Special Report: ”The Doctor Will Kill You, Now”

Special Report: ”The Doctor Will Kill You, Now”
Vol: 107 Issue: 19 Thursday, August 19, 2010

A number of liberal US states including (unsurprisingly) California have concluded that the best way to deal with the state’s growing drug problem is to help it grow. 

Any growth industry is evidently an improvement and marijuana is California’s largest cash crop.  

Recent polling by Zogby in May demonstrated that a majority of Americans, say it “makes sense to tax and regulate” marijuana. The Zogby poll, commissioned by the conservative-oriented O’Leary Report, found 52 percent in favor of legalization, only 37 percent opposed.

According to the deplorable Huffington Post , a previous ABC News/Washington Post poll found 46 percent in support of legalizing pot.

In California, a Field Poll found 56 percent backing legalization and as a result California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for an open debate on legalization, all which suggests that American society may be reaching a ‘tipping point’ when it comes to legal pot.

In Oakland ‘entrepreneur’ (or drug dealer, depending on one’s perspective) Richard Lee founded something called “Oaksterdam University” to “prepare people for jobs in the cannabis industry.” Lee was profiled by MSNBC explaining his philosophy on selling drugs.

“My basic idea is to professionalize the industry, and have it taken seriously just like beer and distilling hard liquor.”

To that end, Lee has begun an effort to gain enough signatures to qualify putting pot on the statewide ballot as the “Control, Regulate and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”  The act would legalize possession of small amounts of pot for personal use.  

Adults over 21 could legally possess up to one ounce of the drug and will be allowed to cultivate and grow as much pot as will fit in a five foot by five foot space. I did a little checking to see how much pot one can grow in a space that size.  

According to one website, that is enough room to produce about a pound of pot every couple of months.   That is a lot of pot — more than could be smoked by a single user. 

Which raises two immediate questions. 

The first is how the state would hope to tax the pot somebody is growing in their basement.  Some kind of honor system?  A place on your income tax form where you enter the weight of the pot you grew last year?

The second is what happens to the excess pot?  If every pot head in California grew a pound of pot every couple of months, that’s more than they can use. 

Can they sell it?  Well, no.  Only licensed pot growers will be allowed to sell it, which will keep the illegal drug trade going in the rest of the country.

“Oaksterdam” should take a look at how the drug experiment is working out in its (nick)namesake city in Holland.  The Dutch are looking at ways to unring that bell now that Amsterdam and other Dutch cities have become the destination of choice for narco-tourists.

Holland legalized most recreational drug use years ago and Amsterdam’s thirteen “coffee shops” that sell marijuana and hashish now serve as many as 2 million narco-tourists per year. 

Big money, but all that’s gold does not glitter.

The city would like to put Pandora back in her box and pass new laws making it illegal to sell drugs to foreigners, although they would still allow drug dealers to addle the minds of their own Dutch population.

The Dutch city of Maastricht legalized recreational drug use, ostensibly as a way of keeping Dutch youth safe, proving the old adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  

Maastricht now enjoys a crime rate three times that of similarly-sized cities further from the borders and Dutch lawmakers are coming to the conclusion that they’ve been deceived.  

The Netherlands once had 1,500 legalized drug bars, or ‘coffee shops’.   City officials have managed to close about half of them through inventive local ordinances, but are learning that it is a lot easier to turn a cucumber into a pickle than it is to reverse the process. 

There are still about 700 places in the Netherlands where you can order an espresso and a joint. 

Oh, and there was something else I read about the Netherlands recently . . . not sure if it is related to this story or not.  You tell me.

One of the fastest growing causes of death in the Netherlands is now euthanasia.  Euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, was legalized by the same Dutch lawmakers that thought selling drugs in coffee shops was a good idea.

And evidently there were enough of them who had stopped in for a cuppa Joe and a nice, relaxing joint recently that nobody noticed the little loophole that also legalized – get this . . . involuntary euthanasia.

That’s when a doctor decides for you that your life isn’t worth living.  A 2007 study found that up to 10% of all deaths in Holland were by euthanasia.   There are a couple of kinds of euthanasia.  You can ask for it yourself. 

In 2005, the last year for which there are detailed statistics, there were approximately 400 assisted suicide deaths at the patient’s request.  

A family member can request it on a patient’s behalf.  There were 2,636 reported euthanasia deaths that fell into that category.  (In the Netherlands, it pays to be nice to your kids.)

Then there is the third category — euthanasia “without explicit request or consent.”  Oddly, there were more of these – 550 — than there were at the patient’s request.   Indeed, one study found that many cases reported as voluntary euthanasia were really the involuntary kind.

And now, leaders of the Dutch euthanasia lobby (yes, euthanasia lobby) is pushing for a bill that would legalize euthanasia for persons over seventy who are otherwise healthy but are now tired of living. 

More than 100,000 Dutch coffee-drinkers (most presumably under 70) have already signed the petition.

It is a bizarre mental image to contemplate: The doctor will kill you now the doctor takes a big hit off a joint, focuses his eyes, and tells the nurse to send in the next patient.  

The nurse sticks her head out the door and says to the next patient in line:

“The doctor will kill you now.” 

But this stupidity is entirely in keeping with the image painted by Scripture for the last days. 

Revelation 9:21 gives the reasons for the unfolding judgments against an unrepentant and Christ-rejecting world.

Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.”

Note the context of the ‘sorceries’ that bewitch the last generation before the return of Christ. Deception, murder, fornication and theft. Compare those to the handmaidens of drug abuse.

Where drugs are illegal, drug abusers live double lives of deception. Drug dealers and drug gangs use theft and murder as tools of the trade.   Where you find prostitution, you find drugs, and vice versa.

And in Holland, where drugs are legal, it is also legal to kill off unwanted babies, (even after they are born) and the elderly, the infirm and the “useless” — either voluntarily or involuntarily.  (After all, it is almost exactly the same word. Why make a fuss?)

The word “sorcery” or “sorceries” is used six times in the KJV, twice in the Old Testament and four times in the New.   In Isaiah 47:9 and 47:12 the word sorceries is translated from the Hebrew ‘kesheph’ meaning, “magic” or “magic arts.”

In Acts 8:9 and Acts 8:11 the word is translated from the Greek word, magea which also means ‘magic’ or ‘magic arts.’

The only other places where the word sorceries appears in Scripture is Revelation 9:21 and Revelation 18:23 – the book specifically intended to be understood by the generation that would see its fulfillment. 

The Book of the Revelation is a chronological record of the future as recorded from the distant past.  So it would seem logical that it would contain certain references that would make sense only to that generation – a ‘code’, if you will, clear only to the generation to whom it was intended.

A code word that no previous generation would understand, but that would be a vivid explanation to the intended audience, needing no further elaboration.  

Previous generations must have wondered what magic arts would be so amazingly deceptive as to deceive all nations. The KJV translators must have been just as confused, since the word that John chose didn’t make any sense to them, which is why they translated it ‘sorceries.’ 

They didn’t understand the code word.  It wasn’t written to fifteenth century Christians – it was written to the Christians that would instantly recognize it for what it is, what it means, and how it works.

That code word, found only in the context of explaining the reasons for Tribulation judgment, and translated into English as sorceries, is the Greek word, pharmakea, a word meaning ‘the use or administration of drugs.’

“Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.”

“And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.”

The point here isn’t really the connection between addle-pated Dutchmen getting stoned in coffee shops and then voting in favor of offing Grandpa, although that, by itself, is one of those “it must be the end of the world as we know it” stories.

The point I want you to see here is the amazing accuracy of God’s Word in prophecy.  John had no idea why he was blaming drugs for murders, fornications, theft and deception.  He just wrote down what he was told to write down.

Fifteenth century translators had no idea why John were refer to medicines as the culprit, so they picked a word that made more sense to them.  It must be magic!  

And if the Bible were really just a collection of stories from the past that were bound together so stupid people could worship them, then magic would have been the right word in AD 87, it would have been the right word in 1611 and it would have been the right word in 2010.

In 1611, bewitching a population would seem like magic.  In 2010, bewitchment would prove the scoffers right.  But God made the odd choice of inspiring John to write, pharmakea.

Just think of it! Two thousand years ago, the prophet John, in exile on the island of Patmos, wrote that the last generation would be characterized by rampant drug abuse that would result in widespread deception, murder, sexual immorality and theft.

