you KNOW what a sinner you are, and you pray and pray and pray for the God-given strength to keep your commitment not to sin. You KNOW your heart is in the right place as you cry out in despair to God.

And you continue to sin anyway. And wonder how you failed — or worse, how God failed YOU, because sin CONTINUES to reign in your mortal body anyway.

You keep yielding to its lusts, and continue to wonder why it doesn’t seem to work for you, like it does your pastor. (And the lady who plays the organ — you KNOW she’s got the whole sin thing under control)

But YOU don’t. And you’ve been a Christian for years.

What kind of secret sins do you think the pastor or the choir lady agonize over? (“Was I too harsh on that telemarketer?”)Amateurs!

What is wrong with you?

Assessment:

“For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.” (Romans 7:14-15)

Every time I read this passage, I am struck by how exactly Paul’s experience with sin mirrors my own. In spite of Paul’s first-hand knowledge, having actually met the Lord, seen His power, was himself empowered to work miracles, and was the greatest evangelist in history, Paul struggled with day-to-day sin. Just like you.

How can this be? Paul continues;

“Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.” (7:17-19)

The enemy hammers at me as he hammers at you — “how can you call yourself a Christian?”

Paul admits that, even though he is saved, sin continues to indwell his mortal body.

“Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” (7:20)

“I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” (7:21-23)

Paul cries out in despair, (as have I, using different words but the same sentiment,)

“O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (7:24)

The phrase Paul used, “body of this death” was deliberately chosen. In Paul’s day, one form of execution employed by the Romans was to chain the condemned to a corpse and withhold food and water.

They would then bet on how long before the condemned would try to survive by feeding on it. To Paul, it was analogous to knowing the law of God, but feeding off the corpse of sin.  Hence the cry; “O wretched man that I am!”

Having poured out his soul, (as you have, and as I have) struggling to understand the dual nature of the Christian life, Paul concludes,

 “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”

At this point, some of you are probably thinking I am preaching “license to sin.” Nothing could be further from the truth.  

Human beings don’t NEED a license to sin.  Everybody wants to believe it is possible to reach some kind of spiritual state of nirvana where they don’t sin.  We all have someone in our minds’ eye that we think has come close to achieving it.  

(I think I can safely hazard the guess that whoever pops into your head doesn’t look anything like you.)

But the simple truth of God is that the truth of God is simple.  Sinning is what human beings do.  Forgiving is what God does. 

Don’t let doubt steal your confidence, and don’t let it be shaken by clever-sounding arguments that keep you bound by guilt and out of the battle.

Know you are loved by God, and that “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.’ (Romans 11:29)

Remember Who ‘He which hath begun a good work in you’ is, and be confident. When you are saved, the power of God indwells you.

“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)

The enemy wants you to think that you aren’t good enough to be used by God, heck, you aren’t even really saved! Look at what a mess you are! How can God use you? How can you tell other people that they need to trust Jesus when He can’t even kick your cigarette habit for you?

The enemy wants to blind you to the fact you ARE new creature. If he can hold your salvation over your head, extending it, and then pulling it away, then that gives him power over you.  

If he can convince you that you aren’t good enough to carry the Message, then you won’t.

The only requirement for membership into the Body of Christ is that you must first be a sinner who trusts in Jesus alone for his salvation.

“Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” (Romans 8:33-34)

It is the nature of man to sin. It is the nature of God to forgive.

“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)

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8-9)

Since you are a Christian, there is nothing the enemy can do about YOU — you are forever beyond his reach. Scripture says you are now positionally seated in the heavenly places, as surely as if you were already there.

“Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:” (Ephesians 2:5-6)

Our purpose as Christians is to do God’s will. God’s will is revealed throughout the Scriptures:

“For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” (Ezekiel 18:32)

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2nd Peter 3:9)

“And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and THEN SHALL THE END COME.” (Matthew 24:14)

God’s will is that none should perish, and that all should come to repentance and be saved. As front-line soldiers in the King’s service, that is our objective.

The enemy wants to convince us that we are unworthy to serve. Be encouraged! It isn’t true.

“For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for My Strength is made perfect in weakness.” (2nd Corinthians 12:8-9a)

It bears repeating; the simple truth of God is that the truth of God is simple. If we could do it, we wouldn’t need a Savior.  

“Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath BEGUN a good work in you WILL perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:” (Phillipians 1:6)

But we can’t.  He did.  And now we can be confident. Maranatha!

Driving Drunk While Smoking in an Elevator

Driving Drunk While Smoking in an Elevator
Vol: 114 Issue: 3 Thursday, March 3, 2011

The Congress recently passed a law that I don’t like.  There isn’t anything I can do to change it – it is already the law.  So what do I do?  Hmmm!  Wait!  I know!  I will just ignore it.

