Universe as God?

Universe as God?
Vol: 90 Issue: 19 Thursday, March 19, 2009

Secular science, ever vigilant against interpreting their observations as evidence of a Creator, has decided that the universe is eternal.

Such is the latest pronouncement coming from the hallowed halls of science.

It is incredible to me that so many are willing to settle for science as their deity. Science has intoned solemnly that the universe began with a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. Then, science announced that the universe is actually shrinking, imploding, if you will.

Scientists discovered that neutrinos are moving in the wrong direction and intoned their findings.

Now, the universe isn’t shrinking or expanding anymore. It is eternal, driven by what they call a ‘dark force’.

Two scientists have put forward a new model to explain how the cosmos is and where it might be going.

They say it is necessary to take account of startling new discoveries – in particular, the observation that everything in the Universe is moving apart at an accelerating rate.

Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok propose the idea that the cosmos goes through an endless cycle – of Big Bang, expansion and stagnation – which is driven by an as yet unexplained “dark energy”. [at this point, I am almost vibrating — “as yet unexplained ‘dark’ energy?” The Energy that drives the Universe is clearly explained. The Bible calls that Energy ‘God’.] They published their findings in the journal, ‘Science’.

Even some secular science writers who understand this stuff better than I do also know better. Cosmology writer Marcus Chown concedes it will be extremely difficult to finally prove any model of the Universe.

“The history of cosmology is the history of us being completely wrong,” he told the BBC. “I mean, cosmology is the hardest of all sciences; we sit on this tiny planet in the middle of this vast Universe, we can’t go anywhere and do any experiments – all we can do is pick up the light that happens to fall on us and deduce some things about the Universe.”


I am admittedly not a scientist and confess I have no faith in a system that changes directions more often than Barack Obama. But I am relatively conversant with the scientific system outlined by the Bible.

It wasn’t Columbus who discovered the earth was round. The Bible tells us that in Isaiah 40:22. Although secular science learned about germs and microbes in the past century, the Bible testifies to the spread of germs.

The ancient Hebrews were warned that he that toucheth a dead body shall be unclean for seven days Numbers 19:11. The foods specified as unclean, like ferrets, moles, weasels, mice — all carry disease. [Levitcus 11] Other unclean foods like pork or shellfish carry bacteria that can be deadly long before the senses can tell it is spoiled.

The Bible’s admonitions about washing, cleanness and uncleaness, care around dead bodies, warnings about eating the flesh of animals that die of natural causes; all indicate an advanced knowledge of germs and their method of transmission.

The information was there for thousands of years. Like that ‘dark energy’ science is now desperately seeking to explain.

Until the turn of the 20th century, it was still a common medical practice to treat disease by ‘bleeding’ the victim. If science had turned to the Scriptures for guidance, they’d have discovered that the Hebrews have known for more than three thousand years that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” [Lev 17:11].

Secular science is the Holy Writ of secular humanism — a religion dedicated to proving man is god.

The Apostle Paul explained secular humanism this way: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . .Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” [Romans 1:20-21,25].

The Bible is a Book of science, inspired, not by a ‘dark energy’ but by the Creator of the Universe. He is Eternal, not the universe itself. It is that sense of the Eternal that science is detecting. That explains the sense of desperation in coming up with a secular explanation.

God is science, since He is the author of natural law. Which is why Paul was careful to admonish Timothy when he sent him out to begin his ministry, “Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” [1 Tim 6:6]

On scientific prounouncemnts that contradict revelation, Paul warned, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

Science is real. The Bible is real. God is real. But the universe is not eternal. God is.

“Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness?” [2 Peter 3:12]

Who Is John Galt?

Who Is John Galt?
Vol: 90 Issue: 18 Wednesday, March 18, 2009

In 1957, author and atheist philosopher Ayn Rand published her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged. The book has never been out of print, and sales (oddly) go up instead of down over the decades.

It sold 70,000 a year in the 1980’s (the decade she died), 95,000 copies a year in the 90’s and is up over 100,000 copies annually so far this decade.

But in the two months since Obama was elected, sales of “Atlas Shrugged” have more than tripled. As of this morning, it was ranked at #224 in sales on Amazon.com.

Type “Atlas Shrugged” into Google’s news aggregator this morning and you will get 185 different hits — on a book that was first published in 1957!

The headlines include “Who Is John Galt?” “The Dapper John Galt” and “The Going John Galt Movement.”

So, who is John Galt, anyway? And why is he headline news 52 years after being introduced to the literary world?

John Galt is a pivotal character in the novel, which fictionalizes a dystopic American future where government intervention into the economy has wrought further economic turndown that extends and deepens the depression.

In looking for someone to blame for their ills, the leaders of the country and those who are suffering begin to blame the rich. They chastise them for their ideas, their high profits, and their wealth.

These attacks prompt these people, led by John Galt, to go on strike – to stop producing and stop manufacturing new ideas and new products.

They still work, but instead of inventing new medicines or new inventions, they work shoveling coal or as a brakemen on railroads.

In Atlas Shrugged, all countries outside the US have become or are becoming throughout the course of the novel “People’s States”, which survive mainly through aid given by the United States.

The US regime in power in “Atlas Shrugged” decries socialism even as it practices it. It doesn’t resort to outright nationalization of banks and industry — instead it so heavily controls and regulates industry that it accomplishes the same thing.

Ayn Rand separates American society into different classes, moochers and looters on one side, and inventors, workers and ‘the rich’. Is this starting to sound familiar?

The looters are those who confiscate others’ earnings “at the point of a gun” often because they are government officials, and thus their demands are backed by the threat of force.

The moochers are the ones who demand the earnings of others because they claim to be needy. Even as they beg, they curse the rich and hate them for their wealth.

Although the moochers seem benign at first glance, they are portrayed as more destructive than the looters they destroy the productive through guilt and often motivate the “lawful” looting performed by governments.

The government itself demonizes the rich and the productive and coddles the moochers and looters because they form the base of their political support.

Now is it starting to sound familiar?

The question, “Who is John Galt?” is asked throughout the novel by various characters but the answer doesn’t come until near the end.

John Galt is an inventor and industrialist who finally had enough of income redistribution and declares, “Enough!”

He leads a quiet revolution in which all the inventors and producers decide to adopt the old Soviet line of “we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us” and go on strike.

Each man eventually comes to the conclusion that society hampers him with unnecessary, burdensome and expensive regulations and undervalues his role in society.

