THE FISH STINKS AT ITS HEAD: THE DECONSTRUCTION OF A CAMPAIGN

The video of Laura Dunham advocating a young lady on the cusp of womanhood losing her virginity before marriage, and tying it to a political campaign in an effort to promote the fatally and morally flawed candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama is axiomatic of the degeneracy that Barack Hussein Obama represents.

This young lady is equating voting for the first time with a woman losing her virginity, and promoting it in the most blatant example of in your face Post-Modern degeneracy I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. It must be observed and discerned here by everyone who has some moral compass, some religious conviction, some self-respect and respect of another; that Barack Hussein Obama and the people who run his campaign and those within his government do not themselves have either the decency or a moral compass, or at the very least one that is not degenerate in its foundation.

But what are we to expect from this man and those he has around him? This political machinery that hails from the most corrupt districts of the most corrupt political outfit the already radicalized and degenerate Democrat Party has in a city that has known this type of degeneracy and corruption since the Bootleg days of Al Capone when rum and blood filled the streets of the windy city.

Barack Obama is the titular figurehead of a corrupt and evil political machinery that has destroyed the inner city of Chicago, and has spread to every major metropolitan area in the nation. He is the reason for this ad, and he is the first politician ever to break all of the barriers of moral and religious convention in our lifetime; yes, even more than Bill Clinton who helped redefine what sex was and ruined an entire generation of our youth, the price of which we are paying to this day in teen pregnancy, though his redefinition of oral sex led to many teens to practice it as a means of “not giving up their virginity.” They miss the point; no one outside of marriage should ever be involved in such behavior because it is a form of pre-marital sex.

But with this ad by the DNC which is promoted by Barack Obama and his campaign, presenting a young nubile Laura Dunham promoting the loss of a young woman’s virginity to “someone who is fabulous,” or whatever description she wishes to give that significant other; breaks even with Bill Clinton’s redefinition of sex. It goes beyond anything that has ever been seen in politics. And it does it to bring the candidacy of Barack Obama front and center to convince our youth to vote for him.

Barack Hussein Obama is perhaps the most reprehensible creature to ever emerge on the political landscape in our lifetime. He is not exclusive in this, there are many like him on both sides of the political isle and without question of every political stripe and flavor one can imagine – just the people around him who are promoting this ad is evidence to that fact – but he is by far the most unique public figure of our time in the following manner, and this helps those still scratching their heads about him, to understand just how morally devoid of decency this man is.

Barack Hussein Obama is the first and only Democrat in the history of the legislature of Illinois to ever have championed infanticide, that is the willful murder of an unborn baby – what has come to be known as late term abortion. In fact, he opposed any legislation that would protect the unborn, In a 2003 Health and Human Services Committee report recorded by Republican committee staff, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee’s unanimous 10-0 vote which Obama chaired at the time, language was added amend BAIPA to include the exact same language that was added to the federal version to protect Roe v. Wade. The committee report also shows a subsequent “final action” vote to determine if the bill should advance out of committee or be killed. The bill was defeated 6-4. Chairman Obama voted in the majority. (Read PICKETT: Obama’s bad moves on infanticide come back to haunt him, - Washington Times, Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter)

This is how Kristy Hessman of the AP reported it, I quote:

“The Senate Health and Human Services Committee rejected a bill that declares any fetus with a beating heart or muscle movement outside the womb as ‘born alive,’”
“The measure is in response to a rare abortion procedure in which labor is induced and the fetus sometimes survives, possibly for hours,” Hessman wrote. “The sponsor, Sen. Rick Winkel, R-Champaign, said the bill is modeled after a recent federal policy that defines a ‘born-alive’ infant. But critics said defining when a fetus is ‘alive’ could require doctors to provide care and might expose them to legal action if they don’t, even if there was no way the fetus could survive outside the womb. Winkel’s bill got four ‘yes’ votes and six ‘no’ votes.”

Even before that committee vote happened, though, Senator Obama voted his signature “present” on three bills that were likely to pass the Illinois Senate but were later rejected in the House Judiciary Committee.

On March 30, 2001 Illinois State Senator Patrick O’Malley introduced three pieces of legislation aimed at protecting an infant who had survived an abortion outside the mother’s womb. These bills were:

SB 1093 – Provided that no abortion procedure which had the reasonable likelihood of producing a live-born child should be undertaken unless a second doctor was present to provide medical treatment for the child.

SB 1094 – Created a cause of action if a child was born alive after an abortion and the abortionist harmed or neglected the child or failed to provide life –sustaining medical treatment.

SB 1095 – Provided a definition for a “born alive” infant.

After Senator O’Malley presented the first bill in the series before the roll call, he opened the floor for discussion. Then-State Senator Barack Obama responded: (emphasis is mine)

SENATOR OBAMA:

This bill was fairly extensively debated in the judiciary committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Sen. O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – – is that there was a method of abortion, and induced abortion, where the – – the fetus or child, as – – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of those concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?

SENATOR O’MALLEY:

Sen. Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the – – the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a – – a citizen of United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.

SENATOR OBAMA:

Well, it turned out – – that during the testimony a number of members were typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that you're – – you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.

Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that we would be provided to a – – a child, a nine-month-old – – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.

For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide Treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus, however you want to describe it. Viability is the line that is been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if replacing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a pre-viable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as – – as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now as I said before, this probably won't make any difference.

I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to members of the judiciary committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the seventh circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so why – – I won't, as I said belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and – – and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a – – a pre-viable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we'll probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting present.

SENATOR O’MALLEY:

Thank you, Mdm. Pres. and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate the one thing the previous speaker he did say is that this is a passionate issue. And – – however, I don't think it's a challenge a bowl on constitutional grounds in the manner that was described. This is essentially very simple. The Constitution does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be born. And a child who survives birth is a US citizen, and we need to do everything we can here in the state of Illinois and, frankly, in the other 49 states and in the halls of Washington, DC, to make sure that we secure or and protect those rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, research your and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate your support.

All three bills passed the State Senate but failed in the House Judiciary Committee later on, so the bills never came to a vote in the House.

However, President George W. Bush signed the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act into law on August 5, 2002. In 2005, the Illinois legislature passed a Born Alive Infants Protection bill, which was signed into law.

(Read PICKETT: Obama’s bad moves on infanticide come back to haunt him, - Washington Times, Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter)

These public statements made by Obama speaks to the heart of what this man is and how he would govern when elected to public office. The cavalier manner in which he dismisses the life of the infant to his interpretation of federal law speaks volumes, and should send chills running up and down any thinking person’s spine. Would anyone trust their vote to a person who holds human life with such little regard if they knew how he felt about it? Of course not, but nobody in 2008 realized this, just as the mindless Obama sycophants do not today. And don’t try telling them this, they don’t want to hear it.

But there is more. Barack Obama is the first public figure to directly assault the Biblical institution of marriage with a Post-Modern Humanist invention redefining it and therefore breaking with the Biblical norm that had been adopted by Western Civilization for thousands of years. Barack Obama has shaken his fist to heaven and has defied Almighty G-d and the institution He created long ago in Prehistory.

Not only is he the first American president to advocate a redefinition of marriage in our own nation, but he is the first national leader to emerge on the world stage to advocate and promote the same redefinition of marriage as civilization has come to know it in the history of the human race. No one has ever emerged in history that we know of to ever have done what this man has done in our age.

But, it does not end there, for Barack Obama has made this redefinition of this the law of the land by ordering every federal agency and our military, schools, businesses, and even our churches not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that protected the traditional monogamous male-female relationship within the institution of marriage by requiring the enforcement of these new definitions be made public policy.

Some still ask, as I have done many times since this man was elected to office, “How did this man get to the White House?” The answer is a simple one, and I will cull it from a recent e-mail I sent to some people who posed the same question. I quote it here.

I concur with Mr. X’s assessment. (Who had made the following observation, “I will never understand how so many Americans were duped. I'm just glad the charade is over for many that got us into this mess,” responding to one a friend of mine made, saying, “The White House is populated entirely of vulgar buffoons. The sooner they are all run out of town, the better.”) A lot people were tired of DUBYA, some like me were angry at what he did to Israel in forcing it to give up the Gaza Strip – land for peace deal that was started by Bill Clinton in the Oslo Accords – land which should’ve never been divided by any head of state, because it breaches a divine contract between God and His people Israel through Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob forever (Read Genesis). What’s more, the terrorist Hamas has been launching tens of thousands of missiles into Israeli cities daily since occupying the Gaza Strip, and Israel has shown the greatest restraint in not reacting with an invasion to wipe Hamas out, which I believe it should’ve done long ago. Consider if tens of thousands of missiles were flying into our cities from across the Mexican border daily. Do you think anyone would begrudge US the right to do something about it? Of course not. So, yes, I was very angry at DUBYA for this, but I did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama, and I am proud I didn’t.

Also the people had fallen for the Madison Avenue billion dollar hype that mesmerized them and lulled them into a mind control that many are still under to this very day. Have you ever tried giving any of these people the facts about Obama? Have you witnessed the reaction you’ve gotten from them? Raw emotion. Not reasoning, not measured analysis, but raw emotion. Just as you begin to speak, they react by telling you that they do not wish to talk about it. And that’s the end of that.

