Special Report: The Kyoto Protocol Agenda

Special Report: The Kyoto Protocol Agenda
Vol: 65 Issue: 28 Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement that arose from the United Nations Framework on Climate Change. The agreement was negotiated in December, 1998, but did not come into force until it had been ratified 55% of the UN member-states. That benchmark was met when the Russians signed on in late 2004.

As of December 2006, the agreement had been ratified by, (according to Wikipedia) “a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities.”

The United States is among a handful of nations who have refused to sign on to the agreement. US participation Kyoto Protocol is the primary objective of Al Gore’s global warming campaign.

One of the main objections to ratifying Kyoto, from the US perspective, is the fact that Kyoto would require the United States to cut its emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels.

But that 5.2% figure is misleading. When calculated against the emissions levels increases that were forecast in 1990 for 2010, the emissions reductions are more like 29% — a virtual impossibility.

And while the US would be held to the 29% reduction in emissions, the world’s two most populous countries — China and India — are EXEMPTED by Kyoto from any emissions restrictions whatever.

By ratifying the agreement, not only would the United States have to cut its own emissions, it would also be required to PAY China and India for not cutting theirs.

Kyoto would also subject the United States to the practice of ’emissions trading’. Here’s how THAT would work:

Suppose a major American company was unable to meet its Kyoto-mandated emissions caps. That company would have to BUY “Emission Credits” from a third party who has surplus emissions credits.

On a national level, individual nations will also purchase excess ‘Emissions Credits” from Kyoto signatory nations who have surpluses. In other words, the US would be forced to ‘buy’ emissions credits from non-industrialized nations with a surplus of credits — like, for example, Saudi Arabia.

Or Russia, which is also expected to have surplus credits, which explains why Russia, China and India embraced the plan so whole-heartedly. For them, it is a cash cow.

And the whole scheme would be supervised and administered by the United Nations who would set up a ‘trust fund’ (like the Oil-For-Food Trust) that would ensure fairness.

The UN would set up an “Enforcement Branch” with the authority to determine whether or not a country is in compliance. If that country, say, for example, the United States, was unable to meet its emissions reduction caps, that country would be required to buy the difference plus pay an additional 30% penalty.

And, the UN will also be empowered to suspend a country from participating in the emissions credit trading program altogether, if the UN determines it is not making a satisfactory effort.

In essence, it means the UN could simply shut down national industries until that country’s emissions fell into line with Kyoto restrictions.

Canada’s Liberal government ratified Kyoto in 2002, and made a big deal out of the fact that the Republicans were blocking the US from following suit. (In point of fact, the Senate refused to ratify Kyoto 95-0)

In 2006, the newly-elected Conservative government in Canada announced there was “no chance” Canada could meet the targets set by Kyoto.

Great Britain has also announced it can’t meet the emissions standards in time. So has Germany, who announced it would have to exempt its coal industry if it were to meet its emissions targets.

Amazingly, it has been calculated that all of the cuts demanded by Kyoto for the industrialized world will not balance out against the projected increases in greenhouse gas emissions by India and China, the world’s two largest emerging economies — both of which are exempt from any restrictions whatever.

In other words, even with the restrictions imposed by Kyoto on (primarily) Western countries, Kyoto will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will just make them more expensive.

However, what it WILL do is give the United Nations the authority to impose global emissions taxes, dictate economic policy to member states, and grant the United Nations enforcement powers that will supersede the sovereignty of the nations involved.

Here is how it would work in America, for example. Under Kyoto, the US Congress, US Senate and the White House will be subordinate to the United Nations on matters involving the environment.

In 1997, even before Kyoto was finalized, the United States Senate passed Senate Resolution 98, the “Byrd-Hagel Bill” that prohibited the Clinton White House from signing on to Kyoto by a margin of 95-0.

But in 1998, over the objections of a unanimous US Senate, then-Vice President Al Gore signed the protocol on behalf of the Clinton administration, claiming his signature was merely ‘symbolic’.

However symbolic, Gore’s signature as Vice President makes the United States a legal signatory to the agreement, whether ratified or not.

Assessment:

Anybody with the logic skills necessary to read a road map and plan the shortest route can read the Kyoto Treaty and logically deduce that Kyoto leads straight to the ultimate loss of US sovereignty over its own economy.

The ability to impose taxes is also an implicit form of “tribute” — extended as a recognition of the taxing authority’s sovereign power over those being taxed.

It is a symbol of submission to that sovereign power, which is why “tribute” has been exacted by every conqueror over every conquered people in the history of mankind. Islam demands a ‘dhimmi’ tax as a recognition of Islamic sovereignty, for example.

It is also a mechanism of control. Historically, conquerors would often impose taxes as part of a program to quiet domestic unrest, “taxing them into submission,” so to speak. Once the authority to impose taxes is accepted, the power is irrevocable.

Americans accepted the imposition of a “temporary income tax” to finance the First World War. It wasn’t Constitutional then, and there is considerable doubt about whether it is Constitutional now.

But since 1913, the only question Americans have been allowed to ask the taxman is “how much?”

The power to tax is absolute power. If the government wants to advance an unpopular policy agenda, it can threaten to raise taxes or cut entitlements to pay for it, and the opposition just fades away. Suggesting a threat to Social Security is an instant blank check.

Take a look at Al Gore’s global warming campaign, and in particular, its supporters. The first thing one notices is that they all share the same liberal/socialist world view.

Liberals are so defined because at the core of their philosophy is that more government can fix any problem. That is why the Democrats oppose the tax cuts.