In Rand’s world, government confiscation of profits, justified by demonizing the profit-makers and their reputations results in the producers and inventors quietly disappearing.

The idea was to starve the socialistic government of tax revenues that it was taking from the producers, thus hurrying along its collapse.

Later, we learn that they all joined John Galt in a place called “Galt’s Gulch” somewhere in Colorado.


Ayn Rand, the Wall Street Journal reports, died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil.

Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.

There have been some 200 ‘tea parties’ across the country of late – although you wouldn’t know if from the mainstream media. The MSN reserves its coverage for demonstrations favoring gay rights, abortion rights, and anything that tends to empower the moochers and looters.

In a classic instance of life imitating art, the only time that the MSN concerns itself with the producers in society is when one of their number does something to confirm the stereotype of “the rich” as grasping, greedy and over-indulged.

To the moochers and looters, “the rich” aren’t paying their “fair share” — even though most of the taxes paid each year are collected from the top two percent of wage earners.

The simple fact is that if the government confiscated EVERYTHING earned by EVERYBODY who made $75,000 per year, it would only amount to $4 trillion. (I say ‘only’ because the National Debt just topped $11 trillion.)

The American entitlement system must certainly collapse — it is a Ponzi scheme no different that the one that let Bernie Madoff make off with as much as $100 billion in full view of the federal regulators.

For example, Social Security is broke because it operated exactly the way that Madoff’s scheme did. Those already invested in the system collect benefits paid for by new money coming in.

When the new money coming in becomes less than the money obligated to be paid out, the scheme collapses, which is how Madoff ended up getting caught.

But Madoff’s scheme worked for at least two decades on only $100 billion. Social Security is working with numbers in the trillions, but it’s been around five decades longer.

The policies of the Obama administration seem like they were lifted directly from Rand’s novel. Enough so that all across America, people are beginning to ask the same question: “Who is John Galt?”

And where is he now that we need him?

“The Man-Caused Disasters Are Just Now Getting Underway”

“The Real Man-Caused Disasters Are Just Now Getting Underway”
Vol: 90 Issue: 17 Tuesday, March 17, 2009

The Department of Homeland Security, now six years old and under new management, is undergoing a complete makeover as the agency tries to sort itself out.

One of the ways that the Department of Homeland Security intends to remake itself is by redefining who DHS is keeping the homeland secure from.

Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary is Janet Napolitano, the former Governor of Arizona and lifelong liberal Democrat.

Among the items on her resume was her service as Anita Hill’s attorney during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Anita Hill worked for Clarence Thomas as his attorney/advisor when Thomas headed up the Department of Education.

When Thomas left to become chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Hill followed him to his new job.

Anita Hill was a career employee, not a political appointee, so she could have remained at the Department of Education. She worked for Thomas for three years before going on to become a law professor.

After leaving Thomas’ employ, Hill stayed in regular contact with Thomas until he was nominated for the Supreme Court. Suddenly, Hill “remembered” that Thomas had sexually harrassed her for years and years.

It wasn’t because Thomas was black. Anita Hill was black. It wasn’t because he was unqualified. His qualifications were impeccable.

It was because Clarence Thomas was a conservative.

The confirmation hearing was (accurately) described by Thomas as a “high-tech lynching”. Hill, represented by Janet Napolitano, very nearly derailed his nomination.

So it is no surprise that Napolitano was high on Obama’s list of cabinet officials. (I’m actually more surprised he didn’t nominate Anita Hill for Attorney General).

So Anita Hill’s attorney is now the head of the Department of Homeland Security. Her first official act was to rename terrorism to “man-caused disasters.”

Her second official act was to go abroad and accuse the former US administration of incompetence and dishonesty. She gave an interview to Der Speigel in which she said she to “move away from the politics of fear.”

Der Speigel’s interviewer immediately picked up on her point, saying, “This sounds quite different from what we heard from the Bush administration. How will the new anti-terror policy differ from the previous one?

Napolitano sniffed, “Our policies will be guided by authoritative information.”

You see? THAT’s the difference. The previous administration didn’t have ‘authoritative information’ so the previous administration thought it was terrorism, not man-caused disasters.

It was just dumb luck that the man-causing disaster-makers haven’t been able to mount any disaster-making operations since 9/11 (9/11 being ANOTHER term Secretary Napolitano says has been dropped from DHS’s official lexicon.)

No more terrorists, no more 9/11. That’s the politics of fear. Is anybody listening?

(Besides the ‘disaster-causing men’ that is.)


Since DHS doesn’t believe in terrorism anymore, and since Obama says terrorism is a law enforcement, rather than a military problem, the administration has come up with a new way to save money for the new budget.

Obama is suggesting that American military forces wounded in combat with disaster-causers ought to pick up their own medical expenses.

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed to the House and Senate committees on veterans affairs that the idea to bill veterans private individual insurance was being considered by the administration although he was quick to say it was not yet a formal proposal.

It is a consideration. It is not in the budget, but it is a consideration, and I’ll be sure that your concerns are delivered, Shinseki told the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

And again, we re talking — in health care — the two aspects of this are delivery of health care and the financing of it. This is about the financing. I want to assure you that there should be no concern about the delivery.

The VA says that there should be no concern about delivery of medical attention. Presumably, that means that the VA won’t toss a veteran out the door if he doesn’t have medical coverage. But if a Marine is wounded in combat, the VA will bill the Marine’s health insurance.

Suppose for a second that you are an insurance underwriter and a young Marine comes to you to apply for insurance before deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan.

You think your health insurance premiums are high?

The Obama administration says that it has to find some places to cut government costs. Making veterans pay for their own medical care will save the country $500 million per year, Obama says.

Five hundred million dollars? That’s chump change. AIG is about to pay out almost a third of that figure in bonuses to the employees that ran the company into the ground. (That’s taxpayer money, too. We own AIG.)

“I’d like to express our serious concerns that we have regarding the policy proposal that’s been discussed here today, elegantly referred to as third-party reimbursement for veterans with service connected conditions, Carl Blake, national legislative director for Paralyzed Veterans of America, said in a statement to the Senate committee.

I think the secretary’s testimony before the Senate this morning sort of affirmed our worst fears that this is something that the administration is seriously considering. We just simply find it unacceptable that a veteran would have his third-party insurance billed for conditions and in disabilities and injuries that were incurred while in service to this nation, said Blake.