That is the way ‘democracy’ works in America in the 21st century. That is the reason that Democrats incessantly describe America as a ‘democracy’ instead of a Republic. 

(A Republic must operate according to the rule of law, not the whims of the loudest mob.)

As an analogy (not a confession) suppose that I disagreed with the laws against drunk driving. [In my analogy]  I like to drive drunk.  I’m a good driver – I don’t see the harm in it. 

Sure, there are laws against it, but those laws don’t take into account what a good driver I am. 

Since I don’t like the law and I don’t think it applies to me, then I should be able to ignore it, right?  NO?

What if I thought it was discriminatory against me?  Suppose instead of drunk driving, my objection was to no smoking laws?

Alcohol and tobacco are both legal products.  It has been established beyond doubt that both are addictive and that the government knows it.  

So drunk driving laws and no smoking laws are targeting helpless addicts to legal products. It’s discriminatory.  I should be entitled to ignore them.  Shouldn’t I?

What if I was a lawmaker?  Would that make a difference?  What if I was an elected public official who swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?  Would that make a difference?

What about the laws that forbid me from preaching from the Bible in public places? 

Or those laws that forbid me from quoting Scripture regarding certain passages because they offend certain protected lifestyle minorities?  

Are there any laws out there that I can ignore because I don’t agree with them?  

Or because I personally think that they are discriminatory?  Or because I believe the majority of the public is wrong on a position?   Or because I simply don’t like them? 

In a Constitutional Republic, the answer is an unassailable, undeniable and unquestionable NO.  Not under any circumstances. That is what the ‘rule of law’ means.  Once a bill is Constitutionally passed into law, it is deemed to be Constitutional, or enforceable under the Constitution. 

To violate a Constitutional law is to violate the Constitution.  To ignore a Constitutional law is therefore a violation of one’s Constitutional oath, itself a criminal act. 

President Obama recently announced homosexuality is ‘immutable’ (who knew presidents could speak ex cathedra?) and therefore, he has instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the government in lawsuits challenging the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

US Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement explaining the new Justice Department position:

“In November 2011, plaintiffs filed two new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in jurisdictions without precedent on whether sexual-orientation classifications are subject to rational basis review or whether they must satisfy some form of heightened scrutiny. . .The president and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.”

See? If the DOMA is unconstitutional, then the DoJ doesn’t have to defend it.  So they declared it unconstitutional.  

The problem is, they have less authority to declare DOMA unconstitutional than I have to drive drunk while smoking in an elevator. 

Assessment:

Eric Holder made similar headlines a couple of years ago when he summarily dismissed voter fraud cases against two members of the Black Panther Party that had already pled guilty to the charges.

James Taranto noted in the WSJ’s Best of the Web today that Holder had a minor slip of the tongue recently while defending that decision.

“The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia–which was inappropriate, certainly that . . . to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,” said Holder, who is black.

Taranto makes the following point before asking the obvious question:

“It’s sometimes a useful exercise to imagine situations like this one in reverse. Suppose that in the course of defending himself against accusations of bias in favor of whites, a white attorney general referred to whites as “my people.” What would we make of that?”

Why isn’t anybody else asking that question? Indeed, what would we make of the Attorney General of the United States enforcing the law according to race? 

If memory serves, wasn’t that the reason for the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution? Who are Eric Holder’s people if not all the citizens of the United States?

The Obama administration has pretty much become a law unto itself, gradually usurping more and more power while the Congress and the courts watched helplessly.  

Now, some lawmakers and jurists are beginning to find their backbone and have started using the “I” word.  Newt Gingrich was first, saying that;

“The president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama. The president swore an oath on the Bible to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed, not to decide which laws are and which are not constitutional.”

Arizona Congressman Trent Franks recently said that he would support articles of impeachment against Obama.   

There is a website that maintains that Obama and his administration have committed no fewer than twenty-five separate impeachable offenses.

Some of them may be a little weak, but when you look at them in their totality, it is hard to imagine why the calls for impeachment are only just beginning.  

I won’t list all 25 – you can check the web link for that – but some of them are very persuasive.

The Constitution lists as impeachable offenses “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Obama’s decision to abrogate his Constitutional responsibilities over the DOMA Act should be enough, under the Constitution, to bring articles of impeachment, since violating one’s oath of office could be considered a misdemeanor. 

But that is pretty thin.  

