No Mas Pantalones . .

No Mas Pantalones . .
Vol: 131 Issue: 31 Friday, August 31, 2012

It was only a matter of minutes after each RNC speech was over that the media rushed out its fact-checkers to point out all the alleged lies and half-truths told by the speakers.

Anybody that still doubts that the mainstream media is now a euphemism for the Propaganda Wing of the Democrat Party need look no further than the Charlotte Observer which claimed the RNC Convention was;

“marked by speeches filled with half-truths, misleading statements, obfuscations and downright falsehoods.”

Wow! That is a pretty serious charge to make, but since this is a hard-news story published by an impartial member of the McClatchy Newspaper Group, you just know they have evidence to support their contention;

“From economic issues to welfare to Medicare to President Barack Obama’s work history, the convention’s headlining speakers often stretched the truth – to the point of breaking, in some cases.”

Double wow! I am only at the second paragraph and this is the second time that the Charlotte Observer has called the GOP speakers liars.  I can’t really think of a more horrible charge to throw at someone than “liar.”  The Bible calls Satan the ‘father of lies’.  The Ninth Commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.”

A charge like that can literally destroy a person’s reputation.  It is the most violent kind of character assassination.  It is so vile a charge that when it is wrongly laid at the feet of a private citizen, it is called “libel” and is actionable in court.

Legally, a person is a liar when he knowingly makes a statement he knows to be false.

When a person calls another person a “liar” the damage can be so devastating that in some jurisdictions it amounts to legal defamation.  

Since the Charlotte Observer (isn’t that where the DNC is meeting?) doubled-down on the liar charge, they must have some pretty good examples.  The Charlotte Observer was ready.  

First, Mitt Romney’s “lie”.

“I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour,” Romney said. “President Obama began with an apology tour. America, he said, had dictated to other nations.  No Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators.”

Now, the Charlotte Observer (isn’t that where the DNC is meeting?) is exposing the truth!

“Obama made several speeches overseas early in his presidency to introduce himself to the world.  He never issued a formal apology in any of those speeches.”

Sad.  Really sad.  We’re looking at what Romney said, as accurately quoted by the paper.  Do you see where Romney said Obama issued a “formal” apology?  Me neither.   

Now, to the phrase, “apology tour.” 

If you type “apology tour” into Google, every single return refers to the same Obama tour.  The Leftist media says that the claim is a lie.  One example of a lefty news organization is Mother Jones.  A Mother Jones column dated February 29, 2009 was headlined, “Obama’s Apology Tour Makes a Stop in Asia.”

One of the handy things about the Omega Letter archives is that they are a record of events in context since they were written on the day the events occurred.

On June 4, 2009 as Obama was touring the Middle East, we recorded the following:

“Obama seems to believe we owe the Muslim world an apology. And not just one, but many, for somehow failing to show Islam the respect Obama believes that it is due. . . 

 “. . . After apologizing for America’s terribleness to the great Muslim religion that has contributed so much to America’s own greatness, Obama turned his attention to the Arab-Israeli peace process.

“Obama next apologized to the Muslim world for his predecessor’s misguided efforts at promoting democracy . . . “I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”

“After apologizing for trying to promote democracy, Obama apologized for America’s lack of religious freedom. “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”

If it is a lie today, then it was a lie on June 4, 2009. But nobody was calling it a lie in June, 2009.  Or in November 2009 when we wrote:

“Every time the president speaks abroad, he runs down America as being arrogant,  self-centered, unilateral and generally wrong.  It is so much a part of his worldview that somebody dubbed it “Barack Obama’s Apology Tour” — a tag line picked up by even a few liberal mainstream journalists.”

In total, we referred to Obama’s “Apology Tour” in no fewer than twelve Omega Letter briefings since 2009.  

THAT’s their best shot?  Naw.  It gets better when they go after Paul Ryan.  Here is an example of Paul Ryan lying to the public:

“Vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech Wednesday was chock-full of inaccuracies and misleading statements. The House of Representatives member from Wisconsin said the Obama administration had “funneled out of Medicare” $716 billion to pay for the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act. “

Now, here is the Charlotte Observer’s (isn’t that where the DNC is meeting) explaining what the truth is.

“Obama didn’t gut $716 billion from Medicare to pay for the health care law. Instead, the administration instituted changes in Medicare to lower health care costs in the future . . . The changes the administration made primarily affect insurance companies and hospitals, and not Medicare recipients directly.”

Obama still pulled $716 billion from Medicare.  Cuts in payments to hospitals and insurance companies only affect Medicare recipients indirectly when they can’t find a provider that accepts Medicare.

In any case, Obama himself admitted that he’s doing what Ryan says.  In a November 2009 interview with ABC News, reporter Jake Tapper said to Obama that “one-third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare,” to which Obama’s response was: “Right.”

Another example of a shameful Ryan lie:

“Ryan also told conventioneers that Obama did nothing with the recommendations of a bipartisan presidential commission tasked with advising on how to reduce the federal budget deficit, a panel of which Ryan was a member.”

That is a lie, according to the Charlotte Observer (isn’t that where the DNC is meeting?).  Not because it isn’t true.  But because Obama isn’t the only one.  Huh?

“Obama wasn’t the only one, however. Ryan helped block the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform from being voted on in Congress.  The report by the 18-member panel called for deep spending cuts in domestic and military spending and for changing the tax code.  While some Republicans on the commission embraced lowering tax rates, they balked at defense cuts.”

So what was it that Ryan lied about, again?  Oh, he said Obama did nothing with the recommendations of the bipartisan commission.  What was it that Obama DID do with the recommendations?   Ummmm, nothing.

It is a shame that public figures cannot sue for libel. 


It is equally sad that the mainstream media can’t be sued for false reporting.  The Washington Post accused Paul Ryan of lying about a closure of a GM plant in Wisconsin.  The Investor’s Business Daily responded with a charge of its own: the Washington Post is lying.

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler posted a piece — “Ryan misleads on GM plant closing in hometown” — saying Ryan “appeared to suggest” that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.

 “That’s not true,” Kessler said. “The plant was closed in December 2008, before Obama was sworn in.”

What’s not true are Kessler’s “facts.” Ryan didn’t suggest Obama was responsible for shuttering the plant. Instead, he correctly noted that Obama promised during the campaign that the troubled plant “will be here for another hundred years” if his policies were enacted.

Also, the plant didn’t close in December 2008. It was still producing cars until April 2009.

An AP “fact check” also claimed that “the plant halted production in December 2008” even though the AP itself reported in April 2009 that the plant was only then “closing for good.”

The rest of the alleged lies told by Paul Ryan aren’t lies either.  It is just that the media took exception to the way those facts were delivered.

Those fact-check organizations that aren’t responding with outright lies and distortions are selectively examining the “facts” in such a way as to favor Obama. 

Check out the Obama birth certificate debunking at Snopes.  The fact is that Sheriff’s Joe Arpaio’s investigators concluded the published birth certificate is a forgery.  If they could, they would prosecute.

Snopes, which has never conducted an investigation of its own and does NOT have a team of 40 retired investigators, forgery specialists and attorneys working on it, flatly calls it “false”   — without ever mentioning the Maricopa County Sheriff’s investigator’s report.

How does Snopes know that they are right and the MCSO’s  forty investigators are wrong?  An honest fact check report could, at best label the claim “inconclusive.”

It is possible to split hairs over broad political generalizations, like when Ryan said Obama did “nothing” by challenging the definition of “nothing” or denying Obama raided Medicare by rephrasing the sentence, but why in the world would any American want to do that?

Why would any American want to advance something that he himself doesn’t believe?  I find it impossible to swallow the idea that the media actually thinks Romney was lying when he referred to Obama’s foreign policy tour as the Obama Apology Tour. 

Or that Ryan was lying when he said Obama had taken money from Medicare to pay for Obamacare.

I realize that this is merely an continuation of the point I made in yesterday’s OL, but it is important that you see how pervasive it is. 

Several years ago, we published an e-book called “Bodyguard of Lies” in which we made the provocative statement that almost everything you think you know is wrong.  The fact is that Americans today are the most heavily-propagandized population in the history of the world.  

But most of us don’t believe that and even those that do think that they are too smart to be taken in by it.  That is most probably the same thing that most Germans believed back in the early 1930s.

