Islamic Jihad: Fulfillment of Prophecy?

There has been a good deal of speculation as to whether or not America is mentioned or even indirectly referenced in the Bible, specifically Revelation 12:14 where it is written that the wings of a great eagle are given to a woman to save her from the face of the serpent.

I believe it is somewhat of a stretch to infer America, i.e., the United States, as being the eagle referred to in the verse mentioned above. The Book of Revelation presents its own unique set of challenges for the reader because both figurative and literal language are interspersed throughout the book.

Unlike the sometimes confusing imagery presented in Revelation, there are other verses that appear in other books that really leave very little doubt as to their meaning and one I’m thinking of is John 16:1-2.

These things I have spoken to you so that you may be kept from stumbling. They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.

John 16:1-2 NASB

I’m sure some would argue that since Jesus was speaking to His apostles, He was making a prediction concerning them and I would agree with that argument. But if you read through the Gospels you will find that Jesus frequently spoke in prophetic terms. I believe that most honest scholars, pastors, educators and theologians would agree that the Bible wasn’t written specifically for a certain people during a certain time in history but for all people in all ages. Otherwise, why preach it today?

Besides, at the time Jesus spoke those words, the Church had not yet come into existence. The apostles were all Jewish but they would become the core of the newly formed Christian Church being hand-picked by Jesus Himself.

Nevertheless, the words in John 16:2, “…an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God” strikes a chord especially when you consider the worldwide persecution of Christians in many Muslim majority countries.

Let me rephrase what I just said, Christian are being systematically “cleansed” from many Muslim majority countries. As the saying goes, “This isn’t war it’s genocide.”

Some would argue that the Islamic Jihadis are just terrorists with a political or social agenda. If that’s true, then why does ISIS call it’s captured territory a Caliphate which by definition is an area ruled by an Islamic steward? Islam is still a religion, isn’t it? It should be no surprise then that many, if not all, Jihadis adopted “Allahu Akbar” as their battle cry. I’m aware that the term “Jihad” also carries the meaning of “struggle against self” for Muslims but that is not the meaning of the term I’m discussing here.

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all monotheistic religions; however, Muslims and Jews both believe that Christianity is a polytheistic religion. (The belief that Christianity is a polytheistic religion is a topic I’ll investigate in a future series.) This view of Christianity as a polytheistic religion is the root of all the animosity both religions have towards Christianity. Of course with the Jews it’s passive aggressive but for the Jihadis it’s an intense hatred that expresses itself in the extremely violent acts carried out all too frequently throughout the world.

While Muslims can accept Jesus as being a prophet, they reject Him as being God. Jews, on the other hand, reject Him as being both a prophet and God. Therefore, He has become a hindrance or an obstacle to both. The problem was and always will be with Jesus as prophesied:

Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Isa. 8:14

The bottom line is that there is only one God. Christians and Jews know Him as Jehovah; Muslims know Him as Allah. The problem isn’t with God, it’s with our understanding of who He is and what He has said. So, which religion has it right? I would suggest that one very reliable way to decide is by asking yourself the question, “Whose prophesies have been fulfilled or are now being fulfilled?” I’ve just presented two very obvious ones to consider.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Gerard Sczepura

In the Crosshairs: Election Retrospective

In agile software development, it’s expected that Scrum project teams conduct a sprint retrospective. The sprint retrospective is a meeting attended by all project team members to determine what was done right during the sprint and what was not done so well. The team attempts to ascertain what actions that could be taken on future sprints to increase the team’s effectiveness or velocity.

In the old days, we used to call this retrospective type of meeting a post-mortem or “an examination of the corpse to determine correct cause of death.” In our case here, the corpse is the 2016 U.S. election. Or more accurately, the corpse in this case is what was said in the “Crosshairs” series published on this blog during the primaries and presidential campaign season. In other words, this post is a self-retrospective.

In the Crosshairs: Trump & the GOP

Published: August 06, 2015

Many Republican career politicians deserted Trump like rats from a sinking ship. Enter former presidential candidate John McCain. I admit I voted the McCain / Palin ticket in 2008 only because of Sarah Palin, I never really liked John McCain, there was always something about him…

Career politicians are only looking out for themselves, especially when they’re up for reelection.

Anyway, McCain dropped his support of Trump after the release of the infamous hot-mic tapes like a rat deserting a sinking ship, only the ship wasn’t sinking.

The so-called “fired up crazies” spoke and Trump won the presidency.

In the Crosshairs: Paris Attacks

Published: November 14, 2015

Our current president still refuses to acknowledge that the ISIL inspired Jihadis are Islamic, even though every name they use or ones that are given to them has the word “Islamic” in it.

So what’s the issue here? Will it give them more credibility if we in the West agree with them that they are Islamic? The “JV Team” seems to have no problem with credibility since they now have a presence in 18 countries around the world.

So, no matter what name you choose to give them, ISIL, radical Islamic terrorist, or Jihadis, you have to ask yourself, “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

In the Crosshairs: Guns & Immigration

Published: December 01, 2015

I’ve heard Bill O’Reilly say, on more than one occasion in his Talking Points Memo on Fox News Channel, that America would never elect a socialist as president. Well, I think Bill O’Reilly is wrong since Bernie Sanders almost clinched the Democratic nomination were it not for the Clinton machine opposing him.

Maybe you don’t think there is a Marxist revolution going on in America, if not, then you haven’t been paying attention to the “Not My President” movement which surely advocates a globalist agenda with Marxist overtones.

So, if our Western democracy had worn a condom while fornicating with Marxian socialism we probably wouldn’t be in this situation today.

In the Crosshairs: “Yesterday Once More”

Published: December 05, 2015

This “Crosshairs” post was my tribute to Karen Carpenter and the good old ‘60s.

Check it out. I think I hit the nail right on the head with this one.

In the Crosshairs: Generals and Politicians

Published: December 25, 2015

So, in the fight against ISIS or the global Jihad, “What would Patton do?” Well, he’d win and that’s all he would have to say.

Yes, Donald Trump admires Generals Patton and MacArthur and so do I. History has proven Patton and MacArthur right and proven the politicians and some presidents wrong. As Trump might say, The generals “knew what the hell was going on.”

Coincidentally, Trump made many references to Patton and MacArthur during his campaign. Could he have been reading this blog?

In the Crosshairs: National Review’s Manifesto against Donald Trump

Published: January 30, 2016

The so-called conservatives at the National Review made idiots of themselves when they maligned Donald Trump in such a way that even the radical Left and Saul Alinsky would be proud.

The 2016 U.S. elections are over and Donald Trump is now the president elect. Remember during the primaries when Ted Cruz declared on many occasions that Donald Trump would not be the Republican Party’s nominee. Well, not only did Trump get the nomination, he won the election! What does that say about Cruz’s prophetic abilities or his credentials as an evangelical?

In the Crosshairs: Providence and the U.S. Election

Published: March 06, 2016

Although no one is really saying it, God spoke and Trump won the election. Obviously, God spoke through the voters. Notice that He didn’t speak through the elites, media pundits, experts, commentators, news reporters, pollsters, globalist, or progressives.

Most of the time when God speaks, no one really listens, but this time the whole world got the message.

In the Crosshairs: Looking Back to See Ahead

Published: August 28, 2016

The good news is that Trump won the election, the bad news is that all the loud mouth celebrities who said they would leave the U.S. if Trump won are still here.

So was I wrong to say that “America has been destroyed,” and “Donald Trump is running for president of a country that doesn’t exist anymore and that pretty much assures that Hillary Clinton will win the election?” I would have to say yes and no.

Yes, I was wrong in that Hillary Clinton didn’t win the election, but no, I wasn’t wrong to say America has been destroyed. Take a look around, see all the “Not my President” rioters and protestors. Obama met with Trump and was cordial but the President made no attempt to try to quell the violence his supporters are inflicting on our cities and institutions. I believe America as we knew it is gone—God just gave us a short reprieve. Maybe “for the sake of the elect?”

In the Crosshairs: The Last Election

Published: November 05, 2016

By the time I published this post, I was convinced that nothing could stop Hillary Clinton from becoming President of the United States. I was wrong…thankfully wrong. God intervened and pronounced His judgement.

And just when you thought it was safe to turn on the news and not hear a barrage of negative rants against Donald Trump that the corrupt mainstream media are working overtime to marginalize and ridicule his cabinet picks, wife and other family members during his transition to the White House. No doubt, the 2020 presidential campaign has already begun.

Yes, the Left was hoping this would be the last election. They had a candidate who they believed couldn’t lose. Who will they find to run against Trump for the 2020 election? Time alone will tell.

P.S. This concludes my series on the 2016 U.S. presidential election. I trust my insights and analyses were entertaining and hopefully even original at times. I tried to make analogies that were outside of the mainstream, maybe even outside traditional conservative circles. Nevertheless, I tried to make points that I felt others missed or neglected to some degree, particularly with reference to divine providence. All this with a healthy dose of sarcasm thrown in. As always, I welcome your comments.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Gerard Sczepura

In the Crosshairs: The Last Election

After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.

Dan. 7:7 NASB

It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

Rev. 13:7-8

You may be asking yourself, “What does any of this have to do with the 2016 United States presidential election?” Well, maybe nothing…then again, maybe everything.

