Saturday, May 29, 2010

The Problem with the L O S T finale

Here's the problem with the last 30 minutes (and by extension the entire 6th season):

L O S T as a whole appealed to 3 audiences: those who like mystery/fantasy/science fiction, those who like interpersonal, nightime soap drama (e.g. "Grey's Anatomy"), and those who were intrigued by the melding of these two genres. But because the ending was pretty much solely written to satisfy the interpersonal drama fans, the other two groups were left out in the cold and it is these two groups that have been cheated.

A huge section of the L O S T audience followed the show for the mystery/SF elements. Most fan blogs were awash in debates about the nature of the Smoke Monster and how it came to be, what was the "Lamp Post", what was Dharma up to, what was Widmore's plan, what were the numbers, and, in season six, what was Desmond's plan (i.e. was he going to somehow reconnect the two realities?) The soap opera fans must admit that the L O S T blogs were not ultra concerned about the melodramatic flash forward/backward stories of the characters. For the most part, the interactions and backstories of the characters were self-explanatory (and compelling) but no more so than any other quality drama on television. No, what caught everyone's fancy was the crazy world of The Island and the conflicts over its mysterious power. The flashbacks and forwards added life to the characters but that was just frosting on the cake. The main event was the intrigue and suspense of the happenings swirling around The Island.

So, here comes the last 30 minutes of the series and we find out that the show was really more St. Elsewhere than Twilight Zone. Those wanting a pay-off for the many questions presented, were told to take a hike. The show was about people not about mystery or science after all.

So to those who say it was a great ending and the rest of us mystery/SF fans should get over it, to you I say gain some understanding. This was obviously a serialized science fiction drama from the get go, what with the killing of the pilot of 815 by the Smoke Monster right off the bat. But gradually (and then at the end, frenetically) the narrative moved deep into the realm of the soap, leaving all hope of a mystery/SF payoff out of reach. Interestingly enough, this makes the ending of Battlestar Galactica more satisfying to me because at least writer, Ron Moore, had the honesty to try to answer the big questions of the series, even if in a highly rushed and contrived manner.

For 5 seasons, L O S T was about The Island, its mysteries and the conflicts between the visitors to the island. Without The Island the series would have just been another well produced, but pedestrian show about screwed up people. In those five seasons we did see people grow, learn, and solve (some) mysterious issues but that is why it was good drama, not why it was a good mystery.

The LOSTies were surogates for the viewer. Most of us can identify with some aspects of the various foibles of The characters but even more than that, we wanted the characters to figure out what was up with The Island and then come out the other end being both emotionally AND intellectually wiser. Ironically, several characters didn't leave The Island any more emotionally mature than when they arrived (think Boone and Shannon). Furthermore, we should remember that, aside from Jack, Ben, Desmond, and Hurley, no one else left The Island really intellectually perceiving much more than when they arrived. And really, for all we know, even these guys were in the dark until they died.

The writers lie.

1. In season 6 a wholly new storyline was dropped on the viewership, a story that began with a blatent lie, that being that The Island was at the bottom of the ocean (presumably put there as a result of "The Incident"). But at the end of the series we learn that The Island NEVER DID SINK! It is still there (we assume), just like it always has been only now with Hurley and Ben watching over it. Narratively, there is no valid rationale for the writers to show The Island at the bottom of the ocean since, in the way-station purgatory reality, there is no Island AT ALL, (at least not one that our LOSTies would have collectively created as part of their purgatory/shared-consciousness-thing). It is clear now, that the scene of the sunken Island was actually a ruse by the writers to lead the viewer to think that this was an alternate timeline and that whatever Jack and Juliet did at the end of season 5 "worked". Season 6 ostensibly opens with how it worked as we fly out the window of 815, down through the clouds and then to the sea floor where The Island now sits. We're clearly led to believe that the incident caused The Island to sink and time/space was somehow "shattered" by this incident. Even on ABC's L O S T web site we see official network verbiage saying:
"A flash sideways is not a flashback, flash-forward or an alternate timeline. It posits what would have happened if Oceanic flight 815 didn't crash on the island but instead landed in Los Angeles."

So this is a "what if" scenario that ABC carefully avoids calling "alternate"? Surely , it MUST be an alternate timeline rather than just a "what if Oceanic 815 didn't crash" scenario since the first episode of the 6th season shows The Island at the bottom of the ocean rather than at sea level where it should have been had 815 simply flown over the island rather than crashing on it.

2. So did Jack's nuke plan "work"? According to Miles, apparently it did but according to the last 15 minutes of the series, it didn't. So was Miles wrong? He supposedly gets the last vibe of dead people he runs across and in this case, Miles tells us that Juliet says "it worked". Apologists now lead us to believe that Juliet's words refer to the vending machine and not to the use of the bomb. So, let me get this straight; Juliet's last thoughts of her life were about a vending machine in PURGATORY??!! A vending machine that our LOSTies collectively "created" in their way-station reality? What might be so important about this vending machine that Juliet's thoughts about it from the Other Side would leave such a strong impression with Miles? So the writers ended season 5 with a clue for us to follow that leads to a candy bar dropping out of a machine in purgatory?


The writers NEVER led us to believe anything other than Miles was able to glean actual real facts from the last moments of the life of the dead person in question. He wasn't reading their after-life experiences about candy bars in purgatory.

3. Desmond flashes between one reality and the other and this leads him on the quest to "awaken" his friends in purgatory.


We know that Desmond didn't die in the electromagnetic field so what is he doing experiencing the afterlife with his fellow LOSTies BEFORE he actually dies? Furthermore, not only does he experience the purgatory reality while he is still alive but that experience gives him a sense of peace that he should follow Widmore's direction (and we do ultimately learn that Widmore was visited by Jacob in order to vanquish the MIB). But now we know that Desmond COULDN'T have visited this other reality since that reality doesn't exist except as some existential way-station created by dead people. AND HE'S NOT EVEN DEAD YET!

So what do these three points tell us? I think it tells us that the writers, for all their advanced warning that they had only 6 seasons to tell the story, didn't have a way to finish the story. They THOUGHT they did and they put clues into the last moments of season 5 and the early part of season 6 about there being some kind of fracture in time and space but then, for some reason, abandoned that notion and decided that the characters were all dead, that there was no alternate timeline, and that whatever Juliet was talking about as far as "it worked" didn't happen and The Island never sank.


The last season would have, in retrospect, been better if the writers had not lied to the viewer by including things in the way-station story line that would otherwise make sense if it were an alternate timeline but make ZERO sense if it is purgatory. I doubt I will go back and review season 6 knowing what I know now (that that the flash-sideways was a lie), but others will probably find that there were dozens of plot holes created once the writers decided that the flash-sideways was not an alternate timeline but rather a nonsensical "they're all dead" communal illusion. Shared hallucination or "it was all a dream" narratives are interesting if they last a few minutes of a show but for a whole season? Pointless, and in this case, deceptive. They strung us along but in the end, had no way of giving us a narrative payoff. Ending with "they're all dead" plus lots of unanswered questions, is a cop out. Yes, I know it is hard to tie up loose ends in a mystery but then, these are professional writers and they were the ones who CREATED those loose ends in the first place! Watch any high quality mystery and you will often see dozens and dozens of clues dropped and then addressed in just a 50 minute show (c.f. any Granada Television Sherlock Holmes mystery). Don't pose a conundrum in a show like L O S T if you don't plan to address it, if only obliquely. Any hack can write a mystery if he doesn't have to resolve the mystery. It's like telling someone you have come up with the funniest joke ever and then never tell the whole joke. Instead you stop short and just say "at this point imagine a really hilarious punchline". Sorry that's not good writing.

This is the ultimate problem with endings like this. We are already being asked to suspend our disbelief to follow a story that is obviously fictional. To learn at the end that not only was the story fictional but the writers are intent on TELLING us it is fictional, breaks the 4th wall. This is why stories like Man of La Mancha are only watchable once, at least for the plot, because once you find out that the main character is telling a fable (a play within a play), we no longer can suspend our disbelief on the second viewing.

Such is the case for me with L O S T. The alternate storyline of season six will now have zero impact with me because I know that it never happened within the construct of the primary narrative. Viewers or readers of fiction have to be able to identify the story as POSSIBLY having happened at some point or in some place. But if the story itself TELLS you it never happened then what's the point of suspending disbelief?

So ultimately, my problem with the series is not that there were questions left unanswered or that the writers spent time on unimportant points leaving important ones forgotten, but rather, that a whole season was wasted in a dreamland Los Angles following events that mean nothing to the larger narrative. That is a tease with no pay-off and for that, I loath the ending.

Monday, July 06, 2009

Cap 'n' Tax Needs to be Aborted

It is hard to even know where to start with regard to how bad the Cap 'n' Tax bill is.

