Israel Blows Off UNHRC Review

Israel Blows Off UNHRC Review
Vol: 136 Issue: 31 Thursday, January 31, 2013

The State of Israel has finally had enough special treatment by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and has simply refused to cooperate with a UNHRC review of its human rights practices.

The UNHRC is the ‘improved’ version that former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan promised would be the ‘new’ face of the ‘new’ UN when he disbanded the old version.  

First, a bit of background.

  • In May, 2001 the United States was kicked off the UNHRC by a vote of the majority of the member-states while Libya, Syria and the Sudan were elected to seats on the commission over the preceding two years.
  • In 2002, University of Toronto Law professor Anne Bayefsky noted that over the course of thirty years, Israel had been the target of a third of all country-specific UNHRC resolutions.
  • On April 15, 2002, the Commission approved a resolution affirming the right of the Palestinians to fight Israel by “all available means, including armed struggle” in order to achieve independence.
  • In 2003, over the objections of the United States, the UN Human Rights Commission elected serial human-rights abuser and designated terrorist state, Muammar Khadaffi’s Libya,  as chairman.
  • During that session, UNCHR officials rejected any criticism of the application of Sharia Law, such as stoning, honor killings, mutilations, etc. as “interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.”
  • In 2004, the Sudan was elected to a third, uncontested term on the UNHRC despite its ongoing genocidal ethnic cleansing efforts in Darfur.  The US Ambassador walked out in protest.
  • Finally, in 2006 the Commission was disbanded and replaced by the  new “UN Human Rights Council”.

In its first year, the UNHRC passed eleven resolutions in total.  All eleven condemned Israel for human rights abuses. Israel was the only nation out of 192 member states named.

To this day, out of all the various criminal regimes brutalizing and murdering its own citizens; Iran, Syria, North Korea, Burma, the Congo, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc., Israel remains the only country on earth to be made a permanent part of the UN’s Human Rights agenda.

During its 2012 session, the UN Human Rights Council passed one resolution condemning North Korea, two resolutions condemning Syria and FIVE resolutions condemning Israel.

One of the five Israel-related resolutions establishes a new international fact-finding mission into alleged violations relating to Israeli settlements in disputed territory – the third such mission targeting Israel since the HRC was re-established.

Three fact-finding missions to Israel, but none to North Korea?  Or Syria?  

So this year, when the UN Human Rights Council summoned Israel to receive this year’s scathing review of its human rights record, Israel simply blew them off

No appearance.  No explanation.  It was the first time any country simply ignored them.  The UNHRC didn’t know what to do.

The president of the U.N.’s top rights body, Polish diplomat Remigiusz Henczel, declared Israel a no-show at a meeting in Geneva and then reconvened the 47-nation Human Rights Council to decide what to do.  Israel had asked Henczel in January to postpone the review but did not provide a public explanation.

“This is a rather unique step which has never happened in the past,” said German U.N. Ambassador Hanns Heinrich Schumacher.

But after a debate, the council unanimously agreed to defer the review until its next session in October and November at the latest. Henczel said the compromise would set a precedent for “how to deal with all cases of non-cooperation” in the future.


Last month, the Palestinians accused Israel in a letter to the United Nations of planning to commit further “war crimes” by expanding Jewish settlements after the Palestinians won de facto UN recognition of statehood and warned that Jerusalem must be held accountable.

It is hard to imagine anything less logical.  In the first place, nobody can say where “Palestine” actually is. There are no recognized borders.

The Palestinians are demanding a return to “pre-1967 borders” which really means the 1947 borders set forth by the UN Partition Plan — which the Arabs rejected out-of-hand before launching the first of five invasions aimed at the annihilation of the Jewish State. 

The actual pre-1967 borders would return the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Jordan and the Gaza Strip to Egypt. 

Secondly, nobody can identify who the “Palestinian people” actually are.  Most are already citizens of Jordan or Egypt or other Arab states.  There is no unique Palestinian language. There is no unique Palestinian culture. There is no shared Palestinian history. There is no ethnic Palestinian people. 

There isn’t even a unified government — who speaks for the Palestinians?  Fatah?  Or Hamas?

The West Bank is ruled, for want of a better word, by the tattered remnants of Arafat’s Fatah Party, which is ironically propped up by Israel, to prevent Hamas from extending its rule from Gaza into the West Bank.

In any case, UN investigators interviewed more than 50 people who came to Jordan in November to testify about confiscated land, damage to their livelihoods, and violence by Jewish settlers, according to the report.

“The mission believes that the motivation behind this violence and the intimidation against the Palestinians as well as their properties is to drive the local populations away from their lands and allow the settlements to expand . .  “leading to a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,” it said.

The Palestinians aren’t depicted as ‘racist’, although until the Jews captured the land in 1967, there was no call from the ‘Palestinians’ for ‘statehood’ and no ‘Palestinian’ people.  Why?  Because they were Egyptians or Jordanians, and therefore under Arab rule

(Interestingly, neither Jordan nor Egypt felt it necessary to extend statehood to the West Bank or Gaza when they were the ‘occupiers’.)

The Palestinians continue to be seen as victims, despite the fact they have created their own victimhood.  For example, had Arafat adhered to Oslo, Israel would have been forced to do the same.

But we’ll never know.  Israel never got a chance to prove it.  Arafat broke the covenant, and Israel got the blame for Oslo’s failure.

Why does the UN hate Israel so much?  The UN represents world government, and the Bible says that Satan is the god of this world. 

The fact that there exists a place called “Israel” anywhere on this planet is a reminder to the god of this world, and his minions at the UN,  that the God of heaven remains on His Throne and His Promises are still valid.

Israel claims title deed by direct commandment of God, and has the documentation to prove it.  But global acceptance of Israel by Divine right requires global acceptance of the Divinity granting it.

Israel has an unassailable legal deed, recorded by Israel’s King David more than 3,000 years ago.  The deed can’t be broken, so it is ignored. 

The eagerness with which the world extends to a terrorist state what it tried to deny the survivors of the Holocaust underscores just how blind and unreasoning the UN’s hatred of Israel really is.

It gnaws at the global consciousness to have such a visible reminder of God in its face.

Israel is a peculiar nation, set aside for two millennia and then ‘assembled from the outcasts’ as an ‘ensign’ to the nations to remind them God is still on the Throne.

Israel is the centerpiece of Bible prophecy. Its existence and history are proof positive of the accuracy of Bible prophecy.  To this point in the historical record, Bible prophecy — where it can be proved at all — has proved to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time.

It continues to unfold before our eyes.  The same God that predicted what has already occurred with such unerring accuracy will continue to perform His Will until His Purpose is accomplished.  Bible prophecy proves God remains on the Throne and is intimately concerned with the affairs of men.

Bible prophecy was true 2,500 years ago, and it is true today. 

The same Divine foreknowledge that outlined the history of the Jewish people also foretold the events that would lead to the return of Christ in the last days.

If that Foreknowledge was 100% accurate over a 2,500 year period without wavering, then it is fair to conclude that same Divine Foreknowledge will be equally accurate concerning the events prophesied to span a single generation, somewhere in time.

And, since the world is locked in bitter debate over issues that ultimately distill down to whether Jerusalem belongs to the land of Israel or the Land of the Philistines, there is only one generation in history that qualifies to the exclusion of all others.

“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)

What To Do About Syria?

What To Do About Syria?
Vol: 136 Issue: 30 Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Israeli warplanes reportedly attacked a weapons convoy as it crossed the Syrian border into Lebanon, while Western diplomats debated how to prevent Syria’s massive chemical weapons stockpile from falling into the hands of the anti-Assad rebels.

According to Reuters, the Lebanese confirmed the presence of IAF jets over its territory.

“There was definitely a hit in the border area,” one security source said. A Western diplomat in the region who asked about the strike said “something has happened”, without elaborating.

The conundrum for the West and especially for Israel is that the “rebels” are a greater danger to peace than the Assad regime.  This is the source of considerable handwringing in Jerusalem, Washington and at the Circus by the East River in New York.