Steve Robertson, legislative director for the American Legion, testified before the Senate last week about his concerns for the administration’s proposal.

Depending on the severity of the medical conditions, those medical insurance policies with a calendar year benefit maximum or a life-time benefit maximum could result in the rest of the family not receiving any health care benefits. Many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered.”

The Veteran’s Administration’s motto was lifted from Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address: “to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.”

Lincoln would be spinning in his grave. If I were still in the Marines, I’d be reconsidering my next move. Which is no doubt part of the plan. Just think of all the money we could save on military salaries if nobody re-enlisted.

What have we done?

Ignorance: The Higher Moral Ground

Ignorance: The Higher Moral Ground
Vol: 90 Issue: 16 Monday, March 16, 2009

Political Correctness, or “PC” is a term that applies to language, ideas, policies or behavior that seeks to minimize causing offense to identifiable minority groups. As a concept, political correctness has some merit.

But only as a concept. (Conceptually, communism has merit. Everybody shares equally.) In between concept and practice, however, one finds the sin nature of man. Communism would be a great idea, were it not for mankind’s ingrained senses of greed and selfishness.

Greed and selfishness is not something a person learns, but something that comes naturally that must be unlearned. The same applies to things like racism. Racism isn’t something a person is taught — it is something that must be untaught.

Studies with preschoolers have shown that one black child in a room full of white kids gets singled out for abuse by the other kids based entirely on the fact the black kid is ‘different’.

Researchers ALSO found that reversing the dynamic does nothing to change the outcome. A room full of black kids will turn on the white kid just as reliably.

Political correctness seeks to use the natural inclinations of humanity as a method of controlling the masses.

The originator of both the phrase and its application was that champion of the downtrodden, that hero of the underprivileged, that great thinker, orator and writer, the author of the Little Red Book, Chairman Mao Tse Tung of China.

“Correctness” in Marxist-Leninist thought is a reference to toeing the party line, called the ‘correct line’ and Mao Tse Tung insisted on it.

Pat Buchanan described its effect on Western society in his book, “Death of the West” as, “Cultural Marxism — a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance.”

It is politically incorrect to suggest any connection between same sex behavior and the spread of the AIDS virus, despite reams and reams of medical evidence to the contrary.

I’m not going to re-argue the evidence here — it wouldn’t be politically correct — but will instead point out the absolute insanity allowing a deadly disease to spread in the name of political correctness.

It is politically incorrect to oppose same-sex marriage, despite the biological evidence for marriage (its how we make and train new humans) and the social argument for marriage (we’ll all have to live with these newly trained humans one day).

It is politically incorrect to oppose abortion, easily one of the most egregious examples politically correct ignorance every foisted on a human society. One needn’t be a Christian to see what is wrong with abortion. One needn’t even be religious.

First, the argument is specious. Abortion proponents claim a ‘woman’s right to choose’. In 99.9% of pregnancies, the woman has already exercised her right to choose and that choice resulted in pregnancy. This is a special second ‘right to choose’ extended exclusively to the mother. Neither the father or the baby have any choice in the matter at all.

Even an atheist has as compelling a reason for opposing abortion as does the most devout Christian. Only half of the human race has ever had a baby — but we ALL were babies once. To argue that a fetus is not human is astonishingly self-delusional.

Left to itself, a fetus will never become a Chevrolet, a Doberman Pinscher or a coffeepot. Once the egg’s been fertilized, it can only become one of two things — a dead human fetus or a live human being. But it is politically incorrect to say so.

In fact, in many places it is not just politically correct, it is illegal.


If you are politically correct, then you believe in something called ‘moderate’ Islam. You’ve never seen it, can’t point out an example of it, but you’re sure that it exists.

In Islam, the “Sunna” records the words and deeds of Mohammed. Sunna is the words and deeds of Mohammed, the perfect pattern for all Muslims. The Koran says over 70 times that all Muslims are to imitate Mohammed in every detail of their life.

To that end, Islam has an enormous literature about Mohammed in the Sira (his sacred biography) and the Hadith (his sacred traditions). It is the model of Mohammed who determines what Islam is.

So if a Muslim imitates the Sunna of Mohammed, then that makes that Muslim a moderate within Islam. A Muslim extremist would go beyond Mohammed’s example, whereas a Muslim apostate would fall short.

The Koran makes up about 16% of the Islamic canon — the remaining 84% of Islamic doctrine is derived from the Sira and Hadith. The Hadith devotes 20% of its text to jihad, whereas 75% of the Sira’s doctrine revolves around jihad.

Sura 5:51 in the Koran says, “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

So if you, as a Christian, have a Muslim friend, either he disbelieves the Koran, or he wants you to believe that he does. By definition, by claiming to be your friend, he is either an apostate or a deceiver.

But that is not politically correct, even though it is factual. And not merely factual, but potentially life-saving.

But when it comes to PC, facts must submit to feelings. Ignorance is the higher, if not the highest possible, moral ground.

The less I know about Islam, the more I can defend it as “one of the world’s three great monotheistic religions. The more I know about it, the less defensible it becomes.

In our society, being politically correct is the same thing as being willingly ignorant. If you are PC, then you don’t know that racism is like greed or selfishness and must be unlearned. If you don’t know that, how will you know it must be untaught?

If you are PC, then you don’t know that the primary method of transmitting AIDS is through unprotected gay sex. Knowing a deadly disease’s primary mode of transmission seems important to preventing its spread, no?

If you are PC, then you’ve no problem with gay marriage and gays adopting and raising children. The remedy is to let gays adopt children on the assumption that growing up gay in America is harmless.

But you oppose second-hand smoke on the grounds it may cause respiratory problems in children. The remedy is to outlaw smoking anywhere in public on the grounds that children come first.

If you are PC, then you believe that if your child doesn’t want to pray in school, then the remedy isn’t to excuse your kid from prayer. The remedy is to not let ANYBODY pray.

If you are PC than you believe that abortion is a woman’s ‘right to choose’ but deny the choice is to kill her baby. If you are PC, you find no inconsistency between ‘right to choose’ and legal barriers preventing pro-life counsellors from coming with 100 feet of an abortion clinic.

Political correctness, as it is used by the politically correct, is a form of censorship that seems like the best kind possible. It seems to be rooted in the finest traditions of human behavior — language carefully worded so as not to give offense.

