The Takeover

The Takeover
Vol: 127 Issue: 21 Saturday, April 21, 2012

It would be unfair to call former Senator Christopher Dodd and retiring Congessman Barney Frank the two biggest crooks in the Congress.

Christopher Dodd decided against running again in 2010 as America learned the degree to which he was involved in the collapse of the housing market, so he is no longer IN the Congress.  At best, he was one of the biggest crooks in public office.  Now he is the biggest crook at the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)

And while Barney Frank still is a member of Congress, (for now) it is unfair to call him the biggest crook, (but only because the competition is the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Charles Rangel or Maxine Waters.)

Barney Frank was the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee.  It was Barney Frank that prevented the Bush administration from transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac away from his committee in 2003.

Although the mantra is that the housing collapse was Bush’s fault, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration recognized the problem back in 2003 but was thwarted from fixing it by the Democrats, led by Barney Frank in the House and Chris Dodd in the Senate.

In his 2003 argument, Frank assured the nation concerning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

“These two entities …are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

As late as 2008, while the cliché about the fan and the fecal matter was playing itself out in the housing market, Barney Frank was still reassuring the nation that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound.  In July, 2008 Frank told a CNBC interviewer:

“I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”

In late 2008, Frank shifted gears, blaming Bush and the Republicans for the collapse of the housing market.  The following year, in an effort to distance his name from the economic collapse over which he presided from the start he began cranking out consumer protection bills like the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, and finally, the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Dodd-Frank Act, (which ironically was co-authored by the politician who had the most to do with the market collapse within the Senate, Christopher Dodd) creates some 250 new regulations that will involve at least a dozen regulatory agencies.

Here is the alphabet jumble of regulatory agencies either involved in, or created by, the Dodd-Frank Bill; 

  • Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB)
  • Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
  • Department of Education 
  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
  • Federal Energy Resources Commission (FERC)
  • Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)
  • Federal Reserve Board (FRB)
  • Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC)
  • Government Accountability Office (GAO)
  • Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB)
  • National Credit Union Administration Board (NCUAB)
  • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
  • Office of Financial Research (OFR, part of FSOC)
  • Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS, part of OCC as of July 21, 2011)
  • State Governments
  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
  • U.S. Department of the Treasury

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was eagerly signed into law by President Obama on July 21, 2010.  Unlike the feckless politicians in Congress that voted for it, Obama knew what was inside Dodd-Frank.  

A new regulatory agency that transfers control of the nation’s economy away from the Congress and over to him.

Assessment:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”  -Thomas Jefferson

The Office of Financial Research, or OFR is technically part of the Treasury Department, but exists outside of Congressional control or oversight.  It is funded directly by the Federal Reserve, which is neither “federal” nor a “reserve” but is instead a privately-owned banking consortium run by banks for banks.

The Fed argues differently, and so do its defenders, but facts are facts and the Fed is not part of the government.  Dodd-Frank carefully removes the OFR from Congressional oversight and grants the Federal Reserve the power to levy taxes on banking institutions to fund the new agency.

Congress doesn’t like it, but they are the ones that passed it.  (That’s why it is considered a good idea to read the bill before voting for it.) 

The House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation learned at a hearing this week that a close reading of the law the president signed provides no limit on the growth of OFR’s budget, nor on the taxes the agency can impose on big banks to fund it.

If Congress has no power of the purse control over the OFR, then it sidesteps the Constitutional checks and balances that allegedly make the people the boss over the government.  The OFR takes the authority granted to Congress by the Constitution and transfers it to the bankers that run the Federal Reserve.

The agency’s official mission is to collect financial data and funnel it to another Dodd-Frank creation: the Financial Stability Oversight Council. These agencies were designed with the idea of preventing another systemic shock of Lehman Brothers magnitude.

Toward that end, OFR was invested with virtually unlimited subpoena power. It can compel just about any company in America to turn over to the federal government sensitive internal data, even proprietary information.

According to a Washington Times editorial on the subject, Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify financial institutions that could, in a crisis, “pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.”

In other words, the council will officially deem financial institutions too big to fail, signaling that the government will not allow these indispensable companies to fail.

Believing that the government will have no choice but to bail them out if things go wrong, the government-designated companies have little reason not to undertake even riskier activities: if they hit the jackpot, they keep it; if they bust, the government will ride to the rescue.

Under Dodd-Frank, troubled too big to fail institutions are subject to “liquidation” – the Treasury secretary condemns the company and hands it over to the FDIC to fix or dismantle it, with virtually no judicial review.

“Worse still, that process gives the government immense power to pick and choose winners and losers. Dodd-Frank empowers the government to favor certain stakeholders and disfavor others, just as it did in the Chrysler bailout. The Obama administration made sure to protect its friends in the unions, but it forced others – especially Indiana’s state pension funds for teachers and state workers – to swallow millions of dollars of losses in what Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels later called the “Chrysler cramdown.”

And we can only expect more of the same in the future. As law professor David Skeel observes in “The New Financial Deal,” Dodd-Frank’s two central themes are “government partnership with the largest financial institutions and ad hoc intervention.”

This is why the White House pushed so hard for Dodd-Franks passage.  It is why Obama was so gleeful when he signed it.  The Money Trust really does exist and it really does dictate the terms under which the economy is permitted to operate.  As the saying goes, “He who has the gold makes the rules”.

