Waxing Colder Every Day

Waxing Colder Every Day
Vol: 126 Issue: 31 Saturday, March 31, 2012

Malik Shabazz is a prominent attorney and national chairman of The New Black Panther Party.  Shabazz made headlines last week when he exhorted Detroit residents to “burn the city down” if the state approves the appointment of an emergency financial oversight board.

Rev. Malik Shabazz called the Charlie Langton Talk Radio 1270 morning show where he spent an entire hour discussing the disaster zone that used to be the city of Detroit.

“The state of Michigan did that to us,” he said about the failing school system, at various times blaming banks, the state, and the suburbs for the city’s issues.

What the state of Michigan did was create a consent agreement that would put a nine-member financial oversight board in charge of the city’s books, forcing it to consolidate departments, potentially re-negotiate union contracts, give greater board oversight, find new streams of revenue and cut expenses.  

During his radio broadcast, Charlie Langdon asked Shabazz how he could justify going in front of a crowd and TV cameras to yell ‘white supremacy’ and threaten to burn down his own city to prevent outsiders from coming in.

“White supremacy is a worldwide institutional system and it affects the lives of the human family every day, both historically as well as today,” Shabazz said. “It even disrupts and hurts white folks. To say ‘White supremacy’ is not an attack on all white people, but I am attacking the system, the mindset that ‘I am better simply because I’m white.’

This is a good place to point out that Shabazz is the one espousing the mindset that “I am attacking simply because I am black.”

“Isn’t the mood in this nation…in Lansing, that white people are better than black people? He added. “Hasn’t it always been that we’re substandard? The governor doesn’t have to say it, his policies show it.”

The degree to which Detroit’s problems are “racial” is the degree to which Detroit’s citizens listen to race-baiting hatemongers like Malik Shabazz.  Detroit’s problems don’t stem from race, they stem from racial politics.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage earner down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should for themselves.”

President Lincoln is proved right by contemporary history.  Detroit is emblematic of the American “inner city” in almost every key area — not the least of which is the shared legacy of a half-century of Democrat rule.

A recent study, the American Community Survey gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau, looked at the 10 largest cities with a population of more than 250,000 that also had the highest percentages of people below the federal poverty level. These have been described as the “poorest cities in America.”

They are: Detroit, with 32.5 percent of its residents at or below the poverty level; Buffalo at 29.9 percent; Cincinnati, 27.8 percent; Cleveland, 27 percent; Miami, 26.9 percent; St. Louis, 26.8 percent; El Paso, Texas, 26.4 percent; Milwaukee, 26.2 percent; Philadelphia, 25.1 percent; and Newark, 24.2 percent.

What do these cities have in common besides their exceptional poverty? It should not come as a surprise. Detroit hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo hasn’t elected one since 1954. Cincinnati hasn’t since 1984.

The last GOP mayor in Cleveland left office in 1989, and Miami has never had a Republican mayor. St Louis hasn’t had once since 1949. El Paso has never had a Republican mayor. Milwaukee? Not since 1908. Philadelphia hasn’t since 1952. Newark: not since 1907.

Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats, yet they are still poor.

They aren’t poor because they are black.  They are poor because being poor gives Democrats the advantage.  So they craft their policies to keep them poor.  If they weren’t poor, then it would be much harder to buy their votes with promises of free stuff.

They are poor because class warfare isn’t as effective with an affluent population.  If there were not a sharp economic divide between the inner city and the suburbs, then there would be nothing to exploit.

Prior to the 1960’s, it was the Democrat Party that championed segregation.  Abe Lincoln was a Republican. The KKK was founded by Democrats.  ALL of the segregationists of the Old South, Orville Faubus in Little Rock, George Wallace and Bull Connor in Birmingham . . . Democrats.

Trent Lott lost his seat as Republican House Majority Leader in 2002 simply for praising fellow Republican Strom Thurmond’s 1948 run for the White House. 

Conveniently ignored was the fact that in 1948, Strom Thurmond was a “Dixiecrat” (Southern Democrat) who was running on a white supremacy ticket aimed at keeping segregation legal.

During the Civil Rights era, the Democrats realized that opposing segregation won them more votes than endorsing it. So they switched sides.  That isn’t my opinion.  Neither is it a slam against the Democrat Party to point out the historical truth.

The Democrats were for racism before they were against it and for taking the most extreme position in either case.

Conflict wins elections.  So that is the Democrat creed.  Fight, fight. fight.  Fight the fat-cat rich white guys.  Fight global warming.  Fight union-busters.  Fight the Tea Party.  Fight, fight, fight.   

Ever been in a fight and tried to do anything else at the same time?  Of course not.  Fighting is one of those distracting tasks that requires one’s full attention. 

That’s what Malik Shabazz was advocating.  Fighting against efforts to fix Detroit’s finances. 

Why?  Doesn’t he want Detroit’s finances fixed?  

In the heat of the fight, THAT part probably never occurred to him.  Instead, when he heard that the (white) governor was going to appoint a panel, his first reaction is to advocate burning the city down.

Assessment:

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

It is hard to believe that it has been a whole month since we first learned that a self-appointed white vigilante gunned down a sweet, innocent seventeen-year old kid in Sanford, Florida, just because he was black.

According to Florida Congressman Frederica Wilson, (a Democrat) “this sweet young boy was hunted down like a dog, shot on the street, and his killer is still at large.”  Writing for Human Events, columnist Pat Buchanan offered this assessment:

To much of America’s black leadership and its media auxiliaries, what happened in Sanford was, as Jesse put it, that an innocent kid was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante.”

Yet, from police reports, witness statements, and the father and friends of Zimmerman, another picture emerges.

Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, and was punched in the nose, knocked flat on his back and jumped on, getting his head pounded, when he pulled his gun and fired. That Trayvon’s body was found face down, not face up, would tend to support this.

Is that the true sequence of events?  I don’t know.  Neither does Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton — but don’t tell them that.  They’ve already created the “true” sequence of events in their minds and no amount of evidence to the contrary will persuade them differently.

MSNBC talk show host and professional hate-monger Al Sharpton is calling for an escalation of civil disobedience (deliberate, premeditated lawlessness) unless Sanford police arrest Zimmerman.

Sharpton evidently conceded that Zimmerman may have been the victim of an attack by Trayvon Martin. 

“Whether he [Zimmerman] had a swollen or broken nose, neither one means he had to take a 9mm and kill someone,” he said. “It’s not about saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, this is about whether there was probable cause to arrest him.”

What does THAT mean?  That probable cause is determined by the court of public opinion?  Under Florida law, if Zimmerman was defending himself against an attack, then arresting him would violate HIS rights.  

But lynch mobs are notoriously lax about such details when they are in full-throated roar.  Al Sharpton knows this from previous experience in the Tawana Brawley case.

The newspapers are filled with hateful, loathing descriptions of Zimmerman, gleeful accounts of the trauma his family is undergoing, and page after page of stories detailing the incredible irresponsibility and lawlessness surrounding the case. 