Socialists believe it is the responsibility of government to share the wealth equally between the rich and the poor. That is why they join the liberals in opposing tax cuts.

Both share the belief that the most enlightened among us should make the hard decisions for the rest of us. This elitist view is what was responsible for the creation of the United Nations in the first place.

It was born out of the liberal/socialist belief that an unelected body answerable only to itself would be able to make supra-national (and therefore, in theory, impartial) decisions to settle national differences without those nations having to resort to war.

Al Gore is an admitted liberal, a confirmed socialist, and an unabashed elitist. His signature on the Kyoto Treaty was an elitist act, in defiance of the unanimous Senate, predicated by his sincere belief that he knew what was best for the country. The essence of elitism.

His “global warming” campaign is as transparently hypocritical as it is elitist. Al Gore’s global warming campaign claims to be aimed at reducing energy emissions by demanding new energy conservation legislation.

But Al Gore’s house burns TWENTY TIMES the annual energy consumed an average American family. According to his energy bills, Al Gore used as much energy last August in his private residence as the average American family would use in TWO YEARS!

Hypocritical? Surely. Elitist? Absolutely. While elitists believe only they know what is best for the rest of us, they give themselves an exemption. The most famous example would be Barbra Striesand, whose air-conditioned barn stands in stark contrast to her suggestion that the rest of America hang their clothes out to dry on clotheslines to save energy.

The antichrist is an elitist. (I am not saying Al Gore is the antichrist – but I am sure I will be accused of it).

The antichrist is depicted by Scripture as riding to power on an elitist platform. Daniel 9:27 suggests he rises to power on the crest of a wave of relief following his seeming solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

2nd Thessalonians 2:7 tells us his platform is based on a strong delusion and the public’s willingness to embrace a lie.

The antichrist achieves the ultimate goal of every elitist; universal acclaim for his ‘sacrificial willingness’ to make the ‘hard decisions’ for the rest of us. “. . . and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” (Revelation 13:4)

Now, as I said, I’m not saying Al Gore is the antichrist. He isn’t — but he’d probably like to be.

What makes this relevant is the adulation being accorded him by the liberal/socialist elites of America for what amounts to efforts to sell out US sovereignty to the UN. Based on what the majority of climatologists call a ‘theory’ and many others call a ‘fabrication’.

Already, there are cadres of useful idiots lining up to defend Al Gore’s personal energy consumption excesses as a ‘smear job’ — as if the fact the champion of global warming uses 20 times as much as an average American family was completely irrelevant.

The Apostle Paul warned: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” (2nd Timothy 3:1)

Then Paul spent the next four verses describing Al Gore and his supporters.

Another Rabbit Trail. . .

Another Rabbit Trail. . .
Vol: 65 Issue: 27 Tuesday, February 27, 2007

I am profoundly grieved in my spirit by the seemingly overwhelming acceptance of the claims made by James Cameron that it has been categorically established as fact that he has “uncovered” the bones of Jesus Christ.

If one were to take the mainstream media’s coverage of the story at face value, then one would assume that the Bible has, at long last, been proved to be nothing more than a collection of myths and fairy tales with no basis in fact.

Typical of those few among the mainstream media who did not react with unconcealed joy at the possibility that Christianity is a fraud were those that ran quotes from ‘skeptical scholars’ like Stephen Pfann.

How possible is it? Pfann asked. On a scale of one through 10 10 being completely possible it s probably a one, maybe a one and a half.”

On first reading, it seems as if Pfann is being offered as a rebuttal witness. The fact is, it simply is NOT possible that this is the Tomb of Jesus. The mere fact that Pfann sees it as a possibility, however remote, disqualifies him as either a ‘skeptic’ or a ‘scholar’.

For it to be even remotely possible, not one single word of the Bible could be true. The basic theme of the Bible — from the Garden of Eden to 2nd Coming of Christ — is God’s Sovereign plan for the redemption of mankind.

The Bible outlines only one way and that is through a Redeemer. God promised a Redeemer before the first man and woman were banished from the Garden:

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.” (Genesis 3:15)

If James Cameron and his crew have truly recovered the remains of Jesus of Nazareth, then that Redeemer has not come. Not a single promise of the Old Testament has been fulfilled, and the New Testament is a pack of lies.

Such a profound sea change in the history of mankind deserves more than merely a second look — it demands absolute certainty.

To the media, “absolute certainty” consists of four names, which may or may not have been correctly translated, and DNA evidence that the remains identified as Jesus are NOT related to the remains identified as Mary Magdalene.

Let’s look at the alleged DNA ‘evidence’ a bit more closely than the mainstream dared.

One of the filmmakers, Simcha Jacobovici, told a press conference that there was enough mitochondrial DNA for a laboratory in Ontario to conclude that the bodies in the Jesus and Mary Magdalene ossuaries were not related on their mothers side.

From this, Mr. Jacobovici deduced that they were a couple, because otherwise they would not have been buried together in a family tomb.

That seems to be a rather broad deduction.

The filmmakers also claim that the other “Mary” found in the tomb was the mother of Jesus, that another was of His brother, Joseph, and another contained the bones of “Judah, son of Jesus.”

If so, then the same mitochondrial DNA should show that they are all related to Jesus — otherwise, they would not have been buried together in a family tomb, either.

One intrepid reporter dared to ask Jacobvici how those tests turned out. Jacobvici’s reply?

We re not scientists. At the end of the day we can t wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA, he said. We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, I ve done my job as a journalist.

Given that what Jacobvici is offering is nothing less than the complete destruction of Christianity as a viable belief system, one would wonder WHY they “couldn’t wait”.