The rules are fairly simple and straightforward.  Drop the illusion of competitive capitalism and in the process, consolidate control of the banking industry into as few hands as possible.

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12)

According to Bible prophecy, one of the pillars of power upon which the antichrist’s government will rest is his centralized control of the global economy.  Revelation 13:17 says that he exercises economic authority over ‘the whole earth’ to the degree that those outside his system will be “unable to buy or sell”.

The Bible says that all these things we are now witnessing are part of the last hours of the last days of the Church Age scenario.  The antichrist only wields power for seven years. That isn’t long enough to build a centralized power base or condition the public to accept such a system.  

It must already be up and running and ripe for takeover when he arrives on the scene.  Dodd-Frank is exactly what was necessary.

Things are starting to move swiftly in the direction the Bible forecast for the last days. Everything the Bible predicted has come true so far.  Everything that is still future will come to pass with equal precision. 

It isn’t a time to be afraid.  This is the time to be bold.  We know what others don’t.  Unfolding Bible prophecy is proof positive that the Lord remains on the Throne, and is complete control of every detail.

“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in Me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John 14:1-3)

Maranatha!

Shameless Betrayal

Shameless Betrayal
Vol: 127 Issue: 20 Friday, April 20, 2012

The administration seems to be as confused about the meaning of the word allies as it is when it comes to the definitions of words like immigrant or terrorism.

Who can forget the day that the head of the Department of Homeland Security declared  that henceforth, acts of terror were to be renamed as “man caused disasters”  — and nobody dared to laugh?

An “immigrant” used to mean “a person who comes to a country to take up lawful permanent residence”  since “permanent” implies lawful and not subject to deportation. 

An “alien” is a non-citizen who takes up temporary residence in another country, of which there are two kinds; legal and illegal.

Redefining an “illegal alien”  as an “undocumented immigrant” does violence to the meanings of both “undocumented” and “immigrant”.  

It’s called “doublespeak” and it is defined at Wikipedia thusly:

“Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., “downsizing” for layoffs, “servicing the target” for bombing  making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war “peace”). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass.”

One day soon, doublespeak might itself be renamed something like, an “Obamaism” in honor of the administration’s perfection of the technique.  Particularly whenever the word doublespeak is used in the context of betrayal, one would expect.

For example, we now know that the Obama administration has betrayed America’s closest allies on numerous occasions.  As part of an effort to buy Russia’s signature on Obama’s START Treaty, the administration leaked secret information about the British nuclear arsenal to the Russians.

More recently, the administration has apparently decided to throw the British under the already-overcrowded rhetorical bus, a phrase which is itself an Obamanism used by the mainstream media as a euphemism for betraying a long-time ally whenever politically expedient.

The British are again crying betrayal following the Obama administration’s refusal to support the UK in its dispute with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.  Niles Gardiner at the UK Telegraph blasted the administration as a “shameless betrayal.”

“On a visit to Latin America, [Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta] Jacobson was asked to comment on the growing tensions between Britain and Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and responded by treating the two countries as though they were equal partners in the eyes of the United States.”

The administration has taken to referring to the Falklands as the “Malvinas” — a clear diplomatic snub aimed at Britain’s ownership of the island chain, long claimed by Argentina despite the fact 90% of Falklands residents are British.

The Daily Mail’s commentary was published under the ponderous (and incredulous) headline, “British Troops Fight and Die Alongside Americans, but Obama is ‘Neutral” over the Sovereignty of the Falklands (or Should that Be ‘Maldives?)

“President Barack Obama’s answer during a joint press conference with President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia must go down as one of the most inept and misguided utterances of his presidency.

After giving a long-winded, boilerplate answer on Cuba, Obama then said: ‘And in terms of the Maldives or the Falklands, whatever your preferred term, our position on this is that we are going to remain neutral. We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue. But this is not something that we typically intervene in’.”

This is nothing less than a betrayal of one of America’s oldest and closest allies in an effort to curry favor with one of South America’s most anti-American dictatorships, that of Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, adding insult to injury by mixing up the Maldives (off the coast of India) with the Malvinas off the coast of Argentina.

Not only was it a betrayal, but an off-hand one — Obama didn’t even get the snub right.

America’s other closest ally is Israel.  And as we now know, the Obama administration betrayed the Israelis when it leaked information that Israel had an agreement to fly out of secret air bases in Azerbaijan to attack Iran. 

The administration has been pressuring Israel to delay attacking Iran until 2013 so that it won’t damage Obama’s re-election chances in November.  Leaking Israel’s secret ace-in-the-hole to the mainstream press (and therefore, to Iran) ended that threat. 

Once the agreement was made public, Azerbaijan withdrew permission.  Israel officials were at first furious, and then, as the magnitude of the situation began to set it,  the fury turned to fear.

Noted syndicated columnist Cal Thomas in his column entitled, “Obama’s Betrayal of Israel

“On May 14, 2011, the State of Israel observed the 63rd anniversary of its independence. But if the proposals made by President Obama in his State Department speech are implemented, that observance could be its last.”

Assessment:

Here again, we find some clues to the answer to the question, “Where is America in Bible Prophecy?”  Israel is clearly represented.  So is Europe and Russia.  The modern Arab states of the Middle East are represented in prophecy as well.

But once one crosses over the threshold from the Age of Grace into the Tribulation Period, America vanishes from the scene.  Wait!  If America ‘vanishes’ from the prophetic record, then that must mean that America makes an appearance there.

