In Which Michael Pearl Shows Himself to be Scripturally Illiterate

In this video, Michael Pearl attempts to dismantle the doctrine of pacifism, and in so doing he exposits Matthew 10, where Jesus sends out his disciples with no supplies. He reads the word "scrip" as if it were "script" and defines it as "Bible, books, notes, writing paper."
In fact, "scrip" is an old English word for the bag in which a traveler carried his supplies. Since Jesus was sending them out without supplies, he of course didn't expect them to tote around an empty rucksack. But in literally misreading this archaic word as something else, Michael totally misses out on its meaning. This didn't have to happen; had he just used a concordance to look up all seven uses of the word 'scrip' in the KJV, he would see it used six times in this same context, and once more--THE FIRST MENTION--for the shepherd's bag in which David stashed the stones that he took with him to take on Goliath.
David didn't wrap those five smooth stones in a book, or a bundle of writing paper; he put them in a BAG.
You can stop watching the video right there, because Michael Pearl does not have a sufficient understanding of the Bible to be trusted to explain the rest of what Jesus meant in those gospel passages.

The Economic Inevitability of War

My heading reads, "People come to this blog seeking information on Albinism, the Miller kidnapping saga, the Duggar adultery scandal, Tom White's suicide, Donn Ketcham's philandering, Arthur and Sherry Blessitt's divorce, Michael Pearl's hypocrisy, Barack Obama's birth, or Pat and Jill Williams."
These are the main topics that have driven viewers to my blog for the last couple of decades, and I note that The Iran War is not listed as such a topic, even though I wrote on it prolifically back in 2012. It's ironic that what I expended so much effort on researching and predicting, when it finally happened, was such a non-event in the grand scheme of things that it's already been almost forgotten, less than a year later.
But such is the nature of war: every new war is fought because people forgot the lessons learned from the last one.
I grew up studying World War Two. The leaders of my day had all come up through that war, and one of the lessons they learned was that one typical cause of war is treating an enemy like a major trading partner, or a major trading partner like an enemy--especially when one swiches from one approach to the other.
Case in point, Japan. The US government disapproved of Japan invading China, all the while serving as a major trading partner, allowing Japan to build up a huge navy with steel purchased from America. But no problem, that navy wasn't being used to invade China, and the US wasn't at war with Japan. Right?
When the US finally decided that enough was enough and cut off Japan's supply of oil and steel, Pearl Harbor became inevitable.
But alas, the generation that learned that lesson is long gone from power, and the current generation are having to learn it anew for themselves. The West has spent the last three decades enriching Russia by buying their oil and gas--money which Putin stashed in Russia's war chest to get them through the inevitable sanctions that would follow his invasion of Ukraine--kind of like Japan frantically building the ships that would destroy Pearl Harbor in advance of the sanctions that would follow their invasion of China.
Ukraine, for their part, have largely removed the Russian threat--at least the conventional one. But what about China? Over the past three decades, the West moved most of its industrial facilities to this communist nation to save money, which means that now, should they decide to sanction us, we would be as outmatched economically as the American South was when they launched the War Between the States.
This is why wars are inevitable. The love of money drives free people to enable the leaders of enslaved countries, and greed for land drives the leaders of enslaved countries to invade their neighbors.
Free people could, should they so choose, live without supporting dictatorial regimes. But they can always live a little better when they do. But alas, dictatorial regimes are never content to enslave their own poeople; they are also driven to conquer their neighbors. So the cycle of: 1) Build up the enemy's resources while pretending they are not an enemy; 2)Finally admit they are an enemy and cut off supplies to their war chest right about the time it's full anyway; 3) Suffer attack and loss from the very enemy you enabled to infict it; runs its course at least once in every mortal lifetime.
I've lived long enough to see Russia go from a mortal enemy, to a major trading partner, and back to a mortal enemy again, with American-made missles soon to rain down destruction on Russia for the first time in their mutal history. Such is the inevitability of war.

FINALLY!

