Seven Billion Souls

Seven Billion Souls
Vol: 121 Issue: 31 Monday, October 31, 2011

The United Nations set aside today — Halloween — as the day the world recognizes the arrival of the world’s seven billionth soul.  Of course, nobody can be exactly sure when the world population turned over the seventh billion — it could have been last week.  It might not be until next week.

So the UN had to pick a day and so they picked the day set aside to recognize the patron saint of the UN.

Indeed, in 1982, the UN re-presented to the world what it called “the Great Invocation” — an international, non-religious prayer the UN claims belongs “to all humanity” that its supporters promise will bring “an oppressed humanity from darkness into light.”   

“Many religions believe in a World Teacher or Savior, knowing Him under such names as the Christ, the Lord Maitreya, the Imam Mahdi, the Bodhisattva, the Messiah, and the Kalki Avatar and these terms are used in some of the Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish versions of the Great Invocation.”

The most updated version of the “Great Invocation” was published in 2000, in which the UN replaced the generic “Christ” with “the Coming One” but other than that, it pretty much is as it was when Alice Bailey first wrote it:

From the point of Light within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into human minds.
Let Light descend on Earth.
From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into human hearts.
May the Coming One return to Earth.
From the centre where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide all little human wills
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.
From the centre which we call the human race
Let the Plan of Love and Light work out.
And may it seal the door where evil dwells.
Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth

Alice Bailey was an theosophist, as well as a racist, and an antisemite who shared the Nazi belief in Aryan superiority and is considered one of the founders of the New Age movement. 

Nutty as a fruitcake, Bailey nonetheless became a powerful figure in the UN, and her publishing company, Lucis Trust remains the UN’s official publisher.

Lucis Trust was renamed in 1925 from the Lucifer Publishing Company, but the Lucis Trust comes from the same root word, meaning “Light-Bearer” so the name change was for cosmetic, rather than religious reasons.

In other words, the UN had no philosophical problem with the concept of using a publishing company dedicated to Lucifer, as long as it didn’t say so in so many words.

I have no source to support a direct claim that the UN deliberately chose Satan’s High Holy Day as the day that mankind bursts through the 7 billion person barrier, and frankly, it may be just a coincidence. 

But even so, it is a perfect fit. 


It is estimated that at the time of Christ, the population of the world was roughly three hundred million people. 

One can argue that figure up or down a bit based on the principle of the ‘known world’ vs. the undiscovered New World, etc., but the figure is based on the taking of the known population and working backwards, rather than simply relying on ancient census figures.

Using that for a benchmark, it has been calculated that it took from the time of Christ until about 1800 for the world population to reach one billion people.  Although it took 1800 years to get to one billion, the world population didn’t click over to two billion until around 1930.

Let’s inject some perspective here.  When my mother-in-law was born in 1922, the SECOND billionth baby had not yet been born.  This morning, she and I discussed the birth of the SEVEN billionth baby!

Thanks to the principle of exponential growth, by 1960 there were three billion, by 1974, four billion, 1985, five billion, 1999, six billion, and as of Halloween, 2011 there are now seven billion people living on our big blue marble. 

Injecting a bit more perspective, there are more people alive at this moment than all the people that ever lived and died throughout history to this moment.

Seven billion seconds ago, George Washington was inaugurated as the first president of the United States.  Seven billion paces is roughly equal to circumnavigating the planet at the equator — 106 times!

Seven billion people standing on each other’s shoulders would form 27 human columns from the earth  to the moon. 

The arrival of the seven billionth baby is significant to our understanding of Scripture and prophecy in a couple of interesting ways, apart from the fact that the UN chose Satan’s High Holy Day as the most fitting date to mark the event.

First, it exposes as a screaming lie the entire premise behind the theory of evolution. We’ve already looked at the exponential growth of humanity over just the last two thousand years. 

The UN calculates that by the end of this century — a mere 89 years! — the world population will top ten billion.

Question: If mankind has been here for millions of years, then why aren’t we elbow-to-elbow?  Adding a paltry one hundred years to our current population nearly doubles it again.

Why didn’t that happen six thousand years after the first caveman met the first cave lady, about 994,000 years ago, give or take a few hundred thousand years either way?   

In 2000 there were six billion.  Today there are seven billion.  How many people will there be on earth one million years from now?  That’s how many should be here now — if mankind is a million years old.

Secondly, there is the numerology to look at.  Six is the number of man.  The Lord took six days to create man, on the seventh, He rested.   We are well into the sixth millennium since the time of Adam.

In Genesis, the sixth day is divided into three parts, the morning, the day and the evening, and Revelation 13:17 links the religion of the antichrist with 666.

Seven is the number of completion.  Seven stars, seven candlesticks, seven churches . . .  the number seven is the number of a man plus the number of God.   

In Bible math, more specifically, the number 7 is the completion of a cause and effect chain of events, where 7 completes the changing of man’s 6 natures; first 1 through 6, then 7.  It is Jesus who brings this change to man.  Bible math teaches us to count the 7th day of the Creation as 777 to match the genealogy of the Son of God.

And as of today, on Satan’s highest holy day, the UN reckons that the number of men has moved from six to seven billion souls.  Bible numerology assigns the number 8 to that of Jesus Christ.

The UN estimates that the eight billionth soul will be born sometime before 2025.

Note to the Membership: We’ve been running a special feature to commemorate the Omega Letter’s tenth anniversary in which we’ve published a different feature every day called “What the Omega Letter Means to Me” written by an OL member.

They were all very moving  . . .  I was honored by all the nice things you guys said about me personally.  But the daily OL’s purpose is simply to get the ball rolling — to set the topic for discussion by the members in the forums. 

Nonetheless, I want to thank all of you for your kind words — I will do my utmost to live up to them, but I want to take a moment to remind you that YOU are the most important part of the Omega Letter fellowship.

We’ll be discontinuing the feature as of today and taking down the anniversary blurb. Thank you all so much for being out there, for being so faithful and more than anything else, thank you for your prayers over the years. 

Over the years, you have blessed me far more than words can ever say.   May our God richly bless you in return. Maranatha! 

Special Report: Religion and Salvation

Special Report: Religion and Salvation
Vol: 121 Issue: 29 Saturday, October 29, 2011

At Babel, God deliberately confused the languages of men and dispersed them into different nations. The purpose, according to Genesis, was to prevent them from all coming under the authority of a single dictator, as happened under Nimrod.

“And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” (Genesis 11:6)

Denominationalism is the spiritual equivalent, ensuring that one powerful leader couldn’t take over Christianity and lead the true Church into error, as the Bible says the antichrist will during the Tribulation Period.