It can’t “vanish” unless it was there in the first place.  But where? 

I’ve made the case elsewhere and often that America DOES appear in Bible prophecy, not by name, but as the representative for the Church during the final hours of the Church Age.  That is not to say that the Church is made up of Americans — far from it. 

But by every possible measure, as well as by popular acclamation by America-haters from the United Nations to al-Qaeda to the American liberal mainstream media, America is viewed as the “world’s most Christian country.” 

Indeed, following the 2004 general election, the mainstream dubbed the pro-Bush Republican Red States as “Jesus Land.”  Back in 2004, we made the following observation about the tactics used by the Left during that election:

“For the most part, the tactics of the Left — and the morals of their candidates– during Election 2004 dovetailed with Paul’s description as ‘lovers of their own selves’ — their willingness to slander our nation and our troops while encouraging the terrorists hoping to defeat a divided America, if it helped them win the election, is one example.”

In fact, read through the whole description again: “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: . .”

Note how many ways Paul finds to describe “betrayal” as a hallmark characteristic of the visible Church in the last days.  Then go over to Google and enter the search term, “Obama betrayal.” 

The Far Left complains that Obama has betrayed them.  The Far Right points out how many times Obama has betrayed America.  The moderate middle complains about how often Obama has betrayed the middle class.  

And all the rest of them detail the various times that Obama has betrayed America’s allies. 

He has, at one time or another, been cited for betraying the British, the French, the Germans,  the Canadians, the Israelis, and we even have a recording of him promising the Russians that after he is re-elected, he will betray Eastern Europe (and possibly America!)

An article in Front Page Magazine detailing Obama’s serial betrayals of America’s allies and of American values took stock of the administration’s latest efforts to appease Iran.

“All the participants have described the talks as “constructive”  and news articles trumpet a statement by Iran’s Supreme Leader that Obama had finally taken “an exit from delusion” in believing that he could defeat Iran. A Newsweek article praises this as “one of the most positive comments he had made about the United States since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.”

Left standing with a knife in his back, is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who didn’t expect Obama to sign on to a strike on Iran, but is recognizing that there is no level of interference too great for the White House. At least to his credit, he didn’t abase himself the way that Cameron did. Both Israel and the UK have been screwed by Washington D.C., but the Israeli Prime Minister at least retained his dignity.

If that is how traditionally close allies like the UK and Israel are being treated, there’s no hope for anyone else. Eastern European allies already knew they had been sold out before the “hot mic” incident and the message to Vladimir, that shameful moment just brought it home to them.”

Here’s the kicker.  According to most polls,  it is even possible that Obama might be re-elected in November.

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My Mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:” (Revelation 3:14-18)

If there still is an election in November.

Speaking of Excrement And Fans. . .

Speaking of Excrement And Fans. . .
Vol: 127 Issue: 19 Thursday, April 19, 2012

Our recent column on “Doomsday Preppers” has sparked something of a debate about whether or not Christians should be prepping for what is coming our way, or if making preparations  in some way betrays a lack of faith.

It also appears to have given the impression that I come down on the side of those that believe making preparations demonstrates a lack of faith, so let me address that first.   

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

It is not a lack of faith to make provision for one’s family.  Quite the opposite.  The Scripture mandates it.  Paul characterizes the failure to provide for one’s family as a denial of the faith.  This means more than providing a home and daily bread, or paying child support.  

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it. . .” (Ephesians 5:25)

What does Paul mean by, He “gave Himself for it”?  Obviously, the Lord died for the Church when He died for the sins of the world.  But the Lord didn’t just die for the Church, He lived for it. 

He spent His every waking moment providing for His Church, nurturing, teaching, feeding and preparing  them for what was to come upon them, as well as preparing us for what is to come upon us.  

His death was only part of how He provided for us.

“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” (Romans 5:10)

To provide for His Church, He lived, died and rose again.  We are commanded to emulate Christ when providing for our families and to do less makes one “worse than an infidel.”

So let me make this point clearly before moving on: I believe we should prepare for the coming storm with all the resources at our disposal.   It is not evidence of a lack of faith.  Any more than laying down in the middle of a freeway at rush hour is a demonstration of faith.   

I have faith that the Lord will return for me before the onset of the Tribulation Period, but I have no reason to believe that, (to quote the New York Times’ reference) the event involving excrement and a fan won’t happen until after the Rapture.

I have made my own “bug-out” plans in the event it becomes necessary.  We are also stockpiling food and other necessary supplies, just in case.  Plus a whole lot of other measures that I’d rather not put into print.

But my plan is limited to surviving until the Rapture. 

Assessment:

The Bible predicts the Rapture will take place before the antichrist takes the reins of government, (2nd Thessalonians 2:7-8) but nowhere can I find where the Rapture takes place before anything bad happens. 

Just that the Rapture happens before that one, specific bad event takes place.

“And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.  And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. “(Revelation  6:1-2

There is no reference to any nation resembling the United States during the Tribulation Period.  Given the state of national affairs under Obama, there is almost no nation resembling the United States right now. 

No wonder there are reality shows like “Doomsday Preppers.”  But being fearful doesn’t equate with being faithless.

Fear is a natural, God-given emotion, and is one of mankind’s most basic survival tools.  Pain hurts, so that we fear it, and therefore, we are careful not to damage ourselves.