Over a dozen years later, my prediction of a decisive blow by Israel to take out Iran's nuclear capacity has finally come true. DEVELOPING . . .

Another win for Israel

For someone who’s been virtually beating the drums on an upcoming Israeli-Iranian war for well over a decade, it may seem odd that I haven’t weighed in much with that very war now having turned to a hot one. I guess the main reason is that there is so much available elsewhere, that I’d mostly be regurgitating what my readers could already find out on their own. But there’s a reason why I decided to finally weigh in, and that is that Israel’s latest move this past Shabbat was so brilliantly planned an executed on every level, it will not only go down in the annals of military exploits, but in and of itself basically elevates Israel to the level of regional superpower. Let’s briefly go over the ways in which this attack set precedents.

First of all—according to the New York Times—this is the first time in their decades-long struggle against Iranian aggression that Israel has openly admitted to attacking Iran. This signals a new boldness along with an outright stated intent to retaliate in kind if Iran decides to follow up this attack with one of their own. Iran is on notice: Look what we were able to do to you. We’re done for now; whether or not we come back to finish the job is totally dependent on your response.

Secondly, this attack came when Israel is already engaged in an existential struggle on three fronts: Gaza, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territory. And they did it alone: no other country was openly involved either in the planning or the execution of this attack. In fact, well-known journalist Amit Segal, in commenting on this operation, specifically highlighted how it was carried out against the express wishes of the Harris-Biden administration (yeah, that’s order in which he gave the names), and that a Trump win in the upcoming election would make for an even bolder Israel in the face of Iranian aggression.

Thirdly, the level of precision at which Israel has conducted its war with Iran is also unprecedented. They had to fly over not just one, but two hostile countries to get at their target, greatly damaging those countries’ air defenses along the way to ensure safe passage back home, and while over Iran, they were able to limit their attacks to ONLY those Iranian targets that were directly involved in targeting Israel. No other attack in history has been able to to evade the “fog of war” as this one apparently has. Remember, Iran shot down one of its own airliners on takeoff during their surprise missile attack on an American base in Iraq, irrationally fearing that it was an enemy plane coming in to retaliate.

Fourthly, the success with which Israel carried out this operation has to strike terror in the hearts of any national leader contemplating a military move against that nation. Yes, Iran was able to shoot down a few missiles and drones, but were unable to touch a single manned aircraft. Their vaunted air defense system, recently purchased at great expense from Russia, was basically disabled in a single strike, without being able to inflict any damage in kind. Iran realizes that if they do anything to retaliate, their skies are open to Israeli bombs and missiles coming back to finish the job at the same level of precision they just demonstrated.

This attack was a game-changer in the Israeli-Iranian war. Will it serve to end that war? One key component to answering that question is something you probably aren’t getting from the news, and that is the massive turning to Christ that is going on right now in Iran. An estimated million Iranians have left Islam to follow the Jewish Messiah, and thousands of mosques now sit vacant for lack of attendees. Of course these new believers want nothing of a war with Israel, and increasingly the Muslim majority is losing interest in it as well. For the first time the Iranian leadership faces heavy opposition from within their borders against retaliating for this major loss of face, and who is to say what may emerge from the major shakeup that is no doubt now underway.

As someone committed to praying for the peace of Jerusalem, I am greatly encouraged by what Israel was able to pull off, and thank God that it went so well, especially with such minimal loss of life on the Iranian side. I pray they will not have to go back, but if they do, they will eliminate the nuclear threat the Iran poses to the entire region. I have no doubt now that they are capable of it: I understand that the latest generation of bunker-buster bombs is capable of penetrating through 200 feet of solid rock, and I’m sure the Iranians never ensured that level of protection when they buried their nuclear sites in the sides of their mountains.