The Apostle Paul writes of the strong delusion of the last days, specifically giving the reason for the strong delusion, and why those who are left behind will embrace it, even as they know it is a lie.

” . . . because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”  (2 Thessalonians 2:10)

It doesn’t matter what area one examines anymore; American politics, the Middle East, Russia, the UN or the EU, what stands out is the way that all of these different and seemingly unrelated entities are moving — or being moved, (almost as if they had hooks in their jaws) into position, exactly as the Bible said they would.

There is no deviation — there are no huge, glaring inconsistencies.  Everybody is where the Bible predicted they would be; politically, economically, socially and financially. 

The world is desperate for strong political leadership.  The world’s economy teeters in the balance.  The Middle East is poised on the brink of war while America grows increasingly tattered while the social order breaks down in complete harmony with 2 Timothy 3:1-6.

The Bible predicted it all.  The Lord said it would happen, and He said when, and He told us what signs to watch for.  It means that He is still in control, no matter how scary it all looks from our position in the here and now.

 So what is the takeaway? 

“Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.” (Proverbs 3:25-26)


Sticks and Stones

Sticks and Stones
Vol: 131 Issue: 30 Thursday, August 30, 2012

Somebody took the time to email me to call me an Islamophobe because of a recent column outlining several unflattering applications of sharia law, including the woman sentenced to 500 lashes after a business deal she was in with a Saudi princess went bad.

You can always tell when you have spoken an unassailable truth to a member of the American Left.  They roll their eyes, sigh heavily, sputter a little bit and then call you a name, like ‘Islamophobe’, while acting like Van Helsing showing Dracula a crucifix.  

Once slapped down in such a manner, the Islamophobe in question is expected to hiss, shield his eyes, and slink away.  The Left uses the tactic for a reason.  It is very effective.  As we noted previously, anything the Left cannot refute, it suppresses by any means necessary. 

So if it can suppress an opinion by labeling it as ‘hateful’ or, in this case, a mental disorder, then that’s the preferred tactic.   

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a phobia is a “persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it.”   

Phobias are a mental disorder, defined as being both abnormal and irrational.  There are some 593 identified phobias, according to one source that publishes what it claims to be ‘the definitive list.’

Islamophobia is NOT on that list.  Islamophobia’ is what is called a ‘neologism’ or a word invented or reinvented to reflect a shift in a cultural worldview.  Because ‘Islamophobia’ is neologism, or a word that means whatever its user wants it to mean, it has no defined boundaries.

What, therefore, constitutes a case of ‘Islamophobia’?  Is it the fear of Islamic inspired terrorists?  Or of the stated Koranic aim of spreading Islam to the Dar al Harb [Zone of War] until the return of the Mahdi?  Is fearing sharia law “Islamophobia”?

In Montreal recently, a guy killed his wife and daughters for violating his Islamic honor.  In Buffalo in 2009, the executive founder of Bridges TV, a Muslim-interest network which aims, according to its website, “to foster a greater understanding among many cultures and diverse populations,” beheaded his wife in a claimed “honor killing” since she was planning to leave him.

Two sisters, Amina Said, 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot dead by their father Yaser at their home in Irving, Texas, in January 2008.  Said was upset by his daughters’ “Western ways” and was assisted in the killing by his wife, the girls’ mother!

In Afghanistan this week, the Taliban decapitated seventeen people for violating sharia law by dancing.  Is it “Islamophobia” to link that atrocity to the religion that gave birth to sharia law? 


Well, I guess that means that I am an Islamophobic bigot because I do not believe that the God that taught turning the other cheek is the same god that exhorts its followers to kill Christians for practicing their faith.

Doctrines, like other things that are different, are NOT the same.

But because I do not believe that Allah is the God of the Bible, despite the fact that Allah’s doctrines, nature, character, practices and commandments are not the same as those revealed about the God of the Bible, I am an infidel who can be killed for blasphemy against a religion I’ve never been part of.

And because I don’t think that is a great idea, I am unreasonably intolerant, ipso facto, an Islamophobic bigot! 

Is Islamophobia a form of bigotry?  A ‘bigot’ is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own.

‘Bigot’ is a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.

If fear of being forced to convert or submit to Islam, against the backdrop of a global war on Islamic-inspired terror and the images of the Twin Towers extinguishing three thousand innocent Americans can be twisted to mean ‘intolerant’ — it STILL doesn’t mean ‘irrational’ or ‘abnormal’.

Insofar as those views being challenged or proved false, any rational, normal person can go into a bookstore, buy a copy of the Koran, and look it up for himself.

(Of course, doing so, by definition, will make you both ‘irrational’ and ‘abnormal’ – so caution is advised. There is a reason behind the saying; “Ignorance is bliss.”)

If one is opposed to California’s proposition 8, then one is both a homophobe and a bigot.  Why?  Because supporters of the proposition cannot refute the fact that the historical purpose for marriage is to reproduce and then nurture newly born human beings.   

So instead, they try to suppress the opposition by calling them names.

If one opposes the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama, it isn’t because he has presided over the worst economic downturn in living memory while partying his way through his first term.  It isn’t because of the expansion of government power.  It isn’t the crushing debt.  It isn’t the runaway unemployment.

It is because one is a racist.  Perhaps even a bitter xenophobe clinging to God and guns while feeling antipathy against those who aren’t like them?  The charge that the Tea Party is made up of racists still sticks, despite the fact that more than 20% of the Tea Party self identify as ‘non-white.’

If one supports Arizona’s immigration law then one is a ‘nativist’ —  another pejorative akin to being a ‘racist’ but more inclusive, since one need only be an American to qualify. 

Those supporting the unrestricted flow of undocumented aliens cannot mount a logical argument to support their idea, since it is logically indefensible.

The reason for the pejorative is because the argument offered by the Left favoring unrestricted immigration is akin to arguing that slow, painful suicide is a great idea.  It’s much easier to marginalize the opposition by calling them names.

There is not a single one of these issues in which the American Left can win the debate on the merits.  Not one.  Which is why they immediately revert to name-calling.  Because for some reason, that trumps all logical discussion.

For reasons only comprehended from a spiritual perspective, the Left prefers its version, even when they know it isn’t true.  Nobody on the Left really believes that all Republicans are racists.  Or that all fears about sharia law are Islamophobic.

What is irrational about fearing those who are sworn to your destruction?  That is the very essence of ‘rational’ – what is irrational is the desire to aid in the effort.   

And how in the world is it even possible that this generation – to the exclusion of all others – could buy into the delusion that the best way to make a nation strong is to divide its people?  Or that the right not to be offended is more Constitutional than the right to free speech?

The Bible explains both how and why.

“And for THIS cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

The Apostle Paul was explaining to the Thessalonians who had been told that they had missed the Rapture and were in the Tribulation Period.

Paul explained that before “that Wicked” could be revealed, the Restrainer had to be taken ‘out of the way’.  Paul said ‘that Wicked’ would come to power with “all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish” meaning the unsaved (who will be left behind).

2 Thessalonians 2:10 gives the reason – because “they received not the LOVE of the truth, that they might be saved.”

THAT is what is missing from the debate in America.  The LOVE of the truth. Indeed, the exact opposite is the standard on both sides.  Having accepted (during the Clinton administration) that all politicians lie, it then becomes an issue of which lies one likes better.

But the fact that one prefers it cannot make it true. 

A Tale of Two Worldviews

A Tale of Two Worldviews
Vol: 131 Issue: 29 Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The RNC’s first night of speeches gave the lie to the Democrat contention that the RNC is the party of old white men.   Except for Mia Love.  Mia Love is a young black woman running as a Republican for the US House of Representatives in Utah.

Mia Love is the mayor of her home town of Saratoga Springs, Utah, a mostly-white community.  As noted, she is black, and a first-generation Haitian American.  Her story is the American dream, but it is the American dream the Democrats claim as theirs.

Her speech, which drew sustained applause, combined her family’s journey to the U.S. with references to civil-rights icons Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Our story has been told over 200 years,’ she told the adoring crowd. ‘With small steps and giant leaps, from a woman on a bus to a man with a dream.”

She said: ‘My parents immigrated to the U.S. with $10 in their pocket, believing that the America they had heard about really did exist.

‘When times got tough they didn’t look to Washington, they looked within.

‘The America I grew up knowing was centered in self-reliance and filled with the possibilities of living the American dream.’

