Come, Let Us Reason Together

Come, Let Us Reason Together
Vol: 117 Issue: 22 Wednesday, June 22, 2011

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and 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)

I saw the following t-shirt slogan the other day.  It read as follows:

Atheism: “the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.  Makes perfect sense.”

I gotta get me one of those, if for no other reason than because atheists love to portray themselves as “free thinkers.” 

Jordan Froese, writing for the Huffington Post, summed up atheism as he understands it thusly:

“I am an atheist, and I subscribe to the idea that humanity and all of its works are essentially the sum of water, carbon, and random electrical impulses.”

I’ve been analyzing that sentence for a few minutes now and am of the opinion that a two-word change would make it a lot clearer:

“I am an idiot, because I subscribe to the idea that humanity and all of its works are essentially the sum of water, carbon, and random electrical impulses.”

Consider what he is saying, here. The Mona Lisa is the sum of water, carbon and random electrical impulses.  

Following his line of reasoning, then so too, is the atomic bomb.  The Bible. A crossword puzzle. An energy-efficient home. The computer you are reading this on.  The software that makes it work. 

A Fabrege egg. The Sistene Chapel. The Great Wall of China. A baby’s smile.A tree.

According to Froese, all these — simply the sum of water, carbon and random electrical impulses.  Your ability to read these words are not the result of anything. Instead, they are the result of nothing

THIS is the position adopted by those who claim that reason is on their side!  

Recently, Stephen F. Hawking, hailed as one of the most brilliant scientists alive, made headlines by sharing what he knows about God, the afterlife and outer space. 

Hawking certainly deserves the title of the most brilliant scientists alive – he knows things no other scientist does.

Hawking says that he knows that there is no God.  Hawking says that he knows that heaven does not exist. Hawking says that he knows that everything was created from nothing according to a random process. 

But as brilliant as Stephen F. Hawking is supposed to be, he was rendered speechless by former child actor Kirk Cameron’s two-word challenge:

“Prove it.”

“Ooops!”

Assessment:

It always struck me as odd that secular scientists — who would never dream of making a blanket statement of fact concerning a topic they know nothing about and for which they had no empirical evidence — are completely comfortable making blanket assertions– as fact —  like “there is no God.”

The atheist’s blanket proclamation that there is no God, or that the works of mankind are nothing more than water, carbon and electrical impulses is actually a much more difficult position with far less empirical evidence in support than is the Christian position.

The atheist position is one of total negativity.  There is no evidence to support atheism. There are no ‘proofs’ that God does not exist.  The entire atheist argument rests on the absence of any evidence whatsoever. 

It is that absence of evidence that forms the body of argument supporting atheism. 

Conversely, the Christian has the Bible, two thousand years of Christian history, various and sundry Christian denominations, prayer books, liturgical worship standards, and the support of history.

These are things that can be seen, handled, examined and analyzed. In a word — evidence.

What does the atheist offer in evidence of his position?  Attacks on the Bible, Christian history, the various denominations, prayer and worship and history.   His only defense is an attack. 

He cannot offer anything in support of his position except his own doubts.

The only way that his position is in any way intellectually defensible is in the abstract – he can argue that it is at least possible that God does not exist.

His entire argument rests on that possibility.  Moreover — and this is key — it depends on his possibility being the only possibility.

Atheists have another major problem with their worldview that immediately exposes the philosophical bankruptcy of their position.  Even if they were successful in refuting evidences offered in favor of the existence of God, that in no way offers any support to atheism.

Even if the atheist refutes all the evidences placed before him, he still loses the debate, IF the standard is really as they claim, that of reason and logic. 

At best, one can only argue that so far, they’ve not seen convincing evidences.

Guys like Stephen F. Hawking cannot say there are no evidences for God, because Hawking cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. 

At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be sufficient evidences presented in the future. 

If an atheist is intellectually honest, he will acknowledge at this point that he has lost the debate, since his only alternative is to deny that there may indeed be evidence as-yet undiscovered — which then becomes the foundation of his argument.

Spelled out in words, it would read like this:

“My position is that I know beyond all possible doubt that which is unknowable, based on a total lack of evidence in support of my position.”

His opponent’s argument in summary is this one:

“The age and existence of the Bible, the historical failure to stamp it out, together with the faith and inspiration it has engendered, and the billions of people that believe it — all qualify as hard evidences that can be examined, debated and interpreted, but not refuted, since all exist in the real world and can be demonstrated.”

Every single debate between a Christian and an atheist follows the exact same pattern.   The Christian presents evidence, the atheist attacks the Christian’s presentation.  The Christian always goes first because without the Christian’s prior assertions, the atheist has NOTHING to say.

Picture the debate as it would unfold if the atheist goes first. 

“There is no God because I can’t see Him.” 

That’s ALL he’s got. He can’t add anything to that without reaching into the believer’s evidence bag for something to attack.

By itself, the atheist position is identical to that offered by our pal Jordan Froese:

“I am an idiot, because I subscribe to the idea that humanity and all of its works are essentially the sum of water, carbon, and random electrical impulses.

And since I have no evidence of my own, the only evidence I am going to offer in support of my position is that your evidence doesn’t convince me.”

“See, I told you I was an idiot.”

The defense rests. 

Extreme Christianity

Extreme Christianity
Vol: 117 Issue: 21 Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee [D Tx] interrupted a hearing about Muslim radicalization in US prisons recently to interject a comparison between Islamic and Christian extremism. 

According to Representative Lee, the government should be holding investigative hearings to analyze Christian militants in America because they too might try to “bring down the country.” 

In an exchange with witness Patrick Dunleavy, Representative Lee mentioned the case of a man who blew up an abortion clinic and proposed that this perhaps was an attempt to undermine U.S. law that allows a woman to procure an abortion. 

The conversation went back and forth as follows: 

Rep. Lee: “As we look to be informational, we should include an analysis of how Christian militants or others might bring down the country. We have to look broadly, do we not?” 

Dunleavy: “I don’t know that Christian militants have foreign country backing or foreign country financing.”

Rep. Lee: I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is whether or not their intent is to undermine the laws of this nation. And I think it is clear that that is the case. So it’s not — your distinction is not answering the question.” 

