Tribulation Network

From the platitude of Oslo to the valley of Kandahar – the recipient of Nobel’s Prize awards us with the predictability of War in our Time – yet enveloped in the mantel of a Just Peace.

“. . . the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.”

“Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.”

“There will be times when nations--acting individually or in concert--will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

“I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war.”

(Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech for Peace given to President Barack Obama in Oslo, Norway, December 10, 2009)

Oh, yes, from the Left and from the Right you’ll receive disdainful impressions and perplexities – along with some commendations - well deserving of our perspective; however, you’ll get a prophetically rare insight when you observe our afterthoughts and possible prognostications concerning the increasingly bellicose nature of our Commander in Chief. But first…

The Norwegians could hardly believe their ears…for this was the man who, like Alfred B. Nobel’s invention of dynamite, exploded upon Earth’s scene as the “man of peace” but who now mounts the steed of war. Alas! How incongruous! How, shall we dare say, deceptive? From whence came these tidings? Out of Left field? How ‘bout Right? Neither, my friend, neither.

The metamorphosis of Barack Hussein Obama – when it comes to war and peace – is propelled by the evolution of conflict in the Middle East, ever simmering, ever tightening the Gordian Knot of uncompromised irresolution – like a black hole sucking even what appeared to be an anti-war radical liberation theology aspirant wholly opposed to globalization and wars of corporate interest into its vortex…deeper and deeper!

The President’s speech was noteworthy, not so much for its matchless structure and supreme delivery, but for its unfamiliar and antagonistic environs – an unbelievable platform to discharge such bellicosity. West Point’s initial call to arms on December 1, 2009, would have expected this affirmation of continuous war but to announce the Obama doctrine of Just War ten days later at the pinnacle of peace must be considered one of the most audacious and foreboding examples of Chutzpah and apocalyptic forecasting ever witnessed in the annals of human history. Alas! Have we here the morphing of Barack H. Obama into George W. Bush?

LEAN TO THE LEFT – LEAN TO THE RIGHT – STAND UP…SIT DOWN…FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

Right about now we need an ole’ football cheer…let us delve into the deeper meaning of this timeless yell.

Leaning to the isolationist right might alarm some – but Charles Lindbergh is alive and well…and still a bit caustic in his criticisms – and always, America First.

“The madness continues. In a bitter stroke of irony, Barack Obama, the 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, has set America on the road to endless war—and, it must be said, endless death. All the while, Obama has essentially anointed himself, in the words of a Spiegel commentator, the ‘Nobel War Prize laureate.’

“It is a terrible mantle for anyone to take on but most especially a president whom many Americans hoped would bring the troops home. Instead, at President Obama’s bidding, 30,000 more Americans will leave their homes and families in order to march to war in Afghanistan (bringing the total to 100,000 troops), and American taxpayers will continue to be bled dry in order to fuel the profits of the war machine. There has even been talk of a ‘war tax,’ levied against anyone making more than $200,000 to pay for the war.

“War has unfortunately become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire, is one of its best customers. Indeed, the American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope and dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth. For example, while erecting a security surveillance state in the U.S., the military-industrial complex has perpetuated a worldwide military empire with American troops stationed in 177 countries (over 70% of the countries worldwide).

“However, as history tells us, countries that attempt to maintain military empires inevitably crumble under the weight of the exorbitant financial expenditures—as we saw with the financial collapse under George W. Bush—and the human costs that necessarily follow. Besides the inevitable moral collapse inherent in warring empires, freedom and civil liberties at home diminish rapidly. And instead of lessening terror and reducing our enemies, the present U.S. military empire has made us no safer anywhere as we see with the continuing U.S. conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the myriad other countries where American troops are stationed.” (The Tragic Costs of War, by John Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute, The Macon County News, 10 December 2009)

Whitehead’s quote of MLK’s comments on the cost of war were impressively inserted into his text:

“America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.” (Ibid.)

But there’s more to Martin Luther King’s witness – and you should know by now that the Rev. King would have had a most difficult time in Oslo; to say the very least, during his admirer’s acceptance.

“A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, 'this way of settling differences is not just. This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, or injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love.”

“…an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate.”

And to this President Obama entombed these remarks upon the gravestones of those who will kill and be killed:

“…as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their (Gandhi and Martin Luther King) examples alone.”

You see my dear friends and brethren; the ignobility of a Just War has been the bane of the righteous for centuries – embraced by the Church and the Roman Empire as she mounted the beast way back when…with theological justification for the same by our brother, St. Augustine.

I would be remiss to defer our bloodguiltiness right about now, but our righteous history is littered with the blood of saint and sinner – to advance otherwise defies any reasonable interpretation of history…and do not anticipate the moderate worldlings who surmise otherwise:

“After Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech, anyone still questioning whether he is really a Christian, rather than a Muslim aligned with fanaticism, needs to seek therapy forthwith.