And that the nations of the world would eventually embrace it as a good thing.

Remember that Jesus said that when these things BEGIN to come to pass, our redemption is so close we are to keep looking up.  

Unless you live in Holland. Then you may want to keep one eye on your relatives. And the other on what they are putting in that ‘vitamin’ shot.

Doctrines of Division

Doctrines of Division
Vol: 107 Issue: 18 Wednesday, August 18, 2010

It is difficult to say for certain which doctrine generates the most heat in my inbox; eternal security or the Rapture. If I had to guess, I think I’d have to give it to eternal security by a nose.

That’s odd, really, when you consider the stakes involved.  In eternal terms, it doesn’t much matter what you believe about the Rapture.  Nobody is saved by their faith in the timing of the Rapture. 

There are at least five different views, if one includes the ‘no Rapture at all’ view.  Only one will be correct.  And nobody will know which one until it actually happens.  But the important thing to know is that one’s interpretation plays no role in one’s participation.

“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.” (1st Thessalonians 4:14)

Notice there is only one conditional premise; if we believe.  One that condition is met, the rest is automatic.   If you are saved by grace through faith, then you will go in the Rapture no matter how you interpret the timing.

So it is exceedingly odd that the timing of the Rapture should generate almost as much controversy as a bedrock doctrinal issue like eternal security.  Yet it does.

The timing of the Rapture is important to the understanding of unfolding Bible prophecy in the way that punctuation is important in a paragraph.  

Youcanstillreadasentencewithoutpunctuationbutitismuchmoredifficulttofollowandstillretainasense ofperspectiveonboththenuancesofthestoryandtheintentionoftheauthordontyouthink

The Age of Grace is often referred to as the “Parenthetical Period” between the close of Daniel’s sixty-ninth week when the Messiah was “cut off” — and Daniel’s seventieth week when the antichrist confirms, and then breaks a covenant with Israel. (Daniel 9:26-27)

With this understanding as a foundation, the flow of Bible prophecy harmonizes the prophecies of the Old Testament with the promises of the New without contradiction.  Removing this Dispensational framework is like trying to understand the nuances of a paragraph without the benefit of punctuation.

All kinds of interpretations become possible and the overriding purposes are obscured.  The outline of all Bible prophecy could be summarized this way:  Believers are convicted under the OT Law, pardoned under NT grace, and the rest are judged after the grace period expires during the Tribulation.  

Acts 1:11 both opens and closes the brackets around the Age of Grace with Jesus in the air.  

Open parentheses:

“And when He had spoken these things, while they beheld, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;”

 “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.”

Closed parentheses.

The Age of Grace begins with Jesus being taken up into Heaven and it concludes with His return “in like manner” as they saw Him go.   Jesus is received up into heaven quietly, with two angels standing by as witnesses.

Acts doesn’t record Jesus ascending into Heaven in full view of all mankind astride a white horse accompanied by ten thousands of His saints and wielding a sharp two-edged sword.  But that is how He returns at His Second Coming.

The Age of Grace concludes with the Rapture of the Church, which is also described as a secret, signless event, witnessed only by the Church and the angels, in like manner as they (the Church) saw Him go.

“For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1st Thessalonians 4:16-17)

If one were to move the parentheses backward or forward then the harmony of Daniel’s 70 Weeks is broken.  Daniel’s 70th week can’t be a ‘week’ anymore, its a half a week, or a part of a week, or its a symbolic week, so Daniel 9:24-27 must be completely reinterpreted.  

The division between the letters to the 7 Churches and the onset of judgment is obscured.  The New Testament promise that; “He that is in me is greater than he that is in the world” must now be reconciled with the antichrist’s power to overcome the saints in Revelation 13.  

Some other explanation must be found for the meaning of Paul’s 2nd letter to the Thessalonians, some other explanation for the Restrainer must be formulated, and some other identification for “that Wicked” must be found.

And finally, some loophole must be found to explain why one generation of believers will face Divine justice for the sins of the generations that came before.  The Bible says that for believers, Jesus already did that.

And that brings us full circle back to the doctrine of eternal security.


I believe that the Bible teaches that, after God’s extension of grace, salvation is conditional on two things. Faith and trust.  

God’s grace is self-evident.  Without God’s grace, there would be no security to discuss, eternal or otherwise.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

The Bible defines faith as the expectation of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen.  My faith is not in my ability to live a Christ-like life.  If it is, then I will be judged according to my faith, the Scriptures promise.

I don’t want that.  I never wanted that.  That’s why I came to Christ in the first place. Because I did NOT want to be judged by my own standard. 

Instead, I have faith that I was already judged at the moment I trusted Christ. Do you recall that moment in your own salvation? The first moment when you knew you were clean, washed, forgiven and loved? 

Do you recall how secure you felt?  I knew that had I died at that moment, I would have stood before the Lord as clean and pure as the driven snow.  

That was many years ago.  I don’t feel as clean and pure as the driven snow, anymore.  I often try to recapture that first, fresh, brand-new feeling of cleanliness I felt then — I rarely, if ever, have even come close.

I received an email along those lines the other day.  

“I used to feel so fresh and clean.  But then I fell back into old habits and old sins.  I don’t feel clean anymore. Does that mean I have lost my salvation?  Maybe I was never really saved at all?”

The answer to these questions are always found in the questions themselves.  If you are worrying about your salvation, you obviously had it.  And if you think you lost it, ask yourself where you left it last.  In His hands?  Or in yours?

These two doctrines — the pre-trib Rapture and that of eternal security — go hand in hand because if you have one, you don’t have to worry about the other. 

If you are eternally secure, then you needn’t worry about the Tribulation judgments. The Mark of the Beast can pose no threat to your standing as a believer because you won’t be here when it is. 

Either Jesus did it all, or Jesus did some of it and I have to do some of it. Only one can be true. 

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

It’s either faith or works.  It has to be one or the other.  Because if it must be both, then it can be neither.

The Scary Season

The Scary Season
Vol: 107 Issue: 17 Tuesday, August 17, 2010

It is the Silly Season, that period during which we suspend credulity for a time and invite our politicians to start bidding for our votes. During the Silly Season, there is no promise too big, no lie too obvious, and no limit to what we will let ourselves believe.

The Silly Season is also a time of suspended accountability.  Whatever a politician promises during this Silly Season won’t be held against him in the next election cycle. 

During a typical Silly Season, entrenched, career politicians simply trot out last season’s unfulfilled promises. 

Why not? They worked last time.  They work every time – that’s why they keep recycling them and we keep re-electing them. 

I doubt that the campaign promises to voters in America’s inner cities are any different today than the promises that first got them a lock on inner-city government. 

So during the Silly Season, we’ve come to expect politicians to make silly promises and for inattentive voters to fall for them (again).   Think Charley Rangel or Maxine Waters.

Every Silly Season the boundaries are pushed back slightly from the season that came before.   What was totally unacceptable in one season becomes marginally acceptable the next and soon becomes standard campaign tactics.

If one guy wanted to smear his opponent in bygone days, voters needed evidence, first.  After awhile, evidence became less necessary, provided the allegation was sensational enough.  

Then the standard of truth became what people preferred to believe, evidence notwithstanding.

Indeed, if people want to believe it, no amount of contrary evidence will be sufficiently convincing. 

I’ve yet to have anybody demonstrate how it was humanly possible for George Bush to have lied about Saddam’s WMD program – how could Bush know what nobody else on earth knew at the time?

But if that’s what people want to believe, you can’t convince them otherwise.    The power of suggestion lingers long after – it was once said that a lie can go round the world twice before the truth has put its shoes on.

It isn’t lying that is unacceptable anymore.  Sometimes the demonstrable truth is more unacceptable than the unprovable lie. What matters is the subject of the lie. 

The shift is so clear that we’ve even come up with cute acronyms to describe what used to be seen as political weaseling.  

Now we call it BIOB.


“Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matthew 24:4)

I used to enjoy the Silly Season, back when the economy was humming along at full employment, the military was strong and the cause not in doubt.   But it isn’t silly anymore, it’s downright scary.  

A report just released by the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee accuses the Obama administration of orchestrating the “most covert and expensive propaganda campaign” in American history.