Lee drew a straight line from the bombing of an abortion clinic to the interference with a woman’s right to choose to kill her baby, inferring that interfering with that right was the equivalent to wanting to bring down the country. 

There ought to be some kind of mental fitness test one must first pass before one can run for Congress. If there was, there would be no Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee to propose legislation eliminating the southern border, for example.

Or propose legislation legalizing all illegal aliens clever enough to make it past the Border Patrol and into the country. 

Lee voted against a bill that would require states to verify the identity of driver’s license applicants and opposed bills allowing electronic surveillance of terror suspects. 

In 2009, Sheila Jackson Lee introduced legislation honoring drug-addicted accused pedophile Michael Jackson as a global humanitarian. 

So when Lee proposed hearings into Christian extremism, one is tempted to dismiss it as the rantings of a racist militant Marxist anti-American radical anti-Christian. 

While Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s reputation and Congressional record confirm she is all that and more, dismissing her would be a mistake. 

When it comes to hate-mongering, she is practically without equal. 

Assessment:

One of the hallmarks of the last days is widespread persecution of Christians on a scale not too dissimilar to that imposed on Jews by the Nazis.

Jesus said that at it’s height during the Tribulation, persecution would be so extreme that left on it’s own, “there would be no flesh saved“. 

I don’t think most Christians realize what is coming our way. Consider the following paragraph from a website called “religioustolerance.org“. These folks believe they are the voice of tolerance.

“Violence by extremist Christians in the United States has been responsible for attacks on Jewish centers, attempts to poison municipal water supplies, bombing of abortion clinics, and shooting of abortion providers. Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City during 1995 killed 168 people, including 19 children. It showed that extremist Christians can be as deadly as their extremist Islamic counterparts.

There is a substantial number of organizations that are closely involved with actual terrorists. The members of these organizations are convinced that the forces of truth wage a perennial, cosmic battle with the forces of falsehood, and that they face the challenge of protecting Christian truth by any methods available. 

That they are allowing Jesus’ cross to become Mithras’ sword does not occur to them. There are fewer attacks by extremist Christians than by Muslim terrorists because the various Christian organizations are less numerous, their individual agendas differ, and there is a lack of cooperation – their actions are not coordinated.” 

Do you know of any Christian doctrine that could be interpreted as justifying terrorism? Do you know of any New Testament verse that justifies either terrorism or rebellion against civil authorities?

Let me help cut through all that research. There aren’t any

Jesus specifically rebuked Peter for drawing his sword against those that arrested Him in the Garden. When questioned about taxes, Jesus paid His and told His followers to render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. 

The Apostle Paul spoke out against rebellion against the civil authorities, reminding us that God determines who rules what. 

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” 

That seems pretty clear-cut to me. I have a soul, so Paul is talking to me. I am subject to the higher powers. I believe that all power originates with God and that nothing happens by accident. As to the powers that be being ordained of God, if they weren’t, I’d be very, very afraid. 

I believe that God cares about me personally and that He put me where I am and when I am on purpose. 

“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” (Romans 13:1-2)

That sounds pretty serious because Paul wanted to impress the point he was trying to make. It doesn’t mean that resisting the government will cost a saved person their salvation.

The word translated “damnation” (krima) here isn’t the same word translated “damnation” (krisis) when speaking of eternal separation from God in hell.  

“Krima” means “crime” and as used here bespeaks legal judgment before a criminal court.  “Krisis” as used in Matthew 23:33 bespeaks Divine judgment before God.  

English isn’t quite as precise as Greek, so we use the same word for both.  It can be confusing. 

Christians know that there are two kinds of Christians; those who have been born again, and those who are ‘Christians’ because they aren’t anything else.

The latter is what we often call “cultural Christians” — the Apostle Paul referred to them as ‘having a form of godliness but without the power thereof ‘ and admonishes us, ‘from such, turn away’. 

The world has a genuine hatred for Christianity, as amply demonstrated in the example lifted from the so-called “religious tolerance” website, and there are just enough cultural Christians deranged enough to think killing an abortionist will win him the respect of real Christians to lump us all together in the same group. 

Don’t dismiss the Sheila Jackson Lees of the world — when she compared Christian militants to Islamic militants, nobody jumped up and corrected her.  And don’t kid yourself on how quickly hate-crazed politicians can whip up a population.

In Germany in WWI, German Jews fought with distinction. 

Some 12,000 German Jews died in battle, another 30,000 were decorated for bravery and 19,000 were promoted through the ranks.  Roughly 2000 German Jews were officers and 1200 more served in the German medical corps. 

German Jews were an important and respected part of German society and many held public office.  In 1922, Germany’s Foreign minister was a Jew named Walther Rathenau.  The Mayor of Frankfurt was a Jew named Ludwig Landmann.

Ten years later, Jews were forbidden to hold jobs and forced to wear identifying Stars of David.  

In 1922, there were 550,000 Jews living in Germany.  By 1942, those who hadn’t escaped were either dead or soon would be. 

I used to think, “it can’t happen here.”  I used to think that about government propaganda, too.  

Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop . . .

Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop . . .
Vol: 117 Issue: 20 Monday, June 20, 2011

Have you ever seen money simply vanish?  Ever look in your checking account and see money disappear without anyone accounting for it?

Let’s say that yesterday, you had $15,000.00 in your savings account. You check it today and there is only $7500.00 in there so you ask the branch manager where your money went.  

“I dunno,” he tells you. “Sorry about your bad luck.”

Are you going to be satisfied with that answer?  Or are you going to say, “Listen, Dude, $7500.00 doesn’t simply vanish!  Where’s my money?”

And you would be right. $7500.00 can’t just disappear. It is either an accounting error or it has been stolen.  Before it’s over, somebody at that bank is going to have to explain to you where it went and make it right.

Or will you simply shrug your shoulders and forget about it?  Of course not! Not only is your money gone, but somebody stole it – that adds insult to injury. 

You no longer just want your money back – you want whoever stole it to face justice – it’s the principle of the thing.