Spike Lee published the home address of what he thought were Zimmerman’s parents.  He Tweeted:

“Like the fat punk that he is, he still lives at home with his mommie and daddy.”

Zimmerman is married with two children. The elderly couple were forced to flee their home in terror.  Lee later apologized for wrongly terrorizing the wrong couple.  As if it would be ok to terrorize them if they HAD been Zimmerman’s parents.

Chaka Khan has already recorded a “tribute” song to Trayvon Martin. Mia Farrow, Michael Moore, Wyclef Jean and others celebrities have judged Zimmerman guilty and demanded his head on a platter.

So has Attorney General Eric Holder.

More than 435,000 people, many alerted by tweets from celebrities like movie director Spike Lee and musician Wyclef Jean, signed a petition on Change.org, a social action website, calling for the arrest of the shooter, George Zimmerman.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the FBI announced they have opened an investigation into the Feb. 26 shooting in Florida of an unarmed 17-year-old, Trayvon Martin.

“The department will conduct a thorough and independent review of all of the evidence and take appropriate action at the conclusion of the investigation,” the department said.

(Translation?  “First, we’ll give him a fair trial. And then we’ll hang him.“)

When He was asked about the signs of His return at the end of the age, Jesus outlined conditions as they would exist in the last days.  He warned of earthquakes, famines, wars, pestilences, wars and unrest.

He said that “nation would rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.”  He said that because iniquity (lawlessness) would abound, the love of many would grow cold.

The word “nation” is from the Greek “ethnos”  – which means just what it sounds like it means.  It refers to ethnic, or racial, unrest, which Jesus said would increase exponentially, (like birth pangs) as we get closer to the appointed time.

Since the 2008 election that was supposed to heal race relations, the racial divide has only grown wider.  Everything is calculated according to race.  If you don’t like the president’s policies, you are a racist.  If you don’t like the president, you are a racist.

If a black man and a white man get into a fight, it is automatically assumed to be about race —  and because it is about race, it must be the white guy’s fault.

All other things being equal, had George Zimmerman been black and Trayvon Martin white, Zimmerman would have been a hero for defending himself and Martin’s death would have been the foreseeable consequences of his own actions.

One more time and for the record, I DON’T KNOW if Zimmerman is a bad man or a racist. 

I wish I could say the same thing about Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, Spike Lee, Michael Moore or Eric Holder.  They don’t know Zimmerman’s racial views, either.

But we sure know theirs.

Brother, Can You Spare an Electronic Monetary Unit?

Brother, Can You Spare an Electronic Monetary Unit?
Vol: 126 Issue: 30 Friday, March 30, 2012

For the third year in a row, President Barack Obama submitted his proposed fiscal budget to the Congress for approval.  And for the third year in a row, Congress has rejected it.  Indeed, the US government hasn’t had an operating budget since Obama took office.

The White House blamed the Republicans, despite the fact that the Congress rejected Obama’s proposed budget unanimously.  The vote was 414-0.  Not a single Democrat voted in favor of it.

Indeed, the much-larger budget proposal offered by the Congressional Black Caucus, which was almost $4 trillion more than Obama wanted, got more votes, dying after a vote of 314-107.

The House eventually got around to approving the GOP budget proposal, which recasts Medicare and imposes sweeping spending cuts to domestic programs.  But although it passed the lower House 222-191, it is dead on arrival in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

The fiscal plan the House passed Thursday by a near party-line 228-191 vote would reshape and squeeze savings out of Medicare and Medicaid, the federal health insurance programs for the elderly and poor. It would force deep cuts in a wide range of spending, including rail projects, research and Pell Grants for low-income college students.

It would block President Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes on couples earning above $250,000 a year. Instead, it would collapse the current six income tax rates into just two, with a top rate of 25 percent — well below the current 35 percent ceiling — while erasing tax deductions and other breaks that the GOP plan failed to specify.

Overall, the GOP budget would cut spending $5.3 trillion more deeply over the next decade than Obama would — out of more than $40 trillion that would be spent. It would cut taxes by $2 trillion more than the president’s plan. That leaves Republicans seeking a hefty $3.3 trillion in deeper deficit reduction than Obama.

Drawing the most political heat was Ryan’s plan for Medicare, the $500 billion-a-year health insurance program for older Americans that all sides agree is growing so fast its future financing is shaky. Both parties know that seniors vote in high numbers and care passionately about the program.

Republicans leave the plan alone for retirees and those near retirement, letting the government continue paying much of their doctors’ and hospital bills.  But younger voters would be folded in to a new, voucher-like system that would give seniors a menu of options.

The Democrats oppose the plan, primarily because the Republicans endorse it.  The Ryan plan would not affect current retirees, or those close to retirement.  

North of the border, the Canadians, watching their American cousins floundering, passed an austere budget that will, among other things, raise the retirement age to 67, cut some 19,000 government jobs, trim $1.1 billion from its defense budget and cut another $688 million from public safety.

Government employees will see their retirement age raised from 60 to 65, (which is still two years earlier than private sector employees).  

Government employees will also see the elimination of severance benefits for government employees who quit voluntarily and raised their share of retirement contributions to 50%, with the government paying the rest.

This would be a good place to strike a comparison:

The US hasn’t had a budget in three years, during which time, Obama has doubled the national debt.   Canada’s national debt stands at $581 billion.  

Canada’s population is approximately thirty-three million people.  That breaks down to roughly $16,800.00 per citizen. 

America’s population is almost ten times that at just over 313 million.  The US National debt $15.6 trillion.  That breaks down to roughly $49,880.00  per citizen (not taxpayer).  Per taxpayer, the US debt equals $137,724.00. 

Despite the sweeping cuts, Canadians are not raising much of an outcry.  Broke means broke.  In the most sweeping move of all, the government of Canada has abolished the penny

It costs the government one and one half cents to make a penny.  Now, all prices will be rounded up to the nearest nickel.  For Canada, abolishing the penny is the first step in moving completely away from cash in all its forms, like in Sweden.

Sweden has become the first major Western country to go cashless.  There are now whole towns in Sweden where cash is not accepted.  Bank robberies in Sweden dropped to nothing.  What’s the point in robbing  largely-empty banks to obtain banknotes that hardly anybody will accept?

A new book by “Wired” columnist David Wolman called, “The End of Money: Counterfeiters, Preachers, Techies, Dreamers — and the Coming Cashless Society” argues that a cashless society is the way of the future.

To research his topic, Wolman committed to an entire year without using paper bills. 

“I imagine you’re not paying your rent or your mortgage with piles of singles anymore, let alone your car payments or buying a sweater,” he said in an interview with Salon. “Most of us are using cash for super small purchases like cigarettes or a Twix bar or coins into a Unicef box at Halloween. So that’s where cash is at present.”

He added that while plenty of people still depend on cash in their daily lives, such as service workers who receive tips, new advances will find ways around that… eventually. “These technologies are coming whether you like it or not.”