She claimed President Obama was dividing the country –  ‘pitting us against each other based on our income level, gender and social status.’

Her speech sent shockwaves reverberating through the Democrat-controlled liberal media.  “What will our people think if they hear a black woman say such things?  What shall we do?”  

Over at MSNBC, they knew exactly what to do — they’re America’s experts at such things — they’ve been doing it for years.  Whenever there is news or information that contradicts the MSNBC narrative, they suppress it.

One of the most impressive speeches of that night, I thought, was the one delivered by former Representative Artur Davis of Alabama.  Representative Davis served Alabama’s 7th District from 2003 to 2011.  

Two other important points about Representative Davis before moving on.  Davis served as the Democrat Representative of Alabama’s 7th District and Davis is black.

Davis was an early supporter of Barack Obama’s 2008 bid for the presidency, and one of the national co-chairs for Obama’s 2008 campaign.  Known for his oratorical skills, Davis made one of the nominating speeches for Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.  

Representative Davis served as one of the co-chairs for the Obama presidential run in 2008.  And so Representative Davis speaking at the Republican National Convention about what a mistake it was to elect President Obama is major news.

Unless you’ve spent the past three years calling everyone that doesn’t agree with Obama a racist, like MSNBC has.  Then it isn’t news — or at least, it isn’t news that MSNBC wants to cover. 

Another featured speaker was Texas senatorial candidate Ted Cruz.  Cruz is a Latino-American, which upsets the Democrat narrative that all minority groups, especially Latinos, think that the GOP is racist and that the Democrat party is not.

Since Ted Cruz didn’t fit the MSNBC narrative, MSNBC suppressed that speech, as well.  While the Republicans were celebrating Mia Love, Artur Davis and Ted Cruz, MSNBC featured Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews in a discussion about how racist and exclusive the Republicans are.

NBC only posted clips of white speakers.  The LA Times mocked the RNC under the headline, “Republican National Convention Puts a Brown Face on a White Party” essentially arguing that the fact there were only two non-minority speakers on the RNC’s opening night somehow proves that the RNC is racist. 

NBC’s Chuck Todd went so far as to say that the RNC is faking diversity by putting minorities out front.  That’s like accusing somebody of marrying outside one’s race in order to conceal one’s true racist tendencies.

Google’s news aggregator is also suppressing the news.  The search term “MSNBC Skips Minorities”  came back with; “Your search – MSNBC skips minorities – did not match any news results.

Interesting.  The same search terms in Google’s regular web search returned a whole page of results. Evidently, when MSNBC openly cooks the books to favor the left, as far as Google is concerned, it isn’t news.

Or at least, it isn’t news that Google thinks you need to know. 


In American politics, there is an expression used to describe the five freedoms protected by the 1st Amendment.  They are, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press.

These are called America’s “First Freedoms” in part because they are listed first, and in part because they are the foundation upon which all our other freedoms are based.  

They are the five most important rights we have.  Destroy or dilute or otherwise nullify them, and American freedom ceases to exist. 

Which of these first freedoms is NOT under attack by Obama and his minions?

Freedom of speech?  Only if your speech is politically correct, as determined by the Left.  Freedom of religion?  Only if you aren’t Christian. Freedom of assembly?  If it’s a Tea Party assembly, good luck getting a permit. Bring lots of money.  But if it’s an Occupy Wall Street assembly, don’t worry about it.  No permit necessary.

Freedom to petition the government?  Good luck finding out anything about Fast and Furious.  Or Obama’s Columbia University records.  Or how he traveled to Pakistan in 1980 without a US passport?

Freedom of the press?  You’re joking, right?  MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the NYTimes, TIME, the Washington Post, the LATimes . . . all are free to distort the facts provided that they distort them in favor of the Left. 

America’s first freedoms were enshrined to ensure that America would remain free.  There is something about freedom that rankles the American Far Left.  They don’t seem to believe that others (besides them) are capable of handling freedom properly. 

For example, when free to choose their religion, they choose something intolerant and reactionary like Christianity.  When free to express their views, they use that freedom of speech to defend the unborn or to demand secure borders.  When free to assemble, they hold Tea Party rallies or they pray — in public!

When they petition the government, they want to know things that are none of their business, like where all those billons in stimulus money went.  And when it comes to freedom of the press . . . that only means the “establishment press” — like MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc.

Yesterday we discussed the fact that the DNC is planning to kick off its convention with a two-hour Islamic prayer session after having rejected an offer by Timothy Cardinal Dolan to bless both conventions.  

Speaking of faking diversity,  the DNC has changed its mind following the backlash.  They are still having the two hour Islamic prayer session, but they decided to accept Dolan’s participation so as not to alienate Catholics, who strongly (and oddly) vote Democrat.

The takeaway from this is a comparison between the two worldviews.  Notice that there is no place where they cross paths — it is as if they come from different realities.  One reality is God and country. 

The other reality is the one they live in. (You wouldn’t like it there). 

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

And the clock just keeps on counting down . . . tick . . tick . . . tick

A Form of Godliness. . .

A Form of Godliness. . .
Vol: 131 Issue: 28 Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Nagla Wafa is an Egyptian wedding planner who agreed to go into the restaurant business with the unnamed Saudi princess.  Evidently, Wafa cashed a check from the Saudi princess but then failed to go through with opening the restaurant.

That’s about all the information anybody has about the failed business deal.  The case of Nagla Wafa also speaks volumes about the quality of justice in the birthplace of Islam.

She was arrested and brought before a Saudi judge who adjudicated the case according to sharia law and sentenced Nagla Wafa, a 39 year-old mother of two, to two years in a Saudi jail and five hundred lashes!

“As of May of 2012, Ms. Wafa has been subjected, on a weekly basis, to 50 floggings per week within the ‘Al-Malz’ Prison. She currently faces 200 more floggings … despite her suffering from distortions to her spine,” the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights said in an online statement.

Monday, members of the Taliban’s ‘morality squads’ attended a dance party at a private home in a Taliban-controlled area of Southern Afghanistan.  The Taliban does not approve of such things, which it regards as a violation of sharia law.  

So they slaughtered everyone there and then cut their heads off (we think).  The AP isn’t sure.

“All of the bodies were decapitated but it was not clear if they had been shot first, said provincial government spokesman Daoud Ahmadi.”

They were probably shot first, since people tend to squirm less while being decapitated if they are either dead or too seriously wounded to resist.  But as noted, the AP isn’t sure.

“The Taliban spokesman for southern Afghanistan could not be reached for comment.”

(If that’s not a punch line, it sure ought to be.)


Cardinal Timothy Dolan is the Catholic Archbishop of New York and president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Archbishop Dolan is America’s highest ranking Catholic in the world-wide Catholic hierarchy.

The Archbishop offered to give closing prayers and a benediction for each of the political conventions, the Republican National Convention in Tampa and the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte, NC.

Among American Christians, Catholics number in the minority, with only about 24% of the more than 75% that self-identify as Christians, but that fact notwithstanding, Catholicism ranks as America’s largest Christian denomination. 

The American Catholic Church’s 68 million members have a four to one advantage over America’s next single largest Christian denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, (at 16 million members). 

So in that sense, regardless of where one stands on RC doctrine, Timothy Cardinal Dolan represents American Christianity insofar as secular America is concerned.  And since he represents so wide a swath of American Christianity, how secular America views him reflects its view of Christianity in general.

Oddly enough, most Catholics are Democrats.  So when the RNC embraced Dolan’s offer with open arms, America’s Catholics started grumbling that Dolan was endorsing Mitt Romney. 

“David Gibson at Religion News Service checked in with America magazine, the Jesuit weekly, which editorialized,

Cardinal Dolan’s appearance in Tampa will damage the church’s ability to be a moral and legitimate voice for voiceless, as those who view the Catholic Church as being a shill for the GOP have just a bit more evidence to prove their case.”

Cardinal Dolan, just as oddly, denied any endorsement of the RNC or even its pro-life platform.

“His spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, was quite clear in a press release Thursday saying:

… the Cardinal was coming only to pray not to endorse, and that he would be willing to accept a similar offer from the Democratic Party as well. That same sentiment was conveyed to the Democratic National Committee.”

The DNC, which can count on American Catholics to vote for Obama by a margin of 51% to 42%, according to the latest Pew poll, turned down Cardinal Dolan’s offer.  It wasn’t that they didn’t invite him.  They rejected his offer to appear.

