“The Plebians Are Coming!”

“The Plebians Are Coming!”
Vol: 95 Issue: 31 Monday, August 31, 2009

“Humpty-Dumpty sat on the wall / Humpty Dumpty had a great fall / All the King’s horses and all the King’s men / Couldn’t put Humpty together again”

Edward Gibbon is known in academic circles as the first modern historian of ancient Rome. Gibbon published his “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” in six volumes.

The first of the six volumes was published in England, coincidentally enough, in 1776.

At its zenith, the Roman Empire was the largest and most powerful political, military and economic power the world had ever seen — the only power even remotely comparable in history is the United States.

The children’s poem “Humpty-Dumpty” is about the fall of Rome and the succession of kings and emperors who dreamed of restoring its Imperial glory.

Gibbon blamed the collapse of the Roman Empire on the gradual erosion of civic virtue among its citizens. It succumbed to the barbarian invasions because it had grown fat, dumb and happy, outsourcing their defense to mercenaries and selling off their individual liberties in exchange for government handouts — the ‘bread and circuses’ scenario.

Politically, Gibbon blames three primary forces; popular complacency, the increasingly-expensive demands on the public purse, and the popular persecution of Christianity.

The Roman Republic was born out of revolution; Rome was a republic that emerged following the violent overthrow of a monarchy.

The Roman Republic was structured around a strong constitution. It was designed with a complex system of checks and balances so powerful that they served as a model for the US constitution 2300 years later.

The purpose was not to establish a simple democracy, but a representative form of government. That system operated under the principle of the rule of law and was therefore resistant to the whims of the majority.

But, as the society “advanced,” professional politicians began promising rewards in exchange for votes. Roman government was divided into the Senate and the Plebian Council.

The Senate consisted of members of the Roman aristocracy. The Plebian Council was open to those of important economic position, like farmers and artisans, but of lower social rank.

(Like the European systems of aristocracy and commoners. Or the Marxist system of bourgeoisie and proletariat. Or America’s ‘progressive’, rich vs poor.)

About 300 years into the Roman Republic, around 200 BC, Rome suffered a major economic crisis. The Plebians demanded a bailout — which the Senate refused. As city-dwelling Plebians fell further into debt, farmers could no longer sell their produce and unemployment continued to rise.

That sparked a Plebian Uprising in which the Plebians took over the Senate, promising to bring “change” to the system of government. People started voting for politicians who promised bailouts from the public treasury.

The final decades of the Roman Republic were marked by ever-increasing dependence by the average Roman citizen on the government, together with regular tax increases to pay for all the entitlement programs.

Eventually, the Republic was ‘reformed’ and ‘changed’ into pure democracy where the public could vote themselves benefits they had not earned. In 44 BC, a general whose greatness was measured by his generosity with the public purse was installed as perpetual dictator for life.

Julius Caesar came to power by promising change. His popularity was greatly enhanced when he introduced food subsidies to the general population and distributed free land to former soldiers on retirement.

He introduced the modern concept of ‘czars’ — unelected officials whose appointments could be by-passed by the legislature. Within a decade, the Roman Republic was history.

It would take another two thousand years for the world to see its equal.


Every single government in history, no matter how powerful, no matter how noble, has eventually succumbed to same fatal flaw as its predecessors have. The problem with government isn’t its ideals. It is the fact that it relies on people to advance them.

Historically, an empire-in-decline shares five major characteristics. They were evident in the four great world empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome.

1. Moral Decline. Declining sexual morality, aversion to marriage in favor of cohabitation, increasing divorce rates were among the hallmarks of Roman decline.

Wrote Roman satirist Seneca about Roman women; “They divorce in order to remarry. They remarry in order to divorce.”

The historian W.H. McNeill has referred to the “biological suicide of the Roman upper classes” as one reason for Rome’s decline.

Aberrant sexual behavior becomes publicly acceptable and spreads, such as was common among the ancient Greeks before their conquest by Rome. Additionally birth rates declined and abortion rates increased as family size was deliberately limited.

2. The exploitation of women under the guise of ‘equality’. The Roman satirist Juvenal was horrified at the sight of female gladiators, athletes, etc. Every empire in history began its decline with the blurring of lines of gender, which has the effect of denigrating the bonds of family.

It is a popular myth that women can fulfill the traditional role of wife and mother on a part-time basis. But it is a myth. In the name of equal rights, women now have to pay for their own dinners, open their own doors, work full time, even serve in combat. The resulting generation of latch-key kids are the dubious ‘beneficiaries’ of this social ‘breakthrough.’

3. The invasion of foreign ‘workers’ within its borders. The Romans would hire foreigners (barbarians) as mercenaries to fight other barbarians. (You know, to do “those jobs that Romans wouldn’t take”.)

The result was eventually, the barbarians outnumbered the Romans. It is as obvious as it is inevitable.

4. The politics of low expectations. “All politicians lie!” is a good example. Another is the expectation that all politicians will get rich off the system.

People get tired of being disappointed and just give up expecting any better. They turn to mindless distractions, entertaining themselves and medicating themselves with drugs, alcohol, sex, and immersing themselves in decadence.

5. The embrace of entitlements. Ancient Rome had food subsidies, the coliseums, the theaters and the arenas, all courtesy of the government. Of course, the wealthy had to pay for all the distractions to placate the poor through ever increasing taxation.

Eventually, however, bleeding out the wealthy created more poor to be subsidized. Again, in hindsight it is as obvious as it is inevitable.

If I did this right, I shouldn’t have to point out any more historical parallels. I ought to be able to assume you already see them all as clearly as I do.

The point isn’t that history is repeating itself. It is painfully obvious that it on track to do just that, assuming there were enough time for the current scenario to play itself out to the end.

But according to Scripture, there isn’t.

History has repeated itself many times over as part of a pattern. The Lord has pretty much allowed man to prove to himself that human government is an illusion.

The Dispensation of Human Government began with Noah and has continued down through the ages to this present time without boasting much by way of improvement. The history of mankind has been marked by a period of more-or-less unceasing warfare.

I read somewhere that there were nineteen years of war for every year of peace in human history and that there hasn’t been a moment of genuine world peace since the end of the 19th century.

According to Bible prophecy, the Dispensation of Human Government runs through to the 2nd Coming of Christ at the end of the Tribulation Period.