If the DNA didn’t show a familial connection, then the basic claim of the documentary, that they had discovered the “Jesus Family Tomb” would fall apart. So why not wait?

Apart from the allegation that Jesus of Nazareth was NOT resurrected, the most spectacular claim made by the filmmakers was that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a son named Judah.

If he were the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, would seem that the most important DNA test would be the one performed on Judah.

Were the rest of the ossuaries even tested? If so, what were the results? If not, why not?

The ossuary identified as that of Mary Magdalene is based on the translation of “Mariamene” being Mary Magdalene’s real name. How do the filmmakers know that?

They relied on the expert testimony of Harvard Professor Francios Bovon. How does Professor Bovon know? From a recently-discovered 5th century text entitled; “The Acts of Phillip.” What makes the “Acts of Phillip” conclusive evidence?

If any of these questions have been put to the filmmakers, there is no record of it that I can find.

Assessment:

What grieves me about this isn’t that it creates any doubt in my mind. I don’t believe it would create doubt in the minds of anyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus.

When one is regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the experience is too profound to be that of mass hysteria.

What grieves me is that this adds one more layer that must be peeled away before one can enter into any substantive discussion about the real Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

It’s another ‘rabbit trail’ that well-meaning Christians seeking to share the Gospel will find themselves traversing, while wondering, “How in the heck did I get HERE?”

The fact that the mainstream media is so uncritical in its acceptance of the “Jesus Tomb” story stands as testimony that the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christians can be no less than the Son of the Living God.

Do you think they would accept without comment any ‘documentary’ that purports to prove that Mohammed was a myth?

How many documentaries have you seen carried by the mainstream media that even dare to advance the theory that Mohammed and the Koran are the inspiration for Islamic terror?

Mohammed and Allah present no threat to the god of this world. Jesus Christ, however, is the embodiment of his defeat.

The Bible teaches that Satan is the prince and the power of the air. (Ephesians 2:2)

It should not be surprising that the airwaves are filled with pronouncements that Jesus is a provable (and proved) myth, whereas those same broadcasters never mention Mohammed without first adding the honorific, “the Prophet.”

We’ve already discussed all the holes in the ‘evidence’. It is worth noting that nobody else is.

The dishonesty of the film’s scholarship is breathtaking it its scope. From the manipulated DNA ‘evidence’ to the discounting of dissenting scholarship and historically attested facts, the “Jesus Tomb” is a monument to what the Apostle Peter called “willful ignorance.”

Logic is abandoned, from the fact that Jesus of Nazareth would have an expensive family tomb in Jerusalem, fifty miles from His hometown, to the fact that such a tomb would be unknown to the Jewish and Roman authorities of the times to the fact His disciples and followers willingly went to their deaths for what they would have to have known was a lie.

All the eyewitnesses? Liars. The subsequent Acts of the Apostles? Lies. The historical records left behind by the secular historians, Flavius Josephus and Tacitius? Lies. The 1st century Roman persecutions of Christians? Utterly unnecessary.

The scope of the conspiracy that would necessary to pull off a hoax of this magnitude? No smaller than an entire generation of Jerusalemites, including the hostile Jewish authorities, the Romans, the Jewish converts and those Jews who reviled Jesus as a blasphemer.

The inhabitants of the tomb, according to the filmmakers, were clearly identified by the inscriptions on their caskets. How does one keep the identity of a family tomb in the middle of Jerusalem a secret from those who lived around it? If they are identifiable in 2007, how could they have remained anonymous to their contemporary neighbors?

Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Matthew Joses and Judah presumably died at different times. Did they have funerals? How could it be that six separate Jewish funerals could take place in the heart of Jerusalem without anybody knowing who was being buried?

It is beyond ridiculous. But there are no shortage of folks willing to suspend logic if it means bringing Jesus Christ down to the status of a mere man, albeit ‘a good man and a wise teacher’.

(A ‘good man’ Who also lied about His identity and then taught ‘wisely’ on the strength of that lie).

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

“But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” (2nd Timothy 4:3-5)

It was the real Jesus of Nazareth that first broached the subject of the revelation of a secret burial chamber, long before James Cameron claimed to have ‘uncovered’ it — and what such a claim really signals.

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. . . . Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, HE IS IN SECRET CHAMBERS; believe it not.” (Matthew 24:23,25-26)

“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)

A Laborer Worthy of His Hire

A Laborer Worthy of His Hire
Vol: 65 Issue: 26 Monday, February 26, 2007

I have a confession to make. I almost never watch Christian television. I have several reasons I can offer for why I don’t — but the primary reason is because it usually makes me angry.

Without naming names, (since I don’t believe God has called me to do that), I am often sickened by the commercialization of Christianity.

That is not to say that I object to the Body of Christ supporting Christian ministries. Indeed, that is the way God intended ministry to operate.

Christian ministry was intended to be a full-time vocation. If the Lord has called someone to full time Christian service, then that service IS their job. When Jesus sent His disciples out to preach the Gospel, He gave them specific instructions:

“Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if the Son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is WORTHY OF HIS HIRE. Go not from house to house.” (Luke 10:4-7)

Further, Scripture teaches: “Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve tables. . . But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word.” (Acts 6:2,4)

Note several important truths here. First, ‘carry neither scrip (money) nor purse’ (to carry it in). A minister’s reliance is on the Lord for provision, not an outside job.

“No man can serve two masters,” the Lord taught, “for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (money). (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13)

Secondly, the Lord instructed His ministers to accept what is offered for provisions by His people — not to go begging from ‘house to house.’