“In 2009, the White House used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the President’s agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives,” the House Oversight Committee staff writes. “The Obama administration’s propaganda is covert and expensive to taxpayers.”

According to the report, members of the administration — including Yosi Sergant, formerly of the National Endowment of the Arts, and Tracy Russo of the Department of Justice — have misused federal agency resources to promote the president’s agenda.

Sergant, the former communications director for the NEA, used his position — and, by extension, the powerful incentive of NEA grant money — to formally encourage artists to utilize their artistic abilities to promote presidential issues. Russo, a new media specialist in the Department of Justice, posted fake and anonymous comments on message boards and blogs to attack bloggers critical of the president’s agenda. The two are part of a wider pattern, according to the report.

“The President’s right to sell his policy recommendations to Congress and the public is not disputed,” the report states. “[H]owever, using the resources of the federal government to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign is an abuse of office.”

This really is an official Congressional report.  Honest.  I Googled it to make sure.  Guess how many news articles Google returned on it? 

Thirty when I checked.   And almost all of them criticizing the report!

The report actually calls it ‘propaganda’.  The media yawns.  The report says the administration had its minions lie  — the media asks, “so?”  

Liberal Ben Smith over at Politico opens his defense of the administration at his blog thusly:

“Rep. Darrell Issa is out with a report this morning claiming that the Obama administration has engaged in an unprecedented amount of illegal propaganda.  The charge is almost undoubtedly true:”

Stunningly, having agreed that the Obama administration ‘undoubtedly’ engaged in an unprecedented amount of illegal propaganda, Smith launches an attack against the report’s authors saying only two paragraphs later:

“Issa’s report footnotes his own (unlinked) letter inquiring about the alleged comments rather than any evidence, because there seems to be none.”

The charge is true, recall that Smith concedes at the outset. But as Smith notes later, the evidence was ‘disappeared’ from the internet, so he can attack it as being “totally unsupported” — the obvious truth of it notwithstanding.

Propaganda is, by definition, the art of lying.  What Smith is arguing, and evidently with sufficient credibility as to reflect the general worldview of his readers, is this: 

Sure, Obama is lying and his team has “undoubtedly” engaged in illegal propaganda.   You know it and I know it, he winks to his readers.  But without hard evidence, we can still claim it is a ‘totally unsupported’ charge and then go on the attack and go after Issa for trying to smear the administration with what we’ve already acknowledged is the truth!

It isn’t Smith.  It isn’t Issa.  It isn’t even Obama that is the point, here.

It’s PROPAGANDA!  Propaganda encapsulates in a single word a systematic and deliberate campaign of deception.  It is a word that embraces everything that America formerly stood in opposition to.

The dictionary defines it as “the dissemination of information, ideas or rumors deliberately spread to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”  Psychologists used to call it ‘brainwashing’.

Shouldn’t that disturb anyone?  It might —  if anybody knew about it.  But until the story gets approved by the US Propaganda Ministry, you’ll have to dig for it.

Like I said, it isn’t silly anymore.  It’s downright scary.

The Third Way

The Third Way
Vol: 107 Issue: 16 Monday, August 16, 2010

Over the weekend, I watched a six-part BBC WWII documentary I had never seen before called, “The Nazis – A Warning From History.”  In the first place, I didn’t know there was a WWII documentary I’ve never seen before.  

Secondarily, every one I’ve seen used essentially the same stock footage, which necessarily forces the filmmaker to focus on the events for which there is the most video footage. 

We’ve all seen the same five seconds of D-Day footage where six guys are charging up from the shoreline when one of them goes down.  The next scene always shows a Canadian landing craft landing at Bernières-sur-Mer on Juno Beach.

The fact is that there is very little surviving video of the D-Day landings.  AP photographer Joe Rosenthal (who later shot the iconic picture of the Marines planting the flag on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima) put the film aboard an LST headed back to the armada to pick up more troops. 

The LST was hit by a German shell and the photographic record of the landings at Normandy were sent to the bottom of the English Channel.   Similar accidents of war destroyed other photographic battle records. 

So what is usually discussed in these documentaries are the events for which there is the most spectacular footage to show over it.   

What made this particular documentary series unique was that it was made almost entirely using captured German footage.  Uniquely, instead of beginning with the invasion of Poland in 1939, this documentary begins with the surrender of Germany in 1918.   

On November 11, 1918 (and to the great surprise of the German front-line troops)  the war abruptly ended in an armistice.  The Germans on the front lines weren’t losing ground – some German forces were forced to surrender from positions behind enemy lines.

They wondered why the war had ended so quickly and why they had to vacate their hard-won positions in such a hurry.  They didn’t feel defeated. 

The myth grew among the average German soldiers that they had been ‘stabbed in the back’ by the Marxists and Leftist Jews that had protested the war back home.

They took their bitterness back to the newly democratized Germany with them.   The Kaiser was deposed and his government replaced by a parliamentary constitutional republic officially called Deutsches Reich, better known to history as the Weimar Republic.

Thanks to Germany’s defeat and the crippling reparations demanded by the Versailles Treaty, the country polarized along the lines of left and right.   On the Left were the Communists and on the Right were the disaffected veterans.

The Weimar government, unable to meet the war reparations payments, began printing money to deal with the crisis, using the freshly printed marks to repay war loans and reparations.  In 1914 the papiermark was trading at 4.2 to the dollar. 

By August, 1923 one dollar was equal to one million papiermarks.

Suppose you had saved up for retirement all your life and you were five years away from retirement.  You have a nice little retirement nest egg – you lived frugally and made some smart investments.   Let’s say you’ve accumulated a million dollars and you’re fifty-five. 

If you were a German living 100 years ago in 1910, by the time you retired in 1920, your million-dollar retirement money is worthless.   By November 1923, the papiermark is replaced by the rentenmark.  

The value of the rentenmark was pegged at 4.2 to the dollar, just like the million papiermarks were when you were saving them for retirement.   Now you are sixty-eight and need to exchange your million papiermarks in for rentenmarks so you can retire.

One million papiermarks will buy one billionth of ONE rentenmark which, by 1923, was trading at one trillion to one.  Remember, one rentenmark is worth about 23 cents.

Politics was totally polarized – on one side were the radicals, led by the Marxists and Communists, on the other were the conservatives led by the disaffected veterans who supported President Von Hindenburg.

Into the middle of this arose a young unknown, a charismatic politician who promised “hope and change” and promised to fundamentally transform the government.  Neither liberal nor conservative, he introduced a Third Way, national socialism.

In 1923, he published his political manifesto, Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) that, in retrospect, causes historians to wonder why nobody saw what was coming.   


The BBC documentary was published in 1997 using video interview clips from the late 1970’s and early 1980’s from surviving Nazis then well into their eighties.  

So the context offered by this documentary is unique in that it offers the actual perspective of the time, rather than an historian’s opinion on the historical perspective.

At the time the documentary was released, Bill Clinton was president. The budget deficit was balanced and the US had actually begun paying down the national debt.  The Cold War was over. We won.   

Nobody suspected in 1997 what the next decade would bring.   Anymore than anybody could foresee from 1910 what conditions would be just thirteen years later.  

What struck me about the documentary was how closely it tracked with our past thirteen years.  It was spooky.   Nobody could have known when they were translating Hitler’s early speeches that the words “hope” and “change” and “fundamental transformation” would soon become part of the American political lexicon.

I was particularly stunned by a 1928 political speeches in which Hitler apologized to his supporters because change wasn’t coming as fast as he had promised, exhorted them not to give up hope and repeated his promise that the fundamental transformation of the German nation was just around the corner.

It was creepy. Here is one example from a Hitler speech:

“Our opponents accuse National Socialism and me in particular of being intolerant and quarrelsome. They say we don’t want to work with other parties. They say the National Socialists are not Germans at all because they refuse to work with other parties.  .  . I have to admit one thing – these gentlemen are quite right – we are intolerant.  I have given myself one goal, to sweep these parties from Germany.”   

Replace “National Socialist” with “Democrat”, “German” with “American,” and Hitler’s political antagonists with the Tea Party, and one has all the elements of an Obama stump speech.

The documentary also focused its attention on other less-commonly examined themes, such as the kinds of men Hitler surrounded himself with and those whom he appointed to various jobs.  

As I watched, I kept thinking of Obama’s stable of unelected political ‘czars’ that he’s used to circumvent the Constitution’s ‘advice and consent’ requirements.   