So here’s where we tie it all together.  Nagla Wafa was convicted under Sharia law in what in a civilized country would amount to a bad business deal and sentenced to two years and fifty floggings a week for two years.

Seventeen people were beheaded — on the spot — by the Afghani Taliban for violating their interpretation of Sharia modesty laws.  

The Democrat National Convention has invited its own religious representative to kick off the DNC’s convention with a jumma prayer to Allah to be offered at the publicly-owned Marshall Park.  

Other events include an Islamic issues conference and banquet, and a cultural festival held in different parts of the city, including at the Park Expo and Conference Center off Independence Boulevard.

At a news conference Monday at Marshall Park, Jibril Hough, a local Muslim activist and spokesman for the nonprofit Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs, said the events will be open to anyone.

Hough, who expects up to 20,000 Muslims to attend the events, said he spoke to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Rodney Monroe about the public prayer in particular and was told to go ahead with it.

Public prayers to be offered in a public park?  Isn’t that against the law?  Where is the ACLU?  Where are the People for the American Way? 

“Among those issues, Hough said, is the Patriot Act, a law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks that expanded anti-terrorism surveillance. Other issues: the National Defense Authorization Act, which critics claim allows for indefinite military detention, and the New York Police Department’s wiretapping program to spy on Muslims.

“Thousands of Muslims are going to perform the Friday ritual prayer,” Hough said. “We hope our people will leave feeling rewarded about who they are and what their issues are and have a candidate checklist.”

Ok, so the Constitution doesn’t endorse a particular religion, and that’s why Christians can’t pray in that same American park in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Timothy Cardinal Dolan represents about half of Catholic Democrat voters and 25% of American Christianity.

The jumma at the DNC will target those that oppose the inclusion of sharia law into the American justice system.  If the featured Imam, Siraj Wahhaj represented every single Muslim in America, (he does not) he would be the voice of 0.6% of the voting public, according to the CIA World Factbook.

So what’s the deal here?  It can’t be politics — the number of Muslim voters in America is statistically insignificant. 

Why would the Dems deliberately disrespect the leader of the largest single Christian denomination in America and the largest Christian Democrat voting bloc in favor of an Islamic activist group wanting to impose Sharia Law?  

I don’t know.  It is a conundrum.  It makes no sense whatever in the natural, which then leads me to seek my answer in the supernatural.

From the perspective of the supernatural, it makes perfect sense.  Christianity has been Islam’s greatest enemy since its founding and has been in a constant state of war against Christianity dating back to Islam’s defeat in the Battle of Tours in 732 AD.

The Democrats have painted the GOP as the ‘goody two-shoes’ of American politics, pro-life, churchgoing, Bible-believing xenophobes that “cling to God and guns and have antipathy for those who aren’t like them”. 

The GOP invited the leader of the nation’s largest Christian denomination.  The DNC refused to allow Dolan to invoke Christ, but instead invited representatives of the one religion most hostile to Christianity.  

It was more than a snub.  It was a statement of principles, including the adoption of that most Islamic of all political principles: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” (2 Timothy 3:2-5)

Perilous times!

Israel’s ”Alleged” Temple

Israel’s ”Alleged” Temple
Vol: 131 Issue: 27 Monday, August 27, 2012

One would think that, of all the possible efforts to revise history imaginable, the piece of history that would be the hardest to revise would be to deny the historical existence of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

First, the Bible is filled with references to a Jewish Temple.  And the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 in Qumron have conclusively and undeniably confirmed that the Biblical record is unchanged since the scrolls were buried there in AD 70.

Secondly, the Qumrom discovery included hundreds of Temple artifacts, documents, drawings, and other forms of historical confirmation as to the existence of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem up until the time of the Qumrom community’s destruction around AD 70.

Thirdly, one of the retaining walls of Solomon’s Temple, built almost three thousand years ago, still stands on the western side of the Temple Mount.  I’ve seen it and touched its ancient stones.  I’ve prayed at it.  It is there.

Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority and cofounder of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah Party, recently accused Israel of seeking to “rob Muslims and Christians of their holy shrines, destroy Al-Aqsa mosque and build the alleged Jewish Temple.”

In February, Abbas accused Israel had been waging a “final battle” aimed at erasing the Arab, Muslim and Christian character of east Jerusalem.  He charged that Israel intended to destroy Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque, which sits atop the remains of the two biblical Jewish Temples.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the remarks as “harshly inflammatory” and “baseless.”

Abbas responded with the promise that there will be “no peace, no security and no stability unless the occupation, settlers and settlements are gone from Jerusalem.”  He also stressed that the city will remain the eternal capital of the Palestinian state, according to the Palestine News Network news agency.

The very last thing that the government of Israel wants to do is to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque.  There would be no tears shed if it were destroyed by an earthquake, or if it collapsed on its own, but the Israeli government would rather maintain the status quo as take on the global Muslim community all at once.

However, the Bible says that in the last days, the Third Temple will be rebuilt.  Exactly how that will come about is anybody’s guess.  But the fact remains that it is a topic of conversation —  for the first time in twenty centuries.


“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4)

According to this verse, when the Third Temple is rebuilt, it won’t be the Jewish Temple, or the Israeli Temple or the Zionist Temple or even the antichrist’s Temple, (which is how many Christians refer to it.)

The Apostle Paul, writing to the Church at Thessonlonika about the events of the last days, prophesied that the antichrist will sit in the Temple of God.  For it to be the Temple of God, the Age of Grace must be over. 

There is a reason why the Third Temple is consecrated and a reason why Paul calls it the “Temple of God” instead of just ‘the Temple’.

First, if it weren’t consecrated, it couldn’t be defiled.  You can’t defile something which isn’t holy in the first place.  During the Age of Grace, the Bible identifies the Temple of God as the individual believer .

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16)

But when the Holy Spirit is “taken out of the way” to allow the floodgates of evil to flow unchecked under the rule of antichrist, so are the vessels that He indwells. 

That event, the Rapture of the Church, signals the conclusion of the Church Age and the resumption of Daniel’s 70th week, or what Jeremiah 30:7 calls, the “time of Jacob’s trouble”.  The Age of Grace is over and the final week of the Law resumes. 

Unless the Law was again operational, the “abomination of desolation” would neither be an ‘abomination’ — nor could it make the Temple desolate — unless the Temple itself were legitimate in the first place.

Understand that the resumption of Temple worship and animal sacrifices during the Tribulation has no saving value.  Nobody will be saved because they brought an unblemished lamb to the Temple for sacrifice.  (Nobody was ever saved by Temple worship during the Age of the Law, either.)  

Salvation is and always has been an outpouring of God’s grace by faith from every Dispensation.

Secondly, God isn’t going back to an “old system” because salvation is not a product of the Temple system, as we’ve just noted.  The Age of the Law had yet to run its full course when it was interrupted by the Age of Grace.

Daniel notes that in the 69th Week, the “Messiah is cut off, but not for Himself”; the Temple is destroyed by the people of the coming prince (antichrist) and then there is a temporal disconnect when Daniel’s clock stops for the Church Age.

The Age of Grace concludes with the Rapture and Daniel’s clock restarts on the final week, the reasons for which are clearly outlined in Daniel 9:24.

It isn’t a re-institution of the Age of the Law.  It is the resumption of an unfilled Dispensational Period for which there is a definite purpose.  The purpose is six-fold;

  1. to finish the transgression,
  2. make an end to sins,
  3. make reconciliation for iniquity,
  4. bring in everlasting righteousness,
  5. seal up the vision and the prophecy, and
  6. anoint the most Holy.

The Church plays no role, since parts 1 -3 were fulfilled at the Cross and parts 4-6 are fulfilled at the Second Coming and during the Millennial Rest.

Christians have no holy city of their own — we share Jerusalem with the Jews, but it is not ours.  Jesus finished the transgression and put an end to sins at the Cross, offering Himself as a reconciliation for iniquity.

So, then, what is the purpose of the Law?  Why did God give Moses the Ten Commandments?

According to the Apostle Paul, the reason for the Ten Commandments was to prove we couldn’t keep them and to point out our need for a Savior.  That realization is offered to both Jew and Gentile.  BUT, says Paul;

“I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.”