There is an effort by some world church denominations to reverse the process and bring all denominations together under the banner of ‘ecumenism’ but, because the separation is Divinely ordained, it has been unable to attract those denominations that most closely follow the Bible.

The World Council of Religious leaders is such an organization.  Formed at the Millennium World Peace Summit in 2002, The World Council adopted its own charter outlining how they can play an active role in global government:

“The World Council of Religious Leaders aims to serve as a model and guide for the creation of a community of world religions. It seeks to inspire women and men of all faiths in the pursuit of peace and mutual understanding. It will undertake initiatives that will assist the United Nations and its agencies by providing the spiritual resources of the world’s religious traditions in the prevention, resolution and healing of conflicts, and in addressing global social and environmental problems.”

Jesus Himself addressed denominationalism, writing to the seven Churches in the first three chapters of Revelation. Each of these churches is different, both in their doctrine and in the emphasis they place on it.

Thus, we have the Church of Ephesus ‘hating the deeds of the Nicolaitanes’ (a separate status for clergy and ‘laity’) whereas the Church of Pergamos is depicted as holding to “the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.” (Revelation 2:6,15

It isn’t the denominationalism that Jesus ‘hated’ but the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, who developed a complicated hierarchy of bishops, priests, and ‘laity’ to oversee a Grand Church, as opposed to the Biblical model of local church self-government. 

Theoretically, Christian denominations share the same basic statement of faith, that of the sin nature, the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, the Power of the Shed Blood of Christ to cover sin, the free offer of salvation to all who trust Jesus’ sacrifice, and who share the belief that salvation is the product of a relationship with Christ, not a relationship with a church.

How can you tell if you are a member of a Christian denomination or a form of ‘Christian religion’? There are eight sure signs, any of which should make a Bible-believing Christian sit up and take notice. 

‘Religion’ can be defined as man’s way of making himself acceptable to God, whereas Christianity is God’s way of making man acceptable to Himself through a personal relationship. 

The first sign that a denomination has gone ‘religious’ is the denial of the true nature of God.

The Unitarians deny the Triune nature of the Godhead, for example. Many allegedly ‘Christian religions’ deny the Deity of Christ, commonly claiming that Christ as God was not an early Church teaching.  

A second warning sign is the emphasis on salvation by works.

Although many denominations include the idea that God’s grace is important in the role of salvation, the leader normally emphasizes the idea that salvation ultimately comes through one’s own efforts — as defined by ‘the church’.

This imparts power to the denomination, since it changes salvation from a gift to wages, and gives the religious hierarchy the authority to act as paymaster.

The third sign is that of exclusive truth.

Denominations tend to universally identify themselves as the ‘one true church’ to the exclusion of all others. They will agree that some other denominations have some truth, but teach that full truth has somehow been lost and can now only be found in their ‘one true church’.

Fourth, religions prefer an authoritative leadership.

In some denominations, that authority is carried to the extent that they claim to speak directly for God. This is the ultimate result of the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes that Jesus twice said He ‘hated’.

The authoritative leadership of the Pharisees and Sadducees came under withering condemnation by the Lord during His earthly ministry.

Religions and Christian ‘religious’ denominations both tend to follow the letter of the law — but as they interpret it, rather than observing the spirit in which it was intended.

We’ll explain the difference between the ‘letter of the law’ and the ‘spirit of the law’ using a secular example that is in all the headlines today.

The ‘spirit’ of the graduated income tax law was to ensure, (in theory, at least) that all citizens pay their fair share of the tax burden. This is the ostensible claim of the Occupy Wall Street movement — except they define “fair” by placing most of the tax burden on the 1% to pay for the benefits of the 99%.  

The spirit of the law is that it calls for shared sacrifice. The letter of the law exempts nearly half of American citizens from any federal tax burden at all. 

Fifth, religions also tend to impose their own form of taxation as a condition of salvation.

Some religions equate tithing with salvation or staying in a right relationship with God. The Bible imposes no such burden.

The Pharisee tithed, loudly and with great pomp and circumstance. The widow, on the other hand, gave two ‘mites’ — the smallest coin values of Jesus’ day. Jesus condemned the Pharisee, and commended the widow.

Giving is prompted by the Holy Spirit, Whose ministry the true Church belongs to in the first place. ‘Giving til it hurts’ is a man-made doctrine with an obvious goal that has nothing to do with the things of the Spirit.

A sixth warning sign of a denomination going ‘religious’ is the threat of loss of salvation.  Salvation is conditional on Church membership. If you aren’t a member of the proper denomination, you can’t be saved. 

One group with such a belief is the Boston Church of Christ, also known as the International Churches of Christ. The leaders of the ICC teach that there should only be one church in any particular city, which they say is the New Testament model.

If you leave to attend another, you leave your salvation behind at the door.

Seventh, religions also tend to heap to themselves extra-Biblical authority.

The ex-cathedra teachings of the Roman Catholic Popes are given equal weight with Scriptures, and in the case of conflict, are considered superior.

The same principle applies to Catholic Church dogma. Catholics are taught that when dogma and the Scriptures conflict, Church teachings and tradition are to be given superior weight.  

According to Catholic dogma, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and one’s salvation within the Church is dependent on observing Church law on sacraments, mass attendance, holy days of obligation, etc. 

Finally, the eighth sign of Christianity being perverted into a religion is the offer of unique truths never before revealed.

The idea that a hidden mystery or new truth is available only through a particular church should be taken as a strong sign that this group is a counterfeit Christian religion.

God has very clearly shown His truth through the pages of the Bible. A new doctrine, new truth, or special word from God suggests that God left something out of Scripture.

For example, that very doctrine — that God left something out — is the foundation of Mormon teaching. The LDS teaches that God forgot to mention Jesus’ coming to the New World to preach to the “Indians” (who were really the “Lost Tribes of Israel.”) 

But Scripture says of itself that it is complete, so by its nature, if it is some ‘new’ doctrine or truth, it is contradictory with the revealed Word of God.  And things that are different CANNOT be the same. 

Salvation is not the product of religion — indeed, religion is an obstacle to salvation. Salvation comes by trusting in the Shed Blood of Christ as full payment for all sins. 

Conversely, religion offers salvation in exchange for putting your trust into that particular religious system.

Salvation is part of an direct and individual relationship with Christ. Religion offers salvation as part of a corporate system of conditions and works. 

That is not to say that Christians shouldn’t attend church — I don’t want to send the wrong message. It is important to meet regularly with like-minded believers and we are told in Scripture not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. 

But church is NOT religion. It is an expression of corporate worship by individual believers. The person who thinks membership with a church makes one a Christian is as deluded as a person who thinks standing in a parking lot makes one a car. 