There is some kind of rule about comparing anybody to the Nazis – something to the effect that making such a comparison dilutes the singularly evil character of the Nazi era.

Ordinarily, I would agree.  There is no historical comparison between Hitler and the Nazis and anybody else — yet.    But that doesn’t mean that there won’t be – but if nobody dares to compare, then nobody will see the next one coming until he is here. 

That is the titular purpose for the documentary — it is “a warning from history.”  To hear a warning, you have to listen and then watch for the signs.   

“Hope and change” isn’t a new political slogan.  And the “fundamental transformation” of a nation is not a new political goal.  It’s all been done before. 

And according to the Bible, it will all be done again.

I don’t know if Obama is just another fascist dictator wannabe or if he is the real deal, and neither does anybody else, yet.   Until Hitler became Hitler, even Hitler wasn’t “Hitler”  — yet.  He was just another politician with an agenda.. 

By 1937 all the signs were in place that were necessary to foresee the coming cataclysm, but had Hitler been hit by lightning, run over by a truck or otherwise swept from office prior to 1937, Hitler would probably have gone down in history as one of Germany’s greatest leaders.   

What we do know is that the Bible predicts that during the last days, a mysterious and charismatic leader will suddenly arise from obscurity,  will seize the reins of power by popular acclamation, and will unleash one of the most vicious periods of war, poverty, famine and persecution the world has ever seen.

The other thing we do know is that nobody listens to warnings from history.

Memo: From The Imam-in-Chief

Memo: From The Imam-in-Chief
Vol: 107 Issue: 14 Saturday, August 14, 2010

You can’t pray on the steps of the Supreme Court.  You can’t preach from the Scriptures at a Gay Pride Parade.  A New Mexico federal judge warned a graduating class that he was sending a US Marshall to their graduation to ensure nobody said the Name ‘Jesus’ or they would spend six months in jail.

“Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it,” the judge told the students.  

A teacher at the Lynn Lucas Middle School in Houston Texas threw away two students’ “Truth for Youth” Bibles, calling them “garbage.” She then took the students to the principal’s office where she threatened to call Child Protective Services on their parents for permitting them to bring their Bibles.

Later at the same school, different officials threw away students’ book covers showing the Ten Commandments, claiming the commandments were hate speech and could offend students.  

Senior citizens in Balch Springs, Texas were forbidden from saying grace before meals because the food they were grateful for was federally-subsidized.   Praying over federally-subsidized food violates the provisions of the 1st Amendment where it says,

“Congress shall make no rule respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.” 

In another case, shcool officials at the University of New Orleans denied Michelle Beadle permission to hand out an evangelistic tract that encourages Jewish people to embrace Jesus Christ as the true Messiah.

The university told Beadle, a Messianic Jew who works as a missionary for Christian Jew Foundation Ministries, that the content of the literature ‘may be offensive’ to some people.

Just under nine years ago, nineteen Muslim jihadists boarded four US aircraft which they used as flying missiles to attack the Pentagon and the Twin Towers in New York.  They claimed their actions were on the behalf of their religion.   

Later, Osama bin Laden confirmed that the 9/11 attacks were on behalf of his religion saying further that it is religious duty of every Muslim in the world to actively work for the overthrow of the United States government and its replacement with Muslim Sharia Law.

It is hard to say just how many people were ‘offended’ by the 9/11 assault – maybe 98% of Americans? Maybe a bit more – only about 0.6% of the country’s population is Muslim, according to the CIA World Factbook.

But to my knowledge, there are no prohibitions concerning where Muslims can practice their faith.  Parts of New York City are literally shut down during prayer time by Muslims blocking the streets to pray.  Any effort to impose restrictions on Islam similar to those imposed on Christianity are promptly shot down by the courts.

Nobody has ever forbidden a Muslim from praying on a public street anywhere in America, to my knowledge. 

If anybody tried, it would be front page news.


When it comes to the construction of the thirteen-story Islamic mosque 100 yards from the footprints of Ground Zero, one can only imagine what the reaction would be if the proposal were to knock down an historic 9/11 building to make way for a thirteen story Christian worship center.

I mean, picture the outcry.  You don’t believe that there would be one?   Why?  Old people can’t thank Jesus for their food.  Any kid that dared mention Jesus during his graduation might, according to the judge involved, “wish they’d died as a child.”

If the mere mention of Jesus might offend some people, as was feared at the University of New Orleans, then just imagine the offense that might be engendered at the sight of a thirteen story Christian worship center – just steps from Ground Zero!

Why, the Christians are trying to hijack the 9/11 tragedy!  They are going to use it to proselytize!   Separation of Church and State!  Separation of Church and State!

You don’t think so?  I am trying to imagine Mayor Michael Bloomberg speaking out in favor of building a thirteen-story Christian Worship Center only steps from Ground Zero on the grounds of ‘freedom of religion.’   

Yesterday, President Obama also endorsed the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque, saying that “Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” during an official White House dinner celebrating the Islamic Ramadan holiday.   

Hallowed to whom?

In any case, Obama wanted to use the Ramadan event to remind Americans that Muslims have freedom of religion ‘just like anyone else’. 

(Unless they pray to Jesus, say grace to Jesus before meals, carry Christian Bibles to school, pass out Christian tracts,  or ask Jesus’ blessing on their graduation class.)

Is it just me?   Or do you also have a problem imagining an official White House celebration of Lent? Imagine the President using Lent to highlight the doctrinal differences between the way Catholics and Protestants observe it, defining one as ‘good’ and the other as ‘bad’? 

“But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

What a peculiar choice of words!  It gives one pause to wonder what Obama believes personally, and not “as a citizen, and as President.”   

According to all the polls, a significant majority of Americans oppose the construction project.  Over at Obama-friendly CNN, their poll shows 68% of Americans are against it.  Here’s how Politico summarized it.

“In his speech Friday, Obama called for sensitivity with respect to developing in lower Manhattan, but cautioned against drawing comparisons between mainstream Islam and the ruthlessly violent ideology of al Queda, which he said is a “gross distortion” of the faith.”

I am trying to picture an instance in which a US president could decide what Christian doctrines are legitimate and which would be ‘gross distortions’ without actually violating the 1st Amendment prohibiting the government from endorsing a religion.

I’m having some trouble with that one.  If the hijackers were ‘distorting’ Islam, then it would follow that there is an undistorted, or pure Islam.  It then follows that the Ground Zero Mosque would necessarily be part of that pure, undistorted Islam, as defined by the President of the United States.

Am I the only one that is bothered with the question, “How does he know the difference?”  How are we to know the difference?  Is there a difference between the brand of Islam endorsed by Obama and the brand of Islam Obama claims is distorted?  

Is the Ground Zero Mosque part of the officially US government endorsed ‘pure’ Islam or is it also ‘distorted?’ Don’t worry.  Imam Obama has already made that determination.  This is the good Islam.

After all, the Cordoba Institute claims it only wants to build the mosque there to improve relations between Islam and the West. What better way to do that than to tell 70% of Americans to shut up about their petty prejudices and learn tolerance?   You know. Like Islam?

Opposition to the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque will undoubtedly be characterized as ‘racism’ or ‘xenophobia’ or some other such pejorative. Maybe it is.  But building a monument to Islamic triumphalism at the site of the worst attack by Islamic terrorists in history sends a message.

To the Islamic terrorists who are looking for signs that they are making progress and that their sacrifices are not in vain, the message is loud and clear.  Americans can learn to embrace Sharia Law – America has already elevated Islam to a place above that of Christianity.  Just hang in there.

To the Iraqis and Afghanis and any other Muslims or Muslim nations considering supporting us in the war on terror, the message is — don’t.  We’re not in it to win it.  One day we’ll pull out and leave you to face the purveyors of the religion of peace on your own.

And to the voters of America, especially the Christian voters, the message is simple and direct. 

“We don’t give a d**m what you think. You’re all xenophobic racists anyway.”

”Have You Considered the Jew, Majesty?”

”Have You Considered the Jew, Majesty?”
Vol: 107 Issue: 13 Friday, August 13, 2010

There is a website called “Vermonters For a Just Peace In Palestine” that I stumbled on this morning while researching today’s column.  