The biblical verses I quoted from Daniel and Revelation clearly predict a coming world leader or put another way, global governance on steroids. Additionally, if you read closely you will understand that this coming world leader will not be a friend to the Christian community. So, which presidential candidate supports policies that could lead to the loss of America’s sovereignty? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not Trump.

Hillary Clinton is running on a platform that seeks to preserve President Obama’s legacy, like Obamacare for example. Also included in Obama’s legacy would be the way he used every opportunity during his presidency to diminish and demean Christians of all persuasions. On the other hand, he has been an effective Islamic apologist, like refusing to admit ISIS is Islamic. Obama also likes to tout his immigration policy of allowing refugees into the U.S., but I bet you didn’t know that out of 6,726 Syrian refugees admitted to U.S. so far in FY 2016, only 23 are Christians!

And who can forget Obama’s many worldwide apology tours.

In order for a global leader to subdue the entire world, the United States, in particular, would have to be conquered or assimilated. I don’t think the U.S. could be conquered militarily, but I do believe it could be assimilated—and we are already well on our way! In my opinion, the results of this election will determine if the process becomes accelerated or decelerated.

So I think you need to ask yourself if you are really ready for Hillary because she is probably going to win the election. You know, having Hillary for President wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for her ideology. But then again, I suspect most voters have no idea what her ideology really is because she has been so good at putting the spin on her real opinions and beliefs.

Can you remember the last time Hillary held a news conference or agreed to interview with someone from a network other than CNN (Collusive News Network)? Then again, calling CNN a news network is seriously oxymoronic.

I found a pretty good way of deciding who I would vote for without even hearing any of the candidates’ positions. If you really want to know what a candidate stands for, just look at who is supporting the candidate. For example, George Soros and Lady Gaga are both supporting Hillary Clinton. In case you don’t know who George Soros is, you had better find out soon because he is a radical leftist ideologue who is determined to bring about an end to America’s sovereignty. If this sounds like your cup of tea, then vote for Hillary. On the other hand, if you’re looking someone with a strong desire to stand up for America, Steve Forbes and Jerry Falwell Jr. are both supporting Donald Trump.

Hillary’s campaign slogan is “Stronger Together” but she has no problem discriminating against those “irredeemable” folks that the Left have profiled as being un-American simply because of their belief in traditional values and American exceptionalism. Hillary’s definition of “inclusion” is to dispense all those who don’t support her leftist agenda into that “basket of deplorables.”

Left-wing bias is running rampant during this election cycle. The brazen mainstream media doesn’t even feel the need to hide it anymore. For those who love to criticize Fox News, you need to understand that there is a big difference between hard news reporting and commentary / opinion. Maybe your teachers and professors skipped over this subject in school.

Speaking of the news media, I have a habit of watching Water’s World on Fox News Channel and it’s really scary because I would have to say from what I’ve heard, almost 80% of the interviewees were totally clueless…and some will even be voting.

As an amateur photographer, I’m concerned with color and contrast in my photos. In the same way, I look for color and contrast in the current presidential candidates. Inarguably, Donald Trump is the most colorful candidate this country has ever seen while Hillary mostly appears in varying shades of gray. On the other hand, the contrast between the two candidates couldn’t be more lucid:

  • Nationalism vs. Globalism
  • < Regulation vs. > Regulation
  • < Taxes vs. > Taxes
  • Borders vs. Bridges
  • Law vs. Lawlessness
  • Truth vs. Lies…

Conspiracies abound, but since there are no Trump supporters lurking in the Bushes, we’re not hearing about that “vast right-wing conspiracy” anymore. No, instead we are getting barraged with Russia conspiring with the Republicans to influence the election. All this noise was generated by the media because Putin said that Trump was a “colorful candidate” and Trump said “wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia.” What’s so terrible about that? Nevertheless, getting along doesn’t necessarily mean going along. Conversely, if Trump made some inflammatory remarks about Putin and Russia, the mainstream media would be accusing him [Trump] of trying to start a war.

The vast right-wing conspiracy has morphed into a two-man conspiracy to de-throne the Clintons.

Conspiracies aside, nothing sells better than sex, just ask Megyn Kelly of Fox News Channel. I was really shocked when she brought up the War on Women accusation against Trump at the first presidential debate. The mainstream media along with Megyn Kelly hammered the voters relentlessly with their coverage of the Trump NBC hot mic tape. Megyn Kelly has certainly done a lot to endear herself to the feminist movement or maybe she already is a card-carrying member.

Speaking of wars, we have lots of them now such as the War on: Coal (i.e., energy), Christianity, Law Enforcement, First and Second Amendments, Fox News, Conservative Talk Radio, Capitalism, American Values, etc., etc.

I’ve heard many commentators and pundits say that Trump’s achievements are unprecedented in modern political history, but so have Hillary’s accomplishments. She ran unsuccessfully against Barak Obama for the presidency and was then appointed as Secretary of State. Later, she successfully ran for office as senator from New York, all the while amassing a fortune of around $31 million. But her best achievement was being able to avoid any repercussions or consequences from using an unsecured private email server as Secretary of State. Hillary’s not worried, she could (hypothetically) “stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody” and she wouldn’t get convicted.

Even so, I believe what Trump was able to accomplish without being a political hack is amazing to say the least. And whether he wins or loses, this 2016 election cycle will be discussed for many years to come.

If Hillary wins this election, she will be president for eight years. I don’t think it will be possible for the country to recover. This will be the last election.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Gerard Sczepura

In the Crosshairs: Looking Back to See Ahead

While serving in the U.S. Air Force in South Vietnam during the early 70s, I had the opportunity to see the movie Catch-22 in the base theater. I’ll never forget the scene of the outrageous conversation between Nately, played by actor Art Garfunkel, and an old, lecherous man which took place in a whorehouse somewhere in Rome during WWII. Part of the conversation (taken from the Kindle book) went like this:

‘America is the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth,’ Nately informed him with lofty fervor and dignity. ‘And the American fighting man is second to none.’

‘Exactly,’ agreed the old man pleasantly, with a hint of taunting amusement. ‘Italy, on the other hand, is one of the least prosperous nations on earth. And the Italian fighting man is probably second to all…Yes, I am quite certain that Italy will survive this war and still be in existence long after your own country has been destroyed.’

‘America is not going to be destroyed!’ he [Nately] shouted passionately. ‘Never?’ prodded the old man softly. ‘Well . . .’ Nately faltered.

The old man laughed indulgently, holding in check a deeper, more explosive delight. His goading remained gentle. ‘Rome was destroyed, Greece was destroyed, Persia was destroyed, Spain was destroyed. All great countries are destroyed. Why not yours? How much longer do you really think your own country will last? Forever?’

The idea of America being destroyed was unthinkable in 1970 when this film was released. Even though America was still involved in the war in Vietnam, Richard Nixon was president and it seemed that the anarchy of the 1960s had been quelled.

Who could have imagined then that America would only last another 50 short years?

When I got off the plane at Travis AFB in California in 1972 after the flight from Tan Son Nhut AB, Vietnam (with a stopover in Japan), I felt a sigh of relief—I was back in the “World.” I was even more relieved after arriving at JFK and after having taken a cab through familiar surroundings to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn where my aunt and uncle had an apartment.

There was a certain feeling of security in the U.S. back then. No one worried about being attacked, that didn’t occur in America…then 9/11 happened and everything changed.

In my opinion, nothing has been the same since the World Trade Center in NYC came down. Yes, America rose up to fight back but the cure has turned out to be worse than the disease.

On the other hand, nothing really happens overnight, America was already pivoting away from her traditional values of borders, language and culture during the 1960s.

Even though the radicalism of the 1960s was subdued during the Nixon years, it wasn’t cured it just went into remission only to flare up again in the 1980s with the appearance of political correctness.

Political correctness has since metastasized into almost every institution in America: the mainstream media; Hollywood (actors and films); academia; the scientific community; government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial); and churches…yes, even churches! Has America joined Europe and the rest of the world in this insanity?

So, here we are 16 years into the 21st century and you have to ask yourself, “Has anything really changed?”

Politics certainly hasn’t changed. I recall spending time, while growing up, with my parents at Uncle Wallace and Aunt Sophie’s house in Wallington, NJ which is very close to Passaic. Uncle Wallace owned and operated a storefront deli in the front section of his house and once a year, around Easter, he would give my father some homemade kielbasa to bring home, usually two rings which never really seemed to be enough. Anyway, in 1964 during one of our visits, my father’s cousin along with his family were there also and the men were having a conversation on politics at the kitchen table. My father’s cousin was trying to make a case against Barry Goldwater for president by implying that if elected he would ban rock ‘n’ roll. From that moment on, the name Barry Goldwater was to me anathema since I was a big Beatles fan.

So, after all these years I decided to read a transcript of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 acceptance speech. I wanted to see if there was any basis for believing that he, as president, would turn out to be some kind of intolerant dictator as my father’s cousin would have liked us to believe. To the contrary, based on the following excerpts from Goldwater’s acceptance speech I find there was no basis whatsoever for my father’s cousin’s erroneous statements:

We see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone’s life for him – we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.

Balance, diversity, creativity – these are the elements of Republican equation.

This is a party, this Republican Party, a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists.

