Special Report: The Choice

Special Report: The Choice
Vol: 121 Issue: 22 Saturday, October 22, 2011

According to its’ many secular critics, the Bible is a dishonest record that, if scrutinized properly, reveals itself to be riddled with errors and contradictions.

Indeed, entire books have been written on the subject, pointing out such contradictions as Genesis 1:31 (God was satisfied with His creation) and Genesis 6:6 (God was grieved that He had made man on earth).

Of course, there is no contradiction.  When God created man, all was good.  Later, after Adam’s sin, God was grieved.  One can argue all around the fact that God is omniscient and therefore knew Adam would sin, but having foreknowledge doesn’t necessarily mitigate grief. 

We all knew my mother was dying of lung cancer long before she passed away.  When she died, nobody was surprised.  One look at her at any time during the preceding year would have made it clear that her time upon the earth was limited.

Foreknowledge certainly didn’t mitigate the grief.  If anything, it made it worse — we grieved every day until she died, and after that is when the real grief set in. 

The Bible is a ponderous record; first, it is not one book, but sixty-six different books, divided by two main themes recording the Covenant Promises made by God to Israel and the New Covenant Promises made by Christ to the Church.

Together, the sixty-six books of the Bible consist of 1,189 chapters, 31,173 verses containing 807,361 words.  They have been scrutinized, studied, dissassembled and reassembled over the course of tens of centuries by critics seeking to “expose” it’s alleged dishonesty. 

It was a fool’s errand.  One of the most disconcerting things about the Bible is its honesty. Unlike most other sacred writings, the Bible doesn’t whitewash the record — it is painfully honest.

The Bible introduces us to Jacob, the father of God’s Chosen People, Israel.  Jacob tricked his brother Esau into giving up his birthright as first-born, then deceived his father into giving him Esau’s blessing. 

Even Jacob’s name means, “he who supplants”, meaning, “to take the place of another through force, scheming or the like.” Clearly, Jacob’s image, as the eponymous father of the Israelite people, could have used a little polishing.  

But Jacob is depicted for the man that he was because the Bible is true.  Because it is a true record, its heroes are not ‘heroic’ like the ancient Greek and Roman gods and demigods. They are flawed men who managed to overcome their shortcomings through the power of God.

The Bible portrays David not only as Israel’s most-loved king, general, and spiritual leader, but as a man who took another man’s wife and then, to cover his own sin, conspired to have her husband killed.

Israel, God’s Chosen People, are depicted in Scripture (Ezekiel 16:46-52) as being so evil they made Sodom and Gomorrah look good.

The Apostle Peter denied Jesus three times, and, together with most of the Apostles, abandoned Jesus and ran for their lives. The Apostle Paul is self-described as the ‘chief among sinners’ — his hands stained red with the blood of Christian martyrs.

Despite arguments from the skeptics and critics that the Bible was changed after the fact to make it appear prophetic, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove otherwise. Among the most important finds in the treasure trove of ancient documents discovered in a cave in 1947 was a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah.

It varied from the modern book of Isaiah only in matters of dialect and the use of vowels. The Bible’s preservation over the centuries is nothing short of miraculous, but, of course, that is because the Bible is a miracle in and of itself.

The Bible, particularly the New Testament, employs the use of eyewitness accounts, as well as Divine Revelation, to teach its eternal truths. Paul writes:

“And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: Whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:14-17)

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians that the resurrected Jesus had been seen by more than five hundred witnesses, (1 Corinthians 15:1-6) many of whom Paul writes, were still alive at the time of his writing, in case anybody living during that period wanted to do a little fact-checking.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the of Paul’s time were just as dedicated to disproving the Resurrection story in the 1st century as they are in the 21st.

Paul provided the opportunity, but there were evidently no takers.

Many of the witnesses ended up as martyrs, not for abstract moral or spiritual convictions but for their claim that Jesus had risen from the dead.

While martyrdom is not unusual, the basis on which these people gave their lives is what IS important.  Many have died for what they believed to be the truth.  But people do not die for what they KNOW to be a lie.

The Bible’s composition also defies the skeptic’s contentions.  Forty different authors writing over a period of 1,600 years penned the 66 books of the Bible.  Four hundred silent years separated the 39 books of the Old Testament from the 27 of the New Testament.

Yet, from Genesis to Revelation, they tell one unfolding story.  Each book flows seamlessly into the next, gradually unfolding, without contradiction, the progressive Revelation of God to man.

Although the Bible is made up of many books, it is really just one.

Critics throughout history have tried to make the case for Biblical errancy based on the absence of historical evidence of its accuracy.  One such argument concerned the historical reality of Pontius Pilate.

Pilate, according to Scripture, was the Roman governor of Judea. The Romans kept meticulous records, but there was no record of Pontius Pilate among them.

For centuries, the historical absence of Pilate was the Bible critics’  ‘gotcha’ question.

But in 1961, archaeologists found a stone inscription at the excavation of an old Roman theater located in Caesarea in Israel.  This is the same theater where the Apostle Paul was tried before Herod Agrippa. 

Two thousand years later, Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Courage” event in Israel kicked off from that same theater.  That theater, according to the plaque uncovered in 1961, was constructed by Pilate in honor of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, (called a Tiberieum).

It says in Latin:”TIBERIEUM (PON)TIUS PILATUS (PRAEF)ECTUSIUD” — identifying Pontius Pilate as Rome’s prefect in the time of Jesus, precisely as the Bible recorded.

The Bible names Caiaphas as the chief of the Sanhedrin who oversaw the trial of Jesus.  His existence was also questioned, since the only record of his life and times is contained in the Gospels.

Until 1990, when an ossuary was discovered bearing the inscription, Caiaphas ben-Joseph was discovered in Jerusalem. The discovery of Caiaphas ben Joseph’s ossuary established — for the first time — that such a historical personage actually lived, and artifacts in the box indicated he died sometime after AD 37.

The ossuary’s discovery was announced in the Biblical Archeological Review (BAR).  It is important to note that the BAR is a Jewish secular organization.  They do not take a position of Biblical inerrancy.  And being Jews – secular or otherwise — they have nothing to gain by proving the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Caiaphas’ house has since also been identified.  It was the only house in first-century Jerusalem to have its own dungeon.  I’ve been in that dungeon.  I stood in the exact place where Jesus was chained to the dungeon wall.  It’s real enough, believe me.

Jesus Christ Himself verified the accuracy of Scripture, which, while meaningless to the critics, is undeniable proof to those who know Him.

“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40)

The Book of Daniel is one of the books the skeptics hate the most, since it contains details about global empires that came to power centuries after Daniel’s death.

For that reason, many advance the argument that Daniel is a forgery written sometime during the Macabean Revolt of BC 163 to encourage the revolutionaries.

But Jesus Christ verified Daniel as ‘a prophet’ and said so in no uncertain terms.

“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel THE PROPHET, stand in the holy place . . ” (Matthew 24:15)

The books of Moses were written 500 years before the earliest Hindu Scriptures. Moses wrote Genesis 2,000 years before Muhammad penned the Koran.  In all those generations, Godhaters and skeptics have sought to discredit its testimony.