This is classic mind control at work. One of the key mechanisms of mass mind control is the defense mechanism it places into the sub-conscious in order to prevent the person under whose influence it is under to understand anything that contradicts the narrative of presented and contained in the mind control. Remember the mantra? “No more four years of George W. Bush,” “Hope and change,” “Change you can believe in.” Within the context of those three mantras were subliminal messages, which the subconscious would be defenseless against. The subliminal messages would then effectively short-circuit the person’s cognitive abilities to process information that is contrary to Obama’s narrative, so that whenever in conversation any phrase or suggestion appears that is contrary to his own, the subject person under the mind control would react emotionally, short-circuiting any further discussion about the topic, in this case Obama.

This is another and major reason why so many people are still emotionally attached to this disgrace and failure of a man. This is another reason that we are dealing with spiritual forces at work as well as corrupt politicians who are being caught at different places trying to stuff the ballot box for Obama.

This is why no matter what comes out that indicates how damnable a person this man and the people he’s got around him are; there are still a sizable portion of our population that is emotionally attached to this man regardless of he were the devil himself. If they knew he was the Antichrist, they would still follow him to hell, yes; even some Christians among them. Why? Because of the next reason, which is race.

There are people, a very large segment of our population in America who vote according to racial preferences. If a candidate is “qualified” black candidate, they will vote for that candidate regardless of where he stands on the issues – now I will define what I mean by a “qualified” black candidate. A “qualified” black candidate is a candidate who belongs to the Democrat Party and who is under the auspices of the DNC political machinery. If a candidate belongs to another political party such as the GOP, or is a Libertarian, or an Independent who is not affiliated with any party, he/she will not get the endorsement by the party chiefs at the DNC of being “qualified” and therefore will have the DNC machinery run against him, regardless of whether or not he would be good to his constituency or not. This is just the political reality of 21st century America.

Some people, like Morgan Freeman, Beyonce, Chris Rock, and Will Smith will vote for Obama because he is black, and as far as they’re concerned, that’s good enough for them. Like I said, he can be the devil himself, and people who think as they do, will follow him right into hell. The mentality – as twisted and demonic as it may be – is he is our devil and nobody else’s, so he belongs to us, and we belong to him. And this is their worldview; this is how they view themselves as opposed to the rest of America, and this is how they see Obama. This is why they will vote for him regardless of how bad he is.

Others will vote for Obama because the DNC and the organs of the mass government/media alphabet soup complex have convinced them that were they to vote for anyone but Obama, they would lose their entitlement. The GOP is partly to blame for this, because rather than presenting the reality that it was Obama who is the only elected official to siphon over $716 billion dollars from Medicare into Obamacare – the largest single cut in the history of any entitlement – the GOP has allowed the DNC and the media to define the narrative.

And because they have defined the narrative, they control the information going out to countless of people who do not like Obama and would not vote for him, but because they have been misled to believe that Romney and Ryan want to take their entitlement from them, they’ll vote for Obama; because in him, they believe they will not lose their entitlement, when in fact Obama was the one who cut it by almost a trillion dollars!

What’s more, because of this, the GOP, the Libertarians, and the Independents should’ve informed the public that these entitlements are not going to be tampered with, but regardless of who’s in office, they have continued under Democrat and Republican administrations, and that they even grew under both. It was just the rate of growth that was slowed down under Ronald Reagan, yet the mass media was telling the public every night that Reagan was cutting entitlements when he was not.

The powers that be who lead the GOP wish to keep things the way they have been for decades and the narrative of Left versus Right the same. But, for those who are truly informed in our cyber age, we understand that the reality is much more nuanced and varied, and that sometimes some whom we’ve been accustomed as seeing in a less than favorable light, are actually the champions of liberty in our day, and others whom the media and late night hosts have touted as national treasures, have been and will continue to be less than ready to meet the responsibilities for which they have been entrusted by the electorate.

Nuff, said.

So what is my opinion about Ms. Dunham’s indecent and inappropriate ad endorsing Barack Obama? A disgrace. In light of how he has comported himself throughout this failed presidency, and the type of a degenerate politician that he has made himself out to be, if Barack Hussein Obama were a man of honor, he’d resign from the presidency, and shut down his campaign for reelection. But because he is not a man of honor, he will continue to campaign and cheat his way in a vain attempt to retake the White House, just as he did on the night of September 11th, 2012; the eleventh anniversary of Al Qaeda’s terrorist attack on America, and the night four American lives were brutally murdered inside the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya at the hands of Al Qaeda whom this administration is arming in Syria. The night of September 11th, Tuesday, when Barack Obama left Washington to campaign and raise money in Law Vegas, Nevada.

BENGHAZI IS THE CROWNING ACHIEVEMENT OF THE CAMPAIGNER IN CHIEF'S MANY FLAGRANT IRRESPONSIBILITIES

The terrorist attack upon our US Consulate in Benghazi and the White House on-response tothe tragedy for the next month, with its changing false narrative it created, in itself is reprehensible. But perhaps what is most damnable was the White House’s non-response to the attack as it was happening.

We now know that there were US ships less than 500 miles that could've provided rescue and defensive assets within less than an hour after the attack. We now know that the White House was monitoring the situtation minute by minute as it occurred. now know that they were being apprised of the deteriorating situation via e-mails. We also know that we had military assets in place in Tripoli who could've come to the aid of the bileagured members of the consulate within minutes of the attack. None of these were forthcoming. When our people needed quick and responsive leadership from this White House and this Commander-in-Chief, none materiliazed. The man had left on a flight to Las Vegas to raise cash and campaign.

The House Oversight Committee held hearings on this, and under sworn testimony it was discovered that when the people whose responsibility was to staff the embassy with the proper security personnel requested repeatedly for additional security be posted at the consulate; they were met a wall by this administration. For weeks, then months; they requested repeatedly to this White House that the consulate in Benghazi needed security augmentation of secure assets due to the increased attacks against it, but it met deaf ears.

Mr. Obama has made the claim that he was on this from day one, and that he took precautions to make sure that the remaining personnel be rescued, attempting to convince a skeptical public that he took a leadership role in the affair. He did not. If he were correct, and he micro-managed the response to the Benghazi terror assault on our consulate, by ordering the rescue of those who were left, then he displayed the greatest disregard when apprised of the impending attacks hours before. He could've dispatched Special Operations Combat Control Teams and joint assets from the State Department already in the region, in fact already inside Libya, and he did not.

Watergate was a bungled burglary that caused the presidency of Richard Nixon. No one died either prior to, during, or following the burglary. This breach in our defenses at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya eclipses Watergate as the greatest example of irresponsibility and negligence by a chief executive in the annals of our country's history.

It presages the decisive defeat of Barack Hussein Obama by the American electorate at the polls on Election Night, November 6th, 2012. Anything short of that will be a greater disgrace than this man leaving for Las Vegas to campaign and raise money on the night the consulate in Benghazi was attacked and four of its staff, including Ambassador Stevens, were brutalized and murdered In cold blood. His non-response and continue callousness since then is axiomatic of a man who has no moral compass and is devoid of conscience.

Obama is simply an empty cold-hearted shell of a politician lacking any empathy or ability to comprehend the enmormity of this tragedy. This man is dead inside. In the face of this tragedy he campaigns as though nothing happened. Ra, ra, ra, cheer, cheer, cheer, Obama is here! Ra, ra, ra, cheer, cheer, cheer, Obama is here! Where is the remorse? Where is the sense of outrage? There is none, because the man simply does not care.

Because the articles which follow are so well researched and so compelling in what they present in the face of such deception and deceit from the White House in what may become the greatest foreign policy scandal in decades, I have posted them here for the reader to take the time to read for themselves, because the most important election of our life time is about to take place in a matter of days, and our nation’s fate hangs in the balance.

An informed electorate will assure that this administration is conclusively and effectively voted out of office on the same night of the Elections, and our nation is brought back from the brink of its demise, its own destruction by its own hand (this administration and the people who put in place), and judgment (of which we have had nine Harbingers to warn US about, which we have not heeded or done anything about.

Now please take the time to read this, and get informed about this, because there has not been witnessed this kind of criminal negligence in our government in decades. If Obama were an honorable man, he would end his campaign for the White House immediately in a public statement, and retire from office, allowing the steady transmission of power to occur to his successor, Mitt Romney. I do not expect this, because he is not an honorable man, nor are any of those within his regime.

How do we make sense of this White House, and of the man who seeks to be reelected to another disasterous four years, who continues to campaign as though nothing occurred on Tuesday, September 11th, 2012 at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya? In order to answer this question we must first understand the reluctance that this White House and the entire government infrastructure under Barack Obama have in using the term “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist terror” or even “Islamist extremist/extremism.”

We must delve into the background and the company this man has kept and continues to keep to this day. The list below is from an article that has done this:

“Last week's release of the Barack Obama/Derrick Bell Harvard tape was seen by many as another example of the President’s long history associating with radicals.