Naturally, no one remembers any of these great words. The only words from Goldwater’s speech that people tend to remember are the words that the biased, dishonest media will allow you to remember, and those words are:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Goldwater’s obvious fatal mistake was his use of the E-word. Ever since then, people have come to automatically equate conservatism with extremism, while on the other hand, they have come to automatically equate liberalism (progressivism / socialism / collectivism) with moderation (normalcy).

So who are the real extremists, Donald Trump or the criminal-coddling Left? Lest we forget, it was not long after Trump made his [in]famous statement about Mexican and other immigrants being “killers and rapists,” that Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco by a seven time convicted felon, an illegal Mexican immigrant who was deported five times and returned. San Francisco provides a safe haven for illegal immigrants since it is a “Sanctuary City,” and the Democrats in Congress blocked the passage of Kate’s Law. Insane? Yes. The inmates (politicians) are now running the asylum (government).

As I read through the text of Goldwater’s 1964 acceptance speech, I thought to myself, “This speech could have been used today, almost in its entirety, by Donald Trump.” Pretty much all that he would need to do is substitute “communism” with “radical Islam” and he would have it. After all these years, very little has changed, if anything.

The experts like to make comparisons between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan but I think Mr. Trump’s views on many issues are more in line with Goldwater’s not Reagan’s. But no one dare mention the name Goldwater—it has become a pariah.

I believe the very reason for the Left’s unrelenting vitriol directed at Donald Trump is because he has become the 21st century Goldwater Republican. And, if Ann Coulter’s theory is correct, no Republican can ever win the White House again. On the other hand, if Donald Trump does manage to get elected, he will in all probability be the last Republican president.

So, will the voters going to the polls in the U.S. make the same mistake on Election Day in 2016 as they did in 1964? Time will tell. Will the biased media be successful in demonizing Donald Trump so that enough people are persuaded to vote for Hillary Clinton? It depends on whether or not America is already too far gone.

Hillary Clinton was deemed “extremely carless” in her handling of classified information by FBI Director James Comey but she still leads Donald Trump in almost all the polls. Also, based on James Comey’s answers to Trey Gowdy’s questions concerning Hillary Clinton’s past statements, it seems clear that she has been less than truthful with the American people. While it appears that she can fool the FBI and large segments of the electorate, she isn’t fooling God (this is a theological blog after all).

Everyone deceives his neighbor And does not speak the truth, They have taught their tongue to speak lies; They weary themselves committing iniquity.

Jer. 9:5 NASB

Has America become like those of whom the prophet Jeremiah spoke of? Will Hillary Clinton’s lies eventually catch up with her as it is written:

A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will not escape.

Prov. 19:5

Along with the proliferation of lies and liars, there is also no shortage of hypocrisy and hypocrites during this presidential election season. So…

Can someone please explain to me why the Liberals are all upset with Donald Trump for speaking out against the vicious personal attacks made by Khizr Khan during the Democratic Convention when it was those very same Liberals who during the Vietnam War called returning veterans “baby killers?”

Can someone please explain to me why Seddique Mateen, the father of the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooter, was sitting in a prominent location directly behind Hillary Clinton at her rally in Kissimmee, Florida? Seddique Mateen is a Clinton supporter and gun control advocate—go figure!

Can someone please explain to me why billionaires such as Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg, Oprah Winfrey, George Soros, and many others are supporting Hillary Clinton when she is supposedly running against Wall Street and the 1%?

Can someone please explain to me why the mainstream media gives Hillary Clinton a pass for not releasing her 30,000 or so deleted emails but they slam Donald Trump for not releasing his tax returns?

Can someone please explain to me why Liberals break out into self-righteous indignation over Donald Trump calling it as he sees it when these very same liberals called George W. Bush “Dumbya,” “Dumbo,” “Bushitler,” and “Uncurious George,” among other names?

Can someone please explain to me why Hollywood actor Will Smith can get away with making an outright threat:  “We get to know who people [Donald Trump supporters] are and now we get to cleanse it out of our country,” but the Left went hysterical over Donald Trump’s Second Amendment people comment? To most rational, thinking people what Trump said was an obvious double entendre—not intended to be taken literally.

I believe the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election will either confirm or invalidate my earlier statement that America has been destroyed. That is not to say that America is or will be destroyed in the sense that Rome was destroyed in 476 C.E. America will be destroyed when her borders, language, and culture are abraded.

If my assessment that America has been destroyed is true, then Donald Trump is running for president of a country that doesn’t exist anymore and that pretty much assures that Hillary Clinton will win the election. Let’s hope I’m wrong. On the other hand, if Donald Trump does win the election, let’s hope that Miley Cyrus, Whoopi Goldberg, Rosie O’Donnell, Al Sharpton, Jon Stewart, and Cher stick to their word and leave the country. Do you think they’ll be missed? I didn’t think so.

However, if it all goes bad in November because the majority happens to get fooled again, then we can all sing the lines from a familiar song, “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”


Joseph Heller. Catch-22: 50th Anniversary Edition (pp. 272-273). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

“Goldwater’s 1964 Acceptance Speech,” washingtonpost.com, accessed August 15, 2016, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm.

“Senate Dems block votes on immigration issues, including sanctuary cities,” published July 07, 2016, FoxNews.com, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/07/senate-dems-block-votes-on-immigration-issues-including-sanctuary-cities.html.

“Coulter: I Got 30 Million Reasons,” Ann Coulter, Human Events, July 3, 2013, http://humanevents.com/2013/07/03/coulter-i-got-30-million-reasons/.

Peter Townshend, Won’t Get Fooled Again, Abkco Music Inc., T.R.O. Inc., Spirit Music Group.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Gerard Sczepura

Climatism

On May 6, 2016 we woke up to 54 degree temperatures here in parts of Lake County Florida. For those of you reading this who don’t live in Florida, I can tell you that 54 degrees is pretty chilly. Yes, climate change is real. Global warming? Maybe not so much.

The consensus at the United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), has it that Big Oil and self-indulgent Americans, who drive their fossil fuel burning vehicles to work every day, are destroying the planet. How dare they do this!

The true believers in anthropogenic, i.e., man-made, global warming have somehow convinced themselves that a harmless greenhouse gas, namely CO2 or carbon dioxide, which we were all taught in elementary school to be necessary for life on earth, is now a pollutant! What changed?

So, was it really science that originated the idea of man-made global warming or was it something else? If I had to bet, I would put my money on politics—progressive politics to be exact.

Hey Bernie, it’s not climate change that we deniers believe is a hoax, it’s man-made climate change that we deniers believe is a hoax. Sorry, but I’m not “feelin’ the Bern.”

Hey, oh yeah, yeah
The sky is burnin’, I believe my soul’s on fire…

Oh yeah, oh yeah, yeah
Now the sky is burnin’, I believe my soul’s on fire…
1

In 2007, the anti-American, socialist Sweden’s Nobel Prize was awarded to and shared between the IPCC and none other than Al Gore “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”2 Notice that the award spells out man-made climate change. The way I see it, the Nobel Prize wouldn’t have been awarded to the IPCC and Gore if their knowledge dissemination were for natural causes of climate change.

Socialist Europe, along with their surrogates in the United Nations, are using climate alarmism via the Kyoto Protocol and other agreements to force Americans into a position where they can’t compete economically with their laid back, sophisticated European counterparts.3 Amusingly, China, India, and over 100 other so-called developing countries were exempt from Kyoto.4

After all, isn’t there worldwide consensus that so-called developing countries’ carbon emissions are less harmful to the environment than developed countries’ carbon emissions? You could just replace “developed countries” with “United States” and you would then know who Kyoto is really targeting. This all sounds more and more like politics not science.

As a result of Gore starring in and promoting the fictitious documentary An Inconvenient Truth (or more appropriately entitled: The Sky is Falling) he pretty much single-handedly gave birth to a new movement called Climatism. The IPCC and Gore should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for their success in creating global climate alarmism because that’s exactly what they have done.

Narrator:   Chicken Little was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on her head.  It scared her so much she trembled all over.   She shook so hard, half her feathers fell out.

Chicken Little:   “Help! Help! The sky is falling!I have to go tell the king!”

Narrator:   So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.

Henny Penny:  “Where are you going, Chicken Little?”
Chicken Little:   “Oh, help!  The sky is falling!”
Henny Penny:   “How do you know?”
Chicken Little:   “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”
Henny Penny:  “This is terrible, just terrible!  We’d better hurry up…”

Narrator:   And they all ran in great fright across a field.  Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth…

Turkey Lurkey:    “Hello there, Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey.  Where are you all going in such a hurry?”
Chicken Little:   “Help!  Help!”
Henny Penny:   “We’re running for our lives!”
Ducky Lucky:   “The sky is falling!”
Goosey Loosey:   “And we’re running to tell the king!”
Turkey Lurkey:   “How do you know the sky is falling?”
Chicken Little:   “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”
Turkey Lurkey:   “Oh dear! I always suspected the sky would fall someday. I’d better run with you.”

Narrator:   So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.

Foxy Loxy:   “Well, well.  Where are you rushing on such a fine day?”
Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together)   “Help!  Help!” It’s not a fine day at all. The sky is falling, and we’re running to tell the king!”
Foxy Loxy:   “How do you know the sky is falling?”
Chicken Little:   “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”
Foxy Loxy:    “I see.  Well then, follow me, and I’ll show you the way to the king.”