It is the fear of pain that makes us run from danger, preserving our lives.  Without fear, few of us would survive to adulthood.

The Bible doesn’t tell us not to fear so much as it teaches us how to redirect our fear.  Jesus said to fear not those who can destroy the body, but rather to fear Him Who can destroy the soul. 

“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me.” (Psalms 23:4)

“Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea . . .” (Psalms 46:2)

“In God I will praise His word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me.” (Psalms 56:4)

So, if scary news scares us, does that mean that we are faithless Christians?  No.  There is a difference between being scared from time to time and living in fear.

“Sudden fear” comes upon us all, saved and unsaved alike.  Don’t let it worry you.  It’s part of our existence in this world. We all get scared.  We may not be of this world, but we are in it.  

“Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.” (Proverbs 3:25-26)

What is the purpose for Bible prophecy if not to give the warning to prepare for what is to come?   

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

The things the Lord is referring to are the same things that Doomsday preppers are making preparations for.  That’s the bad part.   

But these events also mean that the Lord is also making preparations to return for His Church.  That’s the good part.  

“Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:18)

Confessions of a Doomsday Prepper

Confessions of a Doomsday Prepper
Vol: 127 Issue: 18 Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Reality TV is a relatively recent trend in entertainment programming that I confess baffles me to the core.  Reality is where I live.  If I’m looking for reality, I should be looking out the window, not into my TV screen.

When I was a kid growing up in the 1950’s, TV was new — and so was everything on it.  Live entertainment programs really were “live” and the entertainment was sublime.  Television was literally imagination in a box.  And it was largely original. 

General Electric Theater produced a new, original screenplay every week.  So did Alfred Hitchcock Presents, the Ford Television Theater, Fireside Theatre, Somerset Maugham Theater, the Philco Television Playhouse and a dozen others.

All the sitcoms were from original ideas; the Life of Riley, Our Miss Brooks, I Love Lucy, Life with Luigi, the Honeymooners, December Bride, etc.  The format was new, and so were all the routines.  

The TV dramas were often brilliant, and always fun.  And like everything else on television in those days, all original.  

Dragnet, The Millionaire, Private Secretary, Cheyenne, Maverick, Have Gun Will Travel, Peter Gunn, Perry Mason, Wanted: Dead or Alive . . . . every episode of every program was unique and original.

Reruns were rare at first; later they became more common, but only as “filler” between seasons for that show.  Nobody would watch a program made up exclusively of reruns.  Not yet.  There was still too much on TV that was new.

In the early days, TV offered escapism, not reality.  (Reality TV, as I noted, came on at six o’clock starring Douglas Edwards, Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley.)

In recent years, original entertainment programming has become as common as the dodo bird.  You can’t get much more original than to write about stuff that doesn’t exist, and so Star Trek managed to survive through four incarnations, but in the end, even the coolest gadgets couldn’t disguise the recycled plotlines.

And so, Reality TV was inevitable.  We’re bored with the fantastic — we live in an age where hardly anything is fantastic, anymore.  Or put another way, everything is so fantastic that we need to turn to our television sets to find a little old-fashioned reality.

We started out seeking thrills; Rescue 9/11, COPS, Real Stories of the Highway Patrol and World’s Wildest Police Videos, but soon craved more; from the disgusting, (Wife Swap)  to the more disgusting (Keeping Up With the Kardashians) until we discovered the joys of reality voyeurism, (the Bachelor, Big Brother).

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)

Assessment:

“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. ” (Matthew 24:37-39)

In February, the Discovery Channel introduced a new reality TV series called “Doomsday Preppers.” The program is described at its website under the heading, “About the Show” — just below the dramatic photo of a teen-aged boy firing a scoped assault rifle with an extended banana clip.

“Doomsday Preppers explores the lives of otherwise ordinary Americans who are preparing for the end of the world as we know it. Unique in their beliefs, motivations, and strategies, preppers will go to whatever lengths they can to make sure they are prepared for any of life’s uncertainties. And with our expert’s assessment, they will find out their chances of survival if their worst fears become a reality.”

What is a “Doomsday Prepper”?  That is evidently what the New York Times set out to discover.  Here is what staff critic Neil Genzlinger (Gezundheit!) found.

“Watch either show for a short while and, unless you’re a prepper yourself, you might be moderately amused at the absurd excess on display and at what an easy target the prepper worldview is for ridicule. Watch a bit longer, though, and amusement may give way to annoyance at how offensively anti-life these shows are, full of contempt for humankind.”

Hmmm.  I’ve not seen the show.  But if the New York Times hates it . . . 

“Who knows how representative these shows are of the prepper universe, but the people they feature are disproportionately white. They can’t speak for long without employing that cliché involving excrement and a fan. And whatever their religious beliefs might be, something “Preppers” doesn’t generally explore, most of them put their real faith in firearms.”

No, I think I was reading it wrong.  The New York Times loves the show — it gives them the chance to showcase how much they hate those people.

“But the unmistakable impression left by these programs is that what these folks want most of all is not to protect their families — the standard explanation for why they’re doing what they’re doing — or even the dubious pleasure of being able to say to the rest of us, “See, I told you the world was going to end.” What they want is a license to open fire.”

According to the New York Times, Doomsday Preppers are primarily gun-toting racists who have no respect for human life.  And that is pretty much the same view taken by the rest of the liberal elite, including the top echelons of the Department of Homeland Security. 