There is another interpretation, however. When Obama urged people to open up their hearts and minds to Bell, it was another case of him “cozying up" to an antisemite. Understand--we are not talking about people who are anti-Israel (although there is a huge crossover of the two) but people who regularly use antisemitic stereotypes or more directly derogatory comments about Jews.

Here are some examples:

Derrick Bell: Bell was a leading proponent of Critical Race Theory (CRT), described by Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry in Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law as an example of extreme multiculturalism. They add:
The radical theories inescapably imply that Jews and Asians enjoy an unfair share of wealth and status. Thus, the necessary normative implication of the radical theory is that steps should be taken to redress the balance more in favor of white gentiles. In addition, the radicals cannot easily explain Jewish and Asian success. Although benign explanations for this success are available, they are logically inconsistent with radical multiculturalism; consequently, the radicals would be forced to explain Jewish and Asian success by deploying theories that parallel historic forms of anti-Semitism. In short, if the radical multiculturalists are not personally anti-Semitic or anti-Asian, it is only because they have failed to work fully though the logic of their own theories.
More directly, Bell appeared to believe that Jews have an ulterior motive for everything. For example, in his novella, “The Space Traders,” Bell argued that Jews help blacks so they themselves won’t become the target of bigotry.

Merrill A. McPeak: Co-Chair of Obama’s 2008 campaign, McPeak is a believer in that old “Jews control the government” meme. In one interview, he suggested that U.S. politicians are afraid of Jewish voters in Miami and New York City and that American Jews are the "problem" impeding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sen. Chuck Hagel: When Obama was first elected, Hagel--a friend from Obama's brief service in the U.S. Senate--was believed to be the president’s first choice for Defense Secretary. Hagel was once quoted as saying: "The political reality is that... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here."
Sorry, Chuck, but the only Jewish lobby I know of is in my house--and my wife says it needs a paint job.

Khalid al-Mansour and Al-Waleed bin Talal: According to Sutton, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal (the guy whose ten million dollars were rejected by former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani because he had blamed 9/11 on Israel) and Khalid al-Mansour of the antisemitic Nation of Islam were instrumental in assisting the future president's Harvard ambitions.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: The President once called Brzezinski "someone I have learned an immense amount from" and "one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers." The former National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter, Brzezinski is famous for helping to create the Taliban and is a Judeophobic conspiracy theorist who believes the Jews control U.S foreign policy and Congress.

Al Sharpton: According to the Wall Street Journal, the President turned to Sharpton to answer public criticism in the black community over his economic policy. Sharpton helped fan the flames of the Crown Heights Pogrom and was a leader of the anti-Jewish protest that led to the firebombing of the Jewish-owned Freddy’s Fashion Mart. Sharpton called Freddy's Fashion Mart's Jewish owners "bloodsuckers" and "white interlopers," leading protesters to shout, "We're going to burn and loot the Jews." Just a short time later, they got their wish: the store was firebombed and eight people died.

Jeremiah Wright: Shortly after Obama took office, the man in whose church the President sat in for twenty years complained about his lack of access to the Oval Office: Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck or in eight years when he’s out of office. They will not let him talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. I said that from the beginning. He’s a politician; I’m a pastor. He’s got to do what politicians do.

And there are plenty more where that came from, including the chairman of his transition committee, John Podesta, who is now head of the Center for American Progress (CAP). Both CAP and its “child” organization, Media Matters for America (MMfA), have been cited by the Simon Wiesenthal Center for promoting the antisemitic meme that Jews are not loyal to America.

Many critics of this analysis will call the above “guilt by association;” at least, that’s what they did to similar stories in 2008.

Please understand clearly that it is not my contention that the President of the United States is an antisemite; I have seen no evidence to that fact. I do contend that he has a nasty habit of associating with Jew-haters.

Why does Barack Obama seem to gravitate to Jew-haters? Is it because he agrees with their hatred? Is he unaware? Or is he just insensitive?
Here is a man who called a Georgetown student because she was hit with an insensitive attack by a radio host, but he accepts and associates with antisemites.
Perhaps, like the radical multiculturalists who appeared to shape some of his views, Barack Obama believes Jews have an unfair share of wealth and status in this country, and a little pressure will help “redistribute" their success. Either way you look at it, his choices of friends and associates raise questions which need to be answered.

From an article titled, Judging Obama by His Antisemitic Friends
________________________________________
October 24, 2012
The Wave That Breaks the Liberal Bubble
By C. Edmund Wright

Can you feel it?
The wave, that is. I speak of one that will wash away far more than just a failed presidency. This wave will have the torque to rock the entire liberal bubble -- the political/media/crony bubble -- leaving it forever exposed. Ironically, those inside this bubble will be the last to know -- which is precisely why it will happen. Those who would rule over us, and insult us with outrage over Big Bird, academic debate-scoring, "binders" memes, and specious jobs statistics know nothing about us. This includes those inside the bubble who purport to represent our views.

But we know them well. For the record, "we" refers to the quarter of the country that never bought into the fraudulent vapor of Obama and who lost respect for anyone who did. Even post-election, when 70% plus of the nation was in this stupor, we knew it was Marxist voodoo that could not last.
It did not. Early in 2009, per Rasmussen, another 25% got over the phony high of Obama's election. Since then, Obama's been underwater on approval .

Millions more have joined this narrow majority in the past weeks. Debates have been the catalysts, but this epiphany has been building for much longer -- and now it's reached critical mass. There is now understanding of the shallowness of Obama and of liberalism. Everything said by the supposedly racist, mean-spirited conservatives has been validated.
Doggone it...I think they've been right all along.

We were, and not just about Obama. We've been right about the academia elites, the Jurassic media, the elitist conservative pundits, the establishment, the "obama foam" class, and Occupy and union thugs, too. This includes anybody who makes his living from government -- and the reporting thereof. It encompasses those who live inside the bubble, plus those who depend on them. These people are all intertwined, co-dependent, and out of step with America. Recent events have finally connected dots for a lot of people in ways they can no longer deny.
Consider a quick history:

Rush Limbaugh opened his show that day saying that "the new tone has come home to roost" and, seconds later, "I'm already on the field." Many scratched their heads, yet others knew exactly what he meant. The diluted conservatism of Bush, Karl Rove, and John McCain was destined to fail -- allowing a fresh start to take its place. This was explicitly Rush's point. Game on!

It mattered not that Bush and McCain couldn't stand each other; reaching across the aisle and the new tone were different names for the same perception failure. Thus, the end of Bush/McCain felt like termination from a bad job. Awful, and yet liberating. Many were "on the field" with Rush that day. The wave began.
Yes, Romney uses some McCain language -- and Rove is part of efforts to defeat Obama. Consider them collateral beneficiaries of a wave they don't understand.

The wave grew in February 2009, when Rick Santelli reintroduced the term "Tea Party" into our vernacular on CNBC -- and his rant went viral thanks to Matt Drudge and Limbaugh. The phrase "Tea Party" was everywhere.
Thus, when people connected in spring '09 at town hall meetings opposing ObamaCare, Tea Party groups organically sprang up. David Axelrod, who has never been part of any movement that he was not paid to dream up and fabricate, immediately projected his counterfeit style onto the Tea Party. He still doesn't get it.

In November 2009, Jon Corzine was decisively beaten by Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell won Virginia big. People were seeking refuge from Obama in the safety of Republican governors. In the bubble, they ignored these and bitterly clung to an oddball race in New York 23. Hey, no big deal -- you won two, but we won one. Nothing to see here. By the way, did we mention that Obama is personally popular?

The wave then crashed at Hyannis months later and washed the Ted Kennedy seat out of Democrat hands. Scott Brown is no Reagan, but his campaign was anti-ObamaCare and pro-Tea -- even as he avoided the term. The excuse from the bubble? Martha Coakley was a poor candidate. True, but poor libs win safe seats all the time. Those in the bubble missed the point and passed ObamaCare anyway.

They even promised to read it...if Nancy Pelosi would take her 200-pound gavel off it.
Then came 2010, which, like 1994, was fought ideologically. With Pelosi predicting victory, Democrats lost 69 seats in Congress, 700 state seats, lots of governors -- and damned near every dogcatcher. Pelosi lost her gavel, too.
Undeterred, the bubble-dwellers then put all their chips on the table in Wisconsin, where they had unions, a hack judge, and the sacrosanct teachers on their side. This was their slam-dunk. They were sure they could sink Scott Walker, and the world would be right again.

Uh-oh. Walker won the absurd recall easily. The bigger story is the damage done to public unions. The infantile behavior of so-called dedicated educators was seen nationwide. "Public servants," greedy? Who knew?
In the bubble, they dismissed this. They said the problem was simply their messaging and the evil Koch Brothers. Forget Brown, Christie, McDonnell, 69 seats, 700 legislators, lots of governors, and Walker (twice). Forget that the entire nation watched the Democrats flee the state to avoid a vote! Obama is still inevitable. Everyone (in the bubble) knows it.