Each effort by man to govern himself will have proved itself to be a total failure. Including the final and most ambitious effort, the global government now under construction.

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 2:44)

Faith Without Works Is Dead

Faith Without Works Is Dead
Vol: 95 Issue: 29 Saturday, August 29, 2009

“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” (James 2:17-18)

The second chapter of James, often called the “works” chapter, seems to contradict other places in Scripture that salvation is by faith and stands independent of works.

Paul writes to the Galatians; “I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:21)

To the Ephesians, he writes; “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

And to the Romans, Paul writes: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”

Then, just about the time you think you’ve got this whole thing figured out, somebody whips out James 2:20: “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”

And you’re right back where you started. A recent email illustrates my point:

“But this very issue keeps me on the edge of my seat. . . I am nowhere nearer understanding it than I was 40 years ago. Doesn’t this verse prove that one must have works to go along with their faith? As usual, I am completely confused.”

We’ll get back to James in a minute. First, let’s deal with the confusion. “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1st Corinthians 14:33)

The Apostle Paul outlines the “whole armor of God” (Ephesians 6:13-17) with which Paul says “ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” Paul names truth, righteousness, peace, faith and salvation as the Christian’s defensive weapons.

In Paul’s day, armor had to put on in a particular sequence in order for all the parts to fit together properly. And until one was properly armored, one didn’t pick up one’s sword.

The last defensive weapon one puts on before picking up the Sword of the Spirit is the helmet of salvation. In hand to hand combat, the quickest way to win is to score a head shot. Stun your opponent and his sword is useless to him.

What then, is the ‘helmet of salvation’ and how does it protect you in combat with the enemy?

The most fearless warrior is the one who is certain the odds are with him. That’s why Paul equated the head with salvation. The first area that the enemy targets is one’s perceived position with God.

Satan means ‘accuser’. If the enemy can convince you that you aren’t worthy to share the Gospel, you won’t.

So his primary focus is to convince you that you aren’t really saved. Every time you pick up the Sword to explain the Gospel to somebody else, it cuts you and you put it back down.

Is this not logical? If you are in constant conflict and turmoil about your own failures to live a perfect life, what time do you have left to tell other people about Jesus?

And if you aren’t sure whether or not you are truly saved, how convincing are you going to be? And finally, how joyful are you about your salvation?

Don’t forget the context of this war we’re in. The enemy can’t touch you directly without seeking permission from God. (Job 1:12) You’re beyond his reach, but tactically, you are still a threat that needs to be neutralized.

If he can’t get through your armor (truth, righteousness, peace and faith) then maybe he can stun you by attacking you at your weakest point.

“Am I really, truly saved?” . . . “Was I ever truly saved?” . . . “Am I saved at this moment?” . . . “I am completely confused.” . . . “Hi. Let me tell you about Jesus. . . ”

If you aren’t convinced about your own salvation, you’re not going to be very convincing sharing it with somebody else. Score one for the enemy side. That’s why Paul’s epistles are so filled with references to eternal security.

Paul was called to be the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 18:16, 22:21) and was trained in his calling by Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:16)

Here’s the point. It is important to understand that the epistles of Paul, James, Peter and John are letters written to different churches with which each was intimately acquainted.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians in the context of their local customs, culture and conditions. He approached the Romans in the context of their own cultural understanding. His letters to Timothy were written in the context of a teacher to a beloved student.

Peter was a Galilean. His epistles were primarily addressed to the Jews of Galilee who were steeped in a thousand years of customs and traditions and understandings and written in that context.

James was the Lord’s Brother — and that fact tended to color most of his teaching. Perhaps consequentially, a faction emerged within the early Church, led by James the Lord’s Brother and supported by Peter, that argued that Gentile Christians should have to convert to Judaism and obey the Law in order to become Christians.

On the other side was the Apostle Paul, who put forth the opposite position that the Law was fulfilled in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I don’t want you to take my word for it. The dispute was aired in its entirety in Scripture. The disagreement over legalism was the reason for convening the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35) Here are the high points:

“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 15:1-2)

(“No small dissension and disputation” is Bible-talk for a HUGE doctrinal fight.)

The Jerusalem Council was convened to settle the issue. The Council heard first from Paul and Barnabas, then Peter and James.

Peter largely agreed with Paul in this instance, asking the Council why they would seek “to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (15:10)

On the other side of the question, James eventually settled for a watered-down form of legalism, saying that Gentiles needed only follow three Jewish laws.

“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” (Acts 15:19-21)

These three exceptions indicated James believed Gentiles should be bound by those portions of the Law of Moses intended for Gentiles, which roughly coincided with Judaism’s Seven Noachide Laws.

They were derived by the rabbis from Genesis 9:1-17 in which God charged Noah and his sons to replenish the earth:

“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” (Genesis 9:3-4)

This argument continued, back and forth, for some time within the early Church. It is one of the things about the Bible’s narrative that argues for its truthfulness — it tells the story as it happened, warts and all.

Paul tells the story of the Confrontation at Antioch between Peter and Paul over James and his followers.

“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. . . But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:9-10)

Paul’s chief complaint was that Peter would “eat with the Gentiles” until the followers of James showed up, when Peter would suddenly get all legal again.

Paul called that “dissembling” — the dictionary defines ‘dissembling” as concealing one’s true motives, feelings or beliefs” — a pretty serious charge to lay at the feet of two Apostles.

Not just any two Apostles, but Peter the first Apostle called, and James, the brother of Jesus. Those are the two he accused of dissembling.

“For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. ” (2:12-13)

Notice that even Barnabas, who was commissioned with Paul, got carried away into legalism, separating himself from the Gentiles. Paul lowered the boom on Peter and James, whom he accused of not walking upright according to the truth of the Gospel.

“But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (2:14)

Paul then presented his argument in favor of salvation by grace through faith to his two toughest critics, James and John.

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (2:16)

The entire six-chapter Letter to the Galatians was a refutation of legalism and salvation by works.


Understanding Scripture in context goes a long way towards rightly dividing the Word. The ministry of James and Peter was to the Jews, whose unique relationship with God went back to the time of Abraham.

The ministry of Paul was to the Gentiles whose gods and goddesses were mainly a matter of social intercourse, not eternal matters of faith and salvation.

Peter and James were burdened with explaining that the Gospel of Christ was not a refutation of Moses and the Prophets. That the liberty of Christ was not the embrace of a false god.