Ever notice that when the word “just” is used before the word “peace”, it is always in support of the Palestinian side?   The reason is obvious – at least to me.   Israel just wants peace – it knows better than to expect justice.

To Israel, peace is the goal, not justice.  If ‘justice’ were the goal, Israel would have rebuilt its Temple in 1967 when it captured the Temple Mount.  That would have brought justice, but not peace.

The Palestinians will only accept a ‘just’ peace – according to their own definition of justice.  Notice that the ‘just peace’ desired is in ‘Palestine’ – a country that does not exist, and not in Israel, which does.  There’s a clue to their agenda in there, somewhere.

Israel’s version of peace means normal trade relations between itself and the other nations in the neighborhood.  The Palestinian version of a ‘just peace’ means peace once there is no more Israel to make war with.

When Israel wants to demonstrate Palestinian intransigence, it points to smuggler’s tunnels, weapons caches, rocket attacks against civilian Israeli targets and suicide bombing attacks.   None of these make an impression on those who demand from Israel a ‘just’ peace for the Palestinians.  

I don’t know exactly how many “Vermonters For a Just Peace In Palestine” there actually are, but evidently, they have a crackerjack intelligence service. 

With the whole world scrutinizing Israel’s every move, this outfit managed to uncover the systematic use of chemical weapons by Israel against the Palestinians dating back to 1974.  The website includes names, dates, places, and interviews with the ‘victims’ of Israel’s alleged perfidy.

The UN’s Human Rights Council has uniquely made Israel a permanent part of that body’s agenda.  They would just love to use this information.   (And if even a word of it were true, they would.)    There are NGO’s all over Gaza and the West Bank watching Israel’s every move. 

There are so many NGO’s operating inside Gaza and the West Bank that the IDF can’t fire a shot without risking hitting a representative of some pro-Palestinian NGO with an agenda as radical as the “Vermonters For a Just Peace In Palestine.” 

The acronym NGO is UN –speak for non-governmental organizations recognized by the United Nations.  The number of international NGO’s is estimated to exceed 40,000.  

So many of these NGO’s are dedicated to Israel’s destruction that there is a website, NGO Monitor, devoted to “promoting critical debate and accountability of human rights NGO’s in the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

For most of the West, our first exposure to the acronym NGO came with the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance that was held in Durban, South Africa.

Israel and all pro-Israeli NGO’s were excluded from the Conference with nary a word of condemnation from the other NGO’s attending the conference.  An “NGO Forum” was convened which produced a document known as “The NGO Declaration.”

The document, signed and endorsed by NGO’s like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch  and without a hint of irony, accused Israel of using the identical tactics employed against Israel by Hamas and the other Palestinian terror groups:

Article 164 states targeted victims of Israel’s brand of apartheid and ethnic cleansing methods have been in particular children, women and refugees.

Article 425 announces a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state…the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel.

Article 426 talks of condemnation of those states who are supporting, aiding and abetting the Israeli apartheid state and its perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide.

Since Durban’s NGO Declaration, more than six thousand rockets have been fired into Israeli villages and towns.  Those attacks are therefore, ‘aimed in particular’ at Israeli women and children.

The Palestinian side has used children as suicide bombers, has deployed its fighters near schools and refugee shelters, built bomb-making factories in densely-populated civilian areas,  with the express purpose of maximizing civilian casualties on its own side for propaganda purposes.

The Palestinian side demands the total removal of all Jewish settlers and settlements from their claimed territory based on ethnicity as the basis for any negotiations. 

That is the very definition of “ethnic cleansing.”  So where is the outrage?  Where are the human rights NGOs?  Israeli attempts at cleansing Muslim Arabs from ethnic Jewish areas would qualify as apartheid. 

But cleansing Jews from ethnic Arab territory is more like ‘urban renewal.’

Since Durban, every possible violation that could be laid at Israel’s feet has found its way before the Security Council.  Every possible relevant authority has conducted its own investigation into Israel’s conduct at every possible turn.  

The reams of investigative reports would fill a warehouse with unfounded allegations, even as the investigators openly expressed disappointment at their findings. 

Given the scrutiny under which Israel operates, the ‘Vermonters’ allegations about Israel’s use of chemical weapons against the Palestinians is laughable. 

But when it comes to accusations against Israel, no charge is too reprehensible. 


Yesterday, the German Weekly, Der Speigel reported it obtained photographic evidence showing the bodies of Kurds allegedly killed by chemical weapons used against them by Turkey.

The report claims German experts have examined and confirmed the photographs’ authenticity. German politicians and human rights experts are now demanding an investigation.  

But from what I could find this morning, they are about the only ones that are.   For the most part, the rest of the world seems unimpressed.  It doesn’t really seem like there is a lot of doubt about the truth of the story – the reports I read all seem comfortable with Der Speigel’s vetting of their source.

It’s just that they don’t much care.  The reports are there, but they are all pretty much ho-hum. About the only news outlets that saw it as a major news story were the Israelis.  

I found it interesting that the first four reports on Google’s news aggregator in response to the keywords “Turkey Chemical Weapons” were the Jpost, Ha’aretz, Arutz Sheva and YnetNews, as if the story were somehow only being reported by the Jews.    

The investigative report from Der Speigel that broke the story didn’t even show up when I clicked the link to “all 157 news articles.”  Just the same Israeli news sources.  

Darned clever the way Google manipulates the news, isn’t it?   

The targets of Turkish weapons are Kurdish rebels seeking the creation of an independent Kurdistan on their ancestral homeland, currently part of Turkey, northern Iraq and Iran. 

So the Kurds of Northern Iraq that provided so much support to US forces during the Iraq War are the same Kurds gassed by Saddam in the 80’s and now the Turks of today.  The only American-based news report I could find was from Fox News – and I had to leave Google’s aggregator to find that.

Clearly, the news reports were manipulated to make it seem as if the chemical weapons report was really Israeli propaganda.

Since Turkey sponsored the blockade-running flotilla, Israeli-Turkish relations have nose-dived.   So the willingness of the Turks to use chemical weapons against an enemy is of supreme importance to Israel.  

The Turks have long been suspected of using chemical and biological weapons against the Kurdish rebels.  But no mainstream news organization has really cared enough to bother finding out.  They are only Kurds.  Who cares?

The world’s attention is focused on finding reasons to support an openly-terrorist, anti-American Islamist state ruled under Hamas-imposed Sharia Law by finding reasons to hate a Western-style pro-American parliamentary democracy for being Jewish.

Kurdistan is more historically real than Palestine – ethnic Kurdistan is ancient Biblical Nineveh.  The Kurds are the ancient Medes of the Medo-Persian Empire that succeeded Babylon.   The Kurds have their own unique history, language and culture, independent from that of the nations in which they reside.

There has never been a Palestinian ‘people’ (except the Jews who were called ‘Palestinians’ until the 1930s). The Palestinian Arabs have no unique history. They have no unique culture. They have no unique language.

The history of the Palestinian Arab ‘people’ begins in the 1960’s when Yasser Arafat invented them.

Israel is not even permitted to erect a fence to protect itself from suicide bombers.  It is not permitted to retaliate against unprovoked rocket attacks on its cities and towns.  It is internationally condemned as a matter of routine, even when it is the victim.

Recall how nine commandos armed with paintball rifles were savagely beaten aboard the Mara flotilla ship.  The video wasn’t doctored – they were swarmed by well-prepared attackers wielding iron bars, clubs, knives and at least two pistols. 

International condemnation fell upon Israel.  Turkey’s international reputation went up as a consequence of its sponsorship of the flotilla. 

Israel was accused of war crimes for returning fire at Hamas fighters who stationed themselves near civilians during Operation Cast Lead.    Turkey uses chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds inside Iraq and the world says nothing.

How can this be?   The answer is fairly simple.  It can’t be.  But it is.   There is no explanation in the natural that can account for it.  Why would the entire world go off its collective rocker when it comes to Israel but ignore Turkish use of chemical weapons?

Simple.  Satan doesn’t hate Turkey. 

Turkey isn’t a miraculous testimony to the faithfulness of the Creator God.  Satan didn’t do his best to wipe out the Turks over the course of twenty centuries, only to see them miraculously revive exactly where and when God said they would.

It is Israel that occupies that position as the world’s most hated nation, with America placing only a close second.   Israel is God’s oracle, chosen by God to reveal Himself to the nations.  Jews wrote the Bible. 