It isn't "green" at all: it doesn't lower carbon emissions significantly enough to make any difference to global temperature (as if that was even a good idea in the first place - which it isn't), it INCREASES dependency on imported oil, and to top it off, it is an economy killer.

What statists don't recognize is that the single BIGGEST boost to the greening of America (and the world as a whole) is, wait for it...


You can talk all day about the "hidden costs of dirty energy" or other such mealy mouthed nonsense but it is undeniable that wealthier countries are also cleaner countries. This is a self-evident truth. What poor country can you point to that can afford to mandate green space, national parks, smoke stack scrubbing, and CAFE standards?


No, the single best thing we could do is abandon this Marxist, abortion of a bill and help restart this economy:

1. Open up all domestic oil and natural gas reserves in the US. This would immediately address the so-called aim of "Cap and Trade" to "reduce dependence on foreign oil" with the added benefit of putting millions of Americans back to work after they lost their livelihoods last year when Peolosi and Reid started putting more reserves off-limits (thereby driving oil speculation).

2. Get rid of Ethanol and similar totalitarian mandates. This bill, along with several in the past promotes one of the most idiotic energy policies of all time: burning food for energy. It takes 1.5 gallons of gasoline to produce a gallon of Ethanol and starves the third world in the process. How stupid is that???

3. Take all the useless R&D subsidies the Feds currently spend on Solar and Wind, and, if we must, divert them to making a cleaner burning internal combustion engine. Cars are here to stay, as is gasoline (we have 420 years of KNOWN oil reserves in this country alone). Electric vehicles are idiotic environment killers yet they are promoted by empty-headed legislators like Henry Waxman. The ICE is the future and we should just get used to that fact.

4. Recognize that a strong economy encourages people to invest in a cleaner environment. If the populace is just barely surviving, they don't care whether a Leftist wants to see the foothills of Maine or not. And they certainly want to be able to sell their house without having an eco-nazi having to inspect their appliances and windows before they can sell it like Waxman wants to have happen.

Oh, and by the way. Here's a memo to AGW flat-earthers: The sun is experiencing a solar minimum right now which explains the last 10 years of cooling (and the next 30 of predicted global cooling). My question for them therefore is, given that a warmer planet is a more prosperous planet, how do we go about CAUSING warming right now when we know from history that warming is a Good Thing?

(And by the way, driving SUVs more won't make a dent - we'll still find ourselves freezing our collective backsides off in a few years time no matter HOW much C02 we spew into the atmosphere).

Sunday, March 08, 2009

"Fixing" The Economy Is Not Obama's Goal

Why are Americans even putting up with all this neofascist economic policy? It is not the job of the federal government to confiscate private property or nationalize businesses. The more the government moves this direction, the more wealth is destroyed. As wealth is destroyed people lose jobs and hope.

Either Obama is an economic ignoramus or he, Pelosi, and Reid are intentionally precipitating this economic disaster to satiate their megalomania.

A.) Democrat regulatory policy, with regard to the mortgage industry, is certainly the rot at the center of this crisis. Of this there is no doubt. Anyone can go to YouTube and review the hearings where Republicans warned of the impending mortgage catastrophe while Dems asserted there was no reason to regulate their private sandboxes of Freddie and Fannie.

B.) Fannie and Freddie were deeply vulnerable to an economic downturn but they were not the trigger. The trigger was the election of Pelosi, Reid, and their leftist friends who immediately set about instituting policy that began tying up American LNG and oil reserves. This combined with ever increasing "green" legislation as well as the impending threat of cap and trade policy (which McCain bought into but only because he wanted to "reach across the aisle" to the leftists on the other side) started steadily increasing the cost of energy futures. As a result, between 2006 and 2008 the price of gas at the pump went from under $2/gal to over $4/gal. Similarly diesel and jet fuel costs skyrocketed.

In order to deal with this massive new cost of living, the American public, relying on their vehicles to get to their jobs, gradually began cutting back on discretionary spending just to buy food and fuel. Vacations were cut back or cancelled, desserts and lattés removed from their menus, cut-backs on the purchase of new vehicles, and tons of other similar purchasing quickly ground to a halt as the Democrats pushed their economy crushing energy policy. As the travel, auto, and hospitality industries started to weaken due to the ever increasing cost of energy, the dominos started falling. The trucking industry started laying off drivers, the airlines began firing huge number of employees. Car dealerships went bust while hotels, coffeehouses, movie theaters, restaurants, theme parks, and thousands of other businesses that rely on American disposable income started going belly up.

C.) With increasing unemployment caused by skyrocketing energy prices in late 2007 and early 2008, people began falling behind on their credit card payments but were left no choice but to continue using them in order to buy necessities. Finally, by mid 2008 many people were simply not paying on their cards at all (this is about the time we started hearing radio ads for businesses promoting ways to get out of paying off unsecured debt). By July 2008, many out-of-work Americans were beginning to default on their mortgages. These were not "people who couldn't afford their homes" as many like to claim. These were people who could afford their homes right up until Pelosi and Reid drove the cost of energy so high that their employer had to lay them off, at which time, they BECAME people who couldn't afford their homes. These were people who had good jobs before the Democrats in government destroyed their lives.

D.) Chuck Schumer precipitated a bank run of over $100 million dollars on IndyMac late in June of last year. It is not surprising then, that shortly thereafter, consumer confidence in the banking industry, already reeling from newly defaulting mortgage loans, began to abate. Consumer confidence is crucial to our economy and it always has been. When the Democrats finally had their way and convinced a majority of Americans that the economic downturn (which started under the Pelosi/Reid watch) was George Bush's fault, they paved the way for their ascendancy to the White House. Given that pushing doom and gloom got them the presidency, why is anyone surprised that Obama continues to preach doom and gloom instead of his promised "home and change"? If he wanted to push change he would immediately eliminate all "green" and cap and trade legislation. That would be a massive and hugely beneficial change. If he wanted to instill hope, and thereby consumer confidence, he would abandon all the socialist and nationalizing industry rhetoric and work to clean up the banking mess. But neither of those things keeps him and his ilk in power.

Bottom line, government meddling and the craven and economically fascistic (used in the technical, not pejorative sense) policies of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Dodd, Frank, and Obama clearly precipitated this disaster. Personally, I believe they did it on purpose rather than as simply bumbling fools that they often appear to be. Obama is now using the crisis that leftists in his own party caused to advance the nationalizing of our economy.

"Fixing" health care by further regulating it, "fixing" education by giving the teachers unions yet further control, "fixing" energy policy by further driving up its costs are not solutions in the manner which most of us understand the word "fixing". They are using it in the same sense we use the phrase "price fixing". That is, to establish a lock on the economy that benefits their personal lust for power. The most disheartening thing about all of this is how many people have fallen for the cynical and deeply dishonest rhetoric of this snake oil salesman. The teacher's unions have done their job all too well.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Dear Mr. Obama. Don't Promote The Failed Policies of the Past

Mr. Obama is out demagoguing the economic mess in which the U.S. currently finds itself. He wants us to abandon the "failed policies of the past" that ostensibly got us into this mess. Of course, he is talking about the conservative tax policy of the past.

Either Obama a.) is an economic illiterate and doesn't realize that lowering taxes spurs the economy or b.) he is a socialist hack, using lies and demagoguery to try to frighten the American public into swallowing his socialist spending plan.

The irony is that the "failed policies" of the past is exactly what his bill is full of. So Mr. Obama, please take a time out and actually follow through on your campaign promises of promoting hope over fear. Remember that pledge? The one that probably gained you the presidency?

Here is the real prescription for economic stimulus:


This costs nothing and will do more than any socialist spending will do.

1. Get rid of all "green" legislation that unnecessarily weighs down business and industry. Excise all "cap and trade" nonsense. Remove any and all regulation relating to carbon. End all CAFE standards for the auto industry.

2. Open up all lands to energy exploration AND development. This includes Alaska, offshore, the Bakken Play, Rocky Mt. and oil shales. The price of energy will plummet at which time you will see the economy take off like a rocket.

3. Stop all illegal immigration and deport all current illegal aliens. These people are taking our jobs and sucking off the public teat. Time to end this economic and security travesty NOW.

4. End all capital gains taxes. We should not be punishing risk takers.

5. End all corporate taxes. Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do.

6. Lower income tax rates to a max of 27%.

7. End both corporate and individual welfare. No more subsidizing industry (a subsidy is GIVING money to a company - not the same thing as lower taxes.

Do these 7 things and watch the stimulus happen big time.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

6 Reasons Why Obama's is an Historic Presidency

Everybody is talking about how "historic" the Obama move to the White House is for the country. Maybe so. I certainly was able to think of several historic "firsts":

#6. The most corrupt individual to ever be elected. Obama essentially bought the presidency with illegal foreign campaign contriubtions. He rose to power through the corrupt Chicago political machine. He has nominated at least 2 individuals into his cabinet who have run afoul of the law. The list of scandal is already very long with Obama and will, no doubt, get much longer.