Finally, the Lord says that, once a minister accepts the ministry the Lord has given him, he is to remain with it and be satisfied with the provision made for him. The first priority of ministry is to give oneself continually to prayer and the “ministry of the Word.”

Leaving the Word of God to earn a living at something else (“wait tables”) is not reasonable, given the importance of the mission at hand.

But the mission of ministry is NOT to make money. It is to serve the purpose of our calling. To minister to the faithful and to carry the Good News to the lost.

On Christian TV, one too often sees ministers wearing $1000 suits and $5000 Rolex watches, holding microphones in manicured hands, and imploring the faithful to send money to their ministries for the “work of the Lord.”

What turns me off about Christian TV is the fact that, more often than not, the main message is financial. More effort is expended in fund-raising than actual ministry.

It turns my stomach to hear a full-time minister twist the Gospel message into a multi-level marketing scheme. (“If you send me $100 in ‘seed money’ then God will send you $1000.”)

If that’s how it is supposed to work, then why don’t THEY drop $100 into their own ministries and wait for God to send them the ten-fold increase? When they get their $1000, they can drop it back into the plate, get $10,000, then contribute the $10,000 and wait for the $100,000?

In no time at all, they’d have so much money THEY could send some to YOU.

The majority of prime-time TV evangelists seem to me to spend less time feeding their flock than they do asking their flock to feed THEM. It is worth remembering that Jesus fed the multitude with five loaves and seven fishes.

I am not saying that all Christian TV ministry is like that. (Hal’s isn’t, for example). But enough of it is that I generally don’t watch Christian TV programming.

And there wasn’t much I learned at the recent NRB convention that caused me to rethink my admittedly cynical assessment.

Assessment:

One of the few Christian television programs I DO watch is “Zola Levitt Presents”. Anybody who watches that program can see how their ministry contributions are being spent.

Right now, they are running an eight-part series on the Book of Daniel. The production values were stunning. But their message was not “send me money” but rather, “Shalu Shalom Yerushalayim” (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)

In the most recent program, I was transported (by the ‘magic’ of television) to the Valley of Elah in Israel where a young shepherd named David defeated the Phillistine giant Goliath — equipped with nothing but his faith in the Lord and a slingshot.

God’s money was spent to bring the Bible to life before my eyes and to bring the importance of Israel into context, and to underscore the threat it faces on all sides.

As most of you know, I was recently in Dallas where I spent some time with the people who put “Zola Levitt Presents” together. There was not a Rolex to be found. Instead of $1000 suits, there was a rack of old sports jackets for the on-air personalities, similar to those I would have in my own closet. (If I HAD a closet)

Their program isn’t recorded in an expensive, fancy studio. It is recorded in Zola’s ordinary den in Zola’s ordinary house.

Zola went home to be with the Lord last year, but his ministry continues to soldier on — from that ordinary den in that ordinary house — despite the left boot of fellowship afforded them by “The Big Network” right after Zola’s passing. In spite of the drastic reduction in their audience, they’ve stayed faithful to the message.

I care about ministry. I care about the negative image the world has of TV ministry, and I care about how that image hurts the message of the Gospel. And I care about you, my friends and fellow laborers for the Kingdom. I don’t much care about money (which works out well, since I haven’t any to care about).

But I DO care about what happens to yours.

So, where I am going with this? If you are a supporter of TV ministry, “Zola Levitt Presents” is worthy of your support. I say that sincerely. (Nobody has ever asked me to plug Zola — unless you count the leading of the Lord).

I also encourage you to pray for Dr. Seif and for Sandra Levitt — they have taken on an enormous responsibility before the Lord. Their ministry mission is to introduce the Jews to their Messiah and to minister to believing Jews. It is a worthy objective, and they approach it with the respect it deserves.

We need to pray that God will grant them the increase necessary to maintain that mission. And to grant them the courage to continue despite the obstacles the Enemy is continually throwing their way.

We are all in this battle together, so long as we battle under the ensign of the Lord. The enemy continues to throw all his forces into one, final and massive counter-attack in the short time he has remaining.

“Zola Levitt Presents” is out there in the trenches with us. And taking the hits just like we are. I respect them enormously for it.

Ministry is supposed to advance the richness of knowing Christ, not increase the riches of His ministers. We are all supposed to be in this to advance the Kingdom — not to advance ourselves.

As Christian warriors, we need to concentrate our resources where they will do the most good. On the efforts to expand the Kingdom and bring Christ to the lost. Not to buy new Rolexes and pay for stretch limos to bring the ‘talent’ to the studio.

I pray that we never lose sight of the REAL prize. And I thank God that there still are others who see things the same way.

Until He comes.

The Burial Cave of Jesus

The Burial Cave of Jesus
Vol: 65 Issue: 24 Saturday, February 24, 2007

A new documentary is set to air on the Discovery Channel, Canada’s Vision TV, as well as in Britain and Israel, entitled, “The Burial Cave of Jesus.”

The film is a joint production between an Israeli-born Canadian documentary producer and Oscar-winning Canadian film producer James Cameron, whose film credits include “Titanic” and “The Terminator.”

From what I have been able to find out so far, the archeological bona fides behind the film seem to be that one producer was born in Israel, both are Canadian and one makes entertaining movies.

According to the filmmakers, a cave dating to the first century was discovered in Jerusalem’s Talpiyot neighborhood in 1980. In it were ten coffins. Six of those coffins bore inscriptions. One of the coffins is labeled, “Jesus, the son of Joseph”; another, “Judah, son of Jesus”; and two bore the inscriptions “Maria”.

The filmmakers evidently offer this explanation: One of the Maria’s is Mary, the mother of Jesus, the other, Mary Magdalene.