It was through the Jews that God revealed Himself and it was through the Jews that He set in motion His plan to redeem them.  Jesus Christ was a Jew, as were all the prophets and all the Apostles.   

When Frederick the Great asked his counselors to provide him with a single evidence of the existence of God, one of them reportedly replied, “Have you considered the Jew, Majesty?”

The persecution of Israel is vicious, premeditated and unconcealed.  Nobody denies its existence.  The Turks can use chemical weapons without fear of repercussion but Israelis armed with paintball rifles are enough to warrant another UN investigation.

It is often said that one can learn the most about someone by learning who his enemies are.   Israel’s greatest enemy is Satan. 

I’d say that speaks rather well for Israel.

Perfecting the System

Perfecting the System
Vol: 107 Issue: 12 Thursday, August 12, 2010

America was not the only country forced to bail out its failing financial industry following the collapse of 2007.  The French spent $35 billion on their rescue package while the Germans coughed up $133 billion to cushion its economy when it faltered.  

But it didn’t seem to hurt them like it did us.  Maybe it was because we shelled out more than $700 billion. 

Or maybe it is because it was largely our money that Germany and France were ‘spending’.   It turns out that the American International Group,  also known as AIG, who received a $182 billion dollar bailout, was more “International” than it was “American’.  

Nearly half of the entities that benefited from the U.S. purchase of billions in collateralized debt obligations related to AIG and still on the U.S. Federal Reserve’s balance sheet are foreign, according to the Fed’s own watchdogs.

Despite the rush to pass the TARP legislation, some of the saner members of Congress insisted on several oversight mechanisms, including the Congressional Oversight Panel, the Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP), the Financial Stability Oversight Board, and additional requirements for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The Congressional Oversight Panel is responsible for reporting monthly to the Congress on where the TARP money was spent and on what.   According to the report, they don’t know much, but what they do know doesn’t sound anything like what the administration is saying.

The government doesn’t know how the money is being spent.  The banks won’t tell the government how they spent the money.  In February 09 the COP reported that the Fed paid $254 billion for assets worth $176 billion.  If you are keeping score, that is $78 billion that was simply stolen outright. 

Time to drag out the old comparison chart to keep the numbers straight.  One million seconds is equal to about twelve days.  One billion seconds is equal to about thirty two years!   

A person making $50,000 per year would work for twenty years to earn one million dollars.  It would take him twenty thousand years to earn a billion dollars.

 If my calculator is working properly, to earn the $78 billion that the COP says the government lost in this one transaction would take one million, five hundred and sixty thousand years.

Treasury Secretary Geithner told the Congressional Oversight Panel in June that he ‘remained optimistic’ that taxpayers will recover their involuntary investment in the TARP program following the COP’s report that month lambasting the Treasury Department for ignoring clearly conflicts of interest, such as lawyers representing both the Fed and the banks at the same time.

According to Geithner, the TARP investment been nearly paid back with only about $105 billion still outstanding.   Oddly enough, when the Congressional Oversight Panel’s July monthly report was issued, the COP chose to ignore Geithner’s testimony completely and reported the real numbers instead.

While the White House continues to promote the so-called “Summer of Recovery 2010” the CBO says that the deficit jumped more than $165 billion in the past month alone.  This month’s interest payment is $20 billion.  (A billion seconds is 32 years)

The Washington Post recently posted a comparison chart comparing deficit spending in the Bush administration to that of the Obama administration.   Note the correlation between the dates and the economy. Deficit Comparison Bush To Obama

Bush took office in January, 2001.  The economy was enjoying a rare surplus when al Qaeda attacked on September 11.   The surplus was wiped out and the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 forced us into deficit. 

Fighting two wars simultaneously, by 2007 the administration still managed to cut the deficit in half from its high of $400 billion in 2004 and was on track to wipe it out by 2008.  But in January 2007 the Congress changed hands and the Democrats returned to power on the promise to ‘fix the Bush economy.’

One year after the Democrats took over the Congress, the deficit had already passed $400 billion on its way to its 2009 peak of $1.85 trillion dollars.  (A trillion seconds is thirty-two thousand years).

There are certain realities that transcend politics.   The WaPo chart says it all.


In 1996, I ghost-wrote a book about the real workings of the economy that I was happy to see published under the other guy’s name.  Even though I had done all the research on it myself and knew that the contents were as accurate as I could make them,  I still couldn’t believe it was all true.   

I was certain the book, “Blood, Money and Greed” would be marginalized as some kind of lunatic conspiracist theory and so it was.   But what seemed unbelievable to me only fourteen years ago is now an open secret.

My research confirmed the rise of a German financier named Mayer Amschel whose family crest, a red shield, graced the door of his money-lending shop.   Mayer Amschel’s five sons adopted the name of the family business as the family name, Rothschild.  (Red Shield)

Rothschild financed the British Crown’s rental of the Hessian army from Germany, which propelled him to favor in the British Court. Rothschild sought to be the King’s banker. Good fortune and planning soon made him the King’s banker.

Rothschild, with the help of his five sons who controlled the main banking establishments in Europe, developed most effective and well-known private intelligence networks the world had ever seen.

At that time British bonds were called ‘consuls’ and they were traded on the floor of the stock exchange. Eldest son Nathan Mayer Rothschild instructed all his workers on the floor to start selling consuls. The made all the other traders believe that the British had lost the war so they started selling frantically.

When the stock bottomed, Nathan Mayer Rothschild discreetly instructed his proxies to buy them all back. When news finally reached London that the British had actually won the war, Nathan Mayer Rothschild owned most of England.

It put the Rothschild family in complete control of the British economy, now the financial center of the world following Napolean’s defeat, and forced England to set up a new Bank of England, which Nathan Mayer Rothschild controlled.

Rothschild’s sons established banks throughout Europe. Jacob set up de Rothschild Freres (Rothschild Bros) in Paris, other brothers set up banks in Vienna, Hamburg and Naples.

The 19th century is sometimes called the “Rothschild century” and its litany of wars and insurrections were nicknamed the “Rothschild wars” by those who lived through them.

For example, during the war between Britain and France in 1812-16, Mayer financed the British Crown, while Jacob financed Napoleon. Rothschild banking interests, for a time, financed both the Union and the Confederacy during the Civil War.

By the end of the 19th century, a period of time that was known as the, “Age of the Rothschilds,” it was estimated that the Rothschild family controlled half the wealth of the world.

American 19th century is a litany of banking panics, financial scandals, money supply shortages and recessions that prompted Jacob Schiff, head of Kuhn, Loeb, and Co, (of the Hamburg Rothschild Banking House) to proclaim;

“Unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history.”

In 1913, on December 23 when most of the House had left for Christmas, a skeleton quorum passed the Federal Reserve Act, creating the largest centrally-controlled money trust on the face of the earth.  

The Federal Reserve engineered the Great Depression and its policies prolonged it until most of the wealth was concentrated in the hands of the select few millionaires who came out the other side as the world’s first billionaires.  

The Fed is a private corporation that is not part of the US government but wholly owned by the banks. The Secretary of the Treasury is and has been a trustee of America’s creditors since the passage of the Banking Act of 1933. 

The Banking Act of 1933 was the point at which America defaulted on its debt, forcing the confiscation of all private gold which was then used to satisfy selected ‘creditors’ — all members of the Money Trust.  Most of the gold ended up in the vaults of the Money Trust’s European banks.  

All this seemed to be crazy talk when I first uncovered it and wrote it down in a book in 1996.  It still sounds like crazy talk when I read it now.  How could such an obvious and shameless theft not only go unpunished, but be celebrated as an example of far-sighted statesmanship?  

It couldn’t be true or else there would have been a lot more books out there exposing both the theft and the thieves that perpetrated it.  Wouldn’t there? 

Until I started reading about the exact same scam in the newspapers.  And with many of the exact same players.  All the same names are there; Rothschild, Schiff, Warburg, Morgan, Stanley, Lehmann, Astor, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller — a list of the recipients of TARP money is like reading from the list of banking families that met in secret on Jekyll Island in 1910.

Why the need for secrecy? That’s an excellent question.  Jekyll Island conspirator Frank Vanderlip wrote later in the Saturday Evening Post,

“…it would have been fatal to Senator Aldrich’s plan to have it known that he was calling on anybody from Wall Street to help him in preparing his bill…I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System.”

