Archive for January, 2013

Obama: Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Illegal Immigants To America’s Dependency Roles Will Strengthen Middle Class Rather Than Depressing Wages

January 31, 2013

There aren’t a lot of laws in economic theory.  But one of them is called “the law of supply and demand.”  Basically, the more abundant something is, the less valuable it becomes.  If you increase the supply of something, you reduce the demand for that something accordingly.

So somebody’s got a brilliant idea: let’s glut our economy with low-skilled immigrants who will be competing with low-skilled Americans for increasingly scarce low-skilled jobs.  It will be great.  Trust your messiah.

Fools believe this, just as fools believed that Bush was inciting the Middle East and an Obama presidency would usher in a reign of peace (actual history alert: the Middle East is in greater turmoil and greater risk of complete meltdown than it has EVER been under ANYBODY).  Fools believe this, just as they believed that under Obama, average Americans would never have to pay more taxes:

Obama Claims Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Workers Will Strengthen the Middle Class
January 29, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

Could it be that when Obama was leafing through the thesaurus looking for synonyms for “Destroy”, “Smash”, “Utterly Eradicate” and “Eliminate Beyond Any Trace of Recognition”, he found himself with the antonyms rather than the synonyms?

Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows.  Yes, they broke the rules.  They crossed the border illegally.  Maybe they overstayed their visas.  Those are facts.  Nobody disputes them.  But these 11 million men and women are now here.  Many of them have been here for years.  And the overwhelming majority of these individuals aren’t looking for any trouble.  They’re contributing members of the community.  They’re looking out for their families.  They’re looking out for their neighbors.  They’re woven into the fabric of our lives.

Obama is confusing Mexican illegal aliens with Cotton Incorporated. They didn’t just break the rules. They broke the law.

They’re not contributing members. They take away jobs from Americans, leech off the social benefits system and commit a number of crimes besides the whole “illegal entry” deal. Jails tend to be full of illegal aliens for a reason.

Every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living.  Often they do that in a shadow economy — a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage or make them work overtime without extra pay.  And when that happens, it’s not just bad for them, it’s bad for the entire economy.  Because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing — that are hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules — they’re the ones who suffer.   They’ve got to compete against companies that are breaking the rules.  And the wages and working conditions of American workers are threatened, too.

So if we’re truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we’ve got to fix the system.

Obama’s solution to employers hiring people under the table for low wages is to legalize 11 million illegal aliens. Which will open up positions for more illegals to come and work under the table, while the newly legal illegal aliens end up eventually going on unemployment once they get their green cards because there’s no work for them. And then we’ll legalize the new illegal aliens because etc…

How does dumping 11 million aliens into the economy, on the social system and into the job markets strengthen the middle class?

It doesn’t. It destroys it.

There’s a lot of talk about a system that will prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens. Obama has been in office for four years, if he genuinely supported such a system, there was plenty of time for it. Ditto for the Republicans. These proposals have been made and sabotaged and then linked to amnesty as a “comprehensive” package.

That’s a scam. There will be amnesty and no enforcement. And Obama is refusing to even tie amnesty to enforcement as a prerequisite. Not that such an agreement would change anything.

The shadow economy is never going to come into the light, because businesses on both sides of the aisle benefit from it. So do politicians on the left side of the aisle.

But because this change isn’t permanent, we need Congress to act — and not just on the DREAM Act.  We need Congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now.  That’s what we need.

That is what Obama needs. It’s what his political allies want. It’s what the left wants. It’s what some billionaires want. The middle class needs this like it needs more tax hikes and more unemployment.

But this time, action must follow.  (Applause.)  We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate.  We’ve been debating this a very long time.  So it’s not as if we don’t know technically what needs to get done.  As a consequence, to help move this process along, today I’m laying out my ideas for immigration reform.

Because the problem with our country is that we “debate” too many things instead of just passing bills to find out what’s in them.

It’s funny though that Obama’s ideas appear to be the same Gang of 8 ideas, aside from the trigger. Even the rhetoric is a carbon copy of what we’ve been hearing from the pitchmen selling this on the conservative side.

But it wouldn’t be an Obama speech without some whacks at America as an illegitimate colonial state.

It’s really important for us to remember our history.  Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else.  Somebody brought you.

You didn’t build that. You settled it. Now step aside and let the indigenous people of Mexico settle it.

Realize that China is a beautiful model for Democrats.  They get to have their communist cake and eat it, too.  They get to create a world in which the elite liberal “haves” get to prosper from their dictatorial regime and the “have nots” get to suck on the tit of welfare until the complete economic collapse comes.  Theres something in the modern Democrat Party for everybody – except people who want the chance to experience freedom and prosperity by the sweat of their own brow.

If Obama gets these people legalized, they will vote for him.  And they will vote to fund their stays by redistributing the wealth of more and more Americans.  Because if they’re entitled to break the law and live here, they’re every bit as entitled to enjoy the same slavish welfare state that other Obama voters enjoy at the expense of Someone Else’s Money.

Get ready for the Upside-Down-U-Shaped economy as we burn in the hell we voted for.  Because Obama also promised us that he would lead America to growth rather than to a negative GDP and the lowest consumer confidence index in over a year.

And you’d better damn well leave room in the food line ahead of you: because there are going to be 11 million more people looking for their free Obama money whom Democrats need to woo to complete their takeover of the republic.

Advertisements

As You Survey The Mess Our Culture Is In, You’ve Got To Ask: ‘How Did It Come To This?’

January 31, 2013

There was a scene in the Lord of the Rings in which King Theoden – finally realizing that a vast horde of darkness is coming against him and that his people’s situation is now all but hopeless – asks:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

I ask that question of America.  The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.  In the Middle Earth of Sauron and in the America of Obama.  And the only “Return of the King” to complete the LotR trilogy will be the physical return of Christ Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords.  And that will occur only after the world has gone through seven literal years of hell on earth otherwise known as the Tribulation.

How did it come to this?

First, liberals are the most intolerant people in America.  As you read this article, realize that our crisis stems from profound liberal intolerance.  And the worst thing of all about them is the way they continually demonize their opponents as “intolerant” for the speck of intolerance in the conservatives’ eyes when there’s a giant log of intolerance in the liberals’ eyes.

Liberals are hypocrites, period.  The quintessential ingredient to liberalism is abject moral and intellectual hypocrisy.  It’s why Al Gore sells his television station to a pro-terrorist entity owned by a filthy oil emirate.  It’s why Al Gore tried to structure the deal so he wouldn’t have to pay the higher tax rate that Obama wanted and he publicly campaigned for.  And it is most certainly why liberals continually depict themselves as the most tolerant people when in reality they are by far and away the most intolerant people of all.

Pew: Liberals most intolerant online
posted at 11:00 am on March 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates.  Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves.  Does that sound like tolerance to you?  A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

  • 10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
  • 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
  • 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
  • 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
  • 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

It’s not even all that close, as their chart shows:

Andrew Malcolm has some fun with the implications:

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy  — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter.  I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements.  I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life.  Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing.  I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too.  It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals.  While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative?  Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine.  Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out.  They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice.  The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.

Don’t worry, kids at home.  Liberals say that conservatives are intolerant; and if anybody else disagrees with liberals, well, those people are all intolerant, too.  And according to liberals – who are the high priests of tolerance – it is perfectly okay to be tolerant and even fascist to intolerant people.

You need to understand how we got to be in such a cultural mess, where 88% of Americans think one way but the 12% who think practically opposite the majority have been able to pretty much make up all the rules.  And our society is about to collapse because their rules are evil and frankly fascist to go along with failed.

Let us return to the main point: the secret for the collapse that will plunge us into a collapse unlike ever seen in history is liberal fascist intolerance.

I have come to believe that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  Based on that view, I understand that God prophetically warned man in His Word that as we neared the end, man would increasingly turn away from God and fall into the errors that He warned us about.  I also understand that the same God who told us it would happen 2,000 years ago and beyond is in control, and is allowing the last days to finally come upon the world.  I’ll say that from the outset.