The coffin (actually, they were ossuaries) bearing the inscription “Judah” is offered as “proof” that Jesus had a son, and therefore, the 3rd century Gnostic accounts of Jesus and Mary Magdalene getting married that formed the basic premise of “The Davinci Codes” are true.

The backstory is that, upon discovering the ossuaries, the find was covered up to avoid offending the Christian community. All ten ossuaries were given over to the Israeli Antiquities Authority archive in Beit Shemesh who buried them in the bowels of the archive where they’ve languished, forgotten, for almost thirty years.

Most astonishing of all is the claim that, unlike the ossuary bearing the inscription, “James, the brother of Jesus” these ossuaries contained the bones of their original occupants.

Noted the website, Israel Insider, “If it proves true, the discovery, which will be revealed at a press conference in New York Monday, could shake up the Christian world as one of the most significant archeological finds in history.”

Shake up the Christian world? THAT would be an understatement of, ahem, Biblical proportions.

If true, that is.

Assessment:

Remember when the “James” ossuary was in the headlines? Its announcement sent shockwaves throughout the Christian world.

If it were authentic, it would have served as the first archeological confirmation of the existence of Jesus, and would have also confirmed the Bible’s account that Jesus had both brothers and sisters.

Such a confirmation have forced the Vatican to rewrite its theological position of “Mary, ever-virgin”, destroying her credentials as the fourth member of the Divine God-head.

The Vatican teaches that Mary has the power to forgive sins, and that, as the perpetual Virgin mother of God, was bodily assumed into heaven in the same way that Jesus was.

Now, remember the arguments that were advanced in dismissing the “James” box? First, there was the ‘forgery’ argument. Secondly, there was the ‘coincidence’ argument.

Either the inscriptions were forged, or it was a coincidence, since the names “Jesus” “James” and “Joseph” were among the most common names in Jerusalem at that time.

In any case, the “James” box was discredited and the story went nowhere.

According to the senior Israeli archeologist who both researched the tombs at the time of their original discovery, and was the original translator of the inscriptions, the same argument applies in the so-called “Jesus Burial Cave”.

“It’s a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever,” says Professor Amos Kloner. “The names that are found on the tombs are names that are similar to the names of the family of Jesus,” he conceded.

“But those were the most common names found among Jews in the first centuries BCE and CE,” he added. Kloner dismissed the combination of names found in the cave as a “coincidence,” according to the Israel Insider report.

What I find fascinating is that, while the coincidence argument was enough to discredit the “James” ossuary (which confirms the Bible) when the same argument is applied to the “Jesus Cave” (which, if true, would destroy the foundation of Christianity) it is hotly denied by everybody involved.

(Except for the man who conducted the examination of the cave and translated the inscriptions. And his assessment is dismissed out of hand.)

Same argument, same evidence, but two entirely different reactions, depending on what light it casts on the historical account of Jesus of Nazareth.

If the “James” ossuary is authentic, then the Bible’s account is reinforced. If the “Jesus Cave” is authentic, then Jesus Christ wasn’t resurrected, mankind has no hope of redemption, and we remain dead in our sins.

So “James” is discredited because the names were so common, but the “Jesus Cave” MUST be true because the (equally common) names (almost) fit.

Let’s look at the difficulties. If the ossuary actually contains the bones of Jesus of Nazareth, then who was crucified at Golgotha? If the tomb is that of Jesus’ family, then who paid for it? Tombs were exceptionally expensive in 1st century Israel.

How did a tomb containing the bones of Jesus of Nazareth escape the attention of the Jewish authorities who tried so desperately to discredit the new religion of Christianity that they routinely arrested Christian converts and ordered them stoned to death?

How did it escape the attention of the Roman authorities who tried to stamp out Christianity by martyring Christians for three centuries? The “Jesus Cave” didn’t just contain the evidence that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God, but also evidence that He was married and had children.

And it was a family tomb. Family tombs were registered with the Jewish authorities.

If Jesus didn’t die at Calvary, (or even if He did and was subsequently entombed) why would the Apostles go willingly to their deaths rather than recant their testimony, of which they claimed to be eyewitnesses?

If they knew that Jesus was married and had a son before His crucifixion, why was it omitted from the Gospel accounts? If they didn’t know, why didn’t they?

And why didn’t anybody else who lived at that time? As already noted, if it could have been proved that Jesus went to the grave like every other man, it was in the best interests of the Sanhedrin to reveal it.

Not to mention the fact that proving Jesus was not Divine would have eliminated the religious conundrum they faced when they were accused of ordering the death of their long-awaited Messiah?

Finally, how can it be that it was all kept secret in a time and place where such a revelation would be of such earth-shattering importance to the contemporary authorities, but managed to stay intact until it was found in Jerusalem in 1980?

Until the destruction of the Temple, in AD 70, Jewish genealogies were so carefully documented that most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem could easily trace their lineage all the way back to Adam.

Births, deaths and burials were as carefully documented in early first century Jerusalem as they are in 21st century New York. How did Jesus, Mary, Mary Magadalene, Judah and the other six ossuaries slip through the cracks — particularly when Jesus of Nazareth was such a polarizing and controversial figure?

Now, to the present day problems. Why would the Jewish authorities in modern Israel want to cover up the discovery of the bones of Jesus of Nazareth? For two thousand years, Jews have endured endless pogroms and persecutions based on the blood libel that they killed Jesus Christ.

If the “Jesus Cave” is authentic, not only are they NOT guilty as charged, but it would also put to rest any lingering doubts that the Jews put their own Messiah to death.