Israel’s Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said on Sunday that any sign that Syria’s grip on its chemical weapons was slipping, as President Bashar al-Assad fights rebels trying to overthrow him, could trigger Israeli intervention.

Israeli sources said on Tuesday that Syria’s advanced conventional weapons would represent as much of a threat to Israel as its chemical arms should they fall into the hands of Syrian rebel forces or Hezbollah guerrillas based in Lebanon.

What I thought particularly significant was the following:

“Israel has sent its national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, to Russia and its military intelligence chief Major-General Aviv Kochavi to the United States for consultations, Israeli media said.”

Describing the situation on the ground as being at “unprecedented levels of horror” Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi called on the UN Security Council in New York to take action to end the Assad regime.

“Unprecedented levels of horror have been reached. The tragedy does not have an end,” Mr. Brahimi said amid reports of a shocking new massacre in the Syrian city of Aleppo.

“I’m sorry if I sound like an old broken record,” he added. “The country is breaking up before everyone’s eyes. Only the international community can help and first and foremost the Security Council.”

In Washington, Representative Walter Jones [R] has introduced a “Sense of Congress” resolution declaring the use of military force without Congressional authorization an impeachable offense under the “high crimes and misdemeanors” clause of the Constitution.

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo wrote a column at WorldNetdaily in which he questioned why Obama hasn’t been impeached already.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations. This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

The Obama administration is seeking NATO or UN authorization for the same reason that it sought international authorization in Libya.  Because it knows in advance that Congress won’t approve. 

So let’s summarize: The Arab League wants the UN Security Council to authorize military action to remove the Assad government from Syria.

The UN is divided right down the middle, with the Russians and Chinese supporting the secular Assad regime and the Obama administration supporting the Islamist “rebels” over Congressional objections.   

Make no mistake about it.  Bashar Assad is a bad guy.  It is hard to imagine how he will avoid sharing the fate of Saddam Hussein, or worse, Muammar Khadaffi.  If so, it will be richly-deserved.

But if Libya and Egypt didn’t teach Obama anything about the Law of Unintended Consequences, one can at least hope that Congress was paying close attention.


“Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations, that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters!” (Isaiah 17:12)

I could have used Isaiah 17:12 instead of my summary of the situation  — it conveys exactly the same image.

The word “woe” (hahh) means “expressing grief” in the sense of being “woe-worthy” and I am trying to think of something more “woe worthy” than the use of chemical weapons like VX gas or sarin without success.

The “rushing” (sha’own – destruction, horrible noise, tumultuous) of “many nations” is what the Arab League is pleading for from the Security Council.  The Hebrew word translated “waters” in the phrase “rushing of mighty waters” is mayim meaning “urine” or more precisely, “piss”.

“The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind. (Isaiah 17:13)

If we are witnessing the unfolding of Isaiah’s prophecy about the destruction of Damascus, then we can expect either NATO or the UN (with US support) to move against Assad, whom the text seems to indicate will flee far off, chased away “before the wind”. 

The text says that God shall rebuke them, but doesn’t say how.  But we do know that Assad’s chemical arsenal includes VX, sarin, botulinim toxin, tabun and mustard gases and the missiles necessary to deliver them.

“And behold at eveningtide trouble; and before the morning he is not. This is the portion of them that spoil us, and the lot of them that rob us.” (Isaiah 17:14)

Tick . . .tick . . .tick

Awash With Oil

Awash With Oil
Vol: 136 Issue: 29 Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Back during the OPEC Crisis in the 1970’s we were forced to come to grips with a nightmare scenario nobody was prepared for.  The world was running out of oil.  We knew that it HAD to be true.  The laws of supply and demand confirmed it.

The price of a gallon of gas suddenly jumped from a quarter in 1970 to fifty cents by 1973 and by the end of the decade, topped a dollar a gallon.

At first, it was called the “OPEC Crisis”, and then the “Oil Crisis” until finally, some forward-looking environmentalist hit on the winning formula and the “Energy Crisis” was born.

The 1970’s energy crisis was ostensibly the result of peaking oil production in the major industrial nations, (US, Canada, Europe, etc) coupled with embargoes by the Arab oil-producing states as a consequence of Western support for Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

“Peak oil” describes the period when the maximum rate of oil production is reached, after which the rate of production enters “terminal decline” meaning all the oil has been drained from a particular oil field.

Peak oil was renamed the “energy crisis” as part of the effort to reduce Western dependence on oil and petroleum byproducts and to provide incentives for the development of alternative fuel sources we could switch to when the oil runs out.

That was the theory.  That we needed to come up with viable alternative sources of energy to run our gas-guzzling cars or soon we’d all be freezing to death because our electrical generating plants would be forced to shut down. 

“Ummmm, lessee, er, AHA! Because they burn coal and coal is dirty.” 
“What does that have to do with peak oil?”
“Well, it takes oil to get the coal to the electrical plants.”
“That much?”
“Next question.”

When Obama assumed the presidency in 2008 he did so on the promise that; “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” (Yes, he really said that!)

By this time, just about everybody who ever would believe in global warming and the energy crisis and peak oil and dirty coal and dangerous nuclear power and the efficacy of bio-fuel had peaked. 

John McCain and Sarah Palin lost the White House primarily over their contention that we could drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil, something that by then, conventional wisdom had sagely concluded was impossible.

It became one of those mind-numbing mantras that gets repeated over and over until it becomes popular conventional wisdom.  And as everyone knows, the label, ‘conventional wisdom’ is almost always a euphemism for something which is neither conventional nor wise.

During the OPEC Crisis, the US was 35% dependent on foreign oil.  Gas prices quadrupled in a decade and Jimmy Carter told us all to put on sweaters.

In 1981, as the oil shortage eased, the Democrats immediately voted to cut off access to offshore drilling.  Today, Obama’s domestic energy policies have America almost 70% dependent on foreign oil, mainly from unfriendly regimes.

To argue that the Democrats didn’t see this coming is like arguing they were startled by daylight at sunrise. They sold out the country’s best interests to advance their own best political interests. 

In 2008 Barack Obama came along with the winning strategy for solving the petroleum shortage.  Tax the Big Oil’s “windfall” profits.

Now that their policies started producing the results that have been predicted for decades, they started looking for ways to shift the blame to Big Oil and exonerate themselves.  Hence, the mindless mantra, “We can’t drill our way out of this mess.”  They had no other alternative.

To argue otherwise would raise the question of how we got in ‘this mess’ to begin with.


But then, something unexpected happened.  As the price of oil per barrel on the international market began to rise, the ‘windfall profits’ generated made the technology for alternative methods of extracting oil financially viable. 

Technologies for extracting the oil from shale or from oil sands got cheaper as we got better at it, and almost overnight, the whole equation changed.  Including shale oil and oil sands, the United States now sits on the largest proven oil reserves in the world.   

Larger than Saudi Arabia’s.  Larger than that of China.  Larger than Russia’s vast reserve field.  

Why has this happened?  Price signals work.  Oil has been costly for more than a decade.  This has spurred prospectors to look harder for unconventional fuels: oil and gas that lie deep under the sea, buried in shale beds or stuck in Canada’s vast oil sands.

A report filed last week by Canada’s state-owned media claims that Australia’s Brisbane Energy may have discovered a massive shale oil source that may dwarf Canada’s Athabasca oil sands region in Northern Alberta.

And one last tidbit.  For the past couple of years, American oil producers have been retooling and refitting some of their Gulf Coast oil importing facilities as oil exporting facilities!

Remember when Barack Obama promised, “Under my plan, the price of energy will necessarily skyrocket.” (?)  

Obama’s plan was to make conventional energy sources so expensive that alternative energy sources would look comparatively cheap. 

Instead, it backfired on him, since it made alternative recovery of conventional energy sources cheap enough to be viable.  As Forbes concluded last year, “Peak Oil, Entirely Nonsense: As is Peak Gas.”