The ‘fullness of the Gentiles be come in’ is a reference to the conclusion of the Church Age, which ends when the last Gentile who is going to accept Christ does so.  Once the Body of Christ is complete, the Rapture takes place, and God turns His attention back to Israel.

“And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” (Romans 11:26-27)

The 70th Week of Daniel is also called “the Time of Jacob’s Trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7) because it is set aside for the judgment of the Gentiles and the national salvation of the Jews.

To summarize: the purpose of the Tribulation is two-fold.  First and foremost, its purpose is to effect the national reconciliation of the Jews and their salvation — as a nation.

The unbelieving Gentiles have already had their chance and rejected it.  This idea that God continues His plan for the Gentiles into the Tribulation Period is without Scriptural support.  That is not to say that Gentiles cannot be saved during the Tribulation.  Some may well be.

But during the Tribulation, God’s attention turns to the national redemption of Israel.  Revelation Chapter 7 tells of 144,000 Jews who will be ‘sealed’ with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The Jews of Israel aren’t saved during the Tribulation by the Temple practices or law. Zechariah 12:10 makes it clear that the Jews of Israel during the Tribulation are saved the same way we are — by grace and supplications (prayer).

“And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only Son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”

It is the Temple desecration that causes the Jews to turn their backs on the antichrist and turn towards Christ.  That is the event that begins the second half, or “Great” Tribulation.

Secondarily, it is a time set aside for the judgment of a Christ-rejecting world (the Church having already been judged at the Cross).  The Age of Grace is over, but salvation by grace through faith is still extended to the Jews.

The 144,000 are sealed with and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which gives them the power to share the Gospel and enables the hearer to be regenerated spiritually.  Without the active indwelling of the Holy Spirit within these 144,000 Jewish evangelists, nobody could be saved.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Corinthians 2:14)

And so that’s the overview.  When the conditions are right, the Temple WILL be rebuilt.  

Jewish religious leaders have already prepared the implements for Temple worship and are preparing priests for the resumption of the Temple sacrifice system. 

Daniel 9:27 says that part of the “covenant” he confirms between Israel and her enemies includes the resumption of Temple worship and sacrifice.  Indeed, it is that covenant allowing the resumption of Temple worship that starts the time clock counting down the days to the Second Coming of Christ.

Why is that important to you?  While there aren’t any signs pointing to the Rapture, the signs pointing to the soon arrival of the antichrist are more like BILLBOARDS than they are signs.   

And before “that Wicked” can be revealed, the Restrainer and the vessels He indwells MUST be “taken out of the way.”  So the fact we can see him coming means the Lord is coming even sooner.

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

The Iran Conundrum

The Iran Conundrum
Vol: 131 Issue: 25 Saturday, August 25, 2012

As the US elections loom, Israel is facing the most dangerous existential challenge since at least  the Six Days’ War, if ever.  Israel recognizes the obvious, which is that sanctions may hit Iran’s economy, but it will have no effect on Iran’s leadership. 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can still get gas for his car.  Ayatollah Khameini isn’t missing any meals.  The top leadership in the Iranian Republican Guard Corps still has access to all the food, fuel and medicine they might need.  

Iran’s scientific community enjoys all the privileges and protections that the mullocracy can provide for them.  The sanctions hurt Iran, but in all the wrong places.  Like in Iraq, the only ones suffering under US or UN sanctions are ordinary citizens; workers, students, families and children.

The imposition of a sanctions regime is largely a gamble. The imposing power is gambling that the victims of the sanctions, to wit: the ordinary Iranians, will blame their own government, rather than blaming the imposing powers.

When Joe Iranian can’t buy food for his family or gas for his car because the Great Satan is blockading his country in order to prevent it from achieving scientific advancement, will he blame his leadership for provoking the Great Satan? 

Or will he blame the Great Satan for attempting to rule over his country as if it were a foreign conqueror?  

The United States is gambling that Joe Iranian will respond to the high unemployment, runaway inflation, food and fuel shortages caused by international sanctions by shaking his fist at Tehran and cursing his government’s policies.  

Tehran is betting that Joe will respond to a lifetime of political and religious indoctrination that portrays the United States as a rapacious, evil and malignant enemy of both Allah and Islam that seeks to impose its will on Iran’s Islamic republic.

The Israelis continue to make preparations for war.  And so does Iran.


The US intelligence community has concluded that if the United States strikes Iran, Iran is prepared to retaliate directly against American targets inside the US and has put in place the means to do so.

National Intelligence director James Clapper testified before Congress that Iran has developed a huge intelligence infrastructure throughout Central and Latin America, especially in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela.

Earlier this month, Congress sent a delegation to South America to investigate the Iranian presence.

The seven-member group from the House Homeland Security Committee concluded that Iran maintained thousands of operatives, including members of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah.

“There’s pretty much of a general consensus within the intelligence community that Iranian-backed cells providing financial support to Hezbollah could easily convert to operational cells and light up the place,” Rep. Mike McCaul, a Texas Republican and subcommittee chairman, said.

“From our observations on this trip, the Iranian threat to the United States is very real and it would be difficult to defend against all of these operatives.”

The delegation concluded that the Iranian presence has been ignored by most South American countries. Delegation members said Shi’ites in the so-called tri-border area of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay were forcing the 30,000 Lebanese residents to contribute at least two percent of their income to Hezbollah.

“If you were Iran and you wanted to retaliate against the United States you would go through the backyard,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX). “Latin America is America’s backyard.”  

Moreover, intelligence officials confirmed the infiltration of hundreds of Iranian operatives into the United States disguised as Latin American immigrants as part of the wave of illegal immigration being championed by a vote-hungry Obama administration.

They said IRGC and Hezbollah officers were working with everybody from Mexican drug cartels to petty criminals to prepare for sabotage and assassinations.

In September 2011, a Texas man with Iranian citizenship was arrested on charges of plotting to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington, Adel Jubeir.

“Iran has methodically cultivated a network of sponsored terrorist surrogates capable of conducting effective, plausibly deniable attacks against Israel and the United States,” the Defense Department said in a recent report on Iran’s military.

If we can be certain of anything about the Obama administration, we can be sure that it will avoid anything as unpopular as involving the United States in another unnecessary war, especially right before an election. 

And Israel would be taking a dangerous gamble if it were to strike on its own before the election.  First, Israel knows it doesn’t have the military power to finish the job of destroying all Iran’s nuclear facilities alone.   

Obama may be forced to come to Israel’s aid to keep from losing the Jewish vote, but if Obama wins re-election in November, he’ll have no incentive to work with Israel for the next four years, since he won’t have to worry about re-election, and every reason to work against the Jewish State.

Chicago politics is famous for both its brutality and its vengefulness.  

There are very few scenarios that I can think of that would allow a full-scale war between Iran and Israel that don’t run counter to Bible prophecy.  There is no way to make the Iranians fit into the Edomite war scenario. 

The Bible makes it clear that God uses that war as a judgment against Edom, or the descendants of Esau.  Esau’s descendants are Arabs. The Iranians are not Arabs, but Persians. 

Persia’s destiny is as an ally of Gog-Magog, which is also a judgment, imposed on a different people for different reasons than the judgment against Edom.

Again, I am way out here on a limb, since current events would seem to dictate a war of annihilation between Iran and Israel is all but inevitable, but current events do not drive Bible prophecy. 

Bible prophecy forecasts current events before they are current.

During the Tribulation Period,  Bible prophecy envisions four spheres of global power, as viewed from the Bible’s geographic perspective, which is the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. 

During the Tribulation, the Bible speaks of the government of antichrist in the west, the Gog Magog alliance from the north, (including Iran), the kings of the east and the king of the south.

There is no mention of a fifth power resembling the United States during the Tribulation. And while Iran is pictured as part of the Gog-Magog Alliance, at the time of that war, Israel is dwelling in peace and safety as a land of unwalled villages. 

At the time of the Edomite War, Israel is pictured as a nation on high alert and the war itself is in response to repeated attacks by Edom against Israel and the Temple Mount.   It is only after that war is over that the vision of Israel as a land of unwalled villages is even possible.

That is not to say that I am infallible, or that if I’m wrong that it means the Bible is wrong. 

The scenario I’ve outlined is the Bible’s scenario for the very last days of the Church Age and into the Tribulation Period.  

So if we are as close to the very last days of the Church Age as I believe that we are,  then Iran’s destined clash with Israel is for a later time, in concert with the Russians, and not now. 