They really believe this, and they really believe that the world revolves around them. For years, it did -- as most power, communication and information originated inside the bubble. Three networks, two wires, one cable, and three dailies ruled the bubble and the opinions of the world. We know the rest: along came Rush, Drudge, Fox, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Beck, and the conservative websites. Breitbart emerged and inspired millions to embrace tech toys to expose the "racial Marxism" of the Democrat-media complex. Thanks to the delightful capers of O'Keefe and Giles, we all know ACORN.

Liberal mischief was exposed. A union thug fakes racism at a Tea Party -- it goes viral. SEIU members confess to being paid to protest -- and it goes viral. A Democrat congressman insults a youngster -- it goes viral. Chris Matthews wets his pants, and it goes viral. Weiner...well, you know -- and it goes viral. The entire bubble is intellectually naked, and everyone sees the political porn without the networks, cable channels, or newspapers that once controlled access.
In the bubble, where politics is but a game, they miss the cumulative effect of all this. They have no sense of the undertow pulling on many.

Fast forward to last week. As Candy Crowley and the pundits are finding out, winning the optics of the moment is no longer enough. Now events are won and lost in the days following. It's not over 'til the fat lady goes viral. She went viral, and now Crowley, Obama, and the entire media coterie are being exposed on the web.

Those in the bubble never see these tectonic shifts. They were in denial after Drudge nearly brought down Bill Clinton. They stayed in denial after bloggers retired Dan Rather. Everyday reality brings down more newspapers and magazines, and the pioneer of cable is now only airport fare.
Hello? Anyone in the bubble spot a trend here?

No, and this includes some good guys. Limbaugh and Mark Levin hammered Charles Krauthammer and George Will last week on their groupthink. Even bubble conservatives speak of four-dollar gas and dead ambassadors as mere debate topics. How can they miss that four-buck gas, soaring food prices, and 11% unemployment are ruining lives? These are not points awarded because a guy sounds elegant.

Crowley's antics are a sample of incidents that cause light bulbs to go off for voters who may not know the issues but who do know that a president who has to be rescued by a B-list journalist is indeed an empty chair. They know that the B-list journalist is not worth listening to, either. This is the kind of event that can put the last four years into instant perspective for someone.
Different dots connect for different people. For some, it may be Obama snarking, "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" after blaming the video for weeks. Add this to Big Bird, binders, and contraception for middle-aged students, and even unserious voters can tell that Obama is unserious.

For others, it may be the pipeline and gas prices. Or the cancer ad, the phony Harvard Cherokee, or fat union perks. Whatever the dots, they all connect those inside the liberal matrix of Obama, all Democrats, the media, unions, Occupy, and the pundits. Nothing they have said for years is actually true.
If such realizations have hit critical mass, we have a wave.

Gone will be Obama and the Democrat Senate. More than that, however, will be the exposition of the entire liberal myth. Obama has been the face of liberalism, and the bubble has been his support system. When this vapor gets blown away, the propagators will see their credibility blown away as well.

Even at this late date, many assign credence to polls with laughable 2008 turnout models. This includes Fox, Rasmussen, and the Wall Street Journal, as well as the liberal outlets. (Gallup excluded this week.) It will be fun to watch the horror, the denial, and then the spin after election day.

That's why the wave will be so satisfying. Oh, saving the country from four more years of Obama will be important, too, of course. But that will be challenging at the same time. Remember that John Boehner was a collateral beneficiary of the 2010 elections, and he still does not understand the movement that gave him the speaker's gavel. The same might be true for Romney and Paul Ryan. Rove will also get more credit, more airtime, and more wealth as a result. He may think he is driving the wave, but he is merely riding it. These winners are very likely to miss the message of this election, just as the liberals have misinterpreted every election since 2009. Inside the bubble, they always miss it.

All of this will present challenges and frustrations, of course, going forward. To paraphrase a sentiment of Levin's, we'll "deal with all of that later." And we will. In the meantime, enjoy the wave. It's coming. You can feel it, too. I know you can.
________________________________________
Wednesday, October 24, 2012

GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate

Was Benghazi the base from which Team Obama was funneling arms to Jihads seeking to overthrow Syria and establish another radical Islamist State? Suddenly Ambassador Stevens presence there and his meeting with a Turkish diplomat begins to make sense.

Was Obama gun-walking arms to jihadists?

Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting — notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at WND.com and Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org — and information developed by congressional investigators, the mystery is beginning to unravel with regard to what happened that night and the reason for the subsequent, clumsy official cover-up now known as Benghazigate.

The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.

Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported that the “consulate in Benghazi” actually was no such thing. He observes that although administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Stevens and his colleagues was launched, they call it a “mission.” What Mr. Klein describes as a “shabby, nondescript building” that lacked any “major public security presence” was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, “routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.”

We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”

It gets worse. Last week, Center for Security Policy senior fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called “consulate” whose purpose has yet to be disclosed. As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed — and were known by the local jihadis to house — arms, perhaps administered by the two former Navy SEALs killed along with Stevens.
Read the whole thing.
It's also part of a pattern that's emerging about Obama's policies in the Middle East. Note that all of countries that have experienced the so-called "Arab Spring" have produced radical Islamist leaders. Which leads to a common question when you see the results of the Obama policies: are the policies failures or are they deliberately designed to do what they have done? Some have asked this about Obama's domestic "failures" and now it's worth asking about the destruction of American interests overseas.
It also leads to another interesting question: what group is actually responsible for the attack? The Islamists who were getting the weapons don't have an obvious motive for the attack. Syria's Assad regime would benefit from the destruction of the Benghazi compound. We won’t get a truthful answer if Obama is re-elected, and a Romney administration may not want to open that can of worms.

UPDATE: This could also explain why the CIA and the State Department are both willing to fall on their swords and claim that the attack was all about a You Tube video. The discussion about who knew what and when they knew it diverts attention from alternative reason behind the attack. Once you eliminate the video as the spark that led to the attack you are left with no stated motive. The default motive: that Jihadists don't like us and would attack us, just as they would any enemy, is plausible on the surface, ... but under closer scrutiny doesn't pass the smell test.
________________________________________

Semantics & Dead Scholasticism Applied to The Harbinger

When someone commented that the Charismatics and Pentecostals have liked The Harbinger, and therfore have embraced its message, it would appear by implication by the one who made that observation that he/she considers themselves "a cut above them" and therefore superior because he or she does not ascribe to their point of view, be it flawed or not.

First whether or not the Charismatics and Pentecostals are any less Christians for their beliefs in the gifts or their less than perfect practice at times of them is no reason to throw them out of the Body of Christ.

This is exactly at what Paul is getting at when he wrote his first letter to the Corinthians who practiced such gifts, but not in an orderly fashion (sound familiar), and who had the same problems these people have in accepting certain "types" of Christians because they weren't "like them," that is to say, that they did not practice their spiritual gift, but another spiritual gift, and perhaps not the way they thought was best. Well, hmnnn...hmnn, (let us clear our throats).

History has a way of repeating itself, and people who should know better don't, even when reading such passages as 1Corinthians 12 and 13 over and over and over again. Why? Man-made theology - Cessationism, the theology created to minimize or exclude the living God from activities in the here and now, but only exclusively have them for earlier "less sophisticated" times when the cannon of Scripture was as yet not complete as their argument goes.

This insidious theology posits that God does not work as He did in the pages of our Bible today, because with the closing of the cannon of Scripture, it is no longer necessary for Him to be Himself; that is, to be and do what He has since before any book of the Bible was ever written or any prophet ever walked the earth. Ridiculous! No wonder people think God is dead, or doesn't exist, or that the Bible is a book of fables and Middle Eastern myths, as some charge.

The Cessationist and the literalist/minimalist's dead scholastic approach to the study of the Bible in the nation's seminaries have created an army of unbelieving believers. People who claim to believe to know and walk with God, but who have denied His power. There is no dynamism in their walk, everything is intellectual. The Holy Bible is a textbook, Theology is a philosophy, God is a concept within the framework of that theology, and anyone who dares to breach the barriers created by that theology is a heretic.

As it divided the Corinthian Church but in a different manner, this is what divides Mainline Protestant Christianity today in America. The haves and the have nots - those who have and practice the gifts and those who do not have and do not practice the gifts. In the Corinthian Church, those practiced certain gifts and had certain roles ad responsibilities within the congregation looked askance at others who did not, and so it is today. Human beings are so predictable, yes even Christians sometimes.

Well, from there is where the writer had written to criticize The Harbinger on the basis that Charismatics and Pentecostals liked the book. Well, so do non-Charismatics and non-Pentecostals too. And to answer this writer, I wrote the following:

"Guilt by association?" They accused Christ of being a wine bibber and a glutton; a friend of the tax collectors and a sinner, because of the company He kept. Are we to do the same? No, of course not. Actually, The Harbinger has both supporters and critics on both sides of the Evangelical Protestant Divide. The biggest problem with the pure Cessationists is that any phrase, any word, any noun, pronoun, adjective, adverb, preposition, etc....that might appear to them to be a hint of a "revelation" or a "sign" when actually Cahn is using it to mean insight into a matter of Scriptural import and is referring to the clay seals in the story that are the "signs" of the events they represent is where The Harbinger's critics have gone completely awry and have weaved their protestations against it to form a false narrative they have embarked upon promoting, perhaps to help their waning ministry.