I’m talking to a lot of Christians who have used the word “despair” to describe how they feel about the way America is going.  They somehow felt the world would just keep getting better and better and of course the exact opposite is happening.  And I want you to understand that, for me, Bible prophecy is a great comfort.  Again, I see so many signs that God predicted as a sign the last days were coming to pass and it makes me all the more certain and confident in my faith in God.  The U.S. is now over $225 trillion in actual debt when you add in the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  It is growing by about one trillion dollars every single month.  And you ought to be able to see the signs that if we fall down we will NEVER get back on our feet the way we did in the years following the Great Depression (recognizing that FDR stalled that recovery by seven years according to economists) with his failed liberal policies.  We were the most productive nation on earth at that time in terms of manufacturing; we were a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation at that time; our citizens were NOT consuming mass welfare the way we overwhelmingly are now, nor would they have stood for the kind of sloth that passes for normalcy today; and we had just won a world war and were frankly the only economy on earth that hadn’t been destroyed.  When we fall now – and we WILL fall in the next twenty years – we will shatter into pieces and those pieces will never be reconstituted.  America will be a relatively insignificant banana republic or group of banana republics.  The day our economy crashes we will lose the status that has allowed us to accumulate such a super massive debt – our status as the world’s reserve currency – and it will all be over for us.

America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy.  All the other major nations and regions – such as Russia, Europe and Asia ARE mentioned.  America has largely already guaranteed that it simply will not matter in the coming years.  We had a vote and literally determined to follow the path of the Dodo bird to certain extinction.  There are famously nine stages of civilization.  Last year we were in the seventh, but this election put us over the top of number eight – we voted for entitlements and to become a dependency-based society.  In our final age, bondage will mean bondage of the very worst kind: bondage to the coming Antichrist.

I neither take comfort nor rejoice in that sad, tragic and pathetic end for America.  I rejoice and take comfort in the fact that God has a plan for His people – and I am one of His people.  I need neither weep nor worry.  My treasure is in heaven and I don’t have to fear how much Obama or the beast who will succeed him will take away on earth.

I have another home to go to – and it will be a far grander land than this one ever was even in its brightest day of promise.  And frankly, my faith in the next land (Heaven) grows stronger even as this one (America) grows weaker and weaker.

But why does it happen?  How did we sink this low?

Our modern media descended from the propaganda of World Wars One And Two.  Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were men who believed that people could and frankly SHOULD be manipulated.  They believed that a class of cultural elites should anoint themselves to serve as gatekeepers and ensure that their secular humanist worldview and values would be advanced and rival worldviews and values would be defeated.  You simply cannot read the writings of these fathers of journalism and media elitism and not see that common thread in their work.

What I’m saying is that when it comes to journalism and modern media, you cannot say that conservatives ever “lost control” over these institutions – because we never had any control over them to begin with.  They were never anything other than secular humanist and liberal progressive in orientation.  And all it took was for the technology to become sufficiently powerful and all-encompassing that their domination of the media would translate to their being able to dictate to mass culture what to think and what to believe.  And here we are.

The power of media was used against Christianity in 1960 with an incredibly dishonest piece of propaganda titled Inherit the Wind (see also here).  And the order of magnitude in terms of media manipulation has grown by giant leaps and bounds in the over fifty years since.  Most people – the 88 percent above – understand that they are being routinely lied to with outright propaganda.  The problem is that even though they know they’re being brainwashed, they’re STILL being brainwashed.  The media is altering people’s perceptions much the way the constant ocean tide wears away even the rocks let alone the sand; it is the inevitable result of being washed over with lies again and again and again and again, ad infinitum.

How did the secular humanist left gain control over academia?  Christians unwittingly played a giant part in that.  Do you know how many of the first universities in America were founded by Christians?  How about pretty much ALL of them.  Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  That trend continued long into America’s journey as a nation: I just got through reading an excellent article about the incredibly enormous role Christian churches and denominations played in the establishment of virtually all of the schools, universities and hospitals in the American West.  Education was almost ENTIRELY up to Christian churches and denominations.

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us.  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Strike three for conservatives and for the United States of America was when liberals seized control of the government.  They didn’t do it by winning elections; they did it by stacking the government employees with leftwing union thuggery.

FDR said that government employee unions were unAmerican.  And of course he was right.  But as far to the left as FDR was in the 1930s and 1940s, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to just how radically far the Democrat Party would go to to undermine the United States of America.  FDR said:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Unions are completely dead in America in the private sector, where they have killed jobs and crushed entire industries.  But they dominate government employees.  And if Mitt Romney and Republicans were to have won the election, they would not have been able to significantly change the way government “works” (in quotes because in the vast majority of respects, government doesn’t “work” at all).  That is because virtually every level and layer of government “service” is as dominate by liberals as the kitchen floor of a filthy house is dominated by cockroaches.

You’ve got the government as an entity unto itself whose primary purpose is to create more government, more government jobs and more government workers with more lavish government pensions and benefits that are borne on the backs of the taxpayer.

The aim of the Democrat Party and the aim of the government unions is identical: to explode the size and power of government and to make government employees an elite, privileged class of masters over the rest of society.  Their collective goal is to attain government power that allows them to dominate forever by being able to be able to pick the winners and losers and the victims and villains of society.

And they have largely attained that power.  Once a government bureaucracy is created, it can never be undone; the liberals who own government by what FDR said was an immoral tactic have never allowed it and WILL never allow it.

There’s a reason for this that goes to what I said above about how Christians trained their people to go into the mission field and liberals trained their people to go into government: and that is, for liberals, serving government is tantamount and in fact even greater than serving God.  Liberals have simply flooded government and there is no practical way to purge the influence that even FDR said was illegitimately obtained.

There are other reasons that our culture became toxic and doomed, of course.

“Political correctness” is a huge factor.

Political correctness is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a vast, coordinated effort on the part of the secular humanist, socialist left to change Western culture as we know it by  using rhetoric to redefine it. Early Marxists in Russia designed this game plan long ago and liberals continue to execute the tactic today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

With the “news” media, with academia and with government at their beck and call, to go along with liberal Hollywood culture, it was easy to tell people what to think.

Liberals have used boycotts to devastating effect; while conservatives say boycotts are wrong and refuse to call for them.  The result of this disparity is that our businesses are vulnerable and exposed to incredible pressure from the left, while liberal businesses are completely safe.

I think of two recent examples of how the difference between liberalism and conservatism works in the form of two athletes.

Phil Mickelson “sinned” by saying that the tax burden that Democrats were demanding he pay – basically 63 percent of everything he makes – was far too high, and that he was fleeing the Socialist Republic of California as a result.  Do you think it’s unreasonable for Mickelson to say that he disagrees that Obama is 63 percent responsible for his success and that he’s only at most 37 percent responsible for his success?  This gets us right back to Obama’s, “you didn’t build that, government did” argument.  Mickelson was so viciously demonized that he went out something like four times to mea culpa and say he was terribly wrong to say stuff like that.  On my count he came out four separate times begging people to please quit hating him for believing he had a right to express his views in Amerikkka.

The second recent example is San Francisco 49er player Chris Culliver, who expressed his opinion that he would not personally feel comfortable having an open homosexual player on the team.  And of course, he was quickly broken as liberals demanded he literally be fired for expressing his views.

How many celebrities have been celebrated and adored by the liberal media culture for saying that celebrities should “pay their fair share” with high taxes and that homosexuality is so wonderful it’s even better than sliced bread?  Were they forced to do a perp walk and apologize for their remarks?  Not a chance.

You see, here’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Conservatives believe that people – even liberals – have a right to express their views and beliefs.  Conservatives believe that our nation with its freedoms and liberty should not persecute people merely for expressing a viewpoint that they disagree with.  Liberals, on the other hand, are fascists who brutally and viciously attack anyone who doesn’t bow down to their agenda.  You do NOT have the freedom of self-expression if you use that freedom to say something that liberals don’t like.  They will come after you with stunning hatred if you try to do so.

Liberals are people who routinely shout down everyone with whom they disagree.  You do not have the right to say anything that offends them.  They will simply come after you in full-fledged fascisti mode.

