Monday, September 06, 2010


Grave Situation in Mideast

On the eve of President Obama’s Mideast Peace Conference, unfolding events by Israel’s enemies strongly suggests that an outbreak of war is imminent, perhaps within hours or days. The following information provides our readers with an overall grasp of the extremely heavy gravity of the situation.

On Monday (8/30) the Hezbollah leadership under Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah issued a “State of War Alert” to all Hezbollah militia forces. Syria is also reportedly on its highest state of alert. The alert status is reminiscent of the situation just hours prior to the start of the war in June of 1967 known more often as “The Six Day War.”

On June 4, 1967, Arab leaders of Egypt, Syria and Jordan gave final approval for plans to launch sneak attacks against Israel. Those attack plans called for surprise air strikes by Arab war planes to begin the following morning of June 5. Israeli leaders, having caught wind of the plans launched their own pre-emptive strike catching the Arab air forces on the ground by surprise at the same time as Israeli ground forces launched a sneak ground campaign against its Arab neighbors. The result was a smashing victory for Israel, which included Israel gaining possession of all of Jerusalem, as well as the Sinai Peninsula, the Jordanian West Bank and Syria’s Golan Heights region.

As the first day of September 2010 rolled around, Israel finds itself in an eerily similar situation except that the identities of the key enemy antagonists have changed somewhat.
Syria remains in the roster of Israel’s enemy combatants but Jordan and Egypt have developed peaceful, even modestly cordial relationships. However, the primary protagonists for this latest crisis are Iran and her proxy forces of Lebanese Hezbollah militia and Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip.

According to various Western, U.S., Arab and Israeli intelligence reports, Hezbollah has been making final preparations for a large-scale sneak-attack against Israel. The only questions now amongst informed analysts revolve around the “when” and “where” of the expected attacks. As to the start date for the attacks, we understand Israel’s enemies are considering to optional timing dates. Plans under consideration include a launch date of not long after the opening ceremonies in Washington for the new peace conference whereby Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas will meet face to face to start peace talk negotiations under the sponsorship of President Obama.

Many sources out of the Mideast hypothesize that a surprise attack could come late Thursday evening or perhaps more likely on Friday, September 2, 2010. Why Friday?

Friday is the last day of Ramadan which concludes with a festive, celebratory feast that ends the holy period of Ramadan. It is also known as “International al Qods Day” or “Jerusalem Day.” It is a day of Islamic solidarity with the Palestinian people in their quest to secure Islamic control over all of Jerusalem. This day of consecration to that endeavor was conceived originally by the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It is part of Iran’s master plan to be the leading nation of the Islamic world.

A-O Readers should note that an attack by Iran’s proxy forces in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip on al-Qods Day would seem very much appropriate to that day. The real question is whether the attack would technically begin during the day, before Ramadan’s final feast at night or in the twilight hours of the feast or shortly thereafter. Technically by Islamic law, no military endeavors should be permitted during any point of the Ramadan period. No doubt, Iranian clerics could find a loophole excuse for a sneak attack as early as the night before or during the pre-dawn hours of “al Qods Day.” Such an attack would be viewed as a holy consecration to the task of retaking Jerusalem from Israel as well as destroying Israel. It would likely be viewed as the opening day of a war that Islamists would hope to conclude by the Jewish holy days of Rosh Hashanah (9/8/10) and Yom Kippur (9/18/10).

2nd Optional Attack Date:

The second optional time point for launching a sneak attack against Israel would be on the eve of Rosh Hashanah which begins on the evening of September 8, 2010. This date marks the end of a 62 year period since the UN declared a homeland for the Jews back in November of 1947. Some Bible prophecy watchers suggest that this coincides with the Prophet Daniel’s prediction of a 63 year period that precedes a 7 year period of Tribulation. It should be noted that from this year of Rosh Hashanah forward for three and a half years would see “signs” in the heavens – namely lunar and solar eclipses during Jewish holy days in 2014 and 2015 including Passover. Such astronomical events are perceived by some as coming fulfillments of Biblical prophecies relating to signs in the sun and the moon.

While we find these timing hypotheses to be highly intriguing but we prefer to not make dogmatic assertions that such coming events are indeed to the “the” prophetic fulfillments of those prophecies, but we do admit to such possibilities.

Now returning our focus to unfolding events of the past few days, let’s look further at what has recently transpired that suggests an imminent attack by Israel’s enemies.

Indicator #1.= Israeli Troop Deployments

First of all, there are numerous reports from within the Islamic media outlets of the Middle East claiming that Israel has deployed an additional full armored division along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon and Syria.

Indicator #2. = Iranian – Hezbollah War Councils

U.S., Western and Israeli intel reports note that Iranian leaders have been pressuring Hezbollah leaders to launch attacks against Israel. Various Iranian military commanders have made numerous visits to meet with Hezbollah leaders in both Lebanon and also the Syrian capital of Damascus.

Indicator #3. = Hamas Drive-by Terror Strike

Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip claimed responsibility for a terror attack in the West Bank where 4 Israelis were shot dead in a drive-by shooting.

Indicator #4. = Hezbollah Troop Movements

All of Hezbollah’s full-time troop forces are now at forward positions along the border with Israel in violation of UN agreements.

Indicator #5. = Hexbollah Reserve Call Up

Hezbollah has issued a call to duty for all of its part-time troop reserves.

Indicator #6. = Hezbollah Commando Forces Positioning

Hezbollah has placed its entire Commando Forces into special ‘strike’ positions for:

a. amphibious beach landings rapidly moving inland into central Israel

b. commando rapid strike forces from the border into northern Galilee

Indicator #6. Iranian officers activities

The Iranian commander of its “al Qods” (Jerusalem) Brigade – foreign division for Iraq, Gaza and the Palestinian Authority has spent the last 12 days in Damascus (since 8/19)
Along with the chief general of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps conducting War Councils with Hezbollah and Syrian officers.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Lisason Field Commander assigned to Hezbollah is Hassan Mahdavi. According to western intelligence sources, he has been shuttling around the region monitoring events in Lebanon, meeting with Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. He has reportedly pressured Nasrallah to order a large scale surprise attack against Israel as part of Iran’s strategic response to President Obama’s attempt to forge a Mideast peace agreement from the current peace talks in Washington.

Hezbollah’s chief, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is reported by Western intelligence sources to be nearing a decision on when and where his forces should strike initially. Reports indicate he has been somewhat reluctant to strike, in part because he detests the idea of being an Iranian puppet doing Iran’s bidding. At the same time however, one of Iran’s primary selling points for persuading Nasrallah to go ahead and attack is the notion of the honor and glory of initiating a war that takes back Jerusalem and destroys Israel. In Islamic understanding there would be great glory and prestige in being the leader which obtains the victory.

The Hezbollah chief is not the only one being lobbied by the Iranians. Iranian officials are also lobbying other Shiite groups in Lebanon that are rivals to Hezbollah. Such lobbying efforts are urging the factions to unite together in common cause against the enemy and to also remain united to greet Iran’s President under a common battle flag of Hezbollah, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes a state visit to Beirut, Lebanon later in September. reports its sources understand the visit is tentatively scheduled for September 10-12 during Israel’s holiday period. It is believed the trip is designed to be a victory trip, celebrating the recapture of Jerusalem and the destruction of Israel.

Tehran’s war goal is intended to not only destroy Israel and recapture Jerusalem but to also strike at American prestige and standing in the world of geo-politics. Iranian leaders gauge that a Israel’s destruction will result in a humiliation of America and those Arab leaders which have aligned with America. It would underscore the impotence of America
and point out Obama’s incompetence as a leader. Arab nations would question the wisdom of aligning themselves with American foreign policy.

The Iranian war strategy is also timed to launch a civil war within Iraq in order to install a puppet government subordinate and subservient to Iran, much like Hezbollah. Iran has been waiting for U.S. combat forces to exit Iraq in order to more easily accomplish the mission. At the same time, an Iranian take-over by its proxy Shiites in Iraq would serve as a historic parallel to the world portraying America as having suffered a defeat equal to its withdrawal and defeat in Vietnam.

Hezbollah has also set up a liason for joint command of forces with Syria. This arrangement will enable Syria to remain abreast of the battlefield situation and provide strategic support as needed. We’ll have more the battlefield strategies in separate A-O Report coverage.