It is just wrong to allow some thief to live large off the sweat of your brow – or off anyone else’s for that matter.  Even if you got your money back, you don’t want this thief left free to victimize someone else. 

One of our fellowship tipped me off to the Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin (LEAP)  which reported that before the Crash, the world was holding about thirty trillion dollars worth of ‘phantom’ US money — money that LEAP terms “ghost assets”. 

About half that money – fifteen TRILLION dollars — simply vanished during the financial collapse of 2009. 

Not that it was transferred or spent or banked or stuffed into a mattress. . . . it simply vanished from existence.  But as we’ve seen, money doesn’t simply vanish.  It has to go somewhere.  Doesn’t it? 

It does, if it ever existed in the first place.  LEAP charitably calls it “ghost assets.”  There’s another name for it –economic fraud. Here’s how that works, brought down to the scale of an ordinary individual.

Suppose you wanted to get a mortgage from a broker but to qualify, you needed to show $15,000.00 in the bank –but you only have $7500.  So you borrow $7500 from friend and deposit it temporarily to fool the mortgage broker.  

The money wasn’t really yours – it was a bookkeeping trick using “ghost assets” that you never really had. 

Of course it is illegal and if you get caught, you could find yourself facing some serious jail time for fraud.

Unless you are the US government, that is. The TARP program was even worse than in our hypothetical. In our example, we borrowed the money for our fraud from a friend.  In the case of the TARP bailout, the money wasn’t borrowed, it was counterfeited.

The Fed printed money that we didn’t have and gave it to the Treasury to lend it back to ourselves at interest.  The money is counterfeit and doesn’t actually exist.  The interest, on the other hand, is real.

The fifteen trillion that vanished in 2009 was only the first shoe to drop.  According to LEAP, the other fifteen trillion dollars will start going transparent by August and will have completely vanished by year’s end.

The first time around, it was mainly private money that was affected – but there wasn’t enough of it to cover the shortfall.  This time around, it will be public money – US debt – that will have to be ‘vanished’.

The illusion of a global recovery was never that convincing – that is one reason that the mega corporations that took TARP bailout money sat on it instead of investing it in job creation. 

When the next crash came, (for they knew with certitude that it HAD to come) they didn’t want to be caught short. 

LEAP is forecasting that the other shoe will drop — beginning in August.

Assessment:

According to the Obama administration, the government will run out of money to pay its bills by August 2 unless the debt ceiling is raised before that time.

The FCIC announced the failure of two more banks last week, one in Florida and the other in Georgia. In Florida, state regulators closed the two branches of First Commercial Bank of Tampa Bay.

Georgia regulators closed McIntosh State Bank Friday evening. The FDIC took over the Jackson-based bank as receiver and agreed to let Hoschton-based Hamilton State Bank assume all of the deposits, which stood at $324.4 million at the end of March.

McIntosh had four branches and about $339.9 million in total assets.  This brings the total of bank failures so far this year to 47. 

In 2008 (when the first shoe fell) there were but 25 bank failures, but it had a cascading effect; in 2009 140 banks closed their doors; 157 more failed in 2010.

The Fed has policy meetings scheduled for tomorrow and Wednesday but it is unlikely that the Fed will come up with any more magic fixes to staunch the bleeding.

A report last week showing the biggest gain in underlying consumer prices in nearly three years poured cold water on speculation that the Fed might launch QE3–or a third round of Treasury purchases aimed at keeping interest rates at ultralow levels.

It’s not going to happen.  It can’t happen. 

The core inflation is rising faster than anticipated and it isn’t all the fault of higher fuel prices – the core rate is the inflation rate with food and fuel prices stripped out.

According to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Fed has done all that it can.  There can be no further stimulus, and it is an overt admission that the stimulus program we embarked on in 2009 has failed.  

Housing prices are deflating at a faster rate than they did during the Great Depression, raising fears that we may be looking at a total economic collapse in the coming months.

Inflation is bad news because it raises prices.  Inflation is the result of too much money chasing too few goods, causing prices to spiral upward until the bubble bursts and prices have to fall back to earth.

The effect the bursting bubble has on the economy is called ‘recession’ because that’s the way the economy recedes, like waves receding on the shoreline.  They recede, then they come back strong.

Deflation is what happens when prices begin to spiral downward.  At first blush, deflation sounds like good news, especially if you are on a tight budget.  But deflation is really inflation’s evil twin.

By way of analogy, rapid weight loss sounds like a great idea to a dieter – unless the weight loss is due to a terminal illness like cancer.  Deflation is like economic cancer.

Deflation is generally the result of excessive production capacity leading to an oversupply of goods relative to demand. And falling prices reduce returns on investments, reducing the investment pool.

As prices continue to spiral downward, consumers begin to hang onto cash, rather than spend it,  knowing that if they wait, the prices will fall still more. At that point, we’ve moved from dieting to a wasting disease.

It stops being a good thing.

Deferred purchases lead to more inventory.  Too much inventory means idle factories and worker layoffs, which in turn further reduce domestic demand.  The cycle functions much like an economic cancer, a wasting disease that continues to consume its own body.

Unchecked inflation leads to economic recession.  Unchecked deflation leads to economic depression.  That is why deflation is the evil twin.  

Instead of receding, like a wave that will go out and come back to the shoreline, the economy is deflating, like the water level is dropping.  The receding wave goes out, but doesn’t come all the way back. 

The Crash of 1929 wasn’t the cause of the Great Depression.  One can trace the beginning of the slide to October 1929, but it wasn’t the cause.  The Great Depression didn’t even start until three years later.  

In January, 2009, Ben Bernanke made headlines with this comment: “We own the printing presses. We can print all the money we need.”

Ben Bernanke is an acknowledged expert on the causes and errors of the Great Depression.  He once even admitted that the Great Depression was the result of Federal Reserve policy.  

The Fed had a printing press in 1929, too, and it used it to print all the money they needed.  By 1933, the government was forced to order the confiscation of all privately-owned gold to pay its bills. 

That marked the start of the Great Depression, which lasted for seven years, ending only with the outbreak of World War II.

America is on track for another Great Depression that began as a stock market crash in 2007 and got progressively worse as the Fed focused on taming inflation by flooding the marketplace with dollars. 