The fact that they have lost all reasoning on this topic is evidenced by the manner they respond to concise Biblical challenges to their arguments when presented to them. When faced with the facts that they have created nothing but a straw man controversy applying semantical gymnastics over words that they determine mean one thing when actually they mean quite another within the story; they insist that their analysis is the correct one. Yes, even when it is explained to them that the meaning they give Cahn's book is not what the story says.

For example Pastor Eric Douma of Twin Cities Fellowship claims that Pastor and Messianic Rabbi Cahn is revealing new revelation, because of his use of the word "mystery" and "secret" and other such words, “and therefore since he is not a prophet,” Pastor Douma infers, Rabbi “Cahn cannot reveal secrets.” Pastor Douma misses the point; Rabbi Jonathan Cahn is not claiming new revelation, nor is he claiming to be a prophet, and his use of the words he employs is in the context of God revealing through His Holy Spirit the knowledge of what His Word teaches, what is already contained in the written word - Sola Sciptura. When Rabbi Cahn employs such words as "mystery" and others like "secret", he is doing it in context of 1Corinthians 2. To the unsaved the Bible is a closed book and its content, mysteries and secrets, just as Paul the Apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes the following:

Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written,

“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”

For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

(1Corinthians 2:6-14)

It is in this context that Rabbi Cahn speaks of the mystery of the Nine Harbingers contained in clay tablets that are signs of each Harbinger, or warning. In this regard, I have posted the following on my web site to explain what Rabbi Cahn means by the phraseology he uses, which his critics find objectionable because of their misunderstanding of them; a misunderstanding that began and has been perpetuated by T.A. McMahon, David James, and Jimmy DeYoung and others of the Berean Call and other self-professed “discernment ministries” associated with theirs.

I have spoken with Rabbi Cahn, I have read his book The Harbinger, I know what he means when he employs words such as sign, mystery, etc.. and it is within the context of the story itself. You read the book, you realize that the clay seals depicting each Harbinger is a sign, much in the context of an Exit or Stop sign one sees when travelling a road. And as to mystery that is revealed, no Rabbi Cahn is not practicing divination as Pastor Douma claims in a Sunday school sermon he gave at his church, but Rabbi Cahn employs the word in the context of 1Corinthians 2, where the Apostle Paul studies the dichotomy between the regenerative man and the unregenerate man, and the two separate world views the two have and the completely different lives each leads, and how they understand things and view the world around them.

When Rabbi Cahn speaks of mysteries, he is referring to the fact that the Holy Scriptures and what they contain are both a mystery and a sealed book to the unsaved, not some new revelation or new prophecy outside of the cannon of Scripture that is to be treated as authoritative as the Bible as these people charge. There is no new revelation, but the revelation is in God’s written Word, understood through careful study of the Scriptures as the Holy Spirit of God provides the believer the insight into His Word. When Rabbi Cahn speaks of these harbingers, and they are variably called “signs,” he is using the word as one uses it plainly as for example that a “sign” of inflation is the rise in the price of good or fuel. This is what he means by “sign.”

Moreover, to those who do not understand economics, these indications or signs are simply a mystery, inasmuch that they are inexplicable to them because they do not have a technical reference point to connect them one to the other other than they just know it costs more to purchase goods and services, and energy. To those who know the “mystery” behind the economics, it is understood that when the Federal Reserve inflates the currency, it devalues the currency in circulation. Therefore it costs more to purchase an item because now the item’s price has increased relative to the value of the dollar used in purchasing that item, because the dollar is now worth less requiring more of it to purchase the item. Therefore it can be said that higher prices are a harbinger of inflation.

This is what is meant by the harbingers being signs, because they indicate or point to something greater than themselves; to their culminations. A harbinger is a warning or an indication of something coming which has not yet arrived. Why David James and other Cessationist critics of The Harbinger wish to attach to the plain meaning of what Rabbi Cahn is writing other nefarious meanings is beyond me, but this is precisely what they do, and this is precisely what David James does throughout his book.

The accusation flung at him (Rabbi Cahn) that he is attempting to teach a new revelation or reveal hidden mysteries is absurd and completely groundless. Those who make such charges know themselves that this is not true; they are merely using hyperbole, and in so doing creating a false witness against Rabbi Cahn that should not exist. This is very serious.

Some websites in complete ignorance of the facts have accused Rabbi Cahn of being a Gnostic, or a Kabbalist, or even worse a false prophet because he has often used Extra-Biblical literature such as the writings of the rabbis to help illustrate the fact that even hostile witnesses within Judaism unknowingly support the truth of the Gospel.

He's even been accused wrongly of elevating the writings of the rabbis to that of the Holy Scriptures and the rabbis to the status of the prophets. Absolute hyperbole and nonsense. Like many of the finest Bible scholars and teachers of our times have done themselves; he uses historical, archeological sources, and the writings of the rabbis to help illustrate and support what the Bible says. He does not elevate their status to that of the Holy Scriptures, as David James accuses him of doing, but uses them as hostile witnesses to support the Bible.

He's even been accused wrongly of elevating the writings of the rabbis to that of the Holy Scriptures and the rabbis to the status of the prophets. Absolute hyperbole and nonsense. Like many of the finest Bible scholars and teachers of our times have done themselves; he uses historical, archeological, and the writings of the rabbis to help illustrate and support what the Bible says. He does not elevate their status to that of the Holy Scriptures, as David James accuses him of doing, but uses them as hostile witnesses to support the Bible.

I would strongly suggest that everyone who follows and reads this trend, purchase or borrow a copy of The Harbinger and read it for themselves, and not be allowed to be influenced by people whose premise in entirely incorrect, and whom have formed conclusions based upon those incorrect premises, all based upon unsupported charges concerning semantical questions about the meanings of words Rabbi Cahn uses that do not have the meanings they give it.

And as to whether or not any nation other than Israel can have its own covenant with the God of all Creation, I recommend everyone do a serious study of what the Bible says about this, and how it applies both to individuals, communities, organizations, and yes; nations. A covenant is a contract between two parties. Do the homework, and discover for yourselves just how far off these critics of The Harbinger are regarding correct hermeneutics and the concise application of Biblical exegesis when studying and expounding the Word of Almighty God. Thank you.

FOR ME, THE TALIBAN IS ON THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING

How anyone in their right mind would want a repeat of this is beyond my comprehension. This leads me to believe that there is a very large section of our population who think and see the world in a very different manner than the rest of US.
But if there is one thing that is coming out of these debates, it is the stark contrast between these two men.
Only when standing next to each other, with each presenting their plan (or lack thereof) for the nation; is can see the incredible difference offered to the American electorate this year.

The difference is like night and day.

One man presents a seasoned, well experienced business savvy having worked in business all of his adult life; and in government being the governor of a state where the opposition party predominates, and yet was able to govern, and get incredible bi-partisan cooperation that has been a hallmark of how government can and should work.

The other presents four years of failed policies now reaching a crisis point in almost every area this man has brought his ideas to pass; a failed record of lack of leadership (leading from behind), no business experience, no idea how to run a business and much less – even after four years – how to run a country; and a ruinous heap of broken promises, failure, duplicitous secrecy, and criminality in the highest levels of government; never witnessed at this level and with this repetition in the history of this country.

The composure of one man versus the barely controlled anger and frustration of the other; the differences between these two men have allowed the American people – the American electorate – to see for themselves the choice they have, and it is the reason why Romney is surging ahead of Obama in all of the polls, and is continuing to not only catch up with the president in some of them, but actually bypass him in others. Is this a harbinger of things to come? I certainly hope so.

I have seen it all before, but never on this scale. It was 1976. Jimmy Carter was president and Walter Mondale vice president. The Middle East, Latin America, and Africa were hot beds of wars of national liberation – communist insurgencies and terrorism. The Carter Administration had ignored repeated requests from the Shah of Iran for help in fighting a growing Islamic insurgency within his country. But it didn’t end there.

Carter brought every pressure to bear against the Shah’s government, and helped in its collapse, just as it did with Anastacio Somoza’s government in Nicaragua, and other governments across the African Continent that were falling like dominoes to Communist insurgents. His so-called “human rights” policies were selectively and hypocritically put into practice. It practiced the doctrine of aiding and abetting America’s enemies with foreign aid – turning a blind eye to human rights of abuses by regimes and governments of the Left, while denying such aid to American allies because it held these governments to standards it did not hold the others.

Within four years, most of Continental Africa was lost, the Middle East was a powder keg, and it was only a matter of time before the Shah of Iran and his family were forced to flee for their lives and his government overthrown. The Islamic Republic of Iran replaced the pro-Western/Pro-American/Pro-Israel friendly government of the Shah. Effectively, Carter had given the new regime access to the largest and most powerful pro-western military in the region (Iran’s Army was four million strong and was armed with the finest American military hardware in the world.