Israeli-Iranian War update

My longtime readers may find this title amusing: I first began predicting an Israeli attack on Iran over a dozen years ago, and finally gave it up when it never seemed to materialize. Well, it finally has, so I may as well weight in. What Israel used to attack Iran's nuclear stronghold was a stand-off missile, also known as an ALBM. Its range was just under the crucial distance to Isfahan, so what Israel did to surmount that was remarkable: They took over Syrian airspace long enough to send in a fighter armed with an ALBM, possibly along with tankers to get it back home. From there, the fighter launched the ALMB, which was able to reach Isfahan unmolested. This is significant in a number of areas.
First, it shows the ability of Israel to hit targets anywhere in Iran without having to risk having any of its planes shot down. This is huge, as the chances of being able to pull of a manned airstrike were always low enough to provide a major incentive against it. Israel now has shown that it has the means to take on Iran on its own turf. This sortie probably served more as a test platform than a real attack, and the missile used seems to have passed that test. It is almost certain that Iran was not able to intercept the missile--they would have said so if they had done so. Now they are probably frantically working to develop that ability, but Israel has also probably learned enough from this test to do an even better job next time.
Secondly--and this is also very significant--they got away with it. Iran decided that the best face-saving move was to claim that the missile didn't do any damage. No harm, no foul, no need to follow through on their promised massive retaliation. Any Iranian soldiers who witnessed the damage done are surely sworn to secrecty, and since the damage was behind the walls of the most secure site in the country, that secret won't be very hard to keep.
So for now, the tit-for-tat has probably reached equilibrium. Israel knows it can do serious damage to Iran, and Iran knows it too--this could go a long way toward keeping any further violence to a minimum. Which is exacly what Israel hoped for in this limited response to Iran's massive--but failed--attack on their citizenry, so it appears to have been a success.

War Party Headed for Iran?

My abilities to prognosticate the upcoming war with Iran are pretty dismal, as can be ascertained by clicking on the label Iran. But I did top off my fuel tank today, just before the price went up eight per cent. Here's what I'm thinking:

1. Iran already started a hot war by downing an unarmed American aircraft operating in international airspace. That's really all the grounds President Trump needed to shoot back, but he was persuaded not to. The Iranians had to know that if they attacked again, they would almost guarantee a military response, as diplomacy clearly hasn't worked.
2. Do something to America's oil supply, and you've poked her in the eye. American of course doesn't any longer depend on foreign oil herself, but her NATO allies sure do (especially with the North Sea fields drying up), and Iran has just poked NATO in the eye. Retaliation is almost certain.
3. It's a little early for a war to help the Republicans politically, so they may stall it off as long as necessary while frantically gearing up for a major action. But Britain could definitely use a distraction right now. France, Germany, and Greece would probably love an excuse to expel their Iranian guests. So I'm thinking that any  united NATO action would probably come sooner than later.

This wasn't the post I was planning for September, by the way.

The one man behind Israel's triumph over a nuclear Iran

If you browse through my Iran posts, which run a span of 36 months from 2012-2015, you will see repeated mention of Israel, "the Little Satan" which the Islamist regime in Iran is determined to destroy as a Zionist Entity. In a sense these posts were anticlimactic, as almost all the work done behind the scenes to destroy Iran's nuclear capability had already been completed under Mossad director Meir Dagan--and at the same time, the work done by American President Obama to allow Iran to re-arm had not yet come to fruition.  This book gives all sorts of details regarding what are widely recognized as Israeli victories in their undeclared covert war against Iran's nuclear program. If they are even close to being true, it demonstrates that covert warfare can accomplish the same goals as conventional warfare, with far fewer casualties and considerably less collateral damage.

Update: This Video mentions some details on the Mossad's similar campaign against the Iraqi nuclear program.