Narrator:    So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woodsHe led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling. [iconic emphasis mine]5

The climate alarmist in our children’s story was Chicken Little, however, today we have a real-life Chicken Little in Al Gore. In our story we see there were many snuckered followers of Chicken Little. Now, instead of Henny Penney, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey and Turkey Lurkey, we have Bill Nye, Paul R. Ehrlich, Michael E. Mann, and James Hansen—all on the alarmist bandwagon.

Before we leave this discussion, let’s not overlook the villain in our story, Foxy Loxy. Foxy Loxy (or Fox News) represents the global warming deniers of today who are getting in the way of the radical environmentalist agenda.

As I’ve pointed out so far, man-made climate change, i.e., climatism, is synonymous with climate alarmism. If you don’t think so then you haven’t been keeping up with current events.

Well maybe you haven’t heard what 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said recently:

I’m the only candidate, which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity, using clean renewable energy as the key, into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.6

Ms. Clinton of course tried to backpedal her comments after she realized they were not going to help her chances of winning Kentucky and West Virginia so she offered the coal miners careers in clean, renewable energy. Really, like windmills, solar panels, and stuff? No, Ms. Clinton meant exactly what she said because the climate alarmists will propose and do almost anything to promote their agenda, up to and including destroying people’s livelihoods.

I don’t know about you, but I was caught completely by surprise recently by President Obama’s remarks at the Coast Guard’s Class of 2015 graduation ceremony. So what were those remarks that took me, and probably you also, totally by surprise? Well, it was his remarks concerning the hypothetical threat of [man-made] climate change as a serious risk to the United States. Yes, you got it right…climate change. The President and many others obviously can’t see the real threats that are right in front of their faces: IS and [Islamic] terrorism; the Iranian nuclear capability; recent Chinese expansion in the South China Sea; or even political correctness! On top of that, he went on to say that not only is climate change a risk to our national security, but that it is an immediate risk. You probably caught this soundbite on one of the nightly news broadcasts:

So I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security.  And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country.  And so we need to act — and we need to act now.7

Worse yet, the soundbite you probably didn’t hear was a remark the President made linking climate change with the unrest in Africa and the Middle East:

Understand, climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world.  Yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram.  It’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East.8

I don’t know how the President can say that drought in Africa and the Middle East encouraged the rise of Islamic extremism given the position of one highly authoritative source who blames George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with inventing the Islamic State.9 Blame Bush, blame the Republicans, blah, blah, blah…nothing new from the unimaginative Left. Seriously though, haven’t there been numerous periods of drought and famine throughout the world, even in the United States? What about the Dust Bowl that devastated the Southern Plains during the 1930s?

So, what the President tried to convince the graduating Coast Guard cadets to believe is that climate change brought about the economic conditions which fueled the rise of terrorist organizations in Africa and the Middle East. Really, Mr. President? Unlike everyone else in the world who understands Islam to be a religion, you, Mr. President, obviously do not. The folks making up the Boko Haram terrorist organization aren’t a bunch of disgruntled workers upset over the meager wages paid to them by their oppressive employers; no, quite the contrary, they’re actually religious extremists trying to overthrow western influences in order to establish an Islamic State.10 In fact, anyone willing to face reality would acknowledge that this not about climate change or economics, it’s about religion; and it has always been about religion.

Speaking of religion, where should Bible-believing Christians stand on this issue? Well, it depends on where you think the Earth’s thermostat resides, on Earth or in Heaven. If it’s on Earth, then man could be responsible for how it’s set, but if it’s in Heaven then God is in control of the Earth’s temperature. I would bet good money that it is in Heaven.

While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.11

So, if the Earth’s thermostat is truly in Heaven, then scientific evidence for natural causes of climate change or global warming should exist. But if we are to believe the IPCC, Al Gore, the media, and many deluded climatologists, there is no evidence for natural causes of climate change. As the alarmists like to say, “The science is settled.” and “There’s scientific consensus on climate change.” Are these statements true? Well, like I’ve said on other topics in the past, it depends on who you ask.

I began my research on this topic of climatism or climate change by picking up a few books written by authors who aren’t in collusion with the IPCC, Al Gore, and other climate alarmists. If you take the time to do a little of your own research, you will find the truth to be very interesting; in fact, not only interesting but frightening.

In my research, I’ve found two common words used to describe the man-made global warming scare: “scam” and “fraud.” On the other hand, I did not find words used such as: “unbiased” and “scientific.”

The following are some interesting quotes from the resources I’ve used to write this climate change post. I’ve grouped the quotes under my own headings for emphasis.

CO2 and Greenhouse Gases

As most of us learned in school, atmospheric carbon dioxide is just as necessary for life on Earth as oxygen. Without CO2 there would be no photosynthesis, and therefore no plants, and no animals, and no people either.12

Clouds also have a strong greenhouse effect, especially relatively thin high-altitude clouds. Water vapor and clouds account for about 90 percent of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, CO2 amounts to about 3.5 percent…13

The current warming trend is following the same pattern as the natural, solar-driven warmings in the previous 1,500-year cycles. The warming began too early and too suddenly for man-made CO2 to be a likely candidate as its driving force.14

…humans exhale about 2.8 lbs. each of CO2 every day, which adds up to over a half-ton per person per year, multiplied by a population approaching seven billion.15

While SUVs and power plants garner the most media and environmentalist attention, combustion emissions contribute about 2 percent of the greenhouse gases currently keeping our atmosphere habitable.16

Climatism and Politics

It was stunning how swiftly and uncritically the IPCC embraced the hockey stick.  Many years of published research supporting the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were suddenly swept aside to make room for a revisionist climate history where there is no natural variability anymore, and where humans are in almost total control of the Earth’s climate.17

Despite a horrendous bastardization of science, Mann’s Hockey Stick has been accepted by millions. The United Nations still carries the Stick to compel global policy, while Al Gore carries it to the bank…18

The Keepers of All Climate Knowledge have erected a nearly impenetrable barrier to any new science that does not support the current paradigm of anthropogenic global warming, as defined and guided by those controlling the IPCC process.19

Cherry-picking data is not just a favorite weapon in the arsenal of alarmist activists, but it is also a beloved pastime of bureaucrats.20

Science normally involves the testing of alternative hypotheses, not picking the first one that comes along and then religiously sticking to it. But that is exactly what the IPCC has done.21

As with abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, and some other agenda items of the far Left, the fight to micromanage you in the name of global warming may find its best friends in unelected judges and unaccountable international tribunals.22

The Kyoto Protocol would drive up prices for all families, rapidly increase government (or UN) control, dramatically limit our ability to use energy, but would still not even prevent one-tenth of one degree of warming over the next fifty years.23

Any future famines will be humanity’s fault—caused by war, corrupt governments, or irrational opposition to new technologies—not the fault of climate.24

The United Nations, for its part, saw the greenhouse theory as a way to expand its influence and power. The greenhouse theory demanded that energy be scarce, and the agency that rationed energy would be powerful indeed.25

The UN views national sovereignty as the primary impediment to a UN-led system of global government, although this view is not often publicly expressed.26

Climatism and Anti-Americanism

For competitive reasons, Europe wanted to see the United States and its job-creating economy saddled with the same high energy costs that European employers and drivers already paid.27

Europe was overjoyed when Al Gore and the Clinton administration signed the American economy up for Kyoto’s energy constraints—and terribly disappointed when George W. Bush erased that U.S. commitment.28

Consider that communism and anti-Americanism remain vibrant and complementary political forces in those same areas of the world where environmentalists hold their greatest sway: mainly Europe.29

Finally, after decades of stealthy determination, the quixotic conjectures of Marx have seeped into the framework of the United States, with the most effectual being the supposed environmental crisis know as global warming or climate change.30

An elite brigade of zealots has cleverly created a new political platform to carry out the collectivist goals of redistributing wealth and destroying personal liberty, utilizing something that Karl Marx himself never envisioned: the environment, or more specifically, the climate.31

The problem with every generation is that a long-term memory of the past requires a determined and studied effort—a fact upon which modern eco-Marxists depend for success.32

Environmental pressure groups have no use for limiting governmental powers or expanding individual liberties. Instead, environmental claims are without fail invoked to advance the statist agenda.33

Climatism and Terrorism

If you penalize energy use, you destroy wealth, and when wealth is destroyed, the poor are the first to suffer.34

Penalizing the use of our most inexpensive energy sources will destroy wealth and will lead to starvation for many of the world’s malnourished.35

Cap-and-trade and carbon taxes are monsters spawned from the misguided theory of man-made global warming. These policies are inflicting real and sizable damage on citizens and businesses across the world.36

It is important not to glaze over the green antipathy toward people. In the eyes of an environmentalist, people are pollution.37

Climate alarmists point out that every human activity uses energy, and energy use emits greenhouse gases, therefore population control is essential to stop global warming.38

The Greens probably assume that even if they’re wrong about renewable energy, they’ll at least be pushing us in the right direction—toward much lower standards of living.39

In contrasting old-school naturalists and conservationists to today’s environmentalist, the twenty-first-century green begins to look not only anti-American or anti-capitalist, but nearly anti-human.40

Climate Science

Lots of the alarmists are computer modelers, that is, they make expensive mathematical guesses though with minimal background in the relevant sciences.41

Even the public understands that there is natural climate variability. It is the presumed experts—the climate modelers—who have rejected the concept of natural climate change.42

Nor is consensus important to science. Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the Earth revolved around the sun, but he was right.43

The key thing for us all to remember is that the 1,500-year climate cycle is not an unproven theory like the model-based predictions used by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.44

…if researchers are not careful about distinguishing cause and effect when observing cloud and temperature variations, they can be fooled into believing that the climate system is more sensitive than it really is.45

The energy balance of the Earth is therefore, in some sense, simpler than the energy balance of a pot of water on the stove.46

The Earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable.47

All sorts of now-forgotten disease epidemics, from typhoid and typhus to diphtheria and whooping cough, afflicted communities during the Little Ice Age as they had during the cold of the Dark Ages hundreds of years earlier.48

Man’s activity has made the weather more damaging, they say…Whereas the greens will say we do this by driving too much, common sense reminds us that people increasingly develop and occupy storm-prone areas.49

Conclusions, for now…

The science is settled! Climate change is natural and unavoidable.