The government of Israel may have some political motive for covering up the “Jesus Cave” to keep from alienating America, but it would have religious Jews shouting the news from the housetops.

IF — and that is a big ‘if’ — there were even a scintilla of convincing evidence.

I have little doubt of the ability of a documentary film to be very convincing. Most of us will be hearing from our unsaved friends and loved ones who will point to its assertions and say, “what about this?”

It won’t matter much how we respond. People will believe what they want to believe. James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici want to believe that the “Jesus Cave” is authentic, because it means the Bible’s account is not true.

So will our unsaved friends and loved ones.

If the Bible’s account is not true, then they can walk away comfortable in their sin, reassured that there is no eternal accountability for the things done in this life. Look at the success of the “Davinci Code”.

The “evidence” for the “Jesus Cave’s” authenticity is so weak that it doesn’t even convince the original translator, himself a Jew with a vested interest in the “Jesus Cave” being authentic.

But it will convince the skeptic. Because that is what he WANTS to believe.

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

Getting Away with Murder. . .

Getting Away with Murder. . .
Vol: 65 Issue: 23 Friday, February 23, 2007

The Left is really building momentum in its continuing effort to sacrifice American troops on the altar of political correctness as a means of wresting the White House out of Republican hands.

Nevada Senator Harry Reid is preparing a bill aimed at revoking the authorization granted the White House in 2002 for war in Iraq.

If successful, the measure will hamstring US forces now in harm’s way by restricting US troops to only fighting al-Qaeda terrorists. Let me say that again for emphasis. Under Harry Reid’s plan, US forces will not be allowed to fight back unless the targets are confirmed as al-Qaeda fighters.

If American forces are attacked by Iraqi insurgents not connected with al-Qaeda, they will not be permitted to fight back. Instead, they will have to rely on Iraqi troops for force protection.

No doubt Senator Reid believes he’s come up with the perfect prescription for tying President Bush’s hands. Restricting US forces to only engaging al-Qaeda fighters will made the US position in Iraq untenable and unsustainable.

When the Iraqi insurgents realize that they can shoot US troops with impunity, knowing that any retaliation will come from the ineffective, ill-trained and often sympathetic Iraqi ground forces, the attacks will escalate exponentially.

And without US air support, they needn’t worry about massing ground troops for major attacks. US troops would be sitting ducks, and US casualties would soon reach unsustainable numbers. The White House will be forced to declare defeat and withdraw US troops from harm’s way.

The Democrats will easily defeat the Republicans in the 2008 elections — after all, it will be the Republicans who lost a war that should have been a cakewalk.

It is a tried and true tactic. Although the Vietnam War was started by Democratic President John Kennedy and continued by Lyndon Johnson, America didn’t start winning until Richard Nixon lifted the restrictions on the US military rules of engagement.

Once the US started to win, the Democrats realized that victory would keep the White House in Republican hands. They turned against the war (that they had started) and demanded new restrictions on the military in the field.

The rest, as they say, was history. Unable to make progress, US military commanders complained they could not win, Congress blamed the White House for the defeat, and the next election cycle put Jimmy Carter in the White House.

It worked in Vietnam, and the Democrats reason that it will work in Iraq. The trick is to make it look like it is not their fault.

In addition to imposing impossible rules of engagement (how will US troops know that the bullets coming at them are coming from al-Qaeda and not Iraqi insurgents) Reid plans to impose strict new rules on training and readiness standards before new troops can be deployed.

Also, they plan to impose new deployment restrictions. US forces will only be allowed to serve a maximum of one year before being rotated back to the States. Once rotated back, they cannot be returned to combat for another year.

Who would want to vote against that? It’s a brilliant plan, even if it is hardly original.

The same restrictions were imposed in Vietnam. US forces were restricted to a thirteen month tour of duty then, with a similar restriction of one year between tours.

That guaranteed that the most experienced and battle-hardened troops were back in the States and that US commanders had a steady supply of green troops to work with.

It was a well-known adage among the Vietnam grunts that if you survived your first month in combat, your odds of surviving your tour of duty went up exponentially. It was the troops rotating in who made most of the mistakes and suffered the highest casualty rates.

The Democrats won the White House by increasing the US body count in the Vietnam War. And Harry Reid thinks that it will work again in Iraq.

If it means sacrificing the lives of more Americans in Iraq to make the plan work, well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, as the saying goes.

Assessment:

Reid modeled his plan after the British model that forced Prime Minister Tony Blair to admit defeat and announce a timetable for a British withdrawal from Iraq.

The New York Times crowed in an editorial entitled, “Britain Cuts It’s Losses”:

“Spin it any way you like, Prime Minister Tony Blair s announcement that Britain will be withdrawing up to 1,600 of its 7,100 remaining troops in Iraq can t be welcome military or political news for President Bush. . . . The British announcement has already served as the catalyst for other departures.”

(In reading the editorial, one gets the impression that the Times’ editors are celebrating the British departure as a sign of victory for ‘their’ side)

“Denmark, with 460 troops under British command, announced yesterday that it would leave by August. With the Pentagon already straining to find enough soldiers for Iraq, a troop drawdown by its most militarily capable ally can only add to the strain and to the clamor for bringing American forces home as well.”

The operative word here is contained in the editorial’s headline. That word is “losses”. The Democrats and the liberal mainstream media have staked their credibility on — and therefore have a vested interest in — an American loss in Iraq, which they see as a Republican loss in ’08.

Now that the British have conceded defeat, the ‘coalition of the willing’ is falling apart, leaving George Bush and the Republicans alone and without cover.

