Waiting For Superman?

Waiting For Superman?
Vol: 109 Issue: 30 Saturday, October 30, 2010

As a person who really likes catchy and intriguing titles, I have to give the title for the recent documentary, “Waiting For Superman” a hearty two thumbs up.   I only wished I could have figured out how to work it into an OL title.  (Until today.)

The documentary, which I haven’t seen and don’t know a heckuvalot about, looks at the state of American education and the teachers unions.   But while I wanted to be the first to steal the title, “Waiting for Superman” Laura Rozen beat me to it.

Rozen penned a foreign policy column for Politico under the title, “On The Mideast, Waiting for Superman.”    Not only was it a killer title for a column, it would have been a perfect title for a Bible prophecy column about the antichrist.

Rozen’s column is more secular in nature, speculating about who Obama would send to Israel to further the effort to impose a peace settlement on Israel and establish a Palestinian state on its borders, with or without Israel’s blessing.

Rozen thinks that the best choice would be Bill Clinton.   (Ouch.  Now I have this mental image of Bill Clinton in a Superman costume burned into my consciousness. That wasn’t where I was going with this.)

The whole world is ‘waiting for superman’ like at no time I can think of in all of human history.  The human race has never been closer to self-annihilation.   

Foreign relations are as fractured as ever they were in the 1930’s – except in the 1930’s we had barely achieved trans-Atlantic flight.

Had the Allies and Axis powers had InterContinental Ballistic Missiles and nuclear-tipped warheads in 1939, there probably would not have been a 1945.  At least, not one witnessed by living human beings.

And that’s about the situation as it stands today.  As close to the brink of total global war as we were in the 1930’s, but with 21st century technology.  

Looked at from a secular perspective, totally removed from any suggestion of Bible prophecy, one could only conclude that without the appearance of some kind of global superman to defuse all the threats, the planet is doomed.

The Bible prophesies almost the same thing, but with a twist.  The global superman brings the doom.

Assessment:

According to Bible prophecy, the centerpiece of God’s attention in the final hours of human government shifts away from the Gentile nations and focuses entirely on the national redemption of Israel.

The Prophet Daniel outlines the future history of Israel, broken into seventy periods of seven years each called ‘weeks’ (Heb. Shabua). 

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”  (Daniel 9:24)

This seventy week (490 years) outline of Israel’s future history covers the period of time from the Persian King Xerxes to the Second Coming of Christ. 

It is broken down into periods of seven weeks, (49 years) and sixty-two weeks (434 years) and then one final week (7 years).

“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”  (Daniel 9:25)

So after seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, (483) the Messiah will ride into a restored Jerusalem, the Prophet says, but He will be cut off (executed) but not for Himself (ie., He will be innocent).

“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”  (Daniel 9:26)

The “people of the prince that shall come” is a bit confusing.  The prince that shall come is the antichrist that confirms the covenant.  His people will destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the Sanctuary (the Temple).

History says that Jerusalem and the Temple Mount were destroyed by the Roman Empire.  So the coming prince is identified as a prince of the Roman Empire (modern EU).

Daniel’s time clock stopped at 483 years when the Messiah is cut off.  At some point after that the city and sanctuary are destroyed by the people of the future prince.  The time clock is still off.

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” (Daniel 9:27)

The clock starts ticking again with the confirmation of the covenant with many for one week.   Daniel refers to “the covenant.”  It is uniquely identifiable because it is a) lacking confirmation, (the Hebrew word translated ‘confirm’ is gabar meaning, to make strong) and b) it is for one week, ie. Seven years.

The 1993 Oslo Agreement, (which is the framework upon which all subsequent land for peace agreements rest), was signed on September 13th 1993 and was due to be confirmed with a ceremony at the Rose Garden on September 13th, 2000. 

The Oslo Agreement called for a five year interim status to hammer out the details of Palestinian self-government to be followed by two years of final status negotiations.  But instead of a Rose Garden ceremony seven years later, in September 2000, Arafat started the second intifada.

I am not saying that Bill Clinton was the antichrist or that Oslo is the antichrist’s covenant.  Oslo remains unconfirmed.  It’s been declared dead a dozen times.  But it is astonishingly similar to Daniel’s prophecy — I’m not much for coincidences.  

Back to the coming prince.   Laura Rozen nominates Bill Clinton.  Lots of others nominate Barack Obama. But Daniel’s pretty firm about the coming prince arising out of the Roman Empire. 

One can spiritualize America into being Rome, but why would God do that when He’s gone to all the trouble to restore the actual, historical Roman Empire anyway?  

That’s like spiritualizing Israel into the Church – it seems a lot less convincing now that there’s an actual Israel than it was when there wasn’t.

America has been on point with Oslo since Bill Clinton hosted the Rose Garden ceremony.  But Obama has gone out of his way to sour US-Israeli relations, having insulted Israel as a nation, Jews as a people and Benjamin Netanyahu as their leader.  

Israelis don’t trust Obama and they increasingly don’t trust the United States.  Israel is waiting for Superman, as is the rest of the world.  

Clinton was Clark Kent at best.  Obama turned out to be their Lex Luthor.  Daniel says that Israel’s Superman comes from Rome, not Washington. 

My money is on Daniel.

Doubtful Disputations

Doubtful Disputations
Vol: 109 Issue: 29 Friday, October 29, 2010

Every now and again somebody will email me to accuse me of being a false teacher because they have a different take on a particular doctrine or theory. 

The accusation of ‘false teacher’ is something one ought to be careful about throwing around – for a couple of reasons.   The first and most obvious reason is that by making such a declaration, you are declaring your own view to be infallible.

That is pretty dangerous territory to find oneself in.   Depending on what standard is applied, pretty much every Gospel preacher or teacher is a false teacher to those who don’t agree with him.

If one leans towards preterism, then I am a false teacher. If one leans towards Dispensationalism, then Marv Rosenthal is a false teacher. If one trends towards Southern Baptist, then Dr Pat Robertson is a false teacher.