Following the historical template of 1929-1939, America should slide over from recession into a full blown Depression sometime around 2012, which lines up almost perfectly with the European LEAP forecast.

I’m not predicting that the Rapture will occur in 2012.  But all the signs are pointing to the probability of worldwide economic collapse, together with worldwide famine resulting from growing global food shortages by year’s end.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse symbolize the first four judgments of the Tribulation Period.  The first, the Rider on the White Horse, is the antichrist.  

We know from Daniel 9:27 that the antichrist will come to power as a result of his confirming a peace deal between Israel and ‘the many’ — current headlines are all about the prospect of a Middle East conflagration by year’s end unless somebody comes up with a workable peace plan.

The Rider on the Red Horse is symbolic of War.  Since this war continues after the revelation of antichrist, it is most probably global, rather than regional.

Particularly since Revelation says it claims a quarter of the population — about 1.8 billion people.

The Rider on the Black Horse symbolizes Famine.  But what John describes is more along the lines of famine caused primarily by economic depression.

“A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.” (Revelation 6:6)

It symbolizes a day’s food will cost a day’s wages.  Oil and wine are symbolic of great wealth.  John says the wealthy will not be hurt – a textbook picture of an inflation/deflation scenario.

So follow along with me. . . before the Black Horse of Famine comes the Red Horse of War.  And before that comes the White Horse bearing the antichrist.

I am not predicting that the Rapture will happen in 2012 – the Bible prohibits date-setting, but Jesus tells us that we can know when it is near, even at the doors.

I don’t know when the Rapture will happen.  But most secular economists are forecasting the Rider on the Black Horse will saddle up at some point before the end of next year.

And the Black Horse comes in third.

Maranatha!

The Mystery of Iniquity

The Mystery of Iniquity
Vol: 117 Issue: 18 Saturday, June 18, 2011

“Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold”  – Jesus Christ, Matthew 24:12

During his World Apology Tour, Obama visited Mexico on April 16, 2009 (when Operation Fast and Furious was just getting started.  More on that later). While there, he blamed America for Mexican drug violence;

“This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States . . . more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border.”

Obama joins many other U.S. and Mexican officials — from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Mexican ambassador to the U.S. — who have cited versions of the 90 percent figure in arguing for greater U.S. intervention. For his part, Obama has pledged to commit more money and resources to stem the flow of guns south of the border.

Understand this story in terms of time and context. 

The time is four months into the Obama administration —  when Obama was still fending off charges he was “born in a manger” and anybody that questioned his policy agenda was a racist.

The context is one in which Obama issued talking points to his cabinet members to cite that 90% statistic at every opportunity, especially when discussing gun control restrictions and ways around the Second Amendment.

In its 2009 article, Politifact notes that the ATF strongly supported the statistic that suggested lax US gun control laws were responsible for Mexico’s bloodbath:

“ATF officials challenge the suggestion that Mexico only sends them guns they suspect are from the United States. In fact, the ATF found about a quarter of the 90 percent were made in other countries and then taken illegally from the United States into Mexico.”  

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held hearings this past week on “Operation Gunwalker” also known as “Operation Fast and Furious” and “Operation Gunrunner.”

At least, it did the best it could with what it had – the White House is still blocking access to key documents, according to committee chairman Darrel Issa [R-Ca]. 

After months of being stonewalled by Attorney General Eric Holder, in March, Issa’s committee issued a subpoena demanding Holder surrender documents related to the ATF’s “Operation Fast and Furious.”

Holder ordered the DoJ not to comply, citing its own pending criminal investigations, prompting Rep. Issa to write Holder directly to clarify any misconceptions:

“Let me be clear: we are not conducting a concurrent investigation with the Department of Justice, but rather an independent investigation of the Department of Justice – specifically, of allegations that the reckless and inappropriate decisions of Department officials have created a serious public safety hazard.”

That certainly seemed clear enough to me.  But it wasn’t clear enough for Eric Holder, who ordered ATF Director Melson to sit tight.  That is pretty much where it sits right now. Stonewalled in Congress.

Meanwhile on Monday, a trio of Senate Democrats, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein, cited this same 90% figure while calling for tougher firearms laws. 

“Congress has been virtually moribund while powerful Mexican drug trafficking organizations continue to gain unfettered access to military-style firearms coming from the United States,” Feinstein complained.

Feinstein, together with Chuck Schumer of New York and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, are calling for the reinstatement of an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and “better enforcement” of a ban on the import of military-style weapons.

“This report confirms what many of us already know to be true. … It is still too easy for Mexican drug lords to get their hands on deadly military-grade weapons within our borders,” Schumer said. “We need to redouble our efforts to keep violent firearms out of the hands of these traffickers.”

Noted CNN in its editorial background coverage of the story:

Mexico has been critical of what it sees as lax U.S. efforts at blocking guns from ending up in the wrong hands.

“It is clear that the availability of high-powered guns in the United States for Mexican criminals is hurting bilateral security,” Mexican National Security spokesman Alejandro Poire told CNN in February. “We would hope to see an overwhelming response from the United States government to prevent these guns from getting into Mexico.”

In a 2010 speech to the U.S. Congress, Mexican President Felipe Calderon called for action similar to what the U.S. senators propose.

“If you don’t regulate the sale of arms in the right way, nothing guarantees that the criminals won’t have access to these,” Calderon said. “There are more than 7,000 gun stores along the border with Mexico where anyone can buy. I ask Congress to help us and understand how important it is to have strong laws to avoid arming the criminals.”

It would seem (to me) that the best way to accomplish that would be for the ATF to stop selling guns to them.

Assessment:

It seems that over roughly a three year period, ATF agents have been pressuring US gun dealers, mostly along the Arizona-Mexico border, to sell thousands of semi-automatic weapons to ‘straw buyers,’ in this case, Mexican nationals. 

(It is illegal for US gun dealers to sell guns to non-citizen resident aliens or to foreign nationals.)