If anybody actually ever did, Christianity would be a dead religion today.  As noted earlier, who wants to die for a lie?

Despite centuries of attacks, no other book has been so consistently bought, studied, and quoted as the Bible. While millions of other titles come and go, the Bible is still the Book by which all other books are measured.

Then there is the Bible’s most undeniable evidence — its power to change lives.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon vainly searched for peace until he heard this verse quoted by a country preacher:

“Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:22).

Hal Lindsey was a hard-drinking Mississippi riverboat captain before hearing God’s call. I was a cynical, hard-bitten Texas cop when the Lord changed me. 

Skeptics, not understanding the concept of grace, discount the evidence of changed lives, arguing instead that such people still sin. (The preaching of the cross is foolishness to the natural man, remember?)

There will always be idiots who will focus on whether or not Solomon had four thousand horses (2nd Chronicles 9:25) or forty thousand horses (1 Kings 4:26) when what both books refer to are ‘stalls’ and not horses at all.

One passage refers to just horses and horsemen, while the other, if one looks closely, refers to horses, horsemen AND chariots.

It is a dishonest debate they seek.  They don’t have an answer for why the Apostles chose death rather than deny Jesus. They don’t explain why the 1st century Christians willingly went to their deaths rather than deny Jesus.

They don’t explain how the Bible can be so brutally honest and simultaneously be corrupt, despite the historical evidence of its incorruption. 

And they can’t explain away its power.

Remove the Bible from history and our social structure collapses into chaos.  What happens to our laws, our police, and our judges?  What happens to the weak, the defenseless, the downtrodden, the lonely, and the despairing?

There have always been self-important wannabes who seek fame by being the first one in history to conclusively disprove the Word of God.  The Scripture says they will continue in their efforts until the Lord returns at the end of the Tribulation Period.

The Scriptures tell us to ‘trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not on our own understanding’ (Proverbs 3:5) when faced by glib-tongued Bible critics seeking to steal your victory.

As Paul awaited his own martyrdom, from a prison cell in Rome, he wrote the following words:

“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine”.

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2nd Timothy 4:1-4)

Finally, it is worth noting that NOBODY is neutral about the Bible.  It is not possible, given its claims.  The Bible claims to be the Word of God.  It tells the story of the history of the human race from Adam to the antichrist. 

It reveals the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God Who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son as a substitute sacrifice on the behalf of sinful mankind.  It demands action on the part of its reader.

Having read its claims, particularly those about sin and redemption, a person must either accept it or reject it.  Nobody can remain ambiguous about whether or not they are accountable to a living God. 

That is what makes the Bible “sharper than any two-edged sword” – it cuts both ways.  There is no way to ignore it.  So everybody must make a choice. 

“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 34:15)

When Good is Evil and Evil Is Good

When Good is Evil and Evil Is Good
Vol: 121 Issue: 21 Friday, October 21, 2011

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” – Isaiah 5:20

There was a popular Helen Reddy song from somewhere way back in my memory that contained the lyrics; “sometimes it feels like you and me against the world.”

As I was scanning the headlines, that song was playing softly in the jukebox of my mind.  That’s what it seems like sometimes.

Like it is just you and I standing in one corner of reality seeing one thing, while the rest of the world is standing just around the corner, looking at the same thing, but seeing something else. 

It MUST be that they are looking at something else because whatever it is doesn’t remotely resemble what you and I are seeing.

In Philadelphia on Monday, an eighty-four year old former university vice president at Temple University was savagely attacked by a group of four young blacks as he took his daily five-mile walk along the appropriately-named “Forbidden Drive.”

Jim Shea was walking alone when he was took a major blow to the back of his head, knocking him to the ground.

As the eighty-four year old man lay helpless on the ground, the four youths, aged between 16 and 20, according to Shea, continued to rain blows down, leaving him bloodied but conscious.

Police and Shea said that at least one of the attackers used a rock to hit him, causing deep cuts above his eyes. They all kicked and punched him while he was on the ground, conscious the entire time.

“There was only one I really saw well because he came back to kick me,” Shea said. “The others spent a great deal of the time laughing.”

According to Shea, the most stunning part of the entire attack was that there was no apparent motive.  They didn’t rob him, leaving him with his wallet, money and car keys.  He was too old to defend himself and therefore a target of opportunity. 

The only reason for the beating was because they could.  Shea didn’t know his assailants and they didn’t know him.  They beat him up for the FUN of it!   

What kind of insanity is that?  What kind of person could beat up on an old man for the enjoyment of the experience?  Do they not have parents?  Grandparents? 

Atheists believe that mankind is basically good and that human morality “evolved” for the good of the species. There is absolutely no evidence to support that contention, but atheists only accept evidence that supports their cause.  

Indeed, the Bible says exactly the opposite.  According to the prophet Jeremiah;

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)

“Deceitful above ALL things. . . DESPERATELY wicked.”   That certainly seems to fit this story. 

An atheist would argue that the four youths were maltreated by society, blaming the same social evolution that it credits for instilling morals in the rest of us.  The evidence lines up more perfectly with the Bible:

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


Today’s Drudge Report headline reads: GE’s Profit Soars 57%.  That is a pretty impressive performance for a major American corporation in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

General Electric is a US “multinational conglomerate” whose four major areas of corporate interest are energy, technology infrastructure, capital and finance and consumer and industrial manufacturing. 

General Electric Corp. is headed by Jeffrey Immelt, who also serves on Barack Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Immelt was appointed by Obama in 2009.  That year, General Electric posted record-breaking profits.  The same for 2010.  And of course, there is this quarter’s 57% profitability.   

The corporate tax rate for Wall Street “fat cats” like GE is currently 35% — Obama would like to see it go higher.  So would GE and Jeffrey Immelt. 

Why?  Because ever since Immelt was appointed by Obama, GE seemingly doesn’t have to pay any federal taxes. 

General Electric paid zero federal taxes in 2009 on gross earnings of $182 billion.  General Electric not only paid zero federal taxes on $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, GE got a tax benefit of over $3.2 billion

General Electric’s profitability is through the roof while the rest of corporate America languishes and the deficit grows. “Occupy Wall Street” isn’t going after General Electric.  Obama isn’t attacking GE for ripping off America.   

The New York Times said not a single word in its report on GE about its ability to evade US taxes or anything about GE “ripping off” the American taxpayer.  It noted GE’s amazing ability to make a profit in this ‘volatile’ economy, but nary a word about Immelt’s cozy relationship with Obama.

The Obama administration just gave a $529 million loan guarantee to an electric car manufacturer called “Fisker.”  Who

The loan to Fisker is part of a $1 billion bet the Energy Department has made in two politically connected California-based electric carmakers producing sporty — and pricey — cutting-edge autos. Fisker Automotive, backed by a powerhouse venture capital firm whose partners include former Vice President Al Gore, predicts it will eventually be churning out tens of thousands of electric sports sedans at the shuttered GM factory it bought in Delaware.