Finally, I found this report at that says that ISRAEL may well be home to the world’s THIRD largest reserve of shale oil, together with having one of the world’s largest proven natural gas fields.

Since the next largest producers like the US, China and Russia, are likely to be the major consumers of their own oil, the idea of Israel becoming the number one oil exporting nation in the world is a genuine probability.

What does it all mean? 

Memo to the Saudis: “Oil tastes terrible.  And you can’t drink gas!”

Memo to the Rest of Us: “The only thing more dangerous than oil-rich, bored Islamists are flat-broke, furious Islamists forced to compete with the Israelis.”

John Brennan, CIA

John Brennan, CIA
Vol: 136 Issue: 28 Monday, January 28, 2013

For more than a decade, everybody from the President to his top advisors to major figures in the mainstream media have embraced, without a shred of evidence to support it, the mantra that Islam is really a religion of peace and love that was hijacked by a few terrorists.

John Brennan is Obama’s new pick to head up the CIA.  Brennan’s public statements about Islam and about jihad are enough to make one’s blood run cold.  A few points about John Brennan’s view of Islam, from a blogsite called “Against All Enemies.”

  • He refers to Jerusalem as “Al Quds”  (the Arabic name for Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Why would he use the Arabic name?  Few Americans speak Arabic — most recognize Jerusalem from the Bible.
  • He believes the 20% recidivism rate from those released from Guantanamo Bay “isn’t that bad”.
  • He said that that “violent extremists” are victims of “political, economic and social forces.”

The FBI gave a guided tour of one of our most sensitive counter-terrorism facilities to a known Hamas operative,” [Frank] Gaffney said. “It is clear that the cluelessness fostered by Mr. Brennan is causing an empowering of the wrong sorts of Muslims in America and endangering the American people.”

Judicial Watch obtained documents revealing that Brennan and Defense Department officials disclosed to Hollywood filmmakers the identity of the SEAL Team Six operator and commander involved in taking out Osama Bin Laden.

The ACLU has fought pitched battles for decades to eliminate any vestiges of Christianity from the public school system, but it defended the mandatory study of Islam in the California school system, for example.

It isn’t because the ACLU favors Islamic teachings.  Islam gets preferential treatment because it is politically correct to advance the causes of minorities and politically incorrect to speak ill of minorities, which is, according to the Marxist principle of political correctness, the equivalent to ‘oppression’.

Islam enjoys political influence far beyond its numbers because of political correctness.  Islam might be the world’s fastest growing religion, but in America, its numbers lag behind the number of Americans who believe they’ve been abducted by UFO’s.  (Twenty million Americans believe they’ve been abducted by UFO’s, compared to the US Islamic population of seven million).

For more than a decade, Islamic terrorism has dominated US foreign policy.  Thousands of Americans, both military and civilian, have died at the hands of Islamic terrorists.

The television airwaves have been saturated with warnings, releases, fatwas and declarations of ‘Death to America’ by Islamic terrorists.  Islamic cultural centers have been used as terror recruitment outposts throughout the Western world.

In all this time, where has the moderate majority been?

Losing elections. 


As far back as November 1999, CAIR President Omar Ahmad addressed a youth session at the IAP annual convention in Chicago, where he praised suicide bombers who “kill themselves for Islam”:

“Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam – that is not suicide.  They kill themselves for Islam.”

Which justifies AG John Ashcroft’s comment about Islam, which at the time prompted calls for his firing:

“Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him.  Christianity is a faith in which God sent his Son to die for you.”

According to Islam’s apologists, only about ten percent of Islam follows the way of jihad.  Ten percent of 1.2 billion is 120 million.  Yet Islam is universally recognized as one of the world’s three great monotheistic religions.

Consider this.  If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization.  That seems reasonable enough.  Especially if the Scouts as an organization defended it.

If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger.  If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said ‘Could be’ – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago.

Political correctness is an object lesson in the principle that spiritual blindess causes spiritual insanity.  The world cannot accept the concept that one of the ‘world’s three great monotheistic religions’ is at its core, a bloodthirsty, xenophobic religion dedicated to spreading Islam at the point of a sword, if necessary.

If one denies the existence of a good God, one cannot accept the existence of an ‘evil god’ — and therefore, Islam is no greater a threat than Christianity or Judaism.  Less, even, since it shares the world’s irrational hatred of both Christians and Jews.

We are engaged in both a material and spiritual conflict, with the emphasis on the latter.  It is a war between the forces of the Bible and the forces of the Prince of Persia.  But recognizing the threat means recognizing the spiritual element behind it.  That is too great a hurdle for the world to overcome.

“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)

The world prefers its version of ‘moderate’ Islam despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary because it is blinded by the god of this world.

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” (1st Corinthians 3:19)

Conventional wisdom looks more like the results of mass hysterical hypnosis than it does the results of sober, thoughtful, contemplative examination of the evidence.  Here we are, going into our twelfth year of a war we didn’t start against a people we can’t identify or understand. 

When we were attacked in 2001, the budget was not only balanced, we were running a surplus.  The debt clock even started running backwards.  Twelve years in, we’ve spent ourselves broke trying to fight a war against an enemy we dare not even name. 

Our president, who once called the Islamic call to prayer “one of the prettiest sounds in the world” has totally disengaged from Israel, helped to topple US-friendly secular governments from Algeria to Egypt, embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and has named “Jihad” John Brennan as the new director of the CIA.

What do we know about Brennan?

He held several important posts in the CIA, including station chief in Saudi Arabia from 1996-9. His academic background includes the study of Arabic and Arab culture; he received a BA in political science from Fordham University, including a year abroad at the American University in Cairo, and an M.A. in Government specializing in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Texas at Austin. He speaks Arabic ‘fluently’.

In February 2010, Brennan spoke to Muslim students at NYU in a meeting ‘facilitated’ by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

In the first one, he says that Islam is “a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity,” something which I suspect the Coptic Christians of Egypt would dispute. He can be heard speaking in somewhat rusty Arabic. He describes meeting Muslim students from various countries including “Palestine,” and refers to “al-Quds, Jerusalem” — where, he says, the three faiths for whom the city is holy show that they can coexist despite tensions (but he fails to note that this has only been the case since the city has been under Jewish control!)

Later, he discusses at length the problem of prejudice against Muslims in America and the need to protect their rights, but he does not mention the very real lack of rights experienced by non-male or non-Muslim populations in Muslim-controlled lands.

He praises the Saudi monarchy for the stewardship of the holy cities of Islam and the haj, but does not talk about the brutal, medieval darkness of that kingdom where slavery flourishes and petty thieves have their hands cut off.

He praises ISNA and other Muslim organizations for working to protect the rights of Muslims, but does not mention their involvement in fund-raising for Hamas or other terrorist groups, or their connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, he criticizes the US government for interfering with the obligation for Muslims to practice zakat — charity.

Brennan is 100% on board with the Obama policy that our enemies consist only of “al-Qaeda and its extremist allies,” organizations that have distorted the peaceful nature of Islam.  In fact, he opposes the use of the word ‘jihadists’ to refer to Islamic terrorists, because;

“They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify, for a legitimate purpose. And there is nothing, absolutely nothing holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

So why do they do it?  One would think that would be an important answer for the Director of the CIA to have handy, would it not?

It isn’t because of Islamic ideology.  It’s because of economic ‘unfairness.’

If we had only transferred more wealth to the Middle East, (already awash in oil wealth) or provided them with an education (most jihad killers have advanced degrees in things like engineering, or even medicine), Brennan believes all will be well.

And so do those he surrounds himself with.  It is a case of self-delusion so other-worldly that it is really hard to get a handle on.  Is it possible that anyone, let alone a guy in Brennan’s position, be that naive?

It is possible, I suppose. 

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that maybe it is easier to buy into the delusion than try to figure out why everybody else seems to believe it but you.

“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.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:7-8,11-12)

Why Did God Create Man?