Here is a background summary:

On December 14, 2010, a special unit of the U.S. Border Patrol came across a group of heavily armed suspects near Rio Rico, Arizona. The Border Patrol team identified themselves as law enforcement officers, at which point the armed men opened fire.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed during the battle. One of the suspects was captured, and two semiautomatic rifles recovered at the scene were identified as being part of an ongoing ATF sting operation.

On Tuesday, Rep Darrell Issa’s committee released a fifty-one page pdf report based on testimony from ATF field agents. To this point, the ATF continues to stonewall, as does both the Department of Justice and the White House.

The report’s findings, if true, are shocking beyond belief.  Among them:

  • ATF agents instructed U.S. gun dealers to proceed with questionable and illegal sales of firearms to suspected gunrunners.
  • The ATF allowed or even assisted in those guns crossing the U.S. border into Mexico to “boost the numbers” of American civilian market firearms seized in Mexico and thereby provide the justification for more firearm restrictions on American citizens and more power and money for ATF.
  • They intentionally kept Mexican authorities in the dark about the operation.
  • At least one agent was cautioned that if he didn’t stop complaining about the dangerous nature of the operation, he would find himself out of a job, and lucky to be working in a prison.
  • Senior ATF personnel including Acting Director Ken Melson, and senior Department of Justice officials at least up to an assistant attorney general, were well aware of and supported the operation.
  • Department of Justice officials hid behind semantics to lie and deny that they allowed guns to be walked across the border.
  • The more than 2,000 weapons that the Obama Justice Department allowed to be delivered to Mexican narco-terrorist cartels are thought to have been used in the shooting of an estimated 150 Mexican law enforcement officers and soldiers battling the cartels.
  • The US Justice Department has therefore KNOWINGLY supplied enough weaponry to equip ten infantry companies or two full battalions of violent drug dealers.

There has been an ongoing war between the Obama administration and the NRA, Congress and Constitutionalists over the intended scope of the Second Amendment. 

Having lost a critical battle in the Supreme Court, the administration shifted its attention from the Supreme Court to the Court of Public Opinion, where it has a better chance of stacking the deck.

The Issa panel makes it clear that Operation Fast and Furious was well-known at the highest levels of the ATF and DoJ, and it is therefore inconceivable that it wasn’t supported by Eric Holder.  It wasn’t an ongoing ATF legacy operation — it didn’t begin until after Obama took office. 

The White House has clearly been using Operation Fast and Furious to support its efforts in swaying the Court of Public Opinion its way. The fact that the effort has cost hundreds of lives is only now coming to light. 

At the same time that Issa’s committee is investigating what Obama knew and when he knew it, the whole Congress is considering what to do about the illegal wars that Obama has started in Libya and Yemen.

Three years into Obama’s administration, if it has a single, recurring theme, it is that of lawlessness.

From ACORN’s involvement in his election to the crooked GM deals to the Obamacare waivers exempting Obama’s cronies to the uncounted billions that magically vanished from TARP on the way to the bank, everything about Obama is crooked.

He lies so much that it only makes headlines when he gets caught in a “truthhood” — like when he admitted the shovel-ready jobs he used to sell TARP was a lie.

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth [katecho: withhold, restrain] will let, until He be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming:” (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8)

The word translated ‘iniquity’ by the KJV translators is anomia which means “lawlessness.”  Paul calls it a “mystery” (musterion)  — a Divine secret being revealed for the first time. 

The “secret” isn’t lawlessness – the secret is that the Restrainer of lawlessness will be taken out of the way before that “Wicked” (anomos: Lawless One) can be revealed.  

In the coming days, watch as the two sides rise to do verbal combat over whether or not selling guns to drug lords in order to influence US public opinion is legal – for there WILL be debate. 

Why? The katecho is still restraining unrestricted anomia until it is time for the anomos to be revealed. For now. 

Meanwhile, as this story heats up (and it will) observe its defenders.  Note their arguments and don’t lose sight of what they are actually defending.

It really is a mystery at work.

The Eyewitness Factor

The Eyewitness Factor
Vol: 117 Issue: 17 Friday, June 17, 2011

Suppose that somebody released a new book attributing a slew of miracles – including the ability to raise the dead – to the late Ronald Reagan.  Continuing on, let’s also suppose that the book attributed divine qualities to Ronald Reagan, including the power to forgive sins.

Not only does the book claim that Reagan possessed these Divine attributes, but also that he lived a life of perfect sinlessness.  (For the sake of my point, just suppose such a book would get published.)

In truth, Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in American history and one of the giants of the 20th century.  His wisdom led to the end of the Cold War – he was one of the most quotable presidents ever. 

But my fake book, despite Reagan’s actual greatness, would never make it to the newsstands, let alone spawn a new religion. Why?  Too many living witnesses to the actual Ronald Reagan. 

If Reagan raised a dead guy, I’d know about it.  If Reagan healed the sick, I’d know.  If he walked on water, I’d know.  If he claimed he had the power to forgive sins, I’d know about it.

It wouldn’t matter how persuasive the writer or how air-tight his story.  I was there, so to speak.  I wouldn’t even have to look anything up.I’d know the Reagan book was full of lies.   

The Gospel according to Mark is believed by most scholars to be the earliest of the Gospels to be published in Jerusalem, somewhere between AD 45 and AD 60 – between fifteen and thirty years after the events they describe.

“And again He entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that He was in the house. And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and He preached the word unto them. And they come unto Him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto Him for the press, they uncovered the roof where He was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.” (Mark 2:4)

Let’s set the stage here.  Jesus is in Capernaum, where He is so well known that He packs the house.  The synagogue in Capernaum is big – I’ve seen the ruins.  There must have been hundreds in there.

In any case, four guys show up in carrying a fifth guy on a stretcher. They can’t get in through the crowd so they break through the roof and, in full view of the crowd, lowered his stretcher down, presumably with a rope.  

Mark says that first, before anything else, He forgave the sick man his sins, which would have as big an impact within Israel as it would here if Reagan had done the same thing.  Everybody would be talking about it.

Then, after setting tongues to wagging by forgiving his sins, the Lord tells him to get up and walk.

“And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.” (Mark 2:11)

Back to our supposed book about Reagan.  Suppose it contained a similar story about Ronald Reagan in the Oval Office.  Would you believe it?  Of course not. 