Ah.  Fisker is an electric car company, so it is one of those great “green” jobs projects.  Fisker is partially owned by Al Gore, but maybe that is only a coincidence. 

After all, Obama’s focus is to create ‘green’ jobs, so just because Gore is a major investor shouldn’t disqualify it from all that free taxpayer money.  Should it?

“Folks, we’re making a bet,” Biden said on Oct. 27, 2009. “We’re making a bet on the future, we’re making a bet on the American people, we’re making a bet on the market, we’re making a bet on innovation. . . . The story of Fisker is a story of ingenuity of an American company, a commitment to innovation by the U.S. government and the perseverance of the American auto industry.”

There is something that Biden didn’t mention. Manufacturing the new Fisker electric car will produce 500 jobs . . . in Finland!  Fisker is ‘California-based’ because it has offices in California, not because it will make cars there. 

Ok, so maybe a half billion dollars in US taxpayer dollars won’t create manufacturing jobs in the US, but at least it was an investment in “green’ technology.  Isn’t that in America’s best interests?  

You tell me.  A new Fisker will cost about $97,000 US, but only two have actually been sold in the US.  

Fisker and the federal government claimed the new Fisker will get 51 mpg.  THAT is the “bet on the future” Biden was referrring to. 

It’s a sucker’s bet.

Forbes Magazine recalculated the mileage claims, only Forbes used the actual numbers without redefining what constitutes “fossil fuels” and pretending that nobody will drive more than thirty miles without recharging. 

Factor that in and the new Fisker, according to Fox News, will actually get about . . . drum roll, please. . . nineteen miles to the gallon! 

President Obama has firmly articulated his support for the “Occupy!” protests on Wall Street and elsewhere, equating them with the Tea Party demonstrations of 2009-2010. 

The only thing that the Tea Party has in common with the “Occupy!” protests is that they were both protests.  (The Russian Revolution and the American Revolution were both revolutions, too, but that is where the similarities end.)

There were no complaints about Tea Partiers defecating on people’s doorsteps.  Tea Partiers didn’t steal from each other.   Tea Partiers didn’t have to worry about being sexually assaulted at their demonstrations.

The Tea Party’s goals were to work within the system by electing politicians that shared their vision of less government, more individual responsibility and less government spending.  

The Occupy! movement’s goals are to force the government to squeeze more money from the rich to be used to buy them stuff so they don’t have to pay for it themselves.  Stuff like government handouts, welfare, government jobs and free college educations.

In thousands of protests in hundreds of cities, tens of thousands of Tea Partiers demonstrated, cleaned up, and left the demonstration grounds cleaner than they found them.  Not a single arrest.  

So far, in dozens of protests in tens of cities involving hundreds of protestors, more than 1800 “Occupiers” have been arrested.  It will cost millions to clean up after them.

Nobody has been injured in Tea Party violence — at least 70 protestors and 30 police officers have been injured in “Occupy!” protests.

To summarize, this is what America looks like from where I am sitting.  Those that work hard and achieve success are condemned and marginalized — the unemployed and unemployable are the new solid citizens.

Being a Christian that loves Jesus in today’s America is a major social liability but being gay is a major social asset.  Being a liar is perfectly acceptable, (provided the lie is politically correct), but telling the truth based on reality rather than social acceptability can ruin one’s career.

Being an anarchist dedicated to the destruction of the American system makes one a patriotic American worthy of political and media support, but being a Tea Partier dedicated to restoring American respect for the Constitution is “subversive.”

“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 world appears to be indulging itself in an orgy of lawlessness — it is seemingly becoming a cause for celebration.  The more lawless, the better. 

The more anarchists that demonstrate, the better the world appears to like it.  The more world leaders lie, the more support they seem to get from the world system. 

Whether willing to admit it or not, the West is locked in an ideological war between civilizations, but whenever the two sides clash, the world throws its sympathy behind the terrorists on the principle that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

Based on that principle, it is entirely acceptable to fill some teenager’s brain with a bunch of nonsense, strap a bomb on him and send him to blow up innocent civilians.

Millions of column inches are expended explaining the ‘whys’ of terrorism; terrorists are victims, they are poor, they are oppressed by Israel or by the West, they are doing the best they can with the weapons they have, etc.

(The majority of terrorists, like most of the “Occupiers” are college-educated trust fund babies, but that statistic isn’t politically correct, so it is deemed irrelevant.)

It is like you and I are seeing one reality, and the world is seeing the exact opposite.  The world sees Christianity as hateful and oppressive, but excuses jihadism.  It despises Israel above all other countries while supporting the creation of an openly terrorist state on its borders “in the interests of freedom”.

It is as if everything was backwards; turned on its head like some kind of “Alice in Wonderland” scenario.  If it is evil, it is good.  If it is good, then it is evil. 

It is a proven fact that G-rated movies make many times more money at the box-office than do PG or R — but Hollywood all but refuses to make those kinds of movies. 

I was listening to Fox News this morning discussing the fact it took four years for the G-rated movie, The Mighty Macs about a Catholic women’s basketball team, to find a distributor.

The mystery of iniquity referred to by the Apostle Paul is a reference to the mysterious power that lawlessness seems to have over those who reject the Gospel as some kind of religious fairy tale. 

He says that for THIS cause God sends strong delusion, because they also reject the love of the truth, “that they might be saved.”  Instead, they “take pleasure in unrighteousness” — it is what they prefer –with the result of their rejection outlined in the following verses.

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)

This is what separates you and me from the world.  Because “greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world.” (1 John 4:4)

That’s why Paul called it the “mystery” of lawlessness. 

Where Life is Beautiful All The Time. . .

Where Life is Beautiful All The Time. . .
Vol: 121 Issue: 20 Thursday, October 20, 2011

A new report released yesterday by the CDC found that the use of antidepressants by Americans is up by more than four hundred percent since 1988.

The CDC reports that one person in ten is on some form of antidepressant medication.  The CDC conducted the study between 2005 and 2008 and polled more than 12,000 subjects 12 years and older.

The report found that women are two and a half times more likely to be taking antidepressant drugs than men and that women between the ages of 40 and 59 are the most likely to be in search of better living through chemistry.

One child in every twenty-five between the ages of 12 and 17, according to the CDC, regularly takes prescription antidepressant drugs, but the bulk of those depressed enough to require medication are between the ages of 18 and 40.

More white people are depressed than other racial groups; 14% of all whites are on antidepressant drugs, whereas only four percent of blacks and three percent of Hispanics are too depressed to function without drugs.

Of those taking antidepressant drugs, the CDC found that 6.4% weren’t clinically depressed and that seventy-five percent of all prescriptions written for antidepressant drugs were written by health care practitioners other that mental health professionals.

And then there is the most amazing finding of all, at least, from my perspective.  Among those who really need antidepressant drugs, sixty-six percent — fully two-thirds – don’t take them.

It is the ones that can see clearly enough to know they aren’t crazy that are gobbling them up like candy.