“Anyone still unconvinced that Obama is really an American committed to his nation’s values, rather than an imposter who doesn’t pledge allegiance to his critics’ satisfaction, should probably surrender to the asylum.

“Obama’s speech, an artful balance of realism and idealism, was both a Judeo-Christian epistle conceding the moral necessity of war and a meditation on American exceptionalism. He was, in other words, the unapologetic president of the United States and not some errant global villager seeking affirmation.

“The speech was a signal moment in the evolution and maturation of Obama, from ambivalent aspirant to reluctant leader. Rising to the occasion, he managed to redeem himself at a low point in his popularity by reminding Americans of what is best about themselves.” (Obama’s Nobel speech affirms America’s defense of core values, by Kathleen Parker, Distributed by the Washington Post Writers Gr

oup, RecordNet.com, December 11, 2009)

And so, now we witness the peculiar emergence of religion and politics – somehow we must justify “wars and rumors of wars” – somehow we must surmount the blatant incongruity of it all and yield to our lesser demons …

“But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

“Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict - filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.” (Entire Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech can be found at the Huffington Post)

Intruding into the speech were, indeed, Judeo-Christian concepts of a “just war” – a war with seemingly no end in sight…for the very “nature of man” is at war with himself and his world…it is noteworthy to chronicle the President’s surprising adherence to virtually unceasing war…

“These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease - the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

“Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a ‘just war’ emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.” (Ibid.)

The chronology of war articulated the President’s firm persuasion of the Just War – a “Doctrine of War” which is fostered and led by these United States of America:

“For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations - total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

“In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations - an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize - America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

“In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

“A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

“Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

“I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

“We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

“But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their (Gandhi and Martin Luther King) examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

“I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

“Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

“So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another - that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

“To begin with, I believe that all nations - strong and weak alike - must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I - like any head of state - reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates - and weakens - those who don't.

“I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

“I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali - we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

“Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength.

“Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

“We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit their intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that – for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth" (Ibid.)

The American and European Left just about bottomed out at the President’s Nobel War Prize. Aside from their gutturals now and again – a rather vain attempt to garner the prize of populism – their overall assessment was both predictable and disingenuous. So apparent was their outrage and flamboyant consternation – it just smacks of self-righteous hypocrisy—as if they honestly were blindsided by West Point and Oslo! Hogwash – as if they knew that change was inevitably linked to the cessation of war…how naïve, how preposterous, how stupid can you be?…I guess, fairly stupid! Notwithstanding, allow me to indulge on the verge of hyperventilation a la the left – most having passed out on their couches viewing from afar “that which we feared the most has come upon us!”

“The subtext of Obama’s speech is that he can be exempt from the constraints of moral leadership implicit in the receipt of the Nobel Prize and still use it as a political marketing tool. But it doesn’t work that way.

“The underlying theme of President Obama’s speech was the enunciation of a 21st Century doctrine of a just war. Regrettably, neither Gandhi nor Dr. King are here to challenge and rebut Obama. Hopefully, Dr. Vincent Harding and other scholars on non-violence and disciples of Dr. King will respond to the challenge.

“So here is an African-American man holding a job unimagined for someone with his skin color just a few short generations ago telling us that Gandhi and King’s teaching can change the underpinnings of the most powerful nation on the earth, but for the dusty tribal squabbles halfway around the globe they’re not good enough? This to me sounds like a man reading a Teleprompter, not speaking what he believes.” (War and Peace, by Clarence B. Jones, former counsel, advisor and draft speechwriter, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is Scholar in Residence/Visiting Professor, at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research Education Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.)

But wait, Mr. Jones, you’re not getting the point of a Just War…and you’re not walking in my moccasins either!

“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

“I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.” (Obama Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, December 10, 2009)

Criticism of the President’s oration was chided by Mr. Jones as naught but a venomous ploy to persuade us all that the Obama Doctrine of a Just War is indeed the new Liberation Theology of our day:

“Forget Tolstoy – it’s never war and peace, Mr. Obama. It’s always war or peace. Choose a side. But remember, you don’t get to stand on the shoulders of Martin King with one of those choices. No matter what you want to tell yourself.

“Eloquence in Oslo cannot change the realities of war.

“As President Obama neared the close of his Nobel address, he called for ‘the continued expansion of our moral imagination.’ Yet his speech was tightly circumscribed by the policies that his oratory labored to justify.

“Lofty rationales easily tell us that warfare is striving for the noble goal of peace. But the rationales scarcely intersect with actual war. The oratory sugarcoats the poisons, helping to kill hope in the name of it.

“From President Obama, we hear that peace is the ultimate goal. But ‘peace’ is a fixture on a strategic horizon that keeps moving as the military keeps marching.