You were there during the Reagan administration and if something like that happened you would know about it.

And even if you weren’t, you know somebody that was alive during the Reagan administration and they’d tell you it was baloney.

Ronald Reagan took office in January, 1981, just over thirty years ago.  That’s an even longer interval than between the Resurrection and Mark’s Gospel. 

Assessment:

Jewish society in the 1st century AD was among the most literate in the world.  Jewish history was carefully documented – many Jews could trace their genealogy all the way back to Adam.

When the Gospel of Mark was introduced, it was introduced first to the society best-equipped to refute it.

Jerusalem was a small, tightly-knit community in which almost everybody knew everybody else and most were inter-related.  Given the intimacy of their society and its level of literacy, the Gospel of Mark should have been received the way our supposed book on Ronald Reagan would be.

Thirty years after the events, there would still be plenty of eyewitnesses to the life and times of Jesus.  If the events described in the Gospel of Mark were not true, then Christianity could not have taken hold.

It is a matter of historical fact that as early as AD 60 Christians were being rounded up by the Romans and given the choice of denying Christ or embracing an incomprehensible cruel death, like being mauled to death by wild animals. 

They chose death.

There are NO surviving records from the first century denying the events described in the Gospel of Mark – not even from those that had the most to gain by such a denial.  Both the Jews and the Romans sought to stamp out Christianity by persecuting Christians. 

Don’t you think it odd that they didn’t try to deny that the events occurred? That would seem to be the simplest way to put a stop to all this nonsense.  But THAT never occurred to the authorities of the time.

That is what makes Christianity unique among all religions. For it to exist, Jesus had to be a real Person Who did real things in front of real people.  If it turned out that Buddha was really a compilation of ancient thinkers, it would have little effect on Buddhism itself. 

Buddhism could exist without a literal Buddha.  It is what Buddhism teaches that is important, not its founder. And while Islam’s founder is the key element to that religion, both the Koran and Islamic Law were written and developed by followers of Mohammed after his death.

But the details of the life and death of Jesus Christ are critical to Christianity.  If Jesus did not live, then He did not die on the Cross to pay the penalty due for your sins.

“And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” (1st Corinthians 15:17)

If He was not condemned by Pilate — despite Pilate’s own proclamation of His innocence — then He was condemned for cause, and could not die for your sins, since He would have had His own account to settle.

If He were not raised from the dead (after three days in the grave – and later seen by more than five hundred witnesses) then death and the grave have not been defeated, and we remain dead in our sins.

Christianity is unique in that it isn’t based on what Jesus taught, but Who He is and what He did. The Bible doesn’t say, ‘obey the teachings of Jesus and be saved’.  It doesn’t say we are saved by His teachings, but rather, we are saved by Who He is.

There is nothing we can add in our mortal bodies that can augment or improve upon the price paid for our salvation. At best we can only make minor, temporary improvements to our conduct.

But we can no more save our own souls through our own actions than we can make ourselves younger by exercising. Recognition of this reality is unique to Christianity.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” (Ephesians 2:8)

Look at the elements: For BY GRACE are ye saved — through FAITH — and THAT not of yourselves — it is a GIFT of God.

It is so simple that most people can’t explain it, and even if they can, even more can’t accept it without further complicating it.

God grants the ‘grace’ (an unmerited, undeserved gift) through faith that is ‘not of yourselves’ but is rather a gift of God.

Christianity must be true.  Logic demands it.

Analysis: The Alice in Wonderland Defense

Analysis: The Alice in Wonderland Defense
Vol: 117 Issue: 16 Thursday, June 16, 2011

The War Powers Act of 1973 was intended to put a check on presidential powers to commit US forces to an armed conflict without first consulting Congress. Under the Constitution, the power to make war is divided between the Congress and the Executive.

Following World War II the United States found itself locked in long periods of intense conflict in places like Korea and Vietnam.  During the Nixon administration, Congressional Democrats used the unpopularity of the Vietnam War to push the Act through both Houses.

When it got to his desk, Nixon vetoed it and sent it back to Congress.  By a two-thirds vote in each House, Congress overrode the veto and the War Powers Act became law.  The War Powers Act gives the president sixty days in which to either petition Congress for a declaration of war or withdraw US troops.

Before committing US forces, President Barack Obama consulted with — and obtained approval from — the United Nations and the Arab League.

Obama did not consult the US Congress before committing US forces to combat.  On May 20, 2011 the United States marked sixty days since combat operations began against Libya. 

Obama told the Congress that since the US transferred leadership to NATO and since there were no US troops on the ground, Congressional authorization wasn’t necessary.  Obama argued that, as president, he could initiate “intervention” on his own authority.

Libya, he argued, was different because of its nature, scope and duration.  In other words, it wasn’t a war, although the administration stopped short of calling it what it actually is — presidential adventurism of the exact sort that prompted the passage of the War Powers Act in the first place.

Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, said the Obama theory would set a precedent expanding future presidents’ unauthorized war-making powers, especially given the rise of remote-controlled combat technology.

“The administration’s theory implies that the president can wage war with drones and all manner of offshore missiles without having to bother with the War Powers Resolution’s time limits,” Mr. Goldsmith said.

On June 3 the Congress officially rebuked Obama. On Monday, Speaker of the House John Boehner sent a letter to the President telling him he was in violation of the War Powers Act. 

On Wednesday ten lawmakers, led by Dennis Kucinich [D-Oh] filed a lawsuit, asking the third branch of government to rein in the Executive by ordering Obama to pull out of Libya because Congress didn’t authorize it.

In March, while on vacation in South America, President Obama ordered US involvement in Libya, following consultations with the Arab League and the UN.

Nine days later and while speaking from another country, the President had still not consulted with Congress when he brought it to the people:

“When our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act,” the president said.

Obama  made the case that Khadafy was a ruthless ruler, who vowed “no mercy” on his own protesting countrymen.”

“We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.”

There were but two problems with Obama’s reasoning.  The first is that America’s national interests were not at stake, even peripherally. That was a lie.