“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)

This verse isn’t just about extra-terrestrial signs in the sun, moon and stars.  It’s about fear.  The “distress of nations, with perplexity.”  Jesus said that men’s hearts would fail them “for fear” — because that is the real sign of the last days. 

Why would men’s hearts fail them for fear?  Are YOU so afraid of the signs of the Lord’s coming that you need to take drugs to mask that fear?

Or are you watching the signs of the times with eager anticipation of the Lord’s soon return?

I admit that sometimes I get a little afraid, but that fear is quickly dissipated when I step back and take a look at what I am afraid of.  I am “afraid” of the signs pointing to the day Christians have waited for since Paul wrote the Thessalonians to tell them that they hadn’t missed it.  

I am “afraid” the Lord will keep His Word.  But I’d be a lot more afraid if I didn’t know He was coming.

I am willing to bet that the Apostles were also a little afraid when they were facing martyrdom.  It is one thing to BE dead.  How you get that way is of considerable concern, even if you know what happens next.

But that is not the same thing as the kind of all-consuming fear that results in one person in ten on Prozac.

“For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” (2 Timothy 1:7)

Imagine that you are an atheist.  You don’t believe that there is a God.  You scoff at the concept of a Divine Plan. 

According to your worldview, humanity is the supreme being and you rely on the wisdom of the masses to bring order out of chaos.  As an atheist, you believe that man is basically good, and it is that basic goodness that is responsible for law and order and social morality.

Now, looking out from that perspective, what do you see?  High unemployment continuing on for years, maybe decades.  The great unwashed demanding the government tax employers out of business.  Runaway crime as the economic situation worsens.

The eventual collapse of the ecology; global warming, (or global cooling), the potential for solar flares wiping out the electrical grid, the possibility of world war, even the use of nuclear weapons. 

And most of all, the sense that not only is the world moving in the wrong direction, it is careening out of control.  If only Obama had been what everybody expected him to be.  But instead of hope, he offers nothing but hopelessness; more unemployment, more civil unrest, more class warfare.

As one Occupy Wall Street counter-protestor put it, “Don’t spread my wealth. Spread my work ethic.”

No wonder one American in ten is on anti-depressants!  (Including many Christians.)

The fear is palpable — and it is spreading.  The Occupy Wall Street movement is all the rage in Europe, with ‘rage’ being the operative word.  They are demanding that “something” be done, and they want “somebody” to do it.

Increasingly, the mantra “Tax the Rich” is being read as code for “Tax the Jews” — and the White House is exploiting it for all that it is worth.  It wasn’t until the crowds picked up on the unspoken message, “Blame the Jews” that Obama announced that he was ‘with’ them.

The enemies of the Occupy Wall Street crowd are the “capitalists” — which means “Jews” and “Republicans” — oddly, a code word for “Christians.”  Why?  Because they are afraid. 

They have good reason to be afraid.  The only place they can look to for hope is the government.   If not this government, some other government.  And if not this leader, then some new leader, as long as he isn’t a ‘capitalist’ (meaning “Christian” or “Jew”).

Fear breeds loathing.  Loathing breeds persecution.  Persecution breeds terror.  Terror looks for a savior.

According to the Bible, the savior the world is awaiting is the antichrist.  The conditioning process preparing the world for his appearance has only accelerated since the turn of the 21st century. 

What seemed possible ten years ago appears unavoidable today.

He is out there right now, waiting for his cue.  But the world isn’t quite fearful enough to buy what he is selling.  Not yet.  The Church is still here.   And the world still has an ample supply of Prozac.

But other than that, the world is ready.  More than ready. 

Eager, even.  

”My Struggle”

”My Struggle”
Vol: 121 Issue: 19 Wednesday, October 19, 2011

“The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded.” – Barack Hussein Obama on “Occupy Wall Street”

One of those parental injunctions that seems to be absorbed by all parents through some mysterious process of osmosis is the adage, “Show me your friends and I will show you your future.”  

Apparently, that saying isn’t as common in Indonesia or Stanley Ann Dunham might have shared it with young Barry.

President Obama openly mocked the Tea Party, which he regularly referred to by the disgusting double-entendre of “Tea Baggers,” but has decided to throw his support behind the “Occupy Wall Street” movement.  

I’ve never actually defined ‘teabagging’ in this column because even the definition is disgusting.  But here goes, so you may want to skip over this next paragraph. . .  

About as close as I can get to defining it without defiling myself is to say that refers to a primarily-gay sexual act that involves part of the male genitalia and the mouth of another person.  

THIS is the nickname President Obama uses to describe about a third of the American electorate and two thirds of the GOP. Could he be more disrespectful?

According to a CNN poll from earlier this month, thirty-three percent of all American voters identify with the Tea Party. 

CNN’s intended focus was about how Tea Party support was “slipping” but the fact is that there are more Americans that see the Democrats in an unfavorable light (48%) than there are Americans who have a similar view of the Tea Party (47%).   

Despite the fact that the Occupy Wall Street movement really is shot through with anti-Semitism, racism, and enjoys the support of the American Nazi Party, the American Communist Party, a growing number of international trade unions, socialist groups and far-left Marxist organizations, they are Obama’s people.

The Daily Caller did a little digging into the movement that President Obama has embraced as kindred spirits and discovered that the Occupy Wall Street Movement was actually planned by the White House:

The trend has some analysts very concerned — particularly after reports claimed union bosses tied to the Obama administration were plotting to bring about chaos. And while the protests which began on September 17 may be small now, supporters and critics alike say this may be only the beginning of something much bigger.

 In just the last week several large labor groups have officially announced their support for the occupation. The NYC Transit Workers Union, with nearly 40,000 members, voted to back the protesters on September 28. And the SEIU’s massive 32BJ union, which claims to represent over 120,000 property service workers, recently decided to use an upcoming rally to show “solidarity” with the Wall Street occupiers. 

 “The call went out over a month ago, before actually the occupancy of Wall Street took place,” 32BJ spokesman Kwame Patterson told the Huffington Post. But now “we’re all coming under one cause, even though we have our different initiatives.”

 The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) union, with over 10,000 members, also endorsed the demonstrations this week. “This occupation on Wall Street calls into question the very foundation in which the capitalist system is based,” it said in a statement, claiming the protests were aiming to hold accountable the “oppressors.”

The IWW (“Workers of the World” or, “Wobblies”) was founded in June 1905 by a collection of 200 socialists, archarchists and radical trade unionists.

It is a socialist movement with historical ties to the Communist Party, and is joined by the “Socialist Party USA” and by Professor Cornel West, honorary chairman of the “Democratic Socialists of America.”

The Occupy Wall Street movement enjoys the full and admiring support of the “People’s World” the online newspaper of the American Communist Party.  The New American also noted the prominent role being played by ACORN and Wade Rathke:

 Two of the most prominent individuals alleged to be pulling the strings behind the scenes  are disgraced ACORN founder and union boss Wade Rathke, and regular White House visitor Stephen Lerner of the SEIU. Both were caught earlier this year calling for massive protests, with a video surfacing earlier this year of Lerner scheming to bring down the stock market and destabilize the nation. Numerous analysts called the plots “economic terrorism.”