But buying Congressional support for the Obama health care bill is not.  The “Cornhusker kickback” and the “Louisiana Purchase” were so-called because they were outright political bribes.  

Obama used job offers to try to bribe Representative Joe Sestak into dropping out of the Senate race against Arlen Specter.  Noted the Washington Examiner in an editorial at the time:

“It is simply illegal to offer a job to anybody in return for doing something designed to influence a congressional election, so the White House story fails both the legal and the giggle test,” 

Incompetence and racial prejudices aren’t on the impeachment list. Neither is partisanship.  And treason would be too hard to prove anyway, given the incompetence defense, which would be pretty tough to argue against.

Bribery is on the list, but you’d have to impeach the whole Congress.  What makes this significant is that, as dirty as his administration is, it has nothing to fear from impeachment. 

Because America is too far gone for that, now.  Maybe a few years ago.  But not anymore.

Perilous times are here. 

Why The Left Is Not Right

Why The Left Is Not Right
Vol: 114 Issue: 2 Wednesday, March 2, 2011

The shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords prompted the Left to renew the call for reinstating the woefully misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” and extending its provisions to include the internet. 

Leading the charge was Representative James Clyburn, the third-ranking House Democrat and a reliably dishonest opportunist famous for remarking in 2007 that “good news in Iraq was bad news for us” [Democrats].

“Free speech is as free speech does,” Clyburn told the local newspaper. “You cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater and call it free speech. And some of what I hear, and [what] is being called free speech, is worse than that.”

The “Fairness Doctrine” was enacted in 1949 during the Truman administration and required broadcasters to present both sides of any controversial issue to the satisfaction of the Federal Communications Commission.

If the FCC decided, in its view, that the coverage wasn’t fair and balanced, it was empowered to strip offenders of their broadcasting licenses.  The effect was that most broadcasters simply avoided controversial topics altogether. 

Absent any dissention, broadcasters and producers were able to direct the national dialogue according to their own worldview, which then as now, tilted overwhelmingly to the Left.

The proof is in the pudding.  In 1987 President Ronald Reagan issued an Executive Order revoking the Fairness Doctrine. And seven years later, the Republicans regained control of Congress  —  for the first time since 1954.

With the FCC in control of the national dialogue through the Fairness Doctrine, the Left was able to dominate the Congress for forty years.   And they’ve been trying to get some form of Fairness Doctrine reinstated ever since.

Of particular interest is the internet.  In the view of the Left-dominated FCC, the internet needs government intervention to keep it free and fair, too.

No group is more threatened by the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine than religious broadcasters, which is why Majority Leader John Boehner addressed them in a speech last week.

In a speech to religious broadcasters that received a sustained ovation at his conclusion, he said free expression is under attack by a power structure in Washington populated with regulators who have never set foot inside a radio station or a television studio.

“We see this threat in how the FCC is creeping further into the free market by trying to regulate the Internet,” Mr. Boehner said.

“The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades,” he said to loud applause from members of the National Religious Broadcasters, a trade group holding its annual convention here.

Assessment:

The Omega Letter qualifies as a right-leaning website, which automatically includes it among the conservative and religious websites that the left-dominated FCC would love to regulate.   

We unashamedly admit we tend to view things from a conservative perspective, which is the political equivalent of the ‘Right’, whereas those who view things from a liberal perspective constitute the ‘Left’.

The degree to which each side is willing to compromise their views defines those who are ‘moderates’. The degree to which each side is willing to allow ideology to trump common sense defines those who are members of the ‘far right’ and ‘far left’.

The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ were coined after the pattern of the post-revolution French parliament to seat liberals to the left and conservatives to the right in the debates. 

Liberals derive their authority to govern from the will of the people as expressed by majority vote. Liberals believe that the majority is the ultimate moral force.

Liberals believe in ‘progressive thinking’ — out of which comes support for abortion, gay rights, intrusive government, mandatory state education, removal of religion from public discourse and education, etc.

To obtain the authority to govern, they advocate a kind of modified Marxist philosophy of class warfare, pitting the wider voter pool of poor voters against the somewhat smaller voter pool of affluent voters.

‘Tax cuts for the rich’ is a slogan that only thinly disguises the Marxist philosophy that private property should be reapportioned by the state — what we used to call ‘communism’.

Liberals tend to view the Constitution as a ‘living document’ — presumably so it can be tortured into saying whatever they want it to say.  

There is no place for God on the American political left.  They claim that there is, but that only serves to further expose how liberals operate.

God is invited, but only if He will tone down His opposition to the left’s political platform.

For the American right, the authority to govern isn’t derived from the will of the people, it is granted by the Creator. While the majority can rule on points of policy, the power to legislate is limited.