A review of The Demands of Christian Citizenship, a sermon by Adrian Rogers

I recently heard a sermon by the late Southern Baptist President Adrian Rogers, on The Demands of Christian Citizenship. Now, I like Adrian Rogers, and appreciate a lot about the man and his ministry. But some of what he teaches in this sermon concerns me, inasmuch as it calls into question my Christian credentials; there are demands in the sermon that I have no intention of meeting (although, as it happens, in an earlier life I actually did things to have met them fully). I've written elsewhere on how I would now differ from the Baptist view on such things (although there was a time in my life when I didn't), so in this post I'll only be briefly critiquing the main points of his sermon, which follow. I think there were six in the audio sermon, but no online source seems to list more than four--this is a compilation of the five I can remember (I think the sixth may have been Protect the Government, which see under my posts on warfare).

As Christian citizens, the Word of God directs us to these responsibilities to our country:

1. Pray for government 1 Timothy 2:1-3
Well, of course I can't dispute this, being a man, and given that Paul would that all men lift holy hands in prayer for those in authority, that we may live quiet and peaceable lives in all piety and integrity. I can only thank Dr. Rogers for encouraging me on to more frequent and fervent prayer.

2. Pay for government. Romans 13:1-7
Again, this is something for which I needed encouragement. It does get a little complicated, though, given that the government's desire is to pay me. So his argument begins to break down when faced with modern reality. He says, "simply no loophole when it comes to paying taxes. Jesus did it, so must we."  But in paying his taxes, Jesus himself said that as sons of the king, we really didn't have to. Sounds like a major loophole to me! So, no net benefit to me from this point.

3. Praise government. 1 Peter 2:17
Well, he does have some biblical precedent for this: Paul respectfully addressed Agrippa, and Peter did tell us to honour the king. I would have to admit that this point still needs emphasis, in a digital age where it is so easy to post satirical criticism of one's president or legislator. Definitely, that's not honouring the king. And he does balance this point out with the next one, so I'll grade this point as being well worth hearing as often as is needed for it to sink in.

4. Preach to government. Ephesians 4:15
He gives the example of John the Baptist, who was respectful enough in delivery to gain Herod's hearing, but hardline enough to get executed for the message itself. So, another good point to go along with the previous one--rebuke when necessary, but still in a respectful way that doesn't detract from the message. So far, I'm finding a lot to appreciate and apply from this sermon.

5. Participate in government. 1 Peter 2:12
Here is where Dr. Rogers makes a gigantic leap, both in hermeneutic and logic. Nowhere in the Bible are Christians actually commanded, or even recommended, to participate in government--so he has to quote Daniel Webster rather than Scripture for this point. Jesus certainly never participated in government (he fled when they would make him king), nor did any of the apostles. Government figures in Christian Scripture are generally the bad guys, to be respected or rebuked, even rewarded, but never to be joined in their governance. Furthermore, he says nothing of the alien, the felon, even the citizen lacking a social security number or otherwise disenfranchised for exercising his religions beliefs--none of whom are able to participate in government even at the lowest level of voting. So while I vehemently part ways with Dr. Rogers on this point, I propose that by diligently carrying out the first four duties, a Christian has fully discharged his responsibility to participate in government, and no civic limits apply to any of these.

So, a good sermon overall--just ignore his final point, and strive to apply the first four. That should keep you busy enough!

Pearl Harbor Revisited

Well, it's been going on three months since my last post, and I'm still alive, so I'd better send out another one.

I wrote this almost exactly one year before 9/11; before I had a blog.

At six in the morning of December Seventh, Nineteen Forty One, Hawaii Time, A Japanese Naval Task force of six aircraft carriers and their support craft reached a point two hundred miles north of the Hawaiian island of Oahu. As the first faint light of dawn gleamed in the eastern sky, forty-three fighter planes took to the air. These were followed by one hundred and forty bombers, many of them equipped with a secret new torpedo that was capable of operating in shallow water. Their target was the United States Pacific Fleet, which was at the moment lying at anchor in Pearl Harbor. It was Sunday, and most of the Fleet’s sailors were still asleep. It had been a busy week of one battle-preparedness drill after another, for war with Japan was considered to be just around the corner, and the fleet wanted to be ready for war when it came. It would come much sooner than any of them thought.