They had to explain to people who lived all their lives under the 613 rabbinic Commandments that obedience to the Law would not save them.

That is not to say that James and Peter are doctrinally untrustworthy. The books they penned were composed long after the Jerusalem Council or Confrontation at Antioch.

Doctrine continued to be harmonized as God provided the revelation and consequently, no Book of Scripture contradicts another. James does not contradict salvation by faith nor does he preach salvation by works.

In understanding what James means in the “Works Chapter” you first have to get a grasp of what constitutes “works” from God’s perspective — as opposed to ‘works’ from the perspective of an observant Jew.

God’s entire plan for the ages is about only one thing — your salvation. “The Lord is not slack concerning His promises, as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”( 2nd Peter 3:9)

Nowhere in Scripture that I can find is God’s will so perfectly and succinctly expressed as in this verse. It’s all about your salvation. And once you’re saved, the next guy’s salvation — something the Great Commission makes your responsibility.

The Bible lists the fruits of the Spirit. Those “fruits” are evidence of salvation but they are not a prerequisite. You don’t first get the fruits and then later get the Spirit. It works the other way round.

And there is but one ‘work’ that bears fruit — work that brings about the salvation of a lost sinner.

This is the only direct expression of God’s universal will that I can find in Scripture — the salvation of the repentant. It is the only thing we can logically do for God. We are saved by grace through faith but we are obligated to spread the Gospel. We are His messengers by Divine Appointment.

Every work is judged at the Bema Seat for rewards according to whether it serves God’s will or our own. Our faith is demonstrated by our works, James says. “. . . shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. ”

That is different than faith PLUS works. “. . . faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

Faith can only be demonstrated by works. Works do not demonstrate salvation — or the Pharisees would have been saved without Christ.

It is works as a demonstration of faith that James is discussing here, not works as a requisite element of salvation. First comes faith and faith is demonstrated by works. Works are a byproduct of faith, a person who is saved is spiritually compelled to see others saved. But works can’t save somebody who is already saved by faith.

The fruit of our works, when taken to its logical conclusion, can only be those we lead to Christ. “Even so, faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” James 2:17)

What does that mean? Consider an orchard of peach trees. All of them are bearing peaches except one tree that can barely manage to produce leaves. As a peach tree, it is ‘dead’ even though the tree itself may just be withered and barren and unable to produce fruit.

But it is STILL a tree!

A person whose faith does not bear fruit has a dead (unproductive) faith. He will stand before the Bema Seat without receiving any crowns, Paul says.

“If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1st Corinthians 3:14-15)

Note, however, that he is still standing before the Bema Seat. His salvation was not effected by his lack of good works or by the preponderance of his bad works. His salvation was effected by his faith that Jesus did for him what he could not do for himself.

Faith without works IS dead. That is clear enough, when one understands it in context. That’s why Paul says to put on the helmet of salvation first.

So that you don’t cut yourself on your Sword — before you have a chance to do any works worth bragging about.

The Bible as History

The Bible as History
Vol: 95 Issue: 28 Friday, August 28, 2009

The Palestinian Authority’s chief Islamic judge issued an official ruling on Wednesday saying that essentially everything in the Bible is wrong. The Jews didn’t settle Jerusalem. David didn’t buy the land upon which the Temple was constructed from Ornan three thousand years ago.

David didn’t found Jerusalem. Jerusalem wasn’t sacked by Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews weren’t taken captive for seventy years. King Artaxerxes did not issue an order to restore the city and the Temple.

In fact, according to Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, “Jerusalem is an Arab and Islamic city and it always has been so.”

Of course, for that to be true, more than half of Jerusalem’s history would have to be erased, since Islam is less than fifteen hundred years old.

Tamimi claimed that all excavation work conducted by Israel after 1967 have “failed to prove that Jews had a history or presence in Jerusalem or that their ostensible temple had ever existed.”

That statement is so ridiculous as to be laughable. But nobody laughed.

Tamimi accused Israel of distorting the facts and forging history “with the aim of erasing the Arab and Islamic character of Jerusalem.” He also accused Israel of launching an “ethnic cleansing” campaign to squeeze Arabs out of the city.

Again, nobody laughed, despite the PA’s insistence that the West Bank be ethnically cleansed of Jews as a condition of ‘peace.’

“By desecrating its holy sites, expelling its Arab residents and demolishing their homes and confiscating their lands and building settlements in Jerusalem, Israel is seeking, through the use of weapons, to turn it into a Jewish city,” he said. “This is a flagrant violation of all religious, legal, moral and human values.”

The mere mention of those values in the same breath as his statement about Jerusalem’s history is stomach-turning.

As noted, if Tamimi’s statement is true, the Bible is a work of total fiction. None of it can be true. Jesus was not a Jew. Pontius Pilate wasn’t the Roman procurator of Judea. Jesus was not Crucified. There was no Resurrection.

The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 by Titus and the Romans could not have happened. There was no Temple.

The Jews were not banished from the Holy Land. There were no Jews living there. The thousands of historically-verified anti-Jewish pogroms never took place. The Holocaust is a myth.

Christianity is a myth, since it is founded on the belief that a Jewish carpenter named Jesus was crucified on a hill just outside the walls of Jewish Jerusalem six hundred years before Mohammed.

Worst of all, you are dead in your sins and you have no hope of salvation.

Unless you convert to Islam and are killed in the act of murdering as many unsuspecting infidels as possible.


When asked of the signs of His coming, the very first thing the Lord said in reply was, “Take heed that no man deceive you.” Deception is one of the hallmarks of the last days — it is the single most important factor in the coming of the antichrist. Everything about him is rooted in deception. The antichrist is like a con-man.

Everybody knows you can’t con an honest man. None of these get-rich emails from Africa offering to make you a millionaire if you’ll help some rich Christian steal millions from some war-torn African country could work without first finding somebody else willing to steal millions from a war-torn African country.

The same applies to the dying Christian from Ubangi who wants to leave his millions to a worthy ministry — if the worthy ministry doesn’t mind breaking a few banking laws. For a con game to be successful, the victim has to be as crooked as the con man. (That’s why so many go unreported.)

Once the ‘mark’ justifies in his mind that everybody else is dishonest, he has crossed a threshold. If you expect everybody to deceive you, you become more tolerant of it. It is the principle of the Big Lie.