That is also the view that you are supposed to have, if you are the sort of person that takes his ideological marching orders from the New York Times or shares the worldview of the Discovery Channel that produced the program.

Doomsday Preppers is played strictly for laughs, quietly mocking their subjects, holding them up as objects of ridicule, but also as folks to be feared, (once the cliché’ involving excrement and a fan becomes appropriate.)

Who are they, really?  Lots of them are precisely what the Discovery Channel makes them out to be. (That’s why they were the ones chosen.)  

The real Doomsday Preppers are simply folks that are preparing for the obvious the way one would prepare for a coming storm.  Clearly, it is coming and it is just as clearly that obvious. Or there wouldn’t be a prime-time reality show devoted to the premise.

Only a liberal would view the decision not to become a victim as anti-life and contemptuous of mankind –  “mankind” meaning, presumably, the roving bands of looters that Doomsday preppers are preparing to defend their families from.

What I find fascinating, however, is that Doomsday prepping is not a phenomenon exclusive to Christians that believe in Bible prophecy.

There are some Christians among the Doomsday Preppers, but they are preparing for economic and political collapse, not “Doomsday” in the sense of the end of the world.  

Christians await the coming of Christ, and the Millennial Kingdom —  not the coming of antichrist and the end of the world. They aren’t prepping for Biblical Doomsday — they are prepping for hard times.

What I want you to see here is the whole progression in one lifetime (generation). 

From the unbridled hope and freshness with which it began, as reflected by television — imagination in a box — to the unmitigated fear and confusion (distress and perplexity) into which it is descending.

Again, as reflected by our “imagination in a box.”

As the eyes are a mirror into the soul, television is a mirror into our collective society.  Here’s what it reflects: We started out with Milton Berle and the Cavalcade of Stars and “progressed” to “Doomsday Preppers.”   

My parents were confident that life would be better for me than for them.  I am confident they were right — but life was better for me than it will be for my children.  Everywhere, there is a sense that time is running out and Doomsday Preppers is an uncomfortable reminder of that reality.

What I noted throughout the Times’ article, over at the Doomsday Preppers website, and the other articles I read while preparing this one was that while they all mocked the preppers, nobody mocked the premise.

Everybody was pretty much in universal agreement that preparing for Doomsday was contemptuous of humanity, selfish, etc., etc., but none of them were arguing that it was unnecessary.   

“So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:33-34)

The secular world knows, just like we do.  They just don’t want to accept what it means.

“That at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” (Philippians 2:10)

To the secular world, that is Doomsday.

IRS Goes After Americans Abroad

IRS Goes After Americans Abroad
Vol: 127 Issue: 17 Tuesday, April 17, 2012

The United States is one of the only countries in the world to tax its citizens on income earned while they’re living abroad.  And just as Americans stateside must file tax returns each April — this year, the deadline is Tuesday — an estimated 6.3 million U.S. citizens living abroad brace for what they describe as an even tougher process of reporting their income and foreign accounts to the IRS.

If one lives along the US-Canadian border, chances are one or more of your family members is from the other side. I don’t think I know anybody who doesn’t have at least one foreigner in their family — mine is almost evenly split.

Every year, some members of my family have to file two income tax returns — one in Canada and another in the United States.  It doesn’t matter whether or not one has lived or worked in the United States. 

Two of my sons were born in the US while I was in the US Marines.  But they grew up entirely in Canada and don’t even have Social Security accounts, let alone ever having earned any money in the US. 

Notwithstanding, they are required to file an income tax return in what is, to them, essentially a foreign country, from which, they receive no benefit.  They are also required under the law to report all bank accounts, including joint bank accounts, and all retirement funds.

That includes any accounts in which the U.S. citizen has a financial interest.  That could include a joint account with a spouse or child, accounts for corporations in which the American owns more than 50 percent of the value of shares of stock, or any trust or estate that benefits the U.S. citizen.

The law requiring American citizens abroad to report foreign bank and financial accounts has been around since 1970, but until now, there were no penalties attached for failing to comply.  Americans abroad can be punished for noncompliance even if they owed no income tax – and IRS data shows that most of them don’t owe any money.

Failure to comply with IRS rules could subject them to penalties of up to $100,000.00 in fines — or fifty percent of their undeclared accounts — depending on which is greater.  Under the new law, foreign financial institutions are expected to provide the IRS with information on US citizens.

Institutions that do not comply will be subject to a 30 percent withholding tax on certain U.S.-sourced payments and proceeds of property sales beginning in the 2013 tax year – for instance, dividends on investments in U.S. companies.

Many Americans were unaware (as were we) of the filing requirement for many years.  Although the IRS estimates there are more than six million expatriates out there, only a tiny percent are in compliance.  The IRS said that as recently as 2008 it had less than 300,000 returns from abroad.

Since 2008, the IRS has offered several voluntary-disclosure grace periods during which expatriates can file back taxes without facing criminal charges – but with the possibility of incurring penalties.

For those wishing to legally escape the filing requirements, the only way is to formally renounce their U.S. citizenship.  Last year, IRS records show that at least 1,788 people did, and that’s likely an underestimate.

The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the names of those who give up their citizenship, and some who renounced say they haven’t seen their name on the list yet.