Almost immediately, the new government pursued a policy of warfare against the United States and its allies in the Middle East. The first act of its government was to allow the entire American staff in Tehran to be taken hostage, and for four hundred and forty-four days, America and the world waited while Carter did nothing. A botched clandestine military attempt to rescue the hostages went terribly awry, and American Special Operations forces were killed in the debacle in the Iranian desert. It took the election of Ronald Wilson Reagan to put an end to this nightmare to these people, their families, and the rest of America. While Reagan took the oath of office, Iran released the hostages and as he gave his speech, they were flown to freedom.

Go forward to the present. It is September 11th, and it’s been ten years since the greatest act of terrorism in American history against a civilian target on American territory took place. It is also Tuesday, just as it was ten years earlier, when Islamic hijackers and members of the terrorist group Al Qaeda took four planes and crashed two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center, and third into the Pentagon, and a fourth that was meant to hit the Capitol crashed into a Pennsylvania field.

For eight years, no act of terrorism occurred on American soil, as it had repeatedly during the time of Bill Clinton. Clinton, it will be remembered; treated the terrorism as a law enforcement operation and issue, to be investigated once the “crime” has been committed, Americans have been murdered, the perpetrators have been captured, and then are given a trial by a jury of their peers. Interesting concept, except it does not work in war. And these people are at war against America and its people and its interests.

This is why Clinton did nothing to address the mounting threat of terrorism after just weeks into his new administration, he all but ignored the bombing at the World Trade Center, and treated it as a law enforcement issue. He didn’t even visit the site of the bombing, but made some vague references that the people who had committed these acts would be caught and brought to justice. It was during his administration that literally ignored the middle eastern connection to the Oklahoma City bombing, and instead willfully chose to make into some kind of Anti-government white supremacist conspiracy.

Clinton did nothing when Flight 800 was shot down from the skies over New York City, even after many witnesses came forward to testify that they had seen something that looked like a flash of a missile contrail streak from the sea up to the airliner and strike it. Clinton was up for reelection, and he did not want it to appear that he was soft on terrorism, so he had the Justice Department investigative team ramrod the story that it was a failed fuel tank that caused the plane to explode in midair, which is the story presented by the Discovery Channel. It was during the Clinton presidency that terrorists from Al Qaeda attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It was during his presidency that USS Cole was bombed at the Port of Arden in Yemen, and he did nothing.

It was during his presidency that Al Qaeda made preparations to hijack commercial airliners and used them as missiles against American symbols of finance, military, and government power, and his administration did nothing to stop it. It was the Clinton presidential transition teams that were ordered by the Clintons or someone high within their administration not to cooperate with the incoming Bush transition team, but to stall it, and prolong the process. No one knows why they were ordered to do this, but this they did. What normally took only a matter of weeks, this time took months to complete, and critical actionable intelligence and PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings) were kept from the new administration by the Clinton team. The Bush Administration would not know about what Al Qaeda was up to because of this. And we know what happened only months into 2001.

Now let’s go to the present. It’s Tuesday, September 11th again; only now it is 2012, and the presidential elections is only weeks ahead. History is about to repeat itself. And as one writer commented: “America owes it to those who were murdered in Benghazi to vote this current fraudulent potus and his administration out and for congress to call for a full scale investigation on BS aka BHO's BC SSC SSN and indictment of all criminal activities of said administration from Fast and Furious to voter intimidation scandal in 08 the list of 4yrs of atrocities are numerous BS aka BHO should be held accountable for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens Sean Smith Glen Doherty Tyrone Woods.”

But this is only the latest – and hopefully the last foreign policy terrorism debacle of this administration. Does anyone remember that in the past four years terrorism has come home to America once again? Let’s recount the record. This is the same administration that renamed the War on Terror a “a Man-made contingency Operation,” and called the Fort Hood massacre a Workforce Violence Issue – remember, this was the terrorist incident where a lone Muslim radical gunman went on the murder spree in the name of Jihad?

This is the same administration that declared an end to the War on Terror, an end to hostilities in Iraq and withdrew its troops prematurely from Iraq, leaving the country to be governed by a Pro-Iranian Shiite government in power; effectively handing Iran the hard fought for new Iraqi Post-Saddam Iraqi nation.

This is the same administration that stood aloof when the velvet revolution took place across Iran, and blood ran in the streets without any American intervention, as the world watched in horror the mauling of the Iranian pro-democracy movement by it’s the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This was the same administration that laid the clandestine groundwork through second and third party entities during a period of over eighteen months across the Middle East – organized and financed by George Soros and others – to replace friendly pro-western governments with Islamist groups led by the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.

This is the same administration that led an illegal war in Libya without first seeking the approval of congress which was sought for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this was the first time an administration acted outside the boundaries of Constitutional Law and bypassed congress and committed American forces to a war not sanctioned by an joint act of congress, but under the auspices of the United Nations.

This is the same administration that treated with total contempt the Israeli Prime Minister when he visited the president and it is the same administration that on the night of September 11th, this year, did not hold any intelligence briefing or public statement, but the president left for Las Vegas to a fundraiser for his presidential reelection campaign. This is a disgrace! A disgrace! How can this man get away with this!

As one commentator put it: “Obama's policies are same policies that killed most of Seal Team 6 (the same that killed Osama- that Obama took credit for). In Lybia (sic), they pulled heavily armed men from this compound because Obama did not want it to look like America was there as an ‘Armed presence’ The same thing Killed many on Seal Team 6 in Aug 2011 in Afghanistan (the largest one day death in that war history) because they were not allowed to defend themselves because of too many ‘friendly's’ in the area (Afghan soldiers).”

As of this day, the Obama Administration has yet to investigate the death of these Navy Seals, the greatest number of US Navy Seals killed in action in US Naval History. As of this day, this administration has not addressed the question of who ordered all of these seals be placed inside a Chinook helicopter, slow moving vehicle that was an easy target for an RPG (rocket propelled grenade) to bring it down and kill everyone on board. Who ordered this mission, and who ordered all of these seals to be flown in a single air craft that day?

As another commented: “On October 10, 2012, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing entitled, "The Security Failures of Benghazi" to examine the state of security at the U.S. Embassy and Consulate in Libya prior to the assassination of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and his colleagues on September 11, 2012.”

And: “So no one is watching or commenting? This is just as controversial as Watergate. Hard to believe. The attacks on the embassy in Libya are a clear failure of the State Department. How can anyone defend the failure to provide physical security for our people? Regardless of political views, it is only common sense to provide security. The big mistake of the administration was to deny it was a planned attack.”

It is nothing short of a scandal the US Senate, because it is controlled by a single political party which this president belongs to, has not held a single investigation or hearing by any of its oversight committees, but that it has taken exclusively those of the US House of Representative to conduct its own investigation and hearings into this matter that eclipses the bungled burglary at the Watergate Hotel, but was made nation news by the news media, whereas this colossal foreign policy failure has been completely ignored by the same press.

As of this writing, this administration has yet to answer much for its foreign policy failures. They are myriad. And it will be held to account for these by the American electorate on November 6th, 2012. I end this report with the following testimony by one of the key witnesses who testified about the Benghazi Tragedy and Debacle, and I quote it here, because it speaks to the very heart of why Barack Hussein Obama and his entire government must be voted out of office in three weeks. When the professionals tasked with recommending the allocations of security and intelligence assets to critical places like Benghazi, Libya were asked how they felt about the administration’s response to their repeated requests for months to augment the security of the embassy at Benghazi, they responded in the following manner. I quote:

“For me and my staff, it was made abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask, again is, ‘How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?’”___ Eric Nordstrom in testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Lt. Colonel West, also tasked with making recommendations and in charge of security allocations of assets to Benghazi, replied when asked of the situation, “We were fighting a losing battle. We couldn’t even keep what we had. We were not even allowed to keep what we had.

He continues later on, and his statements are even more troubling in light of what happened in Benghazi and how the administration has dealt with it in its aftermath. I quote:

“If I could add to that, and I was told by the same regional director in a telephone call in Benghazi after he contacted me when I asked for twelve agents. His response to that was, ‘You’re asking for the sun, moon, and the stars. And my response to him was – his name was Jim – and I said, ‘Jim, you know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It’s not the hardships, it’s not the gunfire, it’s not the threats; it’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.’ And I added it by saying, ‘For me the Taliban is on the inside of the building.’

This is a most telling statement. It indicates that because of the duplicitous nature and behavior of some public officials within the highest echelons of the Obama government, these professionals believe that there is nothing short than a Trojan Horse within our government that is working cross-purposes with the national security interests of the United States, and its diplomatic corps who serve overseas. This would explain Obama’s incessant overtures to the Islamic World while treating Israel and our allies with contempt. It would explain what is contained in a report that has now come to light, which the reader can access here under the heading, REPORT: Scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to Obama White House... at this URL: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3777/a-red-carpet-for-radicals-at-the-white-house

Obama and his entire staff must not return to office. He must be voted out of office as soon as the elections allow. He and his government present a clear and present danger to the interests and stability of the United States, and for him to extend his presidency another four years would be an unmitigated disaster from which this nation and its people may never emerge.