The so-called theory of anthropogenic or man-made climate change is either a hoax, scam, con, or fraud. Either way, pick your favorite noun—whatever fits. I’d even go so far as to add “evil” to the list.

I’m embarrassed to admit that James Hansen, a former NASA researcher, was one of the original climate alarmists.  If NASA used the same science to get to the Moon back in 1969 as it is using in today’s climate research, we’d still be out there somewhere trying to find it—forget about Mars.

Have you ever used a software application that never worked quite right? Well, the entire world is being turned upside down based on climate projections from computer models written by the very same kind of folks.

The UN, by exempting China, India, and over 100 other so-called developing countries from the Kyoto Protocol, has attempted to impose upon the United States a policy of wealth re-distribution on a global scale. The United Nations (UN) should rename itself to Nations United against America (NUaA).

Kim Jong-un is the leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), better known as North Korea. Many would consider him to be the dictator of a totalitarian regime, but did you know there is another authoritarian Korean strongman at large by the name of Ban Ki-moon. Unlike Kim Jong-un, Ban Ki-moon’s totalitarian regime is the UN. I’ll let the reader decide which ruler poses the greater threat to America.

You know what they say, “Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.” This saying is aptly used to describe the alarmists’ solutions to solve man-made climate change, a.k.a., the problem that never really existed.

Climate change is an immediate risk to the United States. That is to say, the belief in man-made climate change is the immediate risk.

Next time I’ll be posting a critique of Al Gore’s so-called documentary on climate change: An Inconvenient Truth. This will be my first viewing of the film. Afterwards, I hope I don’t get seduced by the “dark side,” if you know what I mean.

Icons made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com is licensed by CC 3.0 BY

 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Gerard Sczepura

  1. Bad Company.  Burning Sky. WB Music Corp., Badco Music Inc. http://www.songlyrics.com/bad-company/burning-sky-lyrics/#TI8Ovtl9bxwMBpCx.99

  2. “The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore,” Nobelprize.org, accessed May 07, 2016, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

  3. Christopher C. Horner, The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to Global Warming and Environmentalism, (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007), 299. 

  4. “Kyoto Protocol Fast Facts,” CNN Library, updated March 30, 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/26/world/kyoto-protocol-fast-facts/

  5. “The Story of Chicken Little,” Eva L. Easton, updated: January 20, 2015, http://eleaston.com/chicken.html

  6. “Clinton backtracks on putting ‘coal miners, coal companies out of business’,” Adam Beam And Jonathan Mattise The Associated Press, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 14, 2016, http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/home/3663165-155/story.htm. 

  7. “Remarks by the President at the United States Coast Guard Academy Commencement,” The White House Office of the Press Secretary, May 20, 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/20/remarks-president-united-states-coast-guard-academy-commencement. 

  8. Ibid. 

  9. “Sean Penn: Bush, Cheney ‘created’ ISIS,” Mark Hensch, The Hill, March 19, 2015, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/236285-sean-penn-bush-cheney-created-isis. 

  10. “Who are Nigeria’s Boko Haram Islamists?” Farouk Chothia, BBC Africa, May 4, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13809501. 

  11. Gen. 8:22 NASB 

  12. Roy W. Spencer, The Great Global Warming Blunder, (New York, Encounter Books, 2010), XIX. 

  13. Ibid., 44. 

  14. S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years, updated and expanded edition (Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008), 38. 

  15. Brian Sussman, Climategate, (New York, WND Books, 2010), 73. 

  16. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 69. 

  17. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 10. 

  18. Sussman, Climategate, 37. 

  19. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 64. 

  20. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 42. 

  21. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, XIV. 

  22. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 30. 

  23. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 67. 

  24. Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming, 9. 

  25. Ibid., 226. 

  26. Steve Goreham, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania, (New Lenox, IL, New Lenox Books, Inc., 2012), 36. 

  27. Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming, 227. 

  28. Ibid., 233. 

  29. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 7. 

  30. Sussman, Climategate, ix. 

  31. Ibid., xvi. 

  32. Ibid., 20. 

  33. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 3. 

  34. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 65. 

  35. Ibid., 27. 

  36. Goreham, Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, 44. 

  37. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 9. 

  38. Goreham, Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, 32. 

  39. Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming, 247. 

  40. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 23. 

  41. Ibid., 109. 

  42. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 158-159. 

  43. Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming, 7. 

  44. Ibid., 28. 

  45. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 72. 

  46. Ibid., 41. 

  47. Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming, 3. 

  48. Ibid., 55. 

  49. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 153. 

In the Crosshairs: Providence and the U.S. Election

When was the last time you heard the word “revolution” used in the context of the Republican Party? I would say never. Revolution is term normally associated with progressives and Democrats but this year there is a “populist revolution” and it’s being waged by Republican voters against the same political elites and career politicians in Washington D.C.

Unlike the American Revolution which began in 1775, the political revolution today is being fought by voters not armies, with ballots not bullets. In 1776, the battlegrounds were Trenton and Princeton but in 2016 every polling booth in every state in the United States is a battleground.

In 1776, our great American leader was General George Washington, today, our great American leader is Donald J. Trump. Some of you on the other side of the political spectrum might ask “what about Bernie Sanders and the democratic socialist revolution he is leading?” Yes, but his movement really isn’t a revolution, it’s just business as usual for someone in the new Democratic Party.

So, am I trying to compare George Washington with Donald Trump? Well, not really but I believe there are some interesting parallels between the two men.

The following excerpts are from The Real American His-story concerning Colonel George Washington during the French and Indian War:

On the morning of July 9th, 1755, [Gen.] Braddock and 1000 of his men, along with Washington and some of his Virginia regulars, crossed the southern shore of the Monongahela. Colonel Thomas Gage had a forward detachment of 350 soldiers, 250 workers and axe men, cutting a path. They were about 10 miles from Ft. Duquesne around 1:00 pm, Gage and the forward detachment had just crossed a ravine when scouts, and flanking parties came running back towards them, waving them off. Just then, they were hit with a fusillade of musket balls. It immediately became chaos. The British could not see their enemy, because they were hidden behind rocks, hills, and trees. The rain of bullets kept coming in on them dropping them like flies. Gage’s men fired back at the direction of the smoke plumes from their enemies’ rifles, but hit nothing but the rocks, hills, and trees, merely splintering bark.

For the Indians, who were crack marksmen, this was like shooting fish in a barrel…The retreating men collided with the advancing men, setting them to more confusion. All the while, the French and Indians continued to rain down musket balls upon them with deadly accuracy, and force.

Indians testified later, that they had singled him [Washington] out, but their bullets had no effect on him. They were convinced that an Invisible Power was protecting him.

Washington had two horses shot out from under him, and four bullet holes in his coat. Yet he himself was untouched by bullet, bayonet, tomahawk, or arrow. Scores of victims had fallen beside him, yet he went unharmed.

George Washington survived the massacre at the Monongahela without as much as a scratch. Was the hand of God protecting him?

On June 16, 2015, Donald J. Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States and like Washington, he has had to endure a “hail of musket balls” (figuratively) ever since. While many on his left and on his right have already fallen in battle (the debates) he is still standing—mostly unscathed.

There has been no safe ground for Mr. Trump as even many on the Fox News Network have taken to attacking him, such as Charles Krauthammer. Although, judging from the last debate in Detroit, it seems like the early rift between Mr. Trump and Megyn Kelly has healed, at least I hope so.

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump continues to be hit with a fusillade of attacks from every direction including: political pundits, newspapers, media elites, liberals, Democrats, conservatives, and Republicans. Yes, even those in his own party!

Of course, for every revolution there is a counter-revolution. You’ve all heard the familiar slogans of internet groups such as: “Never Trump,” “Stop Trump,” and “Dump Trump.” In my opinion, what they are against is anyone who tries to “Make America Great Again.”

Considering the fact that Mr. Trump has conducted a populist “asymmetrical” political campaign, almost everyone, pundits included, have said his rise in popularity is “unprecedented.” Recently during an interview with Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Network, Mayor Rudy Giuliani said:

Because I think if he gets the nomination there is something going on here. Some magic going on here that none of us have gotten from the very beginning.