Meanwhile, Iran is fully prepared for any Israeli air strikes targeting Iranian nuclear faclities. Iranian strategy calls for a quick response with swift missile strike counter-attacks designed to level Israeli cities and take out key targets in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab targets in the Persian Gulf as well as American bases in the region. Iran intends to confront U.S. naval forces in the region as opportunities allow. Such moves would likely result in Iran sealing off the Strait of Hormuz. In doing so, such a development would halt the flow of 40% of the world’s oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. Such a development will spark a skyrocketing of oil prices and refined products such as gasoline and diesel fuel.

Our A-O Report analysis expects that Hezbollah will not launch any attacks until after the Ramadan period concludes on Friday night. It may coincide with the final night feast on Friday night. Such an attack at the end of “International al-Qods Day” would still have significant symbolism for the Muslim world without violating Islamic law concerning Ramadan itself. With that in mind, we anticipate that by American time zones, word of an attack would not begin to be picked up by U.S. news media until mid to late Friday afternoon at the earliest.

We’re more inclined to think it militarily prudent to wait until the eve of the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah on September 8 for the launch of an attack. This date would give Hezbollah the cover of a new moon to allow amphibious commando landings a better likelihood for success without premature discovery that a moonlit night might afford. A Rosh Hashanah attack might also provide a better element of surprise as it would catch the Jewish nation in a bind as it tries to celebrate the arrival of a Jewish New Year.

An alternative date for a surprise attack would be the high Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur which comes on September 18. Such an attack would not be the first time Israel was attacked on Yom Kippur. Back in 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a sneak attack on Israel triggering what is now often times referred to as the “Yom Kippur War” of 1973.
Would Iran, Hezbollah and Syria opt for a second Yom Kippur War? It might well be a possible “back up” date should the situations for September 3 (al Qods Day) or September 8 (Rosh Hashanah) not be favorable for an attack.

At the moment, given the indicators we’ve noted, we’d place the likelihood for an attack
by Hezbollah to be at probably 70%.

A final note of caution is appropriate, as always in such cases. God is sovereign and can quite easily halt and prevent Hezbollah and Iran from doing anything that does not fit with God’s prophetic time line. Therefore, if a war does not mesh with God’s prophetic timeline, there will be no attack. Some way, some how, God will see to it that an attack does not take place, if the timing does not mesh with the Divine timeline and God’s will.

There are some prophecy watchers who are convinced that Rosh Hashanah of 2011 is THE time when God’s timeline kicks off – including at that time, the Rapture of the Church. At The A-O Report, we distance ourselves from any attempts to peg a precise date for the Rapture of the Church but we do acknowledge that various Rapture timing theories involving various Jewish festivals and feasts provide intriguing reasons for such theories and acknowledge the possibilities exist that one of those theories may be correct.
Even so, we prefer to keep an open mind and anticipate His Return for the Church could come at any time, any day of the year.

The A-O Report will provide ongoing updates of the Mideast war situation when urgent developments warrant. Some of our updates may post to the public section of our website while other postings may be reserved to the Donor’s section and available only to those who donate to The A-O Report. Either way, stay tuned for continuing coverage of the situation
Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 1
Exclusive: Chuck Norris blasts prez for peddling Islam, cheering Ground Zero mosque

Posted: August 16, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By Chuck Norris


Unlike any other time in U.S. history, our First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion are in jeopardy. As if recently passed "hate-crime" laws and a politically correct culture weren't bad enough, now our president is using international pressure and possibly law to establish a prohibition against insulting Islam or Muslims.

Let me remind us how we got here.

Speaking for most founders in his day, John Jay, America's first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington himself, said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Two hundred years later, President Obama has already denied America's rich Judeo-Christian heritage before the eyes and ears of other countries, as he publicly declared in Turkey on April 6, 2009, for the whole world to hear: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

Then there was Cairo in June 2009, when President Obama vowed to establish "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world … I also know civilization's debt to Islam. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. … And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed."

He goes on to say, "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

That last line is really one of the most unique U.S. presidential religious passions and missions stated to date: "And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Another big question is: What did the president mean when he said, "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't"? It makes no sense at all to refer to a partnership between a country and religion – America and Islam. Why not say partnership between America and Muslim nations or a partnership between Americans and Muslims or even a partnership between Christianity and Islam? That comment is very strange to me and has a much deeper meaning.

Roughly six months later, in February 2010, Obama appointed Rashad Hussain to serve as his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, an inter-governmental body of 56 Muslim countries that also forms an official body represented in the United Nations. (Where is the same treatment from this White House for countries that uphold Judeo-Christian values to unite and have the same treatment that allows them to form an official body represented in the U.N.? Or any religion, for that matter? There's something rotten in the state of Denmark!)

Obama rejoiced, "I'm proud to announce today that I am appointing my special envoy to the OIC – Rashad Hussain. As an accomplished lawyer and a close and trusted member of my White House staff, Rashad has played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo. And as a hafiz of the Quran, he is a respected member of the American Muslim community, and I thank him for carrying forward this important work."

In 2007, then President George W. Bush explained the initial purpose for a OIC representative: "Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states, and will share with them America's views and values. This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship."

But Obama has considerably upped the OIC ante. Today, the White House purports from its website that special envoy, Muslim and hafiz of the Quran, Rashad Hussain, "will deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama's speech in Cairo last June."

Again, notice the differences between the Bush and Obama plans with the special OIC envoy: from Bush's mission to "listen and learn from representatives" to Obama's mission to "deepen and expand the partnerships."

The OIC members (including U.S. Special Envoy Rashad Hussain) pledge to its charter mission to rid the world of "the defamation of religion." But the "defamation of religion" translates to mean "defamation of Islam." An article on the OIC website explains, "Western foreign policy is considered to be the single most significant factor determining the attitudes of many Muslims toward the West. … Unfortunately, Islam often conjures in the Western minds images of authoritarian government, subjugation of women, cruel punishments of Shariah law and violence in the popular Western mind."


The world also just learned recently from the assistant secretary for public affairs in the State Department, P.J. Crowley, that the White House has repeatedly sent out as an American ambassador of peace the Islamic fundamentalist and executive director of the Ground Zero mosque, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is being sponsored by the U.S. State Department for repeated trips to the Middle East, where he is teaching on Muslim life in America and promoting religious tolerance.

But doesn't one who called the U.S. an "accessory" to Sept. 11 just a few weeks after the tragic event and one who still refuses to call Hamas a foreign terrorist organization seem a strange choice for a U.S. ambassador of peace who promotes religious tolerance?

It is absolutely no surprise, therefore, though gravely unfortunate and disappointing for our commander in chief to blurt out last Friday night, while celebrating the holy month of Ramadan at a White House dinner, that he is in favor of building the mosque near Ground Zero!

The president explained the next day, "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."

White House spokesman Bill Burton reiterated the next day about Obama's stance on constructing the mosque: "Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans. What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque."

But I could not agree more with Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11: "As an Obama supporter, I really feel that he's lost sight of the germane issue, which is not about freedom of religion. It's about a gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost."

And Debra Burlingame, a spokeswoman for some Sept. 11 families and the sister of one of the pilots killed in the attacks, summed it up perfectly: "Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see."

Obama is not just rebooting America's image in the Muslim world. He's deepening and expanding Islamic belief, practice, culture around the world, like a Muslim missionary.

(Next week in Part 2, I will discuss how the Obama administration has changed course in just this past year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, as well as demonstrate how Obama has been prejudiced in his treatment of Islam versus Christianity).
Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 2
Exclusive: Chuck Norris exposes president's true religious allegiances

Posted: August 23, 2010
1:00 am Easter

By Chuck Norris

Last week, the media, White House and nation were in a hullabaloo over a Pew Research Center poll which revealed that one in five Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim.

The poll received so much attention and response that the White House released a rebuttal reiterating that Obama is "a committed Christian."

The fact is, Americans are more baffled now by Obama's personal religion than they were when he first came into office.

John Green, University of Akron politics professor and senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, concluded, "I haven't seen any example, and I've been following polling of presidents for a long time now, of where we've seen increased confusion about religiosity the longer they're in office."

Part of the confusion comes, for example, when Obama doesn't make room to commemorate a National Day of Prayer with prominent Christian leaders or even spend time with the God-centered Boy Scouts of America at their national jamboree (as preceding presidents have), but he doesn't miss hosting the Muslim Iftar Ramadan dinner at the White House or pass up the chance to fight for the rights of Muslims to construct an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero.