Wolman argues that, while Sweden is ahead of the game, the rest of the world is closer to going cashless than most of us realize.  Here’s a stat that ought to make you sit up straight in your chair.

Only nine percent of euro zone economic transactions are handled in cash.  In America, only seven percent of all transactions are conducted using cash money.

But change is coming. The trends suggest that we don’t need to enact a monetary policy to get rid of cash; it’s happening naturally, and the statistics tell the story. Last year, according to a study by the Federal Reserve, one fifth of American consumers engaged in mobile banking. That percentage is not huge, but the rate of growth is steep. “The survey’s findings suggest that the use of mobile banking is poised to expand further over the next year, with usage possibly increasing to one out of three mobile phone users by 2013,” reported the American Bankers Association.

New money-transferring software products add fuel to the fire. Examples include the new Person-to-Person QuickPay app from Chase, which lets people transfer money to friends instantly and electronically; or the Google Wallet, which allows customers to pay for products in-store with a tap of the smartphone.

There are real benefits to be had by going cashless, argue proponents of a cashless society.  As the Canadians already discovered, it costs more to make pennies and nickels than their face value is worth.

Cash money is expensive to handle.  It takes armored cars and armed guards to transport it.  Cash is not very secure.  An armored truck struck a rock outcropping yesterday near the northern Ontario city of Kirkland Lake.

The rock ripped a gash in the truck, which allowed some FIVE MILLION DOLLARS worth of Canadian $1 coins to spill out, ankle-deep onto the highway.  Between the cost of transportation and the cost of the cleanup, not to mention the potential for theft, handling that money costs LOTS of money.

Even if the cash makes it all the way from the mint to the banks, it needs people on both ends to count, package and handle it all.  

And cash isn’t just expensive to handle, it is anonymous — and anonymity is to the government like wolfbane is to a vampire.  Eliminate cash and one eliminates the underground economy. 

That step alone could balance the budget, according to estimates that say some $3 trillion per year eludes the taxman via unreported and untaxed cash transactions. 

The elimination of cash would also eliminate the motivation for most crime — without cash, how would criminals fence stolen goods?  It would end the war on drugs overnight.  If there is no cash, how would a drug addict pay for his stash?   No drug dealer is going to whip out a credit card reader.

One 2003 study says that eliminating cash would be worth the equivalent to 1 percent America’s annual GDP. Sweden eliminated cash altogether.  Canada started with the penny, but it is only a matter of time before it also eliminates cash.

A cashless society would go a long way towards solving America’s money troubles.  Wouldn’t it?

Assessment:

“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 13:16-17)

The prophecy of the Mark of the Beast is one of the most universally recognized predictions contained in the New Testament.  It doesn’t matter whether one is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Taoist, mention the Mark of the Beast or the number ‘666’ and nobody is going to say to you, “Never heard of it!”.

We’re already much closer to going cashless than one might think.  How many times have you purchased a big ticket item, like a fridge, or a car, and paid for it in hard cash?  Today, if you tried to buy a $300 plane ticket for cash, if you got on the plane at all, you’d probably be sitting beside an undercover DHS agent.

Two decades ago, scoffers would say, ‘if somebody ever eliminates cash and demands a commercial mark containing ‘666’ — then I will believe.’  The Universal Pricing Code (UPC) has been on all products for two decades or more. ‘Universal’ means just what it says.  No products can be sold in the US or EU commercially without it.

In fact, in the EU, it is nicknamed the “EU Mark”.

Take any product you have in your cupboard out and look at the UPC barcode.  It is a series of parallel lines readable by a computer.  Notice that it begins with a little longer series of parallel lines, then there is an identical long one in the middle and another at the end.  Each of those longer lines are read by computers as a ‘6’. (How many long lines are in YOUR barcode?)

In the early years of computers, it was determined that the perfect ‘divider’ (like punctuation in conventional writing) would be in multiples of threes.  For years, it wasn’t standardized.  Some manufacturers would use threes, some would use sixes and some used nines to separate the information represented by the bar code sequences.

To standardize it, the EU insisted that all manufacturers hoping to sell their products in the EU split the difference and use the three sixes on what they called the ‘EU Mark.’  Today, three sixes is the global standard. 

Added to this is the new National Security database center built in Utah under a funding bill that was signed by President Obama in 2009.  This massive spy center is designed to house a network of computers, satellites and phone lines that stretches around the world.

Once completed (in late 2013) the Utah Data Center will be the last link in the electronic concentration camp called America. 

At five times the size of the U.S. Capitol, the UDC will be a clearinghouse and a depository for every imaginable kind of information—whether innocent or not, private or public—including communications, transactions and the like.

Anything and everything you’ve ever said or done, from the trivial to the damning—phone calls, Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, Google searches, emails, bookstore and grocery purchases, bank statements, commuter toll records, etc.—will be tracked, collected, catalogued and analyzed by the UDC’s supercomputers and teams of government agents.

Now we return to the Mark of the Beast prophecy for a moment.  Think about what the fulfillment of such a prophecy entails!  In order for John’s vision to come to pass, three things must exist that did not exist in John’s day — or at any time in the last two thousand years — until now.

The first, and most obvious, would be a scheme that would positively identify those who are part of his system from those who are not.

Secondly, to accomplish this positive identification system, his agents would require access to a list — or database — against which to check credentials.

Until the present age of computers, an enforcement agent would have had to carry around a list so vast it would be essentially useless, since checking it against a single name could take days, weeks, or even years.  Today, it takes seconds.

Thirdly, in order for that list to be useful in excluding outsiders from engaging in ordinary, day to day financial transactions, there would have to be a way of restricting the use of currency to those who are in good standing.

The Utah Data Center isn’t the Mark of the Beast. 

For there to be a “Mark of the Beast” two things must exist — and in the correct order.  First, there must be a Beast to exploit it.  Secondarily, there must be a mark.

But for the moment, there is no “mark”.  And there is no “beast.”  There is only a technological and economic trend that moves in that direction.

It is the Beast that imposes his mark, and his mark is more than simply an economic choice – the Beast demands worship as part of the deal.  And so at the moment, since there is no Beast, there is no Mark.

There are all kinds of sensationalist claims being made by prophecy students and even some teachers that should know better, as they clamor for attention, but they needn’t bother.

There are claims that FEMA is building detention camps; there are even rumors that the US government is setting up kill centers inside them.  I don’t believe it.  

If I don’t believe it, why bring it up?  Because it highlights the very thing that marginalizes Bible prophecy as a witnessing tool — sensationalism.

The simple truth is sensational enough.  As it relates to Bible prophecy, during the Tribulation Period, there will undoubtedly be detention camps set up to house those who refuse to accept the Mark.  But since this isn’t the Tribulation, there is no Mark to refuse. 

So claiming the penalty phase is under construction before the crime exists tends to marginalize all the other stuff that IS true. 