Yesterday, a lady who identified herself Patricia McAllister, that claimed to work for the Los Angeles Unified School District told news reporters at the LA demonstration site that the;

 “Zionist Jews who are running these big bans and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the Federal government, they need to be run out of this country.”

Here is another video example of the mindset that President Obama and the Far Left claim as their kindred thinkers. . . .some moron holding up a sign protesting “Wall Street Jews” as “Hitler’s Bankers” shouting out to an elderly Jew, “Freedom of speech! This is not Israel”.

And President Obama is proud to proclaim on behalf of his administration that he “understands their struggles” and that “he is on their side.”


Democratic pollster Doug Schoene, who worked for the campaigns of such Democratic icons as NY Mayor Ed Koch, President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton, conducted a poll of the Occupy Wall Streeters, publishing his findings in the Wall Street Journal.  His findings were stunning:

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won’t vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren’t represented by any political party.

In other words, the entire movement is a fraud aimed at creating enough division within the electorate to give the Obama campaign a “wedge issue” for next year’s presidential elections. 

The entire PURPOSE is to create domestic upheaval by using the identical tactics deployed by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party during Germany’s 1932 national elections.  

Blame the rich bankers, and in particular, the Jews.

It is interesting to me that Obama chose to describe the Occupy Wall Street movement as their “struggle” and said he could identify with it.  Hitler outlined his plan in his book, “Mein Kampf”  meaning, “My Struggle”

In 1932, Germany was in the throes of the Great Depression, and Hitler was able to convince a significant portion of the electorate that the reason for their economic woes was that the rich Jewish bankers were raping the German treasury. 

In 1930, Hitler’s National Socialist Party held only 18% of the seats in the Reichstag. By rousing the rabble and blaming the Jews and the bankers, by 1932 the Nazis were able to capture 37% of Parliament and ultimately, the Chancellorship for Adolph Hitler.

Not by representing the majority, but by mobilizing the lunatic fringe, which is what Shoene’s poll data seems to indicate makes up the bulk of the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal.

So the Occupy Wall Streeters are one third Democrats, one third anarchists and the rest are just there because they don’t have anything more important to do.  It is this group that the President of the United States is betting America’s economic future.

By any measurable standard, the United States of America is the world’s most Christian country in the same sense that Israel is the world’s most Jewish country. 

One can debate the truth of that contention all day long, but in the end, if America is not regarded by the rest of the world as the world’s most Christian country, then what country would be?  And in any case, while the movement began in the United States, it has captured the hearts of anarchists the world over.

The Apostle Paul, writing to his disciple, Timothy, gave the following description of the social conditions in which the Church would find itself during last days.  He referred to it as ‘perilous times.’

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” (2 Timothy 3:1)

What follows sounds like an eyewitness account of the character, aims and attitude of the Occupy Wall Street movement as endorsed by the American commander in Chief, who is openly “on their side.”

“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof . . .”

Obama “understands their struggles” and wants them to know that he “is on their side.” 

Tick . . . tick . . . tick

BLIND Faith? I Don’t Think So

BLIND Faith? I Don’t Think So
Vol: 121 Issue: 18 Tuesday, October 18, 2011

None of the prophets of the Old Testament were volunteers.  Being a prophet of God was not a popular job, since most of God’s prophets lived miserably and died painfully.

Most, like Moses or Jeremiah, did their best to talk God out of hiring them.

The writers of the Bible, for the most part, did not know one another — in some cases, they didn’t even know OF one another.  The Bible is actually a compilation of sixty-six separate and individual books, each capable of standing on its own. 

The Bible that we have today had forty different human authors who lived and died in different places and mostly in different centuries, beginning with Moses, who wrote the first five books of the Bible in the 14th century BC, and ending with the Apostle John, who penned the final, “Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ” sometime around the end of the first century.

Yet with all of that, every book blends seamlessly into the rest, both the books that came before, and those that came AFTER.  Some books of the Bible quote other books not yet written at that time.  Others quote earlier prophets or sacred writing, but all are harmonious with one another.

The writing of the Scripture is nothing short of miraculous in and of itself.  Its preservation over the centuries is mind-boggling, if you let yourself think about it.  You and I have both experienced discussions with non-believers convinced they can prove the Bible is wrong.

They rail and babble and quote everybody EXCEPT the Scriptures, and in the end, come away as convinced as when they went in.  Or get mad and just go away.

Think how many times similar conversations take place around the world, every single day.

Then, take a look at the broader view: In every generation since its compilation, the Bible has been the subject of discussion between believers and non-believers.  In every generation, non-believers have made it their mission in life to disprove the Scriptures.

Any discrepancy has been analyzed and re-analyzed by both friend and foe, read and re-read, argued and re-argued, in a million conversations over thousands of years.  The Bible says of itself,

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

The Bible is wholly consistent with known science.  The book of Isaiah said the earth was round tens of centuries before Columbus.

“It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth. . .” (Isaiah 40:22)

Who told Isaiah, a Jewish prophet that lived and died more than five hundred years before Christ, that the earth was round?  Until Columbus, most mariner’s maps ended somewhere in the midst of the Atlantic with notations like, “There be sea monsters here.”

Ecclesiates 1:6 reveals that the winds move in cyclonic patterns and Job tells us that light is in motion (Job 38:19-20) thousands of years before weather satellites and Einstein’s calculations proved both to be true.  How did they know? 

Medically, the Bible tells us the chemical nature of human life (Genesis 2:7, 3:19) that the life of creatures are in the blood (Leviticus 17:11), the nature of infectious diseases (Leviticus 13:46) and the importance of sanitation to health (Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13, Leviticus 7-9) many thousands of years before doctors were still practicing blood-letting as a treatment for disease.

Job knew that the “earth hangs on nothing”.  Job lived around the time of Abraham, some two thousand years BEFORE Christ.  Who told him that?

The list goes on.  Every historical event described by the Bible has either been confirmed by other sources, or has yet to be confirmed.  Not a single historical event described by Scripture has ever conclusively been disproved.

Sometimes, it is necessary to go back and take another look at the Source and meditate on just what a miracle it is in order to get a clearer understanding of what it says.  It helps to reconfirm that everything it says is true.

Despite thousands of years of editorial criticism, the Bible stands essentially unchanged from when it was first given.

A complete copy of the Book of Isaiah was unearthed as part of the Dead Sea Scroll treasures and is today enshrined in the Dome of the Tablets in Jerusalem.  I have personally seen it and marveled at the fact its date could NOT be questioned.  It could NOT be younger than the day it was buried in AD 70.

But, apart from grammatical changes made necessary by changes in Hebrew grammar over the centuries, it reads exactly the same way as the Book of Isaiah in your own Bible.

It makes sense to assume the rest of the Scriptures are equally accurate, since there is no evidence to the contrary and all the available evidence supports Scripture.

The Bible’s accuracy is not limited to where mankind has been and what he has learned over the centuries.  It is a book of geography, science, history and medicine, but that only scratches the surface.

It is every bit as accurate in its accounts of the things that are not yet done.