Why Did God Create Man?
Vol: 136 Issue: 26 Saturday, January 26, 2013

The Bible tells us that it is the Lord Jesus Christ Who is the Creator of all things, including the heavens, the earth, and even hell.  This mystery is revealed in the first chapter of the Book of John.

John takes us back to creation, saying,

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (1:1)

In John’s Gospel, the ‘Word’ (logos) is capitalized as a proper noun, since it is used in the sense of a title.

“The same was in the beginning with God.” John also reveals that, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:2-3)

That John is referring to Jesus is made clear when he writes,

“He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto his own, and His own received Him not.” (10-11)

That can only be describing Jesus Christ, Who came first to the Jews, as Jesus told the ‘woman of Caanan’. (Matthew 15:24-28)

So, following the logic that Jesus is the Creator of all things, we must also conclude that He created Hell.  This presents what appears to be an impossible theological conundrum.

Jesus describes hell as a place of eternal torment, describing it three times as the place;

“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:44,46,48)

The conundrum arises when one tries to solve the apparent contradiction between a compassionate Christ Who shed His Blood to provide a way for me to avoid the horrors of hell and the Creator of Hell Who knew at the time He was creating it that there would be some who would go there.


Jesus says that it would be better not to have ever been born than to end up in hell.  So, why create man in the first place, then?  The Bible answers that question, but, to the skeptic, the answer only prompts more questions.

According to Revelation 4:11, we were created for God’s pleasure.

“Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.”

So, if man was created for God’s pleasure, but a significant majority of mankind is destined to go to hell, does that mean God takes pleasure in sending people there?  The Scriptures say no.

“For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” (Ezekiel 33:11)

“Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11)

Jesus says in Matthew 25:41 that hell wasn’t created for man, but rather was “prepared for the devil and his angels.”

But that still doesn’t fully address the question.  IF the place of ‘everlasting fire’ Jesus is referring to was ‘prepared for the devil and his angels’, and if man was created for God’s pleasure, AND, if God is all-knowing, then He knew some of His creation would end up there.

AND, if it would be better for man to never have been born than to end up in hell, then WHY create us in the first place?

The universe is considerably more than just man, and while the salvation of man is an integral part of God’s program, we are not the only part of God’s program.

Eons before man was created, God’s anointed angel, Lucifer, rebelled against a decision of God’s (most likely over the creation of man himself).

In describing Jesus’ decision to take on human form, the writer of Hebrews says that Jesus “was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death.” (2:9)

Psalms 91:11 tells us that,

“He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.”

But Paul writes to the Corinthians,

“Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” (1st Corinthians 6:3)

One can imagine Satan rebelling against the concept of the creation of a new, puny, human spiritual being, made ‘lower than the angels’, that God decreed angels (including Satan and his followers) would serve in this life, and then be judged by in the next.

Isaiah outlines Satan’s rebellion as a series of five “I wills”.

“For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:13-15)

When God cast the rebels out, it was incumbent upon Him to prove Himself just in His decision to those angels who remained loyal.  After all, eternity is a long time, and hell is a terrible place.  Wasn’t God being a bit hard on them?

So, in a sense, humanity serves as a kind of living courtroom in which angels can observe the consequences of unchecked sin on the natural order of the universe.

Hebrews 12:1 tells us we are “compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses.” (the angelic hosts).

God created man initially with only one rule: avoid the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.  To the astonishment of the angels, man broke that rule, introducing sin into the world.  Then God allowed man to ruled by his conscience.

(That worked out so well that it took a world-wide flood to repair the damage.)

So God went to Abraham and spoke with him directly.  The angels must have been dumbfounded to witness Abraham’s sin with Hagar, knowing that Abraham KNEW better.  God told him so directly.  They also saw the consequences of sin beginning to pile up, embodied by the ongoing conflict between Abraham’s descendants, Ishmael and Isaac.

To further prove God’s judgement of sin was just and fair, God set aside a Chosen Nation, gave them ten little rules to follow, and allowed the scenario to play out before the heavenly jury.

What began as ten rules for living in harmony for God resulted in the development of a religious system so corrupt that Jesus came to earth Personally to replace it with an even easier method of reconciliation with God — trusting in the shed Blood of Christ alone for salvation.

Remember, the angels who are witnessing all this have seen sin go from a bite of fruit to the horrors of Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Saddam Hussein.  Knowing first-hand what an unimaginable Gift was extended mankind from the Cross, can you imagine their astonishment when that Gift was almost universally rejected by what is now a sin-sodden world.

Finally, the Bible says, Jesus Christ returns at the end of the Tribulation Period, binds Satan for a thousand years, sets up a physical Kingdom in Jerusalem from which He personally rules the earth.

During that time, Scripture says, man will live in perfect harmony with nature, as God had originally intended in the Garden of Eden.  Isaiah says that a person who dies during the Millennial Kingdom at age 100 would be mourned as one who died in his youth.

Lions will lay down with lambs, little kids will be able to play with deadly snakes, men will beat their swords into plowshares and war will be abolished.

Scripture then says that, when the thousand years are finished, Satan will be loosed for ‘a season’ to tempt those human beings who KNOW Jesus, have lived a THOUSAND YEARS under His Personal governance, and are perfectly certain of His Power and Authority.

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” (Revelation 20:7-8)

At this point, the angelic jury is convinced, and the prosecution rests.

“And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.” (Revelation 20:9)

Then comes the judgement.

“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (20:10)

Why did God create man if He knew that some would choose hell?  Because He also knew that some would choose Heaven.

And in any case, it is man’s choice to make.  As declared the citizens in the parable of the nobleman in Luke 19:14,

“We will not have Him to reign over us.”

When such people are cast in hell, it is literally what they asked for.

God has a purpose for every detail of our creation.

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

God created mankind to prove His justice.  He created mankind for His pleasure.  And He created mankind so He could save them.

But He also created mankind so we could CHOOSE to love Him.  There cannot be a choice without an alternative.

“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

The Evil and The Good

The Evil and The Good
Vol: 136 Issue: 25 Friday, January 25, 2013

”Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” (1 John 4:7-8)

“All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3)

If God is the Creator of all things, then where does evil come from?  And why is it that God simply doesn’t banish its existence from the universe?  If God is omni-everything, how can it be that He must BATTLE against it?

These are seemingly unanswerable questions, giving rise to the atheist’s creed; “If your God is love, I see no evidence of that attribute in creation.  All the death, disease, pain and suffering seems to be out of place if this God of yours is love.  Surely an all-powerful God could, and a loving God would, eliminate all evil.  Since evil exists, then no such God exists.”

When someone states that they do not believe in God because a good God would not allow evil, they make a fatal error in logic.  The recognition of ‘evil’ arises from the logical conclusion some acts are ‘right’ and some are ‘wrong’.

How do we know which acts are morally right or wrong?  It is discerned on the basis of a moral law: a universal sense that certain states of affairs are right and others are wrong.

For example, no one could seriously argue with the statement that it is better to love a child than to torture it. What is the basis of this moral sense?  Some would argue that it is based on cultural customs or traditions.

In some Islamic cultures, it is acceptable to wantonly kill infidels, or murder women for violating Islamic honor. Under the Taliban, Afghan women were routinely taken to the soccer stadium and publicly executed for ‘crimes’ like failing to wear a burkha.

Islam has a strict moral code.  They aren’t Christian morals, but they are strict and codified.  

The point is that social customs, attitudes, traditions or feelings cannot determine a universal sense of right and wrong.  A universal sense of right and wrong can only come from a source outside ourselves. The recognition of a universal moral law is by default a recognition of a moral Lawgiver.

Logically, using the existence of evil to prove there is no God is like using a Dell computer to prove there is no such thing as a computer.

C.S. Lewis said that, “… evil is God’s megaphone to a non-believing world.  Evil speaks of moral law. Moral law demands a moral Lawgiver, and it is He that we call God!”

Human beings confuse ‘good’ and ‘evil’ with ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ all the time.  It is that confusion that fuels the ‘a good God wouldn’t create evil’ argument.

‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are human moral issues.  ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are OUTCOMES, and are entirely in the Hands of God.

“And we know that ALL things work together for GOOD to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

Consider the most ‘evil’ events to befall the earth during the 20th century.  World War One was certainly evil. (But it put Jerusalem in British hands after 400 years of Ottoman rule)

World War II was even more incomprehensibly evil.  Adolph Hitler’s madness resulted in the attempted genocide of the Jewish race and the deliberate destruction of more than twelve million innocent people in the gas chambers.

(But the subsequent cry of ‘never again!’ by the Holocaust’s survivors resulted in the restoration of Israel to the Land of Promise just in time for it to reclaim Jerusalem in this generation)

As Joseph stood before his brothers who had sold him into slavery in Egypt, he comforted them by saying,

“Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.” (Genesis 45:5)

What Joseph’s brothers did was SELL THEIR OWN BROTHER INTO SLAVERY.  Does that qualify as an ‘evil’ act?  They MEANT it for evil, but God used it for good.

A knife, used to stab a man in the stomach in a barfight, would be an instrument of evil.  The SAME knife, used to remove an appendix and save a life in an operating theater, would be an instrument of good.  It is the OUTCOME of its use that characterizes it as ‘good’ or evil’.

The knife is just a knife. 


God created the universe to function according to the laws of physics.  It is so delicately balanced that one of those laws demands that ‘every action must result in an equal and opposite reaction’, for example.

God created us to have a personal relationship with Him.  But in order for this to be possible, we have to be able to choose NOT to want one back, or the choice would be meaningless.

I cannot experience love from you unless you have the capacity to do otherwise.  If you have the capacity to not love me, and you choose instead to love me, then that choice has validity.

For example, I can program my computer to greet me by telling me it loves me.  Of course, I haven’t done so because it would be meaningless.  My computer cannot love me.  It has no choice — it would  ‘love’ Barack Obama if I programmed it to.

And I cannot love it because it cannot love me back.

That makes the capacity for evil — to choose NOT to love, necessary to that choice TO love.  And without the choice to love, our existence would have no meaning — secular OR spiritual.

Suppose God did eliminate evil from creation?  For God to eliminate evil, He would have to eliminate our capacity of choice and thus our capacity to do both evil and good.  And such a world is inferior to the one we have: one where love is possible, despite its inherent evil.

What kind of God would do this?  Only one kind.  A God of love.

In order that we might not suffer the penalty of our evil choices (sin), He, like a loving Father, paid the penalty for our sins.  He allowed His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to be murdered on a Roman cross — arguably the most evil act in the history of the universe.

But this act of great evil gave rise to the greatest act of love in the universe: paying the penalty for the wrong choices we make, which are the result of the way He created us in the first place!

Right and wrong are human moral choices arising out of our human moral code.  Whether they result in good or evil outcomes is up to God according to His plan.  Our job as Christians is to trust Him.  God knows what He is doing!

The greatest evil in the history of the universe resulted in the greatest Gift ever bestowed on mankind.

“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)

It Makes a Difference, Mrs. Clinton

It Makes a Difference, Mrs. Clinton
Vol: 136 Issue: 24 Thursday, January 24, 2013

It was the appearance that we’d all been waiting for.  We’d heard from most everybody else, but not word one from Hillary Clinton about the Benghazi affair.  As Secretary of State, this is her bailiwick and so the naïve among us thought that, at last, we’d get some answers.

We had especially hoped to get an answer to the question, “why did you blame a spontaneous protest gone bad?” together with some kind of explanation for why orders were issued not to help them. 

More than that, why didn’t the compound have any of the standard security features?  No bulletproof glass, reinforced ballistic-resistant doors, no ‘safe room’ — the facility was not even located behind reinforced walls.

Why didn’t the Benghazi mission have trained security personnel?  According to Congressman Darrell Issa, the Obama administration intentionally withdrew security personnel and equipment from the mission in Benghazi for political reasons, so as to “convey  the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse.”

If that isn’t true, why didn’t Hillary address that issue in the hearing?  First, let’s look at what we know about the Benghazi raid, for that is what it was. Ambassador Chris Stevens was stationed in Libya as a liaison to aid the Libyan “opposition” (mainly al-Qaeda, we now know) win in their effort to topple Ghadaffi.

In short, the Obama administration elected to support individuals and groups that were allied ideologically and tactically with al Qaeda.

After Ghadaffi’s murder, Stevens was tasked with funneling weapons from Libya to the Syrian “rebels” (who are also mainly al-Qaeda), which is why no government will openly aid the Syrian rebellion.

In addition to facilitating arms transfers, Stevens’ duties also included the recruitment of Islamic jihadists from Libya and elsewhere in North Africa who were willing to personally go into combat against the Assad regime in Syria.  The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a headquarters from which all the aforementioned activities could be coordinated with officials and diplomats from such countries as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

Just before the Benghazi debacle, rumors started to circulate that the Islamist government in Egypt was demanding the release of the blind sheik, mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing, Omar Abel-Rahman.   

The  pro-al Qaeda group responsible for the armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is called “The Imprisoned Omar Abdel Rahman Brigades”.

Then, on the night of September 11, 2012, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was attacked by a large group of heavily armed terrorists.  Over the next 7 hours, Americans stationed at the diplomatic mission and at the nearby CIA annex issued 3 urgent requests for military back-up, all of which were denied by the Obama administration.

For the kidnappers, it should have been a cake-walk; Steven’s was unguarded in an unprotected sub-standard villa doubling as a diplomatic mission.  The Obama administration ordered first responders to stand down and leave Stevens protection to his Libyan bodyguards.  Stevens was left wide open.

Nobody was expecting three actual heroes to refuse the orders to stand down and rush to the embassy’s defense.  The administration planned to make it look like a demonstration gone bad where kidnapping Ambassador Stevens seemed like an afterthought.

By the time the violence was over, 4 Americans were dead: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALS, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who fought valiantly (but unsuccessfully) to drive away the attackers.

The kidnappers never expected Sean Smith or Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty to put up the kind of fight that they did — they no doubt thought they’d walked into an ambush.  The embassy defenders had killed more than sixty attackers before it was all over. 

There is a reason why all the rest of the Americans had been shot, while Ambassador Stevens was not.  Ambassador Stevens was asphyxiated by the smoke while he hid in his office.  Recall the video of the attackers saying “Allahu Akkbar! He’s alive!” when they first dragged him out, before rushing him to a hospital.  

If the goal was to kill Americans in retaliation for some movie, then why the short-lived joy that the principle target had seemingly survived? 

So when Hillary Clinton was asked why the administration kept up the charade about a random act of violence instead admitting it was a coordinated terror attack she resorted to theatrics.  Since she obviously had no answer she could offer that would make sense, she had a temper tantrum. 

(Get used to that.  We’ll see a lot more of them from Obama officials before this is over.)

“With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Whether it was because of a protest or because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?”

It makes a big difference if these Americans were set up by the administration with the State Department’s assistance as a way of releasing Abdel Rahman.  

Is it even possible?  Read the timeline and see if you come up with another explanation that makes more sense to you. 

I’d like to read it.


Former US prosecutor Andrew McCarthy was the federal prosecutor who put Omar Abdel Rahman behind bars for the first World Trade Center Bombing.  In an interview with Newsmax, he shared his fears that the Obama administration will find a way to trade him away.

“I’m still concerned about that,” acknowledged McCarthy in an exclusive interview on Tuesday. “I never was very concerned that they would release him to the terrorists as a sort of a quid pro quo in the middle of a violent jihadist attack and hostage situation.”

McCarthy was referring to recent reports that the al-Qaeda-linked militants who seized a natural gas complex in Algeria offered to release American hostages in exchange for two people being held in the United States — the blind sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted in the 1993 bombing, and Aafia Siddiqui, a 40-year-old Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three, who was convicted of attacking U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

Before going on, it struck me as interesting that in all this trade talk, nobody is talking about trading for that Pakistani doctor that helped us get bin-Laden and got tossed in a Pakistani jail for it. 