At times, Obama has given pointed responses about his faith in Christ. At other times, he comes across ambiguous and even clueless about his faith. Still, at other times, he is downright condescending about the Christian faith.

With all the confusion and quandaries about Obama's religion lately, I rearranged the order of this four-part series to detail today exactly what Obama believes, including his beliefs about prayer, sin, heaven, the Bible and the person of Jesus, based upon a rare in-depth interview by a religious reporter of a major newspaper publication.

By far, the best documentation of Obama's faith comes from this rare in-depth interview on March 27, 2004, when he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate. In it, Obama gave often lengthy responses about his faith and practice to a series of questions from then Chicago Sun Times religion reporter Cathleen Falsani, though he often seems confused and even obtuse in his replies.

To the question do you pray often, Obama replied: "Uh, yeah, I guess I do."

"Guess"? Not sure?

When asked if he has read the Bible, Obama responded: "Absolutely. [But] These days I don't have much time for reading or reflection, period. … I'll be honest with you, I used to all the time, in a fairly disciplined way. But during the course of this campaign, I don't."

"I don't"?

In answering reporter Falsani's question, "Is there an example of a role model who combines everything you said you want do in your life, and your faith?" Obama's first response was, "I think Gandhi is a great example of a profoundly spiritual man."

Gandhi? A Hindu? How about Jesus, since Obama claims to be a "committed Christian"?

Regarding sin, Obama defined it as: "Being out of alignment with my values."

Mr. President, "your values," or God's values? Sin is transgression of God's law – period.

And here is Barack Obama's response when asked pointedly, "Who's Jesus to you?" Immediately after the question, Obama laughed nervously. Then, after a rather sarcastic, "Right," he proceeded, "Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history."

Could that "reaching something higher" possibly be heaven?

In answering the question on whether he believed in a literal heaven or not, Obama retorted: "Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings? … What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die."

Obama went on in that same 2004 interview to explain his faith in these flip-flopping, relative, all-inclusive, New Age and even secular terms: "I am a Christian. … On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences. I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, … I believe that there are many paths to the same place, … I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others. … I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at its best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty. [T]here's an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty. … I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. … That's just not part of my religious makeup."

No wonder that, when asked to describe the moment at which he went forward in response to an altar call in his and Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church in 1987 or 1988, Obama said: "I think it was just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me."

"I think it was"? Not sure again?

No wonder Americans are confused about Obama's religion, because he himself sounds confused about it.

Probably most revealing here are Obama's words to reporter Falsani about his modus operandi: "Part of the reason I think it's always difficult for public figures to talk about [their religious belief] is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that's by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is."

If "being as vague as possible" is Obama's political advice to himself and others, he sure hasn't followed it with either his presidential commitment to pro-Islamic brawls or in his past anti-Christian rants. Remember, this is the president who gave this 2009 Cairo creed, emphatically stating to the Middle Eastern world that it was "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Yet, when it comes to Christianity, he has actually done just the opposite. Two years after his interview with Chicago Sun Times religion reporter Cathleen Falsani, on June 28, 2006, then-Sen. Obama publicly perpetuated negative stereotypes of Christianity and defamed the religion and the words of its founder. From the pulpit of a church, speaking to a live audience about religious diversity, Obama sarcastically belittled America's Judeo-Christian heritage and degraded its adherents with trite remarks typical of any atheistic antagonist, saying things like: "Whatever we were, we are no longer a Christian nation," "The dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever," "Religion doesn't allow for compromise," "The Sermon on the Mount [is] a passage that is so radical that our own defense department wouldn't survive its application" and "To base our policy making upon such commitments [as moral absolutes] would be a dangerous thing." (You must see the YouTube video: "Barack Obama on the importance of a secular government.")

That diatribe is nothing short of a pure unadulterated rallying cry for antagonists of Christianity.

And gone but not forgotten is Obama's religiously belittling statement on the campaign trail in April of 2008 about many residents in small-town America. You might recall, at a private California fundraiser, when he addressed the economic hardships of those in Pennsylvania, he criticized them by saying: "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. … And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion … as a way to explain their frustrations."

And to which "religion" was Obama negatively referring? Islam? Christianity, of course.

And the whole time I consider Obama's anti-Christian diatribes and religious rubbish, I keep coming back to the words of President George Washington in his presidential Farewell Address, advice our current president would be wise especially now to heed: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them."

"A committed Christian"?

I guess I completely don't understand what the word "committed" means.
Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 3
Exclusive: Chuck Norris calls president's bluff on his purported religious beliefs

Posted: August 30, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By Chuck Norris


"I can't spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead," President Obama told Brian Williams in an interview last night on NBC's Nightly News, reacting to why a large percentage of Americans have serious doubts about his Christian faith.

In response to the Pew Research Center poll that indicated one in five Americans think President Obama is a Muslim, a week ago the White House released a rebuttal insisting that the president is "a committed Christian."

Those words remind me of those from President Teddy Roosevelt, who said, "Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big."

Even more apropos, Christianity's founder, Jesus Christ, said we would be able to distinguish authentic Christian leaders from false ones not by what they say but "by their fruit [or actions] you will recognize them."

And Obama's actions are again our focus here in Part 3.

In Part 1, I began to demonstrate how the President is using U.S. Special Envoy Rashad Hussain, his own presidential position and others in his administration to deepen and expand the partnerships between the United States and the religion of Islam.

In Part 2, I detailed Obama's real spiritual beliefs based upon a rare in-depth 2004 interview by a religious reporter for a major newspaper publication, including his beliefs about prayer, sin, heaven, the Bible and the person of Jesus.

Now, in Part 3, I will demonstrate how Obama categorically has been prejudicial in his treatment of Islam versus Christianity.

My question is: Just as Obama committed for Muslims in Cairo in 2009, why doesn't he also consider it his responsibility to "fight against negative stereotypes" of Christianity "wherever they appear" too, especially since the majority in Americans still profess affinity with Christendom, and he claims to be "a committed Christian"?

As president, why doesn't he defend the rights of Christians too, especially those whose voice and freedoms have been suppressed because of opposition?

In just the last few months, why didn't the president step forward and stand up publicly for any of the following Christians who had their First Amendment rights trampled upon by others, just as he had done for Muslims who are attempting to build the Ground Zero mosque?

Why doesn't the president stand up for the rights of Christian organizations, whose rights to hire same faith or mission-minded employees are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment, but are right now having to urge Congress to reject legislation that would prohibit them from hiring only fellow believers?
Why didn't the president stand up for the rights of the North Carolina pastor who was fired from his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer "in the name of Jesus"?
Why didn't the president stand up for the children from the Christian private school who were "abruptly" ordered by a court police officer to stop praying outside the U.S. Supreme Court building?
Why didn't the president stand up for the rights of those in Utah who erected 14 memorial crosses on highways for state troopers killed in the line of duty, but were told by federal judges they are to come down because they are unconstitutional?
Why didn't the president himself stand up for the human rights of the Christian missionaries and medical team in Afghanistan, including six Americans, to practice medicine and their faith, even after they were murdered by Islamic extremists? Wouldn't other medical missionaries in Afghanistan appreciate Obama's defense more now than ever?
Why didn't the president stand up for the four missionaries arrested at an Arab festival in Dearborn, Mich., just for exercising their freedom of speech and religion?
Why didn't the president stand up for the rights of the Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, who was disinvited from a Pentagon prayer service on the National Day of Prayer because of his "extremist" Christian views and values?
Why didn't the president stand up for the rights of the Christian student who was booted from her graduate counseling program at a public university over her belief and conviction that homosexuality is morally wrong?
Why didn't the president stand up for the three Christian evangelists who were arrested for sharing the gospel and singing hymns on a public sidewalk outside an Islamic mosque in Philadelphia?
And, mostly, why didn't the president stand up for the rights of the Greek Orthodox Church, the only church that was actually destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks, as church leaders have been frustrated and fouled by New York officials who have virtually turned their backs on the reconstruction of the church near Ground Zero?
Gone are the days when even Thomas Jefferson, hailed as the great separatist who fought against the tyranny of denominational sectarianism in the state (and vice versa), nevertheless endorsed the use of government buildings (like the Capitol) for church services, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salary of the church's priests and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians. He also fought for years against Muslim extremists who tried to threaten U.S. citizens and trade abroad in the Barbary wars.