But like all human based traditions, it is fatally flawed. It assumes that offense is something that is given, rather than the factually correct position that offense is something that must be taken by the person claiming offense. You can’t offend me unless I let you.

Political correctness is a way that seems right unto a man. Abortion is politically correct. Denying any connection between AIDS and gay sex is politically correct. Denying that Christ is the only way to heaven is politically correct. Denying that Islamic doctrine is responsible for Islam’s murderous tendencies is politically correct.

The Bible is politically INcorrect. Proverbs 16:25 describes the appeal of political correctness, particularly as it applies to unregenerate man.

“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

The Obama Meltdown: “What Have We Done?”

The Obama Meltdown: “What Have We Done?”
Vol: 90 Issue: 14 Saturday, March 14, 2009

The Obama Meltdown: “What Have We Done?”

I have long been a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web” feature, produced by the delightfully witty James Taranto.

Although generally conservative in his outlook, Taranto got caught up with the Obamamania of the last election, and (in my view) took temporary leave of his senses and bought into the Obama myth that Obama was a ‘different kind of politician’.

On November 5, for example, “The Best of the Web” bore the headline, “America After Racism” subtitled, “An Ordinary Election, A Pivotal Moment in History”.

His November 6th headline read, “The Outsider: Why Obama Was The Right Black Candidate.”

A few more to make the point: November 13th, “Tell Us Everything: If You Want to Work for the Obama Administration, Prepare to Waive Your Right To Privacy.”

January 20, 2009’s “Unclench Your Fist” opened with the hopeful lines, “Those who’ve feared that President Obama will be a soft touch for tyrants and terrorists can take comfort in his Inaugural Address. . .”

January 29: “Dear Ayatollah: Will President Obama Go Postal on the Iranians?”

February 9: “The World Goes It Alone: We Are Ready to Lead Once More, Obama Declared. Will Anyone Follow?”

February 13: “Strike Three: Charges of Conservativism Sink Obama Commerce Nominee.” (This was about the time that I noticed Taranto was no longer calling him “President Obama” in his headlines.)

February 27: “It’s a Mad World: But We Elected Obama! Why Do They Still Hate Us?”

March 4th: “Obama’s Katrina?: The New President Seems Dangerously Out of Touch”.

March 6th: “Whence The Dither? Even Paul Krugman Is Losing Confidence in Obama”. (And clearly, so is James Taranto)

March 11: “The Wright Stuff: The Charles Freeman Fiasco Showed Why Obama’s Spiritual Mentor Mattered”.

March 12: “What Have We Done?: Obama’s Rush To Failure Leaves His Backers With Buyer’s Remorse”

And, finally, (drum roll please) the WSJ’s Best of the Web for yesterday, Friday, March 13th, 2009: “Please Get Serious, Mr. President! Obama Was Elected as a Crisis Manager, But His Interests Lie Elsewhere”.

(At least Taranto has resumed referring to Obama as ‘president’).


I chose James Taranto’s diminishing love affair with America’s first Post-Racial Change Candidate to highlight in today’s OL because Taranato so precisely reflects the disappointment felt by the millions of moderate conservatives who voted for Obama.

They voted against their core principles, hoping that maybe Obama really would put America’s racial past in the past, and that the change he promised really would be social justice instead of just another con.

Instead, Obama’s choice to head the Treasury, Timothy Geitner, was so toxic personally that neither he nor Obama can find anybody willing to join Geitner in filling any of the remaining 17 Deputy-Secretary positions at the Treasury Department.

The specter of tax cheat Geitner threatening a crack-down on tax cheats was more than even the most liberal crossover voter could bear.

The list of nominees for various Cabinet posts who were forced to withdraw because they were either embroiled in some scandal or another or had failed to pay their own taxes is much longer than those nominees who managed to be confirmed without incident.

Two months into his administration, Annette Nazareth, a former senior staffer and commissioner with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was said to have made “a personal decision” to pull out. If she hadn’t, she would have had to explain her role in letting the banking industry collapse on her watch.

Commerce Secretary nominee Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination after becoming embroiled in a corruption investigation and growing scandal in his home state of New Mexico. Senator Judd Gregg withdrew his name from consideration after Obama ordered oversight of the Census transferred from Commerce to the White House.

Nancy Killefer, who was slated to be Obama’s ‘performance officer” pulled out when it turned out she hadn’t paid her taxes. Tom Dacschle had to withdraw as Health and Human Services because he also owed hundreds of thousands in unpaid taxes.

Caroline Atkinson, the choice for Undersecretary of International Affairs, withdrew her name last week. And Obama’s newly confirmed technology chief, Vivek Kundra, is on leave following an FBI raid on his offices seeking evidence on corruption charges.

H. Rodgin Cohen was tapped to be Deputy Treasury Secretary. On Friday, he withdrew his name from consideration when his relationship with guys like Bernie Madoff were a bit too close for comfort.

There are almost 500 government positions that require Senate approval before a candidate can take the job. So far, Obama has only found thirty-four candidates that can make it past a Senate confirmation committee controlled by members of his own party.

Obama has declared the war with Iraq “over” without waiting to be sure if it is won or not.

He’s closed Gitmo without ever figuring out what to do with the enemy combatants housed there. And yesterday, he announced the US would drop the phrase ‘enemy combatant’ from its official lexicon.

How does one classify a terrorist captured on the battlefield now? Can he be interrogated without a lawyer present? Will Marines have to go to law school before they can go into combat?

“What have we done?” The answer to that question is the scariest part of the entire debacle. We’re still not sure.

But whatever it is, it is too late to do anything about it now.

Panic . . . Don’t Panic . . . Panic Again

Panic . . . Don’t Panic . . . Panic Again
Vol: 90 Issue: 13 Friday, March 13, 2009

We learned the other day that the global warming panic has been suspended for thirty years because it’s not as warm as we thought.

Today, I am happy to report that, according to the Panicmonger-in-Chief, the economic catastrophe is not as catastrophic as we thought.

(Hmmmm. Where have I heard that before?)

“A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and ooohh , we’re down on the dumps,” Obama said.

“And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment. I am the object in chief of this varying assessment.”

Actually, the President of the United States has been the one offering this ‘varying assessment’, not the object of it. But double-talk has already carried him from a little ACORN of a politician to the mighty oak he is today. It’s how it is deciphered that results in all the “varying assessments”.

“I don’t think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say,” he told reporters as he wound up for the pitch . . .

“Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They’re not as bad as we think they are now.”