There is something going on that he caught that nobody else caught. Because six months ago, everybody was waiting for him to implode.

God chose George Washington. God protected him in battle and elected him to be Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolution and then to become the first President of the United States. Likewise, considering that the rise of Donald Trump has confounded all conventional political wisdom; could the “magic” that Rudy Giuliani referred to be just another example of divine providence?

The Scripture teaches that God is the one who sets up presidents and rulers and He is also the one who takes them down.

It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding.

Dan. 2:21 (NASB)

Lest we forget, God is the one who looks upon the heart whereas man looks on the outward appearance (1 Sam. 16:7). God decides who should be raised up and who should be put down.

But God is the Judge; He puts down one and exalts another.

Ps. 75:7

Clearly, God has a history of raising up leaders, of His own choosing, that men reject. Could it be happening today with Donald Trump? We just don’t know. While the history of George Washington is a matter of record, the history of the 2016 election is still being written.

I’m not going to make any predictions, so, as Mr. Trump would say, “let’s see what happens.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Gerard Sczepura

In the Crosshairs: National Review’s Manifesto against Donald Trump

I’ve just read through the essays “Conservatives against Trump” in the National Review  and I must say that if you believe what these conservative elitists are saying, you would think that Donald J. Trump is the Antichrist incarnate or the Beast of Revelation.

The essays in the National Review are laced with nothing but vitriol towards Mr. Trump, so much so that it would make even the worst liberal hack green with envy. Nevertheless, the self-proclaimed apostles of conservatism decided to emulate the tactics and language of the very people and groups they claim to be against, namely Barack Obama and liberal Democrats.

Saul Alinsky wrote in his book Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” I wouldn’t think that any of the conservative elites consider Saul Alinsky as one of their heroes, but none of them, except for maybe Glenn Beck and one other, had any hesitation whatsoever in heaping volleys of ridicule upon Mr. Trump as illustrated in the following quotes:

David Boaz – “He’s effectively vowing to be an American Mussolini, concentrating power in the Trump White House and governing by fiat.”

L. Brent Bozell III – “Trump might be the greatest charlatan of them all.”

Mona Charen – “The man has demonstrated an emotional immaturity bordering on personality disorder, and it ought to disqualify him from being a mayor, to say nothing of a commander-in-chief.”

“A pinball is more predictable.”

Erick Erickson – “Like the angels in heaven who rejoice for every new believer, we should rejoice for Donald Trump’s conversion to conservatism.”

Mark Helprin – “Forget hair like the tinsel on discarded Christmas trees.”

“…he has like a tapeworm invaded the schismatically weakened body of the Republican party…like Allah in Islamic theology, he is whatever he pleases to be at the moment, the only principle being the triumph of his will.”

“He doesn’t know the Constitution, history, law, political philosophy, nuclear strategy, diplomacy, defense, economics beyond real estate, or even, despite his low-level-mafioso comportment, how ordinary people live.”

William Kristol – “In sum: Isn’t Trumpism a two-bit Caesarism of a kind that American conservatives have always disdained…”

Michael B. Mukasey – “…we will need a president who summons our strength with a reality-based strategic vision, not one who summons applause with tantrums and homicidal fantasies.

R. Reno – “Our nation’s solidarity is being tested. It will only make things worse if we go Trumpster diving.”

Thomas Sowell – “A shoot-from-the-hip, bombastic showoff is the last thing we need or can afford.”

Cal Thomas – “Trump might also be compared to Elmer Gantry, the fictional evangelist who used religion to mask his dark side.”

Yep, with conservatives like that who needs liberal, progressive Democrats? And here is a prime example of what happens when you don’t suck up to the media and political elites; whether Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.

David Boaz, one of the contributors, wrote “Not since George Wallace has there been a presidential candidate who made racial and religious scapegoating so central to his campaign. Scapegoating? Really? The Democrats would be proud to have David Boaz on their team of race-baiters. Obviously David Boaz doesn’t have access to newspapers, TV or the internet because he is totally oblivious to what is going on in the world. I guess he’s never heard of Kate Steinle or the shootings in San Bernardino. Securing our border with Mexico isn’t about not liking or hating Hispanics, it’s about enforcing our immigration laws and keeping criminal and terrorist elements out. In case David Boaz hasn’t heard yet, there are many followers of Islam who have declared war on Western civilization. Isn’t it prudent for Mr. Trump to suggest a moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries? Is Mr. Trump’s proposals purely based on religious preferences or do they line up with the realities of the world we live in?

Thanks to David Boaz, Mark Helprin, William Kristol, and Cal Thomas, Mr. Trump has been compared to Mussolini, Hitler, the Godfather, Caesar, and Elmer Gantry. Is anyone buying any of this garbage? Based on many polls and judging from attendance at his rallies, there are many voters (hopefully) who like Mr. Trump because they believe he is a strong man or leader, not because they think he is a strongman.

So, should ideological conservatives, and evangelicals for that matter, support Donald Trump? Well, we’ve had eight years of Ronald Reagan and abortion hasn’t been overturned. We’ve also had eight years of George W. Bush and abortion still hasn’t been overturned—the Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court always get in the way. Would electing another ideological conservative make any difference? Someone like Ted Cruz could capture the evangelical, conservative vote, but is that enough the win the presidency?

Barack Obama was elected to two terms as president. How could that have happened if the majority of Americans wanted a far-right, conservative candidate? I think Ann Coulter said it best, “In another few years, the whole country will be California and no Republican will win another national election.”1 The demographics in America have changed and they now favor the Democrats over the Republicans.

Evangelicals need to be wary of smooth talkers. Haven’t we had enough of polite, milquetoast, politicians who cave in and apologize every time they’re challenged or attacked by the media, pundits, and the political opposition? Haven’t we had enough of career politicians with their law degrees from elitist schools? The elites have nothing but contempt for ordinary people anyway. After all, an outsider presidential candidate is not without honor except within his own political party and among his own party elite.2 Isn’t it about time for a president from a different background?

Ted Cruz is probably the favorite candidate amongst evangelicals because he said “Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I’m just saying.”3 Ted Cruz can criticize Donald Trump for being from New York but the “consistent conservative” was born in Canada, a country that is “notoriously liberal.” Evangelicals need to remember that Trump is not trying to be pastor of a church, he’s running for President of the United States. I hope evangelical voters can remember that. In a way, Ted Cruz may be right, not a lot of conservatives have come from New York but some of the best ones have like Michael Savage.

Michael Savage said that the best platform for a candidate to run on is “Borders, Language, and Culture.”4 I believe Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan encapsulates those very things. Is there anyone who doesn’t agree that Mr. Trump is for securing our borders and dealing with illegal immigration?

Michael Savage has said that we need a “street fighter to fight against what’s coming.” Dr. Savage recognizes it and so does Mr. Trump. But that sentiment has not resonated well with everyone particularly Megyn Kelly at Fox News of all places. Megyn Kelly started the feud with Donald Trump during the first Republican Debate with her “war on women” question, or more accurately an accusation, almost right out of the gate. I was even embarrassed by her question so I can understand Mr. Trump’s feelings. The rift between them has not gone away as evidenced by the fact that Mr. Trump refused to participate in the latest Iowa debate because Megyn Kelly was selected as one of the moderators again.

As Tina Fey almost single-handedly brought down Sarah Palin and won the election for Barack Obama in 2008; now it seems that Megyn Kelly could be the only one to bring down Donald Trump. We’ll have to wait and see.

I’m an evangelical, a veteran, an American, and a voter, and I support Donald J. Trump for president.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Gerard Sczepura

  1. “Coulter: I Got 30 Million Reasons,” Ann Coulter, Human Events, July 3, 2013, http://humanevents.com/2013/07/03/coulter-i-got-30-million-reasons/

  2. Matt. 13:57 

  3. “Cruz Is Wrong and Trump Is Right: New York Has a Long History of Conservatives,” Grant Burningham, Newsweek.com, January 14, 2016, http://www.newsweek.com/cruz-wrong-and-trump-right-new-york-has-long-history-conservatives-416041

  4. “I KNOW HOW TO WIN: BORDERS, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE!” Savage Nation, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oRmPvhBAtg

In the Crosshairs: Generals and Politicians

A famous U.S. general once said, “America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, this is why America has never, and will never, lose a war.” But something has changed in America. Why is it that America really hasn’t won a war since World War II? I think General Patton believed what he said was true—but that was another time. A lot has changed since then; so much so that Patton wouldn’t recognize this country today.

I would argue that General Patton along with General MacArthur were two of the greatest military leaders in modern times. I don’t think that many would agree that Patton, or MacArthur for that matter, were politicians. Yet, still, maybe Patton was the forerunner of a new breed of politician.

Patton said that “No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair.” Bureaucrats shouldn’t be running a war and they shouldn’t be running a country either.

President Obama recently held a news conference where he tried to convince us, the American people, that he has a strategy for dealing with radical Islamic terrorists. And not only that he has a strategy but that his strategy is working, albeit, not as fast as he would like. “Degrade and contain” may be a useful strategy for treating cancer but in war “there is no substitute for victory.”

Of course, in order to win a war you first have to recognize that you are in a war.