#5. The least experienced person to ever be elected. Obama has only a few months of experience in federal office and has never held any executive office or military position. Every other previous president in American History had significant experience in one of these three areas. Not Obama.

#4. The most promoted candidate by the mass media in modern history. Has the media EVER been so overtly in the tank for any other candidate in history? Not even close.

#3. The most left-leaning candidate to ever win the presidency. Some say he is a Marxist, other's identify him as just a run-of-the-mill Socialist. Either way, its a first.

#2. The first candidate to gain the white house with personal terrorist connections. One could argue that it is possible that Bill Clinton could not have qualified for a security clearance to get access to the White House. Nevertheless, there is no doubt whatsoever that, with Obama's personal ties to Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers, he would never have been able to get even the lowest level government security clearance had he not otherwise been elected to the presidency.

#1. The first person ever elected to the White House without being a natural born citizen. Technically, Obama CAN'T be president because he was not born in the United States of two American citizens as is required by the Constitution. In this regard, Obama is clearly a usurper to the power of the presidency and can't actually legally sign legislation, appoint judges, or approve treaties without running afoul of this most basic of eligibility standards to be president.

You may be asking why I didn't include that Obama is black? To me, this is a non-starter. So the guy has a little more melanin in his skin than previous presidents. Big deal. Everyone's melanin level varies from person to person. I don't consider superficial things like skin tone to be all that historic.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

A Biblical Defense of Marriage

While there are many cultural reasons to protect marriage and the traditional marriage unit, my view on this can be distilled to two primary arguments:

As a believer, I hold to Christ's own definition of marriage found in Matthew 19 where he told the Pharisees:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Thus, the Bible affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is an institution created by God Himself and reinforced throughout Scripture. He also warns against those seeking to destroy the relationship between the "male and female".

This foundational concept of man and woman being in the God-created marriage unit is further highlighted both in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:12 and then repeated by none other than Jesus Christ Himself when he says to the rich young ruler in Mark 10:19:
"You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother."

Mother and father, man and woman. This theme is everywhere in scripture. Indeed, this idea of bride and groom lies at the heart of the relationship between Christ and His Church. Christ, as the groom, cares for his bride, the Church, which is explained at length by Paul in Ephesians 5:

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

There is no room here or in any of these other passages for anything else than male and female marriage relationship. For why would it? Marriage was designed to be a "type" of the relationship Christ has with His people. A fascinating study of the return of Christ for the saints in the Last Day can be done by looking at the Jewish wedding ceremony. The bride waits for the groom but doesn't know when he will come. In fact, the groom doesn't even know when he can go fetch his bride for, in Jewish tradition, only the groom's father has the authority to dispatch his son to go get his bride. This, and many other facets of the Jewish wedding tradition tell us much about future events related to the second coming. All of it centers around the male/female marital unit.

I don't want to bore you with a litany of passages in both the old and new testament on this subject but suffice to say, Christ Himself affirms the exclusivity of male/female marriage. NO WHERE is homosexual marriage indicated. Quite the opposite in fact.

Meanwhile, the gay lobby is seeking to undermine the institution. I believe, purposefully. They are not interested in "civil rights" since civil unions or other forms of contractual relationships cover that issue completely. The co-opting of the term "marriage", the determination to have traditional wedding ceremonies, etc. all are designed to remove the special place traditional marriage has in our society. Indeed, I believe the goal is to render the special nature of marriage between a man and a woman null and void. If anyone can get married then there is nothing special about it.

So this takes me to point 2:

Marriage has eligibility requirements not unlike a lot of things we undertake. To be a doctor you have to meet certain requirements. In order to drive a car one must meet certain criterion. To vote one must be a citizen. And so on. You have a right to be a lawyer but you have to jump through a few hoops to become one, and it may be that you don't qualify. Does that make the bar bigoted?

No one in this country is denied the right to marry as long as they are marrying a single, non-related individual over the age of 18 of the opposite sex. That is the definition of marriage in this country. No one, except maybe young people, are actually denied the right to marry with this definition. No one.

I do find it interesting that a conundrum is intrinsic to the efforts of the gay lobby. They argue that we must eliminate this eligibility requirment because it is "hateful and discriminatory". By their own logic, people under 18, those who want to marry multiple partners, and those who would wish to marry a blood relation, should likewise be allowed to get married. In other words, to be non-discriminatory, ANYONE should be able to get married if we want to eliminate "bigotry".

Having lived in Santa Cruz for 6 years, I have heard every argument imaginable on the "gay marriage" issue. During some of those discussions, I would often ask, "then, are you saying that, in order to be non-discriminatory, anyone should be able to get married to anyone they want and how ever many of them they want?" The response that came back was usually just an alternate, but still exclusionary definition of marriage.

These gay marriage advocates had their own eligibility standard for marriage that INCLUDED gays but EXCLUDED polygamists, underage people, blood relations, marrying animals, etc. They still drew a line, it just wasn't the same one as the traditional line. They still wanted to deny certain classes of people their right to marry. Totally hypocritical and ironic of course since such an argument is self-contradictory. It manages to undermine the only plausible argument against the current definition of marriage (that it is a violation of "civil rights") by being nearly equally discriminatory.

Meanwhile, I am fully aware that I am being exclusionary on this matter, but only as much as Jesus Himself was exclusionary.

Marriage is designed by God to be a model of the way he wishes the human race to behave in its advance of civilization. When it doesn't things quickly fall apart. God also intended the marriage relationship to give us a glimpse of the nature of the relationship between Christ and his Church. Destroying the meaning of marriage destroys not only the foundation of civilization but also the meaning of the marriage as it relates to our relationship with Christ.

This is why marriage needs to be protected.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

11 Straight Years of Global Cooling

Neuroscientist and physicist, Dr. Gregory Young, writes in the latest online edition of The American Thinker:

We're dismayed over the fact that the Global Warming fiasco has become politically popular and expedient to those left-wing politicians and power-brokers whose sole aim is to literally tax everything with a carbon footprint and give them control over all life, hidden within their PC guileful pretence to save the planet. They wish to save no one but themselves.

His piece is, by far, the most succinct explanation I have seen to date debunking the religion of Manmade Global Warming.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Is Obama the Antichrist?

I don’t claim to be an expert in very many things but regarding Bible prophecy, I have about 35 years of study under my belt. I have seen claims of "This guy is the the Antichrist" or "that guy's the Antichrist", over the last many decades. I think it is important for our side to know a little about the matter of Bible prophesy so that we can deal with the question: “Is Obama the Anti-Christ?”.

Now I know you may not necessarily be a Bible believer but grant for just a moment that there IS specific Biblical teaching on the matter of the antichrist (a term, BTW, that is rarely used in the Bible - instead, terms like The Man of Sin [2Thessalonians 2:3] The Son of Perdition [2Thessalonians 2:3] and The Lawless One [2Thessalonians 2:8] are more common). According to the Scriptures, Obama ain’t him.

Here are a few things to bear in mind:

A. The Lawless One (LO from here on out) does not need to, indeed, WILL NOT make an appearance until all relevant prophecies about the reestablishment of Israel and the Magog Invasion have been fulfilled. These include: Israel being reborn as a nation (1948), Jerusalem being reclaimed as the nation of Israel’s capital (1969) and most importantly, the move by Iran and Russia against Israel. While Satan may have some Lawless One waiting in the wings at any given moment, he has not had to have such a person ready until after the events of 1969.

B. Hitler could NOT have been the LO. Why? Setting aside for a moment that Hitler was the opposite of a friend of the Jews, none of the above three Last Days prophecies had been fulfilled at the time Hitler was alive. All one had to do to tell if Adolf was the Lawless One would be to check to see if Israel was a nation yet: checking… Nope, not yet. Must not be him after all.

C. Is Obama the LO? We know that Scripture says the LO will arise out of a reformulated Roman Empire. Obama is neither a Western nor an Eastern/South Eastern European (remember, there were two legs of the original Roman Empire referenced in Daniel, the second one was ruled from Constantinople and lasted for centuries beyond the Empire of the Caesars - so we don’t really know which of these two areas will birth the LO). But regardless, Obama is not a candidate because Scripture says the LO will be from some part of the Roman Empire (east or west we're not able to tell from Scripture).

D. The United States (and all other nations) has to COMPLETELY abandon Israel in order to make smooth the path for the LO to arise. As long as we protect Israel the LO won’t be revealed because he will not be needed by Israel. The Scripture is VERY clear that the Israelies make a treaty with the LO (who evidently will be a charismatic, apparently honorable, respectable, and powerful leader - someone the Jews will intrinsically trust as being their true Messiah) as their political and military savior. Again, no way that the Jews would perceive Obama to be such a man, even if he were European. This protection treaty will be signed after a pivotal war with Russia, Iran, Turkey, and allied nations as referenced in the prophecy found in Ezekiel 38:1-7:

A message came to me from the Lord. He said, "Son of man, turn your attention to Gog. He is from the land of Magog. He is the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. Prophesy against him.