The decision by the IRS to publish the names is referred to by lawyers as “name and shame.”  That’s because those who renounce are seen by the government as willing to give up their citizenship primarily for financial reasons. 

The “shame” part isn’t all that effective for many when they consider the alternative.  Marylouise Serrato, head of American Citizens Abroad, a nonprofit organization based in Geneva, says that many members feel scared about reporting requirements they did not know existed.  

That fear, she says, is what is pushing some to renounce their US citizenship.

“Americans abroad are terrified. We’ve had people pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines. We’ve had people pay huge amounts of back taxes,” she says.

“Up to this point, we never heard of anyone renouncing, or if they did, they didn’t talk about it. Now, we’re seeing a lot of people speak openly about it and come to us for information.”

Last year, 1,800 American citizens renounced their US citizenship — eight times as many as in 2008 — the last year of the Bush administration.

Assessment:

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way. . . .  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (2 Thessalonians 2:7,11)

One doesn’t have to be a law enforcement officer or a criminal to be familiar with what is called “the Miranda Warning.”  Indeed, the warning required by the Constitution has itself become a word — suspects given the warning are said to have been “Mirandized.”

The standard Miranda Warning goes like this:

“You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to have an attorney present before answering any questions.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you at no cost.”

When I was a police officer, I always went into a lot more detail — the biggest Achilles’ Heel in any prosecution was not whether a suspect had been “Mirandized” but whether or not he understood the warning. 

“You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
Do you understand?
Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.
Do you understand?
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
Do you understand?
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
Do you understand?
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Do you understand?”

And then, the Big Question:

“Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?”

(If a guy does understand the warning and confesses anyway, the burden to prove somebody is that, umm, stupid then falls on the prosecution. It never ceased to amaze me how many suspects ultimately agreed after being warned to submit to questioning.)

The Miranda Warning arose from a criminal court case in 1963 styled Miranda v Arizona.  Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman.  He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime.

He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present.  At trial, Miranda’s lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied.

In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court.  The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.

The Supreme Court ruling in Miranda upheld the Fifth Amendment, which says that no person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself.  

For that reason, the filing of federal income tax returns and payment of federal income taxes is deemed to be voluntary.  Honest.   

It is unconstitutional for the government to force you to submit evidence that can be used against you in a criminal case.  Since the government can prosecute tax evaders, the evidence you supply puts you in legal jeopardy, which violates the Fifth Amendment. 

So the IRS claims that filing your income tax return and paying the taxes due is “voluntary”  — but if you don’t, then you are guilty of a crime.

It is an open fiction made even more egregious by the IRS effort to impose “voluntary” compliance among Americans abroad. 

The word “voluntary” is defined as “action done of one’s own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation” except when used by the IRS. 

As used by the IRS, the definition of “voluntary” takes on more a military meaning.  The government “volunteered” you to pay taxes and you “volunteer” to pay heavy fines or go to jail if you don’t.

So what is the point here?  First, the Income Tax law violates the 5th Amendment.  Secondarily, the Sixteenth Amendment giving Congress the power to collect income taxes was never properly ratified.

The fact that the law is in violation of the Constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination is self-evident, but no federal judge who wants to keep his career will take on the case. (And even judges have to answer to the IRS.)  

The IRS makes liars out of most taxpayers desperately seeking ways to maintain control of what they believe is their own money, despite the reality that the government has already pledged all your money as collateral for its own loans.

It is a system designed to create liars.  It was created by a lie and is enforced by perpetuating that lie.  As a “law” it is an exercise in lawlessness which causes some people to lie while all the time claiming to be otherwise “honest.” 

It creates the same atmosphere that was created during the Lewinsky Scandal in which lying became acceptable because “everybody lies about sex.”  Based on that principle, it is accepted that “everybody lies” about taxes, too.

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

So lying, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad — if you are lying about sex or if you are lying to the IRS.  From there, it is a very short trip to the ultimate conclusion that all politicians and all taxpayers lie.  

Since all politicians lie, there is no reason to hold them accountable for doing what all politicians do. And since all taxpayers lie, there is no reason why you shouldn’t lie on your tax return, too.  It’s against the law, but everybody does it. 

Laws are made to be broken.  Aren’t they?

A History Rhyme About The Second Coming. . .

A History Rhyme About The Second Coming. . .
Vol: 127 Issue: 16 Monday, April 16, 2012

Why all the attention on politics at a website devoted to the discussion of Bible prophecy?  It’s a fair question.  The basic political difference between a Democrat and a Republican is rooted in where each side believes their source of the authority to govern originates.

Democrats believe in majority rule, whereas Republicans believe the will of the people is limited by ‘natural’ or ‘Divine’ law.

Sir William Blackstone was an 18th century British jurist whose commentaries set forth two main categories of common law; the law of nature and the law of revelation.

James Wilson, one of the signers of the Constitution and one of the first five Supreme Court justices, looked to Blackstone’s ‘Commentaries’ to form his decisions both in Congress and on the bench.  Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” has served as a kind of Common Law ‘Bible’ for the United States since the times of the Founding Fathers.

Sir William argued that the law of nature establishes a rule of moral conduct based on God’s law, which recognizes man as created in the image of God.  This rule of moral conduct imposes a rule of action upon man that includes duties to God, self, and neighbor.

“And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey.”

According to Blackstone, the authority of a Republican government is limited to passing laws setting forth rules of civil conduct only with such laws conforming to the “law of nature.”  Under this principle, certain conduct would always be “malum in se” meaning,  “bad in and of itself.”