For example, the UN regularly condemns Israel for human rights abuses on “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The charges against Israeli ‘occupation’ are made so often that it MUST be true. Even when it can’t be, as in the case of Tamimi’s pronouncement.

Why CAN’T it be true? Well, for one thing, if Israel is occupying Palestinian territory, where is it? What are the borders of Palestine and what parts of it are being occupied by Israel? Hamas runs the Gaza Strip. The West Bank territories are a de-facto Palestinian state — the PA even has its own president and prime minister. The only part under Israeli control is Israel. Which, according to the Chief Islamic Judge of the Palestinian Authority, is occupied Palestinian territory.

It is so lopsided as to make one dizzy. Even the United States is beginning to use words like ‘occupied Palestinian territory’ to describe Israel.

It is more than coincidental that, with all the international problems facing the UN, it cannot tear its focus away from Israel.

It couldn’t if it tried. They aren’t even sure why they are so obsessed about it. They just are — to the exclusion of all the rest of the world’s problems combined.

We’ve talked about Hitler’s principle of the Big Lie before. One could summarize it by saying if one repeats a lie enough times, it eventually becomes the accepted ‘truth’.

It is almost like mass hypnosis; “Israel is the Occupier. . . Israel is the Occupier . . . Israel is the Occupier. . .” and before you know it, WHAT Israel is ‘occupying’ is secondary to the need to ‘end the occupation’ — which is all Hamas is after, so why blame them?

Its insanity. It makes absolutely no sense in the natural. But it fits perfectly with Bible prophecy.

The Bible predicted that, in the last days, the whole world would be focused on Jerusalem, to the exclusion of almost anything else. According to the Prophet Zechariah, “in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” (Zechariah 12:2-3)

Until this year, it it was hard to imagine a scenario in which Israel would stand alone against the entire world. Israel’s protector and international guardian has always been the United States. But that’s changing, too.

According to a new poll, only four percent of Israeli Jews believe that the Obama administration is pro-Israel. A majority of Israelis believe he’s biased in favor of the Palestinians.

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5% so the four percent that actually have faith in the Obama administration may not even exist. In any case, they are statistically meaningless.

A year ago, it was a mystery to me how the US could ever abandon Israel. Only a year ago, the same poll found 88% of Israelis considered the US administration to pro-Israel, 7% said it was neutral and just 2% labeled it pro-Palestinian.

Only three months ago, 31% labeled Obama pro-Israel, 14% considered him pro-Palestinian, 40% said he was neutral, and 15% declined to give an opinion.

This week’s poll essentially says that pretty much every Jew in Israel believes there is good reason NOT to trust the President of the United States or any member of his administration.

Leaving Islam’s religious duty to hate the Jews aside for a moment, what excuse works for the civilized world? Israel is the only working democracy in the Middle East.

It is the only nation in the region that affords its citizens basic human rights, full representation in government, freedom of speech and religion and is, by far, the powerful and most prosperous nation in the entire Middle East.

So why is it the most hated government on earth? Why is it the most often-censured by that bastion of democracy, the United Nations? Why is it the recipient of global criticism, while its dictatorial neighbors, like Jordan, are feted as strong allies of the West?

How can it be that more resolutions of censure have been aimed at Israel by the UN than all the Islamic countries of the world combined? Why would the world side with an openly terrorist organization against the only legitimate, western-style democracy in the Middle East?

Why is it that when Israel puts up a fence to protect itself from bombers, the world condemns Israel’s fence without saying A SINGLE WORD about the reasons that make it necessary?

There can be only one answer possible. The world hates the Jews more than it hates totalitarianism, Islamo-facism or terrorism. No other answer explains why Israel consistently ranks in global polls as ‘the most dangerous nation on earth’.

What makes Israel’s continued existence so dangerous? Israel has the population of New York City and has spent all of its existence since 1948 fighting a war FOR its existence against those repressive Islamic dictatorships.

Bible prophecy for the last days goes beyond the Church Age and outlines how God’s plan for the national redemption of Israel will be accomplished. According to Bible prophecy, in the last days, the most hated nation on earth with be Israel, and the most contested piece of real estate on earth in the last days will be the city of Jerusalem.

According to the prophet Zechariah, “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto ALL THE PEOPLE round about, when they shall be IN THE SEIGE both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for ALL people: ALL that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE EARTH be gathered together against it.” (Zechariah 12:2-3)

Until about the end of the 19th century, few people could point to Jerusalem on a map — most believed it was a lost city from the ancient world. Today, it is the focal point of global attention to the exclusion of all else. What happens in Jerusalem is more important to world peace that what happens in Baghdad, Kabul or even Moscow.

But most people could not tell you why they hate Israel. Neither can the leaders of the western democratic countries can identify why Israel is more of a pariah nation in their eyes than Syria or Iran. They just know that every bad thing that happens is somehow related to their level of support for Israel.

The Bible says that, in the last days, Israel will stand alone, without a champion, against the combined armies of the world, for a twofold reason; to reveal Himself to a lost and dying world, and to reveal Himself to Israel.

“Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD.” [Ezekiel 38:23]

“So the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward.” (Ezekiel 39:22)

Israel is the only western democracy in the Middle East. It is desperately seeking allies from among the western nations without success. The world is focused instead on creating an ally out of Israel’s most implacable enemy. The fact that they are terrorists dedicated to Israel’s destruction is strangely irrelevant.

Absent the Bible’s outline for the last days, can you find any way to make any of it make sense to you? Me neither.

Bring in the Bible’s scenario, and it fits like a glove.

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” (2nd Peter 1:19)


Vol: 95 Issue: 27 Thursday, August 27, 2009

To listen to the mainstream liberal press — not to mention the US government, the CIA and US military are infested by sadistic torturers and Guantanamo Bay is reminiscent of Saddam’s torture chambers.

That’s according to an Inspector General’s report — one that is based primarily on classified secrets. (Or they used to be secrets.)

Well, it was sorta like Saddams’ torture chambers, except there weren’t any implements of torture, nobody got hurt, and the purpose was to prevent innocents from being murdered, rather than protecting a regime.

But except for that, and a few other things, like not using rape as a method of interrogation and not killing anybody’s kids in front of them, it was a lot like Saddam’s torture chambers.