The prophecies of the Bible for the last days have not all been fulfilled — in fact, very few have been fulfilled in their entirety.  But at the same time, ALL the prophecies of the Bible for the last days are trending towards eventual fulfillment.

There is no Mark of the Beast, but there is a trend to eliminate cash and create an electronic system that will fulfill the prophecy that no man could buy or sell outside the system. 

And that’s the point.

Everything predicted by Scripture for the last days — from the restoration of Israel to the development of the antichrist’s political and economic system and everything in between — ALL these things are trending in the same direction.

It isn’t that one can point to an overt fulfillment — but all the trends point in that direction, which is sensational enough, all by itself.

The Omega Letter’s mission is to equip the Church with factual information, unspun and devoid of any agenda apart from obeying the Great Commission.

Each of us is an evangelist in our own right, and nobody is more effective than you are, since each of you is gifted by God to the degree He requires for His plan for your life.

The Omega Letter exists to help you in the exercise of your gifting, which is, in turn, OUR calling.  To put the sensational into context when necessary.

The sensational part isn’t that the plan is coming together.  The sensational part is that there really was a Plan in the first place. The Bible really IS true. The Lord really IS coming back.

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

And time really IS running out.  Maranatha!

The Return of Warming (Some Call it ‘Spring’)

The Return of Warming (Some Call it ‘Spring’)
Vol: 126 Issue: 29 Thursday, March 29, 2012

The first three weeks of March are the last three weeks of winter in the Northern Hemisphere.  Winter or not, the first three weeks of March shattered warm-weather records across North America.  Regions of the country that should have been in the mid thirties were posting temperatures in the mid 70’s and low 80’s.

Trees burst into bloom, perennial flowers began to bud . . . I had to cut my lawn in mid-March!  I don’t usually have to fire up the lawn mower until the last week in April or the first week in May.  I was bitten by a mosquito last week and a troop of ants the size of St. Bernard dogs showed up a month early in my back yard.

Last Saturday it was 75 degrees Fahrenheit in my little corner of the Great White North.  Monday morning when I got up, it was 17 degrees with an expected high of about 30.   

This week, while parts of the United States are shivering in the cold, in Europe, they are setting heat records.

Across Europe, people died by the hundreds during a severe cold wave during the first half of February.  A week later, Parisians were strolling down the Champs-Élysées in their shirt-sleeves.

The ridiculously warm weather had some die-hard True Believers out in the shirt-sleeves to proclaim the return of global warming — but only in North America.  On the Continent, they were freezing their way through one of the coldest winters in living memory.

But the global warming alarmists are nothing if they are not persistent.  

A report released on Wednesday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that issues periodic updates on climate science, confirmed that a strong body of evidence links global warming to an increase in heat waves, a rise in episodes of heavy rainfall and other precipitation, and more frequent coastal flooding.

“A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events,” the report found.

The UN’s IPCC was convened specifically for the purpose of making the case that man-made global warming poses a risk to the continued health of the planet, which it claims poses an existential risk to the human race.   

The IPCC wasted no time in finding a correlation between the three week heat-wave and their claim that man-made emissions are responsible for global warming.

United States government scientists recently reported, for instance, that February was the 324th consecutive month in which global temperatures exceeded their long-term average for a given month; the last month with below-average temperatures was February 1985.

In the United States, many more record highs are being set at weather stations than record lows, a bellwether indicator of a warming climate.

So far this year, the United States has set 17 new daily highs for every new daily low, according to an analysis performed for The New York Times by Climate Central, a research group in New Jersey. Last year, despite a chilly winter, the country set nearly three new highs for every low, the analysis found.

And that’s only the tip of the IPCC’s looming iceberg of climatological catastrophe.

The report specifically points to New Orleans during 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, noting that “developed countries also suffer severe disasters because of social vulnerability and inadequate disaster protection.”

In coastal areas of the United States, property damage from hurricanes and rising seas could increase by 20 percent by 2030, the report said. And in parts of Texas, the area vulnerable to storm surge could more than double by 2080.

Already U.S. insured losses from weather disasters have soared from an average of about $3 billion a year in the 1980s to about $20 billion a year in the last decade, even after adjusting for inflation, said Mark Way, director of sustainability at insurance giant Swiss Re. Last year that total rose to $35 billion, but much of that was from tornadoes, which scientists are unable to connect with global warming. U.S. insured losses are just a fraction of the overall damage from weather disasters each year.

 Globally, the scientists say that some places, particularly parts of Mumbai in India, could become uninhabitable from floods, storms and rising seas. In 2005, over 24 hours nearly 3 feet of rain fell on the city, killing more than 1,000 people and causing massive damage. Roughly 2.7 million people live in areas at risk of flooding.

Horrors!  The sky truly must be falling!  Even with Obama in office to cool the planet and calm the seas, the IPCC report reads like the trailer for a new Hollywood disaster movie.   

Ok.  Let’s concede that recent decades have been warmer than they were in the decades before that.  So? 

Assessment:

While recent decades were warmer than the decades before that, the decades before that were warmer and the decades before that were cooler.  Climate scientists deal in numbers and numbers, in the hands of a skilled statistician, can be used to prove practically anything.

So while it started getting warmer in the 1980’s, that is only because it began to get cooler in the 1960’s after it had been warmer in the 30’s, which followed the Little Ice Age that ended around 1900.  

If it were the intent of climate scientists to make the case for global cooling, the last fifteen years would have provided as much evidence for cooling as the IPCC says there is for warming.  What is missing is evidence that points to human activity as the cause.

Indeed, recent scientific studies show that the Medieval Warming Period the IPCC first denied, and then claimed was localized to Europe and therefore was statistically meaningless, was both global in scope and totally unrelated to human activity.

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experienced global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.

If the earth underwent a period of global warming in medieval times, before human activity could have had an effect on the climate, then the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is totally, conclusively and unequivocally disproved.

Except among those scientists, politicians and news media types that have invested all their credibility in making the case that the only way to prevent global warming is to invest billions in “green” projects that they just coincidentally happen to be involved in. 

If the Medieval Warming Period actually existed, then the argument about melting Arctic ice caps causing catastrophic global flooding is meaningless.  Why?  Because it was warmer back then than it is now.

A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather – in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called “temperature proxies” such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again – but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise.

In the tenth century, during the Medieval Warming Period, Viking explorer Leif Ericksson set up colonies on a island he discovered and named, “Greenland.”  The Norse colonies thrived until about the fifteenth century, when they were abandoned.  Why?

Because when the Medieval Warming Period ended, Greenland froze.  Global warming alarmists say that as the icecaps melt, the runoff of water will overflow the oceans.  But there are no records of receding seas, newly exposed coastlines, etc., as the earth cooled.   

Why?  Because the seas didn’t rise and the coastlines didn’t flood when the temperatures rose.  So there was no need for them to recede.  Because virtually every scary thing the global warming alarmists say will happen if it gets any warmer, didn’t. 