To some others, the late Dr. Jerry Falwell was  a false teacher; to others, it is Franklin Graham. And we haven’t even touched on the view non-Catholics have of the Pope.

Declaring any of them to be ‘false teachers’ immediately shifts the debate away from what is true into establishing what is false.

It is really difficult to imagine what is of less value than a discussion about what is false, but that’s about all these discussions entail.

I had a lady once take exception to my comments regarding Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. She called him a “wonderful man of God” and challenged me to show what was wrong with his doctrine.

Therein lies the problem. It always begins with the obligation to prove the other guy’s doctrine is false. It isn’t until that obstacle has been overcome that there can be any forward movement.

The latest accusation is that I “used to be solid but now I am subtlety mixing Scripture” over the question of predestination vs. foreknowledge.

 . . . this business of God predestined as a result of foreknowledge is screwy, and NOT what the Bible says. The Bible says plainly and numerously, that WE (members of the Body of Christ) were CHOSEN…IN CHRIST…BEFORE…the foundations of the world. Ephesians 1:4, etc.

Jack is now saying something very different. It is subtle but different.

I shared your article and he said you use to be solid and now you are subtlely mixing scripture. I also thought you were pretty solid and this seemed to be a compromise of scripture man’s conjecture! I do respect you, but why must man add his ideas instead of saying I do not understand fully the words and intent of God. It is not written and we should not add or subtract from God’s word when we don’t understand. We should just accept and pray for understanding from the Holy Spirit! I say this in the utmost humbleness! 🙂 I perceive you know and understand more than me, but I did read the scripture and it did not imply these concepts, but man’s limitation does repeat this idea.

Ummm . . . I have diligently searched the Scriptures on this issue and I am not sure where the objection actually is.

Let’s examine the relevant Scriptures.

“For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”  

Note the words I set off in italics in this verse.   Those He foreknew He also did predestinate.”  

“Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” (Romans 8:29-30)

If there is a difference between foreknowledge and predestination, it is different only insofar as the question of free will is concerned.   What Paul is describing is a progression.  God foreknew who would be saved because God has perfect foreknowledge.

And SINCE He foreknew, Paul says they were predestinated. This isn’t a case of filling in what we don’t understand.  Divine foreknowledge IS predestination, since God cannot be wrong about what He foreknows. 

So because He foreknew, that means they were predestinated, called, justified and glorified.

It is an issue of perspective.    I see it as a variation on the question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  

Prophecy is foreknowledge from our perspective, but predestination when looked at from God’s.  

Otherwise, there would be no point in witnessing – if God has predestinated someone’s salvation, then they will be saved anyway.   

And if they have been predestined to be lost, witnessing is a waste of my time, since they can’t be saved,  if they are predestined to be lost.   

I might as well fold up the Omega Letter and get a job writing TV documentaries about World War Two.  

Foreknowledge is when God knows —  but we don’t. 

Predestination is when God has preordained, so we needn’t interfere. In practical terms, since God is God and we are not, it is a distinction without a difference, apart from one  of perspective.

The argument being advanced is that we play no role in leading someone to Christ because they are predestined to be saved . . .  or we can’t help it because we are predestined to lead them.   This defies all the Scriptures that tell us that salvation is a choice.

If there really isn’t a choice because it was predestined, then on what basis can we be rewarded?   Or for that matter, on what basis there be just punishment?  It is predestined, we didn’t really do it – God did. 

How could either giving a person a reward or punishment for something that God really did be seen as either  just or fair? 

You see the problem?  There is no compromise involved here.  Nothing is added or subtracted.   

I work from the perspective that God knows, but I don’t, so I can’t sit back and assume somebody is predestined to be saved or lost.

I have to do my best based on the assumption that while God knows, I don’t.   From God’s perspective, it is predestination, but from my perspective, I still have to make a free will choice. 

And so does the person choosing salvation. 

Assessment:

Back to the issue of false teachers and false teaching.  A false teaching is one that is not taught or confirmed by Scripture.   Foreknowledge and predestination are clearly taught by Scripture.

Being foreknown by an all-knowing God, for all practical purposes in the finite world, is the same as being predestinated.  But being predestinated in the sense of being chosen to be saved or condemned to be lost deprives one of free will choice.  

If one is predestined to be lost and has no choice in the matter, upon what basis can such a one be punished?

A false teacher, by definition, knows his teaching is false, but for motives of his own, (profit, institutional loyalty, power, prestige, pride) he teaches it anyway.    

A false teachING is error. That is both a distinction and a difference. It is possible for a sincere believer to unknowingly propagate a false teaching — but that doesn’t make him a false teacher.

Nobody, however sincere, is exempt from error. Each of us, at some point along the way in our Christian walk, embraced and shared doctrinal views that, as we matured, came to realize were in error.

Labeling a person as a ‘false teacher’ unfairly implies insincerity.  Someone can hold to a false doctrine and still be a sincere believer. There are those who hold to a different view of the Rapture, but that doesn’t make them false teachers.

At worst, it makes them believers in a doctrinal view that I believe is false. I have opinions as to who are deliberately false teachers, but I am not God. I cannot judge their sincerity, only their teaching.

We are called to search the Scriptures, “to prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good,” (1st Thessalonians 5:21).

In the Book of Acts, the citizens of Berea are called “more noble” because, “they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

It is a tough walk, this being a Christian. Sometimes it is all I can do to keep from throwing around the false teacher label myself.   It isn’t like there aren’t a lot of targets out there.

But all it would accomplish would be to drive away sincere, believing Christians who are still searching the Scriptures, like the Bereans did, still seeking to prove ‘if these things are so’.

Paul teaches us: “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. . . . Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.” (Romans 14:1,4)

“Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1st Timothy 6:5)

My understanding of predestination and foreknowledge may not necessarily be the same as yours.  I am not infallible, either.   