Genuine tolerance is a weapon that liberals have turned against conservatives.  As liberal activist Saul Alinsky – who devoted his book to Satan – said:

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

And of course liberals like Al Gore have no “book of rules” to have to live up to.  They can preach radical environmentalism and demonize oil for years.  They can say that people ought to pay their “fair share” of taxes.  And then – like Al Gore – they can sell out to a terrorist “journalism” network funded entirely by oil money and try to structure the deal so they don’t have to pay Obama’s sky-high tax rates.  But because they always parroted the liberal vision – no matter how hypocritically – they’re on hallowed ground with the vast majority of the propaganda machine a.k.a. journalism in America.

Liberals are currently decrying guns, because everybody knows that human beings are merely farm animals incapable of exercising personal responsibility or self-restraint.  Guns must be taken away from the law-abiding even if it makes them utterly helpless in a deteriorating society because that’s the only solution that liberals will allow.  I submit that there aren’t too many guns; there are too many abortions.  There aren’t to many guns; there’s too much pornography.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too little respect for the dignity of human life that the abortion culture and the pornography culture that liberals fought so hard to institute guarantees.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too much lawless disregard for justice that liberals (the ACLU being your classic example) have produced throughout our legal culture.

We kicked God’s butt right out of our schools, banned prayer, banned the Ten Commandments with its “Thou shalt not murder” and we’re just astonished that the children who grew up godless in liberal indocrination facilities a.k.a. our public school system would actualize the disgusting hatred of life that liberalism produced in their empty souls.

And now liberals are exploiting the gun violence that their policies produced in the first place to implement their next step in the Stalinist takeover of America.

And that’s why we’ve lost.  And why the America we stood for is now basically eradicated.

And those three strikes plus are why America is going to go down and go down hard.  King Theoden ultimately won; America is ultimately going to lose and then the beast will come just as God told us would happen.  Theoden’s enemies were outside the walls; America’s enemies are very much within.

A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 21-22

January 29, 2013

Part One – A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 1-3

Part Two – A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 4-5

Part Three: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 6-7

Part Four: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 8-9

Part Five: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 10-11

Part Six: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 12-13

Part Seven: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 14-15

Part Eight: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 16-18

Part Nine: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 19-20

A quick recap: right now we are in the age of grace or the Church Age which will end at the Rapture.  Sometime after the Rapture the world will enter the seven years of the Tribulation, which God will use to bring His plan for the world and for the Jewish people to fulfillment.  After Christ returns as King of kings He will establish His literal physical 1,000 year Kingdom on Earth.  And last time we ended considering the Millennium Reign of Christ on earth as He sat on the throne of David in the city of Jerusalem.  Which demands the question: why is Jesus ruling in Jerusalem and not Washington or Cairo or somewhere else?  Because the entire purpose of the Millennium is to fulfill every single one of God’s earthly, geographical, physical promises to Israel.  They were promised a literal, geographic land with specified boundaries (Ezek 48): God will fulfill that promise literally.  They were promised material abundance and blessing and complete peace and safety after thousands of years of shabby treatment by the world.  Christ will fulfill these promises literally.  They were promised an exalted place among the nations; Christ will fulfill that because the nations will have to come up to Jerusalem to see the God that the Jews told them about.  And we saw the Millennium end with the war of Gog and Magog.

Gog and Magog are different and yet the same as the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel 38-39.  They are different in that the war of Rev 20 is NOT the same war as the war prophesied in Ezekiel 38-39.  They are the same in that the final war that will occur at the end of the Millennium manifests the same TYPE of hatred and rebellion as will be displayed during the war of Gog and Magog from Ezekiel 38-39.  What happens in Ezekiel is that Russia, Iran and a coalition of Islamic nations will attack Israel with the intent of annihilating her sometime between now and the end of the Tribulation.  And God will step in and utterly destroy that army.  And later, at the end of the Millennium, Satan – who hates Israel – will incite the SAME sort of attempt to destroy God’s people Israel.  And when Christ obliterates that attack before it even gets off the ground, and shortly afterward this present world will be destroyed.  Because as long as Satan is able to accomplish his desires, there always has been and always shall be a special hatred for Israel, for Jews, for the people of God and for the God of the Bible.  Some things just never change.

As we saw last week, near the end of the Millennium Satan will be loosed from the bottomless pit and he will immediately get to work showing that human nature is ultimately perverted and sinful – even with God personally ruling amongst us.  Satan will inspire the revolt that hearkens us back to Gog and Magog, Christ will destroy that rebellion, and the Millennium will end with the Great White Throne Judgment in which all sinful humanity will be resurrected to stand before God and give his or her account.  I’m hoping you’ll take my word for it when I tell you that you WON’T want to be there.

I also want to point out that when Jesus said, “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places,” He was not referring to earth during the Millennium as our homes.  I have no doubt that we will be part of what goes on on the earth during the Millennium, but this earth is not our home: the new heaven and the new earth of Rev 21:1 is.  And while this present Jerusalem (which will be rebuilt in the Millennium per Ezek 48:30-34) is specially and uniquely promised to the Jews, the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:10,15-16) will be for all of Messiah’s redeemed believers.  And as a 1,400 mile long, high and wide pyramid or cube, there will be plenty of room for each one of Christ’s people to have his own piece of Jerusalem just as Christ promised us.  Because it will have 1.125 billion cubic miles of volume!  Scientists say that about 70 billion people have lived on Earth until now. So even if a full third of them were Christians, that would mean that there would be about 23 billion Christians in the Heavenly City, or 20 Christians per cubic mile! With 10-foot ceilings, that could make about 500 floors with one square mile of floor space per floor, or 500 square miles of floor space for only 20 people–or 25 square miles per person!  Sound spacious enough?  Now consider there also won’t be any oceans (which comprise about 72% of earth’s surface) taking up space to realize how incredibly spacious this New Earth will be!  When the KJV translated Jesus’ word as “mansions,” they weren’t wrong, aside that no mansion was ever so spacious or so wondrous.  When Jesus said He was going to prepare a place for us, I think we should take that as meaning that this city is about ready for occupancy right now!  The New Jerusalem may well “orbit” above the earth during the Millennium.

Rev 20:4 is a great verse for a funeral.  That’s because it provides so much comfort.  All of our guilt and grief and suffering is temporary and transitory.  It’s not the way God created man to be and it will all end.  Deep down we know that we were made for a better world than this.  There’s something in every human soul that cries out for justice and peace that is simply impossible to attain in this world.  It’s an evidence that man was created for a better world – unless you’ve see chickens looking around and saying, “Wait!  This is all so UNFAIR!  Our lives ought to be better than this!  Where’s God? Cluck cluck.”

And something else is amazing: all claims of atheists and evolutionists to the contrary, man does have a soul.  One of the things that makes abortion so evil is you are killing the physical body of a human soul. And just as the soul is part of a human fetus as our bodies are developing in the womb, it is in the same way that part of us that enables us to survive the death of our physical bodies.  And in our human souls we can imagine the death of our bodies.  Think about it, if atheism is true and there is no God and if evolution is true and man is just a microbe that randomly mutated and evolved, then “life after death” is impossible.  It’s similar to trying to imagine a square circle; it’s a category fallacy that cannot possibly exist.  Atheists say life after death is exactly like that.  And yet I CAN imagine my body dying and yet I continue to exist (watch me: I’m doing it right now).  Let me also point out that my dog – as high up as it is on the evolutionary ladder – can’t do that.  I watch the sun set at night; my dog sees it get dark.  We are truly categorically different than the animals in a way that can only be explained by the Imago Dei (Gen 1:27).  And one of the most blessed ways that we can know that we were created in an eternal God’s image is the fact that “He has planted eternity in the human heart” (Ecc 3:11).  We can see Rev 21 and 22 in our hearts; we can taste it.  We can see ourselves there in bodies that will be everlasting.

Isn’t the picture of this New Jerusalem beautiful?  It will be made of “pure gold, as clear as glass” (Rev 21:18).  What will it be like to look through gold?  Can you imagine the stunning lighting effect that would create?  In our eternity, we won’t have anything that we would ever want to hide from anybody.  I imagine the ultimate purpose of this translucent city that “shone with the glory of God” (Rev 21:11) is so that everybody will be able to look at Jesus any time they want from wherever they are!  We’ll also be able to see if one another is home so we can pop in for a visit!  Make sure to have snacks if I drop by.