By most honest estimates, global warming ended about fifteen years ago. In fact, the UK’s University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was forced to quietly concede the rise in global temperatures ended in 1997.

What else happened at about the same time?  Solar activity began to wane until astrophysicists began warning of a coming Ice Age.  

Even NASA, which has bet its budget on anthropogenic global warming, cannot deny the effect the sun has on global warming.

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.

Let’s begin to pull it all together now and see how it looks with all the pieces in place.   First, we have the totally irrational fear that human activity can produce more greenhouse gases than the atmosphere can absorb. (The oceans account for 95% of all atmospheric greenhouse gases.)

Despite the historical and scientific evidence to the contrary, entire nations are convinced that we’re all at risk from global warming, despite being clueless about how best to tackle the “problem” which is, of course, what to do when the sea and the waves start roaring.

There are signs in the sun that indicate the cause of both the warming and cooling trends.  When solar activity slows down, it gets cooler.  When solar activity intensifies, it gets warmer. 

But the world in general, as represented by the UN, continues to operate out of fear that global warming is coming upon the earth and out of distress at what it means.  

When the Lord was asked by His disciples to outline some of the signs of His Second Coming at the end of the age, He referenced ever-increasing incidences of earthquakes, famines, wars and pestilences, together with increasing lawlessness, ethnic unrest and religious upheaval.

But all these things are part of the human condition.  Except for the prophesied increase in frequency, they are all pretty ambiguous — these things have always been with us, to some degree.  But Jesus tied them together with two events that are unique to this generation, to the exclusion of all others.

“. . .  and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”  (Luke 21:24)

Jerusalem remains to this day, “trodden down of the Gentiles” as the Gentile world resists Israeli efforts to claim the city as their exclusive capital.  But for the first time in 2000 years, the Jews possess it.  And when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled at the Rapture, there is little reason to doubt that the city will be exclusively theirs.

The Lord followed up that prediction by prophesying a second event that is unique to this generation. 

“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)

One has to deliberately look away in order to miss the significance of this prophecy to the headlines of this generation.  It could not be more obvious.  It incorporates all of the climate change arguments into a single paragraph, predicting the world’s exact reaction and even what the world would be afraid of.

Note that Jesus said that FIRST comes the recovery of Jerusalem by the Jews.  That sign is followed by the signs in the sun, moon and stars.  

Those signs, which are related to the sea and the roaring waves, cause fear and confusion (distress and perplexity) as nations rail at those things they believe are coming upon the earth.  (Like overflowing seas, inundated coastlines, catastrophic crop failures, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.)

Note also what Jesus said comes next:

“And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.” (Luke 21:27)

So first comes the signs, then comes the  fear of climate change, then comes the confusion, which continues, like all the other signs, to increase in frequency and intensity, UNTIL the world sees the Son of Man coming in a cloud at the Second Coming.

That is what Jesus told the world to watch for.  It is what He told His (Jewish disciples) to watch for.  Then He had a different message for the Church as we witness all these things coming to pass.

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

Here’s the sit-rep for March 29, 2012.  We’re past the Jewish recovery of Jerusalem.  We’re past the signs in the sun.  We’re past the sea and the waves roaring.  We’re well into the fear and confusion stage as mankind worries about the powers of heaven being shaken and what it means to them.

We are not yet to the point when they see the Son of Man returning in a cloud and great glory at His Second Coming, but all the rest has begun to come to pass. Where should we look next?

Up.

If The World Hates You . . .

If The World Hates You . . .
Vol: 126 Issue: 28 Wednesday, March 28, 2012

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:18-19)

The persecution of Christians is hardly a twenty-first century phenomenon.  The persecution of Christians is as old as Christianity itself.

In today’s opening verse, Jesus lays out the reason for the persecution of both Christians and Jews.  The Jews are ‘God’s Chosen People’ — a title that even offends many Christians, despite the fact Scriptures say that God Himself bestowed that title on them.

But Christians make the exact same claim, since, as Jesus said, we were chosen by Him out of this world, and THEREFORE the world hates us.

Still, until this generation, America has always been a safe haven for both Christians and Jews.  America was the first country in history to extend the sovereign franchise (the right to vote) to the Jew.  In early America, one could not run for public office unless one were a Christian.

America was founded by the Pilgrims who were seeking religious freedom.  But Bible prophecy says that during the Tribulation Period, there will be NO safe haven for either the Jews or the Tribulation saints.

“But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day:” (Matthew 24:20)

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

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Revelation 13:7)

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” (1 Peter 5:8)

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. . . Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. . . .Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2 Timothy 3:1,5,12-13)

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18, declares:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

But that guarantee doesn’t extend to Israel, which was founded exclusively as a Jewish state.  The UN calls that exclusionary and racist, at the same time fully supporting the Palestinian efforts at ethnic cleansing of all Jews from its territory.

That guarantee is invalid in many Islamist countries, where a Muslim who converts to Christianity can be summarily killed with virtually no outcry from anyone at the UN.

Christian persecution gets virtually no attention from the United Nations.  Other religions, including Islam, are afforded a special status by the General Assembly.  But Jewish and Christian religious leaders have no similar status.

Article 14 allegedly “guarantees”:  “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” but then specifically excludes religious persecution in the next breath, thanks to Subsection (b) which says,

“This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

By a literal reading the 1948 Genocide Treaty, Christianity meets the definition set forth for ‘genocide’.  The genocide concept was defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide Crime.

According to the article 2 of this Convention, ‘genocide’ includes “inflicting serious physical or mental integrity” on the group members.  Christians believe that the only way to heaven is through faith in Jesus Christ.

That specifically excludes all other religions, which has already been successfully argued as the ‘infliction of serious mental harm’ to members of other identifiable religious groups.

This is the same concept under which the Romans persecuted Christians.  The Romans didn’t object to Christians having one more god.  The Romans had lots of gods — there was always room for one more.

Their objection was the Christian claim that Jesus is the ONLY way  to salvation– they took offense to that as a “hate” crime.   

Assessment:

The concept of Christianity as a ‘hate crime’ seems so foreign to believers that they can’t really believe that anybody really believes that.  Christianity’s Golden Rule dictates that Christians love God with all their heart, soul and mind, and we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Jesus also said that, on those two commandments, “hangs all the law and all the prophets.”  In other words, love is the distilled essence of what it means to be a Christian.  This is where the world gets hung up.  “If Christians are so loving, why can’t they leave the rest of us alone?”

Christianity is, of course, a religious worldview singularly devoted to the causes of peace and love.  A loving God, they argue, would not exclude good people just because of a religious tag.

We’ve noted in the past that where the spiritual dimension makes contact with this dimension, it creates a paradox.

For example, the Temple Mount is claimed by all three world religions, but the weakest claim is, paradoxically enough, Israel’s!  This, despite the fact Israel’s claim is both the oldest and the best attested to.  Israel’s title deed comes directly from God, and is recorded in the Old Testament.