But I believe with all my heart and soul that what I teach is true.  And I trust God’s Word.

“Yea, he shall be holden up:  for God is able to make him stand.” (Romans 14:4)

The Fatherhood of God

The Fatherhood of God
Vol: 109 Issue: 28 Thursday, October 28, 2010

For all the sacred texts, for all the opinions and views and expectations and religious assumptions, and despite the best efforts of our imagination, it is not given to the human mind to fully comprehend the infinite God. 

We can know some of His greatness and glory through observation and we can know something of Him through His Word and through the revelation of His Son, and such the retention of that knowledge is both a privilege and a duty.

God is revealed through nature as its Designer and Creator and through the Scriptures, which directly testify of Him.  He is revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ, Who came to introduce men to Him.

Our human minds seem more readily able to grasp the concept of God as Creator than it does as Father, but the Scriptures reveal Him more as in His capacity as Father than as Creator.   Still, any investigation of God is more likely to consider the creative abilities of God  than His Fatherhood.

God the Creator is simply a generic title.  In this sense, any that is called “God” and afforded the title of “Creator” speaks to the real Creator God, no matter who the intended addressee might be.  There is one God and He is the Creator and He will be the God and Creator that He is regardless of what name He is called by.  

That is not to say that all ways lead to salvation.   While all roads lead to God in the end, there is only one road leads to salvation.

There is only one God by whatever name you approach Him, but that doesn’t mean He will answer to whatever name you choose. God is not a stray puppy.

If one is praying to a heathen god, it is still the Omniscient God that hears, since there is no other. But God is Creator of all things, but Father only to His children. 

God is presented as ‘Father’ in the Scriptures in four distinct respects.

1. Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ

“Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort .” (2nd Corinthians 1:3)

“The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.” (2nd Corinthians 11:31)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:” (Ephesians 1:3)

“For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ephesians 3:4)

“We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.” (Colossians 1:3)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” ( 1st Peter 1:3)

God the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Not, God the Creator of the Lord Jesus Christ.  God the Father.  Note also that God is presented as both “The God of” and “Father of” our Lord. 

On the human side, the First Person of the Godhead is referred to as His God, whereas as the Second Person of the Godhead, He is referred to as His Father.

The connection in which the First Person is mentioned as His Father has continued throughout eternity. The connection in which the First Person is His God is in Jesus’ humanity which had a beginning with His virgin Birth but has no end.

There is no hint of inferiority or succession between God the Father and God the Son – it is more a case of manifestation.   Instead, there appears to be a unique, eternal affiliation between the first Two Persons of the Godhead that is best conveyed to our minds in the pattern of father and son.

The Arian and Gnostic traditions argue that Christ, while unique, was inferior to the Father.  From this heresy springs all kinds of other heresies, like Jesus and Lucifer were brothers (JWs, LDS) or Unitarianism (popular among the Founding Fathers) and so on.

That requires rejecting the clear teaching of Scriptures such as Luke 1:35, which identifies Jesus as the physical Son of God through the Holy Ghost.

It requires rejecting the doctrine that became One with the Father at His Resurrection.

It demands the assumption He is only the Son by virtue of His office.  But Scriptures teach that He was One with the Father before the world began.

2. God is also the Father of all who believe

“But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.” (John 1:12)

Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God. When you received Jesus, you became a legitimate offspring of God through adoption.  As adopted sons, we are co-equal heirs with Jesus Christ.  

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”  (Romans 8:15) 

The symbolism of adoption in Judaism is deliberately chosen. A Jew may disown his sons, disinheriting them and going so far as to declare them judicially ‘dead’ to the family. 

That is not permitted in the case of an adopted son.  Jewish law prohibits disinheriting an adopted son – no matter what.  An adopted son is a son forever.

(When we were last in Israel, I heard a little Jewish kid call his father “Abba.”  It means, “Daddy.”)

The promise of Romans 8:17 is that we will eventually be conformed to the image of His Son and transforming us into actual sons of God, otherwise we could never be considered joint-heirs with Christ.

“And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.”  (Romans 8:17)

We are conformed to the image of His Son when we receive our glorified bodies at the Rapture.  At the present time, God’s attention is focused on bringing many sons unto glory.

3. God is the Father of Israel.

Several times in the Old Testament God addresses the nation of Israel as His sons.  This relationship isn’t one in which individual Israelites were regenerated unto salvation by God, but rather connotes the national solicitude or fatherhood by reason of parental care for all.   God has also declared Himself husband to Israel, completing the familial symbolism between Himself and His Chosen People.

4. God is the father of all mankind.

The first four books of the New Testament each trace the genealogy of Jesus Christ backwards to King David and all the way back to Adam:  

“Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:28)

Adam’s right of sonship came by way of direct creation – the only concept of Divine fatherhood within reach of an unregenerate Gentile.

Addressing the unregenerate Greeks at Mars Hill who worshipped THE UNKNOWN GOD, Paul identified them as the offspring of God. 

“For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” (Acts 17:28-29)

All men, saved or lost, are the sons of God inasmuch as they owe their existence to Him.   But this kind of sonship is based on mere existence without relationship.  It is a relationship in which Father and son have never met and that’s the way the son wants to keep it. 

Any study of the Fatherhood of God brings with it the tragic sense of loss that comes when that lost sinner enters eternity with all hope of fellowship eternally lost.   

One that God loves so much that He sent His much beloved and only –begotten Son to seek and to save.  One that Jesus loved so much that He willingly laid down His life to save is lost forever. 

The tragedy in heaven when such a one is lost must be unbearable.  

That is where we come in.  We are sons of God, eternally saved, and secure in the knowledge that we are saved by grace through faith.   As actual, literal sons of God, we have an obligation to reflect the Father’s love.    

So the next time you are led to share the Gospel with someone and you’re hesitating over it, think about it from both perspectives. 