Today, however, we have a president who, according to his own confession and 2009 Cairo creed, considers it "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear" and create "partnership between America and Islam." (Notice again: a country and a religion, not a country and Arab states.) Moreover, Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference Rashad Hussain is being called to "deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama's speech in Cairo last June."

And that's exactly what the president has done. In countless speeches and actions since taking office, Obama has sympathized and supported pro-Islamic ideologies and practice. That is why the New York Times even recently published a multiple-page report on how the "White House quietly courts Muslims in the U.S."

The U.S. State Department just reported, under the guise of "cultural affairs" and "Cultural Preservation 2010 Awards," that it is giving away U.S. taxpayer funds to 63 foreign historic and cultural sites in 55 nations, including $50,000 for an Islamic Monument in India, $76,000 for a 16th century mosque in China, $67,000 for a mosque in Pakistan and $77,000 to restore minarets (tall slender towers attached to Mosques) in Nigeria and Mauritania. Should the State Department even be funding any of these religious quests, especially when the U.S. is broke? (To be fair, they are also giving monies to restore early Christian Frescoes in Greece, 17th and 18th century church paintings in Peru, etc., too.).

Is it any surprise that another recent poll shows an increase in Jewish and Catholic citizens who more inclined to vote Republican in November?

If a self-proclaimed non-Muslim president would fight repeatedly for Muslims' religious rights to the degree that our president has, don't you think "a committed Christian" president would at least fight once for any antagonistic oppression of Christian faith and practice, too? Yet, on no occasion since taking office has President Obama stood up publicly for a single Christian individual, group, church, act or event, whom or which was being opposed or oppressed by others.

All of it makes me ponder the application of the verse in the biblical book of James, which says, "Faith without works is dead."

Even more apropos might be Quran 4:76: "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah."
Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 4
Exclusive: Chuck Norris exposes president's rejection of Constitution, support for Islam

Posted: September 06, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By Chuck Norris

Nine years ago this week, we began to chant: "We will never forget 9/11."

Nine years later, I think too many of us have forgotten, especially those in the White House.

Islamic extremists murdered more than 3,000 innocent American lives on Sept. 11. Who would have believed that within a decade of that tragic event that we'd also have a new president who believes, according to his own 2009 Cairo confession and creed, that it was "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"? Not to mention his mission to fight for the mosque near Ground Zero!

In Part 1 of this series, I began to demonstrate how President Obama is using Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain to "deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama's speech in Cairo last June."

In Part 2, I detailed Obama's real spiritual beliefs based upon a rare in-depth 2004 interview by a religious reporter of a major newspaper publication, including his beliefs about prayer, sin, heaven, the Bible and the person of Jesus.

In Part 3, I explained how Obama categorically has been prejudicial in his treatment against Christians and Christianity in comparison to Muslims and Islam.

In Part 4 here, I will not only expand on that case but show how the Obama administration has changed course in just this last year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, exclusively benefitting Islam and its proliferation while again abandoning the principles in the U.S. Constitution.

In October of 2009, the White House rightly opposed the Organization of the Islamic Conference's (OIC), an inter-governmental body of 56 Muslim countries, push for the United Nation's Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution that would broadly condemn the defamation of religion (or the defamation of Islam), because it would plunder Americans' first amendment rights to freedom of speech.

Hypocritically, however, as the Heritage Foundation reported, at the same basic time that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was publicly repudiating that U.N. Human Rights Council resolution, on Oct. 2, 2009, "the Obama Administration's delegation to the 12th session of the council and OIC-member Egypt co-sponsored and adopted a resolution on freedom of opinion and expression that contains the essential elements of the resolutions on 'defamation of religions' that the U.S. opposed in the past."

And just a few months ago on June 23, 2010, that anti-First Amendment stand was reiterated when America's special envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, clearly explained the new leg ofObama's Muslim mission at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars – information by the way that no mainstream news agency I could find even reported. Hussain said, "The OIC and the Obama administration will work together in the U.N. on the issue of defamation of religion, especially in Europe." (Please read that again!)

Could it get any clearer? "Especially in Europe," but not excluding America!

Do we naively believe that Obama, the OIC and U.S. Special Envoy Rashad Hussain will not continue to pound on the tolerance doors of the world and Washington government, until the First Amendment is overstepped and abandoned again under the same guise as U.S. hate crime laws? If the U.S. already passed hate crimes laws in a tolerant-infatuated culture, how far away is an international hate crime or anti-defamation law, especially under this administration?

The key problem here is obvious: If international tolerance for Muslims can be increased then codified into international law or a violation of human rights so that a religion and its adherents cannot be defamed, it categorically overrides and violates the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and the core principle of U.S. free speech. And it's only a matter of time before the feds use that international pressure to try to coerce the American people to accept the same stateside, just like they have hate-crime laws.

And why should we not believe that Obama will again overstep the Constitution by handing over the administration of defamation of religion laws to global and international powers, when he in fact recently reported Arizona immigration laws to the U.N. as an example of human right violations?

Instead of the U.S. attacking those who are cutting off limbs or stoning Islamic women in the Middle East under Shariah law, the feds attack the good people of Arizona by reporting their "treatment" of illegal aliens, when all they are trying to do is to enforce the very immigration law the feds are ignoring?

Why doesn't the U.S. instead seek to pass an international resolution to clamp down on those Islamic extremists in Europe, who are completely out of control and ignored by the White House and even mainstream media though they protest, riot and hold up their hate signs to bomb or behead anyone who does not follow Islam?

Of course, Obama and the rest of his administration will do or say nothing against Islam in any form. If they would, they would have defended the U.S. against the greatest Muslim jihadist, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who in Dec. 2009 publicly accused the U.S. of actively planning and plotting to stop mankind's real savior: i.e. Mahdi, the imam that Muslims believe will be the ultimate savior of mankind.

To the contrary, Obama's Cairo pro-Muslim mission continues, and proof came again just last week. While the president announced to the nation from the Oval Office that, on Aug. 31, 2010, the combat mission in Iraq ended, on the same day, unbeknownst to the most of the country and world, the Obama administration held a special workshop for 25-30 Muslim leaders from 20 national Islamic groups (under the leadership of the "Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations") to provide the groups "funding, government assistance and resources."

And as a cherry on top of the Obama Islamic financial sundae, while most Americans would have to prove they have medical insurance or face a fine under Obamacare, many believe the stage is set so that Muslims could be exempt in the future from that financial penalty, due to a loophole in the law for conscientious religious objection, specifically created for those like the Amish, who believe their community cares for their own. Many Muslims are already rejoicing over this exemption based upon their belief that mandated universal health care is haraam or forbidden like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on future speculation like gambling or the charging of interest.

At a time commemorating Sept. 11, when recent polls show 70 percent of Americans are opposed to a Ground Zero mosque, and one in five Americans believe Obama is a Muslim, does he really expect that we will naively tolerate and approve of the Islamic bias in his presidential religious leadership and administration?

It's time we heed the wisdom of our fourth president, James Madison, who said, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

(It's because of our wayward and out of control federal government that I filmed my brand new comical "Trigger the Vote" PSA, so that we all will register to vote and clean up Washington, D.C., from one side of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. You can check it out on YouTube under the title "Tough like Chuck" or go to
Obama's U.S. assassination program? Part 1
Exclusive: Chuck Norris reveals bizarre way White House expanding power over citizens

Posted: July 26, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By Chuck Norris


Sound too conspiratorial to be true? Like the coverup ops of spy novels? Well, it's reality. And it is possibly the most bizarre, inhumane and abusive way that the White House is expanding its power over the American people.

It's not an extremist belief or theory of the far Right. It's a fact that has been confirmed by publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC and even documented by the far-left blog,

And it's the gravest nightmare of U.S. citizens and abandonment of our Constitution to date: A presidential assassination program in which U.S. citizens are in the literal scopes of the executive branch, based upon nothing more than allegations of terrorism involvement as they define it.

Of course, the CIA has executed covert assassinations of foreigners for decades. But, tragically, Obama is now expanding this program to include American, non-Islamic, stateside, homegrown terrorists.