I find it interesting that the foundations of the city have the names of the apostles and the twelve gates have the names of the twelve tribes.  Think of this as “foundation” and “access.”  Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22), meaning that it was through the Jews that God provided man with access to God.  But was it the Jewish Levitical system that was the foundation for this salvation?  No, the foundation was ALWAYS Christ.  Messiah was always the foundation of salvation even in the Old Testament (Psalm 118:22-23 and Isa 28:16 cf. Matt 21:42 and Acts 4:1), and we know that it was always the Blood of Jesus that the animal sacrifice pointed to (Heb 10:4).  And we know that Abraham, the Father of the Jews and of God’s spiritual people, “was looking forward to the city with foundations, shoes architect and builder is God” (Heb 11:10).  When you enter the New Jerusalem, you will access through the gates (go through the Jews) to stand on a city with the apostles representing Jesus serving as the foundation.

Rev 21 says the old earth “passed away.”  Peter tells that it is destroyed by fire (2 Pet 3:7).  Interesting that this is now the very way astronomers universally affirm that earth will ultimately be destroyed: by the sun going supernova and being burned up with fire.  Similarly, Christ is described in Colossians 1:17 as “holding all things together.”  Christ literally is the mysterious strong force discovered in the 1970s that keeps every atom from flying apart – and one day He will allow the stars to collapse and this universe to end merely by withholding His power.  John MacArthur asks how long it takes God to create the New Heaven and the New Earth: do you get the sense that it takes Him 14 billion years to pull that off here?  If you tend to believe in an “old earth” as opposed to young earth creationism, all I ask is that you make sure you don’t forget that if God wanted to create the world in six literal days, He could do it.  If He wanted to create the world in six ages that may have taken billions of years each, He could do that, too.  We shouldn’t make this such a divisive issue – and it’s too bad that people who believe that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”(Gen 1:1) can’t unite and oppose the real enemy.

A little Christology is in order.  What is the nature of Christ?  Rev 21-22 makes it rather clear: He is God in the Second Person of the Trinity.  Note Rev 22:13 and the declaration, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.”  Who is speaking?  Verse 16 makes it crystal clear: Jesus is speaking.  He says, “I,  Jesus, have sent My angel.”  Well, interestingly, in Rev 22:5-6 we have “He who was seated on the throne” – GOD – saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.”  And while Jesus says it’s His angel in Rev 22:16, Rev 22:6 says it’s “the Lord God” who sent His angel.  And Rev 22:12-13 makes clear that it is Jesus who AGAIN is called the Alpha and the Omega, because He’s the One who’s coming quickly (not God the Father).  What is this clearly stating about Jesus Christ?  How could somebody even BEthe Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” as Rev 22:13 says Jesus declares Himself to be and NOT be God???  How for instance would Jesus as the self-described “the Beginning and the End” not be able to “make known the end from the beginning” as Isaiah 46:10 says God does?  How is Jesus as “the First and the Last” here NOT the same “the first and the last” as described by Isaiah 44:6?  The picture is complete in the fact that the angel refuses John’s worship, because worship is for God alone.  Yet Jesus is worthy to receive worship (Rev 5).  A lovely little poem sums up what took place at Calvary: “He came to die on a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood.”  In the Incarnation, Christ – the Word (John 1:1-9) added a human nature to His deity so that He could live as one of us and die in our place for us.  He alone made salvation possible.  We can all go to heaven if we would just go to the feet of Jesus on the cross.  It was Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross that all sacrifices in the Old Testament pointed to.

When the voice from the throne of God says, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and He will live with them” (Rev 21:3), He fulfills through the Word Jesus (John 1:14) the work He began in the Levitical system pictured in Tabernacle.  Jesus told us He was going to prepare a place for us, so that we could with Him (John 14:1-3).  We will finally be able to see God face to face (1 John 3:2) because Christ will make us like Himself in everything but His deity.  Right now, we see dimly, but soon, very soon, we will be able to clearly see and understand our God “face to face” (1 Cor 13:12).  And we realize that God is using this world – warts and all – to shape and prepare us for the next one that will last forever.  If nothing else, this world teaches us to yearn for the glorious world that awaits us thanks to Jesus Christ.

Dianne Feinstein’s Liberal Solution For Guns: Treat Criminals Like Citizens And Lawful Gun Owners Like Criminals

January 28, 2013

One of the bright, shining examples of liberalism in action has been our treatment of criminals in society.  The ACLU and most Democrats believe that it is better for a hundred guilty violent predatory criminals to go free than for one innocent person to be falsely convicted of a crime.

This piece from the Congressional Record gives us the perspective that liberals would now like to accord to lawful gun owners: criminalize them.  And it is better that a thousand lawful gun owners have their rights violated and usurped than it would be for one violent criminal  predator to be shot by a homeowner defending his or her property and family.

It will be an uphill battle–all the way. I know this.

But we need to ask ourselves:

Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?

Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, their workplaces and their businesses?

This legislation is my life’s goal. As long as I am a member of the Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our streets.

Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.

So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay involved.

The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If the American people rise up and demand action from their elected officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say “no” to military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.

Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.

By Mr. FEINSTEIN (for herself,) Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BENNET, Mr.

It’s all summed up by the phrase that turns liberalism completely upon its head and proves once and for all time that liberalism stands for nothing but convenient hypocrisy: “we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all.”  Unless it helps Democrats, of course.

Tell you what, Democrat, if you want to take away “rights,” then please take away the “right” of the government to grow in size and power and debt.  Take away the “rights” of the government to practice Marxist class warfare and demonize and attack people for the crime of working harder to advance themselves and their families.  Take away the “right” of non-citizens and dead people and ineligible citizens the ability to vote.  Take away the “right” of foreigners to cross our border and enter our country illegally.  Take away the “right” of unions to collectively bargain and collectively strike and collectively shut down businesses while businesses have no right to collectively fire the useless lazy bums who keep demanding higher pay in exchange for less and less work.  Take away the “right” to have unemployment benefits forever.  Take away the “right” to enjoy welfare for five generations.  Take away the “right” for homosexuals to pervert marriage.  And please, PLEASE take away the “right” for a woman to decide to murder her baby and force the father of that baby to stand passively by while his son or daughter is brutally tortured and killed.

And if you really want less gun murders, geez, PLEASE take away the “rights” that the ACLU and Democrats have provided to proven violent animals by executing them like the monsters they are and instituting hard sentencing guidelines that liberals have banned.

There are PLENTY of “rights” you could take away that are not specifically cited in our Bill of Rights.

Just so you understand how incredibly cynical Democrats truly are, and how much they truly do not give one freaking DAMN about saving the lives of innocent children (55.7 million of whom they’ve already murdered in the abortion mills, fwiw), just look at liberals’ reaction to the Fontana Police Department buying a few AR-15s to protect schoolchildren in the event of a targeting of a school in their jurisdiction: outrage.  Liberals are outraged that good and decent people – even police officers – would be capable of protecting themselves against well-armed violent criminals.

This sentence from the LA Times sums up the crazy insanity that will manifest itself in trying to ban all guns:

The rifles are kept either in the trunk of the police officer’s vehicle or in a safe on campus.

“Still, Garcia worries that bringing such a weapon on campus could lead to it falling into the wrong hands.”

If even police departments can’t pass adequate muster to be armed, then what chance do the rest of us have to keep guns if Democrats are allowed the power to ban guns from us???

Mind you, some guns are stolen from gun owners’ homes by criminals because fascist liberals who would never publish the names and addresses of child molesters decided that legal gun owners were a far greater threat than the child molesters or the rapists or the violent murderers.

Police can’t bring guns on campuses that are “gun free zones.”  The mass-murdering psychos know that.  Which is why in every single case but ONE since 1950 in which three or more people were killed in a gun shooting, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM OCCURRED ON A GUN-FREE ZONE.

Democrats have turned our schools into well-stocked preserves where crazy murdering psychos can have plenty of helpless targets.  And they actually have the blue-whale-sized balls to demonize us for trying to prevent them from creating even more carnage as they pass laws to keep law-abiding citizens from defending themselves knowing full-damn well that the criminals won’t bother to follow their stupid and immoral and unconstitutional laws.