How much would you have to love God to want to spare Him the agony of having to condemn one of His errant sons?   

And secondly, how much would you have to hate that person to know the way to eternal life and not tell them about it?   

“But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”  (1st John 3:17)

How, indeed?

Waxing Worse and Worse

Waxing Worse and Worse
Vol: 109 Issue: 27 Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Harry Reid began his political career in 1970 when he was elected lieutenant governor until 1974.  In 1977 Reid served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission.   While on the board, a Vegas thug named Jack Gordon offered Reid a paltry $12,000 bribe.

Reid, sensing a political opportunity, contacted the FBI and arranged to have the transaction recorded.  At the prearranged time, as the cameras rolled and the FBI stormed in, Reid pretended to lose his temper and made a move to choke Gordon, uttering the immortal line: “You SOB, you tried to bribe me!” 

That won Harry two terms in the US House of Representatives.  In 1987, Reid ran for the Senate and never looked back.  Reid was the son of a minor from Searchlight, Nevada. 

When he ran for public office the first time, he was lower middle class.  After forty years of ‘public service’ Harry Reid is now worth an estimated $4,600,000,00.  Reid has been on the government payroll for forty-three years.  

In order to build up $4.6 over forty-three years, he would have to have socked away about $107,000.00 per year out of his government salary.   How could he do that?

According to Mark Noonan, writing in Nevada News and Views, he probably couldn’t have – but yet he did:

It’s just not credible that Reid has done this just out of his government salary. The man has raised 5 kids, through college. His various government salaries were enough to live on but how, with all the expenses, did Reid build up so much money? What did he do? How did he do it?

How does a man who’s “product” is legislation make so much money that he can build up more than four and a half million dollars of net worth?

By 2001 Reid was a Las Vegas living legend, having been named to the Nevada Gaming Hall of Fame.   By 2006, Harry Reid presided as Senate Majority leader over a bullet-proof Democratic majority.  In 2007 Harry Reid famously announced “the war is lost.”

Harry doesn’t mind losing a war, but there appears to be nothing he won’t do to keep his cozy Senate seat.   One of his campaign tricks is right out of the old New York Tammany Hall playbook.  

Everybody who votes for Harry Reid gets free food and a nice gift certificate supplied by one of the unions.   Nevada law (NRS 293.700) provides that,

“A person who bribes, offers to bribe, or use and other corrupt means, directly or indirectly, to influence any elector in giving his or her vote or to deter the elector from giving it is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.”

Nevada’s Democrat Secretary of State Ross Miller says that there is nothing illegal in offering hamburgers and Starbuck’s gift certificates in exchange for votes.  

“It’s hard to buy an election with a hamburger,” Reid ‘joked’ on Tuesday. Maybe buying an election with a hamburger is hard, but it isn’t stopping him from trying.  And if he can’t buy the election, there is always the option of stealing it. 

In Nevada, maintenance of the state’s voting machines is under contract with the Service Employees International Union – or SEIU.   The head of the SEIU is Obama buddy Andy Stern. 

So when voting machines were sent to Las Vegas and Clark County, some voters complained because Harry Reid’s name was already checked off on the ballot.   Election officials say it wasn’t voter fraud – the problem is with ‘elderly’ voters. 

In my old stomping grounds of North Carolina, one voter who voted a straight Republican party ticket found his ballot marked all Democrats.  He cleared the screen and tried again with the same result.

Then he asked for and received help from election staff.

“They pushed it twice and the same thing happened,” Laughinghouse said. “That was four times in a row. The fifth time they pushed it and the Republicans came up and I voted.”

Other voters in Craven County reported similar problems.  In Havelock, just outside Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, 400 people voted, but the machines reported only 250 ballots cast.  Anybody want to bet which party’s votes survived?

This isn’t unusual there.  In 2006, Carteret County officials lost 4,600 — primarily military and likely Republican — ballots (including Gayle’s).  The Democrat candidate won.

In Chicago, a ‘glitch’ in the vote-by-mail system threatens to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. The majority of those affected live outside the heavily-Democrat Chicago area.

In Bucks County, Pennsylvania resident voters say they have evidence linking Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy’s campaign to a scheme to flood the county voter registration office with fraudulent applications for absentee ballots.

The petition is the latest in a series of alarms county and state Republicans have sounded over an influx of questionable absentee ballot applications.

Last week, Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler said his office would investigate allegations of fraud leveled against state and county Democrat officials.

Voter Registration Director Deena Dean said her staff had rejected more than 600 defective absentee ballot applications as of Friday.

In Arizona, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the state law that requires voters to show proof of citizenship in order to vote.

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

The majority noted that Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the voter act, and built in sufficient protections, including applying perjury penalties to applicants who lie about their eligibilty.

The court determined Arizona’s polling place photo identification requirement, however, is a minimal burden and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.  However, proving you are legally entitled to vote evidently does.

And Andrew Breitbart has a video clip of a top union official discussing voter fraud that will make your blood boil.

And finally, President Obama has been stumping the country with some of the most disrespectful  statements ever uttered by a sitting President about his own constituency.   Those xenophobic, gun and Bible clinging rednecks of yesteryear are still out there.

Only now, instead of having antipathy against folks that are not like them, they are just scared.   Indeed, Americans are so “scared” they’re not thinking straight about the upcoming elections.

Obama, speaking at several rallies and fundraisers as part of his final get-out-the-vote stretch, said Republican candidates are “playing on fear” and hinted that unsophisticated voters are “falling” for it.

He said Americans have every reason to be worried, but lamented that “facts” aren’t doing his party any good this year. 

“People out there are still hurting very badly, and they are still scared. And so part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.” 

The president touched again on this theme Sunday night at an Ohio rally, where he warned about the influence of “special interests that would profit from the other side’s agenda.” 

“They’re fighting back. The Empire is striking back,” Obama said to laughter. 

At the same rally, where he was joined by first lady Michelle Obama, he described the election as “a contest between our deepest hopes and our deepest fears.” 