What? You were just kidding? I know it is a bit unusual to applaud political double-talk, since it is meaningless by definition, but you just gotta put ’em together and applaud the nerve to offer it so boldly.

It’s never been about the economy. It’s always been about the agenda.

Remember that the first step in Hegel’s Dialectic is to identify the agenda you want to advance. The second step is to use the media and the bully pulpit to highlight a ‘crisis’ that only your agenda will solve.

There are the two competing arguments on Capitol Hill:

“If we don’t enact this nation-crippling environmental legislation right now, the oceans are gonna encroach on coastlines. Flooding will wipe out whole nations. It will get so hot and dry that we won’t be able to grow food. Worse, the polar bear population might be affected.”

REALLY? When?”

“In fifty years.”


“If we don’t enact special legislation to overhaul health care, reduce greenhouse-gas pollution, undertake major changes in energy policy, then America’s is on the precipice of a Great Depression so severe that the nation may NEVER recover.”

The Global Warming Catastrophe was working, until it started getting colder. And besides, while I care about the climate fifty years from now, I’ll be dead in fifty years. My need for a healthy 401k is a bit more urgent.

Therefore, the Economic Catastrophe is killer material — as long as you don’t overdo it and kill the economy off altogether.

Obama explained to the Business Roundtable, a group of top business executives, “I am not choosing to address these additional challenges just because I feel like it, or because I’m a glutton for punishment. I am doing so because they are fundamental to our economic growth, and to ensuring that we don’t have more crises like this in the future.

Obama said his health and energy changes would build a foundation for lasting recovery, arguing that the current economic crisis was precipitated by an “illusion of prosperity.” He told the business leaders he wants government to “right the ship” and then “let private enterprise do its magic.”

It was all just an illusion of prosperity.


The economic collapse was (and is) a crisis of confidence that has gotten steadily worse since the moment it became apparent that Obama would be the next president of the United States. To this point, instead of trying to raise public confidence, Obama has taken every opportunity to tell America what a mess things are in.

That seems counter-intuitive, given that Obama’s seemingly highest priority would be to put the economy back on track. But the administration has been pretty open about its intention not to let a good crisis go to waste.

“And my long-term projections are highly optimistic, if we take care of some of these long-term structural problems.”

All the double talk about not being too good two years ago and not being too bad now, but only if you considering underlying weaknesses, blah, blah, blah . . . was constructed to support the last five words, “these long-term structural problems.”

Which long-term structural problems? A complete overhaul of the health care system. Why is that such a big part of his agenda? Learn the lesson from Social Security.

Whenever the government wants to do something unpopular, all it need do is say failing to act threatens Social Security and suddenly, all the Gray Panthers are out there demonstrating in favor of whatever it takes to save Social Security.

But threats to Social Security are but a distant thunder to voters in their twenties and thirties. That’s the problem with entitlements. They are mostly targeted to the special interests.

Social Security for the elderly bloc, entitlements by race and ethnicity for immigrants and minorities, welfare entitlements for the poor and working poor, but what is really needed is some kind of universal entitlement that can get everybody’s attention.

Everybody gets sick. Universal health care knows no social boundaries. The trick is to make it ‘universal’. The Canadian system is the model. In Canada, in order to ensure everybody has equal access, doctors are forbidden to bill patients directly.

Patients are forbidden to pay doctors directly. This is to ensure that the wealthy get no special treatment because they can afford to pay extra. Rich and poor are served equally by the same system.

In Canada, whenever politicians want to get crazy, they just trot out universal health care and threaten to shoot it in front of the courthouse. Scares everybody equally. The result? Instant socialism. No referendum necessary.

But this is what I want you to see at work here. It is what Paul calls “the mystery of iniquity.”

Man’s willingness to believe anything, under the right circumstances. Man’s willingness to be manipulated by a smooth talker.

Paul says that the “mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way.”

I usually quote this verse in relationship to the Rapture, since that is the central point of the Chapter — to assure the Thessalonians that they didn’t miss it. Here, Paul is addressing how the mystery of iniquity will work during the Tribulation, AFTER the Restrainer is ‘taken out of the way.’

One of the striking things about the antichrist’s reign is its brevity. Jesus said that if the days weren’t shortened, there would be no flesh saved. The Antichrist has a long way to go and a short time to get there once the clock starts ticking.

2nd Thessalonians 2 is all about the infrastructure necessary for him to advance his agenda. “Long term structural problems” — like the mechanism to control the tiniest details of society like who they worship and their level of economic participation in society.

Paul lays it out in order of importance. First, the development of the social, financial and political infrastructure necessary. Then the control mechanisms. Then the religious falling away. Then the removal of the Restrainer.

The infrastructure is in place. The control mechanisms are currently in the process of ‘fine tuning’ some ‘long term structural problems’ but the basic mechanism is functioning. The rest of the Western world is well into its post-Christian era, and America is rapidly catching up with the Great Falling Away of the 21st Century.

Then comes the removal of the Restrainer.

“And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming. . . ” (2nd Thessalonians 2:8)

Non-Prophet Profits

Non-Prophet Profits
Vol: 90 Issue: 12 Thursday, March 12, 2009

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name.” (Revelation 3:7-8)

Of course, the ‘Church at Philadelphia’ of which Jesus speaks is not a church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Biblical Philadelphia was located about twenty-eight miles southeast of Sardis.

The city was founded in 189 B.C. by Attalus Philadeiphus, for whom it was named. Some believe it was so named because of the love and loyalty existing between Philadeiphus and his brother, the king of Lydia, hence the nickname, “The City of Brotherly Love”.

Philadelphia was also known as Decapolis, because it was one of the ten cities of the plain.

Philadelphia has been given a number of new names. It was sometimes called Little Athens because of the magnificence of its public buildings. Its modern Turkish name is Ala Shehr, which means The City of God or The Exalted City.

The modern US city of Philadelphia took its name directly from the Book of the Revelation. The name was chosen for its meaning, “The City of Brotherly Love” — and its commendation from Christ. It was a Church that had “not denied My Name” (Revelation 3:8)

The Philadelphian Church Age corresponded to the release of the common Bible issued by King James in 1611 through to the end of the missionary age, sometime around 1900.

Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” (Revelation 3:10)


“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth.”

The “New Thought” movement that swept Europe and eventually made its way to the shores of the United States ushered in the Laodicean Church Age — the “last days” Church.