The Bible teaches that all men are sinners, and all men require salvation to enjoy fellowship with God. (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23)

There is only one way to be saved during the Church Age, and that is by accepting the free gift of pardon procured at the Cross and offered freely to all men through Jesus Christ. (John 3:36, 5:24, 14:6)

That the gift of salvation is offered freely to all men is the expressed Will of God, as recorded in 2nd Peter 3:9.

It doesn’t matter how bad a sinner one is, Jesus offers salvation to even the worst sinners. Wrote the Apostle Paul,

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.” (1st Timothy 1:15-16)

Paraphrased into modern vernacular, Paul’s statement boils down to, “If Jesus saved me, He’ll save anybody!” All anyone need do is ask. 

Finally, the Bible assures us that once we are right with God, no religion or system has any claim to our eternal salvation. 

“For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39)

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

Religion offers bondage — Christianity offers freedom.  Even today, they aren’t that hard to tell apart. 

A House Divided

A House Divided
Vol: 121 Issue: 28 Friday, October 28, 2011

If the Bible is true, then what does that really mean?  Christians certainly believe that the Bible is true.  Without the Bible, we could know nothing about God.

Every religion has some form of a god, whether it be a deity, an ideology or a state of existence.

The religion of secular humanism worships a state of existence . . . “I think, therefore I am”.  Secular humanism holds that man is the supreme being and the creator of God. 

Secular humanism is itself a religion, according to the Supreme Court. (Torcaso v Watkins, 1961)

There are a lot of religions that recognize the Bible as being among their sacred books, including Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc., but none of these view the Bible as their supreme religious authority.

Islam’s supreme authority is the Koran; Catholicism’s supreme authority is Church tradition, the Mormons revere the Book of Mormon; Jehovah’s Witnesses give first place to the Watchtower society . . . Bible-believing Christians are marginalized as ‘fundamentalists’. 

People for the American Way, the ACLU and the rest of secular humanism’s ‘clergy’ seldom if ever take aim at Islam or Mormonism or Buddhism, but attacks against Christianity are an almost daily event.

The French Ministry of Culture (culture is a big thing in France) had 20 Christians arrested and prosecuted for breaking up a play in Paris that featured the face of Christ drizzled with excrement.

The French Roman Catholic Church condemned the protestors and defended the play.

“The association of French Roman Catholic bishops on Tuesday condemned “the violence perpetrated during recent performances… France’s Roman Catholic Church is neither fundamentalist nor obscurantist (opposed to enlightenment).”

How popular do you think a play would be that featured Buddha submerged in urine or Mohammed covered in feces?  The hue and cry over disrespecting Buddha would be global — Buddhism is the world’s third largest religion. 

Disrespecting Buddha would be offensive to as many as 1.5 billion Buddhists.  Nobody in the civilized Western world would countenance such disrespect.  Buddhism is highly esteemed in France, where it is that nation’s third largest religion.  

The “Wisdom of Buddhism“, a weekly French TV program, draws about 250,000 viewers, according to the Buddhist Union of France.  For the French, it’s a “culture” thing.

“French philosopher Luc Ferry, appointed Minister of Youth and Education in 2002, published an article in Le Point magazine in which he asks:  “Why this Buddhist wave? And why particularly in France, a very Catholic country in the past? … In this time of de-Christianization, Buddhism has furnished to the West a rich and interesting alternative.”

The French would not dare to disrespect Mohammed.  While France did take the bold step of banning the burqa, it did so as part of a law banning any visible sign of religious affiliation. 

France forbids the burqa, as well as the Jewish yarmulke (skullcap) and large Christian crosses.  But the French show great respect (or fear) when it comes to Islam and are very careful not to offend Islam unnecessarily. 

When it comes to Christianity, well, offending Christians is a national sport.


“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24)

I picked the French because as an officially secular humanist state, they are an easy target.  But the point is that Christianity is the one religion that anyone can disrespect with total impunity.

There is no major backlash against stuff like an excrement-smeared Jesus or a taxpayer-funded art exhibit depicts Christ submerged in a jar of urine.

Christians huff and puff, but they don’t actually blow anybody’s house down.  In the example we used, only 20 Frenchmen stormed the offending theater. 

According to national polls, 64% of the French self-identified as Catholics.  But only one third of the French in the same poll believe in God.

In Washington DC, the Office of Human Rights is holding an investigation into the practices of Catholic University of America.  Catholic University is accused of violating the human rights of Muslim students by displaying crosses. 

George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf is supporting the human rights violation claim.  In a letter accompanying the complaint, (which was sixty pages long!) Banzhaf argued:

” . . . some of the Muslim students were offended because they had to hold meetings in the school’s chapels and “at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It shouldn’t be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus.”

I read everything I could find on this story and nowhere could I find anyone pointing out that it is a CATHOLIC university — it’s NAME is “Catholic University.” 

Can you imagine a situation — anywhere —  America, Canada, France — anywhere! where Catholics attending at a Muslim university would even consider demanding that the school set aside a place where Catholic students could attend mass?

First off, Catholics wouldn’t be allowed to attend a Muslim university.  Anywhere. America, Canada, France . . .  ANYWHERE! Muslims are allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. Christians are not.

Why that is goes back to our initial question . . . what if the Bible IS true? 

The Bible tells us that this old world is currently under the control of the ‘god of this world’ and that the god of this world is the enemy of Christ.

“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)

So logically speaking, if the Bible IS true, then it would follow that the only religious faith that threatens the god of this world is faith in the God of the Bible and faith in His Christ and His Gospel. 

If the Bible is NOT true, then one faith would be the same as another, would it not?

If there was no God, or if there is some other, extra-biblical god that was really God, then it would seem logical that the religion that belonged to the real God would be the one under attack. 

If they were all equally wrong, it wouldn’t make any difference to anybody.  Would it?

If you were a secular humanist, why would you care if I was a Buddhist?  If I was a Buddhist, why would I care if you were a secular humanist?  Secular Humanists aren’t threatened by religions without God.

So they don’t sue Buddhists.  Or demand Buddhism make accommodations for Christianity. 

But if the Bible IS true, then the world is divided into two camps.  Not three, or five or a hundred.  Only two.  On one side are those that believe in the God of the Bible.  On the other side are those that believe in the god of this world, by whatever name.

If the Bible is true, then extra-Biblical religions cannot be.  If extra-Biblical religions are valid, then Bible-based religion cannot be.  There is no middle ground and therefore no place for compromise. 

The god of this world thunders and blusters against Christians and Jews, but the Bible honors the meek. Christians are enjoined to love their enemies.  Their enemies are under no such obligation. 