There are some politicians that don’t want to use the word war and don’t want to call the enemy who they really are so that we don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. It’s amazing how far political correctness has come.

Political correctness has completely infiltrated the culture in America. Doesn’t anyone find it a little coincidental that political correctness took hold in America during the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was president? Reagan was a conservative so the Left had to do damage control to minimize their losses and the way they did it was by imposing political correctness on society as a whole. The scourge of political correctness seemed to come out of nowhere but it spread like a virus throughout the country. The first to become infected were the Hollywood elites then eventually it spread to academia and beyond and has now become a worldwide pandemic.

In the 1980s, political correctness was pretty much just an annoyance but the true believers who promoted it then and those who promote in now still take it very seriously. However, today we are seeing the fruits of their labors: tolerance and political correctness are getting people killed. Witness the terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino; and the lunacy that is taking place on our college campuses, even in Ivy League universities. On campuses throughout the country, forums for the open discussion of ideas have been replaced by so called “safe zones.” Dissenting (i.e., conservative) opinions are suppressed and called hate speech. So, yes Toto, “we’re not in Kansas anymore.”

As the wise leader Patton has said, “If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”

Political correctness is the tool being used by the Left in America to bring into “alignment” all aspects of society with their radical, progressive ideology. Culture, the economy, education, laws, and the media have all been “coordinated” along left-wing values and ideals. Political correctness is not a new concept; it was used successfully by the National Socialists in Germany in the 1930s and it’s being used successfully today in the United States. As I said in a previous post, “it’s yesterday once more.”

Not only has the United States succumbed to this vile plague of political correctness, but all other countries in the world as well—in varying degrees.

It’s now 2015 and time for a real change in America. It’s time for a leader not just another politician. Back in 1992, we hoped it would be Perot. Then later in 2012 it looked like it could be Herman Cain but instead we got another four years of Obama. Cain’s run for president was derailed when he was accused of the serious crime of “being Black and Republican.”

Why successful business leaders are considered so unqualified to be president I don’t know. Do business leaders and politicians need to know how to communicate? I would say “yes.” Do business leaders and politicians need to know about financial budgets? I would say “yes.” Do business leaders and politicians need to know how to put together a winning team? I would emphatically say “yes” again. And finally, do business leaders and politicians need to know how to rally people behind their stated goals and objectives? I most emphatically say “yes!” If all these things are true, then why is Donald Trump not being taken as a serious candidate?

I believe Mr. Trump is very serious when he says he wants to “Make America Great Again!”

To say that Donald Trump is not a serious candidate is probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. Everything about Mr. Trump says serious. When Mr. Trump held a rally recently at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, the backdrop for his speaker’s podium was his sleek black Boeing 757 emblazoned with his name and “T” logo on the tail. To me that says power, prestige, and success. Compare that to Hillary Clinton’s Scooby Doo van. Better yet, how about the opening credits to Celebrity Apprentice where Mr. Trump is shown strutting from his black corporate helicopter in a dark suit and overcoat—very commanding. Compare that to Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits. The media eats it up and calls Hillary’s pantsuit wardrobe “serious power dressing.” Whatever!

I’m really getting tired of hearing all the pundits, even on Fox News, say that Trump is an entertainer and not a serious candidate. Really? Does Mr. Trump need any more name recognition? Is the Trump Organization in trouble? Lord knows he doesn’t need the money; besides being a successful businessman he is also an author and was the host of his own very successful reality TV show franchise.

Mr. Trump doesn’t use notes or a teleprompter when he makes speeches. Inevitably, he’ll say things that all the other run-of-the-mill candidates would want to say but are afraid to say. Mr. Trump’s recent exaggerated comment about Hillary’s bathroom break during the Democratic primary debate has caused such an uproar that the socialist candidate from Vermont had to step in to defend her. If Hillary can’t even take a little jab from Donald Trump, how is she going to handle ISIS, Assad, Putin, and China?

It’s not only what Donald Trump says that causes an uproar but also his body language and frequent use of gestures when making a point. No one is ever going to accuse Mr. Trump of being animatronic. General Patton said that “The leader must be an actor.” Yes, I believe they all wish they could be Donald Trump, but they can’t. He’s turned politics upside down and inside out and it’s about time.

“Say what you mean and mean what you say.” Never retreat. Never retract. Never apologize.

There has been discussion about whether or not Mr. Trump can capture the evangelical voting bloc. No matter where Mr. Trump stands on issues of faith there will always be points of doctrine and practice on which some denominations or groups will disagree. Donald Trump is a Presbyterian so at least he identifies with the Christian faith.

Mr. Trump has said “If I become president, we’re all going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again,” and for now, that’s good enough for me.


The Official Website of General George S. Patton, http://www.generalpatton.com/quotes/index.html.

“General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell Speech,” May 12, 1962, http://www.nationalcenter.org/MacArthurFarewell.html.

The Wizard of Oz (1939 film), https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_%281939_film%29.

“Third Reich: An Overview,” Holocaust Encyclopedia, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005141.

“Make America Great Again!” Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., https://www.donaldjtrump.com/.

“35 Times Hillary Clinton Proved Pantsuits Rule,” Pret-a-Reporter, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/hillary-clintons-best-pantsuits-798173/1-2015.

“The Celebrity Apprentice 5 – Opening Credits (Intro in High Quality),” You Tube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crpIuhB2x2s.

“Trump: ‘If I become president, we’re all going to be saying “Merry Christmas” again,’” Fox News Politics, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/10/trump-if-become-president-were-all-going-to-be-saying-merry-christmas-again.html.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Gerard Sczepura

In the Crosshairs: Guns & Immigration

Guns

There’s a prophecy in the Bible concerning a time when there will finally be a lasting peace between nations and men which up to this point the world has been unable to achieve. The prophecy I’m referring to is in Micah 4:3 which says:

And He will judge between many peoples And render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they train for war.

Who is the “He” that is being referred to in the verse I just quoted? Unfortunately, according the prevailing belief amongst the populations of the world, including the United States, it’s some charismatic politician who claims to know what’s best for us. Much to their dismay, this prophecy is not about any of them, it is about Jesus, the coming Messiah.

Over two hundred years ago a group of men wrote a document that laid the foundation for a great republic which said that the rights and liberties granted to men (and women) were bestowed by God not government. This group of men were the authors of the United States Constitution which was, and still is, the greatest document given to the world, second only to the Scriptures.

Amendment II of the Unites States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. However, if you listen to certain politicians like Hillary Rodham Clinton for example, you would think that it is the NRA (National Rifle Association) not the Constitution that guarantees our right to keep and bear arms in the United States. The NRA may be an advocate of gun rights but it isn’t the guarantor of gun rights.

Nevertheless, the Scriptures predicted many false prophets would arise and would deceive many. One of those false prophets was Karl Marx who proposed a different gospel. Marx’s gospel preached the concepts of socialism and materialism. What Marx and his followers believed in was the class struggle between the industrial working class (proletariat) and the wealthy middle class (bourgeoisie).

Marx’s ideology came to be known as communism. The same communism embraced by [the former] Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam. While the United States is not listed among those communist countries, it is however, leaning towards socialism, maybe not the radical Marxian variety but a type of socialism nevertheless.

How did this leaning towards socialism come about? Well, it came about as a result of our Western democracy committing fornication with Marxian socialism which produced the bastard child called the ‘New Liberalism.’

So, what does this new liberalism, with its roots in Marxism, have to do with guns? The answer is everything! You need to understand that the goal of the Marxists is the overthrow of all capitalist societies—through revolution if necessary—so that they can bring about their dreams of a socialist utopia. Assuming this is true, then what is the last thing they (communists) want the bourgeoisie to have? Well, you guessed it, they don’t want you to have guns.

Not willing to let any good crisis go to waste, the radicals in the left-wing press were quick to invent new arguments to justify the government taking action, once and for all, to end the private ownership of firearms, i.e., to end the “pervasiveness of gun violence in the United States.” After all, “More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history,” according to a recent article by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times.

Of the 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, 63% were suicides. I guess you could argue that if guns had been confiscated in 1968 then all those gun-related deaths from suicides could have been prevented. Sounds good, but maybe those in the 63% would have found other ways to take their own lives, possibly by falling on their own swords.

Occasionally I’ll take a ride over to the Webster Flea Market in Sumter County, Florida to pick up some fresh local produce. I also like to wander around to check out all the odd and bizarre stuff they have for sale. It’s not unusual to find swords and knives; guns; and guitars out in the open for sale. As far as I can remember, I never saw a sword or knife leap off the table and stab anyone. Likewise, I never saw a gun load itself and shoot anyone; and I certainly never saw a guitar get up and play “Purple Haze” on its own. All these items are inanimate objects; they only become good or evil depending on how people decide to use them.

Since elements of the lunatic left-wing can’t get their gun confiscation laws passed, they’ve decided to turn their attention to the gun manufacturers. If they can somehow manage to hold the gun manufacturers liable for the deaths resulting from misuse of their products then they can put them out of business. Problem solved. Better yet, instead of going after Smith & Wesson why don’t they go after the Chinese who invented gunpowder and caused the problem in the first place?

It’s interesting that the New York Times columnist chose to compare gun-related deaths to war deaths but ignored some other interesting statistics such as comparisons to the number of auto related deaths or the number of abortions since 1968.