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely NO relationship between confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens and gun crime.  The so-called “assault weapons ban” had ZERO effect of reducing gun crime of weapons that were largely arbitrarily banned.  And therefore what IS now a proven fact is that Democrats are fascists and hypocrites who want to take away the people’s rights to be safe from their government that is under the Democrat Party walking roughshod all over the Constitution.

Why target assault weapons – which was a deliberately misleading title with the intent to falsely connect fully automatic military “assault rifles” with their semi-automatic civilian counterparts so that Democrats could falsely demagogue a straw man?  Because the left is looking for precedents: if they can take away these weapons, they can go after the next batch of guns using their success against “assault weapons.”

You should realize that most of the weapons on Democrats’ confiscation lists are only different by weapons they currently allow by shades of degree.  For example, a Mini-14 rifle is completely legal; but it is virtually identical to many weapons that share the exact same platform that are on the ban list.  The Democrats are savagely attacking what amounts to cosmetic differences such as a pistol grip and a flash suppressor.  The pistol grip was never on any rifle until the first assault rifles.  Why not?  Because it only provided any help for a shooter who was spraying a target with full automatic fire; it is virtually useless for semi-automatic fire that all “assault weapons” have.  To this day, most hunting rifles have a traditional stock simply because the traditional stock provides for greater accuracy and thus greater deadliness.  Flash suppressors were placed on assault rifles so that a soldier fighting at night on a dark battlefield would not night-blind himself with his own weapons fire.  They do NOT make you invisible to detection by others.  If you’re shooting an assault weapon in a city or in daylight, a flash suppressor is useless to you.  All these things are for style, to make the weapons look like the ones soldiers use on the battlefields.  It’s a marketing gimmick, much the way people buy sports jerseys to look more like their favorite athletes.

Democrats are also targeting ammo magazines.  Their primary justification for doing so is to ask the question, “how many bullets do you need to kill a deer?”  As if the 2nd Amendment only somehow guaranteed nothing more than the right to hunt squirrels with an 18th century musket as opposed to its trule purpose to prevent government tyranny over a helpless people.  They are currently trying to ban any gun with more than seven rounds.  The thing is, they are knowingly setting up massive, MASSIVE collateral damage.  That’s because such a ban would criminalize 95% of all semi-automatic handguns.  Democrats are hoping they can ban handguns without even appearing to have tried to do so.

They view “assault weapons” as low-hanging fruit through which they can grab a branch and tear down the entire tree of the 2nd Amendment right.

If you allow them to do so, they will gladly tear down the tree of liberty while the rest of us stand there stupidly gawking.

Federal Reserve Study Proves That Obama Presiding Over WORST ‘RECOVERY’ EVER

January 26, 2013

Obama epic fail alert number 16 trillion:

Here’s the summary version:

If there was any debate whether the Fed’s policies have helped the economy or just the market (and specifically the Bernanke-targeted Russell 2000), the following two charts will end any and all debate. As the following chart from the St Louis Fed shows, as of the just completed quarter, US GDP “growth” since the “recovery” is now the worst in US history, having just dipped below the heretofore lowest on record.

Can we have the worst economy ever?  Let’s ask some Democrats.  What’s that they’re saying?

Here’s the more detailed version – which includes the quote above – provided by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge:

It’s Official: Worst. Recovery. EVER
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/24/2013 09:22 -0500

If there was any debate whether the Fed’s policies have helped the economy or just the market (and specifically the Bernanke-targeted Russell 2000), the following two charts will end any and all debate. As the following chart from the St Louis Fed shows, as of the just completed quarter, US GDP “growth” since the “recovery” is now the worst in US history, having just dipped below the heretofore lowest on record.

A slightly prettier version of the same chart created by JPM’s Michael Cembalest, is presented below:

But fear not: it is only the worst recovery ever for anyone unlucky enough to still rely on such Old Normal concepts as the “economy” to feed, clothe and provide shelter for themselves.

For those lucky 1% of the US population whose entire wealth is in financial assets (and who once again managed to avoid a tax hike on carried interest or any actual financial assets), times have almost never been so good.

Well, it’s not the biggest surge in the market since the economic trough in history, but it is close. Which as Bernanke admitted some time ago (when discussing the level of the Russell 2000), is the only thing that actually matters to the Fed.

Yet oddly enough, the trickle down from the trillions in excess wealth created for those who hold financial assets, as a result of daily POMOs pumping some $85 billion, and soon more, into the stock market each month, has yet to materialize.

Oh well: just keep on doing more of what you are doing Uncle Ben, and if possible destroy the US economy even more than you already have – at this point, at least on a relative basis, you can’t destroy it more.

Well, that’s what the American people decided they wanted, and it is what they should get.

Conservatives – myself very definitely included – predicted categorically that Obama was going to take American in the wrong direction, and we have been documenting the miserable economy Obama has actually delivered in spite of all of his failed promises of Utopia ever since.

The funny thing is that historically, the worst the economic collapse the bigger, faster and sharper the recovery.  Obama has given us the exact opposite.

And then there’s that giant black hole of depression that is just waiting to eat the American people alive like nothing ever has before.  Because, again, we voted for it, and we should get what we voted for.

I used to think that the Antichrist would be an incredibly capable leader.  I now realize I might very well be wrong.  As I re-read the Book of Revelation, I never actually see real signs that the economy presided over by the Antichrist ever really improves; rather, he may be nothing more than an incredibly skilled demagogue who continues to sink the world deeper and deeper into debt and chaos while blaming his opponents for his failures and implementing policies that actually sink the world deeper and deeper into the mire of a failed economy as the world continues to worship him.  Sort of like what is happening now with Obama, just on an even grander scale.

Obama Violated The Constitition, With Said Federal Court Ruling Almost Immediately Following Obama’s False Oath To Keep And Defend What He’d Already Violated

January 26, 2013

It wasn’t even a week ago that Obama took the oath of office and swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  He actually did it twice, once officially and the second time as a show for Martin Luther King Day.

Here’s the thing: Obama twice took the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  And the weasel turd had already broken his promise from the first time when he’d taken that oath back in 2009.

So it’s not like his stupid oath means anything, under than giving him more points for the sheer size of his elephant balls.

According to the Constitution of the United States of America, there are three separate but equal powers (the executive, legislative and judicial branches), and no branch has power to dictate to the others.  Hence the Senate gets to set its own rules and procedures, and no president – regardless of how fascist he is or what a power-grabbing thug he is – cannot supplant those rules and replace them with his own.

As an example, no president can tell the Senate, “You’re in recess” when the Senate according to its rules and procedures says its in session.  If you make an appointment in such a circumstance, that’s not a “recess appointment”; it’s a fundamental violation of the Constitution.

Obama has already repeatedly said piss on that and piss on the Constitution.  He made sure we all knew it was a “deeply flawed document,” too.  So that we’d understand that Obama is wiser and smarter and better than our Constitution, you see.

Like I keep saying over and over again, the man is a fascist thug to go along with being a crony capitalist fascist thug.

One thing the story below immediately gets wrong:  the federal appeals court did NOT rule that Obama violated the Constitution in making recess appointments.  They ruled that the Senate was not in recess and that the appointments WEREN’T recess appointments at all, but rather an unconstitutional power grab of one co-equal branch of government over another.  According to the rules of the Senate, enacted BY the Senate, the Senate was NOT in recess.  They were conducting business on the day that Obama overruled them as pharaoh-messiah-god-in-chief – in the style described by the words of fawning liberal “journalist” Evan Thomas (the editor of Newsweek), he’s sort of God – when he decided that he alone actually had the sole right to decide when the Senate was or was not in session.

One of Obama’s appointees revealed Obama’s philosophy when he said:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my  philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude  and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell  you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer  villages in the Mediterranean.  They’d go in to a little Turkish town  somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify  them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

Pretty soon we’re going to have exactly that philosophy enacted by the coming Antichrist who will step in after Obama ruins the world.  So cheer up, liberal.  You’ll get the fascist dictatorship you’re dreaming about.

But until then, that damned Constitution, you know, that document having “deeply flaws”  which in Obama’s demonic mind “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day,” is still an obstacle to you.

Appeals Court Says Obama Violated Constitution With Appointments
By SAM HANANEL The Associated Press
Published: Friday, January 25, 2013 at 2:06 p.m.
Last Modified: Friday, January 25, 2013 at 2:06 p.m.