“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure:” (Isaiah 46:-9-10)

The prophecies of the Bible are, from God’s perspective, ALREADY history.

“. . .yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.” (Isaiah 46:11)

So not only does the God of the Bible know all things, but He has chosen to make known to us, through the Bible, what is still to come! In fact, even more than that, the God of the Bible CHALLENGES any so-called ‘gods’ to do the same.

“Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.” (Isaiah 41:21-23)

From God’s perspective, which is uniquely outside of space and time, everything is now, so to speak.  God’s historical pronouncements are given from the benefit of Divine Hindsight.  His prophetic pronouncements also enjoy the benefit of Divine Hindsight.

The Bible describes the future, but to God, it has already happened, if you can follow that line of reasoning for a minute.  Since to God, it already happened, the events that remain yet future will be fulfilled as specifically as those events that have already come to pass.

The Bible is also an eyewitness to the power and coming of our Lord Jesus.

“For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I KNOW WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.” (2 Timothy 1:12)

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16)

Think about that! The New Testament record is a record of eyewitness accounts!  How can we know that this is true?  Apart from the testimony of Scripture and the testimony of history, there is also the testimony of logic.

When Jesus was taken by the Sanhedrin to the house of Caiaphas, the Apostles, all of whom had heard His teaching and witnessed the Lord’s miracles, they fled in fear.  Peter denied even knowing Him on three separate occasions.

After His Ascension into Heaven, the Apostles began to spread the Gospel without fear.  Every single one of them, was given a choice.  Renounce Jesus or die a horrible death.

Imagine that YOU had seen Jesus.  Imagine that YOU had watched Him heal the lame, give sight to the blind, raise the dead. . .  Now, imagine that you saw Him killed, then saw Him alive, put your fingers in the nail holes, then spent more than a month with Him after you had witnessed His death?    

Knowing all that you know, and having actually SEEN Jesus ascending into heaven, along comes some ruler who tells you that if you don’t deny what you have seen, well, that ruler will send you to be with Jesus again.

You’ve seen Jesus. You’ve talked with Jesus.  You watched Jesus ascend into heaven.  You heard the two angels promise He will return in the same manner — but you have to wait. 

So along comes some guy who promises to cut short the wait and send you into the glory you KNOW awaits you. (Oh no!  Not Heaven!  Anything but that!)  

The Apostles paid a heavy price for their faith, even before being called upon to make the final payment with their lives.  Being an Apostle was no fun.  Each of the Apostles was an apostate Jew in the eyes of their friends and families.  Most were declared ritually dead.

They were ostracized, insulted, beaten, run out of town, arrested, imprisoned, and generally hounded everywhere they went.  Each of them was given an opportunity to save his own life by renouncing his testimony of Jesus.

And with the exception of the Apostle John, every single one of them chose a brutal, torturous death, instead.

Eusebius records that Bartholomew was given such a choice; Bartholomew chose beheading.  

James the Less was beaten, clubbed and stoned to death.  Andrew was crucified, although he was bound, rather than nailed, in order to prolong his suffering.  Peter was crucified upside down.

Thomas was killed in India when he was thrust through with a spear wielded by an enraged pagan priest. James, the brother of John, was executed by order of Herod Agrippa.  Phillip was crucified in Phrygia.  Matthew was speared in Ethiopia.  Jude was crucified in Odessa and Simon was crucified in Britain.

The skeptic denies their eyewitness testimony, but fails to give any reasonable explanation for why.  Why would they all accept a life of misery and deprivation, culminating in a torturous death, just to spread a myth?

Does it seem reasonable that twelve guys would sit around a campfire and make up a story that ruined their lives (in the natural) just so they could be known by their first names 2000 years later?  Of course it doesn’t. So the skeptic simply denies the historical record.

Nobody denies the accuracy of Plato’s writings.  Or Tacitus.  Or Homer.  Or Suetonius.  Or Flavius Josephus (except the part where he refers to Jesus as an actual historical figure).

Skeptics, liberals, and cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.

But it doesn’t matter.  The skeptics continue to assault the Bible on any and all fronts, applying the most unreasonable standards for accuracy imaginable.

They hate it, and they can’t even explain why.  That is also, to the Christian, evidence of its Divine Origin.

That hatred is so blind, so unreasoning, and so irrational that it cannot be explained in any other way.

“Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake.” (Luke 6:22)

It takes a spiritual ‘operation’ to remove that blindness, but we can only point a person in the direction of the Divine eye Surgeon. 

But they have to request the ‘operation’ for themselves.

Special Report: Pursuing the Proletariat – Day 1000

Special Report: Pursuing the Proletariat – Day 1000
Vol: 121 Issue: 17 Monday, October 17, 2011

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

So reads the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.  The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land.  According to its tenets, no citizen is outside its protections and guarantees and no citizen is exempt from its provisions.

The purpose of the Constitution is “to form a more perfect Union.”  The methodology set forth to accomplish this goal is the establishment of justice, which should have the corrollary benefit of insuring domestic tranquility.

The presidential oath of office taken 1000 days ago by Barack Hussein Obama is as follows:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The presidential oath binds the occupant of the Oval Office to the Constitution the way that a Baptist minister’s ordination binds him to the Bible.  If a Baptist minister taught that the Bible applied to everyone except himself, he would soon find himself looking for a new career.

But the current president has made it abundantly clear that the Constitution, as written, is only applicable to his political opponents.  Whenever it hamstrings something he favors, it becomes irrelevant.

The President has no Constitutional authority to set aside his oath to ensure domestic tranquility. But domestic tranquility is anathema to a “community organizer.” 

The phrase, “community organizer” puts me in mind of the first time I heard trash collectors described as “sanitation engineers.”

“Community Organizer” was a phrase invented to gloss over the actual and more descriptive phrase, “rabble rouser” in order to give it a thin veneer of respectability.   But it means exactly the same thing.

The problem for Obama is that “rabble rousing” is a direct violation of his oath to ensure domestic tranquility.  Obama came to power on the politics of division and class warfare, which is not unusual for a Democrat, but unlike his predecessors, he didn’t abandon it after capturing his office. 

Obama is disinterested in being president of all the people.  In Obama’s world, certain Americans do not deserve either legal protection or political representation.

(Like white people, rich people, Christians and conservatives, all of whom are either racists, thieves, hypocrites or heartless opportunists.) 

Even the left-leaning Politico can’t ignore the obvious:

“President Barack Obama stands accused by conservatives of waging class warfare, seeking to galvanize his base and lure middle-class voters by pitting the rich against everyone else.  But Obama’s reelection strategy is about more than the haves and have-nots. It appears he is seeking to stir up full-blown cultural warfare against a large and diverse segment of society known as Republicans.”

Obama has crossed lines no previous Commander-in-Chief would even contemplate.  Obama champions the rights of the poor by demonizing the rich with the kind of gusto that would make Karl Marx wriggle with pleasure.

“Some of you here may be folks who actually used to be Republican,” Obama said during a California fundraiser, “but are puzzled by what’s happened to that party. You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have health care and booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay. That’s not reflective of who we are.”