That isn’t to say there are no Philadelphians left and that we are ALL members of the lukewarm Church of Laodicea. But it is the Laodicean Church that best fits the overall Church in these last days.

A historian wrote of the contrasts of Philadelphia and Laodicea. He said Philadelphia as a missionary center was successful because it was more interested in the message than the money.

On the other hand, Laodicea was a great failure as a missionary center because it was more interested in the profit than the message.

Turn on a little ‘Christian’ TV and you will immediately notice the similarities with Laodicea. Check out Christian websites and you will see the same thing.

How many lost people do you think will watch a televised 58 minute pitch for money followed by a two-minute altar call?

The only people who watch such stuff are Christians — no lost person gets saved by promises that sending $1000 to a televangelist will return you a profit of $9000.

That kind of for-profit ‘prophet’ merely confirms to the lost that all this ‘God-talk’ is designed to separate an idiot from his money. It edifies no one.

Five minutes into it, a lost person will change the channel.

Those TV ‘preachers’ aren’t reaching out to the lost, they are pandering to the saved. They are Laodicean preachers preaching to a Laodicean audience.

A Laodicean preacher realizes that an appeal to the highest level of spirituality doesn’t pay off as well as an appeal to our base nature of greed. So, if you send money to them, God will reward you with a ten-fold increase — in cash. It isn’t a gift — its an investment. (Why don’t they just send money to each other?)

A Philadelphian preacher puts the message first. A Philadelphian trusts the Lord. He would ask Jesus to speak to their hearts as to what should be given. It is from this obedience people are willing to give everything the Lord wishes of them.

There aren’t many Philadelphian preachers that ever get their own TV shows. I don’t know of any Philadelphian preachers that have their own private jets.

The same applies to Christian websites. If a website follows the Laodicean model, it is filled with flowery phrases, speaks ‘Christianese’, and talks more about the expense of maintaining a website than it does about fulfilling the Great Commission.

Read through some of them and ask yourself if YOU would have even understood what they were talking about, before you were saved, and you will see who their target audience is.

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:”

If they are more interested in checks than they are salvation testimonials, they are of the Church of Laodicea. A Laodicean preacher will preach what is politically correct in a social context, avoiding topics like Islam, homosexuality and false doctrines.

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

They pepper their messages with admonitions of what Christians ought NOT to do, but spend almost no time telling the lost what they NEED to do to be saved. Lost people don’t send contributions, Christians do.

That’s why they are on Christian TV and not secular TV where the lost people are. They aren’t seeking the lost.

There’s no ‘prophet’ in it.

The Prophecy Conundrum

The Prophecy Conundrum
Vol: 90 Issue: 11 Wednesday, March 11, 2009

In every generation of Christians since the time of the Apostles, there have been devout souls who have pored over the Scriptures, comparing the signs to the times and looking for evidence suggesting the imminent return of Christ.

In most previous generations, they were either revered as sages or dismissed as harmless nut-cases. But in this generation, something is different. Students and teachers of Bible prophecy find themselves in great demand or shunned like lepers.

Depending on how one receives the message, we are perceived as either hateful or hopeless, but we are certainly not harmless. In this generation, the first mental image most people have when they hear “Bible prophecy” is of a burning compound outside Waco.

It doesn’t matter that David Koresh was certifiably nuts or that he claimed to be Jesus Christ. To most people in this generation, “Bible prophecy” and “apocalyptic cult” are synonyms.

I typed in Bible prophecy apocalypse as Google keywords and the most popular returns all referenced 2012 in some way.

Very few actually had much to do with Bible prophecy, all of them had something to do with doomsday, and none of them offered much in the way of either understanding or hope.

Since the 1960’s ‘evangelical’ and ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘conservative’ have all sort of run together into an image that then-candidate Obama summed up (rather well, really) in his “bitter redneck” comment.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

When you get right down to it, there isn’t much about Bible prophecy that this generation should be eager to embrace. I feel for one of our younger members who lamented in one of our forums that we older folks at least knew what it felt like to have a future worth planning for.

I feel it for my own children. I came to Christ in my early 20’s. God called me almost immediately to be a watchman — my kids grew up never expecting to grow up.

My son Rick will be thirty-one in August. I can still hear him in my memory, his squeaky voice just beginning to crack, asking me if I thought the Lord would tarry long enough for him to learn to drive.

I’ve been expecting the Rapture to take place at any second now for almost my entire Christian life. Every new event seems to signal that ‘this is IT!” but then it isn’t. I get my hopes up, and then I realize that my reach has exceeded my grasp.

I am not alone — I am one of an entire generation of similarly disappointed Christians who keep listening for a trumpet that never sounds. This collective disappointment is reflected by a number of recent surveys that suggest Christianity in general, and evangelicalism in particular, are on the wane in the United States.

Michael Spencer, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, paints a rather grim picture of where he sees American evangelical Christianity headed, not just in the United States, but the Western world.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the “Protestant” 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I’m convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

This is perfect example of the “prophecy conundrum” — that’s pretty much the way the Bible predicted it, too.

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”


“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 because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” (Matthew 24:12)

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2nd Peter 3:3-4)

Prophecy is knowledge of future events — and that has considerable weight. If you don’t believe knowledge has weight, think back to some time when you were in deep trouble when you were a kid and you were waiting for a punishment you KNEW was coming.

You already knew what you did. That was past. But punishment, although certain, was still future. Weighed heavily on your mind, didn’t it? (Multiple puns intended to make the point)

Knowledge has weight. And some knowledge is heavier than other knowledge.

The end of the world is a fairly heavy subject.

The knowledge imparted to students of Bible prophecy in this generation is almost crushingly heavy — I believe that is the reason that the Lord promises a special crown to those who willingly shoulder its burden.

“Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the Righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing.” (2nd Timothy 4:8)

Watching God work has another unexpected consequence. It tends cause us to see ourselves in the reflected light of His glory –and it isn’t a pretty sight. Sometimes when that happens, it also manifests itself in one of our forums.

There was an entry by a brother just the other day lamenting his spiritual condition before the Lord. He begins by confessing he is ‘haunted’ by the fact he isn’t sure he is saved.

Let me address that brother first, before returning to the wider issue at hand, since we all struggle with that issue at one time or another.

If you can follow me around this mental circle. . . If I DIDN’T wonder if I was saved from time to time, THAT would be a reason to worry. I KNOW how far short of the glory of God I come. I know me in my innermost, darkest places.