Oh, and nobody had cigarette butts ground out in their skin and stuff like that, but several of the interrogators did use second-hand smoke as a torture weapon. Two of them blew cigar smoke into a detainee’s face. Oh, the humanity!!!

The IG’s office described this smoke-blowing as one of several “unauthorized or undocumented techniques” that it discovered had been used in isolated incidents by CIA employees interrogating high-level al-Qaida terrorists.

For example, Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri was the mastermind of the USS Cole attack that claimed the lives of 17 US sailors on October 12, 2000.

“An Agency (redacted phrase) interrogator admitted that, in December 2002, he and another (redacted phrase) smoked cigars and blew cigar smoke in al-Nashiri’s face during the interrogation,” said the IG report.

The IG, however, was unable to clearly establish that the smoke-blowing was intended to force Nashiri to cough up what he knew about al-Qaida’s plans.

“The interrogator claimed they did this to ‘cover the stench’ in the room and to help keep the interrogators alert late at night,” said the IG report. “This interrogator said he would not do this again based on ‘perceived criticism.’ ”

“Another agency interrogator admitted that he also smoked cigars during two sessions with al-Nashiri to mask the stench in the room. He claimed he did not deliberately force smoke into al-Nashiri’s face.”

Thank goodness! What kind of people are we employing to keep us safe? And just LOOK at what they are willing to do to accomplish that.

Blowing smoke in a guy’s face! Such rudeness is unconscionable!

Remember Khalid Sheik Mohammed? He planned, financed and oversaw the September 11th attacks that killed 2,974 innocent civilians in a matter of two hours on a sunny late-summer morning on the East Coast.

In that attack, hundreds of Americans leaped hundreds of stories to their deaths, choosing the mental terror of free-falling to their deaths over the agony of burning to death.

The IG report says that CIA interrogators told Khalid Sheik Mohammed that if there were any more attacks against America, “they would kill his children.”

“An experienced agency interrogator reported that the (redacted) interrogators threatened Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (redacted),” said the IG report.

“According to this interrogator, the (redacted) interrogators said to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad that if anything else happens in the United States, ‘We’re going to kill your children.’ According to the interrogator, one of the (redacted) interrogators said (redacted).”

Ummm, so?

There haven’t been any more attacks against America. And nobody killed Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s children, so it is a zero-sum game. So what’s the problem?

If it were up to me, Khalid Sheik Mohammed would have been (redacted) a long time ago. None of these guys were particularly concerned about the suffering they inflicted on the passengers of the four aircraft. Or their childen. Or the thousands who were killed when the planes struck the WTC and Pentagon.

This isn’t a case of revenge. It is a case of self-defense. Most people have already learned this lesson by second grade. If you fight for your lunch money, you might get a fat lip, or you might give the bully a black eye.

If you give up your lunch money to the bully, you’ll be going without lunch for the rest of your grade-school career.


Question: What was the whole Gitmo thing about again? Was it about protecting the bully? Or was it about ending the lunch money extortion racket?

Until the liberals captured the White House, it was about preventing further attacks.

Including plans to “loosen spikes in an attempt to derail a train,” “blow up several gas stations to create panic and havoc,” “hijack and fly an airplane into the tallest building in California in a west coast (sic) version of the World Trade Center attack” and “cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York in an effort to make them collapse,” according to the IG report.

It is time for a reality check. The various interrogators at Guantanamo are NOT members of some criminal enterprise or terrorist group. They are NOT unfeeling, brainwashed religious fanatics seeking the deaths of strangers as a means of making a political point.

They are Americans. They are volunteers. They are men and women who have sworn to put themselves between us that those that would do us harm. They are our children, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces.

They face an enemy that would kill them with no more remorse than if they were insects. They face an enemy whose hatred of them, (and the folks back home) is so intense, so implacable, that any of them would gladly die if they could kill an American in the process.

It wouldn’t matter if the American were a member of the uniformed services, a CIA spy, a grandmother or a school teacher or a cute little fourth-grader with curly hair and dimples in both cheeks. As long as they died. That’s all that matters to them.

In the eight years since the attacks on September 11, these men and women have managed to prevent al-Qaeda from striking the US. In the eight months since taking office, the Obama administration has done everything possible to disarm and disable the mechanisms that are keeping us safe.

The premature withdrawal from Iraq has given al-Qaeda a green light to reestablish themselves there. The micromanagement of the war in Afghanistan by the civilians in Washington has the commanding general on the ground predicting that the US is facing defeat at the hands of the Taliban.

Now the CIA has been stripped of its lead role in questioning terrorists. AG Eric Holder has appointed a special prosecutor to try and ferret out the ‘bad apples’ who tortured detainees by blowing cigar smoke in their faces.

Not one single detainee has sustained physical injury, according to the IG report. The interrogators are not criminals. They are genuine American heroes.

Still, the Attorney General is planning to prosecute these heroic men and women whose job it is to keep us safe, ostensibly for not being nice to those who want to kill us.

Why in the world would he do that? What is the end game? Under what kind of logic would the Commander in Chief undertake to emasculate the very agencies whose tactics have proven effective in protecting America for eight years?

I keep thinking back to Gerald Celente’s ‘false flag’ scenario.

Celente’s method is proprietary, but in general, Celente’s team analyzes current events and current trends and uses the results of those analyses to produce their forecasts. Celente isn’t a prophet, he is an analyst. But he’s a good one. His record is impeccable.

Celente’s Trends Research Institute has successfully predicted, (among other things): the Crash of 09, the Panic of 08, the Tax revolts, the collapsing dollar, the soaring prices of gold . . . Celente also predicted the Recession of 07 back in 1999 — the same year he predicted the US would go to war with Iraq. And lose.

Trend Forecast: Before the momentum of the “Second American Revolution” becomes unstoppable, it could be derailed through some false flag event designed to deceive the public, or a genuine event or crisis capable of rallying the entire nation behind the President.

In a worst-case scenario, according to Trends Research Institute Director, Gerald Celente, “Given the pattern of governments to parlay egregious failures into mega-failures, the classic trend they follow, when all else fails, is to take their nation to war.”

Celente’s forecast fits well with the Apostle Paul’s. Celente forecasts where things are headed for the near future. Speaking from the distant past, the Apostle Paul explains why:

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come, For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof . . .” (2nd Timothy 3:1-5)

Special Report: The Third Element

Special Report: The Third Element
Vol: 95 Issue: 26 Wednesday, August 26, 2009

The body is only one third of what God created in the Garden of Eden. God created the body out of the dust of the earth. The body is the first element of man. It is a physical shell.