While the Congress can legislate tarifs, levy taxes, and provide for the common good, they cannot overturn principles of common law such as ‘Thou shalt not kill’ in order to permit abortion, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’ in order to excuse perjury, or overturn ‘Honor thy father and thy mother’ by encouraging kids to turn their parents in for punishing them for breaking household rules.

Conservatives don’t see America as a democracy; they see it as a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution isn’t a living document to be tortured until it says what they want it to, it is the supreme law of the land just the way it is.

To a conservative, the 1st Amendment’s guarantee that ‘Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion’ doesn’t mean kids can’t say the Lord’s Prayer in school, it means that Congress can’t pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

Similarly, where the 1st Amendment says, ‘nor prohibit the free exercise thereof,’ it means that Congress can’t tell kids they CAN’T say the Lord’s Prayer in school.

To a conservative, a local school board ISN’T the Congress, the CONGRESS is the Congress.  Some rural courthouse isn’t the Congress and the Ten Commandments isn’t a religion.

Conservatives find no conflict between the Ten Commandments and the rule of law represented by the Constitution.  

Therefore, no special ‘rights’ need be ‘discovered’ to permit women to practice birth control by murdering their babies in the womb, or a right to gay ‘marriage’ or the right of the state to impose an education system in place of the right of parents to educate their own children, or the right of the government to regulate what they are allowed to learn.

Conservatives believe that ‘progressive thinking’ doesn’t mean seeking ways to impose Marxist collectivism and confiscatory redistribution of wealth, but rather means finding ways to make capitalism work for all its citizens.

“There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler,” the Preacher writes, before lighting into the class warfare tactics so dear to the hearts of the left.

“Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.” (Ecclesiastes 10:6)  

It is folly to believe that the poor employ the rich — it is the other way around. The ‘no tax cuts for the rich’ slogan is folly incarnate, yet it is the current battle cry of the liberal left.

The liberal worldview offers its adherents dependency. It promises that its leadership will take care of them and provides for their needs by confiscating resources from those who work hard and redistributing it to their dependents, calling that ‘leveling the playing field’.

They oppose home-schooling, which gives parents the power to raise and educate their children as they see fit. The goal, as they ‘level the playing field’ is to bring everyone to the same level on dependency on government, making government the supreme being.

Ecclesiastes was written by King Solomon, whom the Bible says was Israel’s wisest king ever. Solomon contrasts the choice between wisdom and folly — and outlines how to distinguish between the two.

“A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left.”   (Ecclesiastes 10:2)

The Christ-Killers

The Christ-Killers
Vol: 114 Issue: 1 Tuesday, March 1, 2011

The unrest continues to rock the Middle East, with Yemen’s president accusing the US and, of course, Israel of being behind the demonstrations.

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.”

The wave of political unrest sweeping across the Arab world is a “conspiracy that serves Israel and the Zionists,” he added.

At the heart of most anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist arguments is the contention that the modern day Israeli is an imposter. The Zionists of Israel, say both the Arabs and the Christian replacement theologians, are not the Jews of the Bible.

The Biblical Jews are lost to history, they say, and the modern claimants have no standing. The following is from a homily given by Father Louis Campbell in the October, 2002 edition of the Daily Catholic.

“Officials at the Vatican are pretending that the modern state of Israel can lay claim to the promises God made to Abraham, which would mean that the Jews have a divine right to claim the whole territory between the Nile and the Euphrates.

John Paul II supports the false claims of Jewish Zionism, thus contributing to the cause of war in the Middle East.

For if, as the Church has always taught, the Scriptures say that the promises were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and His Church, how can it be said at the same time that God promised Jerusalem to the Jews? To affirm one interpretation is to deny the other.”

To support the false claims of the Jewish Zionists is to deny the Church its inheritance and to scandalize the little ones-faithful Catholics. ‘…You are a scandal to Me; for you do not mind the things of God, but those of men’ (Mt.16:23).”

To make this theological reason for opposing Israel work, it is necessary to ‘spiritualize’ the Jews and thus delegitimize the current claimants to the literal seed of Abraham. 

If God is finished with the Jews, the thinking goes, then there are no remaining Chosen People and the state of Israel is populated by imposters claiming to be historical Jews.   

But the OL’s own resident molecular biologist Wendy Wippel has pointed out in her excellent columns, DNA mapping has conclusively established genetic links between the Jews of modern Israel and the Jews of antiquity. 

Notwithstanding, when it comes to denying the Jews, the world isn’t particularly interested in facts.  