"Tell him, 'The Lord and King says, "Gog, I am against you. You are the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. But I will turn you around. I will put hooks in your jaws. I will bring you out of your land along with your whole army. Your horses will come with you. Your horsemen will be completely armed. Your huge army will carry large and small shields. All of them will be ready to use their swords.

"The men of Persia, Cush and Put will march out with them. All of them will have shields and helmets. Gomer and all of its troops will be there too. Beth Togarmah from the far north will also come with all of its troops. Many nations will help you.

"Get ready. Be prepared. Take command of the huge armies that are gathered around you.

These three countries and their allied armies are vanquished. It is critically important to note two things about this prophesy:

a. According to Ezekiel’s prophecy, Iran, Russia, and Turkey apparently have cart blanche to make their move against Israel without fear of reprisal. They apparently believe that NO ONE will stand up to protect her and thus, they have no doubt that Israel is ripe for the taking.

b. Iran, Russia, Turkey, and those with them LOSE this war, not because of Israel’s military might, but rather, due to some unexplained "natural" disaster (if one can call brimstone from heaven "natural") that destroys their invading force.

What this means to prophecy geeks like me is that the US is either unwilling or unable to come to the aid of Israel and has either been neutered somehow or has telegraphed that we intend to stay out of future conflicts in the Middle East (maybe we turn their protection over to the UN?). As we all know, as long as a Bush, Reagan, or even a Clinton was in the White House, there is simply no way that this prophecy could have been fulfilled. All of these presidents and their Israel supporting predecessors have been unwittingly forestalling the Last Days with their foreign policy posture vis a vis Israel. In other words, as long as the US stands by Israel, Russia and Iran will not attempt to invade Israel as prophesied by Ezekiel.

The core principle I am getting at is that, while there is considerable debate over the timing of this prophesy, it seems to me that it is easier to simply look at the logical steps required for the LO to make his appearance on behalf of Israel.

Let’s put the pieces together.

1. Israel IS a nation and DOES have Jerusalem restored to them. Two of the three major “Lawless One revealed” prophecies fulfilled.
2. Israel is still protected by the US so no invasion from an Iran or Russia seems likely at this point.
3. The US is becoming more socialist and its citizenry more sheep-like. This can only result in eventually cutting the troublesome Israel lose from our foreign policy. I also believe that such a policy would not be possible as long as the Christian Church is active in America. However, if the Church is removed in the Harpazo* (commonly called the "Rapture") then such a foreign policy seems inevitable.
4. Once Israel is outside the military penumbra of the US, she is vulnerable to an attack from the nations that hate her most. This invasion MUST occur prior to Israel making a treaty with the LO. I maintain that this attack is what precipitates the need for Israel to make the treaty with the LO in the first place.
5. Israel is attacked and then spared through, what should be and is intended to be, an obvious intervention by God Himself. The reason for this military drama seems to be that God intends to send a message to the Jews that THEY DO NOT NEED THE UNITED STATES OR ANYONE ELSE TO PROTECT THEM as long as they rely on Him. But will they?

Sadly, no.

The Bible goes on to say that they wipe the sweat off their collective brows and thank their lucky stars that some mysterious natural disaster wiped out the invading armies. Whew! saved in the nick of time. They then decide that, given the US is no longer able to protect them, and given that they almost were wiped off the face of the planet by their mortal enemies to the north, they believe they need someone new to protect them. Thus, they make the fateful pact with the Lawless One, believing him to be the long awaited Messiah.

So how does Obama figure in this? A couple of things come to mind:

1. Obama's rise to power proves that many people in these latter days will abandon all logic and rational thought in their longing for someone to save them from the chaos of this world (something the Bible does predict as well). "Hope and Change" are obviously not policy positions but apparently, many do not care. As flawed as Obama is, he gives hope (false as it may be) to millions. But just imagine if a guy came on the scene with Obama’s charisma but without all his baggage? Someone who DOES have the foreign policy cred, the experiential bona fides, the political gravitas required to dupe EVERYONE.

2. Obama may end up being The One who fulfills a foundational prerequisite to the Last Day prophecies. HE very well could be the one that abandons Israel, unwittingly making way for the events that culminate in the coming war between Iran/Russia/Turkey and Israel. If he, or one of his like minded successors do that, at that point, it will be an inexorable march toward the end.

By the way, I am as sure that something like I describe above will take place as I am of my own existence. It was predicted and it is coming to pass just as the Bible has said it would. It makes obvious sense based on the events of the last 70 years.

Hang on, its going to be an amazing and bumpy ride.

*The Harpazo (Greek for “the snatching away”) is what we call the Rapture of Believers. The Bible is clear that the Harpazo happens prior to the Lawless One being revealed. What this means to me is that, it is likely that Bible-believing Christians will not be on earth (at least be visible on Earth) to see the Jews make their treaty with this European superstar. Only non-believers who still have their heads on straight will realize what is going on. However, I don’t suggest that such people hang around to find out.

Monday, October 06, 2008

A Game Changer?

One of the mysteries of the current election cycle is how an economy put in the toilet by Democrats helps Obama's prospects for the presidency! Is the voting public really so stupid as to think that the gas shortages, corruption at Fannie and Freddie, and the pork in the $850B bailout are the result of Republican initiatives?

I guess so.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Six REAL Degrees of Separation

I recently noticed an experiment over at Facebook to use that network to see how far separate we are from other people.

There is an inherent problem with the exercise of the theory of 6 degrees of separation. That being, people are very loose with the concept of what constitutes a "degree". Facebook "friends" is just such an example. Are these people really what you would consider "friends" or are they "acquaintances"? If the latter, then they are not really a "degree of separation" candidate in my book.

For example, you can find posts online about how someone thinks they are personally six degrees away from Kevin Bacon like this:

Kevin Bacon starred in Hollowman. Working on that film doing special effects sound was

1st degree: John P. Fasal who once worked on the same film (Children of the Corn) as

2nd: Mike Warren (who did the titles). Mike Warren gets his hair cut by

3rd: some guy in Studio City who is brother-in-law of

4th: the guy who once sold

5th: Carolyn her 1998 Toyota Camry before she left Southern California.

6th: Carolyn is now the warehouse manager at MY company.

Therefore, I am only 6 degrees of separation from Kevin!

I say hogwash. Not only do I not really know Carolyn (except to ask her to fill out an inventory form now and again), most of the people in this set of links don't really know each other either except casually.

The original concept of 6 degrees of separation (aka "the small world phenomenon") is that we personally know people who personally know people who personally know people, etc. The idea being, that you are connected with a VERY strong line of relationships to someone you don't know at all.

Working on someone's car, talking to someone through Facebook "friendships", having a second cousin once removed who once played golf with a guy, etc., ARE NOT close relationships.

In the game 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, the task is to find people who actually worked DIRECTLY with someone who worked DIRECTLY with someone who worked DIRECTLY with Kevin Bacon. Citing an extra who never once saw Kevin on set as a degree away from Kevin is ridiculous and undermines the concept of the theory.

So for "degree" to mean anything in this context you need to be connected through a personal or business relationship. (i.e. you could actually make a recommendation - good or bad - of that person to someone else.)

In this respect, "friends" on Facebook don't really fulfill the definition of a "degree" in its original conception (until you REALLY DO become friends and not just an online acquaintance).

Here is a more straight-forward set of degrees (a semi-real world example):

President Bush worked closely with:
1. Tony Snow who was good friends with:
2. Skunk Baxter (formerly of the Doobie Brothers) who consults with Science Applications International Corporation's CEO who is
3, Kenneth C. Dahlberg who graduated from USC where he took classes from:
4. [fill in name of professor here] who was also:
5. your professor when you went to school at USC about 10 years later.

In this example, Bush is 5 degrees of separation from you (I made up the last two of course).

1. Your professor
2. Dahlberg
3. Skunk
4. Tony
5. GW

Bottom line; someone you met via the Internet doesn't count in this game. Sorry.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Why They Hates Us

From the American Thinker:

"They truly have no idea what makes us tick, and their willful misunderstanding has rendered them wholly incapable of dealing with the curveball Palin has thrown them."

Read it all.

There, He's Gone and Done It

I really didn't expect this of McCain. But maybe an old dog can learn a new trick after all.

Sarah Palin was exactly the right pick. Why, because it turned a nation of conservatives around. People who couldn't previously stand John McCain now will vote for him in order to get Sarah Palin in line for the presidency. All of the sudden (and as I previously predicted), a conservative running mate made all the difference for McCain.