McCarthy finds himself asking many of the same questions.  Keep in mind that McCarthy isn’t some conspiracy nut — he’s the guy who put these guys away.

“You have a seven-hour siege by Jihadists against Americans in Benghazi,” he said. “When did the president find out about it? We have reason to believe it was early on in the seven-hour period. Under circumstances where you had American military assets within an hour of the place where Americans were under attack, what directives did the commander in chief give to protect Americans? And if he did give orders to protect Americans, why weren’t those orders carried out? If he didn’t give them, that in and of itself is an amazing maleficence, and amazing dereliction of duty.”

McCarthy believes that Congress would be remiss if legislators fail to press Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for answers to such questions when she testifies before House and Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

“She should not only be made to confront those questions, the key question in my mind is why did we have a diplomatic installation of some kind in Benghazi at all? We know that it was doing normal diplomatic work,” according to McCarthy. “In Libya, that’s done in Tripoli. It’s not done in Benghazi. It hasn’t been clear — and the State Department certainly hasn’t made it clear — of what in the world that installation in Benghazi was for in the first place. But it’s utterly irresponsible for the government to have diplomatic installations, or frankly any other kind of installation, in a place where we can’t protect American lives and American property.”

In the end, maybe it makes no difference whether this was a coordinated al-Qaeda attack aimed at kidnapping an American diplomat to trade for Abdel Rahman, or whether it was a random act of violence spawned by a movie.

What makes a difference is the answer to the question, why did you leave him unguarded and recall the rescue teams — if this was merely some kind of random attack?

How dumb do you think we are? 

Trusting In the Promises

Trusting In the Promises
Vol: 136 Issue: 23 Wednesday, January 23, 2013

The wisest man who ever lived, King Solomon, taught, ”A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of learning shall attain unto wise counsels. . . Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety. . . For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war, and in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” (Proverbs 1:5, 11:14, 24:6)

Man, do I love our member’s forums.  It’s hard to say what I love the most; the stuff I learn, or the inspiration I draw from the fellowship I find there.  I have come to view the forums as the source of ‘everything I ever wanted to know but didn’t know I didn’t know so I didn’t know to ask’ — if you know what I mean.

When I am in need of either wise counsel in general or a multitude of counsellors for advice on a specific major decision, the first place I go is to our member’s forums.

When I find a conditional promise in Scripture that applies to my situation, I guess I am kind of superstitious.  I believe with all my heart that when God makes a promise, He keeps it.  I’ve never been disappointed.

“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” (Psalms 1:1)

In these instances, the condition is to seek out godly counsel from a multitude of counsellors.  The promise is twofold; there is the promise of safety, and secondly, there is the promise of blessing for heeding the counsel received.

I called it ‘superstitious’ because it almost feels superstitious; obeying the condition, then knowing without question that the attending promise will be kept — it’s almost an almost child-like feeling, but it isn’t really superstition.

I’d like to call it blind faith, but it isn’t really ‘blind’.  I’m not even sure its ‘faith’.  It’s more like a recipe; if the ingredients are pure and correctly combined and the directions are followed, the result is always the same.

The first time, it was blind faith.  As I witnessed God continuing to keep His promises in my life, it became just plain faith.  Eventually, it became child-like, like a child’s superstition.

Trusting in God’s promises is like putting batter in the oven.  If the combination of ingredients, temperature and time are correct, I don’t need much faith to know I’ll be pulling a cake out shortly.

There are two kinds of promises in Scripture; conditional and unconditional.  An example of an unconditional promise is the promise of eternal security.

It is unconditional in the sense that, once you take the step of giving yourself to Christ, He keeps you, unconditionally, until He takes you Home to be with Him.

“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.” (Philippians 1:6)

First, we are told to be ‘confident’ of the promise, then a statement of fact, and then the unconditional promise is laid out for us.  The statement of fact is that it was Jesus Who began a good work in us at salvation.

And the promise is that, having begun that good work, He will continue to perform it ‘until the day of Jesus Christ’ when we stand before Him at the Bema Seat.

The second kind of promise in Scripture is conditional.  We opened with a discussion of a conditional promise.  If one seeks a multitude of counsellors, then one is promised safety.  If one seeks out godly counsel, and then follows that counsel, one is promised a blessing.

Seeking a multitude of godly counsellors, such as in our member’s forums, one is promised both safety and a blessing.

Philippians 4:19 says,

“But my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus”.


Trusting in the promises of God is not the same as ‘Name it and claim it’.  God is only promising to meet our needs; food, clothing, shelter, companionship and salvation through Jesus.

I am not talking about visualizing a new Rolls Royce and then waiting for God to deliver it.  Instead, I talking about trusting in God’s promises as given.  God promises safety and blessing are found in godly counsel.

He never promised the rose garden existence advanced by the proponents of ‘Name it and Claim it’ theology.  That isn’t to say that there aren’t promises in Scripture that one can claim, however.

Let’s examine such a promise in detail together.

“And this is the confidence that we have in Him, that, if we ask any thing according to His will, He heareth us.”

First, we are told to have confidence in the promise, together with both the condition and the statement of fact.  The condition for our confidence is that what we ask be ‘according to His will’, and the statement of fact is that ‘He heareth us.”

“And if we know that He hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of Him.” (1st John 5:14-15)

John continues to lay out conditions, before getting to the promise.  If we know that He hears us, then we have His promise that ‘whatsoever we ask’ (which meets the precondition of being according to His will) we can KNOW in advance our petition has been granted.

It is an iron-clad promise of God.  God is saying, “if you meet My conditions, I WILL grant your petition.”  But one of God’s preconditions is that our petition be according to His will.

How can we know for sure we are in God’s will?  That’s where “Name it and Claim It” theology collapses.  Most of the time, we can’t.

But the Bible does specifically express one instance when we can KNOW our request is within God’s will and we can therefore KNOW our petition will be granted.

“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)

Do you see it?  It is God’s will that none should perish, but that all should be saved.  Not everybody will be saved, of course, because God allows man to pursue his own will, but the Scripture specifically says that, man’s own will aside, God’s will is for everybody to be saved.

So, now we have the ingredients necessary to claim a promise of God.

Have a lost loved one that nobody seems to be able to get through to?  God can, and He promises that He will, if you ask Him.  It is, after all, God’s expressed will that none should perish.  Even that loved one who seems so hopeless.

John promises, therefore, that we can have confidence in Him, that if we ask for that loved one’s salvation, (which we KNOW is according to His expressed will,) and we have faith that He hears us, we can KNOW that God will grant our petition.

It might not be today, it might not be tomorrow, you may never even know, but what you CAN know is that God promised it.

And God keeps His promises.

”We Don’t All Define Liberty the Same Way. . . ”

”We Don’t All Define Liberty the Same Way. . . ”
Vol: 136 Issue: 22 Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The Moocher King’s second inauguration was pretty much as terrifying as was the first one.  He promised to keep piling on the entitlements, cheering his constituency and further enraging the shrinking middle class that will have to pay for them, despite promises to put the entire burden on ‘the rich’.

“We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future,” Obama said.

They are great, swelling words, but they don’t actually mean anything.  America is not facing a choice between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. 

What ‘choice’ could he be talking about?  Do you remember making such a choice?  Or having a choice offered to you?  Is an ultimatum (pay up or else) a choice?

 “The commitments we make to each other — through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren’t sapping our initiative — they are sapping our economic lifeblood.  And in any case, these commitments were not made to each other — they were made by the government and thrust upon the people. 

(Did any of you notice your paycheck got smaller after January 1?  Was that your choice? ) 

According to Obama’s worldview, that was due to the “commitment” you made to Social Security, not to the confiscation of part of your earnings by the government (who never put any of it into the “Social Security Trust Fund”, which never actually existed.)