“And the other side is playing on fear,” he said. “That’s what they do.”  (Sure. Class warfare — that is a tactic for the other side.)

Obama said in a whistle stop the day before  that voters can respond to their “trauma” by either “looking backwards” or looking “forward.” 

Fear and trauma.  This is probably not the best time to trot out those themes.   And that last thing he should be encouraging voters to ‘look backwards.’

If one looks backwards, one sees the unemployment rate almost double since Obama came to office.  If one looks backward, one sees the national debt having doubled under Obama. 

If one looks backward, one sees the national deficit triple under Obama.

If one looks backward further than that, one sees low inflation, double-digit economic growth, low unemployment and high productivity.

If one looks forward, the national debt under Obama is expected to continue to rise.  The national deficit will get bigger as Obama tries to spend his way out of poverty.  

The Fed is considering introducing inflation as a way of kick-starting the economy and stopping the dollar’s international free-fall.

Fear?  You bet’cha!

Assessment:

We’re in pretty big trouble.  Actually, we’re in really big trouble.   One might even call the times in which we find ourselves ‘perilous.’  That’s how the Bible characterizes them.

“This know also that in the last days, perilous times shall come,” Paul writes in his 2nd Letter to Timothy.

But look at what Paul says is responsible for the perilous times of the last days.   Pride (gay and otherwise) boastfulness, covetousness (class warfare) blasphemers without natural affection, false accusers,  traitors, heady and high-minded. 

Paul calls them ‘fierce’ despisers of those that are good.  We’ve been chronicling the general meltdown of American values since we went on line in October 2001.   A year later, we revisited our mission and our goals.

The Omega Letter will, by God’s grace, be a year old in a couple of weeks. We have a complete archive of our emailed briefings at the website. The now-substantial database contains the last 351 member briefings.  (That was then. Our database as of today includes 2,962 daily briefs.)

That’s a day-by-day chronicle of the significant prophetic events of the past year — in detail. The entire database is available to Omega Letter members. It’s worth a look.

Reading through them, Paul’s words take on increasing resonance. “This know also, that in the last days, perilous times shall come.”

As Christians, we really have nothing to fear. Who fears heaven? The social meltdown going on all around us that is responsible for the unprecedented peril of our times is clearly part of God’s overall plan.

Christians trust God.

Since He is in charge, and since He provided us a clear blueprint of the last days so we could KNOW He remains in charge, ‘perilous times’ for the world at large are spiritually comforting times to those of us who are in the world, but not of it.

That is why Bible prophecy is so important FOR the last days. Because it provides that comfort — Jesus said that, “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

Knowing the Plan in advance, then watching it unfold before our eyes, we can SEE the tribulation that is coming upon the world.

Instead of being terrified, Christians are cheering on each new evidence of the Lord’s soon return.

Your emails to me are not filled with terror and dread, but rather filled with eager anticipation of what might be coming next, as terrible as it might appear to be.

Christians know how it all turns out in the end. We recognize the signs of the times as concrete proof our faith is not in vain.

What terrifies the world empowers the Christian. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18)

The whole purpose of the Omega Letter is to help equip you to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15)

We share an important mission — all of us — in these last days. “The harvest is plenteous,” said the Lord, “but the laborers are few.” The enemy knows he hasn’t much time left, and he is making the most of it.

We should be, too.

Eight years later, if there were anything to add, it would be to note that the times are even more perilous today than they were then.   And back then, we wondered if things could get any worse.

Paul said they would.  “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived,” he told Timothy. 

Barack Obama, Timothy Geithner, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. . . 

I think that Paul guy just might be a prophet!  

The Covenants

The Covenants
Vol: 109 Issue: 26 Tuesday, October 26, 2010

This morning, I received the following email from a fellow who signed his name “Pastor” Steve. I am always a bit wary of those who sign off a personal email with their title and their first name.  It seems like a contrived formality.

“Pastor” is the honorific bestowed upon the leader of a local church. It identifies a person as the shepherd over a particular flock.  I’m not sure how it is relevant outside the local church.    

In any case, Pastor Steve was writing to address a column he read recently and he didn’t mince any words in the process.

“You misrepresent Calvinism to try and prove “dispensationalism” which is a man made theory that distorts the truth that people have always been saved by grace through faith. You are a false teacher who are [sic] not even honest enough to share the truth about Calvinism, but distort it to prove your point. You will have to answer to God for your twisted views of Scripture. Pastor Steve”

(I’m surprised he didn’t sign it “in Christian love”.) 

 Since Pastor Steve didn’t identify which column he was taking umbrage with or specify the untruths about Calvinism that I had distorted, or how my views of Scripture were twisted,  I don’t know exactly what his point is, other than he apparently rejects dispensationalism, since he offset it with quotes.

In the mid 1600s a theologian named Johannes Cocceius introduced the one-covenant-of-grace idea, giving rise to the belief that God has but one objective insofar as His interaction with human beings is concerned. 

But it does not necessarily follow that because there is only one righteous ground upon which God can deal graciously with sinners, that there must be but one covenant relationship between God and man.

God has earthly, as well as heavenly purposes, transforming blessings adapted to each group and the sphere to which they belong.  God has made various covenants with Israel. Some are conditional and some are unconditional.

Conditional covenants are those that require human faithfulness; unconditional covenants are those in which God simply declares what He will do, completely apart from the question of either human worthiness or faithfulness.

The Scriptures identify nine separate covenants entered into between God and man on this earth.  It is via these nine covenants that all Scripture binds together.  

The Edenic Covenant: This covenant conditioned unfallen man’s life at Eden and is in seven parts.  In essence, it placed humanity at the center as the focal point of God’s creation.   It was an unconditional covenant on God’s part.   On Adam’s part, remaining in fellowship with God demanded obedience.