Let Barack Hussein Obama’s days be few, and let Mitt Romney take his office. May we see the day this comes to pass, may it be soon, and may it be in our day. Indeed, may the Lord bring it to pass.

When a Marionette Preaches, the Ventriloquist's Voice Comes Through Loud & Clear

A CLARIFICATION: Before I continue, it is important that I clarify any potential misunderstandings what I am about to write may bring, especially from those of whom I am writing about. I in no way impugn either the character or sincerity of either Pastor Eric Douma or Dr. David James, two sincere servants of Christ. Let me make that clear up front and bring it to center light before anyone gets the wrong impression.

When I refer to some within the Discernment Ministry as being too committed to their campaign against Cahn and his book The Harbinger, I am not necessarily referring to them, I am speaking in a general term. Therefore, let it not be taken by either men or anyone else reading this post, that I refer to anyone in particular when writing about commitments and how hard it is to seperate oneself from them once one is fully committed to them.

Because people can interpret into what other people write more than what is said, or an entirely new narrative - just read the critics of The Harbinger and you'll get a real lesson in this - then it is my responsibility to make sure that no one reading this post misunderstands what I say in it. Therefore the clarification. Now we may proceed.

Normally I enjoy sermons and find them both uplifting, and a true help in affirming and strengthening our faith. Some of the best sermons preached that i've heard in my lifetime have been and continue to be those given by such notables as Dr. Charles Swindoll, Dr. James MacArthur, Dr. James MacDonald, Dr. Charles Stanley, and of course my own Pastor/Rabbi Jonathan Cahn whom I hear almost every week.

Even when at times I find myself disagreeing with all or some of these, I still find their preaching and exposition of God's Word uplifting and inspiring. I cannot in all honestly say the same about Eric Douma's.

I cannot stomach Eric Douma’s preaching. What's more, the message he gave regarding The Harbinger titled Can the Bible Say What It Doesn't Mean? is the worse specimen of verbal manipulation and semantical twisting I've ever experienced in my lifetime.

I must confess too that I can’t take his voice. But I can get passed the voice if the message is uplifting and if it glorifies God, but Douma’s message does neither. It is not uplifting, nor does it glorify God; so in the absence of one or the other – in this case both – it is like the proverbial swallowing of a very large pill without water. It is very hard to swallow.

So it’s taken me much longer to write down word by word his sermon, though what I’ve done thus far, I’ve encountered holes in his reasoning, his theology, his use of Aristotelian Logic as a Hermeneutic for Biblical Interpretation, and his fixation with semantics – where he makes generalizations of what he believes Cahn is saying and equivocates as to their meaning – actually huge gaps; as he tries to build his case against The Harbinger and Jonathan Cahn.

His sermon is almost exclusively based in its totality upon the writings of David James and his book The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction?, not independent of them. Listening to Douma's sermon is like reading James' book. It's as though James is the ventriloquist and Douma the marionette, presenting to their audience the arguments contained in James' book.

It’s hard though, to listen to him, know where he’s gone off the rails, and discipline myself right there and then to comment upon a specific point, rather than to continue to listen to the bilge of bias masked as a Sunday School Bible Teaching. There is absolutely nothing uplifting or inspiring in it. It is dead scholasticism at its worst couched in a veneer of Christianity and taught to people who did not realize just how off the mark he really is.

I know Brannon Howse was completely taken by his presentation, and presents it as the best thing since slice bread on his web site. Just goes to show that if you package something well, regardless of the content of the product, it will find an audience who will be taken up by it. I plan to write a thorough review of Douma's sermon Lord willing, which will be part of a greater work on David James' book I am currently at work on.

No doubt the critics of The Harbinger think the same thing about us, and they would be correct in that respect alone. Anything, good or bad, right or wrong, correct or incorrect; can if packaged the right way, and sometimes regardless; find the right audience who will be taken up with it. There is no exception.

Some of the worse motion pictures of all time all have a cult following, even some of the worse politicians; as we’re witnessing currently with Obama. And so Brannon Howse and the others are taken up with Eric Douma’s well laid out presentation and readily accept it as gospel because it concurs with their point of view, and can be used by them to affirm it with others, possibly even convince some to their point of view.

Remember, this is their aim, and therefore they will use anything, say anything, broadcast anything that will strengthen their standing with the public regardless at this point whether or not there is a shred of evidence to support it. They’ve gone too far, and are far too committed now to turn back. It would be a most amazing thing to see them make a public repentance of what they have done, and turn around and cease their narrow campaign against Cahn and his book, and their efforts to marginalize and defame him and his ministry publicly.

Because of this – and it is at the very heart of human pride and ego – it is a very hard thing to do to end a project if one is convinced that it is serving God – but even harder for some if they have committed their reputation to it and are far too attached to its successful outcome – for them to shift gears and present a public apology and confession of their sin and guilt in attacking a fellow Christian. It takes a real and sincere soul searching for one to do that, and I don’t know if these gentlemen are up to the task, especially if they’ve convinced themselves that their cause is right and of God.

One can actually gauge how deep they’re committed by the manner they respond to criticism of their opinions about Cahn’s book, and their response to challenges presented of specific charges of theirs when these scrutinized by the clear teaching of Scripture and an analytical approach that simply takes the direct meaning of the words Cahn employs in his book and teachings before they’re mangled and twisted with new meanings he never intended but to which they attribute.

Some thirty-four years ago, when I was much younger in the faith, I had been caught up with the false teachings of the Word of Faith preachers. At that time, I was developing carefully a theology built around their teachings that justified the belief that medicine and medical science had no place in the lives of Christians, and that anyone who visited a doctor for a cure was practicing sorcery and living in unbelief. I actually believed and taught this nonsense, and felt justified in doing so. I was also caught up with every false doctrine taught by the Word of Faith preachers and religious telemarketers on TV and on the radio.

It took a deep soul searching as I read the unvarnished Scriptures, and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, to open my eyes to the error of my ways. As I compared what the Word of God taught to what was presented as doctrine by these charlatans, and the sincerely misguided (like me at the time), the Holy Spirit began to slowly and gently peel back the layers of these teachers’ false narrative, and I began to struggle with what I was discovering for the first time. It was painful. Very painful.

It was painful because my wife and I had both vested so much of our own personal theology and beliefs into it, and we had been so committed to supporting the ministries of these men. But as I began to notice how different the narrative of the Scriptures were to their own narrative; I began to share it with my wife and to speak out about it our fellow congregants. We lost dear friends, close associates, and were even expelled from the church we were married in.

And many left the day we left that little church in Dumont, N.J. just minutes from my current residence. The pastor and his wife divorced, the church closed and the property was sold and is now a real estate office. The pastor’s home next to the church has been a parking lot for years. It is a heart-breaking story. But it is the story of false doctrine and false pretenses, human error, and ego.

For a long time we went nowhere, but were content to watch the Sunday morning teachers on television and support their ministries. It took us years to heal from the hurt and return to worshipping in a congregation of a mainline Christian church – Beth Israel Worship Center when it was located in Garfield/Lodi, N.J. in September of 1998.

So in the present situation with regards to The Harbinger and how committed and convinced these men appear to be; I fully understand and appreciate their predicament should they ever come to their senses, and repent, return, apologize, and rescind their attacks on Cahn and his book. I don’t expect it. They have too much riding on their own book, their own radio shows, and their reputation and credibility is worth more to them than to come clean and do the right thing. It’s just a very, very hard thing to do, and human beings are not good at doing it.

People are people and Christians are people too, even the most sincere. Why? Because the heart is desperately wicked, who knows it? And this is where the Lord zeroes in on – the heart. Oh that my heart be right before the Lord! That I may have a heart after His own heart! That I may walk in His ways in humility and in the light of His truth all the days allotted to me to live, because I will never get a second chance at this life. This is it, and I must serve Him in Spirit and in truth, just as He looks for people to worship Him in Spirit and in truth.

More Observations On The Harbinger & Defiance to It

I just posted this entry on the Posted on Tim Challies’ web site
Wednesday, October 17th, 2012 at 12:40PM

We live in an age where television and the ten second sound bite has conditioned most of us to be unable to read much literature. When we do, it is with great difficulty. I myself am not an avid reader of fiction. I prefer theological works such as the writings of Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum (Ariel Ministries), and Nehemiah Gordon (Karaite Korner, Makor Hebrew Foundation). Every so often I pick up a fictional work, but unless it is well-written and engaging like a Tom Clancy Novel, I'll lost interest right away.

The Harbinger is a work of fiction used as a warning to the Christians of our nation to awaken from its slumber of apathy, spiritual complacency, and disengagement, and to repent and turn to God.

Like I said, I am not a lover of fiction, unless the story I am reading is written in a style like a Tom Clancy novel; riveting, engaging, melodramatic, and extremely realistic and highly plausible.

I would have preferred if The Harbinger had been given in documentary style, as it is preached by Rabbi Cahn in his sermons, but he chose to write it as a novel instead.