None of Obama’s policies strengthen any of these programs; indeed, according to every single independent analysis, they are weakened by them.  As for not being a nation of “takers” — he is right.

According to government statistics, only about half the nation are takers.  (In Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged” they were called “moochers”.  And in this world where life imitates art, Obama is their King.)

Obama didn’t explain how his having added $50,000.00 worth of new debt per taxpayer (since 2009) made America free to take the risks that made this country great.  Presumably, he was talking about the half that pays federal taxes, which have gone up despite his promises to put the entire burden on, ummm,

“a shrinking few [who] do very well and a growing many [who] barely make it.”

I think that may have been the only accurate statement contained in the entire speech — and almost everybody missed it.  Here, he openly acknowledged that under his watch, the ranks of those “doing very well” are shrinking as the ranks of those “barely making it” are growing.

In other words, his policies are not spreading the wealth around, but rather, they are spreading the misery.  But Obama has correctly calculated that few of his constituency will be smart enough to figure it out.  They either voted for ObamaCash or they were voting for Marx’s impossible utopia. 

As we demonstrated yesterday, none of Obama’s voters even understand what they were really voting for, since most Democrats think that because “fascism” is an “f” word, it takes on the meaning of whatever it is used to modify, as in “fascist Republican”.

He promised to push through his version of ‘immigration reform’, pledging to find;

“a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”

Indeed, it would be a horrible thing for America to expel “striving, hopeful immigrants” — but Obama isn’t talking about “immigrants” who apply for permission to become legal residents, pay the fees, wait their turn and enter the country legally.

He is talking about invaders who break federal entry laws, commit identify theft and Social Security fraud, take government benefits paid for by citizens and send most of their earnings outside the country.

Who knew that they were really “bright young students” and “engineers” and not chambermaids, busboys, day laborers, etc., that we used to be told that Americans required in order to “do all the tough jobs Americans won’t do.”  

Color me confused.  Did they all go to foreign universities before “immigrating” to America in the dead of night with fraudulent working papers?

Having hit on every other straw man argument, he shifted gears one more time, laying out what he said may be THE most important issue facing the nation at this moment in history. 

No, it isn’t the deficit, now running at almost $5 billion per day!  And it isn’t the debt, now approaching sixteen and a half trillion dollars!

(Million, billion trillion . . . what does it all mean?  A million seconds is twelve days.  A billion seconds is 32 years.  A trillion seconds is 32,000 years!) 

Breaking it down into numbers you’ll understand, as a taxpayer, you woke up this morning $145,860.00 in debt that was run up in your name.  

Pete Garcia’s newborn daughter (Ella Rain) arrived in this world at 2:26 AM yesterday morning.  At one day old, her share of the debt is $52,246.00.    

But according to Obama’s second term inaugural speech, THAT isn’t what he’s worried about.  He never mentioned it once in his entire speech.  Instead, he promised to aggressively respond to . . . wait for it . .

 . . .”the threat of climate change knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

Before it was global warming.  But then it started to get cold. (Minnesota is bracing for its forecast -50 windchill while the Lord Mayor of London published an op-ed in the UK Telegraph speculating that the world is slipping into a mini-Ice Age.)

So now it is “climate change” which essentially means nothing, since the climate is in a constant state of change that used to be called ‘weather’ before the semanticists re-invented it as a threat.

In reality, what it all really means was laid out in Davos yesterday by the World Economic Forum.  It really means spending $14 trillion on ‘green’ energy.  

“The alliance, which includes the World Bank, Deutsche Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, proposes that governments use public money to give guarantees, insurance and incentives to potential low-carbon investors at the same time as phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.”

The banks are European, but you can be certain that they’ll expect the bulk of the $14 trillion will be paid in US greenbacks — Obama isn’t the only one trying to bankrupt America. 

In the end, Obama outlined his actual vision for the next four years, which will fundamentally change America by destroying the basic principle behind the Declaration of Independence.

“Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way …”

WHAT???????  We don’t?  

Noted Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro;

“The founders may have disagreed on many things, but they agreed on the meaning of liberty: the right to live as an individual, without centralized planning infringing basic property rights, economic opportunities, and religious freedoms. Obama’s fundamental redefinition of liberty to include communitarianism is not merely wrong, it spells the end of the political commonality that has held the fabric of the nation together. If we define liberty differently, then there is nothing to talk about: my liberty is your tyranny, and vice versa. Our goals can never be shared. That gap can never be bridged.”

If we all don’t define liberty in the same way, then “liberty” and “fascism” can mean the same thing. 


“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:” (2nd Thessalonians 2:10-11)

I admit that I never turned on the television all day yesterday.  I could not participate in what was being billed as an “inaugural celebration” — I couldn’t bring myself to celebrate the death of liberty or the rise of American fascism. 

I didn’t need to hear Obama speak to know what he said — I knew I could read the transcripts later.  I didn’t need to be talked down to by a condescending politician or sickened by a fawning, slobbering, moronic handful of elitist propagandists masquerading as members of the First Amendment empowered “Free Press.”

It was enough to read about it later. 

Chris Matthews didn’t get a thrill up his leg, but he was reminded of the similarities between Obama’s speech and the most famous and revered speech ever delivered by an American president.  

“Reminds me of another second inaugural — Lincoln’s.  So much of Lincoln in that speech, the Gettysburg address to the second inaugural itself.”

During a discussion about the Moocher King’s second inauguration, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wondered why Obama, as brilliant as he is, hasn’t been able to get Washington to “work better” with his “super-brain” and “amazing insights”.

She eventually answered her own question, concluding that Obama relies more on his heart and what is right than he does on his superior intellect.  A few more examples of the unbiased mainstream media reporting on a presidential inauguration before moving on:

MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell fawned over Obama’s inaugural speech, saying it was “in the mood of Martin Luther King Jr. and the day that we’re celebrating and of that legacy.”

“I thought that the tone of this speech, aside from the policy prescriptions, was much more eloquent than I expected, frankly,” she added.

CNN reporter Jim Acosta was practically giddy due to the fact that he was near President Obama as he was walking down Pennsylvania [Avenue] during the inaugural parade.

“You know, I feel like I should pinch myself right now, Wolf (Blitzer). I can’t believe I have this vantage point of history in the making.”

CNN host Wolf Blitzer himself later got caught up in the excitement and attempted to get noticed by Obama by standing up and waving at him like a fan.  He later said he and his co-anchor were just “spectators” and “tourists” at the event.

NBC’s Brian Williams went on about First Lady Michelle Obama and claimed that she was “easily” the most fascinating first lady since Jackie Kennedy.

“We can say without hesitation there has not been this much fascination with a first lady easily since Jackie Kennedy,” he said.

Additionally, CNN’s Piers Morgan tweeted: “Obama sounding more and more like Martin Luther King as this speech goes on – powerful, rousing rhetoric.” He later called Obama “articulate, engaging, intelligent and a great figurehead for America.”

NBC’s Al Roker went nuts trying to get the attention of the president and Vice President Joe Biden during the parade.  He screamed their names and flailed his arms around, until both acknowledged him.

Is it even possible that all these college-educated professionals whose jobs put them in the position to see things that most of us never do, can actually believe the stuff they are selling?  If it is so tellingly transparent to me, how can it be so opaque to them?

Behold the power of propaganda! 

Adolf Hitler called it “The Big Lie”.  At his trial at Nuremberg, Hermann Goering explained the principle to the Allies.  In summary, he explained that if you are going to tell a lie make it such a BIG one that nobody would ever believe you would dare lie about it.

The Big Lie can be broken down into its constituent parts:

  • First, your problems are not your fault.  They are the fault of a malicious, irredeemable, evil “Other”: (the rich, the Right, Christians, Jews, etc) And thanks to them, your problems, (whatever they might be) will keep getting worse.
  • Were it not for the interference of the “Other” you would be recognized for the superior individual you really are.
  • The implied solution to this problem is to do what the Big Liar wants you to do.