The Adamic Covenant:  This was God’s covenant with Adam after the Fall – it is also in seven parts. Adam’s unbelief and disobedience resulted in the failure of the Edenic covenant, which resulted in “death being passed upon all men” and the need for a Redeemer to come.

The Noahic Covenant:  This was God’s seven-part covenant with Noah for governing live after the flood. The Noahic covenant otherwise known as the covenant of preservation, was “a renewal of the provisions of creation, and even reflected closely the language of the original covenant.” (Genesis 9:9-11)

The Abrahamic Covenant:  This is the first formal covenant between God and a people, rather than with persons, as before.  It is a covenant between God and Abraham’s seed. 

God not only made this covenant with Abraham but also with Isaac and Jacob, which not only included the promises of the previous covenants (Edenic, Adamic and Noahic) but expanded upon them.

God assured Abraham of his covenant by his instructions to present certain animals in a particular form to God (Gen. 15:7-9). These instructions were exactly in the form of a covenant that might take place between two men.

Abraham halved the animals placing the halves opposite each other, except the bird which he killed but did not divide (Gen. 15:10-11).

 As Abraham slept, the Lord came as a “blazing torch” (Gen. 15:17), passed in between the animals, and established a covenant that could never be annulled (Gal 3:15-17).

This act symbolized  the participants pledged to the other total commitment, and that if that was to be broken “they were asking that their own bodies be torn in pieces just as the animals had been divided ceremonially.” 

In other words, if the covenant was broken, somebody had to die. Since God pass through the aisles alone, only God was judicially capable of redeeming the covenant.    2000 years later, God stepped out of eternity and into time and space in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ kept the terms of the covenant, and was therefore guiltless of violating it.   That made Him the only One qualified to pay the debt incurred, since He had no debt obligation of His own to satisfy.  

When He paid the penalty for Abraham and his seed, He also opened up a way for Gentiles to enter into  their own covenant relationship with Him.  But it was all set in motion by God’s covenant with Abraham, without which, it could not have been.

The Abrahamic covenant is an unconditional, seven part covenant. 

  1. “I will make of thee a great nation”
  2. “And I will bless thee.”
  3. “And make thy name great”
  4. “And thou shalt be a blessing”
  5. “And I will bless them that bless thee”
  6. “And curse him that curse thee”
  7. “And in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”

The Mosaic Covenant: The Mosaic Covenant is made between God and Israel alone.  But the Law was given Israel, not as a means of redemption or to atain a covenant relationship with God, but rather because Israel is  already in a right relationship with God as a redeemed nation — under God’s unconditional covenant with Abraham.    

“And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is My covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. “(Romans 11:26)

Replacement theology claims the blessings of the Old Covenant relationship with God, often including the Ten Commandments.   

It is obvious that the Commandments were never intended to address Christians but for some reason there are those within the Church that cannot understand that the saints of God in the age of Grace cannot be under the Law.  

“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14)

The covenant of the Law was not made with the Church.  It was not made with the Gentiles.  It is a covenant agreement entered into by God and the Israelites fleeing Egypt.  There are two sides to a covenant agreement, even an unconditional covenant agreement.    

The Church cannot be under a Covenant agreement made between God and Israel.  That’s why the Reformers spiritualized Israel into meaning “the Church.”   

It seemed to make sense – when there was no Israel.  Which brings us to the sixth covenant.

The Palestinian Covenant: The sixth covenant, also expressed in seven parts, set out the conditions of Israel’s relationship to the Promised Land.   The Land will be for them an everlasting possession and to it they were prophesied to return.  

The Palestinian Covenant is unconditional – it cannot be broken, transferred or otherwise abrogated. (Not even by order of the Vatican’s Middle East Synod.)

The Davidic Covenant:  The seventh covenant is with David and it is set forth in but five parts.

  1. David’s posterity will fail not – there will always be a member of the line of David.
  2. David’s throne is established forever;  Israel will never have a King from any other lineage.
  3. David’s kingdom or sphere of rule, will also last forever.
  4. The line of David will never lack a son
  5. The Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David.

The Kingdom Covenant:  This is the eighth covenant – also established with Israel.  It conditions their life in the Kingdom during the Millennial Reign.  God tells Jeremiah that this is a “New Covenant” – one that both replaces and yet includes parts of the Mosaic Covenant.

Assessment:

Are you starting to see where this leads?  God has entered into nine different covenant agreements with mankind.   Each covenant contract was presented by God to mankind, who was then free to accept or reject God’s covenant promise.    

Once entered into, however, a covenant agreement is forever.

Every covenant that God made with His people demonstrated his grace and mercy, each one being unique and all being interrelated, progressively revealing and pointing toward the new covenant which fulfilled all of the earlier covenants and itself — equating to the great everlasting covenant.

I said there are nine covenants between God and mankind.   Note that each one formed a progressive revelation from God. God revealed more of Himself and His plan to mankind with each successive covenant agreement. 

The first three were between God and named individuals; Adam and Eve, Adam and later, Noah.  The next five were between God and the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph.  

Jesus Christ fulfilled the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant at the Cross, introducing the ninth covenant, the New Covenant, and not with the Jews only, but with all mankind.  

The Abrahamic Covenant was not abrogated – it was fulfilled – but it is still in force.  The seed of Abraham continue to bless the nations of the world.   It was through the Abrahamic Covenant that the Lord introduced the New Covenant blessing of salvation by grace through faith.

The New Covenant, established in His Blood, is irrevocable but not unconditional.  To enter into the New Covenant, one must personally receive the gift of salvation obtained for them at the Cross.  Every person is free to reject the offer and stand before the Lord clothed in his own righteousness.

Ok, so what are the take-away facts here? 

First, the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.  God cannot take back His covenant relationship with Israel and God cannot transfer it to the Church.   To do either would make God a liar.

Secondarily, transferring Israel’s blessings to the Church is redundant.  The Church has its own Covenant relationship and combining it with Israel’s makes salvation by grace through faith impossible.   