“The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground.” (Psalms 147:6)

If the Bible is true, then one would expect the god of this world to hate those that follow it and to love those that hate it. 

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. . .” (Matthew 12:25)

The proof is in the pudding. 

”The Most Transparent Dictatorship in US History”

”The Most Transparent Dictatorship in US History”
Vol: 121 Issue: 27 Thursday, October 27, 2011

During the campaign, then-candidate Obama promised the American people that, if they elected him, they would have “the most ethical  and transparent administration in American history.”

Don’t take my word for it.  Take his.

If you took the time to watch the linked video, you heard him accuse every preceding administration, going all the way back to the Founders, of being less ethical and less transparent than his. 

“We have put in place the toughest ethics laws and toughest transparency rules of any administration in history. By the way, this is the first administration since the FOUNDING of our country where all of you can find out who visits the White House. . . the first time in history, and that’s just one example of how we’re trying to constantly open up the process. So long as I am president, I won’t stop fighting to cut waste and abuse in Washington, to eliminate what we don’t need to pay for what we do.”

Finally, the obligatory shot at George W. Bush. . .

“. . . to rein in exploding deficits that have been accumulating, not just in the last year, but in the last ten.”

That was then.  This is now.  .  .

Dateline October 14, 2011: Politico “The Obama administration is appealing a judge’s ruling that Secret Service records of visitors to the White House complex are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Justice Department filed a formal notice of appeal Friday afternoon regarding U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell’s August ruling rejecting arguments that the so-called WAVES records belong to the White House even though they are maintained and used by the Secret Service.”

So much for the promise to open up the records so that the American people can see who is visiting the White House.  (And, to quote the president, “that’s just one example.”)  

Politico, which makes no pretense about its left-leaning worldview, went so far as to note that the position being taken by Obama was “essentially the same one” taken by the Bush administration. (Ouch!  That’s gotta hurt!)

While appealing the court ruling requiring it to be more transparent, the administration is also demonstrating how ethical and honest it is by sending out Joe Biden to warn that unless Congress ponies up $30 billion for the teacher’s unions and $5 billion for the police and firefighter’s unions, then rapes and murders will “continue to increase.”

Biden claimed the city of Flint, Michigan was literally under siege by criminals; rapes had tripled and murders were not far behind, according to the Veep. 

Even the Obama-friendly Annenberg Foundation’s couldn’t find a polite way of calling Biden a liar:

“. . . the vice president misrepresented the extent of the city’s crime problem — flagrantly so, in the case of rapes. He also ignored the fact that crime this year is down, based on the city’s own crime figures, despite cuts in the police force and in direct contradiction with his larger point that Flint’s staffing cuts resulted in rising crime.”

That covers the administration’s exceptional honesty. Now what about its claim to be the “most ethical” in history?

A Human Events reporter, Jason Mattera, managed to get close enough to Biden to ask him a question, to wit: “Do you regret using a rape reference to describe Republican opposition to the president’s bill?”

Biden’s response?  First, he lied, denying that he had made any such reference.  Then he doubled-down on his first lie, reiterating that rapes and murders had tripled, only seconds after denying he had even said that.

“I didn’t use — no, no, no,” Biden told Mattera amid a crowd of onlookers on Capitol Hill. “What I said — let’s get it straight, guy, don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight.”

“I said rape was up three times in Flint, [Mich.],” Biden continued. “There are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder’s up, rape is up and burglary’s up. That’s exactly what I said.”

After Mattera’s question exposed Biden as an unrepentant liar, the most honest, ethical and transparent administration in history demanded that Mattera’s press credentials be investigated and if possible, revoked. 

But according to all observers, Mattera never misrepresented himself. He told Biden staffers who he was and who he worked for.  And in the videotaped exchange, Mattera’s press credentials were clearly visible the entire time. 

But Mattera questioned the Dear Leader.  How dare he? 


“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” (Psalms 94:20)

In addition to being the most ethical and honest administration ever to bless America with its benevolence, Obama also promised that it would be the  most transparent. 

In keeping with that promise, the Department of Justice is seeking a law that would allow it to reply to Freedom of Information requests by lying about the documents being sought.

Mike German, Policy Counsel with the ACLU, authored a lengthy letter to the Justice Department expressing the ACLU’s opposition:

“It’s shocking that you would twist what is supposed to be a statute — that’s supposed to give people access to what the government is doing — in a way that would allow the government to actually mislead the American public.”

Shocking? Absolutely not, says the director of the DoJ’s Office of Information Policy.  According to the DoJ, “the entire consideration process for the proposal” (to lie to the public when convenient for the government) “has been open and transparent.” 

(I’m not kidding — read down to the sixth paragraph from the end).

“To ensure that the integrity of the exclusion is maintained, agencies must ensure that their responses do not reveal the existence of excluded records,” noted the DoJ’s Melanie Pustay.

In other words, in order to lie effectively, it is necessary in their responses not to reveal that they are lying. 

Carried to the extreme, this would allow the government to withhold evidence that might exonerate the innocent or cover up evidence that might convict the guilty.

All that is necessary is for some government official (even if he is the one under investigation) to classify the information as “too sensitive” to release and the Freedom of Information Act is effectively suspended. Not to mention the Constitution.

“For the mystery of iniquity [lawlessness] doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way.” (2 Thessalonians 2:7)

The only thing truly transparent about this administration is its lawlessness, which it doesn’t even try to hide.  When questioned, they either criticize the questioner or they lie.  

Last week, Obama announced that he “can’t wait” for the Congress to pass new stimulus programs so he has decided to ignore the Congress and rule by decree.

“I’m here to say to all of you and to say to the people of Nevada and the people of Las Vegas, we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will,” Obama said.

And not just one time, either.  Obama announced his intention to simply ignore the Congress whenever he found it convenient.

“I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress, steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive, and help heal the economy. And we’re going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis . . .”

Can he do that?  Legally, I mean? Well, if he DID have the authority to take action, then why did he wait as long as he did?   The answer is obvious.  He does NOT have the Constitutional authority, or he would have.

The Washington Times published an editorial entitled “Obama’s One Man Show” that succinctly summarized the issue in its’ subtitle: “President Unveils Lawless Scheme To Bypass Congress With Executive Orders”;

“President Obama officially declared Congress irrelevant on Monday.  Instead of following the proper legislative process, he’s going to rule by executive orders issued once per week for the rest of the year. “We don’t have to wait for Congress, we’re just going to go ahead and act on our own,” said Mr. Obama. “

“The president is upset that his Democratic Senate balked at his $467 billion American Jobs Act both as a whole and broken up into smaller tax-and-stimulus bills. So he’s going to bypass democracy and try to rule by fiat.”