The Big Lie works.  For example, the Obamanation is big on “rights”.  Rights are very important.  Gays have the right to marry.  Women have the right to choose to abort their babies.  Muslims have the right not to be profiled.  Atheists have a right to be protected from God.  

For the Other, gun ownership is a privilege to be issued or revoked like a driver’s license, rather than an unconditional Constitutionally-guaranteed right of citizenship.  They don’t have the right to travel freely within their own country. 

Christians don’t have the right to practice their faith in public.  Christian students don’t have the right to pray. The unborn have no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There are those who believe that they are too sophisticated to fall under the propagandists’ spell.  That arrogance is what makes them so susceptible.

Propaganda and semantics were elevated to the level of science during the last century, and the advent of television gave us new terms like ‘sublimatics’ to explain how brainwashing works.  All these tools were developed at just the right moment in history.

The infrastructure of antichrist continues to develop before our eyes as the hours count down for the last generation of human government.  Everything is in place. 

“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)

Civil Disobedience and the Bible

Civil Disobedience and the Bible
Vol: 136 Issue: 21 Monday, January 21, 2013

Ever since the Obama government seized on the opportunity to use gun control to disarm law-abiding citizens, my inbox has been filled with questions about civil disobedience and whether or not Christians should engage in it.

It’s an issue I knew I’d have to address head-on one day, but one I’ve avoided like a minefield, since no matter how I answer it, I will get hammered by the other side.  

Today is Martin Luther King Day.  Since Dr. Martin Luther King raised civil disobedience to the level of a mainstream political tactic, it seems as good a time as any to tackle civil disobedience and the Bible.  It seems doubly appropriate, given that today is Barack Obama’s public inauguration to his second term. 

Before addressing what the Bible says about civil disobedience, I thought it particularly interesting that Barack Obama has claimed as his two champions President Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King.  

Indeed, he decided to have two inaugurations — the one mandated by law on January 20th, and a second, public inaugural on Martin Luther King Day.

At his public inaugural today, Obama intends to use two Bibles — one belonging to President Lincoln and the other belonging to Martin Luther King.  Dr. King’s Bible will be stacked on top of Abraham Lincoln’s, so that Obama will actually only have to touch one of them.

What is so interesting is that both Lincoln and King were known to be staunch, Bible-believing Christians, whereas Obama has to run ad campaigns to convince people he is a Christian.

(What does it mean when a person finds it necessary to provide evidence of his Christianity?  It usually means there won’t be enough evidence to obtain a conviction). 

Secondarily, the liberal wing of the Democrat Party’s main push during his second term is to destroy the Republican party.  So his choice of political heroes seems odd, given their politics.

President Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.  So was Martin Luther King.  Revisionist historians argue, with absolutely no evidence whatever, that King was a really a Democrat.  If he was, then Dr. King was strangely schizophrenic.

Human Events points out the obvious problems with recasting Dr. King as a Democrat:

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

For his entire adult life, right up to the very day of his assassination, Dr. Martin Luther King’s most implacable enemies were Democrat leaders.  That isn’t opinion.  It is history, unrevised.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

That is not to say that there weren’t Democrats involved in the civil rights movement in the 1960’s.  But they were bucking against the party line, not toeing up to it.  They were engaging in civil disobedience against the government.  Which party controlled the Congress during the 1960’s? 

John Kennedy was president (1960-1963), followed by Lyndon Johnson (1963-1968).  Both are now feted as champions of civil rights.  Kennedy and Johnson both presided over Democrat Congressional majorities in both Houses of Congress for their entire administrations.

It still took four years of arm-twisting to get enough Democrats on board to pass it.

The Civil Rights Act barely passed with 96 House Democrats (39%) and 34 Republicans (20%) opposing it.  Thirty-four percent of Senate Democrats and 18% of Senate Republicans opposed it.  

Turned around the other way, 61% of House Democrats and 80% of House Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act. 

To call the Civil Rights Act a ‘Democrat legislative victory’ is to do violence to historical reality.  


First, let’s define what we mean by ‘civil disobedience’:

“Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power.”

So, what does the Bible have to say about civil disobedience?  The first Bible verse most Christians turn to for answers to this question is Romans Chapter 13:1-6:

“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. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

The Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen; the ruler that Paul insisted that Christians be subject to was Emperor Nero. Since Nero was among the greatest of the Roman persecutors of Christianity, one would be justified in concluding that the Bible does not condone civil disobedience for any reason. 

Especially in light of the Apostle Peter’s admonition in 1 Peter 2:13-17:

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

But that is not all that the Bible has to say on the subject.  There are times when civil disobedience is demanded by Scripture.

The King of Egypt ordered the midwives among the Hebrew slaves to kill all the male babies born to the Hebrews.  Exodus 1:17 says that:

“But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.”

The text further says that God was pleased with the midwives’ act of civil disobedience and “dealt well” with them. (Exodus 1:20)  Pharaoh ordered the midwives to violate God’s law against murder — the midwives were justified in disobeying such an order.

In 1 Samuel 14:24-30 King Saul ordered the death of his son Jonathan for violating his order not to eat any food until evening.  Jonathan was not aware of the order and was therefore innocent of violating it.  Saul’s soldiers refused to shed innocent blood in violation of God’s law. 

God honored them for it.

There is the example of Shadrach, Mechach and Abdenego, who refused the King of Babylon’s order to worship a golden image he had set up. They refused on the grounds that it violated God’s law.  Nebuchadnezzar ordered them burned alive in a furnace.  (Daniel 3:1-7)

Instead, they were joined by a fourth Person whom Nebuchadnezzar himself identified as being like the Son of God.  God clearly agreed with their decision to disobey the king.  

The same also applied to the Prophet Daniel, who chose to disobey the king’s order and was thrown to the lions. (Daniel 6:6-11) God also preserved Daniel alive, agreeing with his decision to disobey the king. 

Another example of civil disobedience in keeping with biblical submission is found in 1 Kings 18.  That chapter briefly introduces a man named Obadiah who “feared the Lord greatly.”

When Queen Jezebel was killing God’s prophets, Obadiah took a hundred of them and hid them from her so they could live.  Such an act was in clear defiance of the ruling authority’s wishes.

In the New Testament, Peter and John both disobeyed the order of the High Priest not to preach the Gospel.  (Acts 4:17-21, 5:17-18, 26:29)

One last example of civil disobedience is found in the book of Revelation where the Antichrist commands all those who are alive during the end times to worship an image of himself.

But Revelation says that those who become Christians at the time will disobey the Antichrist and his government and refuse to worship the image (Revelation 13:15) just as Daniel’s companions violated Nebuchadnezzar’s decree to worship his idol.

Those who do NOT practice civil disobedience in this instance will forfeit any chance at salvation.  (Revelation 14:9-11)

The government’s order that Christians provide health care coverage for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of their understanding of Scripture would seem to qualify.  Not all Christians believe that contraceptives are sinful, but for those that do, it is an order to sin against God.

So, what does the Bible say about acts of civil disobedience?

  1. Christians should resist a government that compels evil or commands a believer to commit sin or disobey God’s commandments.
  2. Christian civil disobedience should be non-violent, based on the examples of civil disobedience in Scripture.
  3. In the Bible’s examples, those who disobeyed also submitted themselves to the government for punishment.
  4. There is nothing in Scripture that prevents Christians from working to install new government leaders, provided they don’t violate existing law in the process.

As soon as the law of the land contradicts God’s command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God’s law.  However, even in that instance, we are to accept the government’s authority over us. 

This is demonstrated by the fact that Peter and John did not protest being flogged in Acts 5:40-42, but instead rejoiced that they suffered for obeying God.

So there are times when civil disobedience isn’t merely Biblical, it is mandated by God.  I mentioned at the outset that my inbox is filling up with questions about civil disobedience. 

When is civil disobedience mandated

I think it is safe to say that the line is drawn at the point when the government orders a believer to commit sin.

“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)

It isn’t an entirely satisfactory answer, but it is Biblical.  And nobody ever said being a Christian was easy.