It all started in January of this year when The Washington Post reported, "As part of the operations, Obama approved a December 24 strike against a [Yemeni] compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaida leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture. …"

"A shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing"?

That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet.

While the Obama administration continues its Bush-blaming for the economy, it is mega-morphing Bush policy in covert ops overseas, according to The Washington Post, "to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests."

Well, in recent months and weeks, the Obama administration has taken this overseas killing op to a new low: stateside assassinations.

Former Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair confessed before Congress: "We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."

If you are wondering who the "we" are, to whom Blair refers, they are Smith, Wesson and the White House.

Now we know what Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan meant when he admitted in May of this year: "And under President Obama, we have built upon the work of the previous administration and have accelerated efforts in many areas." (Remember when Bush's eavesdropping on U.S. citizens seemed harsh?)

Brennan further explained then that the problem of homegrown terrorists ranks as a top priority, because of the increasing number of U.S. individuals who have become "captivated by extremist ideology or causes." He went on to say, "There are … dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world that are very concerning to us."

Do you think "different parts of the world" doesn't include their country of origin?

Conveniently, the Obama administration is also integrating a pervasive plan to assure the expiration of radicals as they deem them abroad and domestic too, with the resurrection of the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," introduced by U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. (Venice, Los Angeles County). Also known as H.R. 1955, it was passed in the House by the Democratic majority, but was then rejected by the Senate.

Everyone thought that legislation was dead until the Obama administration resurrected its tenets in its new 52-page National Security Strategy, released in May. So alarming is the feds' potential abuse of power that officials from London to the Kremlin are recognizing the threat to U.S. citizens.

As the European Union reported, "Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government."

Woodrow Wilson, during his reign as president, incarcerated more than 2,000 U.S. citizens for speaking out against the government. And now for the first time since, a U.S. president is highlighting the threats of homegrown terror and literally hunting U.S. citizens as terrorists. As one senior administration said, "For the first time since Sept. 11, the [National Security Strategy] integrates homeland security and national security."

And what type of "integration" does that entail?

President Obama explained in an often overlooked statement within the document of the National Security Strategy: "We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. … This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home."

Could it be any clearer? Right out of the horse's mouth. Or do I need to spell out what "fully coordinating the actions we take abroad with the actions we take at home" means?

Remember the words, "A shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing"?

That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet.

(In Part 2 next week, Chuck will give further evidence for "Obama's U.S. assassination program" and why he says they are now going after non-Islamic, stateside radicals. Check out other reasons Chuck opposes the Obama administration in his new patriot service announcement at )
Obama's U.S. assassination program? Part 2
Exclusive: Chuck Norris reveals why Interpol exempt from U.S. search, seizure laws

Posted: August 02, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By Chuck Norris


In Part 1 last week, I gave evidence of how the Obama administration is importing its overseas policy to assassinate U.S. citizens and implementing it stateside against citizens it deems as radical threats to American security and safety. (If you have not read it, please read Part 1 before you read remaining of Part 2).

National security adviser John Brennan explained that the problem of homegrown terrorists ranks as a top priority because of the increasing number of U.S. individuals who have become "captivated by extremist ideology or causes." He went on to say, "There are … dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world that are very concerning to us."

Former director of national intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair even confessed before Congress: "We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."

That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet.

Ironically, or maybe not so, and also under the radar, the Supreme Court just ruled to back off strict enforcement of Miranda rights. Charles Weisselberg, a law professor at U.C. Berkeley, said, "This is the most important Miranda decision in a decade. And it will have a substantial impact on police practices. This decision approves of the practice of giving the warnings and then asking questions of the suspect, without asking first whether he wants to waive his rights."

President Obama himself explained in an often overlooked statement within the document of the National Security Strategy: "We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. … This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home."

Now, it finally is coming to light why back on Dec. 16, 2009, Obama signed an executive order "designating Interpol [International Criminal Police Organization] as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions and immunities."

Glenn Beck spoke for a host of other government watchdogs back then, when he asked on the air on his Jan. 7 show, "We've been asking ever since it was signed: Why? Who can tell me what special-interest group asked for this? If it were about terror, why not tell us that when he signed it? This Congress attacks our CIA and FBI, but Interpol gets immunity? Why? It makes no sense."

It all comes down to one basic verb. Can you find it in the following paragraph?

Obama's executive order reads, "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) ..."

There's the magic verb: "to extend"!

As I wrote in an earlier column on Interpol, is it also just coincidental that Interpol is exempt from typical American search-and-seizure laws?

Anyone still not connecting the dots?

There is one more titanic element that I must stress. The one overriding dilemma for Americans in Obama's hunt for homegrown terrorists is that, remember, he has changed the definitions of terrorism and terrorists. Their definitions no longer necessarily include or infer Islamic extremism or extremists.

Don't ever forget: Obama and his administration have repeatedly played down the actual threat of terrorism by Islamic jihadists. In 2008, then–presidential candidate Obama promised to close down Gitmo in his first year of presidency because, he said, it was an affront to American values and justice. He also promised to end the "warrantless wiretaps" of George Bush. In March of 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano proclaimed there was no terrorism – only "man-caused disasters." In the same month, the Obama administration also proclaimed that there are "no enemy combatants" and "no war on terror" – only an "overseas contingency operation." And, in May 2010, Obama top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan added, "... nor we do describe our enemies as jihadists."

We are therefore left to wonder: to the Obama administration, what exactly qualifies as radical extremism and terrorism and who is on their "shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing"? Consider even now who might fall into this category of non-Islamic, non-jihadist stateside homegrown terrorists. Do I need to make a list?

That's another thing that really chaps my hide. While Obama ratchets up the power and pursuit of homegrown U.S. terrorists, why in God's name is he loosening his grip over Muslim extremists who are right now planning, recruiting and seeking to carry out harm against the very U.S. citizens he has sworn to protect?

To add insult to injury, on July 27, 2004, at the Democratic convention, during the presidency of George W. Bush and just three years after Sept. 11, then-Sen. Barack Obama declared to the country, "If there is an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties."

And yet he doesn't feel obligated as president to fight for other ethnic U.S. citizens' rights or due process, even if defined by the White House as terrorists?

Am I missing something?

When the executive branch solely defines what and who is a terrorist and enlarges its unilateral power to execute the death penalty on U.S. citizens without due process or a trial, does not the whole country see this as Washington power run amok?

Has the White House not completely strayed, when the president of the United States minimizes the role of Islamic jihadists, reserves the right to assassinate U.S. citizens regarded as terrorists without due process or a trial, increases the powers of law-enforcement agencies like Interpol who are not bound to search-and-seizure laws, sues the state of Arizona for enforcing illegal-immigration border control, and does nothing to prohibit an Islamic victory mega-mosque on the edge of Ground Zero? (The very name "Cordoba House" refers to Cordoba, Spain, where Muslim conquerors symbolized their victory over Christianity by transforming a church into one of the largest mosques in the world.)

I don't care if the policy is from Barack Obama, George W. Bush or George Washington, there's absolutely no justifying one iota of this type of unconstitutional, unbridled and unchecked reckless wielding of executive power and privileges.

Rep. Ron Paul was 100 percent correct when he replied about these abhorrent acts by the federal government: "These activities should be anathema to the citizens of a constitutional republic."

I guess the Obama administration forgot to read the Dec. 4, 1981, Executive Order 12333 signed by then-President Ronald Reagan: "2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. 2.12 Indirect Participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order."

Tragically, they are also again abandoning the fundamental principles of due process, habeas corpus and our Constitution, which states in the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."

God, help us. God, protect U.S. citizens. God, save our courts. God, save our land. God, restore our republic.

(Check out other reasons why Chuck opposes the Obama administration in his new patriot service announcement.)

America - A Nation Oppressed And Controlled!

Volume XXIX Issue IX September 2010
Last Trumpet Ministries, PO Box 806, Beaver Dam, WI 53916
Fax: 920-887-2626 Internet:

America - A Nation Oppressed And Controlled!

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

I John 2:15-17
"For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come."

Hebrews 13:14
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Revelation 21:1-8
In this issue of the Last Trumpet Newsletter, we will once again examine the current events of our time as we move ever closer to the return of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. There is so much going wrong in this world, and it is so very clear which direction we are headed. We need our faith in Jesus now more than ever, for these are very distressing times. If I didn't have the Lord with me, if I didn't have God on my side, I find it doubtful that I could even handle reading the news. It has become an endless stream of evil with one thing after another going wrong. I urge each and every one of you to yield your hearts to God and receive the salvation of Christ while you still can. Time is short!