Blackstone argues that the role of government is not to enumerate rights, but to protect those rights already imparted to every individual by God.

His common law model establishes that the duty of government is to commend what is right and prohibit what is wrong.

Blackstone states, “The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature.”

Blackstone defined the word ‘law’ as it applies to government in his Commentaries, calling it, “A rule of civil conduct prescribed by the Supreme power in a state, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong.”

Are you with me so far?  Blackstone’s Commentaries outlined the duties and responsibilities of government in a Constitutional Republic.

The difference, Blackstone explains, is that the US Constitution creates the powers that exist according to Divine Revelation, whereas in other countries, the existing powers determine the nature of the constitution.

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

For example, Blackstone’s Commentaries explained:

“To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.”

In other words, the laws of nature (or Divine Law) are beyond the power of the majority to overturn.

The Democrats prefer a ‘pure’ American democracy, similar to that of France, where secular humanism is the state religion and a simple majority makes the laws without Divine oversight.  Rights are extended or withdrawn by the majority.

That is why, in the pure democracy of the Democratic Party, abortion is about a ‘woman’s right to choose’ and homosexual marriage is a human rights issue.  But in that worldview, religious ‘rights’ exist only to the extent that they are shared by the majority government.

Of pure democracy, President James Madison observed;

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

John Adams warned the Founders,

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Noah Webster uttered this unintended prophecy regarding pure democracy;

“Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”

Assessment:

If ever America had an historical equal, it would had to have been when the Roman Empire was at its peak which history says occurred at just about the same place in history as did the birth of Christianity.

“The exact transition of when the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire is a subject of disagreement among historians and others. Some believe the change took place in 44 B.C. when Julius Caesar was made perpetual dictator. Other views are that Rome went from Republic to Empire when Mark Antony was defeated at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C. or when in 27 B.C. the Roman Senate granted extraordinary powers to Octavian (Augustus).”

“The first true Roman Emperor is believed to have been Augustus Caesar, who ruled the empire from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D. His rule was followed by that of Emperor Tiberius (14 to 37 A.D.), Caligula (37 to 41 A.D.), Claudius (41 A.D. to 54 A.D.) and Nero (54 to 68 A.D.).”

“After Nero’s death began a short period known as the ‘Year of 4 Emperors’ when Galba, then Otho, then Vitellius, reigned. Galba and Vitellius were murdered while in office while Otho committed suicide after losing a battle. Vespasian, the fourth of the four emperors, began his rule in the middle of 69 A.D. After Vespasian died of natural causes in 79 A.D. he was followed by Titus, who ruled the fast growing empire until 81 A.D. Domitian, the son of Vespasian and the person known for exiling the apostle John to the island of Patmos in 95 A.D., is dictator of Rome’s world empire until 96 A.D. This brings us to the period when Rome was at its peak of power and wealth.”

In the first three chapters of the Book of the Revelation, Jesus outlines a letter to each of the seven churches then existing in Asia Minor.

Looking back over time, it is apparent that each of the Churches correspond to ‘epochs’ in the life of the Church over the past two thousand years.  These seven periods of time traversed in chronological order, beginning with Ephesus and ending, in our times, with Laodicea.

The Church Epoch that preceded Laodicea was the Church of Philadelphia, or Church of Brotherly Love.  It shared a distinction with the Church of Smyrna, in that it received no words of condemnation from the Lord.

The Church of Sardis corresponded with the Reformation Period from 1500-1750, during which time, the Word of God was redistributed to the common man, ending the Roman Church’s monopoly on the Bible.

“Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white: for they are worthy.” (Revelation 3:4)

The Church of Philadelphia was the ‘missionary church’ (1750-1900) during which time, the Word of God was carried by missionaries into the far corners of the world.

“Because thou hast kept the Word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” (Revelation 3:10)

Then we come to the final Epoch of the Church Age before the Return of Christ.  What does the world look like from that perspective?  Recall that when the Lord was speaking to John, Domitian is on the throne and Rome is at the peak of its power.

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My Mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:” (Revelation 3:14-18)

The word ‘Laodicea’ is a compound Greek word meaning, ‘justice of the people’ or, literally, the ‘Church of the People’s Rights’ — a letter-perfect historical rhyme for the modern Church.

And so we find yet another set of history “rhymes”.  Modern America “rhymes” with Imperial Rome.  It remains at the zenith of its power, although it appears poised to slide either into dictatorship or economic and political irrelevance.

The modern Church “rhymes” with ancient Laodicea.  Christians that view the Bible as the unchangeable Word of God which opposes such liberal causes as abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, etc. and believe that Bible prophecy is coming to pass in this generation are viewed by mainstream Christianity as “extremists” — and maybe even a little bit dangerous.

“And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:10-11)

Christianity opens on Rome and closes on America.  And the Second Advent “rhymes” with the First.

Interesting Times

Interesting Times
Vol: 127 Issue: 14 Saturday, April 14, 2012

Now that Mitt Romney is more or less certainly the Republican nominee, America is in for a crash course on Mormonism — the administration surrogates will make sure of that.  Religion is off the table in presidential campaigns — until somebody puts it on the table.

Religion has played a major role in presidential campaigns past — Barack Obama’s campaign familiarized America with Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Black Liberation Theology, and its relationship to the Nation of Islam and how that relates to the religion of Islam before being declared off-limits by the PC media.