Both Christians and Muslims claim the Old Testament as one of their Holy Books and Abraham as their spiritual kin.  And majorities from both religions, together with those of no religion, view Israel’s claim is the weakest.

When the spiritual dimension meets this physical dimension, things get topsy turvy.  Christians obtain victory by surrender, for example.  Islam can claim a reputation of peace and love based on its history of violence and repression, and nobody blinks.

The Koran is viewed as so sacred that our military forces take sensitivity training on how to handle it without desecrating it, but the Bible is forbidden in America’s public square.  No American politician or mainstream media outlet would dare refer to “Jesus the Savior”. 

But they show absolutely no hesitation at using the designation, the “Prophet Mohammed.”

America is a culturally-Christian secular republic populated almost entirely by Christians, either the cultural variety or born again believers.  And Islam is a theocratic religion with almost no presence in either American society or American history.

According to the CIA World Factbook, eight in ten Americans self-identify as “Christian.”  The Islamic population of America, according to the same source, is roughly 0.7%.   For comparison purposes, according to Wikipedia, about 5% of Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens.

But officially in America, the Bible is “hate” literature.  The Koran is sacred.

We know Christianity to be rooted in the greatest of love. Christianity defines love itself as being God Himself. “Love is of God, for God is love” (1st John 4:7-8)

But at the same time, Christianity IS intolerant of other religions. It IS exclusive: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me,” (John 14:6) is both intolerant and exclusive.

Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven, so by definition, all other faiths are condemned, along with their adherents.  That is why Jesus said of Himself,

 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:34-36)

Christians know their faith to be rooted in peace and love.  But the Founder of Christianity says He is come to ‘bring a sword’ rather than peace, and to bring ‘variance’ instead of love.

The Bible explains this paradox in a manner that makes perfect sense to indwelt believers to whom it was given to understand it. And that explanation infuriates the world even more.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Corinthians 2:14)

To the natural man, Christianity is a hateful, exclusive and intolerant faith.  To the Christian, it is the exact opposite.  Christians know, in their living spirit, a definition of love that escapes the natural man.

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36)

The most loving thing a Christian can do is lead someone to Christ and eternal salvation. The most hateful thing a Christian can do is stand idly by and let someone die in their sins.

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

To the world, the Bible is hate literature and Christianity is a hateful religion.  We know it to be the exact opposite.  That is by itself, clear evidence of the power of God — but discernible only to we who are saved.

Don’t let the enemy steal away your confidence.

”I Will Transmit This Information To Vladimir”

”I Will Transmit This Information To Vladimir”
Vol: 126 Issue: 27 Tuesday, March 27, 2012

America was given an inadvertent peek into the future, specifically, America’s foreign policy with Russia for the next four years, thanks to a chance conversation captured by an open microphone during a meeting between President Obama and outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

The two were discussing US policy regarding missile defense, specifically America’s deployment of a missile shield over Europe.  The exchange that was captured by the open microphone went like this:

President Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”

President Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”

President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

The Democrats defend their guy by saying that Obama didn’t do anything that any other president doesn’t do — all US presidents have to factor in public sentiment when it comes to foreign policy. 

But that isn’t what we are discussing here.  Obama isn’t telling Medvedev that he is factoring public opinion into his decision — he is saying he wants to wait until public opinion is no longer an issue in his political life.

Obama’s comments prompted the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee to demand an explanation. Representative Michael Turner sent a letter to the White House, the contents of which were made public yesterday.

In his letter, Turner made note of the fact that Obama gave the Russians highly classified data regarding Britain’s strategic nuclear missile system, shocking the British, as well as the rest of our allies.

To prevent Obama from doing the same thing with US nuclear secrets, Congress took the unusual step of including a provision limiting the President’s authority to share classified data with the Russians.  In his letter, Turner wrote:

“I want to make perfectly clear that my colleagues and I will not allow any attempts to trade missile defense of the United States to Russia or any other country.”

You DO see what Representative Turner is saying, out loud and in no uncertain terms, don’t you?  He is saying that Obama is a threat to national security who cannot be trusted with the authority vested in him by his office.

If Obama wins four more years in November, he can’t run again after that.  At least, he can’t right now — the Constitution currently prohibits anyone from serving more than two full terms in office.

But as Obama told Medvedev, after his election he will have “more flexibility”.  After being handed four more years, only this time, without any future accountability, who knows if the Constitution of 2016 will still contain presidential term limits? 

If he gets four more years, he will certainly get to appoint at least two more Supreme Court justices.  Heck, who could say that by then, the Constitution will still be in force? 

Senate Majority Whip Jon Kyl accused the president of offering secret, future concessions on missile defense to the Russians.

In a statement, Kyl said that the president canceled plans for anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic and supported language in the New START arms treaty that links missile defense to nuclear reductions.

“We know the administration is sharing information with Russia, including plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe,” Kyl said. “We know the president has significantly reduced funding and curtailed development of the U.S. national missile defense system, undermining our ability to effectively intercept long-range ballistic missiles. And we know the president has doubled-down on efforts to reduce our nuclear arsenal while failing to honor his promises to modernize the aging nuclear weapons complex.”

Senator Kyl said that at the moment, the Russians know more about what Obama has planned than the Congress does.

“Perhaps the Russians, in whom President Obama recently confided, could shed some light on his missile defense plans for the American people who otherwise have been left in the dark by this president,” Kyl said.

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was more to the point with a Tweet he posted yesterday after the comments hit the airwaves.

@Mitt Romney: Fill in the blank. @BarackObama: I’ll have more flexibility to _______ after the election. #ObamaFlexibility

Exactly.  More flexibility to do what?

Assessment:

If you followed the link to Romney’s tweet, you were also treated to a list of other Obama sellouts of US national security to the Russians.  

First, came the cancellation of promised missile defense shield facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, after both nations went way out on a limb to defy the Russians when they agreed to let the US put them there.

Then Obama threw his support behind a new START treaty that limited America’s ability to construct its own missile defenses.  This comes in addition (as previously mentioned), to Obama’s betrayal of the British.

Over Britain’s strenuous objections, Obama gave the Russians, the age, number and capabilities of the Trident missile systems we sold to the British as well as handing over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain in the future.  

Having betrayed America’s closest ally, ostensibly to pay them back for the sins of British colonialism in his father’s native Kenya, one now wonders if Obama is prepared to betray the United States, perhaps to exact retribution for the sins of American colonial slavery?

What is amazing about it is that such a possibility does NOT sound nuts.  Indeed, it doesn’t seem to be a stretch to interpret the President’s remarks as meaning exactly that. 

That he can’t afford to be seen betraying American foreign policy interests until after he has convinced the American people to give him four more years.  

The President’s defenders are predictably, blaming the Republicans.

“Obama’s candid remarks Monday illustrated the political constraints that hem in any president who is running for re-election and dealing with a congressional chamber — in this case, the House — controlled by the rival party.”