Conservatives WANT Palin to be a heartbeat from the oval office. In fact, if the ticket were flipped we would be all that much more pleased with this turn of events. Liberals don't understand her and can't figure out why, in one week, their fortunes were turned. What is even more delicious, is that this one pick has put the House of Reps back in play!

McCain had zero coat tails until Palin came along. Now, anything is possible.

Who would've thunk it?

Sunday, June 08, 2008

More on Why I hope John McCain Loses

I say let the Dems have the White House come next January.

Reason 1: Treasonous (to the Reagan Conservative cause) and corrupt behavior should not be rewarded or we'll get more of it. McCain is no Reganite and he is certainly not a conservative.

Reason 2. McCain is the 2nd most liberal Republican in the Senate. Why would I vote for a guy who does not believe in my values? And does anyone think that if John McCain wins after giving the conservative movement the finger all DURING THE CAMPAIGN, no less, he will suddenly decide to return to the conservative side of the street? HARDLY. He will go even farther left. It would not surprise me at all if he selects Hillary as the replacement for Justice Ginsburg. I can't see Obama doing that.

Reason 3. McCain is of a discern-ably low IQ. On issue after issue he is at odds with his own stated positions. He doesn't understand economics, and he certainly is not familiar with the lack of evidence for so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming. I know why Obama supports the AGW theory; to give himself more power. McCain either wants the same thing through his support of the hoax of AGW or he has no clue as to the reality of the situation. I think it is more likely he is clueless.

Reason 4. McCain is a hypocrite. He constantly talks about being a "straight talker" but changes his position as often as he changes his underwear. He was for open borders, then he wasn't then he was again. He says he'll nominate constructionists to the court but he says he thinks that Alito is too conservative. He says he is a fiscal conservative but is behind the single biggest government money and power grab since the New Deal only now it is called "Cap and Trade".

The list could go on and on. But the bottom line is, McCain will destroy the conservative movement if he is elected. Obama will strengthen it if he is elected. Of the two, America survives best with a strong conservative movement and therefore, Obama MUST win

Friday, May 16, 2008

Why John McCain is an Ignoramous

John McCain is out courting the left by claiming that our solution to global warming is "Cap and Trade". This is folly.

There are only 3 things you need to know about the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hoax:

1. Elevated C0₂ (which plants love BTW) levels in the atmosphere FOLLOW global warming, not the other way around. See this excellent explanation for more on the lag between ocean heating and the release of C0₂ into the atmosphere. If you look closely at the graph in "An Inconvenient Truth" you can see this. However, in this particular section of the film, Al Gore glosses over this fact and claims the opposite.

2. If it were possible for man to warm the planet, IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING. When the planet was warmer in the past than it is now, civilization thrived. Cooling is MUCH more dangerous than warming and, ironically, global cooling will require much more energy to be expended to keep us and our crops warm.

3. We are officially now in our tenth year of global cooling and many scientists without an AGW grant are confirming that this is just the beginning. Expect MUCH cooler years ahead.

Regarding oil.

It is not a fossil fuel! It is abiotic and has been found as deep as 30,000 ft. below the surface, much deeper than any past organic life has lived. Oil is in endless supply but like diamonds, it is kept expensive by keeping it rare. If it is a "fossil" fuel then it must eventually run out, right? If it can be found at deep levels everywhere then what usefulness is that to the government (who is the primary profiteer on the high price of oil not the eeevil oil companies).

Therefore, it is said we need to move to conservation even though there is no way to "conserve" our way out of the current oil supply mess given that China is adding car drivers by the millions every year.

The reality is that oil is an almost magical substance. It is plentiful, can be acquired with very little damage to the local environment, new IC engine technology makes using it for fuel very enviornmentally friendly, and it is continually replenished in the crust of the earth.

The US has enough known reserves to last us 200 years without ever using a drop of oil from the terrorist nations of the ME or doing more exploration (which would produce hundreds of years of new reserves). But instead, this country has to be an environmentally imperialist nation. We refuse to use our own resources but instead, take them from other countries. It is the End of the World™ if we drill in the arctic wasteland but just fine to drill in the fragile deserts of Kuwait.

Bottom line: There is zero reason to abandon oil. We have the infrastructure to transport and refine it. It can now be burned cleanly in the latest engines from Detroit and Japan. It is plentiful and we need it for the manufacture of plastics anyway. It forms the foundation of freedom.

Although I am not encouraging this because it is not the government's job to give stuff away; if we were to take all the boondoggle funding for things like ethanol mandates, windmill farms (a truly idiotic energy source if there ever was one), solar panel subsidies, and other government energy porkbarrel projects and just bought everyone a new car (getting rid of those old VW buses, and 1975 Volvo station wagons that professors drive around with Save the Whale bumper stickers on them), we could clean the atmosphere up really quick.

But the reason that oil is eeevil is that it allows people to drive and we can't have that, nosiree. If people can drive where they want to then how can the we possibly control their lives? After all, the proletariate need to live in tall government provided housing near the center of crime ridden cities and ideally, should move from place to place using a urine encrusted public transportation system of some kind.

Monday, February 18, 2008

An Open Letter to Bill Bennett

Dear Bill,

I think it would be better if you stayed away from a defense of McCain. It is neither helping him or buttressing your own conservative credentials. Your normally reasoned and honest approach to the wide variety of subjects you take on daily falls by the wayside when you get on the subject of John McCain.

First, what's with the name-calling? Your past comments about conservatives being purists ("Trotskyites" is the way you put it I believe) is sophistry. We supported Thompson and he is far from pure. He would have been Voltaire's "good" vs. the "best". The "McCain's not perfect" line or "there will never be another Reagan" excuse that you and other McCain apologists trot out is condescending and shallow. Given that this argument can be used just as easily about Obama, it really carries no argumentative weight does it?

This morning you called those of us who vehemently disagree with McCain on a host of issues "snippy". Two weeks ago you called people in the south who refused to vote for the liberal John McCain, "stupid". Last week you termed the critiques of McCain by your fellow conservative talkers as "noise". This is a tactic of the left in this country and is almost always an indicator of a weak argument on the part of the person hurling the insults.

Next, what's with the overstatements about McCain's conservative stands? On today's show you said that there are many things with which you disagree with McCain but also there are many things that he is good on. "Many"? May I suggest that this is a HUGE exaggeration. He is certainly bad on many things but even the few things he is ostensibly "good on" are really half-hearted and inconsistent.

It would be more accurate to say this on the air:

"Yes, I will acknowledge that McCain loves to sponsor liberal legislation and eschews sponsoring conservative legislation, but he does at least support the war in Iraq. Of course he is one of the weakest Senators regarding border security and yes he does want to close Gitmo and bring enemy combatants into the US court system thereby making it impossible to prosecute their crimes (given that doing so would reveal our intelligence methods), and of course, he is against giving intelligence officers the ability to use non-injurious interrogation techniques like water-boarding against known terrorist leaders but hey, at least he was for the surge (along with most of the rest of the Senate)."

Then you could tell your audience, "Fortunately, he is very good on fiscal issues... well except for the aforementioned amnesty legislation which is devastating to local economies, education systems, hospitals and the like and yes, he wants to codify the anthropogenic global warming hoax by levying heavy gas taxes on Americans through the fiscally irresponsible "cap and trade" scheme, thereby crippling the economy (which he admits is not something he knows a lot about), but at least he is pro-life (except for his desire not to overturn Roe v. Wade and his vote for stem cell research). But other than these few things he is great."

If you would come on the radio and say those two paragraphs then conservatives might take your defense of McCain more seriously. But mendacity does not become you Bill. In a column on your web site defending McCain you dishonestly assert, "McCain has an ACU (American Conservative Union) rating of 82.3; Clinton has a rating of 9."

This is is a false comparison. Hillary has only been in the Senate for a short period of time and coincidently, during a period when McCain was much more liberal than his mediocre 82.3 lifetime rating. Why not compare their current ratings? Yes, Hillary is currently rated with an 8 while McCain has a 65 (and this was before his most egregious votes and liberal legislative work during 2007) but 65 still puts him on the far left of the Republican party with only 4 Republican senators farther to his left. Furthermore, the ACU rating is for votes cast.

If we look at each vote as a test of sorts, then a no-show should count as a zero. The ACU doesn't do this however which puts their entire methodology in question. Using their system, McCain could show up for one vote out of the two hundred that he should have showed up for, vote the conservative way, and get a 100% rating from the ACU. If a student only shows up to take tests on subjects he is good at, I seriously doubt that the student would pass the course. In reality, McCain does very poorly if we count votes he has skipped (because they would show him to be a liberal if he did vote on them). Giving him a zero for skipped votes gives him a rating more in the 30s and puts him to the left of several Democrat senators and leaves only 2 Republicans to his left.