Then God breathed into his nostrils, and man became a living soul. The soul is the second element of man. That’s the part that makes you ‘you’.

The Third Element is mentioned in Genesis 1:11 when God says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . ”

What does God look like? “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” (John 1:18)

“God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)

“And He said, Thou canst not see My face: for there shall no man see Me, and live. . . And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with My hand while I pass by: And I will take away Mine hand, and thou shalt see My back parts: but My face shall not be seen.” (Exodus 33:20,22-23)

But we are in His likeness. That is the third element — the spirit. That is the component of man to which God was referring in the Garden when He said, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17) On that day, Adam’s spirit ‘died’.

What does it mean to say an immortal, eternal spirit ‘dies’? If it is eternal, how can it die? We use the phrase, ‘a fate worse than death’ as a modifier for something so horrible as to be humanly unimaginable.

Because truth be known, it is impossible for the human mind to conceive of a fate worse than death.

Death is unknown, so it is impossible to measure something known against it. That’s why we use it to describe something unimaginably horrible. That is the sense in which spiritual death is understood. It is a fate worse than death. Death is an ending.

Spiritual death is eternal torment, eternal separation from God, eternal nothingness. . . you are written off as dead by God. You wrote Him off as dead in this life. You aren’t separated from God at death — you were never joined to Him in the first place.

You had your chance. You made your choice. You will never hear from Him again. There is no reprieve, no appeal. But you continue to exist. Eternally.

Recently, my pastor, Ed Smith (a brilliant man who sometimes reads this column) used one of Clarence Larkin’s charts to illustrate that point.

I’ve always loved Larkin’s charts. Larkin was a man truly gifted with both a double measure of understanding and double measure of the gift of teaching.

Larkin beautifully illustrates the three parts of man.

The outer ring is the body. This is the physical part, the part that dies. But while we are here, the body serves as the sensory input to the soul. Larkin labels the senses as the “Eyegate” “Eargate” “Nosegate” etc because those are the gateways to the soul — for both good and evil.

Because that is our only sensory input, that is all we have to work with.

In Larkin’s center ring is our soul, wherein dwells the natural man. The soul consists of the mind, will and emotions. It is the ‘ghost’ in the machine.

It is the part of you that makes all the other parts yours. It is uniquely yours. It is God-breathed. It will continue to exist after your body dies, whether you are saved or not.

Now, look at the inner circle. This is the Third Element. This is your spirit. Notice that Larkin’s drawing is of a new creature — indwelling Larkin’s spirit-man is the Holy Spirit of God.

Let me summarize this all before going on. I want you to really see this.

The body is in the outer ring and it is the sensory gate that feeds the soul. The spirit is in the center and it is the sensory gate through which the Holy Spirit communicates with us. “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:” (Romans 8:16)

When we die, the soul and spirit separate from the body and the body’s sensory input. The Bible tells us that our soul doesn’t sleep, but remains conscious; Paul tells us that;

“Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (for we walk by faith and not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” (2nd Corinthians 5:6-8)

I want you to see all that this teaches. The first is the most obvious since it is most often-quoted; ‘absent from the body, present with the Lord’ but see the Bigger Picture as well. When in the body, we are absent from the Lord. Our sensory inputs are limited to the five gates of the carnal body.

Most of us are spiritually blind. We hear the phrase often enough. Think of what it means. It refers to the sensory input we get from the center of our being, from the center of Larkin’s inner circle, where our spirit is.

At the center of the natural man’s the spirit is dark. It is totally blind to the things of God. The natural man can be spiritual; the world is filled with spiritual people who are in communication with the spirit world. But they are not in communication with the Spirit of God.

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

The natural man can thrash about trying make a spiritual connection, but he is just thrashing about blindly hoping to latch on to any spiritual passersby.

Understand the function of your spirit. It is your sensory input to the things of the spirit. The quickened, or regenerated spirit is in contact and communion with the Spirit of God. Absent the body, the spirit becomes the eyes and ears of the soul.

When we die, the body’s sensory gates close, but the spirit’s sensory gates swing wide-open. We (that is, the soul, the part that makes you ‘you’) remain aware of what is going on. (Absent from the body, etc. . .)

So when you die, the spirit functions much as the body did, as the primary sensory gateway into the soul.

Look at Larkin’s chart again. First, your middle ring was being fed from the outer ring. Now it is being supplied with sensory input from the inner, spiritual ring where the Holy Spirit sits.

Or not. If the spirit is dark, then the soul has no source of sensory input. The spiritual, but lost person who was thrashing about blindly in this life? We’ll come back to him momentarily.

We are half blind in this world. Our souls only know what they can learn from the sensory input of our carnal, physical bodies. Our spirits are capable of just enough faith to invite the Holy Spirit in, which then quickens us and opens up our spiritual ‘eyes’.

When we get our resurrection bodies, we will receive sensory input from both sides. Both the physical and the spiritual. The reason that at the Rapture, the dead in Christ rise first, is that they’ve been waiting half-blind for theirs.

Right now, Paul says, “we see through a glass darkly. . but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1st Corinthians 13:12)

Imagine at the Rapture, when we who are alive and remain suddenly start getting unrestricted sensory input from both our resurrection bodies and our eyes-wide open quickened spirits! It is a spectacular thought.

Back to the less-spectacular thought of the soul who dies without the quickening of the Spirit. His soul has lost its physical sensory input. His spirit is dark, dead, and incapable of getting any spiritual input. But at the Great White Throne, that soul will also receive a resurrection body.

Remember the function of the body and spirit. They are the gateways to the soul.

That lost soul will have his physical sensory input restored to him just before being cast alive into the Lake of Fire. There, he will be deprived of spiritual comfort, since his spirit is dead, but his resurrection body will be eternally alive.

And his soul, the part that makes him who he is, will spend eternity thinking about how he blew his chance to escape his fate while his spirit aches to see the God he rejected.

The body is not what its cracked up to be. It’s really only a temporary life support system and communications center that connects the soul to this physical world. The part that makes you ‘you’ is the part that makes the body work.

The body isn’t life to the soul. The soul is life to the body.

“But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.” 1st Thessalonians 4:13)

“I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well” (Psalms 139:14)

Barely To the Left of That First Colon . . .