WASHINGTON | In an embarrassing setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that would severely curtail the president’s ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board because the Senate was officially in session — and not in recess — at the time. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions made over the past year.

The court said the president could only fill vacancies with the recess appointment procedure if the openings arise when the Senate is in an official recess, which it defined as the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress.

The White House had no immediate comment but is expected to appeal the decision. The same issue is currently before several other federal appeals courts.

The ruling also threw into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made on Jan. 4, 2012, has been challenged in a separate case.

The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members.

“With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration’s flimsy interpretation of the law, and (it) will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as “a victory for accountability in government.”

Obama made the recess appointments after Senate Republicans blocked his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past — specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.

The three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.

“Either the Senate is in session or it is in recess,” Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. “If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in ‘the Recess’ described in the Constitution.”

Simply taking a break of an evening or a weekend during a regular working session cannot count, he said. Sentelle said that otherwise “the president could make appointments any time the Senate so much as broke for lunch.”

The judge flatly rejected arguments from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.

“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” Sentelle wrote.

Sentelle was joined in the ruling by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

“I think this is a very important decision about the separation of powers,” said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the Virginia’s University of Richmond. “The court’s reading has limited the president’s ability to counter the obstruction of appointments by a minority in the Senate that has been pretty egregious in the Obama administration.”

If the ruling stands, it means that hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year would be invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

Obama used the recess appointment to install Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the labor board, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, urged the NLRB to continue conducting business until the Supreme Court rules on the issue.

“Today’s circuit court decision is not only a radical departure from precedent, it ignores the fact that President Obama had no choice but to act,” Harkin said. “Throughout his presidency, Republicans have employed unprecedented partisan delay tactics and filibusters to prevent confirmation of nominees to lead the NLRB, thus crippling the Board’s legal authority to act.”

If Obama’s recess appointment of Cordray to the newly created consumer board is also ruled invalid, all the regulations the consumer board has issued, many of which remake the mortgage business, could be nullified.

This fascist board that fascist Obama violated the Constitution to create has been involved in literally hundreds of fascist judgments.  And at the moment all of those fascist judgments are in danger of being tossed out, much the way criminals shouldn’t be allowed to profit from their crimes and fascist police departments shouldn’t be allowed to use evidence that was obtained via illegal means.

What’s funny is that upon hearing of the verdict, his White House propagandist Jay Carney immediately dismissed and trivialized the decision.

Because Obama doesn’t give any more of a damn about the judiciary branch than he does the legislative branch.

Pretty soon Antichrist is going to come to complete what Obama began.  And Democrats will vote for him even more and worship him even more than they did Obama.

So don’t worry, liberals.  By the time the Antichrist comes, you’ll get everything you want.  And there won’t be any court or any one with the right to keep and bear arms to say otherwise.  You’ll get every demonic dream you ever had, then.

Just ONE Of The Armageddons The Failed Obama Presidency Has Given America: North Korea Can Strike America With Nukes Now

January 25, 2013

I saw Megan Kelly interviewing an expert in the Far East on North Korea.

He pointed out that just two years ago Obama’s Defense Secretary stooge was saying that North Korea wouldn’t be able to strike us with nuclear weapons for five years yet.

And sure enough, that’s what Obama’s Secretary of Defense said back in January 12, 2011 – just two years ago:

BEIJING — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned Tuesday that North Korea was within five years of being able to strike the continental United States with an intercontinental ballistic missile, and said that, combined with its expanding nuclear program, the country “is becoming a direct threat to the United States.”

Mr. Gates is a former director of the C.I.A., and his statement, officials said, reflected both a new assessment by American intelligence officials and his own concern that Washington had consistently underestimated the pace at which the North was developing nuclear and missile technologies.

And the same expert who reminded us of that fact pointed out that if you can put a satellite into orbit, you can strike any damn place on earth.

And North Korea under the Obama regime did precisely that.  And is about to stick its thumb in America’s eye with further nuclear tests.

It’s funny.  I vividly recall Obama mocking and attacking George W. Bush’s policy on North Korea.  Because Obama clearly didn’t believe Bush was failing enough and thought he could fail bigger and faster than Bush could ever dream of failing.

But Obama has also given America a fun new game to play.  Remember “The Lady Or The Tiger?”  Obama’s version is “The Tiger Or The Bigger Tiger.”

I warned you repeatedly that Obama would preside over a nuclear-armed Iran.  I pointed out the DOCUMENTED HISTORIC FACT to you that the Democrats mocked and attacked George W. Bush for declaring that Iran was a nuclear threat.

And of course, with the Obama-regime enabled Iran already having built 24 nukes, well, they’re pretty damn nuclear – in stark contrast to the demon-possessed bureaucrats who make up the DemoCrat Party.

So do you prefer being nuked by the psychotic Allah fanatics in Iran or the psychotic atheist fanatics in North Korea?

I love all the possibilities the Obama regime is giving us.

When Iran decides to assemble its nukes – because it already has an arsenal that it could assemble within weeks at any point in time – it will be able to blockade the Strait of Hormuz with absolute impunity and drive up gasoline to $15 a gallon unless we want to face several of our cities destroyed with nuclear weapons.  It will be able to launch wave after wave of global jihad against the West with impunity for the same reason.  And it will be able to assemble a coalition to attack Israel with impunity for the same reason.

If our “chickens havn’t already come home to roost” in Obama’s God Damn America, it surely will on that day.

In a sick, twisted way, it is a “blessing” that Obama was reelected.  Because the disasters that are coming because of Obama’s first four years of failed and dishonest leadership will be impossible for him to demagogue to the shoulders of George W. Bush or anybody else.

Hillary Clinton Pointed Out That DEMOCRATS Cut The Embassy Security Budget Three Consecutive Years (2007-2009). So How Is GOP To Blame???

January 24, 2013

If and when we get the transcript of the Benghazi hearings, we will see Hillary Clinton explaining to a Democrat that the embassy security budget had been cut every single year but one since 2007.

Who was in charge of the Congress in 2007?  That was the year that Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid began presiding over Democrat majorities of both the House and the Senate, that’s who.  The same Democrats were also in charge in 2008 – when they voted to cut the embassy security budget again.  And the same Democrats were in charge in 2009, when yes, they voted to cut the embassy security budget still again.

And yet why are the Republicans to blame for the Benghazi disaster, in which the first US ambassador was brutally murdered since the failed Carter years in the 1970s?  Because they voted to cut the embassy security budget.  Just like the Democrats (that’s the people who have been blaming the Republicans for cutting the embassy security budget) had done before them.

Every Democrat in both the Senate and House hearings demagogued the fact that Republicans had voted to cut the embassy security budget.  Both before and after Hillary Clinton pointed out that cutting the embassy security budget was hardly a partisan issue against Republicans given how many times Democrats had done it.

But that seems to have gotten lost somehow.

Republicans seemed fixated on the fact that a number of key Democrats in various State Department and intelligence positions had stated under oath that the budget cuts had absolutely no impact on the security situation in Benghazi.  They never seemed to comprehend the fact that if they didn’t know that Democrats had been the first ones to “gut” the embassy security budget, Hillary Clinton had just stated it as a fact.  Republicans are so used to being demagogued and demonized that they just go into defense mode rather than understand that Hillary Clinton had just given them the perfect response to Democrats’ demagoguery: “Why on earth are you blaming us for doing the exact same thing that you just got through doing year after year just a short time ago?”

Mind you, Hillary Clinton’s bright, shining moment of abject moral depravity during the hearing occurred when she said:

“With all due respect, the fact is, we  had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because  of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some  Americans?! What difference, at this point, does it make?!  It is our job  to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from  ever happening again, Senator.”

Well, for one thing, Secretary Clinton, there’s something called “the truth” and there are still a few people who believe that the truth makes a difference.  But to be more specific, you completely omitted the ONE possibility in your statement above that turned out to BE that truth: that the murder of our ambassador and the three Americans who tried heroically to save America’s honor WAS A PLANNED, COORDINATED TERRORST ATTACK like conservatives said it was from the very getgo and what liberals denied from the very getgo.  Do you notice that?  Hillary Clinton says it was either a protest or a group of guys that just randomly decided to kill Americans in an attack that just completely coincidentally occurred on the anniversary of 9/11.  How on earth, madam secretary, can we ever “figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again” when you steadfastly refuse to even consider the truth as so much as a possibility?