The world denies Israel’s claim to the land on a similar basis. Instead of spiritualizing the Jews out of literal existence, the world undercuts the basis for the argument by denying the legitimacy of Scripture.

Here’s how the carnal reasoning works.  Since the Bible is not true, the Jews have no legitimate claim to a Jewish state. Why?

Because there is no independent evidence of a historical Abraham to receive the Promise or of an historical Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. 

Got all that? It’s a little hard to explain it the way that they do and sound convincing.

That is because it isn’t true — so it takes real artist to make it sound believable.

Assessment:

And so it continues, down through the decades, through the centuries, through the millennia and up to this very moment in time.

The Jew is reviled the world over, mostly for the crime of killing Christ. What is fascinating is that even people who deny Christ will justify their antisemitism using the same libel.

Why do I say it is a ‘libel’ — a historical untruth? After all, when Pilate washed his hands of responsibility for the execution of Jesus, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it,” the Jewish mob chanted in reply,

“His blood be on us, and on our children.” (Mathew 27:24-25)

Doesn’t that pretty much nail it?  Jesus was tried and convicted by the Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, in an illegal trial in which no fewer than a dozen Jewish laws were broken. Perhaps more.  

Since the Jews, being an occupied province of Rome, were not sovereign, their courts could not order an execution. That is the reason they took the case to Pilate in the first place.   Only a sovereign government can impose a death penalty – that is the criteria whereby sovereignty is measured.

So, if the Jews themselves, following an illegal trial, had Jesus murdered at the hands of an unwilling occupation authority that would have preferred to have released Him, why is it a ‘libel’ to call Jews ‘Christ-killers?’

Jesus told His disciples,

“Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” (John 10:17-18)

Read that through a couple of times.  No man could have TAKEN Jesus’ life. Not Pilate, not the Jews, not Satan or his legions.  The Crucifixion of Jesus was the purpose for His earthly life.

In the Temptation in the Wilderness, Satan quoted Psalms 91:11-12, which says,

“For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.”

If Jesus alone had the power lay down His life, and that no man could ‘take’ it, then the crime cannot be laid to any human being’s charge. Can it?

At the Cross, Jesus cried, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34) Was He speaking rhetorically?  

I don’t think so.  If He was speaking rhetorically from the Cross, maybe He was also speaking rhetorically when He promised:

“And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My Hand.” (John 10:28)

I’ll carry it one step further.  Jesus died for my sins.  That makes ME a ‘Christ-killer’. The Romans drove the nails. That makes them Christ-killers.  The Jews could not put Jesus to death if they wanted to.  

That makes them witnesses, not participants. Is this difficult to follow? 

If Jesus Christ’s extension of grace was insufficient to fully absolve His murderers of their crimes, then it is equally insufficient to absolve me of my crimes and I am yet dead in my sins.

(And so are you.)

If Jesus pronounced their forgiveness at the Cross for participating in a pre-ordained and necessary sacrifice in which Jesus VOLUNTARILY laid down His life as a propitiation for all sin, how then, can the modern Jews be responsible for the sins of their fathers?

Even when their fathers aren’t held responsible by the One against Whom they sinned?  Jesus had already forgiven them at the Cross for their participation.  It is therefore doubly difficult to make the ‘Christ-killer’ claim stick.

In John 16:1-2, Jesus tells His disciples: 

“These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.”

What an incredible prophecy!  Some Christians try to apply this verse to Christian persecution.  Christians don’t attend synagogues.  Jews do.  And in this case, history clarifies prophecy.

Not only were the Jews put out of the synagogues at some point in history in virtually every country they had adopted, the persecution of the Jews was always for the specific crime of being the ‘killers of Christ’.

History is filled with stories of pogroms, confiscations, expulsions, attempted genocide and persecutions against Jews, all in the Name of Christ.

But the Jews not only survived with their ancient language, culture, dietary and religious laws and religious traditions intact, they returned to the Land of Promise, as the Bible said they would do in the last days.

To the world, the existence of Israel is a thorn in its collective side. Because Israel is a thorn in the side of the god of this world.

The enemy has thrown everything he could at the Jew for two thousand years, trying to wipe him from the face of the earth and break God’s prophetic promise of Israel’s national redemption in the last days.

The survival of the Jew, and the restoration of Israel to the land is proof positive that God remains on the Throne, that His Word will NOT return to Him void, and that all the chaos and terror of the world notwithstanding, all continues to go according to His plan.

And, that these ARE the last days.

“But these things have I told you, that WHEN THE TIME SHALL COME, ye may remember that I told you of them.” (John 16:4)

The time has come.  And we remember.