There is a heavy foreboding throughout the world as many people can feel the pressure of these last days and sense that something very bad is going to happen. The scientific community generally attributes this to what they call global warming or climate change. In fact, Ove Hoegh-Guildberg, the director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia, recently issued the statement, "We are well on our way to the next great extinction event." (1) The overwhelming sentiment seems to be that the world is on the very brink of an irreversible tipping point. It is because of this that they surmise that drastic action must now be taken in an effort to save the planet. The truth is, though people can drive their hybrid cars, recycle, compost, and do everything possible to reduce their carbon footprints, all of these efforts will change nothing. The Bible tells us this world is going to burn, and there is nothing that Al Gore, Barack Obama, the scientists or you can do about it. Don't let that scare you though. God has promised us "a new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness."

The BP Spill Aftermath

On July 15th, 2010, British Petroleum finally managed to cap their leak in the Gulf of Mexico and stop the flow of oil. It was the largest accidental oil spill of all time with an estimated 4.9 million barrels gushing into the Gulf. (2) Remarkably, much of the spilled oil seems to have already disappeared. Although that may seem like good news, experts familiar with the situation are worried that much of the oil is now underwater and may be impossible to capture or clean up. (3)

Another issue is the massive amounts of a highly toxic dispersant known as Corexit 9500 that BP used on the spill. Despite an order by the Environmental Protection Agency to use the dispersant sparingly, the Coast Guard issued seventy-four waivers, which allowed over a million gallons of the dangerous substance to be used. This activity has attracted the ire of Representative Edward Markey, D-Mass., who stated in a letter, "BP often carpet bombed the ocean with these chemicals and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it." (4) Dr. William Sawyer, a toxicology expert said, "The dispersants used in the BP clean-up efforts, known as 'Corexit 9500' and 'Corexit EC9527A' are also known as deodorized kerosene. With respect to marine toxicity and potential human health risks, studies of kerosene exposures strongly indicate potential health risks to volunteers, workers, sea turtles, dolphins, breathing reptiles, and all species which need to surface for air exchanges, as well as birds and all other mammals. Additionally, I have considered marine species which surface for atmospheric inhalation such as sea turtles, dolphins and other species which are especially vulnerable to aspiration toxicity of 'Corexit 9500' into the lung while surfacing." (5) Corexit was used in massive quantities despite the availability of less toxic dispersants such as Dispersit, which is manufactured by the U.S. Polychemical Corporation. (6)

The Road To Recovery Or The Road To Ruin?

Our leaders in Washington continue to insist that the economy is recovering. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently stated, "You are seeing a recovery. You're seeing private investment expand again, job growth starting to come back. And that's very encouraging." Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also informed us that we would see "moderate growth, a gradual decline in the unemployment rate and subdued inflation over the next several years." (7)

The "gradual decline" of unemployment in this country has been very gradual indeed. A report by the Associated Press indicates that 71,000 private-sector jobs were added in July. This is a paltry number and doesn't even put a dent in the 9.5% of unemployed workers. The United States would need to add 200,000 jobs per month to make any significant gains. And even at that pace, it would still take years to regain all the jobs that were lost since the recession began. The same report indicates that 14.6 million Americans want jobs but are unable to find work. (8)

Many economists and other financial experts are now saying we could be heading for a "double-dip" recession, which is a recession followed by a short period of growth, followed by another recession. Peter Morici, a business economist from the University of Maryland, stated, "Signs abound that the economic recovery is faltering." An economist from Yale University named Robert Shiller claims that there is more than a 50-50 chance of a double dip. Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted that a double dip recession could happen. (9)

The housing market continued to decline in July after the market ceased to be propped up by government incentives. Home-buying applications sank to a 13-year low according to Reuters News Service. (10) Reuters also reported that homebuilder confidence was at a 15-month low, (11) and banks are repossessing homes at a record pace. Banks took control of 269,962 homes in the second quarter of 2010 and are expected to foreclose on more than one million homes this year. (12) An unfortunate consequence of the housing collapse in this country has been an increase in homelessness. In 2009, more than 170,000 families had to seek refuge in homeless shelters, which was a whopping 30% increase since 2007. (13)

Regulators at the FDIC continue to shut down banks. Recent closures include banks in Florida, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington. The number of failed banks in the United States soared to 108 in July, and we will likely see more closures throughout the year. It's interesting to note that only three banks failed in 2007, twenty-five failed in 2008, and 140 failed in 2009. (14)

Yes, they call these the days of "recovery." And during these days of recovery, we have seen headlines such as "Economists see U.S. Recovery Weakening," (15) "State Governors Face Fiscal Strain," (16) "Federal Reserve Worry List Gets Longer," (17) "U.S. Counties Confront Shortfalls With Cuts," (18) "Schwarzeneggger Declares California Fiscal Emergency," (19) "Joblessness and Housing Add Risks to U.S. Recovery," (20) "More Americans' Credit Scores Sink to New Lows," (21) and "Competing Currency Being Accepted Across Mid-Michigan." (22) Apparently, some of the citizens of Michigan have such little confidence in U.S. currency that they are instead using money made at private mints. (23)

Meanwhile, there's chatter in Washington about raising the age one can collect Social Security to age seventy. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-MD., stated "We're lying to ourselves and our children if we say we can maintain our current levels of entitlement spending, defense spending and taxation without bankrupting our country. We could and should consider a higher retirement age or one pegged to life span, more progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a stronger safety net for the Americans who need it most." (24) U.S. News and World Reports published an article last month entitled "Eight Realities of the New Retirement." The article contained suggestions such as "continue employment," instead of retiring, and even going back to school. (25) It's starting to look like many Americans may never even get a chance to retire. A recent report from The Business Insider indicated that 36% of Americans don't contribute anything to a retirement plan, and 43% of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. (26)

Perhaps you've heard that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is disappearing altogether. Recent news reports indicate that is precisely what is happening. Consider the following facts: 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people, over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, (27) while 40 million Americans are now receiving food stamps. On the other hand, the number of millionaires increased 17.5 percent in 2009 over ten major metropolitan areas in the United States. (28)

Technology and the Death of Privacy!

There's a lot of amazing technology out there these days. And while this technology can be fun to play with and seemingly make our lives easier and more interesting, we need to keep in mind that the coming New World Order would be unable to operate without these amazing modern advances. We now live in a world where consumers carry a wide variety of gadgets that keep them connected to the Internet at all times. In fact, we can now use what they call "mobile broadband" to go online almost anywhere in the country as long as there are cell towers nearby.

Not only can we stay connected to the "world wide web" almost anywhere, but many people voluntarily report much of their activities to a website known as a Facebook. Facebook is a social networking site where you can post status updates to your friends and acquaintances, post pictures and videos, play games, and interact with other members of the website. Facebook is so addicting that many people are now checking it as soon as they wake up, even before using the bathroom. (29)

There has been a lot of controversy over Facebook's privacy policies these last few years. Many members grew upset after Facebook made certain information, such as friends' lists and pictures, available for everyone on the Internet to view. After receiving a lot of unwanted publicity, Facebook relented and added new privacy controls to ease the fears of its members.

But the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, doesn't seem to consider privacy all that important. In January of 2010 he stated, "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time. We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are." (30)

It is likely that Facebook does store all the data its members submit indefinitely. It's possible that they may be holding onto your data, (which by the way, they consider their data) even after you cancel your membership and leave the site. So without even realizing it, Facebook members are leaving behind a wealth of information about themselves, their personal lives, and their families. Of course, if the federal government were to come along and request this information, I find it unlikely that Facebook would refuse to hand it over.

If you happen to be a smartphone user, your phone apps may be spying on you. According to an Associated Press article, many applications for Apple's iPhone and Google's Android operating system are pulling sensitive data off your phone and sending it to third parties. This data can include your contacts, pictures, text messages, and Internet histories. (31) I guess that explains why so many apps are "free."