To keep the public from thinking that the Federal Reserve would be controlled from New York, a system of twelve regional banks was designed. Given the concentration of money and credit in New York, the system would be run by the New York Fed, which is in turn owned by the banks owned by the Money Trust.

The Money Trust really does exist and it really does dictate the terms under which the economy is permitted to operate.  As the saying goes, “He who has the gold makes the rules”. 

The rules are fairly simple and straightforward.  The time has come to drop the illusion of competitive capitalism and in the process, consolidate control of the banking industry into as few hands as possible. 

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”  -Thomas Jefferson

The Money Trust isn’t even a conspiracy, any more. It has gone way beyond that. It is a completed system — constructed over a period of hundreds of years — upon which we now depend for our continued existence as we know it.

According to Bible prophecy, one of the pillars of power upon which the antichrist’s government will rest is his centralized control of the global economy.  Revelation 13:17 says that he exercises economic authority over ‘the whole earth’ to the degree that those outside his system will be “unable to buy or sell”.

The antichrist only wields power for seven years. That isn’t long enough to build a centralized power base or condition the public to accept such a system.   It must already be up and running and ripe for takeover when he arrives on the scene.

The 1930’s — the economic Depression, the fascist movement, the propagandists and their crazy dictators — it was just a dry run to test for holes in the system. 

Now that it’s tested and operational, and the useful idiots are all in place, the enemy is seemingly ready to move forward with the Plan.  Here in America, the only thing standing in the way are those pesky Christian tea partiers.

If only something would happen to take them out of the way . . . .

Goodness Must Be Learned

Goodness Must Be Learned
Vol: 107 Issue: 11 Wednesday, August 11, 2010

One of the fundamental flaws in liberal thinking that puts it in direct opposition to Scripture is the notion that people are basically good.

In this line of thinking, bad or immoral behavior is the exception, and bad or immoral people are largely the product of bad environments. 

The Bible teaches the exact opposite. So does experience. Bad or immoral behavior is the first behavior exhibited by babies as soon as they are old enough to express it.

They have to be taught not to hit. They have to be taught not to bite.  I never personally witnessed anybody teaching babies to be bad or immoral. THAT comes naturally.

They have to be taught to behave. Parents teach children morals and standards of behavior that conform to their cultural environment. No person is inherently moral. It is learned behavior. 

Despite the conflict posed by both reason and their own experience, this idea of the basic goodness of mankind is nevertheless foundational to liberal thinking. 

And dangerous beyond comprehension. There is an old joke to the effect that ‘a liberal is a conservative who’s never been mugged’. The problem is, not everybody survives a mugging. 

This isn’t intended as a screed against liberals; the Bible says that the application of wisdom and knowledge brings forth understanding. Understanding our nature helps us to appreciate our little victories over it along the way. 

The Bible says, “There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.” (Proverbs 21:30) 

The concept of man as basically good flies in the face of both reason and personal observation. Man is born a selfish sinner who must first be taught right from wrong. 

The Bible also teaches the total depravity of man; 

“Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalms 53:3)

“They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Romans 3:12)

It is in our base nature that we find conclusive evidence to the age old question of whether or not God exists. If man is not basically good, as liberals prefer to believe, then how did we develop such a complicated and rigid moral code? 

That is why they reject the depravity of man despite the evidence of reason and experience. Because accepting it demands accepting some Lawgiver beyond mankind itself. 

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

Assuming the basic goodness of man is hardly convenient. To make that assumption, one must ignore everything they know about themselves and other people, but they make the leap BECAUSE they do ‘not like to retain God in their knowledge’ exactly as Paul said. 

What follows is a line by line description of the fruits of liberalism:

“Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Romans 1:29-32)

Recognizing the depravity of man brings with it a recognition of man’s need for a Savior. And for those who believe and are saved, a profound sense of gratitude for the unmerited gift of salvation through faith. 

Because we know could never make it on our own.

The Tribulation Saints

The Tribulation Saints
Vol: 107 Issue: 10 Tuesday, August 10, 2010

I received an email from a member asking, “Upon what grounds will a believer be saved during the Tribulation Period?” It was an intriguing question, one that we’ve not touched upon in any great detail in previous discussions. 

My correspondent framed his question around the acceptance of the Mark of the Beast and a ‘paradox’ he sees facing those who might accept it under coercion.
Specifically, he asked,

“During the Tribulation, if a “believer” is threatened with the choice between either taking the Mark upon himself, or becoming “responsible” for a horrendous evil act otherwise aimed upon their child, doesn’t a feasible scenario present itself whereby a believer may choose to take the Mark. How can these two apparent “truths” occur coincidentally, and form a contradiction?”

Another excellent question. Researching the answers was most illuminative, and I thank my correspondent for posing them. At the same time, the answers themselves are among those ‘hard sayings’ of Scripture. 

Let’s go with the Mark first. 

The Mark of the Beast is not merely an economic medium of exchange, like a debit or credit card, although it will incorporate that function. If that were all there was to it, my correspondent’s paradox would be valid. 

The Mark of the Beast is first and foremost a worship system. So now, we have crossed over from the material to the spiritual. 

“And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not WORSHIP the image of the beast should be killed.” (Revelation 13:15)

The Mark is a symbol of membership in the ‘church’ of antichrist, and among the privileges of membership under his rule is the right to life, a form of liberty and the right to pursue a form of economic happiness. 

But the Bible makes plain that no man can serve two masters. 

To the question of whether or not accepting the Mark to save a life is paradoxical, James answers that question with a question of his own:

“For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.” (James 4:14) 

There are two distinct and separate understandings of ‘life’ at work here. There is our understanding of life, under which one might be tempted to take the Mark of the Beast, say, to save one’s child. 

Then there is God’s understanding of life. Physical life is granted to us so that we can choose where we will spend eternity. 

Since the main purpose in the spiritual sense for our physical existence is to exercise that choice, the choice we make is of far greater importance than the physical existence that provides the opportunity to choose. 

Is the Bible specific concerning the choice to accept the Mark of the Beast and worship his image? 

“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” (Revelation 14:9-11)

There is no paradox here. The choice is the same as it has always been. It was the same choice that Joshua offered the children of Israel more than three thousand years ago. 

“And if it seem evil
unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)

During the early persecution of the Church, many martyrs were given the choice between worshipping Caesar or seeing their entire families thrown to the lions. 

Those who accept a martyr’s death are promised a crown, but nowhere does the Bible grant an exemption for those who reject Jesus, coercion notwithstanding. Not in the Church Age, and not during the Tribulation. 

“Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.” (Luke 17:33)

The second question asks, “Upon what grounds will a believer be saved during the Tribulation?” The short answer would appear to be, “the same grounds upon which believers are saved during the Church Age” — salvation by grace through faith. But that isn’t exactly accurate. 

During the Tribulation, God’s grace, as we understand it in this Dispensation, is withdrawn. The Age of Grace concludes with the Rapture. The Tribulation Period is the final, unfulfilled week of the Age of the Law. 

Revelation Chapter 7 describes an event so unique that Jesus devotes an entire chapter to its discussion. It describes a special ‘sealing’ of “the servants of our God in their foreheads.” (Revelation 7:3) These ‘servants of God’ are twelve thousand Jewish male virgins chosen from each of the twelve tribes of Israel — 144,000 in all. 

They are sealed in a miraculous manner, by the direct intervention of God, in exactly the same way Church Age believers are, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 

Jesus was sealed by the Holy Spirit.

“And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17)

 Church Age believers are sealed. “. . . in Whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.” (Ephesians 1:13) 

The sealing work of the Holy Spirit is the basis for our eternal security during the Church Age. Among the spiritual benefits of being sealed by the Holy Spirit are: 

1) Men receive courage to rebuke sin: Matt. 3:8 

2) Men are enabled to speak with confidence: Acts 4:31-33 

3) Gives spiritual and moral strength: 2 Samuel 22:40; Isaiah 28:56; Isaiah 40:31; 41:10; Daniel 11:32; Ephesians 3:16 

4) Provides strength in weakness: 1 Corinthians 1:27; 2 Corinthians 12:9; 13:4 

5) Provides spiritual gifts: Romans 12:6; Ephesians 4:11

Returning to the question at hand, the 144,000 evangelists are sealed by the Holy Spirit to empower them as evangelists during the Tribulation Period, because it is only through the conviction of the Holy Spirit that men can be saved.