“Republicans have fought Obama fiercely on health care, taxes and other issues. They are eager to deny him any political victories in a season in which they feel the White House is within reach.”

By anybody’s calculations, the Republicans control exactly one half of one-third of the US government.  The Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives. 

The Democrats hold the majority in the Senate.  They control the White House and Executive Branch.  And only a blind partisan would deny that the judiciary is dominated by liberal Democrats. 

So if the reason that Obama has to wait until after his election to cut a deal with the Russians is because one half of Congress is controlled by the Republicans who won’t work with him, then what makes anybody think Obama will have more flexibility if he also loses the Senate in November, as is widely expected?

This is as counter-intuitive (or perhaps a better description might be “blindingly stupid”) as the Democratic assumption that raising taxes on employers will make them want to hire more employees with what money they have left.

Unless Obama wins back the Congressional majority, he won’t have any more flexibility to get a deal ratified after November than he does now, even if he wins another term.  At least, legally, he won’t. 

But if there is one thing that Obama has proved during his first term, it is that he defines “illegal” as “a sick bird” and “legal” as “whatever Obama does.”

In this one comment, Obama has validated pretty much all our worst fears, not to mention validating the Apostle Paul’s description of perilous times during the last days of the Church Age.

Note how many times Paul makes references to treason, disloyalty, and dishonesty in his description.  I cannot read it without being awe-struck at how perfectly it encapsulates the Obama administration in totality and the political platform of the Left in general.

Which of these characteristics can you say is inconsistent with either the political performance of the White House or that of Congressional Democrats? 

“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.” (2 Timothy 3:2-5)

Would you argue that the President is NOT Narcissist in Chief?  And what is class warfare if not covetousness applied?

A boaster?  Obama?  Prideful?  Our president?  Surely not!  “Today is the day the oceans stop rising. . . etc.”

A blasphemer?  (What IS the prettiest sound the president ever heard at sunset?) Without natural affection? You mean, like supporting partial birth abortion?  Trucebreaker?  False accuser?  Despiser of those that are good?  Heady?  High-minded?  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof?

We could go on and on.  I’m not sure we need to.  I think that Paul’s point has been made, underscored, highlighted and then completely justified.  

“Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2 Timothy 3:12-13)

These are the last days.  Perilous times are here.

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

When Racism is Acceptable

When Racism is Acceptable
Vol: 126 Issue: 26 Monday, March 26, 2012

The U.S. Attorney in Central Florida and officials from the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division have launched an investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, after police refused to charge the shooter, George Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman, whom mainstream news organizations like Reuters describe as a “white Hispanic” allegedly shot and killed Trayvon Martin, 17 who is described as “a black teenager carrying nothing but a cell phone and a bag of Skittles.”

Those descriptions are very important to the overall story, so let’s dwell there for a moment. Personally, I have always been baffled when Hispanic persons are designated as anything else other than white. 

So what is the deal with “white Hispanic”?  The designation illuminates nothing.  

Is there such a racial designation as a “black Hispanic” — or would that just be a member of the black race who speaks Spanish?  One is either Hispanic or non-Hispanic.  We know he isn’t Asian.  And if Zimmerman had been black, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Reuters and others simply tacked “white” onto Hispanic to further inflame emotions.  The same with the universal description of Trayvon Martin as a “black teenager carrying nothing but a cell phone and a bag of Skittles.”

Is that true?  That’s ALL he was carrying?  No ID?  No money?  Not a picture of his Mom?  NOTHING but a “cell phone and a bag of Skittles?”  Why is that important?  The Reuters reporter was making the point that Martin was allegedly unarmed — but that isn’t the portrait painted.

The portrait painted by the description of the shooter and victim are of a racist zealot that shot down an innocent kid buying candy.  So that is the image you get first.  Once that image has been firmly planted in your mind, then come the rest of the details.

Here are the details as the mainstream media has reported them.  Zimmerman noticed a black teenager wearing a hoodie walking through his neighborhood.  Simply on the strength of the fact the kid was black, Zimmerman began to follow him.  Martin began to run and Zimmerman started to chase him.

Zimmerman called 9/11, who told him not to pursue Martin.  Zimmerman ignored the instructions, chased Martin down and shot him dead.  Then he claimed self-defense under Florida’s “controversial Stand Your Ground Law” — a law that the liberals absolutely hate.

The Stand Your Ground Law exists in some form in 28 other states, but Florida’s is the one the media has invested itself in, since it was passed when Jeb Bush was governor.  

And so the second that the media heard the general news of the shooting, they recrafted it to fit the existing narrative that the Stand Your Ground law would be used by whites to shoot minorities.  No point in waiting for details.

George Zimmerman, the white Hispanic, shot Trayvon Martin, an innocent black teenager, because Trayvon made the mistake of being black and in Zimmerman’s neighborhood.  That’s how they reported it, and that’s the story that the public is reacting to.

Professional rabble-rouser Jesse Jackson called the Martin shooting part of a “war on blacks”. 

“We’re surprised that everyone else is surprised,” Jackson told the Los Angeles Times. African Americans have tried for decades to get the rest of America to understand their plight, he said, particularly their beliefs that justice is still elusive in many parts of America, especially the Deep South.

Then along comes the Trayvon Martin case, and facts that are not in contention: Volunteer neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman pursued and then gunned down the unarmed 17-year-old last month, and never faced arrest because police said there was no evidence to contradict his claim that he fired in self-defense.

“I hope that this will be a transformative moment,” Jackson said.

So, too does former professional rabble rouser and now President Barack Hussein Obama, who sought to use the tragedy to help transform his campaign for re-election.

“When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon . . .And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this.”

“I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this happened.”

Now, let’s look at a couple more facts “not in contention.”  George Zimmerman has not been arrested for the shooting.  The cops refused to arrest him and the chief of police even stepped down over the case.  Are they all racists, too? 

That seems to be the popular assumption. 

Assessment:

It isn’t only the far Left that are calling for the head of George Zimmerman, racist, for the murder of an unarmed teenager carrying nothing but a cell phone and a bag of Skittles. 

Astonishingly, Tea Party favorite and Iraq War hero Alan West also jumped on the “racist” bandwagon.

Congressman Allen West called the Martin case, “an outrage” in a posting on his personal Facebook page.

 “The U.S. Navy SEALS identified Osama Bin Laden within hours, while this young man laid on a morgue slab for three days,” West continued. “The shooter, Mr. Zimmerman, should have been held in custody and certainly should not be walking free, still having a concealed weapons carry permit.”

With all due respect, how does Congressman West or President Obama know that Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin for reasons related to race? 

If Zimmerman shot Martin without justification, then it is murder.  Why would the police let Zimmerman get away with murder?  

Why would the police chief resign rather than arrest Zimmerman?  The mainstream media is filled with reports of the shooting, all of which focus on the unarmed kid carrying a bag of Skittles.

As it turns out, the Sanford Police Department based their investigation on what they found at the scene and the account of an eyewitness, and on the strength of that information, decided not to charge Zimmerman.  