Senator Reid wasted no time congratulating the British on their defeat:

“”By announcing its decision to redeploy troops from Iraq, the British Government has acknowledged a reality that President Bush still stubbornly refuses to accept. There can be no purely military solution in Iraq.”

Where does one rank such a statement by the top-ranking member of the United States Senate on the weirdness scale?

“Congratulations on losing. We think that is great news. We hope to join you in your military defeat as quickly as possible.”

Reid’s statement went on to say, “Today’s news is further evidence that the Bush plan to escalate the war is misguided, and demonstrates once again why it was strongly rejected by bipartisan majorities of the House and Senate.”

To al-Qaeda and the Iraqi ‘insurgency’ (the preferred name for the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq) Reid’s message was:

“Our president is an idiot who doesn’t understand that you’ve already won. But we, the clear thinking American people, salute you. Hang in there.”

It is critically important to understand that the only way the Democrats can win in ’08 is if the US loses the war in Iraq. The only way the US can lose the war in Iraq is if American losses are too high to be sustainable.

THAT is the end-game for the Democrats. Increase American losses in the field. The Reid plan is nothing short of an effort to disarm US forces and wait until enough of them get killed to make an admission of defeat the only option.

It’s beyond politics. It’s beyond treason. From the perspective of the troops in the field, the Reid plan is nothing short of murder.

“Everybody Lies”

“Everybody Lies”
Vol: 65 Issue: 22 Thursday, February 22, 2007

It appears that a catfight is shaping up between front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that, while entertaining, was also very revealing. Uncomfortably so.

A former major Clinton supporter, billionaire Hollywood mogul David Geffen, has thrown his support behind Barack Obama’s candidacy. Geffen made headlines when he offered this assessment of his former friends Bill and Hillary:

“Everybody lies in politics,” he said. “But the Clintons do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

Geffen, a former Clintonista whose massive campaign contributions and fund-raising efforts once earned him a free stay at America’s Motel 6 (the Lincoln bedroom) was quoted in the New York Times as calling Bill Clinton “a reckless guy” and describing Hillary Clinton as “an incredibly polarizing figure.”

Geffen’s comments prompted all kinds of responses. Those who love the Clintons — no matter what — were scandalized.

Those who despise the Clintons — both Republican and Democrat — were amused.

Democrats bemoaned the “lack of unity” within the party. Writes Martin Lewis in Adriana Huffington’s liberal blog;

“Have we Democrats/progressives/liberals learned NOTHING from the past 30 years?

There is a massive difference between rooting for our preferred cholce for candidate and presenting the enemy with gift-wrapped goodies they may be able to use in 2008.

And that choice does NOT mean sacrificing our principles. It just means remembering who the REAL enemy is. Especially after the last 6 years.”

Note first that the “REAL enemy” isn’t Osama bin Laden. It isn’t the late, unlamented Saddam Hussein. It isn’t Hugo Chavez. It isn’t Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. No, the REAL enemy is the President of the United States.

Republicans were delighted at the prospect of the leaders of the ‘progressive’ (anti-American) wing of the Democratic Party taking aim at Hillary Clinton, hoping to exploit the growing schism.

There were just as many conservative blogs chortling over Geffen’s comments as there were liberals bemoaning it.

Assessment:

So, what was YOUR first thought when you heard Geffen’s quote? Satisfaction that somebody on the Left was saying what the Right had been saying about the Clintons’ since 1992?

Were you thinking, as I was, “Let’s see her blame THIS on a ‘vast, right wing conspiracy’?” Were you basking in the glow of satisfaction that came from having somebody on the Left bringing up Clinton’s pardon of fugitive gun-runner Marc Rich?

Did you miss what I initially did?

What we all missed was the universal acceptance of Geffen’s statement; “In politics, everybody lies.” None of the pundits and commentators, either conservative or liberal, paid any attention whatever to what was said. Just who was saying it.

Not a single politician of either stripe took exception to being labeled a professional liar. None of the 435 members of Congress, not one of America’s senators, none of the thousands of senators and representatives of America’s fifty states, not one of America’s fifty governors, etc, etc, and so on, stepped up to a microphone and said, “Not ALL politicians are liars. I’m not.”

The statement, “All politicians lie” was the ONLY comment made by Geffen that went unchallenged by the very politicians that SHOULD have been offended. (If what Geffen was saying wasn’t so demonstrably true that it was beyond challenge).

None of the media took exception to that statement. While Geffen’s saying it out loud and in conjunction with Hillary Clinton raised some eyebrows, the only notable part of the statement was the part where he said that “the Clintons do it with such ease, its troubling.”

What does that mean? That the rest of the liars are more acceptable because they are more clumsy at it?

In this generation, in this country, lying is not only acceptable, it is expected of our elected leaders. The fact that “all politicians lie” is not the primary concern.

Instead, the concerns, (if there are any) about political liars are broken into two related parts. First, it depends on whether or not the liar in question is ‘your guy’.

When Bill Clinton was caught lying to a grand jury, virtually every single Democrat in the House rallied on the steps of the Capitol Building as an expression of support, claiming he was the victim of a political ‘witch hunt’ by his (and their) political enemies (the Republicans.)

When it was no longer possible to argue that Clinton didn’t lie, the mantra shifted from that of blaming a ‘vast, right wing political conspiracy’ to the mantra that, ‘everybody lies about sex.’

NOBODY on either side of the political aisle, or among the media, or even among the voting public, so much as raised an eyebrow about Geffen’s general statement that, “all politicians lie”. To argue otherwise would be like arguing against the statement that “all fish swim.”

We KNOW they all lie. We EXPECT them to lie. We only object when we don’t like what they are lying about.