The doctrine of eternal security is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all believers during the Age of Grace. 

During the final Week of the Age of the Law, the universal ministry of the Holy Spirit is withdrawn. (2nd Thessalonians 2:7)

He then indwells believers only selectively, as He did during David’s time, when David cried out, “Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.” (Psalms 51:11) 

There will be believers in the Tribulation who will succumb to the antichrist’s coercion and accept his mark to save their families. And Scripture is clear that those who do are forever lost. 

Tribulation believers will be saved by faith in Christ and enduring until the end, as in the Church Age, but without the guarantee of eternal security or the automatic indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 

Jesus described the trib
ulation as, “such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” 

He warned that, “except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” (Matthew 24:21-22) 

It is our job on this side of the Tribulation to give the warning of what is to come. It is coming. And it is coming soon. 

Our blessed hope is found in the Scripture’s promise that Jesus comes for His Church first. 

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

Note: One of our kids is going through some trials far from home, so we slipped away to provide a little moral support (and hopefully recharge the old batteries.)  

The motel’s internet is like most — works nothing as advertised. So this morning’s column revisits a topic first addressed in November, 2005.   I hope you find it useful. Maranatha!

Renouncing Christianity — The Anne Rice Debate

Renouncing Christianity — The Anne Rice Debate
Vol: 107 Issue: 9 Monday, August 9, 2010

Novelist Ann Rice’s books have sold more than seventy-five million copies.  Her first novel, “Interview with a Vampire” was published in 1976 and made into a movie in 1994.   In 2004, Rice wrote, “Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt.”

Christ the Lord tells the story of Jesus through first-person narrative, drawing on the Bible, the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and Catholic doctrine. Jesus is part of a large, warm extended family (in the novel, Joseph was previously married and widowed, so Rice’s Jesus has half-siblings).

The family is returning to Nazareth after living in Egypt.  The entire book is a work of fiction, but it attracted Christianity Today because the rest of Rice’s books dealt with vampires and erotica.

“This book means more to me than anything I’ve ever done,” Rice told Christianity Today from her home in La Jolla, California in 2005. “I’m not offering agnostic explanations. He is real. He worked miracles. He is the Son of God! And there is so much more to write.”

CT made much of Rice’s Christianity, relating how she came from a Catholic background, later marrying an atheist and ultimately abandoning her faith in Catholicism..

Later, the article relates how Rice began collecting statues of saints and other Catholic memorabilia, with Rice finally pictured surrounded by books of which Rice says, “I read myself back into faith.”

Rice spent, according to CT, “two hours” in confession and began attending Mass again.   Last month, Rice again renounced Catholicism, which she defines as “Christianity” saying she was disillusioned with organized religion. 

In a post on her Facebook page Rice wrote;

“I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious and deservedly infamous group. For 10 years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else … In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

Rice’s newest confession prompted all kinds of reactions.  Critics of Christianity were overjoyed; the LA Times called Rice’s defection the “tip of the religious iceberg” and citing George Barna’s study as evidence that organized Christianity is dying.   

I was surprised at the reaction of some believers who also seemed quite delighted, citing Rice’s defection as evidence against the doctrine of eternal security, or what some deride as “once saved, always saved.”

There are two salient points to be addressed here before moving forward.   First, I am not making an argument for or against Anne Rice’s salvation.  I don’t know if Rice was ever saved and know nothing of her character.   I only know what is in the public realm of information.

By all accounts, Rice claimed to be saved by, and then later defected from, Roman Catholicism and organized religion in general.

That mirrors my own experience.  I was raised a Catholic, but having found contradictions between Bible doctrine and Catholic doctrine, I also left defected from the Catholic Church and organized religion.  

I am not a member of any mainstream organized Christian denomination, either.  But I haven’t either renounced or lost my salvation because salvation is not a function of organized religion. 

I am unsurprised that organized Christianity is dying in America – the professing Church in America matches in all respects the word picture painted by Jesus of the Church of Laodicea.  But I am surprised that anyone would latch on to the Rice story as being ‘so much for once saved always saved’.

I think we can all agree that salvation is a function of grace through faith.   Where it starts to become murky is when we get to the question of faith.


“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

Consider the following scenario.  You are supposed to start work tomorrow under one of the two following sets of circumstances. 

You are hired and are now a member of the company, but you don’t have a job description. Whether or not you will get paid depends on how good a job you do, but you don’t know exactly what is expected of you. 

You will find out on payday if you earned anything but you have to continue to work until payday before you will know how much, if anything.   


You start tomorrow but you will be in training for an unspecified period of time before you are expected to produce.  You work for the government, so you can go to work every day knowing that you can’t be fired. You know that payday will be every Friday and you will be paid regardless of how well you produce. 

In the first instance, your faith is in your ability to perform a job that you can’t even identify and trusting that your earnings will be judged sufficient to meet your needs. 

In the second, your faith is in the promise you will be trained first and that you can count on a steady paycheck while you are in the training process. 

But before you can put your faith in either your own ability or in your employer’s promise, first you have to enter into an employment contract with someone authorized to bring you aboard.

I don’t know if Anne Rice entered into an agreement with Jesus or with a church denomination – and neither does anyone else – so her defection is irrelevant to the doctrine of eternal security.   

Salvation is a gift of grace through faith.  The question is where one puts that faith.

If one’s faith is in one’s ability to keep oneself from sin as a condition of continuing salvation, then one’s faith is in one’s ability to perform a job one can’t even identify and trusting that one’s earnings will be sufficient to gain entry into Heaven.

Only a fool would believe that nobody sins after salvation. (Or someone who never read Romans 7).   But for the rest of us, that raises a HUGE question. Which sins must one avoid to keep from losing one’s salvation? 

If one’s faith is in Jesus PLUS one’s ability to discern which sins are soul-killers (meaning, by definition, that some sins must not be, since all men sin, even after salvation)  how is that different than trying to perform a job you can’t even identify for a wage you can’t be sure will be there on payday?

This might still qualify as salvation by faith, but where is that faith placed?

Hebrews 6:4-6 says it is impossible to renew a believer that has fallen away again to repentance, since that would require “crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting Him to an open shame.”

It says they cannot be renewed to repentance. Does that mean a believer that has fallen away is forever damned?  Does that seem in keeping with the Promise or Character of God?   One chance, and then you’re done?

Or does it mean that once a person is covered by the Blood of Christ and declared judicially righteous, that no further renewal is necessary?   

Hebrews doesn’t say the open shame is on the believer, but on the Son of God.  Why?  Because in such a case, it would mean that the price paid for your redemption was insufficient.   

“. . . for I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day. (2nd Timothy 1:12)

“I have believed” . . . “He is able” . . .  “to keep” . . . “that which I have committed unto Him.”

Note the spiritual mechanics involved.  I believe in His promise and I commit my life and my will to Him at the point of my salvation.  The Bible says that He is able to keep that which I have committed, against ‘that day’ when I shall stand before Him. 

It doesn’t say that I am able.  If I was able, He wouldn’t be necessary.

If Anne Rice put her faith in the Blood of Jesus Christ to save her from her sin and trusted Him to keep her against that day, then whether Rice renounced organized Christianity is irrelevant to her eternal security. 

If her faith was in Church membership, she never had any security to begin with. In the final analysis, it isn’t faith alone that saves; it is where we put that faith.  

Religion doesn’t save anybody.  Neither does faith.  One can have faith in a religion and not be saved.  One can have faith in oneself and not be saved.  One can have faith in a church and not be saved.

“And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till His enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:11-14)

But the Bible says that when a person humbles himself to the point where he recognizes he is a hopeless sinner and trusts in the Shed Blood of Christ as all sufficient payment for one’s sins, that is the very definition of salvation.

By His one offering, He perfected me ‘forever’ — or this verse is meaningless.

Our salvation is not temporary or conditional or it would be worthless, since the enemy does not go on vacation or leave us alone when we come to Christ.  If anything, he steps up his attacks on us and on our witness and our testimony.  

It is after salvation that we need Him the most.  And without the assurance of eternal security, we could never be sure if He will be there to pick us up the next time we fall.

But don’t worry.  He will be.  Be sure of it.