Barely To the Left of That First Colon . . .
Vol: 95 Issue: 25 Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Barely To the Left of That First Colon . . .

You probably thought that the debate over the improbably-named ‘Fairness Doctrine’ was over. After all, Barack Obama did promise back in February that he would oppose any effort to bring it back.

Before going any further, let’s take a closer look at the Fairness Doctrine. What can possibly be wrong with a doctrine of fairness? The problem is what it has always been.

“Fair” is a call in baseball. What is fair is not always what is true. In politics, “fair” means ‘on my side’ — just as ‘truth’ means ‘unfair characterization’.

Teddy Kennedy is asking the Massachusetts legislature to repeal a law that forbids the governor from appointing his successor.

Current law provides that, if Kennedy cannot complete his full term, a special election would be held at least 145 days after the seat becomes vacant. Kennedy fears leaving the Democrats one vote shy of its filibuster-proof 60-seat majority.

The Massachusetts governor used to have the authority to appoint a replacement to the seat. But in 2004, John Kerry was running for president and Mitt Romney, a Republican, was in the governor’s mansion.

Kennedy feared Romney might appoint a Republican to Kerry’s seat if Kerry were elected. So he spearheaded an effort in the Massachusetts legislature to pass a law requiring a special election — to prevent Romney from appointing Kerry’s replacement.

Now that the law Kennedy wanted in 2004 hinders what Kennedy wants in 2009, Kennedy argues that the law is not ‘fair’ and wants it repealed.

Kennedy is a strong supporter of the “Fairness Doctrine.”

Kennedy epitomizes the definition of ‘fairness’ — as it applies to the Fairness Doctrine.

Another example from the same election cycle shows why a government imposed ‘fairness doctrine’ is unnecessary.

The Sinclair Broadcasting Group planned to broadcast “Stolen Honor” highlighting John Kerry’s inflated war record and his post-war embellishments. Given the timing, the public thought it was unfair.

Sinclair’s stock fell by 17% overnight. Sinclair retreated and pulled the documentary. The public wasn’t partisan or necessarily favored John Kerry. The public defines fair and expresses its opinion via the marketplace or the ballot box.

The “Fairness Doctrine” is an effort to usurp that authority and hand it over to the same liberals that currently control such fair-minded government-mandated entities as the National Endowment for the Arts or the Public Broadcasting System.

What is the ‘Fairness Doctrine’? It was the policy of the Federal Communications Commission, introduced in 1949, to ensure the coverage of controversial issues be fair and balanced.

The ‘Fairness Doctrine’ was adapted from the ‘Mayflower Doctrine’ that prohibited television and radio from editorializing.

The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees,” and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.

The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues.

With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine. The ‘scarcity’ argument that dictated the ‘public trustee’ philosophy in 1949 was no longer valid — given the number of independent television and radio stations were in existence by the 1980’s.

In 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment.

In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.

The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year and the Left went ballistic.

An informed public is the last thing the Left wanted to see. Within five years of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, they lost their Congressional majorities — for the first time in forty years.

The Fairness Doctrine was among the Left’s most cherished propaganda tools. Since every conservative viewpoint had to be balanced by a liberal viewpoint, few media outlets wanted the hassle of the FCC’s censors nagging them all the time.

So they opted for music or entertainment programming. Once the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, there was an explosion of new talk radio programming.

Since the repeal of the policy, conservative commercial talk radio stations now outnumber liberal talk radio stations by a factor of more than ten to one. Without a government mandate that forced people to listen to left-wing propaganda if they didn’t want to, the only sane way to explain the imbalance in numbers is market preference. If they don’t have to, they don’t want to, and so they don’t.

To the Left, that is wildly ‘unfair’. Everybody from Al Gore to Al Franken has complained about how unfair it is that there are so few liberal talk radio stations. Everybody from Al Gore to Al Franken has pledged to turn that around by taking the airwaves to correct this unfairness.

Alas, the marketplace doesn’t want to hear all the mean-spirited, anti-American, anti-Christian, foul-mouthed liberal hate speech that made Air America the success that it isn’t today. And that’s not ‘fair’ according to the proponents of the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’

The way they see it, if people won’t listen to liberal talk radio voluntarily, then they shouldn’t be allowed to listen to conservative radio either. Alternatively, a law that forces them to listen to liberal propaganda will do. That’s ‘fairness’ in action — and the doctrine that defines it.

In the spring of 1987 (when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress) they voted to put the Fairness Doctrine into law– creating a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not.

When it reached his desk, President Reagan vetoed it. It was reintroduced during the Bush administration, but was vetoed by Bush.

Clinton lost the Congress in 1994 to the Republican Revolution before the Congress had time to reintroduce it. There was talk of reintroducing it when the Dems recaptured Congress in ’06, but they knew Bush 43 would veto it as quickly as his father did.

Things have changed. There is a Far-Left liberal in the White House and the Far-Left is currently in control of the Congress. And the return of the Fairness Doctrine is now as certain as weddings in June.

So, despite Obama’s assurances in February, it should come as a surprise to no one that Obama has appointed a “Diversity Czar” within the FCC.

Mark Lloyd is the co-author of a Center for American Progress report in 2007 entitled, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” which concluded that 91% of talk radio programming is conservative and 9% is progressive.

The Center for American Progress is funded by George Soros, the billionaire liberal whose previous contributions to fairness in public communications include Moveon.org.

By virtue of his own published words, Diversity Czar Lloyd is virulently Marxist, as racist as either Obama, Reverend Jeremiah Wright or Professor Gates have proved themselves to be, and a champion of government regulation.

Just the kind of guy you’d want guaranteeing a diversity of views, provided they are Marxist, anti-white, anti-American and heavily-censored.

Lloyd’s philosophy is not equality of opportunity, it is equality of outcome:

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level, Lloyd wrote in his book.

Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded. . . This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters.

In other words, a station’s licensing fee should be equal to their annual operating budget, to be redistributed by the government among less successful (liberal) broadcasters.

Lloyd’s stated plan is to bankrupt successful conservative and Christian broadcasters and give their stuff to public broadcasting. That’s fair, isn’t it?

To the Left, ‘fairness’ means ‘censorship’ and ‘diversity’ means ‘enforced propaganda’. They believe that freedom of speech must be mandated by government in order to be ‘fair’. . . and overseen by the government in order to maintain ‘diversity’.