Israel’s new covenant rests on the sovereign “I will” of God.  The new covenant for the Church is written in Christ’s Blood.  

Put another way, everything that the Abrahamic Covenant promises to Israel in the future, the Church already possesses, and infinitely more.

Looking at the Nine Covenants of God one sees that God was, is and always will be a promise-keeping God.  God always keeps His promises—irrespective of persons – and the gifts and calling of God is without repentance – God didn’t change His mind about the national redemption of Israel.

For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:27-30)

Replacement theology seems simple enough, on the surface.  If one doesn’t know what the Bible teaches about covenant relationships, it is easy to believe that God got so mad at the Jews over Jesus that He washed His Hands of them and passed their covenant blessings along to the Church.

It’s a little harder to buy into that nonsense when you read what the Bible says about it.

“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” (Romans 11:25)

“Lest we be wise in our own conceits”  — that sums it up nicely.

Christian Supersessionism

Christian Supersessionism
Vol: 109 Issue: 25 Monday, October 25, 2010

Replacement theology, also called supersessionism or fulfilled theology, is an interpretation of Bible doctrine that says in essence, that God can both change and that God can lie.  

The proponents of this worldview don’t specifically say that, but it is the only way that it can work.  There are a lot of branches on the replacement theology tree, but they shoot off from two main trunks.

  • Israel’s role as the people of God was completed when the Messiah came 2,000 years ago.  A transition took place at this point and the Church became the people of God.   This is called economic supersessionism.
  • Israel forfeited its place as God’s Chosen people as a Divine punishment for the rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. This view is called punitive supersessionism.

In both cases, all the promises made by God to the Jews have been passed to the Church.   The ethnic Jews of modern Israel have no more of a spiritual connection to the Land of Israel than the Irish do.

Replacement theologians claim all of the Divine promises made to Israel were passed on to the Church.  However, I’ve never heard one teach that the Church also inherited the curses and judgments God pronounced on Israel for her apostasy.

Last week we addressed the question, “Are you a Calvinist?”  If you are a Calvinist, then you are also a proponent of replacement theology.  Calvin’s Reformed, or Covenant theology is closely associated with amillennialism, a spiritualized method (rather than literal-historical) of interpreting prophecy.

There are so many problems with replacement theology that one hardly knows where to start.  The concept is so foreign to the writings of the Apostle Paul that some scholars actually attempt to separate Paul as unreliable.  

Replacement theology is the root and branch of Christian anti-Semitism.   I found a blog posting proclaiming it was “Refuting the Replacement Theology Argument of the Christian Zionist” in which he explains the discrepancies away by quoting the “Jewish Apostle Paul.”  (All the Apostles were Jewish!)

Reading through it, I can’t tell if it was written by a Christian or by a member of Hamas.   In the end, both worldviews argue that God favors the destruction of Israel.

“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.”  (John 16:2)  

Replacement theologians claim this verse really prophesied the persecution of the early Church.

Ironically, Jesus is prophesying the persecution of the Jews by Christians blinded by replacement theology. Christians don’t go to synagogues.  Jesus was addressing His disciples – all of them Jews.

In these last days, the Church is divided into three major theological groupings, Catholic, Protestant and heretic.  Heretics were invented by C.I. Scofield, Margaret Macdonald and J.N. Darby.  I’m not exactly sure how, but I think it had something to do with actually reading a Bible.

Heretics believe in something called Dispensationalism which espouses a doctrine of progressive revelation.   Dispensationalism is a system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways in different dispensations.  Three key examples would be Conscience, Law and Grace. 

I can’t find any Biblical support for God breaking His promises to the Jews, but I can find plenty of support for Dispensational truth.

“For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.” (1st Corinthians 9:17)

“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him:” (Ephesians 1:10)

“If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:” (Ephesians 3:2)

“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God” (Colossians 1:25)

If we’re using the Bible as a guide, the true heresy is therefore replacement theology.  

“For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”(Romans 11:29)

Assessment:

A Vatican synod on the Middle East ended over the weekend with the Catholic bishops calling for an end to the Israeli “occupation.” 

While the bishops condemned terrorism and anti- Semitism, they laid much of the blame for the conflict on Israel. They listed the “occupation” of Palestinian lands, the West Bank security barrier, its military checkpoints, “political prisoners,” demolition of homes and disturbance of Palestinians’ lives as factors that have made life increasingly difficult for Palestinians.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon responded: “We express our disappointment that this important synod has become a forum for political attacks on Israel in the best tradition of Arab propaganda.

In the very best traditions of replacement theology, the bishops demanded that Israel accept UN resolutions calling for an “end to its occupation of Arab lands” while fully aware that what they were really calling for was Israel’s national suicide. 

The bishops warned Israel against using the Bible to justify “injustices” against the Palestinians.  The Pope took up their theme in his Sunday homily;

“Peace is possible. Peace is urgent. Peace is an indispensable condition for a life worthy of the human person and of society. Peace is also the best remedy to avoid [Christian] immigration from the Middle East.”

The theme of the synod was that Christians are fleeing the Middle East in droves. Bethlehem’s Christian population has dwindled from 85% down to single digits in the last twenty years.   The Vatican found a way to blame that on Israel.

Except that Israel’s Christian population has increased.  The exodus of Christians in the Middle East is from areas under Muslim rule.

Christian persecution of the Jews is legendary. By Catholics.  By mainstream Protestants.  (They don’t get a pass on this one.)

The list of Protestant churches that have divested from Israel or otherwise worked against her existence includes practically every single mainstream Protestant denomination from Lutherans to Presbyterians and beyond. 

These are the fruits of replacement theology.  Anti-Semitism. Spiritual warfare against the Jews.  At the risk of repeating myself:

“They shall put you out of the synagogues yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.”