Religion has always played a role in American elections, going all the way back to the 1800 general election in which his opponents argued he was unfit to hold office because of his unorthodox religious beliefs.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist who expressed great respect for Jesus Christ, but did not believe Jesus was Divine or in the doctrine of the Trinity.  His Federalist opponents called Jefferson a “howling atheist” and an infidel. 

Jefferson himself refused to confirm his atheism, but he made no bones about his devotion to “reason.”  In a letter to his nephew, published in 1787 (and often quoted by Mormon talk show host Glenn Beck), Jefferson wrote:

“Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

Anti-Catholic sentiment ended Alfred Smith’s 1928 presidential campaign. Smith was a Catholic Democrat from New York.  He captured only six of 14 Southern states—far fewer than any Democratic candidate from 1876 to 1944.    

Anti-Catholic sentiment played a major role in the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy  Non-Catholic voters feared a Kennedy administration would give too much influence to the Vatican. There was also the additional fear that a Catholic president might give away national security secrets to the Vatican via the confessional.

In 1960, Kennedy addressed a group of Southern Baptist ministers in Houston who had sent a letter asking him to guarantee he would observe the separation of church and state.  In his speech, Kennedy assured them,

“I do not speak for my church on public matters, and my church does not speak for me.”

And back in 2007 when he was campaigning for the nomination that ultimately went to John McCain, Mitt Romney attempted to take a page from the Kennedy handbook when he was faced with questions about his relationship with the LDS Church:

“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. As governor [of Massachusetts], I tried to do right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution—and of course, I would not do so as President.”

It is almost blasphemous to suggest today that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian, but it seems no less blasphemous than to remember that Jimmy Carter ran as America’s first “born-again Christian” president.

Carter’s religious confession hurt him because he followed it up with a disastrous interview he gave to Playboy (what’s a born-again Christian doing appearing in a Playboy magazine?) in which he used terms like “shack up” and “screws” and admitted to having committed adultery “in my heart many times.”

Non-Catholic America learned a lot about the Vatican from the Kennedy election.  Catholic America saw their religious suspicions about “born-agains” confirmed in Jimmy Carter, and Obama gave white America a peek behind the curtain at Black Liberation Theology.

Is America ready for a Mormon President?

Assessment:

According to a Pew Research Center survey from last year, a quarter of American voters admitted that Romney’s religion was a problem.  The poll also confirmed the old adage about “politics making strange bedfellows.” 

The two groups most opposed to a Mormon candidate are evangelical Christians and liberal Democrats.  Liberal Democrats because of strong Mormon family values and evangelical Christians because we consider Mormonism to be a cult.

And here’s where it gets complicated.  Every Mormon I’ve ever met was a wonderful individual.  The Mormon family ethic is enviable.  Their devotion to their faith is admirable. 

But that is where Christianity and Mormonism split — on the issue of faith.

Not that Mormons don’t have faith — from everything I know of Mormonism, you gotta have a LOT of faith — waaay more faith than it takes to be a Christian.  It isn’t just about having faith, it is about where one puts it.

It isn’t anti-Mormon to say that Mormons aren’t Christian — it is merely a statement of fact. 

A quick rundown of the major doctrines of the LDS clearly establish differences so profound as to be irreconcilable.

For example, Mormonism denies God’s uniqueness, believing instead that God was once a man from the star system Kolob.  The Bible teaches that God is eternal, without beginning or end. 

Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Lucifer (Satan) were spirit brothers and that Lucifer fell from favor because the Father liked Jesus’ plan for redeeming mankind better.

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the eternal God in the Flesh, the Second Person of the Godhead, co-equal with the Father.  Lucifer was a created angel who rebelled against God and was cast from heaven.

Mormons deny the doctrine of the Trinity as a false doctrine and teach that there are seven resurrections of the dead.  

Mormon doctrine teaches that the American Plains Indians are really descended from Jews who came here in Solomon’s time and that Jesus appeared in Missouri where He converted to Christianity.  Mormons believe that the Jews of Israel are usurpers and the New Jerusalem is in Independence, Missouri.

The Democrats (via their surrogates) will have a grand time mocking Romney (via LDS doctrines) which is going to impale most Christian Republicans on the horns of a dilemma.  How does one defend one’s candidate from an attack on his religion when one agrees with the attacker?

You are probably expecting me to provide some kind of an answer.  I am afraid I don’t have one.  This is that place where religion and politics really don’t mix — they really can’t.

I am not an advocate, but I am supposed to be a watchman.  My job is to let you know that the enemy is approaching. 

“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.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Revelation 1:3)

According to the Bible, the religion of the last days will be overseen by a character the Bible calls the False Prophet.  The Bible reveals several major characteristics of the end-times religious leader that keep coming to mind as this election year unfolds.

First, he will oversee what amounts to a theocratic religious system married to the government of the antichrist. (Revelation 13:12

Secondly, this theocratic system will resemble Christianity, and may even claim Christianity, but it will not BE Christian.  Revelation 13:11 describes it as having two horns like a lamb, but speaks as a dragon.

And thirdly, he will demand worship for the political leader. (Revelation 13:17)

“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)

I’m not suggesting anything specific about Governor Romney or the LDS.  But one can’t deny that we are living in interesting times.

To say the least. . . .