“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” (Romans 13:11)

It all depends on what time it really is. Tick. . .  tick . . . tick . . .

When Even the Bad News is Good

When Even the Bad News is Good
Vol: 131 Issue: 24 Friday, August 24, 2012

A new scientific study conducted in Europe has shown a direct link between the sun and periods of extreme cooling. To me, it sounds a bit like a headline saying that a new study has shown a link between air and breathing, but evidently, it is news to somebody.

The study’s author is Frank Sirocko, professor of Sedimentology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Geosciences of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany.

(Wouldn’t you love to see how he fits all that on his business card?)

Anyway, the effect of the sun on temperatures has evidently escaped modern science until now, in part because they say accurate seasonal weather records don’t go back far enough to establish a pattern.  

The other part is because Western governments issue grants to scientists that can link global warming to anthropogenic (man-made) pollution.  They don’t issue grants to scientists that fail to draw the preferred conclusions.

In the late 1980’s Britain’s Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, was fighting off the environmentalists that opposed expanding Great Britain’s nuclear power generation system.  Part of her war strategy was to demonstrate that the use of fossil fuels did more harm to the environment than the use of nuclear energy does.

So the British government began giving research grants to scientists that reached the conclusions that she wanted them to.  In 1989, Senator Al Gore seized on the British findings as the “next big thing” and quickly made it his own.  

Gore published his tome, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit just in time for the 1992 Democratic Convention and the party adopted it as that year’s vice-presidential platform. Once the Clinton-Gore ticket became the US federal government, Gore was in a position to emulate Thatcher’s successes with the scientific community.

Unlike Thatcher, however, Gore wasn’t advancing the anthropogenic theory for policy reasons, but for his own.  By the end of the 1990’s, Gore’s scare tactics had proved so successful that they nearly carried him to the White House.

Failing that, he turned the fear of global warming into a cash cow that won him a Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar, uncounted millions of dollars and the adulation of his peers. 

To this very day, there are millions, if not billions of people convinced that human development has become a planetary cancer.  They also believe that the only solution is to shrink the tumor. 

Ahem. They are talking about us.


“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” (Romans 1:28)

The anthropogenic global warming theory and its solution could not possibly be a better fit to this prophetic Scripture.  The theory assumes that man is supreme on the earth.  Further it assumes that the solution is to reduce the population to “sustainable levels”.

Since that is a euphemism for killing off or otherwise reducing our own species, one might argue the solution is both reprobate and inconvenient.    

Returning to the German study we referenced earlier, the authors discovered another way to map historical warming/cooling periods to provide them with the weather data necessary.

From the early 19th through mid-20th centuries, riverboat men used the Rhine for cargo transport.  And so docks along the river have annual records of when ice clogged the waterway and stymied shipping.  The scientists used these easily-accessible documents, as well as additional historical accounts, to determine the number of freezing episodes since 1780.

“The advantage with studying the Rhine is because it’s a very simple measurement .  .  . Freezing is special in that it’s like an on-off mode. Either there is ice or there is no ice,” Professor Sirocko explained.

Sirocko and his colleagues found that between 1780 and 1963, the Rhine froze in multiple places 14 different times.  The sheer size of the river means it takes extremely cold temperatures to freeze over making freezing episodes a good proxy for very cold winters in the region, Sirocko said.

Mapping the freezing episodes against the solar activity’s 11-year cycle – a cycle of the Sun’s varying magnetic strength and thus total radiation output – Sirocko and his colleagues determined that ten of the fourteen freezes occurred during years around when the Sun had minimal sunspots.  Using statistical methods, the scientists calculated that there is a 99 percent chance that extremely cold Central European winters and low solar activity are inherently linked.

“We provide, for the first time, statistically robust evidence that the succession of cold winters during the last 230 years has a common cause.”

The common cause?  The sun.  And so, the sun is the proven historical cause of global cooling.  Gasp!  Could that mean that the sun is the cause of contemporary global warming?  What does the evidence say?Sunspot chart

Let’s avoid going deep into the weeds and look at the most obvious evidence.  As this chart shows, sunspot activity has been steadily on the rise since 1900.  So have temperatures.  When the sunspot activity begins to slow down, temperatures start to cool.

That is the same conclusion reached by the German study, (which evidently wasn’t getting research grants from either the UK or US).

“When sunspot numbers are down, the Sun emits less ultraviolet radiation.  Less radiation means less heating of Earth’s atmosphere, which sparks a change in the circulation patterns of the two lowest atmospheric levels, the troposphere and stratosphere. Such changes lead to climatic phenomena such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, a pattern of atmospheric pressure variations that influences wind patterns in the North Atlantic and weather behavior in regions in and around Europe.”

The author of the column obviously still believes in the anthropogenic theory, and was careful to selectively quote the author of the study to make sure he sounded properly skeptical:

“Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has [at least] five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.”

It is worth noting at this point that NASA is also able to monitor weather on Mars.  And when global warming happens on earth,  it also happens on Mars.  

If the cause of global warming is the sun, then all the money being thrown at “green” companies and “green” energy plans (that don’t work) is a waste.  So the debate ignores the sun as if it were irrelevant and instead, blames Western use of fossil fuels.

Not China, or India or the former Soviet Union, none of whom are gullible enough to believe the nonsense, primarily because they don’t need climate change to scare their populations into going along — they have other, more convincing methods.

No, it is only the West that needs climate change in order to convince their populations to go along with the program, which, if one is paying attention, is to force the West to submit to some form of global authority empowered with the ability to pass laws, impose taxes and even make war in the name of saving the planet.

Note that it is the West in the crosshairs.  The Kings of the East, Gog-Magog and the Kings of the South aren’t in a panic about their own emissions, although they don’t mind sharing in our panic about ours.

Note also that it isn’t climate change that is the debate.  Nobody is questioning the fact the climate is changing, including me.  The debate is about whether or not it is man-made — or part of existing weather patterns and cycles that go back as far as we can trace them in the fossil record.

The debate has been raging for almost a quarter-century.  Should we fear what appears to be coming upon the earth?  Or is it a case of confusion about the cause?  What is the cause?

Well, signs in the sun seem to suggest solar flares, but if the sun is the cause, then there is nothing we can do about it.  A perplexing situation, is it not?  We have people practically keeling over with heart attacks out of fear of rising seas washing away places like Manhattan.

To listen to the climate change alarmists, one would almost assume that the powers of heaven are about to sweep us all away.

Which is exactly how the Lord described it when He was outlining the signs of His impending return to the earth in the last days.  He said there would be:

“. . . signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.” (Luke 21:25-26)

Apart from the Flood, never before in history has there ever been a serious, GLOBAL threat to the continued existence of humanity.  And never before in history was it possible for the whole world to perceive such a threat — had there ever been one.

But more than nineteen centuries after the Lord outlined a series of signs that would all occur within the space of a single generation, that is precisely the situation the threat of man-made global warming has created.

Fear, confusion, perplexity, all spawned by changes in the solar patterns, as we prepare for what NASA says could be the most dangerous solar season our technology-dependent world has ever seen.  And right after He prophesied the global warming scare, He had this to say to His Church:

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

And that’s what I love about being a Christian in the last days.  For us, even the bad news is good.  Maranatha! 

America in Bible Prophecy

America in Bible Prophecy
Vol: 131 Issue: 23 Thursday, August 23, 2012

King Nebuchadnezzar lived and reigned over Babylon when the city was home to one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.  It was Nebuchadnezzar that constructed the famed Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

Nebuchadnezzar was a real guy who really lived. In 597 BC he captured Jerusalem and deposed King Jehoiakim. The Jews rebelled and in 587 Nebuchadnezzar destroyed both the city and the Temple and deported Judah’s most prominent citizens to Babylon.

Uncounted thousands of Jews died in the siege, with the defenders eventually even resorting to cannibalism in their efforts to survive.  The Temple of God was defiled.  The Holy of Holies was desecrated and the Temple treasures looted.

Where was God when all this was happening?  The Jews were His Chosen People; the Temple was His place on the Earth.  Why didn’t He interfere?

When the Ark was being transported aboard an oxcart, one of the oxen stumbled and an Israelite named Uzzah put out his hand to steady it.  According to 2 Samuel 6:7, the moment Uzzah’s hand touched the Ark he fell over dead.