Rather than being the most ethical, honest and transparent administration in the history of the United States, what we ended up with was the most lawless.

Obama unlawfully used TARP money so that the government obtained ownership interests in Chrysler and General Motors.  He ignored the War Powers Act in deploying the military machine to Libya.  When Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, he implemented portions of it via executive order.

His contempt for the rule of law has had a trickle-down effect into federal administrative bureaucracies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board.  Even his Department of Justice has shown contempt for the rule of law.

There are members of Congress advocating for more lawbreaking because they know they have a president who is willing to break — indeed, has broken — the law governing his office and limiting its powers.  So much for our system of checks and balances.

They also know that the patsy liberal media don’t care about these things unless the unconstitutional lawbreaking is done by Republicans.

The Constitution is broad in its sweep, but is specific about certain functions of government.  Congress makes the laws.  When Congress doesn’t pass a law, the president can’t pick up his bat and ball like an angry juvenile.

Obama’s unqualified embrace of the lawless “Occupy Wall Street” movement is another demonstration of the administration’s contempt for the rule of law. 

Why else would he applaud it while he repeatedly slammed the Tea Party demonstrations that obtained lawful permits, behaved in a lawful manner, and even cleaned up after themselves?

After all, it was Obama that gave them their marching orders.  Obama was the one to call for class warfare against the “fat cats” on Wall Street, the millionaires, greedy corporations and their Republican allies, etc.  

A dictatorship is defined as “an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a leader or leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions or other social or political factors within the state.

By that definition, America officially became a dictatorship on Monday. 

The Beasts

The Beasts
Vol: 121 Issue: 26 Wednesday, October 26, 2011

On Monday, Pope Benedict issued a call for the establishment of a “global authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions like banks, investment houses and mortgage companies.

The 18-page document, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions.

The proposal by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace calls for a new world economic order based on ethics and the “achievement of a universal common good.”

It follows Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 economic encyclical that denounced a capitalist mentality as responsible for the global financial meltdown.

The reality of globalization, says the document, necessitates a “gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world authority and to regional authorities.”

The Vatican sees this global authority playing a role in everything from financial regulation to disarmament and arms control, food security and peace efforts.

In 2009 the Pope issued an encyclical in which he argued that “there is an urgent need for a true world political authority.”

The Vatican hammered the values of the financial world, writing that “the crisis has revealed behaviors like selfishness, collective greed and the hoarding of goods on a great scale.” At fault, they say, is “an economic liberalism that spurns rules and controls.

This isn’t a new Vatican proposal — as the papal document reflects, the Vatican has been citing the need for a global authority that looks beyond individual national interests for the last four decades.

This past June, the Vatican hosted a summit on “Ethics for the Business World” that examined possible options for ethical oversight in the post-crisis financial world. According to the Pope, if Jesus were alive today He would be a Marxist.

The Pope says that advocating a fair redistribution of wealth should be a moral imperative for Catholics and suggested that the reform process begin with the United Nations.  

Sounding more like Nancy Pelosi than the leader of one of the world’s largest religious institutions, the Pope blamed an “absence of ethical behavior” for “selfishness, collective greed and hoarding ” which the Pope blamed for the recession in 2008.

Speaking of collective greed and selfish hoarders, did you know that the central Dome of St. Peter’s is encircled by the following phrase in Latin?

“TV ES PETRVS ET SVPER HANC PETRAM AEDIFICABO ECCLESIAM MEAM. TIBI DABO CLAVES REGNI CAELORVM” meaning, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My church. I give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.”

The slogan is displayed with letters that are SEVEN FEET high. Each letter is made out of SOLID GOLD!


“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; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

According to the Bible, a single global authority will emerge from somewhere within the area of the old Roman Empire that will take control by acclamation, setting up a global government in partnership with a global religious authority. 

Revelation 13:1 identifies the political beast as “rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns.”  Upon the horns are ten crowns, indicating ten kings or kingdoms. 

Revelation 13:2 describes the political beast as a composite of the four Beasts that came before:

“And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.”

Daniel foretold the rise of these great beasts; a lion, a bear, a leopard and;

“a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.” (Daniel 7:7)

Daniel’s beasts were four world empires that would rule the earth; Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. 

“I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.”

Some argue that Daniel’s little horn will depose three of the ten kings in the last days, leaving seven kings and ten kingdoms under the rule of the “little horn.”

It is possible as a case of dual fulfillment, but the three horns plucked up by the roots, historically speaking, are also the first three empires, all of which were ultimately governed by the Roman Empire, and ultimately “plucked up by the roots,” so to speak and plunked down in the last days as part of the “dreadful and terrible” fourth beast.

This fourth beast, the Roman Empire, eventually split into two parts, (Daniel’s two legs of iron), with the Western Empire headquartered in Rome and the Eastern headquartered in Constantinople, or modern day Istanbul, Turkey.

“And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.” (Revelation 13:3)

Some teach that this means that the antichrist will suffer a fatal head wound, which will be healed miraculously by the False Prophet.  Maybe so, but that would also necessitate a dual fulfillment scenario, since events fitting that description already happened once.

The Roman Empire was the most powerful of the four empires and the only one that was not conquered and replaced by another political empire.

The political Roman Empire collapsed and was replaced by a spiritual Roman Empire headed by the successors to the Ceasars, the first of whom was Constantine, Emperor of Rome and the first Pope. 

Rome, the political head of the empire, suffered a deadly wound, but Rome was only one of its heads, remember?  By the 4th century, the head of Holy Roman Empire was both the political and religious leader of Rome, until political Rome collapsed.

Religious Rome thrived and flourished for fifteen centuries. The powers of the papacy throughout history were superior to that of any king — no king sat upon any throne in Europe without the blessing of the Vatican. 

That power remained with the papacy until the modern era.    

The Roman Empire, the fourth beast, the one more dreadful than the first three combined, suffered a deadly head wound when it finally collapsed in AD 461.  That deadly wound was ‘healed’ with the restoration of political Rome, starting with the 1948 Benelux Treaty that led to the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

That Treaty led to the European Community which led to the unification of Europe which is today on the verge of monetary collapse. According to Alan Greenspan, the EU is just too big to succeed. 

“The European Union is doomed to fail because the divide between the northern and southern countries is just too great, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told CNBC in a recent interview.”

This is a good place to interject that the EU has ten core nations, but more than 27 member states.  The problem is that they are too far apart culturally and economically to hold together.

“The effect of the divergent cultures in the eurozone has been grossly underestimated,” he added. “The only way to have several currencies from divergent nations lumped together is if they are culturally close, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Austria. If they aren’t, it simply can’t continue to work.”