It is like we’ve stepped into the Twilight Zone. But this one is real.

We’re in that place where the natural and the supernatural touch — that place the Apostle Paul was talking about in 2nd Thessalonians 2:7 — the ‘mystery’ of iniquity.

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He Who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way.”

To the right of the colon in 2nd Thessalonians 2:7 is the place where He Who now ‘letteth’ will ‘let’ until He be taken out of the way.

Today, we seem to be just to the left of it.

The word translated “let” is katecho in Greek. It has two meanings. The first is “to hold back, retain, detain or restrain.” The second is “to take possession of.” See Strong’s G2722

So no matter how one chooses to interpret the verse, “He” cannot be anyone other than the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit both restrains iniquity and indwells, or takes possession of the Christian.

We’re currently in that Twilight Zone-like ‘mystery of iniquity’ area — still to the left of the colon, a mysterious time in which good is called evil and evil is called good, and when nobody seems to be able to tell the difference.

And how it all happened right before our eyes is still a mystery to those of us who are saved. It will likely remain a mystery to us until after the Holy Spirit is withdrawn — together with the vessels He occupies.


The Al Gore Prophecy

The Al Gore Prophecy
Vol: 95 Issue: 24 Monday, August 24, 2009

Sun spots are the relatively cool dark spots that appear periodically in groups on the sun’s surface. Sun spots are associated with strong magnetic fields, sometimes as much as three thousand times the sun’s average magnetic field.

Sun spots are caused by these magnetic fields, which take on a tubular shape and run perpendicular to the sun’s equator. Since the sun rotates faster at its equator than at its poles, the magnetic ‘tube’ is stretched out in an east-west direction which creates ‘kinks’ that push out through the solar surface. These kinks emerge as sunspots.

The sun goes through two 11-year periods of activity known as the solar minimum and solar maximum. Solar maximum is the period when the sun’s magnetic field lines are the most distorted due to the magnetic field on the solar equator rotating at a slightly faster pace than at the solar poles.

The sun takes about 11 years to go from one solar maximum to another and 22 years to complete a full cycle (where the magnetic charge on the poles is the same). Each of these cycles has its own minimum and maximum periods.

The current 22-year cycle began on November 1, 1990. The 11 year solar maximum peaked in 1999 and in 2001, the sun entered its eleven-year minimum cycle. The full 22-year cycle concludes in 2012.

In October 2003 , the Omega Letter reported on “Sunspot 484” a sunspot ten times larger than the Earth that caused a radio blackout on October 19th.

Larry Combs, a forecaster with the NOAA Space Environment Center s Space Weather Operations, said that this region has developed rapidly over the last three to four days. It s somewhat unusual to have this much activity when we re approximately three-and-a-half years past solar maximum, he said. In fact, just last week, solar activity was very low with an almost spotless sun.

The November 4, 2003 issue of the Omega Letter opened with these words: “The sun erupted three more times in less than 24 hours, bringing the number of major eruptions to nine in less than two weeks. Scientists have been monitoring the solar cycles since 1755. There has never been a string of activity like this.. . .”

The September 12, 2005 Omega Letter discussed the unusual eruption of seven separate solar flares during the midpoint of the current Solar Cycle 23’s minimum cycle. We noted then that;

By the midpoint of 2000, the number of solar events peaked about 400% above normal. . . . What is particularly fascinating is what is emerging as a pattern of unusual solar activity, dating to about 1948, as noted by the American Institute of Physics in its bulletin number 658 published in 2003 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James Riordon. ”

(Let me draw your attention to three interesting ‘coincidences’ before moving on. The strange signs in the sun began around 1948. They peaked around 2000 and the current cycle concludes in 2012.)

In August, 2005, Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans during the most active hurricane season in recorded history. What Katrina missed on the Gulf Coast, Rita and Wilma finished off.

We closed out that year discussing the Asian tsunami that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

The earthquake that caused it was so powerful that it moved the island of Sumatra 100 feet to the southwest of its original location. It caused the planet to vibrate like a tuning fork. It actually interfered slightly with the planet’s rotation, causing microscopic rift in time itself.

By the beginning of 2007, Al Gore had the country convinced we were headed into an ecological disaster of unparalleled proportions due to man-made global warming.

His movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” won him both an Oscar and, inexplicably, a Nobel Peace Prize.

Unfortunately for Al, that was the year Global Warming ended. Desperate to keep the the gravy train on track, Gore and his followers quickly renamed it from “global warming” to “climate change”.

Or, as it is known to the lay person, “weather”.


Solar activity dropped to zero in 2007, just about the same time that Al Gore learned just how inconvenient the truth can be. When the sun is active, the solar system (including Earth) gets warmer.

When the sun is inactive, it gets cooler.

It seems that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the sun is responsible for global warming, but that’s like saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that marriage was intended for a man and a woman.

It might be obvious, but that won’t make any difference. People will believe what they want to believe, not necessarily what is true.

In any case, according to astrophysicists, the next solar maximum is due to peak sometime around 2012. But the current period of solar inactivity has gone on well over two years, and some astrophysicists are beginning to worry.

About 100 of them from all over the world converged on Montana State University to attend an international solar conference to discuss the phenomenon. “It continues to be dead,” said Saku Tsuneta of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. “It’s a dead face.”

Canadian scientist Kenneth Tapping of the National Research Council noted the sudden collapse of solar activity, but refuses to speculate.

Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian National Academy of Scientists is not so shy. He believes the world is about to enter another Ice Age.

Sorokhtin calls man-made climate change a drop in the bucket compared to the effect the sun has on the earth’s climate.

But this isn’t about global warming. It’s about Bible prophecy. Among the signs Jesus gave of His soon return was that of climate change. Well, not exactly. More the FEAR of climate change.

“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 . . .”

“Distress” is a synonym for “fear” and “perplexity” is a synonym for “confusion.” Attach “fear” and “confusion” to “the sea and the waves roaring” and you have Al Gore’s manmade global warming scam.

“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)

Just think of it!

For two thousand years, these verses have been studied and exegeted and studied some more as scholars through the ages tried to ferret out Jesus’ intended meaning through allegory and symbolism. But like all prophecy for the last days, it was intended for the generation that would see it unfold.

Who knew Al Gore was in the Bible?