I find the Isaiah 9:10 Judgment DVDs that takes what the book says and breaks it all down to its elements and presents its various components as a documentary; to be thoroughly engaging, like Rabbi Cahn's sermons on The Harbinger.

I understand your difficulty in reading the book. It's interesting; some people found they could not put the book down, whereas others, like yourself; found it difficult to read and disengaging.

There is some truth in the old cliché' that one man's poison is another's food.

But all that aside, it is the underlying theme of The Harbinger that our generation must give heed to, because it involves the destiny of our nation. It involves US as God's people - and we are a covenant people; being made heirs according to God's promises which He made to Abraham through Jesus Christ, and thus these things apply to US, more so than they do to our nation as a whole, though our reaction to what God has to say and what we do with it, will determine the direction America will take, as this election will.

This is what is missed almost entirely by The Harbinger's critics, and it is part of the hardening that will take place both in civil society and within parts of the Christian Community. Jonathan Cahn doesn't say that, I am becoming increasingly aware of that, and so I write of it here, as I have on David James' web site, and have warned him of it, since he is in its epicenter

With every great awakening there are also those who scoff and deride those being used by God to bring it. Many of Israel's prophets were put to horrible deaths because what they had to say was objectionable to those who hear them.

Jesus Christ our Lord Himself, said that if the Head of the Household is called the Lord of the flies, how much more will those who follow Him have the same thing done to them?

I am not at all surprised by the mixed reaction from some quarters The Harbinger has received. It was to be expected, because those same quarters have long been trashing Christians with whom they have fundamental differences of doctrine with.

And I'm not referring here to such exposing cults or false prophets such as Benny Hinn, Robert Titlon, and experiences such as the so-called Toronto Revival; those are obvious aberrations from Biblical Christianity.

I'm not even referring to exposing the false doctrines based on the so-called "faith and prosperity" materialistic gospel being preached by the Word of Faith religious telemarketers and some of the large mega churches. No.

I'm referring to mainline born again, Bible believing Christian who are not Cessationists, who do not hold to hyper-Dispensationalism, or Armenianism, or even what some would term a form of hyper-Calvinist beliefs. These are savaged criticized and their opinions are attacked by these "discernment" teachers who have focused their laser thin gaze on their ministries, as these do now with Cahn's book and teachings.

Therein lies the rub, because the discernment ministries such as the Alliance for Biblical Integrity and the Berean Call - both sort of interconnected entities - have now turned their focus and attention away from the cults and primarily towards their fellow Christians whom they have doctrinal and hermeneutical differences with, and it is under the mantle of "truth and discernment" that they marginalize the ministries and teachings of other Christians.

This is not the Biblical metric for conflict resolution among Christians within the body of Christ and the methods employed by these so-called discernment ministries have often crossed the line when attacking other ministries over doctrinal and exegetical questions they do not agree with.

Because they are doing this, they are bearing false witness against other Christians inasmuch as they are sowing needless contention with the body by employing highly deceptive and Scripturally questionable methods in a public forum.

And because they have built around themselves a reputation and a following - and to an extent, one must say that they've earned it - they are now exploiting that reputation to their advantage as a Trojan Horse within the Body of Christ, destroying lives and reputations, and ministries engaged in bringing people to the saving knowledge of God's grace in Jesus Christ.

This ought not to be.

It would serve the cause of Christ well, were these brethren (and I'll name them here) - Tom A. McMahon (the Berean Call), David James (ABI - Alliance for Biblical Integrity), Brannon Howse (World View Times & World View Weekend Radio), Jimmy DeYoung (the Berean Call), Moriel Carol (James Jacob Prasch), Eric Douma (Twin Cities Fellowship), Ken Silva (Apprising Ministries), Robert Scarpati, Berit Kjos, Jeremy James, Christine Pack (Sola Sisters), Mark Dinsmore (T.A. McMahon - Berean Call), Tommy Ice (Pre-Trib Research Center, Liberty University), Chris Rosebrough (PirateChristian), S. Brinkmann (Women of Grace), Gary E. Gilley (Apprising Ministries), and Larry DeBruyn (ABI). all to take a step back, pray, about what they have done, and stop justifying themselves, but act humbly before their God and question their methods, and its results, and whether or not there is a better, Biblical approach to doctrinal conflict resolution among believing Christians.

Update About Delilah & What the Bible Says About Pets

My dear friends,

Thank you all for your prayers and encouraging messages. It is with great sadness that I must report to you that we found Delilah’s remains on the highway behind their house just up the highway on Route 46Westbound by Exit to 5 th Street in Palisades Park.

We will be burying her in our back yard, inside the fenced dog run where we planted seven pine trees; where she spent five years with us, and another four years previously with us when we lived in North Bergen. She was Booboo’s dog, but really she was our dog too. We will miss her greatly. But Vivian was praying for closure, that we would know; and we know now where Delilah is.

The day she got lost, our Yorkshire Terrier, Littlez was in my bedroom, and at around 2:00PM he started barking. This was around the time Delilah escaped. She died instantly. We have closure now. Thank you for your prayers for our family.


Thank you friends for all of your words of comfort and inspiration at this time. I guess those of us who have pets and who’ve had pets really understand what it’s like to lose one. Our pets are parts of our family. They play with us, they sleep alongside us, they go where we go, they live in our homes with us as part of our families. They become a part of us. They become a part of our lives. They share with us some of our most treasured moments, and only a pet owner really knows what that’s like.

So when we lose one of them, we’re losing a cherished member of our family. We never get over it; we learn as we do when we lose a member of our family, to go on, and look forward to a day when we will be reunited with our pets (not doctrine, just a thought). My wife made a very good point to me yesterday; actually two very good points.

She said, “If there are no animals in heaven, then how is it that Jesus the Messiah is returning from heaven riding on a white horse? Where does the horse come from? And if G-d made the animals in the garden to keep man company, and He saw that it was good, will He not bring good things to pass when He restores the heavens and the earth?”

I would like to add to this that the Scriptures do tell us specifically how things will be in a restored universe. It is in the Hebrew Bible – the Tanakh – where Isaiah prophesies the following startling statement:

Isaiah 11
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Righteous Reign of the Branch

Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,
And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
And He will delight in the fear of the Lord,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
But with righteousness He will judge the poor,
And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;
And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.
Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins,
And faithfulness the belt about His waist.
And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them.
Also the cow and the bear will graze,
Their young will lie down together,
And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,
And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den.
They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
As the waters cover the sea.
Then in that day
The nations will resort to the root of Jesse,
Who will stand as a signal for the peoples;
And His resting place will be glorious.

The Restored Remnant

Then it will happen on that day that the Lord
Will again recover the second time with His hand
The remnant of His people, who will remain,
From Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath,
And from the islands of the sea.
And He will lift up a standard for the nations
And assemble the banished ones of Israel,
And will gather the dispersed of Judah
From the four corners of the earth.
Then the jealousy of Ephraim will depart,
And those who harass Judah will be cut off;
Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah,
And Judah will not harass Ephraim.
They will swoop down on the slopes of the Philistines on the west;
Together they will plunder the sons of the east;
They will possess Edom and Moab,
And the sons of Ammon will be subject to them.
And the Lord will utterly destroy
The tongue of the Sea of Egypt;
And He will wave His hand over the [i]River
With His scorching wind;
And He will strike it into seven streams
And make men walk over dry-shod.
And there will be a highway from Assyria
For the remnant of His people who will be left,
Just as there was for Israel
In the day that they came up out of the land of Egypt.

These animals will be like pets for the children of that era, and the earth and all creation will be restored to its proper state of being. Harmony and peace will dominate all creation, and everyone will live under Messiah’s perfect and just government when He sits once and for all before all nations on the seat of David His father. Thank you all for your comforting words, and thanks be to Our Maker for His promises.

You know, my daughter Julianne and my son-in-law Rafael, have a Beagle they named Samson. G-d will use him to comfort them now in their loss. He always provides a substitute and a means to heal from our hurts.
________________________________________


Rainbow Bridge poem_______________________________________

Many of us know this-but for those who don't, it's a moving and touching poem that can help when we've lost a dear friend.

Just this side of heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge. When an animal dies that has been especially close to someone here, that pet goes to Rainbow Bridge. There are meadows and hills for all of our special friends so they can run and play together. There is plenty of food, water and sunshine, and our friends are warm and comfortable.

All the animals who had been ill and old are restored to health and vigor. Those who were hurt or maimed are made whole and strong again, just as we remember them in our dreams of days and times gone by. The animals are happy and content, except for one small thing; they each miss someone very special to them, who had to be left behind. They all run and play together, but the day comes when one suddenly stops and looks into the distance. His bright eyes are intent. His eager body quivers. Suddenly he begins to run from the group, flying over the green grass, his legs carrying him faster and faster.
You have been spotted, and when you and your special friend finally meet, you cling together in joyous reunion, never to be parted again. The happy kisses rain upon your face; your hands again caress the beloved head, and you look once more into the trusting eyes of your pet, so long gone from your life but never absent from your heart.

Then you cross Rainbow Bridge together....

Author unknown...