It would be better to acknowledge McCain's liberalism and simply point out that he is just not as liberal as Hillary or Obama and leave it at that. Acknowledge that even on national security, pro-life, and economic issues, he is lackluster but still better than Obama and Hillary. The remaining challenge for McCain is that, of the two nominees, McCain is the less principled. Obama is openly Marxist. McCain is secretly a socialist. The voters want honesty in their presidents and given that McCain has serious ethical challenges, tends to flip-flop on issues, claims to be a Reagan Republican (from his perch on the left side of the party), and is a political opportunist, I don't see how he beats Obama even if you convinced every conservative to vote for him (and few will).

So our choice is between an unprincipled, self-aggrandizing, ill-tempered, old, liberal or a young, African-American, principled Leninist.

Spinning this election any other way just lowers your otherwise excellent credibility Bill. So please stop calling us names and recognize that McCain has few strong points, just less terrible ones than the opposition.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The Good? Hardly.

The empty-headed recitation of the phrase by McCain acolytes, "perfection is the enemy of the good" is, to be blunt, maddening. 

A. The quote is "the best is the enemy of good", so if the McCain apologists are going to quote Voltaire, they should at least do it right.

B. I would instead argue that "the adequate is the enemy of the excellent". I would also maintain that McCain does not even rise to the level of "marginal" much less "adequate".

C. Since when is McCain "the good" and since when were conservatives looking for "the perfect"? People who claim that either of these are the case are sophists. McCain is "the bad" and conservatives would have been perfectly happy to settle for "the good" (c.f. Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney).

D. The issue of the SCOTUS is routinely raised by McCain fanbois as the sine qua non argument.
Ragnar demonstrates that it is a feeble posit. One can certainly argue that there is a remote possibility that McCain would nominate someone to replace, say Ginsburg who is less liberal but past experience informs us that 1.) a nominee in the mold of Ginsburg would be a requirement of the MSM, and the Dems in the Senate would allow no other choice no matter what, and 2.) above all, McCain loves good press. Since he has no principles beyond what makes him look good, just exactly what evidence do we have that he wouldn't nominate Hillary herself? Absolutely none. Nominating Hillary Clinton would give McCain exactly what he always goes for: Maverick glory status.

When people say, "McCain is not perfect but..." I tune that person out as an unserious commenter. McCain doesn't even merit a "mediocre" rating. 

At the end of the day, McCain has zero redeeming qualities, which actually puts Hillary a point or two above him. At least she is consistent and principled (in her devotion to all things Leninist.) Meanwhile, McCain's only real devotion is to McCain, on all other issues, he is entirely unpredictable and so it would be with the SCOTUS.

Monday, August 27, 2007

The AGW Debate gets Surreal

The problem with debating anyone over the issue of anthropogenic global warming is that most of the AGW apologists proceed from multiple false assumptions. Recently a very ignorant poster to a thread over at said:

"Probably global warming is real, but it’s possible it’s not. Either way it’s a smart move to take common sense measures to reduce the risk."

First false assumption:

Global warming is a risk. It is demonstrably NOT a risk. In fact in the past, when the earth was warmer than it is today, civilization thrived. Grapes were grown in vineyards of Scotland, the Vikings colonized Greenland. In brief, if we COULD warm the planet through some manmade mechanism, it would be a GOOD THING.

Second false assumption:

C0₂ causes warming. In fact, there is ZERO evidence of this. What we do have evidence of is that as the oceans warm (caused by Mr. Sun) then C0₂ is released into the atmosphere.

Third false assumption:

C0₂ is a pollutant. Those who believe AGW is real often conflate pollutants (especially particulate pollutants like soot) with C0₂, which is a gas required on this planet for LIFE! LA has higher ozone and particulates (mainly dust) in the lower atmosphere but there is no way to notice elevated C02 in LA's air. C0₂ is a pollutant like oxygen and nitrogen are pollutants.

Fourth false assumption: 

The earth will continue warming unless we do something to stop it. It is, in fact, quite possible that we are at the apex of a warming cycle and that the earth will begin cooling. This would be a BAD THING.

My question for the imbecile who said warming was a "risk" should consider the much larger risk of global cooling. A cooler earth would be catastrophic for fruit and produce producing nations. It would drive people out of currently habitable areas into smaller zones of the planet. When we start cooling, are the enviroloons going to demand we drive more or build more coal fired power plants?

The most important thing to point out in all of this is that C0₂ is the RESULT of warming. That one, single fact blows holes a mile wide in the cap and trade nonsense. It also debunks EVERYTHING that Al Gore has asserted (and I think he knows it given how fast he skips past the C0₂/Warming corollary chart in his fictional movie, An Inconvenient Truth). 

There are so many things demonstrably and transparently wrong with this whole AGW ploy it is tragic:

1. There is ZERO evidence that man causes global warming.
2. Global warming has not been shown to be a negative for the planet.
3. Temperature measurement data before 1950 is highly inaccurate and back farther into the past is guesswork of monumental proportions.
4. NASA and other organizations responsible for collecting CURRENT temperature data have been caught cooking the books. I see NASA as the scientific world's Enron.
5. The AGW industry is monetarily GIGANTIC. Everyone wants a piece of this pie from anonymous researchers (who couldn't get a dime for a grant until they figured out how to connect their research with AGW) to multi-national corporations who have learned how to use enviro-scares to their benefit, to politicians who see more power ceded to them by playing up the Chicken Little AGW scheme.

AGW is like a bad prank that somebody came up with thinking that "nobody is that stupid to buy into it" only to find out that huge numbers of people are sheep and will buy into anything. I guess P.T. Barnum was right after all.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

10 Reasons Why Socialized Medicine Would Be a Good Idea

If we ever get socialized medicine in this country of the kind that Hillary advocates (the kind that makes it illegal to opt out of the system except by leaving the country) we could see some excellent benefits:

Number 10. Boon for Caymen Islands who begin to recruit all our best doctors and nurses to their newly minted "hospitals for Americans".

Number 9. Boon for doctors and nurses who always wanted a job in a beautiful Caribbean country.

Number 8. Boon for travel industry as Americans leave in droves to get treatment at Caymen Island hospitals.

Number 7. Decision making made easier for people needing drugs. "Which would you like for your life threatening illness sir, Aspirin or Penicillin?"

Number 6. With government employees now performing delicate surgery like angioplasty, big fat liberal slobs like Michael Moore would be dying in surgery in droves.

Number 5. The poor, who up until socialized medicine was implemented, received the very best care in the world, are now treated by unqualified government employees. They die in droves, thus reducing the ranks of Democrat voters (who voted for the politicians who devised the Socalized Health Care scheme in the first place). Once these voters are killed off by the very system they voted for, those who remain alive wisely abandon government run health care and return to the previous system with the advantage that the Democrat Party has lost half its support base.

Number 4. Abortion clinics are no longer the profitable business for Planned Parenthood they once were so they close shop and Planned Parenthood, now starved for money, goes bankrupt.

Number 3. Abortions are now performed by people not qualified to work at FEMA or the DMV. Because of this, the abortion rate starts to decline as pregnant women begin fearing that they will die on the table like Michael Moore did.

Number 2. With the US no longer acting as the engine for medical innovation in the world, Europeans start dying by the millions for lack of wonder drugs that previously were developed in the US. Less Europeans means less French people meddling in world affairs.

Number 1. Socialized medicine means there is no longer a private industry for lawyers to sue. This puts millions of lawyers out of work, including John Edwards.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Compare and contrast

The Qur'an:
Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Sura (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..."
Sura (9:12) - (Continued from above) "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion"
Sura (2:193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."

From the Hadith:
Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah..."
Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"
Bukhari (8:387) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"
Bukhari (53:392) - "While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."
Bukhari (2:24) - "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

The New Testament

John 13:34 "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. "
John 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. "
John 15:17 "I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another."
Rom. 12:10 "[L]ove one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor."
Rom. 13:8 "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law."
1Ths. 4:9 "Now concerning love of the brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anyone write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another; "
1Pet. 1:22 "Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply from the heart. "
1John 3:11 "For this is the message you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another."
1John 3:14 "We know that we have passed from death to life because we love one another. Whoever does not love abides in death. "
1John 3:23 "And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us."
1John 4:7 "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. "
1John 4:11 "Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. "
1John 4:12 "No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us."
2John 5 "But now, dear lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another."
1John 4:20 Those who say, "I love God," and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

This Person Could be President

Hillary is (or should be) known for her vile temper, foul mouth, condescending attitude toward her peers and subordinates, arrogance, and hate speech.

Here are just a few examples (warning, some of the following quotes are rated R):

"Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise."
(From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 - Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

"You sold out, you mother f**ker! You sold out!"
(From the book "Inside" by Joseph Califano, p. 213 - Hillary yelling at Democrat lawyer.)