If I was God . . . well, let’s just say that it is a good thing for ME that I’m not.

So if I started to think that I was good enough to be saved, and that’s why I wasn’t wondering, then maybe I wouldn’t be.

Stay with me, here. This is one of those circular thoughts that, once you get it, slings you out the other side where the light is better.

If you are wondering how can it be that you are saved, as unworthy and unfit as you are to be saved, then by those very doubts you qualify as one of God’s redeemed.

“Amazing love! How can it be, That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” When John Wesley penned the words to that hymn, he was haunted by his sin, too.

When God works all around you, when you watch Him change the course of nations, set up and tear down rulers according to His Word, when you actually witness Him manipulating events to conform to His prophetic outline, it tends to remind you of who you ought to be before Him.

There is another lesson taught by prophecy that is often overlooked — not who you ought to be, but who you actually are before the Lord.

He knew, down to the tiniest detail, what you would be thinking and doing as you committed the worst and most unforgivable thing you ever did in your entire life — and He saved you anyway.

You are the one that He loved so much that He paid the penalty for all yours sins on Calvary so you and He could be friends for eternity.

You are the one He loved so much that He told you, in advance, what to look for in the last days, so you wouldn’t be scared.

“Let not your heart be troubled. Ye believe in God. Believe also in Me.”

There is a crown of righteousness laid up for you and me at the Bema Seat as a special reward for carrying the weight of what we know and being willing to share it while there is still time.

I believe that Michael Spencer is right. The end of evangelicalism is close — it’s no more than a trumpet note away. We can see it. We can feel it. The weight of this sin-sick world is too heavy for us to bear for much longer.

Which is why, praise the Lord, we won’t have to. He’s coming.

Panic. Hibernate. Panic Again.

Panic. Hibernate. Panic Again.
Vol: 90 Issue: 10 Tuesday, March 10, 2009

It was only three years ago that Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” won an Oscar from Hollywood and a Nobel Peace Prize from Sweden.

Gore’s crusade against global warming began with the publication of his book, “Earth in the Balance” which, as I recall, was anything but convenient for Gore when it was released.

Gore was running alongside Bill Clinton as two Baptists from the Deep South. Each made much of their Baptist-ness during the campaign, making sure to be photographed every Sunday carrying their big, black Bibles.

Each quoted Scripture frequently, if not accurately. At the ’92 DNC convention, Clinton told the audience, “Scripture says eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man the things that we can build.

Actually, Scripture says, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him,” assuming Bill was attempting to quote 1st Corinthians 2:9.

Al Gore also quoted Scripture, (or claimed to), in his acceptance speech, in which he thundered, “In the words of the Bible, do not lose heart. This nation shall be renewed!” (He made it up. Sounded good, though.)

The problem for Gore was that his just released “Earth in the Balance” was about as Southern Baptist as his quote was Biblical. (He dedicated a whole chapter to discussion of the earth goddess Gaia, for example.)

Al Gore’s religion was supposed to be Southern Baptist, but there he was spouting New Age nonsense like some tuned-out college pothead, earning the nickname, “the Ozone Ranger” from his opponent, George HW Bush.

As a Senator, Al Gore was just another New Ager with influence, but no genuine individual power. BUT, as Vice President, Al Gore had enormous input into the doling out of government research money.

Once the word was out that research confirming global warming got more grants than research that questioned the premise.

By the mid 1990’s, Vice President Gore’s reputation was rehabilitated.

New government research showed that, rather than being a New Age nutcase, Al Gore was really an environmental visionary, one who read the signs and got it right when everybody else got it wrong. The science was now settled.

As Vice President, Al Gore “symbolically” signed the Kyoto Treaty on November 12, 1998, in defiance of a Senate vote (95-0) against ratifying the treaty. He’s spent the decade since blaming the Bush administration for failing to implement it.

Despite the documented inaccuracies in his “Inconvenient Truth” it is still presented as fact in classrooms around the country.

People who scoffed at the New Age “Ozone Ranger” in 1992 now bend the knee to him as a senior statesman and environmental expert.

Last year, Gore warned ominously that “we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.”

Wow. Ten years. And after two decades of conditioning, Gore’s warning carried lots more weight in 2008 than it did when Noel Brown of the UN’s Environmental Program first issued it in 1989.

Brown warned back then that “there was a 10 year window of opportunity” to stop the runaway train of global warming. Al Gore said in 1999 that failure to ratify Kyoto within ten years would cause irreversible damage to the environment.

But now, with a liberal socialist president finally in office, America is starting to listen.

1989: “We’ve got ten years to clean up the environment before its too late.”

1999: “Ok, we got ten more years to clean up the environment before its too late. “

2008: “Ok, you guys. We got ten more years to clean up the environment. But this time, we really mean it.”

2009: “America is in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. I propose a cap and trade system to pay for a global cleanup of the environment within the next ten years.”

It reminds me of a Henny Youngman joke: A doctor tells a man he’s got six months to live. The man says, “Six months? That’s crazy! I can’t even pay off your bill in only six months.”

The Doctor says, “Ok. I’ll give you another six months.”


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

According to a column published by Discovery Magazine, now that the whole country is convinced that Al Gore was right all along and we’re convinced its out patriotic duty to pay more for everything from a shoelace to a quart of milk in order to finance the fight against global warming, darned if global warming didn’t just go into ‘hibernation’.

We wish we knew why, and how to restart it, or something, but it’s just too confounded confusing to explain. Writes Michael Reilly:

Earth’s climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.”

So, all the things that allegedly cause global warming, umm, don’t? Are we about to invest a significant portion of our national wealth (er, debt) to fight against something that isn’t actually doing anything?

Well, maybe. Maybe not. It depends on whether or not you need another six months. . .

“This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn’t have one.”

Instead, Swanson and colleague Anastasios Tsonis think a series of climate processes have aligned, conspiring to chill the climate. In 1997 and 1998, the tropical Pacific Ocean warmed rapidly in what Swanson called a “super El Nino event.” It sent a shock wave through the oceans and atmosphere, jarring their circulation patterns into unison.

How does this square with temperature records from 2005-2007, by some measurements among the warmest years on record? When added up with the other four years since 2001, Swanson said the overall trend is flat, even though temperatures should have gone up by 0.2 degrees Centigrade (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) during that time.