Secondly, if saving foreign civilians from slaughter by dictators is in our national interest, why haven’t we gone after President Bashar Assad of Syria? We have a much greater national interest in Syria, where Assad is actively seeking nukes, than we do in Libya, which surrendered its nuclear program in 2003.

On February 20, when Obama first involved the US in Libya, he argued that it was because Khadafy was ‘massacring” civilians, after reports of nearly 100 deaths in two weeks of protest.

At last count, Assad had killed almost two thousand unarmed civilian protestors by firing live ammunition into crowds from helicopter gunships or using snipers to pick people off out of the crowd.

Not only has Obama not threatened the use of force in Syria, the administration has made a strenuous effort to look the other way, in much the same way Obama tried not to notice Iran’s brutalization of its own protestors in 2009.

So now that the Speaker of the House has demanded that the Obama White House justify its war in Libya, the White House must either withdraw from Libya or request Congressional authorization.

The Congress never anticipated Obama trotting out the Alice in Wonderland defense . . .

“War? There’s a war in Libya?”

Assessment:

Let me get something out of the way early on.  I have no objection to the removal of Muammar Khadafy – I welcome the prospect of a new Libyan leader whose name is only spelled one way.

But the White House is openly lying when it comes to Libya.  In 2003, George Bush was accused of lying about Iraq’s WMD program even though it was impossible for Bush to know the truth until we got to Baghdad.

The charge stuck, and George Bush was forever branded a liar.  Worldwide protests ensued; everybody learned a new English term, “No Blood for Oil” and morphing George Bush into Adolf Hitler became so commonplace that the real Bush started to look odd without his mustache.

Obama is actually lying, since he does know better. The war in Libya has probably the weakest justification ever presented by an American president.

No US interests are at stake. For reasons nobody has articulated, Obama apparently deems Libyan civilians superior to Syrian civilians, which is why Khadafy killing hundreds of Libyans is grounds for war — but Assad massacring thousands of Syrians is not.

Moammar Khadfy is an evil guy who deserves to be removed from the planet.  But removing Khadafy is not part of our official mission.  What exactly, is our official mission?   Nobody really knows, including the administration.

“The White House strongly denied that regime change is part of its mission after a statement earlier in the day characterized the goal there as “installing a democratic system.”

But according to the Secretary of State, that isn’t our mission at all, since installing a democratic system means first removing the system in place.

“Clinton said the United Nations resolution authorizing force against Gadhafi was broad, but included nothing “about getting rid of anybody.”

The democratic system the White House hopes to install and the State Department doesn’t must needs be installed by the rebel forces NATO is fighting to defend while refusing to acknowledge. 

The White House just announced that Obama has authorized some $25,000,000.00 in non-lethal aid and $53,000,000.00 in humanitarian aid to Libyan rebel forces. 

This on top of the fact that America is now paying out just over nine million dollars a day supporting the Libyan rebels — and  we haven’t a clue who they are.

Despite financially backing the opposition, the White House says questions about who exactly the rebels are and their long-term objectives are keeping the U.S. from recognizing the Council as the legitimate Libyan government.”

Here is what we do know, for sure.  Many of the rebel groups are openly and vocally members of al-Qaeda.  And there are whole detachments of rebels who claim loyalty to the Muslim Brotherhood. 

PLUS, this is either War #3 or War #4 depending on where you count from. (America is also involved in Yemen’s civil war and yes, we have boots on the ground there and no, the Congress hasn’t authorized it.)

And so now, to the Big Question.

Where are all the antiwarriors now? Did they all move to Canada?  Where is Code Pink?  Where is Cindy Sheehan?  Where are all the scary signs?  Where’s the passion? Where are the pictures of  the bombed-out monuments to American imperialism? 

During the Bush years, antiwar protests were measured by the tens of thousands who attended, up to the end of 2008.  After Obama was elected, most of the antiwarriors apparently decided they weren’t against war, after all. 

On October 7, 2009, an antiwar protest in Chicago marking the start of our seventh year in Afghanistan only drew 107 protestors. In Obama’s home town!  

It is important to remember that since Obama ramped up the Afghanistan war, American fatalities there have been increasing steadily. But you won’t hear statistics like that from the antiwar crowd — not anymore.

During the Bush years, Nancy Pelosi vigorously opposed funding both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that Obama is in office, Pelosi likes war. She voted to increase troops for Afghanistan. She has kept silent about Libya and Yemen, leaving the protests to more principled members.

The hypocrisy of the Left is beyond stunning.  It never had anything to do with principles. Never, ever.  For the antiwar leaders, it had everything to do with politics. The rank and file protestors proved themselves, as we said back then, to be nothing more than useful idiots of the Marxist Left.

Now that the Marxist Left is controlling the White House, the useful idiots are more useful as pro-war cheerleaders. 

Paul is the Apostle to the Gentile West. (Acts 9:15, Acts 18:6 Acts 22:21)  Timothy was chosen by Paul to help grow the Church. 

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul employed an unusual choice of words to preface his prophecy concerning the last days of the Church Age, saying, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly . . .”

That word, “expressly” (rhetos) carries with it a special sense of urgency – this is something that the Holy Spirit specifically wanted us to see.

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” (1 Timothy 4:1-2)

Like Code Pink.  Like Nancy Pelosi.  Like George Soros.  Like Barack Obama.  And like those that follow them. And unlike anything I’ve ever seen before.

Where is America in prophecy?  We find her pictured in 1st Timothy 4 — and again in  2nd Timothy 3. But also, praise the Lord, we also find her in 1st Thessalonians 4:16-18.

“Wherefore, comfort one another with these words.”

The Maunder Minimum

The Maunder Minimum
Vol: 117 Issue: 15 Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The “Maunder Minimum” is the name given to the period of solar inactivity that occurred between 1645 and 1710.  Some of the first telescopic observations of the sun had already been made by Galileo in 1611; by 1645 astronomers were well acquainted with the phenomenon they called ‘sunspots’.

Today we know that the number of sunspots rises and falls roughly every eleven years into “minimum” and “maximum” solar phases, but that wasn’t discovered until almost two hundred years after Galileo by a German astronomer, Henrich Schwabe in 1843.