"F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you sh*t-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut."
(From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning."

"You f**king idiot."
(From the book "Crossfire" p. 84 - Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.)

"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king a*s over here and grab those bags!"
(From the book "The First Partner" p. 259 - Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

"Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"
(From the book "Hillary's Scheme" p. 89 - Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!!?"
(From the book "Unlimited Access", by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 - Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
(Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; 6/28/2004.)

"Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!"
(From the book "The Survivor," by John Harris, p. 382 - Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign)

"Where's the miserable c*ck sucker?"
(From the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5 - Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)

"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!"
(From the book "Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72 - Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)

"A right-wing network was after his presidency...including perverting the Constitution."
(To Barbara Walters about the Republicans who impeached her husband; 20/20, ABC 6/8/2003.)

"Son of a b*tch."
(From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 259 - Hillary's opinion of President George W. Bush when she found out he secretly visited Iraq just days before her highly publicized trip to Iraq)

"What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!"
(From the book "The Survivor" by John Harris, p. 99 - Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the Clinton White House)

"I mean, you've got a conservative and right-wing press presence with really nothing on the other end of the political spectrum."
(C-Span, 1/19/1997 - Hillary complains about the mainstream media, which are all conservatives in her opinion)

"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't f**k her here!!"
(From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 - Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)

You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being -Hillary Clinton
(From the book "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West."
(From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 119 - During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)

"The only way to make a difference is to acquire power"
(From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 68 - Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people"
(From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 20 - Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)

"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe"
(Hillary in 1996" From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 76 - Hillary in 1996)

This person could be our next President!

Saturday, July 28, 2007

The Two-Dimensional Anti-war Thinking

The difficulty we are having with this war (and the debate over it) is that it is being won militarily but lost politically due to the completely 2 dimensional thinking of the anti-war crowd. Liberals appear to have very little nuance when it comes to discussing Iraq specifically, or the larger war against Islamic Jihadism in general. This is because it is quite apparent that they see everything through the "neo-cons are pulling Bushitler's strings" prism.

Note to the Bush Haters:

Realize that this is an ASYMMETRICAL war, the first of its kind ever fought by this country. There is has never been a more complicated set of variables laid out for a president and his generals to consider and there is no blueprint for how to succeed.


1. This is a proxy war with Iran and AQ fought on soil that is rife with civil unrest and tribal hatred.

2. This is a war that was historically necessary to prove that America is not a paper tiger. I firmly believe that one of the prime reasons that this administration chose to eventually go into Iraq was to demonstrate that you don't mess around with the UN security council or the United States. This is what Saddam was doing and Bush decided that the line had to be drawn in the sand or risk total loss of credibility on the world stage.

3. This is a war being fought in the midst of political game playing by the Democrats - game playing played solely for their political gain. Remember, Clinton didn't take on the Iraq problem because he knew it was a political mine-field and would be deeply unpopular with Americans. Clinton was not the kind of president to do the right thing when doing the popular thing would work much better. Bush hesitated for 18 months before going into Iraq for likely the same reasons. He knew it was going to be hell for his party if he got involved in a war in Iraq. In other words, there was NO upside for Bush or the GOP to get into this war. The only upside was for the long term good of the nation (assuming that he could reestablish our street cred). Meanwhile, there was huge upside for the Dems for Bush to get into this war if they could succeed in undermining his efforts. They have played this advantage to the hilt and ultimately to the detriment of the country as a whole. They have been invested in a loss in Iraq since the shock and awe portion was over.

4. The American Media hates Bush as much as the Dems and like the Dems, want to see a humiliation for him in Iraq. This became patently clear when they started saying the surge was a failure before we even got the surge troops in place.

5. The jihadists are WELL AWARE of points #3 and #4 above. They see the American populace as easily swayed. They see that very little is required to raise the angst level here in the States because the Dems and Media will exaggerate the chaos in Iraq and downplay or simply not report American successes. This amplifies any successful efforts that they undertake.

6. It is evidently easier to believe we are failing than succeeding in Iraq. Petraeus, a man of impeccable credentials and expertise has a plan he is enacting in Iraq but we don't take his word for the successes he says are happening there. No we take the word of Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha, people who are invested in losing, that the surge is a failure.

7. Our Rules of Engagement prevent success in many situations in Iraq. This is unheard of in our history of warfare. As long as we are tying the hands of our military, lives will be lost and the propaganda benefits to the enemy of those losses are incalculable.

8. We don't understand Islamists and they rely on this ignorance. These people are motivated by an ideology that hates both red and blue states in the US equally. They hate Americans in the red states because those people are Christian, Israel supporters. They hate the bluestaters because they represent weakness, materialism, feminism, gay rights, and the export of American cultural malaise.

All of these factors and several more make this a near impossible situation for Bush, made only worse because we have very little resolve left to fight to win (and by win I mean dishearten the Islamists to the point of pulling out of Iraq.) They now see that we are not the aggressive, strong military might they saw at the beginning of the war. In fact, they are seeing that their feeble efforts are actually causing our Congressional leaders to prepare for retreat. This emboldens them in the face of otherwise impossible military odds.

So what to do? If we think Hillary is going to win then we should pull out now because she will anyway if elected. This will save American soldiers lives (for now). If we think Rudy or FDT will get elected we should step it up now and make it easier for either of them to mop up and then prepare for the next onslaught of radical Islamic Jihadism that will surely come. In the end, I don't think this war will ever be won given that the Islamists will not give up until we are destroyed.

Baptists and Bootleggers

"Bruce Yandle authored the Baptists and Bootleggers Theory of Regulation, which said that two groups often work together to have regulations passed, but for two very different reasons. For example, both Baptists and Bootleggers might pressure government to outlaw alcohol; Baptists due to religious beliefs and bootleggers because of the potential for profit."

- Rob Blackstock

Over the last 40 years or so, as the socialist enviros started gaining the ear of legislators, business and industry have been forced to either go on the defense (fight socialist enviro legislation), or go on the offense (join the opposition and seek to benefit by squeezing out competition).

Offense by corporate interest is what we are seeing with the corporate social responsibility movement. Companies that are savvy enough, can capitalize on regulations by twisting them to their advantage. Cat may be misjudging the current AGW environmental regulatory landscape but in the past other companies have benefited from similar deals with the devil. However, these deals rarely benefit the consumer.

A notable example is DuPont, with their promotion of the bogus CFC Ozone depletion scare. Of course, CFCs have no impact on stratospheric ozone since CFCs are too heavy to rise to that level (similar problem with C02 by the way) but that didn't stop the environmental alarmists and DuPont from joining forces. Seeing an opportunity to make multi-billions in selling newly patented refrigerants, Dupont was only too happy to work with environmentalist interests and weak-minded legislators. We have been paying dearly ever since R-12 was outlawed due to this con.

For a good summary of the Baptist and Bootlegger aspects of the CFC debacle, see this article.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Without Creationists, Where Would Modern Science Be?

Modern science itself was established by Creationists, not evolutionists (both groups of which were contemporaneous with the other).

That’s right, evolutionists were not highly visible in the founding of modern fields of scientific inquiry. This being the case, one would have to give serious credence to Creationism given that any one of the fields listed below could’ve refuted creation but instead confirmed and expanded our knowledge of it.

So I ask you, dear reader, if Creationism is incorrect how could modern science have even been developed at all? The uninitiated are often stunned by the sheer volume of fields of study developed by those who believed God created the universe as described in the Bible. The following list of the fathers of modern science was developed by Curt Sewell, author of God at Ground Zero:

  • Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Lord Chancellor of England, is said to be the one who began the “scientific method.” This was based on experimentation and induction from data, rather than simply philosophical deduction like Aristotle used. Bacon was a devout Bible-believer, who wrote: “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures [the created things of nature], which express His power.”

  • Johann Kepler (1571-1630), discovered the laws of planetary motion and celestial mechanics. He was an earnest Christian, and wrote that he was merely “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

  • Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), mathematician, philosopher, a founder of hydrostatics and hydrodynamics, wrote the “wager of Pascal,” — “How can anyone lose who chooses to become a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing — in fact, he has been happier in life than his non-believing friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell.”

  • Robert Boyle (1627-1691), father of modern chemistry, said to be the greatest physical scientist of his generation, active Christian and Bible student and translator.

  • Nicolaus Steno (1631-1686), developed the principles of stratigraphical interpretation of fossils, and was a Flood geologist, attributing the fossils to the Biblical Flood of Noah. He wrote many theological works.

  • Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), discoverer of the law of gravitation, the three laws of motion, the calculus, the first reflecting telescope, and many others. He wrote more theological works than scientific papers, including a book defending the Ussher chronology of the Earth. He wrote: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.”