CNET News has reported that HP Labs is looking to build computers that monitor every move you make. The computers would track every song you listen to, every movie you watch, every book you read, and probably every other thing you do on the machine. HP Labs director Prith Banerjee stated, "When you think about it, HP sells 75 million PCs per year. That is an incredible place through which we can monitor all kinds of things. If you look at Google, if you look at Amazon, they are only able to look at what a consumer is doing on their web page." (32)

Oppression In The Last Days!

There seems to be a horrific abuse of power these days, whether it be by school officials, law enforcement, or the federal government. Here are just a few examples:

In Providence, Rhode Island, school officials banned an eight year-old boy's hat because it was decorated with toy soldiers carrying weapons. The boy and his parents were told his hat violated a strict zero-tolerance weapons policy. (33)

In Portland, Oregon, health inspectors shut down a seven year-old's lemonade stand after discovering she didn't have a $120 license to operate it. (34)

Police officers in El Reno, Oklahoma, tasered an 86 year-old disabled grandmother not once, but twice, after she supposedly "took a more aggressive posture in her bed." The officers also stepped on the woman's oxygen hose until she began to suffer from oxygen deprivation. (35)

President Obama has been urging federal employees to cut down on business travel and commuting by car in an effort to reduce pollution. In a statement issued in July 2010, Obama said, "The government has a responsibility to use that energy wisely, to reduce consumption, improve efficiency, use renewable energy, like wind and solar, and cut costs." (36) I wonder if our President is planning to reduce his own consumption. Is he going to cut down on business travel and commute less? Is Obama going to improve personal efficiency and cut costs? No, Obama likes to fly around in huge gas guzzling planes and to ride around in big gas guzzling cars. Someone should do a study on the size of Obama's carbon footprint. It's probably enormous.

On August 6, 2010, Rasmussen Reports published the results of a shocking poll. The results indicate that 9% of Americans believe the federal government should be allowed to do whatever they want. That number itself is disturbing enough, but the results also indicated that within the U.S. Political Class, 54% believe the government "should be allowed to do most anything." (37) So basically, within our leadership and amongst those running the United States, over half of them believe there should be no limits on what they can do. At a town hall meeting last July, Democratic congressman Pete Stark of California stated, "I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life." He further went on to say, "The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country." (38) Clearly, the Political Class and the members of our government consider themselves an elite class, which is better than the ordinary American people.

Perhaps one of the most astounding discoveries regarding our government was uncovered by a twelve year-old girl. BridgeAnne d'Avigon started a genealogical research project at age ten. Upon completion, she discovered that every President of the United States is related to each other except for one. With the exception of Martin Van Buren, each president can be traced back to King John of England, including our current president, Barack Obama. (39) This is either one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind, or it indicates there is an unseen force influencing and manipulating the presidential office of the United States.

War and More War!

The war in Afghanistan has now dragged on for nearly nine years. Despite the fact that the U.S. military possesses amazing technology and all sorts of advanced weaponry, they have been unable to overthrow the Taliban and win that conflict. Sadly, sixty-three U.S. soldiers lost their lives in Afghanistan last month. According to an Associated Press report, the month of July 2010 was the deadliest month on record in the Afghan war for the United States. (40) You would think that after nine long years of war, things would be getting better and not worse.

Not only is the U.S. military having difficulty winning the Afghan war, they're spending billions of dollars in the process. Last month, Barack Obama signed a spending bill to finance a surge in troops. The price tag on that bill is nearly 59 billion dollars with 37 billion of that going to the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts. The U.S. Congress has appropriated over a trillion dollars for war since 2001. (41)

Meanwhile, tensions between the United States and Iran remain high. When the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, was asked if the U.S. military had any contingency plans to attack Iran, he confirmed that such plans do exist. In response, Iran has claimed they have already dug mass graves for U.S. troops in advance preparation of any American attack. (42) The hostility between Iran and the United States has prompted Toyota Motor Corp to cease all exports to Iran. (43) The UN Security Council, the United States, and the European Union have all enacted or expanded sanctions against Iran. In retaliation to those sanctions, the Iranian government has announced they will no longer use U.S. dollars or euros. First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi reportedly said, "These currencies are filthy and we will no longer sell our oil in dollar and euro." (44) As we watch things continue to intensify between the United States and Iran, one can only wonder how long it will be before we see World War III.

North Korea also remains a potential threat. After the United States and South Korea performed joint naval drills together in a show of force, North Korea responded by firing 110 rounds of artillery near its disputed sea border with South Korea. (45) This reaction was much less drastic than the previously issued threat to mount a nuclear response against the United States and South Korea. (46)

I have an article in front of me with the headline, "Chinese Missile Could Shift Pacific Power Balance." The article reports that China is in the process of perfecting a new missile called the Dong Feng 21D. This missile is so advanced that it can be launched from land and accurately hit moving aircraft carriers at a distance of 900 miles. This new missile is causing considerable worry among those in Washington and in the U.S. military. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued the following statement, "When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically -- fighter to fighter or ship to ship -- and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options." (47) It's quite obvious that China has aspirations of taking over the role of "world's greatest superpower."

The Dark Rise of Vampirism!

A recent report by AFP, entitled "Vampires Get Their Teeth Into U.S. Public," highlights a disturbing trend. More and more teenagers and young adults now consider themselves vampires. According to the article, hundreds of "vampires" are gathering together to attend balls every few months. One such vampire, known as Seregon O'Dalley, stated, "It's like a religion. There are houses, and pageants, and clans, and kinds of presidents, ministers." The article also reports that she loves the taste of blood. "Every once in a while I drink blood. I make a prick on my finger and take the blood," she says. (48) Vampirism has been growing in popularity over the last few years due to the Twilight series of books and movies and the HBO television show known as "True Blood."

While Twilight may seem harmless to some, it serves as an introduction to vampire culture for many young people. Additionally, the movies have instilled a grievous amount of lust within not only teenage girls, but also within grown women in their 20s, 30s, and even in their 40s, as they swoon over the often shirtless male stars. As for "True Blood" the show is rated TV-MA and is reportedly so full of sex and violence that many of the show's fans affectionately refer to it as "vamporn." Quite obviously, Christians should stay away from it.

The Earth in Distress!

On July 5, 2010, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel featured an interesting little tidbit in its Earthweek section. Apparently, religious leaders in India's holy city of Varanasi decided to perform "frog weddings" in an attempt to please their rain gods. "This is an age-old tradition that if frogs are wedded, then Indra Dev will be pleased and monsoon will come," organizer Munna Lal Yadav said. (49) Since that time there have been floods and landslides all over Asia.

In Pakistan, the floods are reportedly the worst they have ever had. One hundred thirty-two people have been killed, hundreds are still missing, and fifteen million more have been displaced. A flood in China's Gansu killed at least 127 people while entire villages have been covered in water, mud, and rocks. China has seen its worst flooding in a decade this year with over 1,100 people killed and hundreds more still missing. In Indian-controlled Kashmir, floods have killed 132 people and injured 500 more. (50)

As always, the daily earthquakes continue. Earthquakes have become so common that they are now considered part of the norm and generally don't garner a lot of attention from the news media. While it's true that many earthquakes are not deadly, shouldn't the fact that the earth is constantly rumbling be a cause of concern to the world's population? While people continue to deny any significance of the quakes, they will grow in frequency and intensity as we move through these last days. Recent significant earthquakes include a 7.1-magitude quake in Ecuador on August 12, 2010, a 7.3-magnitude quake in Vanuatu on August 10, 2010, and a 7.0 quake in Papua, New Guinea, on August 4, 2010. (51)

In closing, I urge all of you to put your trust and hope in our Almighty God. I know that reading about what is happening in this world may be hard to bear, but we must remember that this world we presently live in is only temporary. Jesus has promised us Paradise, and when we get there we won't need to worry about earthquakes, floods, oil spills, wars between the nations, or economic distress. All of the problems and issues discussed in this newsletter will be non-existent, and we will live in perfect harmony with God and His people. If you have not yet completely yielded your heart to God, I urge you to do so now. Thank you to all who support this ministry. Your prayers and contributions are greatly appreciated as we seek to get the end time Gospel message to as many people as possible. As usual, if you have any prayer requests, you are welcomed to send them to us, and our teams of intercessors will give each request individual attention. Grace and peace be unto you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Samuel David Meyer