So how could a Gentile king and his hordes manage to sack the Temple without having to worry about Divine retribution?

“Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are His: And He changeth the times and the seasons: He removeth kings, and setteth up kings: He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:” (Daniel 2:20-21)

“Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.”(Daniel 2:37-38)

Do you see it?  Nebuchadnezzar was able to sack the Temple, touch the Temple treasures, defile the Holy of Holies and even steal from God, so to speak, because God appointed him.

God sets up kings.  God removes kings.  God made Nebuchadnezzar ruler over them, according to His purpose.  The Prophet Daniel, a victim of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest, understood this principle well.

Nebuchadnezzar was king because God wanted him to be king and he would only stay king as long as God wanted him to.

God also appointed Cyrus the Persian, Alexander the Great, Caligula, Pilate, Kaiser Wilhelm, King Leopold II, Czar Nicholas, Emperor Hirohito, Kim il Sung, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot and every other murderous dictator in history.

Bible prophecy is the telling – in advance – of how these tyrants who had absolute power on earth, were mere pawns in the overall Big Picture of history.

God sets up kings and He brings down kings according to His will.

No tyrant, no matter how terrible, achieved his rank through his own effort.  And while Satan is certainly capable of corrupting them, he is powerless to appoint them.

This is one of the harder sayings of Scripture, but it is nonetheless true.  Every tyrant in history was either appointed by God or the Bible is not true.

When the Apostle Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, Nero was emperor of Rome.  Ultimately, Paul was beheaded on Nero’s orders.  It is especially important to keep Nero in mind when reading Paul’s admonition to the Romans as recorded in Romans 13:1-6.

Note the parts I’ve set off italics for emphasis:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Let me repeat myself here: when Paul was speaking of the higher powers being ordained by God according to His purposes, Paul was speaking of Emperor Nero!


Nebuchadnezzar could lay siege to Jerusalem because God permitted it.  Indeed, the Siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was part of the overall plan of God for the ages.

It was from Babylon that Daniel was given the outline of future history from the order to rebuild the Temple to the reign of the antichrist in the last days.

No detail was left to chance – if we learn anything from Bible prophecy, we learn that every event is interconnected with the events that came before and those to come afterwards.  Remove some of it and all of it collapses.

Now we come to the point of today’s briefing.  What does Barack Obama, American politics and the Election of 2012 have to do with Bible prophecy?

Let’s look first at what we know as opposed to what we think. Barack Obama would not be president of the United States if God didn’t want him there.  We know that as a certainty.

So by observing Obama’s agenda, if we are as far along the timeline as I believe we are, Obama’s agenda should provide insights into God’s agenda for the last days as articulated by Scripture.

As we’ve discussed previously, right or wrong, America is perceived by the world as the world’s most Christian nation.  It is that perception that is relevant.

If I wanted to convey a message, I would use symbols that would make sense to those I was trying to reach.  So if I wanted to convey a message to the Church about the collapse of Biblical Christianity at about the same time as the end of the Church Age, I would probably start this way:

“This know also, that in the last days, perilous times shall come” – and then I would describe the prevailing moral state of the world’s most Christian nation.

I wouldn’t describe the moral state of the whole world, since the moral state of the whole world, apart from Christ, has remained unchanged since Adam.

I’d describe a primarily Christian people in what is recognized as a primarily Christian nation — one whose moral state was in obvious and discernible deterioration from a less immoral state.

The president sets the moral agenda for the nation – that’s just the way it is.  America under Reagan was more moral than under Clinton.  It was more moral under Bush than under Obama.

That isn’t to say the presidents were, but rather their agendas – since their agenda reflects that of the people that elected them.

America elected Barack Obama in 2008.  The moral agenda of the nation has since reflected Obama’s morals.  What are they?

Obama marks every Muslim holiday with a speech.  When Obama mentioned Passover, he likened it to the uprisings in the Arab world.

It is hard to imagine showing more disrespect for Judaism than to link the Passover celebration with the political rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

And Obama remained absolutely silent during the most solemn feast day on the Christian calendar, (apart from hosting an Easter Egg hunt).

Obama’s agenda has accelerated America’s decline exponentially.  When Obama took office, the IMF was warning that if America didn’t get its financial house in order, it would lose its status as the world’s most powerful economy by 2030.

The IMF recently issued a revised forecast saying that at the present rate, the Age of America will come to an end in 2016 – the final year of an Obama second term.

Obama is president because God wanted Obama in the Oval Office at this exact moment in history.

Comparing Obama’s agenda with the agenda of the antichrist –a global government, centralized global economy and a global religious system and a global religious system hostile to Christians and Jews – American presidential politics takes on extreme relevance to Bible prophecy.

The antichrist is a politician who presides over a political system that has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof; gives lip service to the god of forces but who ultimately views himself as being above any god.

America is the country the rest of the world looks at as the world’s most Christian country.  So when the world’s most Christian country elects a guy who claims to be Christian, gives lip service to Islam, despises the Jews and whose agenda guarantees America’s fall within two terms, whether or not he gets a second term is useful to the interpretation of unfolding Bible prophecy.

Obama is the president of the United States right now because God put him there.  If he gets a second term, is that relevant to Bible prophecy?

When it comes to interpreting unfolding Bible prophecy, it will even be relevant if he doesn’t.

Note: I woke up this morning with a bad case of pink-eye.  It hurts to read, so maybe today is a good day to give my eyes a rest.  Today’s OL is a retread from April 2011  — it shows things haven’t changed much over the past year or so.  I hope you like it.   My eyes should be better by tomorrow.  Maranatha!

Or Jesus on a Piece of Toast . . .

Or Jesus on a Piece of Toast . . .
Vol: 131 Issue: 22 Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The World Trade Center Cross, also known as the Ground Zero Cross, is a group of steel beams found amidst the debris of the World Trade Center following the September 11 terrorist attacks. 

The crossed beams are in the exact proportions to form the shape of a typical Christian cross.  For many American Christians, the twisted pieces of metal became a symbol of hope and comfort. 

But it isn’t a Christian cross in the sense that it was built, designed or assembled by any particular human being to symbolize any particular religion.  It wasn’t constructed on government land and neither was it paid for by government dollars.Ground Zero Cross

The Ground Zero Cross is actually a piece of debris left over from the first enemy attack on the US mainland since the War of 1812.  No government proclamation made these two pieces of metal a religious symbol.

It is what it is and NOBODY made it.  (At least, nobody over Whom the US federal courts have any jurisdiction.)  It is either the result of an act of Islamic terror, or it was created as an act of God.  In either case, it is not the result of any human creative effort.

If one is a believer, then one is justified in concluding that God made it.  But if one is an atheist, what conclusion should one reach? 

A group called ‘the American Atheists’ concluded that it is a Christian cross, which, given the circumstances, evidently means they reached the exact same conclusion.  God had to have made it. 

Otherwise, it would just be a piece of debris from the World Trade Center.  


American Atheists President David Silverman sued on the grounds that the World Trade Center Cross is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.  But as we’ve already carefully noted, the alleged “religious icon” is a piece of debris from the World Trade Center.

It is only a cross if one chooses to interpret it that way and one can only interpret it that way if one believes it was deliberately constructed.  Otherwise, it is a piece of debris. 

The American Atheist position is that it is a Christian Cross, which is the absurd contention that because it is a cross, it must have been made by God, since it would otherwise be a random piece of debris.

However, they also argue that God is not allowed to exist under the Constitution, and so displaying it violates their rights as guaranteed them by, to quote the Declaration of Independence, “Nature’s God.”

The World Trade Center Memorial Museum wants to include the Cross as part of its museum exhibit. 

For the record, I will call it ‘a cross’ because I firmly believe it is a Christian Cross fashioned by God Himself — but I also believe that God exists, which would seem a prerequisite for seeing it as anything other than a piece of debris. 

Otherwise, what the American Atheists are suing over is something that exists in someone else’s mind.  Unless I am missing something. 

If I did not believe that God existed, then it COULD not possibly be a cross, since it is literally a piece of random debris.  For an unbeliever to argue that a piece of debris from the World Trade Center is actually a Christian Cross makes as much sense (for an unbeliever) as for him to argue that the scorch pattern on a piece of toast is actually the Image of Jesus.