In contrast, Dispensationalist Christians are derided by their critics as “Christian Zionists” because they believe that Israel’s restoration in 1948 was a direct fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Since God miraculously restored the Jews, opposing Israel’s existence is opposing the Plan of God.

The Bible says, “by their fruits ye shall know them.”

The next time somebody accuses you of being a Calvinist, remember that the fact that they had to ask means they don’t know what in the world they are talking about.

That way, you’ll know not to use big words in your reply.

Liberally Tolerant

Liberally Tolerant
Vol: 109 Issue: 23 Saturday, October 23, 2010

If there is one thing that a person can legitimately say about Christianity, it is that it is intolerant of other views.   That intolerance is Christianity’s greatest vulnerability.  

History is replete with stories of Christian intolerance and the evils it spawned.

Christian intolerance has cost millions upon millions their lives throughout history and promises to claim millions more.   The Bible says that there is but one way to the Father, one way to Heaven and only one name by which men must be saved.

That’s not very tolerant of other religions.  Christianity, by its very existence, repudiates all other religions and rejects all other views.  According to Christians, there is only one heaven and only one God and only one Savior and only one Holy Writ.

And nobody else has it all — but us.  How intolerant is that?  (Unless, of course, it is true.)

In any case, nobody is compelled to become a Christian.  There are no entrance requirements beyond being a sinner.  Christianity is only intolerant of non-Christianity when it is offered as an alternative solution to the sin problem. 

But because Christianity recognizes sin as a problem, rather than an alternative lifestyle choice, it means Christianity is not merely intolerant, it is hateful

Christianity imposes the requirement of loving the sinner but hating the sin.  What that says to the sinner that loves his sin is that Christianity is both hateful and intolerant of lifestyles it doesn’t agree with.

For this reason, and under the specific charge of hateful intolerance, millions of Christians were fed to the lions or otherwise executed by the Romans during the early years of the Church.   

It wasn’t because the Romans objected to the worship of another god – the Romans already had dozens of gods. One or two more wouldn’t matter.  

But Christians claimed that Jesus Christ is the only God rather than just one of the gods, and that apart from Him, no man could be saved from hell and into heaven.  

What does that mean?  To the lost, it means that those that reject Jesus Christ and the sacrifice of the Cross are condemned to an eternal damnation in hell.   There is no escape. There is no alternative. 

You can be the most religious guy in the world, but without Jesus, the Bible says, you are lost. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or heaven or if you even care. 

In a tolerant and enlightened society such as ancient Rome or its modern equivalent in Western civilization, that kind of intolerance just cannot be tolerated.

Something must be done to provide protection from such hate-mongering.

Assessment:

A lady in Michigan is now facing a civil rights complaint for violating the Michigan Fair Housing Act.  Her crime? She advertised for a Christian roommate!   Her case has been turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.

According to the Fair Housing people, the ad expressed an “illegal” preference for a Christian roommate, “thereby excluding people of other faiths.”   Ummmm. . . what?

Of course a preference of a Christian roommate excludes people of other faiths!  The reason is because the lady seeking a roommate doesn’t want a roommate of another faith.    When one is looking for a roommate, one is looking for someone they can live with.  Someone they can be compatible with. 

But this story gets crazier. She didn’t post it in the local newspaper where she might offend Wiccans, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus or Jews. 

 The lady placed her advertisement on a Christian church bulletin board, in a Christian church, where like-minded Christians gather to worship.  

She put the ad up on a church bulletin board! 

According to the Executive Director of the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan, “It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement. There are no exemptions to that.” In other words, such intolerance cannot be tolerated!  

Director Nancy Haynes made her case saying, “If you read it and were not a Christian, would you feel not welcome to rent there?”  (Ummm, if I read it and I wasn’t a Christian, why would I want  to rent there?  I’d be grateful for the warning so I didn’t waste my time.)

(It’s a good thing Nancy Pelosi is from California.  It seems that Grand Rapids already has a village idiot, so California can have theirs back.)

Hayes said that the woman is facing hundreds of dollars in fines and enforced attendance at a government-mandated ‘fair housing training seminar’ which is another way of saying ‘government re-education center’ to teach her how to be more tolerant of others.

That’s the way things work among the self-proclaimed ‘tolerant’ left. They will tolerate anything except intolerance.  That must be stamped out at all costs.

National Public Radio fired FOX new contributor Juan Williams for being an intolerant bigot.  He was on the O’Reilly Factor when he admitted that when he sees a person in full Muslim garb board an airplane, it makes him nervous.

He didn’t say he wouldn’t fly.  He didn’t say he objected to Muslims being allowed to fly. He didn’t say anything except that it made him nervous.  NPR called Williams, (a bright-blue, liberal part African-American, part Hispanic recognized authority on the American civil rights movement) a bigot who should have saved his confession for his psychiatrist.

He was fired on-the-spot for saying out loud what almost everybody thinks to themselves, (including many Muslims).  They don’t think ALL Muslims are terrorists, either.  They only wonder if the ones on the plane with them are.

Luckily, Juan Williams didn’t have to share the fate of the Cartoonist Formerly Known as Molly who was forced into hiding after being declared a prime target for death for insulting Islam.  At least, not yet.  

But if the agents of tolerance had their way, he would.  Such intolerance is intolerable and will not be tolerated!

Or something.

Member’s Note:  This morning, we had our first power outage of the season.    It happens every year about this time. Always at the mid-point in that day’s Omega Letter.  And I’m almost always at the same degree of preparedness. 

The starting battery on the generator was dead.  Had to pull start it, (but first I had to put gas in it.)

Then I had to find all the necessary extension cords to link my network and modem fifty feet away in one direction, to my office equipment, located fifty feet in the other.    Finally, I got everything stretched, linked and powered up — it took about a half hour.  

I settled back down to get to work . . . and the power came back up.   Then I had to shut down the generator and put everything back the way it was . . .and start all over again. 

I sometimes question the old adage, ‘better late than never.’  This may be one of those times.

My apologies.