At six in the morning in Hawaii, it was 11:30 in the American capital, and after months of frenzied peace talks with the Japanese government, official Washington was strangely silent. The Chief of Staff of the United States Army had just returned from his usual Sunday morning horseback ride. Waiting for him in his office was an intercepted Japanese radio message instructing the Japanese diplomatic delegation that the peace talks were to be permanently broken off as of one p.m. Washington time. The message followed an earlier warning that had come in the week before, warning the Japanese embassy to destroy their code machines and stand by for a complete end to diplomatic relations. When this message was relayed to the Present of the United States on the evening of December Sixth, his response was to say: “This means war.” It was time to alert the Armed Forces in Hawaii and the Philippines to expect an imminent attack.

Back in Hawaii, as the sun came up over the eastern islands, the destroyer Ward detected an unidentified vessel in a secured area and implemented the shoot-on-sight orders that had recently been handed down. The dull thud of an underwater explosion lifted a tiny submarine to the surface of the water. It was obviously not American, and it had been right at the entrance of the Pearl Harbor Naval Base. Word reached the Admiral in Command of the Pacific Fleet that someone was attacking the base, and he hurried to get dressed. Forty-five minutes earlier, back in Washington, the top Commander of the Naval Forces had reached for the telephone to notify Hawaii that war would probably break out within hours, but changed his mind and telephoned the White House instead. At ten forty-five on a Sunday morning, the President’s phone line was busy. The top Army commander and the top Navy commander held a hasty conference, and rather that using official channels, they decided to send a warning message to their field commanders in Hawaii by Western Union Telegram. The telegram made its way across the US to a station in San Francisco, where it was relayed on through another telegraph company to their office in Honolulu. It was handed to a motorcycle-riding delivery boy who set off with the coded message just as a hundred and forty Japanese planes began to fill the sky over Oahu. It was five minutes to eight in Hawaii, and 1:25 in Washington. Two Japanese diplomats were on their way to a 2 p.m. meeting with the American Secretary of State. In their briefcases were copies of the message that had been intercepted by American Military Intelligence a day and a half earlier. Within hours the whole world would know what only a handful could now predict with certainty: The Unites States was at war.

Who was to blame for the two thousand and three sailors, two hundred and eighteen soldiers, one hundred and nine Marines, and sixty-eight civilians killed that fateful morning in Hawaii? Was it the Army and Navy commanders on the ground, who were relieved of their posts and spent the rest of the war fighting to clear their records of unspecified charges? Was it their supervisors in Washington, who right up to the minute of the attack refused to grant them access to the intercepted Japanese radio messages that caused so much alarm in Washington? Was it the president himself, who, while campaigning for an unprecedented third term in office, had assured audiences all over America that he would never, never, never, involve their sons in a foreign war? Who had, since 1939, been carrying out secret negotiations with Winston Churchill as to the conduct of a future war with Germany? Who, in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, ordered his forces to share all intercepted intelligence information with the British--including information that was denied to his own commanders in Hawaii? Who had ordered, on July 26, that all Japanese assets in America be frozen, an order that everyone involved agreed amounted to an act of war? Who, as the Japanese attack force was secretly steaming east from its base north of Japan, gave orders to the Census Bureau to hand over a list of all the Japanese people in America?

The former commander of the Pacific Fleet, whom the President had dismissed from command at the beginning of 1941 for insisting that to base all of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor was to invite a Japanese surprise attack, put it this way to an investigator:

Assume you were the leader of the greatest nation in the world, and assume that you saw, in another hemisphere, the development of a power which you regarded as a threat to Western civilization as you knew it. Supposing, however, that for various reasons, your conception of the danger was not shared by your own people. Assume you saw that the only salvation of Western civilization was to repel this particular power, but that would require you to enter a foreign war for which your people were not psychologically or militarily prepared. Assume that what was needed to galvanize your own people for a unified approach towards this basic danger to civilization was an incident in which your posture was clearly of passive non-aggression and apparent unpreparedness; and the incident in question was a direct act of aggression which had no excuse or justification. Assume that you saw this potentiality developing on the horizon and it was the solution to the dilemma, as you saw it, of saving civilization and galvanizing your own people. It is conceivable, is it not, that you’d want to be sure that whatever the incident, it happened under circumstances where it was perfectly clear that you were not the aggressor, and the resulting incident galvanized your own people to a realization of the terrible threat which they faced from this totalitarian force. 