Recall that both Daniel and John are adamant in their count — ten kingdoms with seven heads.  The ten kingdoms are the ten toes that arise out of the two legs of iron, Rome and Constantinople. The seven heads are economic powers — such as the G-7 nations.

Let’s begin to tie things together.  First, we have the Pope, the head of the Church of Rome, calling for the development of a global economic and political authority that sounds suspiciously like the one Obama and the OWS movement are calling for — economic redistribution.

At the same moment in time, the twenty-seven member European Union is facing economic collapse — one that Alan Greenspan says will be caused by its unwieldy size.  What will come out of that collapse?  According to Greenspan, a leaner, meaner and smaller grouping of like-minded nations.  

(How much do you want to bet that a reorganized EU will ultimately settle on ten as the ideal number?)

Here is where I want you to take away this morning.  Everybody is arguing over the tiny details —  ten nations, twenty-seven nations,  Javier Solana, Barack Obama, etc., etc., — but step back and look at the Big Picture.

There is lots we don’t know — and we have a tendency to fill that knowledge gap with made-up details that may or may not be correct — and then we tend to analyze events based on those details.

But we will never know if we got the details right — most of them, anyway.  We won’t know who the antichrist is.  We won’t know details about the False Prophet.

But what we DO know is astonishing enough without adding any of the ‘what ifs’ in order to fill in the blank spots.

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (Revelation 13:16)

The Bible says that the world will soon be governed by a single global political authority in partnership with a global religious authority that between them will have such minute control of individual economic activity that they will be able to exclude individuals from buying or selling unless they become part of a global political, religious and economic system under the authority of antichrist.

We know that the head of the Roman Church is calling for the creation of a global governing authority that will take control of a global economic system that sounds suspiciously like Marxist socialism on steroids.

Here’s the takeaway: the global situation continues to evolve in ways that nobody can guess, and the details are murky to the point of being almost invisible.  There are a hundred different ways that this could play out.

But every single new model proposed or envisioned ends up at the same place the Bible says it will.  A global economic collapse, a new world order, both integrating into a kinder, gentler and more inclusive religious system.

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh,” the Lord tells us in Luke 21:28.

This all began to come to pass with the restoration of Israel on May 14, 1948.  The process has continued without deviating from the Bible’s scenario ever since.  If our redemption was near in 1948, how much nearer is it in 2011?

“So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:31-32

So, Who Are You Gonna Call?

So, Who Are You Gonna Call?
Vol: 121 Issue: 25 Tuesday, October 25, 2011

One might have suspected that it was something that had been ordered on Day One, but it actually took until about Day One Thousand before the administration was comfortable with officially banning the truth within government circles.

US Deputy Attorney General James Cole was given the task of making the announcement during a speech at George Washington University Law School.  It appears that the Department of Justice has had a change of heart since those terrible days following 9/11. 

Back then, the Department of Justice wanted every American to help out.  Remember when the DoJ was encouraging Americans to report anything suspicious to the FBI?  The DoJ still wants you to do that, but first, you need to understand what “suspicious” means in the New Normal.

“Suspicious” is when a white male Christian calls in to report that a Middle Eastern-looking male between the ages of 17 and 35 is behaving in a strange manner. 

For example, suppose a Middle Eastern looking male suddenly charges the cockpit of an aircraft. 

If your first instinct is to tackle him to prevent him from hijacking the aircraft, then you are the one that is suspicious.  After all, he could just as easily be suffering from an intestinal bug and was looking for the bathroom when you put him in a headlock and dragged him back to his seat.

When the plane lands, you stand as good a chance of being arrested than he does.  After all, he has an excuse — he had to go to the bathroom.  You, on the other hand, are suspected of racial discrimination. 

Why else would you assume he was an Islamic hijacker?  How do you know he wasn’t a Christian. . .?

“This kind of stereotyping and hate runs counter to the basic values of equality and religious liberty on which this nation is founded.  We must never allow our sorrow and anger at the senseless attack of 9/11 to blind us to the great gift of our diversity.  All of us must reject any suggestion that every Muslim is a terrorist or that every terrorist is a Muslim.  As we have seen time and again – from the Oklahoma City bombing to the recent attacks in Oslo, Norway – no religion or ethnicity has a monopoly on terror.”

Did you catch that?  “As we’ve seen, time and again?”   Time: 1995, Oklahoma City.  And again: 2011, Oslo Norway.  See?  Not every terrorist is a Muslim.  There were TWO incidences of non-Islamic terror in the past eighteen years! 

Ummm, what were the religious motivations behind Oklahoma City, again?  McVeigh was a lapsed Catholic.  In a 2001 biography of McVeigh, authors Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck talk about displays of McVeigh’s religiousity during the Gulf War:

“On Sunday mornings, the recruits were required to either attend church services or spend an hour cleaning the barracks. McVeigh, an agnostic, chose to clean the barracks until he found out that nobody took attendance at church. One Sunday, he signed up for church and just slipped away from the rest of his platoon. He found a field of tall grass and lay there, a little worried about snakes, but enjoying the opportunity to relax in solitude. The following Sunday, McVeigh signed up for church again. This time, he sneaked into an old abandoned barracks to kill time.”

Whoops!  Maybe McVeigh wasn’t motivated by religion, after all.  But what about Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik?  The mainstream media and the Obama administration were both quick to identify Breivik as a “Christian fundamentalist” based solely on two criteria: Breivik was white.  And he wasn’t a Muslim. 

It wasn’t that Breivik was a Sunday school teacher somewhere.  If he belonged to a recognized Christian church, nobody can name it.  He wasn’t a believer in Jesus Christ and told investigators that it wasn’t necessary to believe in Jesus to be part of his ‘movement’. 

In reality, the single most compelling piece of evidence suggesting Breivik was motivated by Christianity, (as far as the mainstream was concerned) was not Breivik’s non-existent devotion to Christianity, but his all-consuming hatred of Islam. 

So what the Deputy AG did in his speech was commit the exact same offense his whole speech was aimed at railing against: he pre-judged the motives of an entire religion based on the actions of two individuals.

There is no organized Christian group dedicated to committing random acts of terror against non-Christians.  There are no Christian groups citing the Bible as the justification for the destruction of innocents. 

The Far Left tried to equate abortion clinic bombers to Christianity, but that only works among the ignorant.  It takes quite an effort to find a moral equivalency between the murder of an abortionist by a lone nutbar and the murder of 3000 random strangers by an organized group dedicated to the murder of strangers as a matter of religious duty.

AG Cole went further in his efforts to prove that Islam is a victim of American intolerance . . . just listen to the litany of crimes committed against Islam. . .