What was it that Obama’s stooge Susan Rice trotted out and said?

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

Not one single word of what she said was true.  We now know that it in fact was a planned, coordinated, premeditated attack by an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist organization.  Every single thing Obama’s White House told us was completely false.  So how the hell are we supposed to “figure out what happened” when that is our “truth”???

The fact that the ONLY person who has been punished or disciplined in any way, shape or form over this murder of our ambassador was the guy who exercised his First Amendment right to make a video that everybody now knows had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that attack.  And nobody has been captured or killed because there is no possible way that we can “figure out what happened” thanks to Obama’s and Clinton’s rampant deceit to cover up their gross incompetence.

But that isn’t all, of course.  There’s also the fact that Obama had been campaigning as the guy who had al Qaeda on the run and was on the verge of destroying it.  It was a completely bogus narrative, as the 9/11 attack that murdered our ambassador and as the meltdown in Algeria clearly prove.  The thing was, an al Qaeda-affiliated attack undermined Obama’s bogus political narrative.  So he forced the intelligence narrative to support his bogus political narrative by covering up the truth about what happened in Benghazi.

Obama produced a narrative of complete, abject lies as a cover-story for his cover-up in Benghazi.  And reacts with outrage to the suggestion that maybe the lies had a political motive even though they very clearly had a political motive.

What Obama did – altering the intelligence to conform to a politically convenient narrative – is an impeachable offense.  That’s what difference it makes, Hillary, you liar.

What does it matter?  Well, the truth does NOT matter to this wicked administration.

Tragically, Ambassador Christopher Stevens would be alive today had we had a Secretary of State, who had been more informed, who had been more available, who had bothered to read Ambassador Steven’s desperate pleas for security.

But “what difference, at this point,” does it make now?  Apprently none.

Obama: A Decade Of War Ending (We Have Peace In Our Time, Part Deux)

January 23, 2013

“A decade of war is now ending,” Obama says.

That’s what happens when you surrender/cut and run.  It’s the chutzpah of the cutter-and-runner in chief to decree a humiliation as a great victory.

A decade of war is now ending.  Unfortunately a new century of war has been started against us.

“A decade of war is now ending and an economic recovery has begun,” Obama says.

And war is peace, and freedom is slavery, and just so you know, ignorance is strength, too.

Our economy is going nowhere.  Obama believes that if he taxes growth and prosperity he’ll somehow get more growth and more prosperity when in non-insane reality we’ll get less of both.  Obama has spent the last four – going on five – years blaming everybody and everything else but himself and his failed policies.

Jan 21, 12:07 PM EST
Obama says decade of war ending

WASHINGTON     (AP) — President Barack Obama says that a decade of war is now ending and an economic recovery has begun.

America’s possibilities are limitless, the president said in his inaugural address. He said we will seize this moment if we seize it together.

Obama said that America can’t succeed when only a few at the top do well and a growing many can barely make it. The country’s prosperity must rest on a rising middle class, he said.

Obama spoke after taking the public oath of office Monday for his second term.

George W. Bush won the war in Iraq and settled the status of forces agreement before leaving office.  Obama demonized George Bush’s successful war-winning surge strategy only to copy it in a war that George Bush had the sense to know America couldn’t win – which was why he kept it a largely special forces mission.

I’ve made this point a number of times before (see here for one back in October 2009 when I predicted Obama would fail just as he is in fact failing): for all the hate Democrats poured on Bush for taking out Saddam Hussein after the dictator had done about 20,000 stupid and confrontational things too many, Iraq was a perfect place for America to take its stand against the war on terror.  The country was largely flat, allowing our full military arsenal to maneuver and dominate.  The people were educated, allowing us to establish a viable government.  And the country of Iraq was secular, allowing us to at least have a damn chance to hand power over to Arabs who actually WEREN’T jihadist terrorists.

What was that phrase I used back in 2009?  Oh, yes, here it is:

In demanding that Afghanistan be the central front, Democrats – and in particular Barack Obama – may well have chosen a war that we can’t win.

Barack Obama thought all that victory stuff was bad, apparently because the man has a genuine problem with America actually winning something.  So let’s massively escalate a war that we can’t win, humiliate ourselves by cutting and running and declare it a job well done for mass political consumption.

Instead, Obama determined to launch a crusade in a mountainous and cave-ridden hellhole of utterly ignorant religious fanatics.  Obama said, “Let’s go to the graveyard of empires, instead.  Because yes we can!”

And within six months of “the war ending” the Taliban will have made all the sacrifices of American lives and treasure absolutely worthless.  Because they will move right back in and take over.  Just as the people who had a freaking clue told you would happen.

So the Iraq War that we won is evil but the Afghanistan War that Obama lost is good.  Because we held George W. Bush to a standard higher than victory and under Obama a withdrawal is terrific because “a decade of war is ending,” after all.

Why did I allude to the infamous statement, “We have peace in our time”???

Neville Chamberlain almost ended Western Civilization with his secular humanist liberal progressive cowardice.  He gave up Europe to Hitler the same way Obama is now giving up the Middle East to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The thing that the two miserable turds of history have in common was that each was a fascist dictator in domestic matters, but an appeasing weakling on foreign affairs.  Chamberlain thought he could appease his way to peace.  Obama, even more stupidly, believes he can withdraw his way to peace.  He’s already withdrawn out of Egypt and given the best Arab friend of both Israel and America away to terrorists.  He’s already given Libya (Benghazi) over to terrorists after causing the first ambassador to be murdered since the failed Carter years in the 1970s.  He’s given up in Yemen.  He’s given up in Algeria where all the hostages the terrorists took were all murdered.  He’s given up throughout North Africa.  He’s already giving up damn near anywhere where there’s a crisis.  Including Iran, where Democrats went from mocking George W. Bush for believing that Iran was becoming a nuclear threat to Iran becoming a nuclear power under Obama’s watch.

If anything, Chamberlain was wiser.

But that’s what we get for voting for God Damn America.

A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 19-20

January 22, 2013

Part One – A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 1-3

Part Two – A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 4-5

Part Three: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 6-7

Part Four: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 8-9

Part Five: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 10-11

Part Six: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 12-13

Part Seven: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 14-15

Part Eight: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 16-18

Rev 19 presents the stark contrast of two feasts, two responses and two rewards representing the fruits of two worldviews.  On one worldview, you are preparing for the most anticipated and blessed feast in history: the marriage supper of the Lamb; you have a spontaneous thunder of praise and adoration for the Messiah who made your attendance at that Millennium Kingdom feast possible; and you have the reward of a dazzling white robe as Jesus’ worshipers enter their new heavenly forever.  Representing the fruits of the other worldview is a grotesque feast of vultures feeding on the flesh of armies united against God (Rev 19:18); you have a hail of bullets, missiles and curses hurled at Jesus as He returns as King of kings and Lord of lords; and you have a river of blood and hundreds of millions of souls bound for hell to join the billions waiting for their sentence.  For sheer drama, it doesn’t get any better than that!

In terms of chronology, ch. 19 picks up where ch. 16 left off.  Recall that we saw hundreds of millions of demonized troops deployed along a battle line from Turkey to the Sinai Peninsula and attacking one another in a war of total annihilation.  Hundred pound hailstones are slamming into the earth, and most of the great cities on earth are leveled as the greatest earthquake in the history of the human race tears across the planet.  Jesus said if these days went on not one human being would be left alive (Matt 24:21-22).  As utterly hopeless as things look on earth, God is actually about to end the problem of human suffering.

In the eyes of unbelieving mankind, God is denounced as unreal until His existence is past undeniable; then He is blasphemed as unfair.  When sinful man suffers the just consequences of rejecting God’s grace and forgiveness through His Lamb, they will call Him unjust no matter how many times He was warned them.  This willful blindness and hardness of heart is seen in Rev 9:20, 21 and 16:21.  Contrast this with the attitude expressed in the fivefold hallelujahs as Christ prepares to return to earth as King of kings.  Rather than being unfair or unjust, Christ’s judgment is true and just (19:2).  As J. Vernon McGee put it, “You might have a better plan than God, but what you don’t have is your own universe.” Since Christ assumed a human nature so He could share in all the experience of humanity, and since Christ literally accepted the blame for every sin of every sinner who would confess His need for Christ’s free gift of salvation, Christ more than has the right to now judge the world who instead spat in His face.