If somebody else thinks that piece of toast is a sacred icon, does that mean that it is an actual picture of Jesus?  If you see a picture of Jesus in a piece of toast, (but you don’t believe in Jesus), then what you need is a psychiatric consultation, not a legal one.

The atheists are suing on the grounds that the mere existence of the Ground Zero Cross makes them physically sick, something they apparently believes violates their God-given rights under the Constitution.

“Nonsense, says a new friend-of-the-court brief to be filed Monday in the case by the American Center for Law and Justice.  The brief, which carries the signatures of more than 100,000 people, argues there have been no known sightings of suicides or uncontrolled vomiting at or around the Ground Zero cross.

“The legal argument is absurd,” ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow charged Wednesday.  American Atheists, he said “is making some astonishing claims.”

The group contends the placement of the 17-foot-tall symbol at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum is making some atheists unbearably sick.

“The plaintiffs, and each of them, are suffering, and will continue to suffer damages, both physical and emotional, from the existence of the challenged cross,” the lawsuit American Atheists v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey states. “Named plaintiffs have suffered …. dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack.”

Atheists claim that they are simply following the voice of reason and the reason that they would like everybody else to stop believing in God is because they find it personally offensive. 

This idiotic claim that they feel officially excluded is a variation on the atheists’ meme that because Christians believe that only Christians will go to heaven, Christianity is “hateful”.

Atheists don’t believe in God.  They don’t believe in Heaven.  They believe that God is an imaginary friend and heaven is an imaginary place but they want to be allowed in or they will sue.

It is the equivalent absurdity of suing Peter, Paul and Mary because only Jackie Paper was allowed into the Land of Honnalee to visit Puff the Magic Dragon, but that is their main bone of contention, nonetheless.

The lawsuit demands that the undesigned piece of debris either be removed, or that some human being construct a seventeen foot tall “A” as a memorial to atheism, which is to say, a memorial to the belief in nothing.

The astonishing thing about this lawsuit is the fact that there is actually a judge somewhere in America that actually believes this lawsuit has enough merit to be heard.

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (Romans 1:28-31)

To which list I’d like to add, my own observation . . .  “and none too bright”.  


NY Police Investigate Hateful Bacon

NY Police Investigate Hateful Bacon
Vol: 131 Issue: 21 Tuesday, August 21, 2012

According to the 2011 international religious freedom report, religious persecution is on the rise worldwide the annual report covers the status of religious freedom in 199 countries.  It allows the office of international religious freedom to monitor religious persecution and discrimination worldwide.

This year, the report singled out a major US ally in a major US trading partner.  It should be no surprise that Saudi Arabia made the list, and no list of persecutors would be complete without the addition of China.

The report faults new technology, social networking and mass communications, which it says gives governments the tools necessary to effectively persecute individuals.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a press briefing to discuss the findings. She told the press conference;

“The free exercise of religion is the first freedom enshrined in our First Amendment, along with the freedoms to speak and associate. Because where religious freedom exists, so do the others. Like all human beings and all human rights, they are our birthright by the mere fact of us being who we are, thinking acting human beings, men and women alike. They are not granted to us by any government. Rather it is the responsibility of government to protect them.”

There is a certain amount of irony in listening to Hillary Clinton champion religious freedom in the United States.  It would be different if she didn’t belong to the party that seems dedicated to the destruction of American Christianity and its replacement with some kind of secular, kinder, gentler, more inclusive religious system.

In writing to his disciple Timothy, the apostle Paul called that “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” (2 Timothy 3:5)

Hillary Clinton is a vocal supporter of virtually everything that the Bible forbids.  She supports abortion rights, gay rights, special rights for protected classes of persons, and views anyone who disagrees with her as a hateful person.

The one religion in America which finds no protection by the government is Christianity.  Dan Cathy’s statement in support for traditional marriage practically caused a riot among liberals, who staged a special “Kiss-in Day” in which gay couples would descend on Chick-fil-A, in an effort to offend Chick-fil-A’s customers, who lined up for blocks around all Chick-fil-A stores to show their support for traditional marriage.

Last week, a gay activist entered the offices of the Family Research Council with a backpack containing 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches.  The guy pulled out a gun, said, “I don’t like your politics” and opened fire.

If you didn’t read or hear about it, that’s because hardly anybody covered it. The Family Research Council is itself considered a hate group because it adheres to Christian principles regarding marriage and family.

Not one single liberal media news outlet labeled it a hate crime, if they mentioned it at all.  Neither did the White House or any government entity.

Now on the other hand, some pieces of uncooked bacon were found scattered around a New York City park.  Muslims had gathered at the park to celebrate the end of Ramadan when the bacon was discovered by the organizers.

The New York City Police Department sprang into action. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters,

“this has been determined to be a bias event on the part of our hate crimes task force.”

The shooting at the  Family Research Council in Washington is still being investigated by police.  Police are reluctant to label it a hate crime until after the investigation is completed.

But in New York City, the mere fact the raw bacon was found in public is enough evidence for the Commissioner of police to immediately determine it a hate crime on the spot.

Because everybody knows that bacon is more hateful than bullets.


Last Thanksgiving, there was almost a bit of a kerfuffle over the revelation that all Butterball turkeys sold in the United States are certified halal Most non-Muslims assume that halal means the same thing as “kosher” does for Jews, and they are almost right.

Foods that are “kosher” are those that have been slaughtered or prepared in a particular way and those that are not forbidden to Jews, such as shellfish or pork, or foods that are kept separate, such as milk and meat.

Foods that are halal have been slaughtered in the name of Allah.  There are very few dietary restrictions imposed on Christians by their faith.  But those restrictions DO exist and they are important enough to be enumerated three times in the New Testament:

“But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” (Acts 15:20)

“That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” (Acts 15:29)

“As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” (Acts 21:25)

Muslims are not supposed to eat bacon.  Christians aren’t supposed to eat meats sacrificed unto idols.  So why is the mere presence of bacon an INSTANT hate crime whereas selling millions of unsuspecting Christians turkeys that had been sacrificed to idols is not?

Muslims will immediately counter by saying that Allah is not an idol, but another name for God.  But then they also say that Jesus is not the Son of Allah, so by their own standard, Allah cannot be the same God worshipped by Christians. 

Back in 2007 we discussed the threat posed to Muslim students by the presence of ham sandwiches in a school cafeteria in Maine.

“Anyway, the school superintendent took prompt action, ordering that the student who brought the ham sandwich to school be suspended, and promising more disciplinary action, should the investigation prove the ham sandwich was guilty as charged.”

“Placing ham where Muslim students were eating as an awful thing,” said Stephen Wessler, the executive director of the Center for Prevention of Hate Violence.”

“It’s extraordinarily hurtful and degrading.  They probably felt like they were back in Mogadishu starving and being shot at.”

(Images of ham sandwiches running amok with high-powered automatic weapons flash across my mind at this point. No wonder Clinton pulled us out of Somalia in the 1990’s.)

Continued Wessler, “No child, Muslim or normal, should have to endure touching a ham sandwich.”

Isn’t there already rule about not touching somebody else’s lunch in a cafeteria?  And what does the guy mean by, “No child, Muslim or NORMAL?”

So, to recap . . . shooting up the Family Research Council because they support traditional marriage is not a hate crime.  Targeting Christians with the specific intent of offending them at the Great Chick-Fil-A “Kiss In” isn’t a hate crime

Selling Christians a food product that had been secretly sacrificed to idols is not a hate crime.  Forcing Christians to violate their conscience and pay for contraceptives and abortions is not a hate crime.  Shooting Christians for their religious beliefs is not a hate crime.

Bringing raw bacon to a public park?  That’s an automatic hate crime if there are Muslims present.  No further investigation necessary before calling in the Hate Crimes Task Force.

Bringing a ham sandwich to a school lunchroom?  That’s a hate crime if there are Muslims present.  Bear in mind that they need only be in the presence of bacon or ham for the hate crime to be complete.  

Nobody need force (or trick) them into eating it.  Instead, it is a hate crime to possess bacon (or ham) in the presence of Muslims.  Or, apparently, anywhere that Muslims tend to congregate.

Possession of a ham sandwich in a lunchroom?  A hate crime.  Possession of a handgun and fifteen Chick-Fil-A sandwiches by a gay activist at the Family Research Council?

Police are baffled by the gunman’s motive.  Perhaps after a thorough investigation?