01. McClatchy Newspapers, July 04, 2010, By Les Blumenthal, Washington, D.C.
02. AFP, August 2, 2010, By AFP, Washington, D.C.
03. McClatchy Newspapers, July 30, 2010, By Curtis Morgan.
04. Associated Press, August 1, 2010, By H. Josef Hebert and Michael Kunzelman, New Orleans, LA.
05. PRNewswire, May 11, 2010, By PRNewswire, New Orleans, LA.
06. Wired, May 5, 2010, By Brandon Keim.
07. AFP, July 24, 2010, By AFP, Washington, D.C.
08. Associated Press, August 6, 2010, By The Associated Press.
09. Associated Press, July 31, 2010, By Tom Raum, Washington, D.C.
10. Reuters News Service, July 14, 2010, By Lynn Adler, New York, NY.
11. Reuters News Service, July 19, 2010, By Corbett B. Daly, Washington, D.C.
12. Reuters News Service, July 15, 2010, By Lynn Adler, New York, NY.
13. McClatchy News Service, June 17, 2010, By Tony Pugh, Washington, D.C.
14. Associated Press, July 30, 2010, By Marcy Gorden, Washington, D.C.
15. Reuters News Service, July 10, 2010, By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, Washington, D.C.
16. Reuters News Service, July 12, 2010, By Ros Krasny, Boston, MA.
17. Reuters News Service, July 11, 2010, By Emily Kaiser, Washington, D.C.
18. Reuters News Service, July 9, 2010, By Lisa Lambert, Washington, D.C.
19. Reuters News Service, July 28, 2010, By Jim Christie, San Francisco, CA.
20. Reuters News Service, July 8, 2010, By David Lawder, Washington, D.C.
21. Associated Press, July 12, 2010, By Eileen AJ Connelly, New York, NY.
22. ConnectMidMichigan, July 12, 2010, By ConnectMidMichigan,
23. Ibid.
24. McClatchy Newspapers, July 9, 2010, By David Lightman, Washington, D.C.
25. U.S. News And World Reports, July 10, 2010, By Philip Moeller.
26. The Business Insider, July 15, 2010, By Michael Snyder.
27. Ibid.
28. ABC News, August 5, 2010, By Rich Blake.
29. AFP, July 7, 2010, By AFP, Washington, D.C.
30. ReadWriteWeb, January 9, 2010, By Marshall Kirkpatrick,
31. Associated Press, July 28, 2010, By Jordan Robertson, Las Vegas, NV.
32. CNET News, August 6, 2010, By Ina Fried,
33. Associated Press, June 18, 2010, By Michelle R. Smith, Providence, RI.
34. The Oregonian, August 04, 2010, By Helen Jung.
35. Courthouse News Service, June 24, 2010, By Tim Hull.
36. Associated Press, July 20, 2010, By Erica Werner, Washington, D.C.
37. Rasmussen Reports, August 6, 2010, By Rasmussen Reports.
38. Ibid.
39. Santa Cruz Sentinel, February 16, 2010, By Megha Satyanarayana, Santa Cruz, CA.
40. Associated Press, July 30, 2010, By Robert H. Reid, Kabul, Afghanistan.
41. AFP, July 29, 2010, By AFP, Washington, D.C.
42. Associated Press, August 10, 2010, By Associated Press, Tehran, Iran.
43. The Japan Times, August 12, 2010, By The Japan Times, Nagoya, Japan.
44. AFP, August 10, 2010, By AFP, Tehran, Iran.
45. Associated Press, August 9, 2010, By Hyung-Jin Kim, Seoul, South Korea.
46. Associated Press, July 24, 2010, By Jim Gomez, Hanoi, Vietnam.
47. Associated Press, August 5, 2010, By Eric Talmadge, Aboard the USS George Washington.
48. AFP, July 20, 2010, By Paola Messana, New York, NY.
49. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 5, 2010, By Steve Newman.
50. Associated Press, August 8, 2010, By Ashraf Khan and Aijaz Hussain.
51. US Geological Survey, August 12, 2010,

Special Note: A new tribute website for Pastor David J. Meyer can now be accessed at

Sunday, August 08, 2010

Is God Trying To Send Us All A Message? - WW
I think so. All of the flooding, fires and other disasters are all growing in intensity. I would also venture an educated guess based on events I have been talking about since April, that there is a lot more to these two stories than meets the headlines.

Bretheren, I am not going to give any sermons today. The headlines are screaming at us; the open sin and rebellion, wars and rumors of wars, disasters in diverse places. What is it going to take sinful man to see what his real problem is?

Are you ready for a world war? I think that if certain nations do not 'call off their dogs' so to speak, we could be in one sometime next year. A hot war, none of this low intensity stuff. Keep you eyes on yet more oil and energy sabotage, billed as 'accidents' and 'mishaps' in the months to come, in both the US and BRIC nations (switch Iran for India here). Sooner or later, this war will come out of the shadows and into the daylight. Some of the reasons are talked about in the last PESR, others are longstanding ones everyone is aware of. Few are talking about it now because there is so much that is being withheld by our leaders and the blogopshere, with one or two unheard of exceptions, is totally in the dark. Insiders here have already had their eyes opened with a jolt and some have had their 'jaw drop to the floor' when the truth was revealed to them, so pay attention.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Christian Politics, A Distraction
By Andrew Strom | Re-posted July 25, 2010

I made a number of people mad with my piece a few days ago, “Can Patriotism Be Idolatry?” I have always found that this is by far the “riskiest” topic that I can ever bring up. One guy even asked if I “hate America”. I replied that I truly love America and love it’s people. In fact, it is one of my topmost favorite nations in the world. My brother lives there. My nephews live there. I love America! But that was certainly not the issue in my article.

Another man hinted that I must be a “left-winger”. Actually, I am truly and deeply Conservative – and have been for years.

The major point we were really raising in that article has to do with “Distractions”. I can’t bear to see my fellow brothers and sisters literally exhausting themselves with campaign after campaign of political activism – when the real problems in America are “SPIRITUAL”. And only ’spiritual’ solutions can solve them.

JESUS is the answer to what ails America. Politics will never do it. I am not against “voting” at all. By all mean vote! But what I am talking about here is the “distraction” of spending so much time on Politics when that can never truly solve the problems we face.

Just think of the enormous time and energy and devotion that so many people put into “electing the right guy”. Do we put that much passion into the Gospel and Prayer? I think not. A lot of us have deluded ourselves that Politics can solve these “spiritual” issues. They can’t. Only Jesus can.

A lot of the time, Fox News and Talk Radio simply exist to “rile up” the Conservative people with “trash talk”, etc. The whole point is to get the Christians and conservatives so riled that they will “do something”. What will they do? Will they start Prayer movements and True Gospel movements? No – they will start “political” movements. They will march down to the Town Hall and shout and scream at people. Their opponents will start calling them “hateful” because of the way they look and act. Is this what Jesus wants? Does he want the Christians all caught up in political movements that use the “arm of the flesh” to solve their problems? The Bible says we “wrestle not against flesh and blood”. Why then are we trying to do just that? Because we are being “distracted” – that’s why.

Distracted from our true mission on this earth. Distracted and sidetracked into thinking Politics is the answer. Distracted into spending hours watching Fox and the Internet for new things to get mad at the Liberals about. We don’t pray like we should. We don’t preach the glorious gospel like we should. We simply rant and rave and get mad at all those Liberals – and waste hours and hours trying to work out how we can “beat” them. Its all flesh, flesh – all the time.

Don’t tell me this is not happening on a large scale with a lot of Christian people. We all know it is. That’s where Fox News and Talk Radio get all their “ratings” from. They know if they can get you “mad” enough, you will keep coming back for more.

We need to repent. We need to repent of our nasty, ugly, trash-talking behavior – which is so unchristlike. We need to repent of partaking in this stuff at all. We need to repent of relying on the
“arm of the flesh” instead of Jesus. We need to repent that we will raise up Political movements first before even trying “spiritual” remedies to save the nation.

The Christians are too busy fighting in the flesh to PRAY as they ought. Too busy fighting with bitter and angry words to preach the true gospel. This is a huge part of why these problems are not being solved. We are not going to GOD at all. We are relying on “ourselves” – and what we can do. And until we repent and start looking to Jesus – to solve the things that only He can solve – I believe things will continue to get worse and worse.

The Christians are “distracted” – trusting entirely the wrong things.

Brothers, sisters, we need to PRAY.

Andrew Strom.