The only thing that was true in that statement is that it “is not reflective of who we are” — which is why what he described didn’t happen.  What was booed wasn’t the “gay service member”, it was the question he posed. 

The same applies to the health care story — it is a lie. 

But lying is not just allowed under this administration, it is encouraged. How many times have we heard that Congressional opposition to his “jobs bill” means no more jobs for teachers, firefighters or police officers?  

Evidently, teachers, firefighters and police officers make up the bulk of the nearly 10% of Americans that have either lost their jobs or will lose their jobs if Congress doesn’t pass Obama’s new tax and spend bill.

“They said no to more jobs for teachers, no to more jobs for cops and firefighters,” Obama said during a speech Wednesday to the administration’s Forum on American Latino Heritage, “no to more jobs for construction workers and veterans, no to tax cuts for small-business owners and middle-class Americans.”

Actually, Congress said “no” to raising taxes on small business owners and middle class Americans — Obama is lying. 

Here is what I find incredible.  That I can say Obama is lying without a moment’s hesitation or any fear of contradiction.

After all, this is the President of the United States!  Should I not feel at least a little uncomfortable throwing around an accusation of that magnitude?  Sure, I should. 

But it is Obama that favors INCREASING taxes on small business owners and middle class Americans — it is the Republicans that oppose it. And Obama`s position is all based on lies and deception. ALL of it. Rabble roused

If a person makes $250,000.00 per year in Buffalo, NY then maybe one might call that person ‘rich’.  A person making $250,000 per year in New York City, (where one-bedroom apartments sell for a million dollars and rent for $5000/mo plus)  $250K is barely middle class.

Or Los Angeles. Or Chicago. Or Atlanta. 

The central message being put out by the White House is that the rich didn’t earn it, the stole it by cheating the poor. And that they are selfish, grasping, greedy traitors to their own country and their own countrymen.  

Selling an economic proposal should not be based on pitting one segment of the population against another.  It should be based on what is good for the country.  Shouldn’t it? 

It is estimated that 75 million households, or 46% pay no federal income taxes at all.  If the almost-half of the country that pays no taxes and consumes most of the benefits, while the half that consumes the fewest benefits pays ALL the taxes, how can that be advanced as “fair”?

Obama recently came up with what he calls, “The Buffet Rule” based on an idiotic statement by billionaire Warren Buffett, who complained that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary does. 

Buffett’s income is investment income, which is taxed at 15% to encourage investment. If it was taxed at a higher rate, that investment money would be invested somewhere where the tax burden is lower, which is why it is taxed at 15% in the first place.

Warren Buffett isn’t your typical investor.  Your typical investor is any person who has a 401K account.  It is your grandma.  It is your cousin.  It is you

But even if one sets aside the differences, both Obama and Buffett are lying through their teeth.  Buffet is saying that the rich, like himself, should be taxed more. It is a fraud.   

“Buffett donates his stock, which costs him little-to-nothing, to charity once it has risen in value and takes the tax right offs thus lowering his tax burden.  This is a very different method of paying less than your “fair share” on income tax because you are using the charitable donation to essentially shelter your assets making it appear you earn less than you do.”

Even more interesting is the fact that Buffett has been evading a federal tax bill of more than a billion dollars for more than ten years.

Americans for Limited Government researcher Richard McCarty, who was alerted to the controversy by a federal government lawyer, said,

“The company has been short-changing the tax collection agency for much of the past decade. Mr. Buffett’s company has not fully settled its tax bills from 2002-2009. Yet he says he’d happily pay more. Except the IRS has apparently been asking him to pay more going on nine years.”

“For 2005 and 2006, Berkshire Hathaway again did not pay all the federal taxes that it was required to. Again, the IRS examination team caught Berkshire Hathaway on at least some issues. Now, Berkshire Hathaway is threatening the IRS with protracted litigation and is trying to cut a deal with the IRS Appeals office.”

Warren Buffett hasn’t paid taxes in a decade.  The head of President Obama’s “Jobs Council” is Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric. Last year, GE earned $5.1 billion in profits. GE not only did NOT pay any taxes on its earnings, it got tax credits!

Given all the facts, the most amazing part about Obama’s class warfare strategy is that it appears to be working.

This is the one element that I never expected.  I never thought that the strategy would work.  But here we are, exactly one month into the so-called “Occupy Wall Street” movement.  

Despite the violence, the arrests, the vandalism and the damage, it has the clear support of the White House.

The cost of the demonstrations to city governments is enormous — New York City has already spent millions and the cleanup hasn’t even begun.  Thousands have been arrested for everything from disobeying police orders to disperse to selling drugs to indecent exposure.

Who is paying for the demonstrations against the “one percent” (the new pejorative meaning “the evil rich” or, the “bourgeoisie”)?  The politically correct answer would be “the 99%” (the affirmative term meaning “the poor” or, “the proletariat”) except it isn`t true. Most of them don’t pay taxes either.

It’s being paid for by taxpayers.

It wasn’t very long ago that secular futurists like Gerald Celente were being mocked for forecasting economic riots on the streets of America.  “We’re better than that” we used to think — until we learned that we aren’t.

Something began to happen at the turn of the 21st century, when Al Gore and the Democrats attempted to steal the election even after every single recount (every one of them) proved that he lost.

The Democratic leadership discovered that they could accomplish a lot more with perception than they could with reality.

And they discovered that many Americans cannot tell the difference.

By 2004 John Kerry had morphed from a treasonous weasel that sold out his own country over Vietnam to a “Vietnam war hero”.  It almost worked. 

Four years later, Congress investigated John McCain, (born to a Navy admiral who was serving in Panama) seeking to prove he was not a ‘natural born citizen’ but refused to look into Barack Obama’s qualifications, despite Obama’s obvious efforts to conceal them.  

Not only did Obama’s deception work, it morphed into a weapon to be used to silence his critics.

Questioning John McCain was ok, but questioning Barack Hussein Obama, a black American with Muslim roots, questionable and shady supporters and a secretive background was racist.

George Bush left office with a reputation as a serial liar — without a single provable lie one could point to as evidence — while Obama, the most dishonest president in the history of the nation, can say anything he wants without fear of contradiction.  

When asked by His disciples, what would be the sign of His coming and of the end of the age, the very FIRST thing that the Bible records that Jesus told them was this:  

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

Why Africa?

Why Africa?
Vol: 121 Issue: 15 Saturday, October 15, 2011

The United Nations’ top human rights official is breaking with long-standing UNHRC tradition by condemning an Arab state for human rights violations, presumably because they couldn’t find a credible way to blame Israel for Syria’s brutal crackdown on protests.

Navi Pillay, U.N. high commissioner for human rights, presented a version of events that essentially agreed with anti-government activists, who say Syrian authorities have routinely attacked protesters without provocation.

The administration of President Bashar Assad has blamed the violence on “terrorists armed from abroad” (meaningIsrael”) that are seeking to overthrow his government.