What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.

The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.

It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn’t have gone to jail.

Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.

And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.

But one man’s testimony could be key for the police.

“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,” he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as “John,” and didn’t not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman’s claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

“When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” John said.

Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.

Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.

Whoa!  How’s that again?  Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the dispatcher told him to?  He was headed back to his SUV?   Zimmerman was attacked by Martin?  It was Zimmerman screaming for help and not Martin? 

And this particular narrative, based on what the police found at the scene and during their follow-up investigation, was the one police were following when they decided not to arrest Zimmerman?

That simply cannot be! I read in the newspaper that Zimmerman killed the kid because Zimmerman was a racist.  Then we find out that Zimmerman is a mentor to two black kids.  That nobody ever heard the guy use a racist term.

That his best friend is a former local news anchor, Joe Oliver, is black, who defended Zimmerman in public, denying any suggestion that Zimmerman is a racist.

Those would have been a few handy pieces of information to have before speaking out from the Oval Office, wouldn’t it?  Or before issuing a statement demanding  Zimmerman’s arrest? 

Didn’t anybody think maybe the police might have had a reason for not arresting Zimmerman?

I read that a new internet petition has gathered more than 800,000 signatures demanding Zimmerman’s arrest — a new record, they say.     

I am not defending George Zimmerman or accusing Trayvon Martin.  I don’t know the whole truth.  But that is the point.  Neither does anybody else speaking out on the case.   But that doesn’t stop them from declaring this a racially-motivated murder.

What if it turns out that Martin was the aggressor?

Here is what I want you to see this morning.  Truth isn’t what is true — it is what people want to believe. 

There are those that want to believe that all whites are racists and all blacks are victims.  No amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise.   

Forget about waiting for all the facts to come in.  Zimmerman’s white (or at least a “white Hispanic”) so he MUST be a racist.  Martin is black, so he MUST be a victim of racism.

And Zimmerman must be guilty of murdering someone who could have been the President’s son.  Racism is at the heart of this case, all right.

But there is considerable doubt that it played any role in the shooting. 

Thorns in the Flesh

Thorns in the Flesh
Vol: 126 Issue: 24 Saturday, March 24, 2012

The word ‘holy’ comes from a Greek word that means ‘separated’ — in this context, it means ‘separated’ from the world of sin. In context, Peter and Paul were therefore two of the twelve holiest men who ever lived.

They were Personally ‘separated’ from the world by Jesus Christ!  But neither went on to live a sinless life. Peter fell back into some legalistic Judaic practices and had to be publicly upbraided by Paul. (see Galatians 2: 11-21)

Paul approached the Lord three times, requesting the Lord remove a “thorn in his flesh,” a “messenger of Satan sent to buffet me” — complaining that this infirmity hindered his ability to minister effectively.

Paul wasn’t lying when he said he was chief among sinners back then.  And I am not lying when I say that I am chief among sinners today.  I don’t know every sinner.  But I’m the worst sinner that I know.

Thus it is with each of us, if we are honest.  I may know of a Christian who commits more obvious sins than I do — but I cannot honestly name somebody who sins MORE than I do.

The only sins that I know others commit are the sins I actually see them commit.  I am with ME all the time.

I am with me when I get cut off in traffic.  I am with me when I think bad thoughts.  I am with me when I do things I wouldn’t do if I was with my pastor.

I am with me when I am uncaring for strangers, unkind to loved ones, unreasonable, unthankful, unholy, disobedient . . . the list goes on.

To be brutally honest, I don’t know ANYBODY who sins more than me.  (And if you are honest, I suspect you can probably say the same thing about you.)

Peter was called out and separated by Jesus Christ to serve the Gospel.  But Jesus did not drop him like a hot rock after Peter said, “I don’t know Him.”

Jesus called out Paul on the road to Damascus and separated by Jesus Christ to serve the Gospel.  He told Paul to stop worrying about his problems with the messenger of Satan.

“And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for My strength is made perfect in weakness. . .” (2nd Corinthians 12:9)

I was called out and separated by Jesus Christ one winter night in 1975 to serve the Gospel.  That is what salvation is all about — being separated for the Great Commission.

But it isn’t YOU that does the separating.  It is Jesus Christ.  If it is you that is the one doing the separating, then how would you go about it?

The answer would seem to be obvious.  You avoid places where sin is going on.  You stay away from people that might lead you into sin.

You surround yourself with other like-minded Christians and you separate yourself from the world.  That’s what Paul said to do.  Didn’t he?

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” (2nd Corinthians 6:14-15)

But clearly, that seems contradictory. When Jesus was criticized for mingling with sinners, He replied, “It isn’t the healthy that need a Physician.”

Assessment:

So what is Paul talking about?  Paul’s letter was addressed to the body of believers at Corinth who had fallen into all kinds of pagan practices.

He was speaking to the Corinthian church’s practice of mingling idol worship and depraved parties masquerading as the Lord’s Supper with some sins “such are are not even named among the Gentiles.”

Individual believers are, by virtue of their salvation, already called out and made separate (holy) and righteous (by imputation).  It is accomplished;

“Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

The New Covenant with the Church Age is not a corporate agreement between God and a specific people, but rather is individual relationship between Jesus Christ and just ONE person — you.

That is why God does NOT punish believers.  He chastises them.  And God does NOT visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.  The children have their own accounts to settle. Individually.

“My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.” (Hebrews 12:5-6)

This is a good place to stop and examine the difference between chastisement (chastening) and punishment.

Chastisement is correction — parents correct their children by chastising them until they fall back into line.  The chastisement stops when the behavior is corrected.

Punishment is different.  It is retribution — punishment continues whether the offender changes his ways or not.  If you are serving a life sentence, changing your ways is nice, but it has no effect on the sentence.

I don’t know about you, but while I loved them all equally, all my children were different.  Although the rules were the same, it was necessary to set different boundaries with each one of them.

I had a different way of dealing with the kid who tried a puff off a cigarette (and didn’t like it) than I did with the kid who had a pack of butts hidden in his bedroom.

Same rules, same offense.  But it was a greater threat to one of them than it was the other and so one of them needed a firmer form of correction than the other.

Is God not as good a parent as you or I?

The Lord doesn’t have one set of rules for one Christian and a different set of rules for another. The rules are the same for us all.

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:27)

Don’t let the enemy steal your victory.  Nobody is perfect except God and He made you the way you are for His glory and according to His purpose.

His strength is made perfect in weakness, the Lord told Paul.  Paul didn’t argue with the Lord and demand that God change Paul into the kind of Christian that Paul thought he ought to be.

Paul didn’t get mad at God for his afflictions.  Instead, Paul responded this way;

“Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” (2 Corinthians 12:9)

So, you think you are weak and ineffective at your calling and unworthy of your salvation?  You think you are too big a sinner to be used of God?  Then you’re just the one He’s looking for.

Has He got a job for you!