Rev 19:7-10 presents the raptured Church as the bride who has made herself ready.  If we men don’t love the analogy as much as women, remember that we’ll all be like the angels in heaven (Mark 12:25); there’s no sexual context.  In heaven, ALL believers will be one in submitting to Christ – and resurrection believers will be united in their submission to Christ (Eph 5:22-24), NOT in “femininity.”  We’ll be dressed in the “fine linen, bright and clean” which will be made according to our “righteous acts” (19:8).  The lavishness of this robe will be determined by what we did on earth; we’re literally weaving our heavenly garment this very moment!  They may be elaborately studded with gold and silver and precious stones or they may smell like smoke from all the wood, hay and straw of our unspiritual lives on earth (1 Cor 3:10-15).  It’s all up to YOU.  But there is simply no question that God rewards us for our righteousness that comes from living our lives in faith and acting out that faith in our attitudes/conduct.

Here’s a good question: when does the wedding feast of the Lamb occur?  Jesus Himself tells us that He won’t drink wine with His disciples until He drinks it with us in His Father’s Kingdom (Matt 26:29).  And when is that?  At the beginning of the Millennium after the battle of Armageddon and the separation of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31ff).  I believe the Old Testament saints (who will be resurrected at the end of the Tribulation cf. Dan 12:2) will join Tribulation martyrs (Rev 20:4) as well as Raptured believers at this feast.  The guests of honor will be those Tribulation saints who survived.  Had you asked me prior to my study of this chapter, I would have confidently told you that this feast occurred in Heaven during the Tribulation.  But think of all the great company we’d miss out on if that were true!

John is so overwhelmed by all the glory he sees that he falls down before the angel – whom we were told in 18:1 “had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor” – who tells him to knock that junk off right away.  Because only God is EVER to be worshiped.  And THAT’S how we can know that Christ is no angel and no created being of ANY kind, but our Savior, our Lord, our God, and our Creator.  As beautiful and majestic as the angels are, Jesus is as superior to them (Heb 1:3-4) as He is to all of His creation (John 1:1-3,10, Colossians 1:16) which He also sustains (Heb 1:3) and holds together (Col 1:17).

If you want to shock yourself, enter the question in your search engine, “Will Jesus physically return to earth?” and note all the preterists who call themselves “Christians” who deny that He will.  They make Jesus out to be a liar (e.g. Matt 24:30).  Heb 9:28 assures us that Christ “WILL appear a second time.”  When Jesus Ascended, His disciples stood gawking up at Him as He was physically taken up to heaven until an angel appeared and told them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).  We’re assured that Christ will first set foot on the Mount of Olives when He returns to earth (Zechariah 14:4-8).  Which btw is exactly where the disciples were standing when the angel told them to quit gawking at Jesus (Acts 1:12)!  And if all that isn’t clear enough, Rev 19 most certainly is.  And Jesus doesn’t just physically return to earth, He physically wipes out His enemies.  Jesus fulfills Isaiah 63:1-4 in singlehandedly destroying His enemies.  Our robes will be white (19:14); His will be red from treading the winepress (Isa 63:2-3 cf. Rev 19:15).  And so we say “buh-bye” to Antichrist and the false prophet.

So why is Satan bound for a thousand years only to be released in Rev. 20?  Just as God gives sinful man his chance to “have it his own way” in order to reveal in history that man simply cannot make it without Jesus Christ, so also does God give the human race in the Millennial Kingdom this “opportunity” to turn their backs on Jesus.  By releasing Satan, God demonstrates in human history that as long as man has a choice – even with Christ physically ruling over him in Jerusalem – sinful man will always choose evil.  Sin is not the unfortunate result of poverty or our environment; it is the result of our fallen nature apart from Christ.  And so even the Millennium Kingdom – as idyllic as it is compared with the world Christ just saved at the end of the Tribulation – is not ultimately adequate.  We need the ultimate state of heaven where God will confirm us in our righteousness and where no Satan can ever tread.  That’s why.

Again, marvel at the silliness of people who call themselves “Christians.”  SIX TIMES in Rev 20 we are told that this literal kingdom on earth will last for one thousand years.  In Latin, “mille” means “one thousand” and “annum” means, “year.”  One thousand years.  Did God promise such an earthly Kingdom?  Yes, repeatedly to His people the Jews.  The very heart of the Old Testament prophetic message is the coming of Messiah to set up an earthly kingdom over which He would rule from the throne of David in Jerusalem.  Will God fulfill His promises literally?  Yes, just as He always has before.  When God said Messiah would be born of a virgin, He was born of a virgin.  When God said Messiah would physically suffer and die, He physically suffered and died.  And when God says that Messiah would rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years, He will rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years.  In Acts 1:6 Jesus’ disciples asked if He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel now.  Why would they have asked this if Jesus was NOT going to restore the kingdom to Israel?  Remember the Road to Emmaus (see Luke 24:27) where Jesus explained everything to the disciples?  That had already happened forty days BEFORE Acts 1:6; and Luke and Acts were both written by Luke to demonstrate that continuity.  But more importantly, why wouldn’t Christ have not corrected them and explained that they had it all wrong and there would never be such a kingdom for Israel to begin with?  This is not rocket science.  And yet it seemingly would be easier for some people to build a rocket ship and land it safely on the surface of the sun than to figure out that “a thousand years” means “a thousand years.”

So Satan is bound for how long?  A thousand years (Rev 20:2,3).  Which interestingly corresponds to the time between the revelation through Moses (~1400 BC) and the final OT revelation through Malachi (~400 BC).  The Messianic Kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament is a time of universal righteousness and peace (Isa 11:6-9), but that won’t happen if Satan is allowed to incite man to sin and to follow his base nature and defy God.  Basically, the Tribulation saints – including the 144,000 Jews and their Jewish converts who fled to Petra (see Rev 12:14) – who survive will inherit the Millennial Kingdom.  Every single human being on earth on Day One of the Millennium will be a saved believer.  But they will have children.  During the Millennium human beings will live an incredibly long time (see Isaiah 65:20 and understand that this prophecy makes no sense whatsoever apart from the Millennium Kingdom).  And some of these children will simply harden their hearts against Jesus just as we saw so many others do during the Tribulation.

We have the first resurrection – here composed entirely of believers who were martyred during the Tribulation (Rev 20:4-6).  This resurrection actually completes the fourth of four phases of this “first resurrection.”  Christ was the first fruits of this first resurrection (1 Cor 15:20-25).  In phase 2, raptured Christians living and dead received their resurrection bodies (1 Thess 4:13-18) before the Tribulation.  In phase 3 of this first resurrection the Old Testament saints receive their new bodies at the end of the Tribulation before the Millennium so they can see God’s Word to them LITERALLY FULFILLED and they could witness God’s faithfulness in their flesh (see Job 19:25-27).  That btw validates the 40 times the word “resurrection” is used in the New Testament, which is always a bodily resurrection (see John 5:28).

Near the end of the Millennium Satan is loosed and allowed to stir up what will be the very last rebellion in the entire history of the human race.  God will destroy it and throw Satan into hell for all eternity.

The second resurrection (Rev 20:11-15) consists ONLY in those whose names had not been written in the Book of Life.  They aren’t resurrected prior to the Millennium because they have no part in it and will have no part in anything other than hell.  Jesus – who spoke more about hell than ANYONE – told us there would be a resurrection of life and a resurrection of damnation (see John 5:29).  And it’s going to be at this time that God will respond, “I never knew you” to those who assure Him there must have been some kind of clerical error.  God will open up His Law and demonstrate how they ignored it (Gal 3:10).  And God will open up the Book of Works (Eccles 12:14) and show that they stand condemned as sinners.  And then He will open up the Book of Life and show that at no time did they ever truly accept His Son as Savior (John 3:18).  The entire meaning of life consists in FINDING life in the Son of God.

Part Ten: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 21-22