“Those crimes and the resulting prosecutions have taken place in nearly every part of the country.  To name just a few examples, the Department successfully prosecuted an Arlington, Texas man for setting fire to playground equipment at a mosque in July 2010.  We brought to justice three men who spray painted swastikas and “white power” on a mosque in Columbia, Tennessee, and then burned it beyond recognition.  In March 2010, a husband and wife were convicted of harassing with ethnic slurs and physically assaulting an Indian-American couple on a public beach in South Lake Tahoe; the male victim was beaten so badly that he suffered multiple broken bones in his face.  And earlier this year, a former employee of the Transportation Security Administration pleaded guilty to federal hate crime charges for assaulting an elderly Somali man in May 2010 because of the man’s race, national origin and religion.”

These are terrible crimes for which the individuals involved have been rightly punished by the DoJ.  But when you examine them a bit more critically, one has to wonder . . . given the topic at hand, which is clearly to make the case that Islam is getting a raw deal in America . . . is this Cole’s BEST case?

Spray-painting swastikas on a mosque?  Beating somebody up?  SIX examples covering a period of more than TEN years?  The nonsense continues . . .

“The Department also has committed itself to protecting the rights of Americans of all faiths to build places of worship and to worship in peace.  Last October, for example, the Department filed an amicus brief in support of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee that had been met with strong opposition and a lawsuit.  In doing so, the Department sought to unequivocally convey its position that a mosque, or a gurdwara, is a place of worship to be treated the same as a church, synagogue, temple, meeting house or any other religious assembly and it is entitled to full protection by federal law.”

If I were a Muslim, hearing that the DoJ was planning to treat a mosque with the same respect that it has for a church would not be very reassuring.  I don’t know of a single instance in which the DoJ brought a suit against Islam for violating the separation of church and state.

I don’t know of a single case in which the DoJ has forbidden Muslim prayer on public property — but I DO know of several cases where the DoJ defended their right to pray on public property. 

Christians aren’t allowed to even TALK about their faith in public.  There are no public school curriculum on “Christian Studies” but there are MANDATORY public school courses on Islam. 

That is not a right extended to Christians.  

Remember, this is a speech given at George Washington University School of Law in which the Department of Justice is making its case AGAINST religious discrimination.  Deputy Cole’s closing remarks were therefore dripping with irony:

“I’m honored to work with you and my colleagues at the Department of Justice in the effort to fully realize America’s highest ideals of religious tolerance, equality, and justice for all.

Religious tolerance for all?  


The purpose of Cole’s speech was to let everybody know that he had “recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security.”

The method chosen to accomplish this goal is to purge all references to Islam or Islamic jihad from any examination of Middle Eastern terrorism.  In so doing, the administration has removed any consideration of the motives, beliefs or goals behind the terrorist attacks against US interests.

Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

See?  It is simple.  Anything that suggests Islam has a tendency towards violence is intolerant of Islam’s famous and well-known history of peace and love and tolerance of other religions, and such intolerance will NOT be tolerated by a Department of Justice and a president that stand for tolerance. 

If some inconvenient facts about Islam managed to creep into FBI training manuals, like for example the fact that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim, or that al-Qaeda is an Islamic movement, then the best way to “fix” it is by putting one’s fingers in one’s ears, closing one’s eyes and repeating “I can’t hear you” over and over.

Holton said that he had spoken with Attorney General Eric Holder about FBI training materials that Holton claimed were “egregiously false,” and that Holder “is firmly committed to making sure that this is over….we’re going to fix it.” Holton said that this “fix” was particularly urgent because the rejected training materials “pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam.” (emphasis mine)

The entire speech was filled with what George Orwell called “double speak” — when words are arranged it such a way so as to convey exactly the opposite of what they actually mean.  

It seems that by ‘stereo-typing’ Muslims (the way that Cole’s speech stereotyped Christians) Americans are being “blinded to the great gift of our diversity.”  Actually, what Americans are being blinded to is the great gift of our unity. 

It is the United States, not the Diverse States, because “diversity” means exactly the opposite of “unity.”

The Diverse States of America is what America was under King George.  The United States was what those diverse states became after declaring Independence.

The DoJ’s tactic here is actually quite brilliant.  By portraying the average Christian as a bigot and the average Muslim as the victim of bigotry, the DoJ has confused fact with bigotry so effectively that any effort to introduce facts sounds like bigotry, whereas inventing facts not in evidence sounds like tolerance.

So the next time you see something suspicious and are tempted to call the FBI, here are a few things to keep in mind. 

If the suspicious character is an apparent Muslim male between the ages of 17 and 34 and he is doing something like shouting “Allahu Akbar” while mowing down a crowd of pedestrians with his car, it has NOTHING to do with Islam.  

It is most likely a case of white American Christians who are mobbing his moving vehicle, hoping to yank him out of it and beat him up because he is a Muslim.  

Because that’s what white American Christians like to do.

Just because of a couple of thousand terror attacks by guys that claim to be followers of Islam doesn’t mean that it is Islamic terror.  Everybody knows that it’s the Christian terrorists that the DoJ needs to keep an eye on. 

They’re pretty sneaky. 

One Sheep, One Vote

One Sheep, One Vote
Vol: 121 Issue: 24 Monday, October 24, 2011

Two weeks ago, a federal judge blocked key portions of Alabama’s new immigration law after several groups, including the Obama Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), asked for an injunction.

The Department of Justice claimed that for the states to enforce federal immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce violates the separation of powers

The ACLU’s immigrants rights Web page declares: “No human being is illegal.” 

Well, of course no human being is illegal. This is nonsense – a straw-man argument. People are not illegal, just their actions are, such as entering the country illegally or knowingly employing someone who is here illegally.

The page states: “For more than twenty years, the Project has been … focusing on challenging laws that deny immigrants’ access to the courts, impose indefinite and mandatory detention and discriminate on the basis of nationality.”

Opponents of voter ID laws argue that such laws are unnecessary because there is no evidence of voter fraud on a scale that could affect the course of an election.  

That argument ignored a one-vote margin of victory in a Kansas City, Missouri election in 2010 in which there were at least fifty illegal votes cast by citizens of Somalia.

John J. Rizzo (Democrat) defeated Republican Will Royster for State Representative by a single vote.  At least 1798 votes that were cast in that election were deemed ‘suspicious.’  And it is hardly the only time in American electoral history that this has happened.

A 1996 congressional race in California was almost overturned by hundreds of votes illegally cast by noncitizens.  A 1984 grand jury in Brooklyn revealed a widespread, 14-year conspiracy that cast thousands of fraudulent votes through impersonation fraud in state and congressional elections.

Then, of course, there is the 2008 election of Barack Hussein Obama to take into consideration.  The 2008 election was so crooked that three years later, we’re not sure if Obama was even legally qualified to be on the ballot, let alone if all the fake ACORN votes were caught.