 “Since the start of the uprising in Syria, the government has consistently used excessive force to crush peaceful protests,” Pillay said in a statement issued in Geneva. “Sniping from rooftops, and indiscriminate use of force against peaceful protestors — including the use of live ammunition and the shelling of residential neighborhoods — have become routine occurrences in Syrian cities.”

The death toll in Syria since anti-government protests erupted in March has now topped 3,000, including at least 187 children, Pillay said.  More than 100 people have died in the last 10 days, she said.

Thousands more, she added, have been “arrested, detained, forcibly disappeared and tortured,” while family members inside and outside Syria “have been targeted for harassment, intimidation, threats and beatings.”

Included in the 3,000 dead, said a U.N. spokesman, are military defectors who have switched sides and security officers “apparently summarily executed” for refusing to shoot civilians. The figure does not include security officers allegedly killed by armed insurgents.

The Syrian government says more than 1,100 security personnel have been killed.  The Obama administration and other Western governments have called on Assad to step down – but that is about as far as the White House appears willing to go. 

At the same time, the Obama administration has left unfinished business in Libya, first bombing the soup out of the Libyans but then refusing to commit to finishing the job by committing any ground troops out of fear of being ‘bogged down.’

Now it appears that terrorist groups are negotiating with Libyan “rebels” (our “allies”) for some of the thousands of shoulder-fired missiles that have “gone missing”. Andrew J. Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, said Friday the missiles “could pose a threat to civil aviation.”

The vast majority of the missing missiles are Soviet-made Sam 7’s equipped with infrared targeting capabilities

“We know that terrorist groups have expressed interest in obtaining these weapons,” he said, adding that the issue of securing the weapons was now a priority for President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

But not for NATO. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that although the missing weapons were a matter of concern, “it’s not a part of NATO’s mandate to deal with that.”

Libya was believed to have about 20,000 such missiles in its arsenals before civil war began in March, Shapiro said. Shouldn’t it have been a priority consideration all along?  Who would find it surprising that they were “left unguarded” during the NATO air strikes?

The missile stockpiles were likely NATO targets. Once the smart bombs start going off, government forces always flee the target areas.  Didn’t we learn anything in Iraq?

“The possibility that these weapons may cross borders is an area of considerable concern,” Shapiro said. “That’s why U.S. has been working with countries bordering Libya to prevent (proliferation).”

What countries that border Libya are we working with to protect American aviation from this threat?  Bordering Libya on the west are our good friends, the Algerians.  To the west are our new buddies in Egypt. 

Libya’s southern borders is ringed with such bastions of American friendship and good will as Niger, Chad, and of course, our pals in the Sudan. 

So here is where we sit militarily at the moment. We’re pulling out of Iraq leaving the job unfinished, leaving Iraq vulnerable to an Iranian takeover, leaving a tiny 3,000 man contingent behind in harm’s way.

 The administration has conceded that we’ve lost the war in Afghanistan (its Bush’s fault, of course!) and will surrender the country back to the Taliban next year. 

Having bombed the soup out of Libya before we knew who we were supporting, we pulled out early, leaving the country in chaos and without any firm leadership, pretty much ensuring that the next president will either have to finish what Obama started or live with the consequences.

Oh, and one more thing. . .

Yesterday, Obama notified the Congress that he has deployed US combat troops to Uganda “in the interests of US national security.”


The purpose of the deployment, according to the White House letter, is to “remove from the battlefield” (Obama-speak for “kill”) Joseph Kony, leader of the famous “Lord’s Resistance Army.”  

What?? You never heard of Joseph Kony or the “Lord’s Resistance Army?” Where have you been?  Maybe you can be forgiven. Researching this kind of stuff is all I do. Knowing as much as possible about such things is my bread-and-butter.

And until yesterday, I never heard of them, either.

What I have heard since then is horrendous.  The LRA has been murdering innocents in central Africa for twenty years.  Twenty years!  They kidnap little kids, brainwash them, and send them back to kill their families.  They kidnap girls and force them into brothels.

According to Wikipedia the “Lord’s Resistance Army” is a cold-blooded and murderous “religious and sectarian group” listed as a terrorist organization by the United States.  

But that also describes the janjaweed in the Sudan. They’ve been murdering Christians at a such a rate that the UN called it ‘genocide’–  and without Western interference – for nearly a decade. Why didn’t we deploy US combat forces there?

In 1997 the US Embassy in Kampala concluded that the LRA has no genuine ideology, “at least none that the local population can understand.”  Indeed, the LRA’s principle support comes from the Islamic Sudanese government in Khartoum.

A classified document published earlier this year by Wikileaks from the State Department revealed that Uganda blamed Khartoum for “paying and harboring’ Kony and his group.

In recent years, the LRA has been responsible for the massacre of 189 people at a Christian celebration in the Congo, 75 people in a Christian church in Dungu, 48 more in Bangandi and 213 people in Gurba. 

“On December 28, 2008, the Ugandan army published details of the Doruma attack, accusing LRA rebels of hacking to death 45 people in a church there.[51] An aid official speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity confirmed the December 26 massacre, saying the killings took place in a Catholic church in the Doruma area, around 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the Sudanese border. “There are body parts everywhere. Inside the church, the entrance and in the church compound,” the aid official said. “We got information the rebels cut 45 people into pieces,” added army spokesman Captain Chris Magezi. “

Why are we deploying US combat forces now, and against an outfit most of us never heard of? We didn’t deploy combat forces in Libya.  We have taken no action against the Syrian government. We allowed the Sudanese genocide to go on until finally, even the UN couldn’t look away anymore. 

But we still could. What makes the LRA so worthy of risking US blood and treasure that President Obama describes it as a threat to US national security?  Even though its’ operating territory is Uganda, the Congo and South Sudan?

Although its primary targets are Christian churches and the Christian population, the LRA claims itself to be a “Christian” resistance movement. It was founded in 1988 by Alice Lakwena who claimed to be a prophet of the Holy Spirit.

She believed her side could defeat the Museveni tribe by following certain “Christian” rules.  Like covering their bodies with shea oil to protect them from bullets.  Painting a cross on their chest (same reason.)  Never take cover. Never retreat in battle. Oh, and never, ever, ever kill snakes or bees.

(I recall reading about those “Christian” rules in the Bible, I think.  Can’t remember exactly where, but I think it was somewhere near the back.)

Again, why risk US troops in central Africa in a fight against a tiny regional army of thugs and not risk troops to ensure Libya doesn’t fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists?  Why send troops to Uganda while essentially surrendering to Islamic forces in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Why are we deploying to central Africa when the major threat to US security right now is the Syrian/Iranian threat to Israel?  

I am admittedly speculating, but I cannot help but notice that by sending in US forces against the LRA, Obama has provided the political elements necessary to draw a moral equivalent between Islamic terror and ‘Christian’ terror.

It makes no difference that Christians object to the equation on the grounds that the LRA isn’t genuinely Christian.  The Muslims have been saying that terrorism isn’t genuinely Islamic for years.

And so suddenly, we sound like them.  And now, deploying troops to Uganda sort of makes sense.