  • William Herschel (1738-1822), astronomer and telescope maker, discovered double stars and the planet Uranus. He was a devout Christian who wrote: “The undevout astronomer must be mad.”

  • Michael Faraday (1791-1867), universally acknowledged as one of the great scientists and experimenters, primarily in electricity and magnetism. He was a sincere Christian and faithful church-goer, and stated that he was supremely confident that true science and the Bible were both based on divine truth and were necessarily in agreement.

  • Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872), inventor of the telegraph, artist, sculptor, and builder of the first camera in America. He wrote: “The nearer I approach to the end of my pilgrimage, the clearer is the evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, the grandeur and sublimity of God’s remedy for fallen man …”

  • Matthew Maury (1806-1873), oceanographer and “Pathfinder of the Seas.” A Bible-believer, he read Psalm 8:8, “… the paths of the seas …” and said that if God said there paths through the seas he would find them and chart them. He discovered the prevailing currents of the world’s oceans during his lifetime with the U.S. Navy.

  • James Joule (1818-1889), physicist and discoverer of the mechanical equivalent of heat and one of the chief founders of the scientific discipline of thermodynamics. He was also a devout Christian.

  • Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), paleontologist, glaciologist, professor of natural history at Harvard, whose Museum of Comparative Zoology is named in his honor. Some have said he wasn’t really a Christian, but he certainly believed in God and His special creation of all kinds of organisms. He was an active opponent of the concept of evolution.

  • Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), established the germ theory of disease, pasteurization as a way of destroying bacteria, and demolished the evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation, developed vaccines for rabies, anthrax, and other diseases. He was a strongly religious man, who was criticized by the biological establishment of his day because he opposed Darwinism, yet he’s acknowledged as one of the greatest biologists of all time.

  • William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), was a Bible-believing Christian. He was one of the foremost physicists of all time, and held the chair of Natural Philosophy at University of Glasgow for 54 years. He established the scale of absolute temperature, and defined the first two laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was a strong opponent of Lyell’s principle of uniformitarianism and Darwin’s evolution. In 1903 he made a statement that “With regard to the origin of life, science … positively affirms creative power.”

  • Joseph Lister (1827-1912) was a great English surgeon, who developed the concept of antiseptic surgery and chemical disinfectants. Lord Lister received many honors during his lifetime, and was a firm Quaker Christian. He wrote: “I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.”

  • Joseph Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) was one of the greatest scientists of all time, best known for his comprehensive mathematical framework for electromagnetic field theory and other theoretical physics works. He strongly and actively opposed Darwinism and other naturalistic views of Earth’s origins. A hand-written paper found after his death affirmed his personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and quoted the Genesis account of man’s creation in the image of God.

  • George Washington Carver (1864-1943) is considered the greatest black scientist of all time, working mostly in the realm of agricultural products. He was born as a slave in the Southern U.S., and dedicated most of his life to helping his people, while also proclaiming his faith in God and the Bible.

  • Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), the father of the U.S. space program, was born in Germany and emigrated to the U.S. in 1945, becoming a citizen in 1955. He was a practicing Lutheran, and was active in church life, and a sincere Bible student. He wrote: “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

Do we assume that the Theory of Creation is valid just because modern science was conceived of, and developed by Creationists? I am not going to go that far. However, it should stand as a counterpoint to any assertion that evolution must be true because modern science has managed to persist with the notion still in wide spread acceptance. Heck, the Greeks managed to advance science despite the fact that they thought the earth was flat (even though the Hebrews at the time had the silly notion that it was a sphere).

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Really Excellent Cluebatting of Nutty Conspiracy Theories

Seeing the Unseen is a series of articles by Bill Whittle that do a really great job of debunking a variety of conspiracy theories that have cropped up over the years. They are not only an enjoyable read but a great summary of the idiocy that is pervading our society.

Here's one really excellent excerpt on bumper sticker intellectualism:

No Blood for Oil!

Sometimes, the best way to examine a radical assertion is to assume that it is correct and examine the likely consequences. For example, proponents of the Loch Ness Monster assert that there is a surviving plesiosaur lurking in the murky depths of a Scottish lake. We are then drawn into endless discussion of distant wakes and grainy photos and claims of hoaxes, etc. But if you cut to the chase, so to speak, and grant the premise, where does that leave you? Plesiosaurs are air-breathing reptiles that have to daily consume massive amounts of fish to survive. There are essentially no fish in Loch Ness. Does it order out for pizza? Also, as an air breather, we would not have a surface sighting once or twice a decade, but hundreds of times a day. If you grant the premise of an air-breathing dinosaur the entire proposition becomes ridiculous, not on the basis of the evidence, but on the monumental lack of evidence supporting the idea.

Likewise with a “war for oil.” What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port – probably Basra – and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

There would have been no overland campaign – what for? – and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?

That’s what a war for oil would look like. It’s entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality.

We have lost thousands killed and wounded because they are being blown up as they continue to provide security, electrical and water services, schools and hospitals to a land ravaged by three decades of fear, torture and barbarism. It is the American presence in the cities, providing security and some semblance of order for Iraqi citizens, that has cost us so many lives. If we are going to be tarred and slandered and pay the public relations price for “stealing Iraqi oil,” then the least we can do is go in and actually steal some of it, instead of dying to protect that resource for the use of the Iraqi people. Which is what is happening, because, as usual, there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary, no matter how many imbeciles hold up signs and dance around in giant papier–mache heads.

1st part of the essay is here

The 2nd part of the essay is here

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

How I Know the Bible is the Word of God

The Bible has many areas that are highly controversial and are subjected to heavy interpretation. This tends to lead skeptic to think that the Bible is unreliable.

The way to verify that the Bible is authored by God Himself is to look at prophesy. Some were fulfilled to the exact day, something that no man could predict.

There are many prophesies about the various Jewish captivities, the fall of Jerusalem, etc. that have been foretold by prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others and then later fulfilled. These are easy to find and to verify through any archeological commentary. Nevertheless, I’ll give you three off the top of my head starting with the most important of any OT prophecy, the first coming of the Messiah.

In Daniel 9:25 we are told that from the time of the command to restore the walls of Jerusalem, to the arrival of Messiah, there would be 69 weeks of years (the Hebrews used the term “week” to refer to a 7 year period much like we use the term “decade” to refer to a 10 year period) and these Biblical years were 360 days in length.

The command was given March 14, 445 BC. Counting forward the required 173,880 days we arrive at April 6, 32 AD. The exact day that Jesus Christ entered Jerusalem on the day we call “Palm Sunday”.

It is important to realize that this is a very clear and very specific prophecy (not one of the more obscure or complex ones we can find here and there but one that is very straight forward). It is so clear that Jesus actually said that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed because its people did not specifically acknowledge the prophecy. Because they disregarded it, His prediction was fulfilled in 69 AD. The Romans had their way with the symbol of the Jewish religion, Solomon’s temple, and at that moment, Israel was no more.

Now, if you are asking whether there is an independent record of the April 6, 32 arrival date, there is no need. All four gospels record the event and all four gospels were in circulation shortly after the crucifixion. Many of the early readers of the gospel accounts certainly would have been present during the events of the first Palm Sunday. It defies logic or reason to accept that FOUR false accounts of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with such supposed fanfare would have withstood the scrutiny of the many Jewish skeptics who were alive at the time.

The reality is, that everyone knew that Jesus came into town on the prophesied day. This is why there is no record of the Gospel accounts being challenged.

Furthermore, in all the ancient writings available to us, only Jesus Christ is recorded to have fulfilled the prophesy of Daniel 25:9. While there may have been others who might have thought to be pretenders to the fulfillment of that prophecy, only Jesus actually fulfilled it.

A couple of other amazing prophecies:

In chapter 4 of his book, Ezekiel predicted that the tribes of Israel would shortly be sent into servitude/captivity but also prophesied that Israel would rise again 907,200 days (2,520 Biblical years) after this “servitude of the nation” (which occurred on July 17th, 606 BC.) Counting forward 907,200 days we land on May 14, 1948, the day David Ben-Gurion announced on international radio, the name of his rebirthed country, “Israel”.

This prophesy references the servitude of the nation and then it’s rebirth. They are connected events both in time and in type. The period begins with the nation going into captivity and ends with it being reborn. Ezekiel predicted it exactly and I think there are plenty of independent sources to verify the date that modern day Israel came into being.

What is even more provocative is that the same prophesy by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 4:3-6) talks about the “desolation” of Jerusalem (which happened 19 years later in 587 B.C.) where they lost control of the city (going into Gentile hands) and then the subsequent recapture of Jerusalem 2,520 years later.

Would it be any surprise to learn then, that Jerusalem was recaptured by the Israelies from its Arab enemies exactly 19 years after Israel was birthed and exactly 907,200 days after the desolation of Jerusalem in 587 BC?

Probably just a coincidence.