Opponents of voter ID laws claim that requiring voter ID suppresses the vote and unfairly targets minorities, the disabled, rural residents, senior citizens, the poor, and that these laws are used to unfairly advantage Republicans by suppressing the voters that traditionally vote Democrat.

The most amazing thing about that argument is how widespread it is, given that it is so clearly ridiculous. 

Who in America does not have any form of government issued ID?  Minorities?  Unlikely.  Minorities drive cars, write checks, have jobs and are full citizens, just like umm, non-minorities.  (Unless the “minorities” under discussion here is code for those in the country illegally, that is.)

Rural residents?  What the heck does that mean?  Does it mean that if you live on a farm out in the country, you walk into town to get supplies?  If you live out in the country, you don’t use banks?  Country people don’t have jobs?

Senior citizens?  Are we talking about people collecting Social Security benefits not being able to prove they are American citizens?  Or people on Medicare that can’t prove they are entitled?  Are they KIDDING?  

The poor?  I wonder how easy it is to get welfare or food stamps or aid to dependent children or Medicare without offering any documentary evidence that you exist and are not wanted by the law? 

How many low-income citizens have managed to live in America all their lives without ever obtaining legal identification?  What do you think that the odds are that there are more people in these groups that have never had identification than among other groups of Americans?

This is the 21st century — and Americans are among the most carefully documented populations on the planet. 

Is there ANY legitimate probability that YOU can think of that an American citizen qualified to vote in an American election cannot come up with ANY form of identification?  Let me put it another way:

Can you think of ANYBODY that you know that doesn’t have any form of identification?  Do you know anybody who is otherwise legally entitled to vote in an American election that could not get some form of identification if necessary?   Anybody?

I read the following in the Sunday supplement authored by a former Cook County (Chicago) prosecutor in the Buffalo News that was unintentionally revealing. . .

“These new ID laws are part of a larger Republican program to limit the franchise of people who are more likely to vote for Democrats, an effort that includes suppression of the youth vote by rejecting student IDs as acceptable identification and shortening the early voting periods young people disproportionably use to exercise their franchise; voter-roll purges that target minority voters; and lifetime bans on voting by ex-felons who have paid their debt to society.”

Sure.  Remove the felons, require proof of age for those too young to vote,  require proof of citizenship . . . and before you know it, the Democrat Party’s whole voter base would evaporate. 

“Even as citizens across the Middle East are basking in newfound opportunities for political expression in the warmth of the Arab Spring, Republican politicians in America are limiting democracy with chilling voter suppression laws. Long ago we should have learned that the problems of democracy are resolved by more democracy, not less.”

And therein lies the problem.  What we should have learned long ago isn’t that the problems of democracy are solved by more democracy.  More democracy IS the problem.

More democracy, such as that demonstrated by the Arab Spring, turned Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood.  More democracy handed control of the Gaza Strip over to Hamas. 

Free and open elections gave the world Adolf Hitler, Ayatollah Khomeini, Hamid Karzai, Hugo Chavez, Nouri al-Malaki, etc.  And in any case, it is comparing apples and oranges.   Offering Democrat solutions to America’s problems with democracy can’t work.

Because America is not a democracy.


Sir William Blackstone was an English lawyer whose four-volume “Commentaries on the Law” came to be regarded as the basis for all Western common law.  Noted Wikipedia’s entry on Blackstone:

William Searle Holdsworth, one of Blackstone’s successors as Vinerian Professor, argued that “If the Commentaries had not been written when they were written, I think it very doubtful that [the United States], and other English speaking countries would have so universally adopted the common law“.[2] In the United States, copies influenced MarshallJames WilsonJohn JayJohn AdamsJames Kent and Abraham Lincoln, and the Commentaries are cited in Supreme Court decisions between 10 and 12 times a year.

Sir William’s Commentaries outline the differences between a Constitutional Republic, such as that of the United States, with a pure democracy, such as the one the US installed in Iraq.

Blackstone said that in a republic, certain laws are granted by the Divine and cannot be overturned by a majority decision, as would be the case in a pure democracy.

So the difference between a Republic and a Democracy is the source of its authority.  A Republic, like the United States, derives the Source of its Authority to govern from God, whereas a democracy derives its authority to govern from the people.

The United States was set up to be governed by the people, but under the authority of God based on ‘principles which did not change’.  A government BY the people, FOR the people, but not FROM the people.

In the American republic, the “principles which did not change” and which were “certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community” were the principles of Biblical natural law.

In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area.

“To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.” – Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 42-43

We are often accused of being ‘Far Right’ in our views.  Many of you probably believe you are Far Right because that’s what the spin doctors want you to believe.  The Far Right and the Far Left live in the alternate realities of spin and partisanship.

In the middle, devoid of spin, is the baseline reality.  That reality is this: God is in charge.

He gave us the right to self government, bound by certain limits.  None of our leaders are perfect, none follow God’s law to the letter and all have conflicting agendas they want to advance.

The worldview that favors one side or the other at the expense of baseline reality is spin.  Spin is another word for “lie.”

The difference between a republic and a democracy was once widely understood in America. The U.S. War Department taught that difference in a training manual (No. 2000-25) published on November 30, 1928.  This official U.S. government document stated:

“Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They ‘made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.’ “

The problem with pure democracy is that it has no rules.  It puts no more limits on the power of the federal government than those desired by the majority of its population.  America’s Constitutional Republican system limits the power of government, regardless of the will of the majority.

It is based on trusting in a loving God that guarantees our individual liberties.  To work, it must also believe that loving God exists.

Once God becomes a myth, one god is as good as another.  Faith in God is replaced by faith in the system, and America’s system, apart from God, is just another democracy.

One “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” (2nd Timothy 3:5)

“The American People” become supreme, and that is where the Left’s faith resides; in democracy as embodied by “the American People”.

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

It is fair to say that the more democratic one’s worldview is, the less one likes retaining God in their knowledge.  God opposes abortion, gay rights, the destruction of the family, and endorses prayer.

That is the endgame here.  It isn’t so much that the goal is the destruction of American capitalism or the American political system.  The goal is the destruction of American faith and of American dependence upon God. 

Remove God from American conciousness, and all the other things the Democrats demand as part of their political Shangri-la would fall into place automatically.

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

 “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful . . .” (Romans 1:29-31)

Someone once explained the difference between a pure democracy and a Constitutional republic this way.

In a pure democracy, two wolves and a sheep each get one vote on what is for dinner.  In a Constitutional republic, voting on dinner would be prohibited by the Constitution.

And the sheep would be well-armed.