This is seemingly a pretty significant report, when one considers the source is the evergreen, environmentally-conscious-to-a-fault Discovery Channel, True Believers all.

We used to be just ten years from irreversible catastrophe. But then it stopped getting warmer about ten years ago. Even the True Believers can’t ignore the evidence.

But the same New Age thinking that gave us global warming first gave us evolution. (Quick, how would an evolutionist explain such a glaring discrepancy? “. . . I’ll give you another billion years. . . “)

“It is possible that a fraction of the most recent rapid warming since the 1970’s was due to a free variation in climate,” Isaac Held of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Princeton, New Jersey wrote in an email to Discovery News. “Suggesting that the warming might possibly slow down or even stagnate for a few years before rapid warming commences again.”

Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it’s just a hiccup, and that humans’ penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.

“When the climate kicks back out of this state, we’ll have explosive warming,” Swanson said. “Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.”

So in about thirty years, it will get really warm. Bang. Just like that. But for now, buy some environmentally friendly biodegradeable sweaters so you won’t be bankrupted by the increased energy costs in the freezing meantime.

And if global warming doesn’t come charging aggressively back, bang, just like that, in thirty years?

Well. . . we’ll give you another thirty years.

OK- The Sky is Falling . .

OK- Now The Sky is Falling . .
Vol: 90 Issue: 9 Monday, March 9, 2009

OK- Now The Sky is Falling . .

In September of last year when Lehman Brothers filed for what was then the biggest bankruptcy in the United States, the Dow dropped a whopping 504 points.

On that same day in September, Senator John McCain lost the 2008 Election with these words: “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

Ironically, McCain was right. The ‘fundamentals’ of our economy didn’t change — a better word description might be to say the fundamentals of the economy were exposed. America discovered that it had been mugged.

And like an angry mugging victim thirsty for revenge, it lashed out as much at the cop on the beat for not preventing it as it did the muggers.

The muggers became linked in the public mind with the Republicans – something the Dems had been cultivating since the Pelosi/Reid takeover of Congress in 2006.

One can argue all day about how the Republicans are responsible and how Obama inherited a bad economy, but the facts are neither Republican or Democrat.

When Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid announced in 2006 that they were going to fix the “Bush economy” the “Bush economy” had enjoyed more than 55 months of steady growth.

When the new Congress was seated, the Dow was celebrating the recovery of all its losses since 9/11, closing above 11,000 for the first time since. This isn’t partisan stuff, this is history.

In January, 2006, George Bush was a lame-duck president presiding over a Congress dominated by the other party. It was after Pelosi/Reid seized the majority and started fixing the Bush economy that it began to roll over, not before.

It doesn’t matter what political party one belongs to, the history is still the same.

If there was a first domino that set all the rest of them in motion, it was pushed over after control of the Congress was handed to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.


The Democrats began running for president long before they had a candidate, and they said from the beginning that their strategy was to focus on the ‘Bush’ economy — which, as noted, was up to that time in pretty good shape.

Here’s the thing to understand about the US economy. It isn’t a ‘thing’. It isn’t a person. It is you and me. It rises or falls depending on how much confidence we have in it.

If I don’t think my money is going to be safe if I leave it in the stock market, then logically, I am going to take it out and put it somewhere less risky.

So if somebody I admire and trust (like my Congressional leaders) tell me that the market is about to tank, and someone I’ve grown to despise and distrust (Evil Bush) says the market is safe, I have two reasons to pull my money out.

The first is to protect my investment. The second is to poke my thumb into the eye of somebody I hate (Evil Bush).

Multiply me times all the Evil Bush-haters that both feared for their wealth and enjoyed making Bush look bad who pulled out of the market and you have the beginnings of a recession.

After awhile, even those less enamored of Pelosi/Reid and less distrustful of Evil Bush are going to worry about their 401ks and rethink their exposure on the stock market. Which makes the numbers shakier and a recession more likely.

Keep shaking confidence by attacking the ‘Bush recession’ during the election campaign and the market will keep going down. Now here is where politics plays a role.

The Left campaigns mainly on handouts to the poor and taxes on the ‘rich’. Let’s define ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ as is applied in political theory.

‘Rich’ means white, middle-aged working professional couples, with no kids still at home.

(To the taxman, grandparents backed by a lifetime of investments and purchases are ‘rich’ — even if they earn no more than a working couple just starting out.)

By our mid-50’s we’re as professional as we’re gonna get, and we’re making about as much as we can ever hope to, which we are trying our best to make stretch into our retirement.

‘Poor’ means single-parent families on food stamps, young parents still learning their skills earning entry-level salaries, and two-parent unskilled working couples with children.

There are more poor people who want handouts than there are ‘rich’ who want to fund them, the more the Left can demonize the ‘rich’ the more votes they can get from the poor.

That is not partisan politics. It is accepted political theory as was applied in recent political history.

When the ‘rich’ realized that the next likely president was going to be an ardent socialist, the ‘rich’ started yanking their retirement funds out of the stock market and steering them into what they hoped were safer investment vehicles.

All through the presidential campaign season, the market unravelled as nervous investors pulled out enough money to expose the crooks in the system. In August, Barack Hussein Obama secured the nomination for president.

In September, the unemployment rate jumped to its highest level in 5 years. As Obama began to outline his economic plans, more and more investors fled the market. By mid-October, it was going into free-fall.

On the day Obama was elected, the market had fallen from its peak of 11,000 when the Dems took over Congress to just over 9,000. By Inauguration Day, it had fallen to 8,000.

It has fallen by 1,400 points per week for every week Obama has been in office. If it continues to fall at the current rate it will be at zero before the end of April.

What is curious about this is the fact that Obama continues to talk down the economy, knowing the effect his words are having. If the President STILL says your retirement money isn’t safe in the market, what do you do? And what effect does that have on the market?

So, WHY is he still slamming the economy?

Obama — or his advisors, know the history of American recessions and how Americans get out of them. Or deeper into them. Higher taxes and increased government spending have the same effect on a national economy as compensating for a pay cut by spending more on your credit cards.

Nations can’t borrow their way out of debt any more than individuals can. He knows that. So he is proposing a ten-fold increase in spending, funded by borrowing from the future and taxing present wealth, knowing it will only make things worse.

What is the end game? Rahm Emmanuel explained it over the weekend on TV. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

Especially a crisis that was more than two years in the making. It’s already paid off — big time — so why rein things in now?

Things are just starting to go their way.