Part of the reason for the lag is the “Maunder Minimum.”  For 70 years, sunspot activity was almost non-existent.  During one thirty-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers observed roughly fifty sunspots, compared with 40,000 – 50,000 sunspots during a typical thirty year solar cycle.

In 1640 not a single sunspot was observed; in 1650, 3; 1670, 0; 1680, 1.  The coldest winter in 500 years occurred in 1709, right in the middle of the Maunder Minimum.

Anecdotal stories about the Winter of 1709 sound more like something lifted from the legend of Paul Bunyan than historical fact.  It was said to be so cold that year that sailors froze to death aboard ships.

Trees exploded from the cold. Fish froze solid in rivers while major bodies of water like the Baltic Sea froze solid.  Bread froze so hard it took an axe to cut it.

Words froze in mid-air; when the spring thaw came, people were deafened by all the noise. (Ok, that one really was lifted from the Legend of Paul Bunyan.)

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age that began in the middle of the 15th century and lasted until well into the 19th.  NASA notes three particularly cold intervals; one beginning around 1650, a second around 1770 and the last around 1850.

The Year 1816 was known across Europe as the Year Without A Summer.  Science has long noted the relationship between solar activity and periods of warming or cooling. During the 20th century the sun was unusually active, peaking in the 1950s and the late 1980s. 

Dean Pensell of NASA, says that, “since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high. Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.”

Interestingly, the coldest winter on record occurred during the Maunder Minimum — in the middle of a “Little Ice Age” which also corresponded with a period of low solar activity. And the warmest winter on record occurred during a period of intense solar activity.

When the sun comes out, it warms the earth.  When it hides behind a thick cloud cover, or when it is on the other side of the earth (here, we call that ‘night’) it gets colder.  Sunspots

But global warming True Believers deny any relationship between an overheating climate and the sun. Why do you think that is?  

This photo shows a solar eruption – a sun spot – the earth is superimposed to give a sense proportion. If global warming is the sun’s fault, then there isn’t much we can do here on earth to fix it. 

That’s why the True Believers totally discount the sun as a cause of global warming – to them, it is an issue of faith. 

Since the turn of the 20th century, sunspot activity had all but disappeared, together with evidence of global warming.

But Hillary Clinton said in a speech just last year: “The science is unambiguous, and the logic that flows from it is inescapable: climate change is a clear and present danger to our world that demands immediate attention.”  

Global warming has morphed from a debate into a cause and from a cause into a kind of religion dividing ‘true believers’ from ‘heretics.’ 

Assessment:

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

Solar activity dropped to zero in 2007, just about the same time that Al Gore learned just how inconvenient the truth can be.

When the sun is active, the solar system (including Earth) gets warmer.  When the sun is inactive, it gets cooler.  An inconvenient truth.

Although the preponderance of evidence suggests that the sun is responsible for global warming, the preponderance of evidence also suggests that marriage was intended for a man and a woman.

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

According to a report dated June 14, 2011 at Space.com although we are now in an unusually active and powerful solar maximum period;

“unusual solar readings, including fading sunspots and weakening magnetic activity near the poles, could be indications that our sun is preparing to be less active in the coming years.

The results of three separate studies seem to show that even as the current sunspot cycle swells toward the solar maximum, the sun could be heading into a more-dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle greatly reduced or even eliminated.”

Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory’s Solar Synoptic Network told a news briefing yesterday that “the solar cycle may be going into a hiatius.”

“The studies looked at a missing jet stream in the solar interior, fading sunspots on the sun’s visible surface, and changes in the corona and near the poles.”

Right now, the sun is in the middle of Cycle 24, and is due to reach a maximum in 2013.  The next cycle would be expected to start in around 2020.  Instead, we may be heading into a ‘grand minimum’ similar to the Maunder period.

The National Solar Observatory (NSO) says that, based on 13 years of observations, sunspots are weakening.  There have been fewer during the present cycle – and, if the trend continues, there may be none at all in the next.

Meanwhile, NSO observations of the jet streams circling the sun, whose strength tends to correlate with solar activity, has shown that activity is near-non-existent.  Were the next solar cycle to proceed as usual, they would have appeared two or three years ago.

Finally, the sun’s corona, or upper atmosphere, is also failing to show changes associated with the usual solar cycles.  Normally, scientists would expect to see magnetic features in the corona moving north and south in a phenomenon known as ‘the rush to the poles’.

“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Hill said. “But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

According to NASA’s astro-forecasts, the current solar maximum is likely to unleash a series of massive solar storms, peaking sometime in late 2012 or early 2013, after which, solar inactivity is expected to collapse completely, bringing on another period of global cooling.

A storm last week (June 7) was so powerful that had it hit earth head on, it could well have fried the global electrical grid.  A powerful enough solar flare hitting the earth head-on would mimic the effect of an EMP pulse on our electrical grid.

Forecasters say that the worst is yet to come.  In a worst-case scenario, the world would be instantly plunged into technological darkness that could cause a global blackout that could take years to repair.

In summary, then, the earth is due for a massive strike from a solar flare sometime in the next two years, followed by a collapse of solar activity that portends a period of intense global cooling.  So just about the time we’ll need heat the most, we’ll be back to burning whatever we can find to heat our homes.

Until we run out of things to burn. 

Isn’t the timing of all this interesting?  First, we’re not really sure global warming was either global, or actually warmer.  (Warmer than what?)  

Second, the cooling trend corresponded with the last solar minimum, now about to expire.

Third, NASA predicts that the current solar maximum will peak sometime around 2012 with what could be a massive burst of solar radiation that could plunge us into darkness, just in time for us to enter a little Ice Age.

The world’s scientists are so confused that the consensus opinion on global warming and solar activity that there is no consensus opinion, but they are so alarmed that they insist on doing something, even if we don’t know what effect that “something” might have.

All they know for sure is that things are getting pretty scary out there in outer space– and that it is coming our way.  

“Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken,” the Lord said.

These are exactly the conditions forecast 2000 years ago for a single generation, somewhere in time. The generation of whom the Lord was speaking when He said;

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. . . .This generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:28,32)

Meanwhile I’d keep some sunblock stored away in the pocket of your parka.   Just in case.