“Just a couple of days before Obama stepped to the podium in Oslo, the general running the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan spoke to a congressional committee in Washington about the president's recent pledge to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops in July 2011. ‘I don't believe that is a deadline at all,’ Stanley McChrystal said.” (Ibid.)

Alas! By this time the Left should grasp the Presidential priorities and legacies founded upon doublespeak – everything can be modified to fit the criticism of the hour. What appears to be absolute is actually relative and given to gross interpretation at a whim.

The American intelligentsia well understands the rhythmic sounds of cultural claptrap, social norms and the denial of absolute truth, since man is the center of his universe – wherein the fictitious and the religious merge as one. Overheard at a local copy house by yours truly were two professors discussing Buddhism and Christianity flowing together via meditation. And, oh the folly of them who affirm that evil lurks within the soul of man (like Obama does). In the altruistic but vain attempt to get along, one must transcend the trivial but deleterious subsequence of negativity led by the Devil, and followed by his demons and the forty odd authors of that fairytale, the Bible – naught but an assortment of prophetic jangle and legends held by Jews and ex-Jews become Christian by Greco-Roman definition. After all, “whatever works for you” – that’s what I believe – and ipso facto whatever works for me.

How quaint and open-minded the sounds thereof – for we can never know what is truth – nor, for that matter, can we know what is of “value” or “morally obligatory” – for what may be good for the goose may not be good for the gander – so let’s just live and let live; fair enough? Oh, eventually the illogical postulations embedded in this public exchange, heard, I might say, by all 15 “copy folk” surrounding what might normally be considered a fairly mundane environment, drew derisive laughter – for all of us knew that given the nature of the beast being the highest moral value in the room someone just might go postal and the discovery that “whatever works for you” just might not work for the rest of us!

What I’m trying to say here revolves around the nomenclature of the Just War and its newest proponent, our own President. For I can assure you, the World of Islam does not concur with the Obama Doctrine of a Just War:

“Days before the president departed for the prize-giving ceremony, he announced that 30,000 more American troops would be dispatched to Afghanistan, a move seemingly at odds with his status as a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and one that angers Muslims throughout the world.” (The Obama Nobel Peace Prize is seen as inappropriate by many Arabs, by Nicholas Blandford, Beirut, Lebanon, December 12, 2009)

Norman Solomon, author of War Made Easy…How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning us to Death, simply could not hold his peace, and remarked:

“War is not peace. It never has been. It never will be. In the name of pragmatism, Obama spoke of ‘the world as it is’ and threw a cloak of justification over the grisly escalation in Afghanistan by insisting that ‘war is sometimes necessary’ -- but generalities do nothing to mitigate the horrors of war being endured by others.

“President Obama accepted the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize while delivering -- to the world as it is -- a pro-war speech. The context instantly turned the speech's insights into flackery for more war.” (Mr. President, War is not Peace, by Norman Solomon, as seen on the Huffington Post Blog, December 10, 2009)

The Right was in epileptic seizures disproportionate to their newly-found Commander, underwritten by not only a Just War, but using the sanctified American Congress and its original nigh unanimous proclamation in 2001 in the use of force against this band of Jihadists:

“Of course, as historian Michael Kazin pointed out to McClatchy, Obama was speaking not specifically of fighting America's enemies but of fighting injustice. And, as blogger Spencer Ackerman points out, the president was never the pacifist that many on the right seem to think he was.” (Will the [Tea Party Protesters] Call Gingrich and Palin "Liberals" Now That They Have Praised The "Obama Doctrine"??, by StarrGazerr, as seen on SodaHead.com, December 11, 2009)

The final coup de grâce administered upon the once Man of Peace embraced by the disquieted Left, goes the honors to Justin Raimondo, whose critique of Obama’s West Point speech foresaw the tragedy of Oslo:

“Those who were hoping for some real change in our rhetoric, if not our foreign policy, with Obama in the White House are no doubt sorely disappointed right now, because George W. Bush could just as easily have spoken these very same words – and, indeed, he did utter endless variations on this identical theme when justifying our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the truth of the matter is that there are barely one-hundred al-Qaeda fighters in the whole of Afghanistan – so what are we doing there?

“And just in case you were wondering how we are fighting a war without congressional authorization, Obama brings up the legacy of his predecessor, which he stands by without reservation:

“‘Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.’

“Yes, the bad thing about the Iraq war wasn’t that it needlessly killed thousands – many thousands of Iraqis, and a far lesser number of Americans. Oh no: the really bad thing about it was that it diverted attention and resources away from the battle Obama wanted to fight, the one in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That all happened in the bad old days of Republican rule, however, before the invention of hope.

“Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011 … We have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.”(Obama’s War Speech, an Uncompromising Flop, by Justin Raimondo, as seen on Antiwar.com, Behind the Headlines, December 2, 2009)

In sum, Raimondo spews:

“What a crock: We have given Iraqis eight years of utter horror, including hundreds of thousands of dead, countless wounded, a sectarian civil war that still rages, and a government just as tyrannical and unaccountable as the one we overthrew, if not more so. If that’s ‘success,’ then I’d hate to see what failure looks like.

“The President really is all over the map in this speech, the text of which reflects the typical politician’s desire to be all things to all people. Here he is, Obama the hawk:

"Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan."

“There was poor little Afghanistan, alone and afraid in a world it never made, starved for more troops, neglected by the Bush White House and awaiting the steady hand of Obama the Warrior – who moved decisively and swiftly to call in the cavalry and save the day. Has a more self-serving, totally politicized partisan narrative ever been constructed on the rubble of a disastrous war?

“So, you thought Obama was going to be different – that he represented ‘change’? Well, in the end, you got the same blood and thunder, the rhetorical boilerplate common to all demagogues:

“The resolve of fanatics and fools is perpetually ‘unwavering.’ Aggressors and bullies are always ‘going forward.’ And the mighty are always supremely assured of the rightness of their cause. They claim to want only ‘security,’ and their appeal is invariably to the ‘highest of hopes'.

“And it always ends in oceans of blood.” (Ibid – And worth a full reading to understand the consternation of the Left – talk about a jilted lover; nothing worse than an absolute divorce to enflame the passions!)

“AND BY PEACE SHALL (HE) DESTROY MANY”

The above sub-title would have been markedly the more dramatic but instead we opted for WAR THE INSTRUMENT OF PEACE – either one would have served our purposes…because what’s really going on around here – although the skeptic and relativist smirks at this analysis and the Preterist despises the thought – is yet another prophetic panoply of prescient worth which simply defines the ultimate cunning of the Man of Sin, even the one who deigns to usurp the title, Prince of the Covenant.

And, by the way, this diatribe was written on Happy Hanukah – the Festival of Lights – the Feast of Dedication – wherein the Second Temple was dedicated after the rebellion against the Hellenist himself, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and archetype of the Antichrist, succeeded.

Listen and observe:

“And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand” (Daniel 8:25-KJV).

“The vision of the evenings and the mornings (regarding the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:13-14) which has been told you is true. But seal up the vision, for it has to do with and belongs to the [now] distant future” (Daniel 8:26-Amplified Version).

“And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

“And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

“And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

“He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.” (Daniel 11:21-24)

These apocalyptic texts found in Daniel are replicated in the New Testament wherein the theme of War and Peace – of Darkness and Light - transfix the reader upon the same Despicable One destined to subvert the world of the “distant future.”

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness” (I Thess. 5:3-5).

“And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword” (Revelation 6:2-4).

Well, the distant future is here – that’s what irritates the masses – especially the Wall Street masses, their corporate cronies and those who will make wealth off the machines of war – but why? Because time’s up:

“Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days…You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter…You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you…therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord” (James 2-3, 5, 7).

Indeed, profiteering off war is the effective pleasure of the Antichrist – “he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches” – and predictably: “he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds” – perhaps you may see a bit of this forecasting in today’s happenings?

Antichrist, riding upon the White Horse of Peace – with bow and no arrow – goeth forth conquering and to conquer. “He shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule” (Daniel 8:25).

Tell me, Babylon of the End of Days is forecasted to be that military, economic and social superpower – the culmination of the Greco-Roman world (Please see our series on Antichrist – Reflection on the Desolator) – so, who’s controlling NATO? Who’s the supreme leader of the world? Of course, America is not mentioned in Bible Prophecy – no, not at all!

And, just what do you think is meant by the name: FALSE PROPHET?

Kathleen Parker is right: Seek therapy and enter the asylum – for if you thought George W. Bush had an attitude – you ain’t seen nothin’ yet! Deeper and deeper into the vortex we swirl. Is this the end of the world as we know it? Let me disabuse you of that notion.

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” (Sir Winston Churchill, November, 1942)

And so, once again, the foiled and befuddled Left meanders down the primrose path of interpreting just “What did he mean by that?” Others rejoice to see these turn of events – out of ignorance and a pitiful lack of biblical understanding. The wait has been rather tedious…but, as Dene McGriff would say: If these are the Last Days, don’t you think we should know what’s going down – and don’t you think we should order our priorities according that Book? As a matter of fact, YES! It’s like Carl Anheuser played by Oliver Platt said in the Movie 2012:

“Better move fast, kid. The end is near.”

And another good one:

“You know those ‘crazy’ people on the side of the road holding up cardboard signs announcing ‘The end of the world is near?’ Well ... they might be right.”

And, finally…. “So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying “WHO IS LIKE THE BEAST? WHO IS ABLE TO MAKE WAR WITH HIM?” (Revelation 13:4)

“These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful” (Revelation 17:14).