Let’s take a look at some statistics for comparison. Remember, according to the New York Times columnist, there were 120,130 or 9% more gun related deaths than war related deaths since the Revolutionary War (1,516,863 and 1,396,733 respectively).

Auto deaths since 1968:

Average of 45,000/year (roughly) over 48 years equals 2,160,000

Abortions since 1968:

Average of 1.2 million/year (roughly) over 48 years equals 57,600,000

So, now let’s compare the number of gun related deaths to auto related deaths and abortions since 1968:

643,137 or 42% more auto related deaths than gun related deaths

56,083,137 or 3,697% more abortions than gun related deaths

Based on the statistics I’ve just provided, maybe we need more automobile control not gun control. Is the hysteria over gun related deaths justified? For some reason, auto deaths are taken as matter of fact. I’m sure more people would be shocked if they could see just how gruesome auto accident deaths can be. Are auto related deaths less senseless than gun related deaths?

Of course no dyed-in-the-wool, politically correct, liberal, feminist would be incensed over all the abortion deaths that have occurred since 1968—the unborn fetuses, not the mothers. We’ve all seen videos of just how callous and insensitive the physicians and commandants in the abortion camps really are. No problem though, unborn fetuses are just so much tissue.

As we’ve seen, there are way more auto related deaths and abortions than there are gun related deaths or even war related deaths. Still, the Left’s righteous indignation is always directed towards guns and war.

Immigration

President Obama is quick to point out that the United States is not a Christian nation but a nation of laws. Apparently he forgot about our immigration laws, since 2.5 million illegal immigrants have come to the United States on his watch.

Naturally, to be against illegal immigration is to be against all immigration, Not only that, if you speak out against illegal immigration you are labeled a racist and a xenophobe. Furthermore, if you dare to be against settling Syrian refugees in Europe or the United States you are labeled an Islamophobe. Don’t believe it, just ask Donald Trump. By the way, how do they know that Syrian refugees are Muslim? I thought we don’t profile or give religious tests to potential immigrants.

The mainstream press, political pundits, and politicians like to mock the notion of building a wall along the southern border with Mexico. It’s even more ludicrous for them to believe that Mexico will pay for (and probably even build) the wall. The notion of building a wall with Mexico to secure our southern border is frequently likened to the East Germans building the Berlin Wall in 1961. Is this a legitimate comparison? After all, we are building a wall between two different countries, we’re not trying to build a wall through the middle of Washington, D.C.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Do we have borders or don’t we? Does it make any difference if there are 11 million or 34 million illegals in the United States? Let’s assume that 1% of those 11 million could be criminal or terrorists; that would leave us with a small army of 110,000 able to carry out acts like the Kathryn Steinle murder or the Boston Marathon bombing. How many more will be added if President Obama gets his way and lets in another 85,000 from Syria next year?

The loud voices want us to believe that it’s impossible to just round up all 11 million or so illegal immigrants and deport them. That would be un-American and inhumane, after all “that’s not who we are.” I wonder if there would be any problem if the government decided to round up all the Christians in the United States. I bet you wouldn’t hear a peep.

Besides, would it have made any sense for the government to have allowed Japanese, German, or Italian nationals to immigrate to the United States during World War II? Of course not! You would need to have your head examined if you thought so.

But now, President Obama is okay with allowing thousands of immigrants from countries with active Jihadist movements into the United States. During many of his public lectures, Obama never fails to remind us that “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” Well, technically Obama is correct, we are not at war with Islam the religion but we are at war with Islam the political system whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. I’m sure that the average man on the street in America has no idea what the differences between these two concepts are but they had better learn…and soon.

What we need now is a new sheriff in town. As a matter of fact, I think there’s one on the horizon.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Gerard Sczepura

The End Times: Millennium, Judgment, New Jerusalem

This is the last installment in my series on the End Times. Previously, I discussed the second coming of Jesus along with events leading up to His return. I have attempted to show that the gathering, a.k.a. the Rapture, of the elect really takes place after Jesus’ return because of the four preconditions that I presented earlier.1

Interestingly, nineteen of the twenty-two chapters in the book of Revelation deal with events preceding Jesus’ return and the myriad of judgments that are prophesied against the unbelieving world. Only three chapters are dedicated to Christ’s thousand year reign, a.k.a. The Millennium; God’s final judgment; the new heaven and new earth; and the New Jerusalem.

Speaking of judgments, isn’t it peculiar that even in the midst of all the terrible judgments being inflicted upon the earth, people will still refuse to believe and repent as indicated in the following verses:

(20) The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk;
(21) and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts.

Rev. 9:20-21

(9) Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory.
(10) Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became darkened; and they gnawed their tongues because of pain,
(11) and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they did not repent of their deeds.

Rev. 16:9-11

According to Revelation chapter 16, verses 9 and 11, men clearly knew who was responsible for causing the plagues they were suffering—it was God. How much more evidence do they need? Even so, they refuse to believe; so much for the saying “seeing is believing.” Just as there were many who did not believe Jesus when He appeared the first time two-thousand years ago, there will be many who will not believe Him at His second appearance, even though they will see Him with their own eyes!

Before I get into the topics planned for this post, I’d like to clarify the statement I made in my last post where I said that I hold to a “literal interpretation” of Revelation. This is somewhat of a bold statement since most of the language in Revelation is obviously figurative. Well…maybe not so obvious. For example, in Revelation chapter 8, verse 8 it says, “The first sounded, and there came hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.” I interpret “hail and fire, mixed with blood” as figurative but the results of a third of the earth, trees, and grass being burned up as literal. Another example of this type of literary device is the description of the locusts from the bottomless pit in Revelation chapter 9, verses 8 through 10:

(8) They had hair like the hair of women, and their teeth were like the teeth of lions.
(9) They had breastplates like breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots, of many horses rushing to battle.
(10) They have tails like scorpions, and stings; and in their tails is their power to hurt men for five months.

Rev. 9:8-10

I interpret the description of the locusts as figurative but their ability to hurt men for five months as literal. In both of these examples, as well as many others that can be found in Revelation, I believe that the means are figurative but the results are literal.

The Millennium

The Millennium refers to Christ’s thousand year reign on earth which begins after the beast and false prophet are defeated along with their armies; and Satan is bound and thrown in the abyss.2 3 For the beast and false prophet, their judgment is swift; they have the distinct privilege of being the first to be thrown alive in to the lake of fire.4 Contrary to what you may have been told, Hell, or Hades, is not the final place of torment for unbelievers, it’s really the lake of fire.

During Jesus’ thousand year reign on earth, who will He reign over and will He reign alone? I believe that those that He will reign over are those that did not take the mark of the beast for whatever reason. I derive my theory from Matthew chapter 24 and Revelation chapter 19:

Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

Matt. 24:22

From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.

Rev. 19:15

Jesus clearly indicates, as recorded for us by Matthew, that there will be survivors of the “tribulation” of those days. But why for the sake of the elect? Could it be that those who survive and are still alive will be those that Jesus and His elect will rule over “with a rod of iron” for a thousand years?

After the thousand years are over, Satan is unleashed and he immediately goes out to incite the nations to attack the “camp of the saints”5 but the attackers are all wiped out by fire that comes down from heaven and Satan is thrown in the lake of fire.6 As has been proven again and again, unregenerate people will never accept Jesus as their ruler as prophesied in the parable, “But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’”7

The Final Judgment

The Great White Throne Judgement is where all the unbelievers will find themselves after the thousand year reign of Christ is over. Except for the elect, no else is left alive on the earth, all have died.

After death and Hades, or Hell, are emptied of their inhabitants, they are both thrown into the lake of fire.8 Another interesting fact to note here is that not only is Hades, a real place, thrown into the lake of fire but death as well. Death is certainly a reference back to the curse God pronounced on His creation as a result of Adam’s transgression. The curse that God pronounced in Genesis is removed but not eliminated in that it is assigned to the lake of fire. In the end, all those who appear at the throne of God in judgment will not have the curse removed from them; they will have to endure it in the lake of fire continuously forever.9

The New Jerusalem

I clearly remember being taught on many occasions that the Church is the bride of Christ. Jesus’ parable of the wise virgins as recorded in Matthew chapter 25 is frequently used to teach that the wise virgins are a metaphor for the Church and since they went in with the bridegroom (Jesus) to the wedding feast, they must be the bride. The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins in Matthew chapter 25 is really about being ready for His second coming, and not about the bride of Christ’s identity. However, the bride of Christ’s identity is revealed for us in Revelation chapter 21:

(9) Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, ‘Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’

(10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,

(11) having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper.

Rev. 21:9-11

Besides, isn’t it true that the bride is the one who sends the wedding invitations, not the one who receives the invitation? Clearly, the Church is not the bride but the guest.

The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

Rev. 22:17

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Gerard Sczepura

  1. Gerard Sczepura, “The End Times: Jesus’ Return According to Revelation,” Theological Ruminations (blog), July 15, 2015, https://gerardsczepura.com/?p=650 

  2. Rev. 19:17-19 

  3. Rev. 20:1-3 

  4. Rev. 19:20 

  5. Rev. 20:9 

  6. Rev. 20:10 

  7. Luke 19:14 

  8. Rev. 20:14 

  9. Rev. 20:10