Let’s look at that again. If we don’t have a problem with the subject matter, we don’t have a problem with the fact that they are lying to us. We’ve looked at this before, as it relates to the media.

The New York Times has a liberal bias. Their editors ‘slant’ the news to favor the political agenda of the Democrats. The Washington Times has a conservative bias. Their editors slant the news to favor the political agenda of the Republicans.

CNN has a liberal bias, as does NBC, CBS and, (lately) to a lesser degree, ABC. On the other hand, Fox News is generally accepted to be biased towards the conservatives.

Liberals watch CNN because they share CNN’s bias. Conservatives watch Fox because they share Fox’s bias. By definition, both are aware that they are being lied to, or there would be a third alternative choice acceptable to both sides.

“Bias” is defined by the legal dictionary as; “any mental condition that would prevent a judge or juror from being fair and impartial.”

If a lawyer can prove bias by a juror, it is grounds to disqualify that juror as unfit to render an honest and impartial opinion. Jurors render judgments that affect the life of the single individual on trial.

Politicians render judgments that affect the life of an entire nation. But as long as the politician reflects the bias of his constituency, its perfectly acceptable for him to lie.

It doesn’t bother the voters. It doesn’t bother the pundits. It certainly doesn’t bother Barack Obama’s principle campaign fundraiser.

Think about this. Since it was Geffen himself who made the statement that “all politicians lie” what does that say about his own opinion of Barack Obama?

But that fact doesn’t seem to bother anybody, including Geffen, because, as everybody knows, “all politicians lie.” We don’t trust them to tell the truth, or to represent the truth. We trust them to tell ‘acceptable’ lies.

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

And if our politicians tell the right fables, we’ll vote for them anyway. Eyes wide open.

According to the Bible, the antichrist cannot come to power until the way has been prepared for him, since the principle weapon in his political arsenal is deception.

“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH, that they might be saved.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:9-10)

“All politicians lie.” Any questions?

How Do I Hate Thee? Let Me Count the Ways

How Do I Hate Thee? Let Me Count the Ways
Vol: 65 Issue: 21 Wednesday, February 21, 2007

This morning, I ran across a column by a leftist pundit by the name Maralyn Lois Polak in WorldNetDaily.

The column, entitled, “The True Meaning Behind W’s Moles” was a nasty, offensive and incredibly disrespectful screed that, given the fact it was published at all, MUST have a following among the citizens of these United States.

My anger was kindled by Polack’s nastiness. President Bush had a couple of moles removed from his forehead. Polak used the president’s medical problem as a springboard for her attack, equating the removal of skin lesions from the President of the United States with Britney Spears’ latest stunt in which she shaved her head.

In the first place, why would anybody care if Britney Spears shaved her head? The only conceivable reason I can imagine would be out of concern that the poor girl might be traveling down the same doomed path more recently trod by the late Anna Nicole Smith.

No person with a heart would wish such a sad life and lamentable death on anyone. By all accounts, Anna Nicole Smith died without Christ, and without hope of eternity.

The ongoing debacle that has turned her death into an even more bizarre spectacle than her life had been is tragedy compounded.

Spears, at the tender age of 23 (or so) is not so much a spectacle for amusement as she is a walking billboard for what is wrong with America’s cultural decline.

Not to mention an object lesson that proves the old adage that ‘money can’t buy happiness’.

But I digress. . .

Assessment:

Having equated the President of the United States with America’s poster child for dysfunctionality, Polak launches into her attack on George Bush’s medical problems as if he were some kind of unfeeling cartoon character.

The doctors removed the moles out of concern that they could become cancerous. I would no more make light of skin cancer than I would a fatal drug overdose.

In addition to being President of the United States, George Bush is a brother, a son, a father, and a husband, just like anybody else. No doubt Polack has relatives, as well. THIS is funny?

Polak, evidently found it all very humorous. She begins by suggesting that Bush is lying about the procedure, then goes on to suggest what really happened.

“Naturally I’m thinking in pictures here about myriad deeper meanings of DUH-Be-Ya’s Presidential Moles, because that’s how my mind works:

* A pair of actual live furry moles being gingerly dissuaded from camping out on Bush-WAH’s forehead like a misplaced coonskin cap, before they can wreak the extensive damage they are known for, famously tunneling in and out of small confined spaces.

*Doctors wiping off two very persistent, very sticky, very suggestive, and very incriminating spots of that muy-spicy Mexican chocolate sauce that usually adorns chickens, as in mole poblano.

* Two White House counter-spies getting surgically detached from the Bushling’s forehead, where they were monitoring and then attempting to jam the copious flow of lies-presented-as-truth to and from his cranium.

* Dermatologists divesting the Bushling of yet more small pigmented skin lesions that continue to recur as potentially lethal fallout from his youthful suntanned playboy/oil-dude days.”

If these are examples of how Polak’s mind ‘works’ perhaps that is a secret she should have kept to herself.

“DUH-Be-Yah” Bush-WAH”, “the Bushling” and later, “Georgie-Boy” — these are terms suitable to describe the President of the United States?

Are these the same United States in which Polak claims citizenship?

If Polak is a role model for American thinking, no wonder hopelessly dysfunctional people like Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears are the new role models for American youth!

If Polak’s sense of humor being tickled by the prospect of anybody (including someone she clearly despises) facing the potential of skin cancer is worthy of publication, then sadness is the ‘new happy’ and the potential for slow painful death is the ‘new comedy’ in American society.

And unabashed, vitriolic hatred is the ‘new patriotism’.

Perilous times? You bet.