 

  What difference does it make to us who was responsible for involving our country in a war which we would have all repudiated? Who really cares, fifty-nine years later, that our nation was deceived into entering a war, a war that cost millions of human lives, by a coldhearted administration that made a calculated choice to act dishonorably in what they perceived to be the best interests of the nation and, ultimately, the entire world? 

Who really cares? I do--not because 10 years ago I stood over the hulk of the USS Arizona where it still lies at the bottom of Pearl Harbor and watched streaks of oil still bubbling up from the watery tomb where half the victims of that attack still lie buried. I care, not because I stood in the Arizona Memorial Visitors Center and listened to a tour guide go through a carefully prepared explanation of that attack, which had been modified to avoid offending the Japanese tourists who stood next to me. I care, not for reasons having anything to do with the fact that I was involved against my will in a war that could have easily been avoided. I care. The war brought about by the attack on Pearl Harbor is long since over; its survivors have by now mostly died; there are few left who still carry in their memories the horrors of that Sunday morning. Wars have come and gone since that time with enough horrors of their own. The full details of all the events leading up to Pearl Harbor will never be fully known. So what does it matter if someone in high places deliberately provoked that attack, suppressing both information that could have prevented it, and information about the attempt to let it take place?

Truth matters. The truth really does matter. What really happened really did happen, and no amount of lies, half-truths, deceptions, and cover-ups take away from that fact. I cannot stand before you today and say that the attack on Pearl Harbor came as a surprise to the highest officials in the US Government any more than I can say that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a plot hatched by his followers to gain public sympathy for his teachings. Regardless of what people have been told, regardless of what facts have been manipulated or suppressed, regardless of what the majority of the people believe, the truth is still true. The truth will always stand up to scrutiny. The truth will always bear up under investigation. The truth will always come out, because the truth is what really happened, and no one can ever change that, no matter how much they might wish to. You don’t even have to believe the truth to make it true--it just is.

A review of Doug Kutilek’s article on Christian Pacifism and Non-Resistance

I have earlier reviewed Peter Hammond’s take on this question; Doug Kutilek has, I believe, a more balanced approach, but it remains to be seen how it will fare under my scrutiny. I earlier reviewed an article by Doug Kutilek here. This article was printed in his most recent issue of As I See It, which has yet to go online at kjvonly.org. In fact, none of last year's issues have yet been put online, so don't hold your breath. But a copy of the article can presently be seen here.

From a quick glance at the title, one would naturally conclude that Mr. Kutilek knows the difference between Pacifism and Non-Resistance. Alas, he treats them merely as half-segments of a longer phrase, without distinguishing the two. All he distinguishes is between the Old Testament teaching on retributive violence, and that of the New Testament. The only question he sets out to answer is, do the OT laws still apply?

He doesn’t get off to a very good start—citing James 5:7 when he actually has verse six in mind. Verse six talks about the (presumably poor) righteous man being oppressed by the evil rich man, and not resisting him. Aha—this takes us at once back to our previous review of Mr. Kutilek, when he attempted to prove that Psalm 12: 6 was not, as many suppose, referring to God protecting His Word, but rather to God protecting, as verse five of that psalm indicates, the poor who are being oppressed—presumably by the evil rich. Now, if Mr. Kutilek won’t link his exegesis of Psalm twelve with that of James five, then we shall. Here we have two verses—one in the Old Testament, and one in the New—which both appear to reference an oppressed poor person crying out to God for protection from his rich oppressor. Yet God’s approach in the Old Testament is not to provoke the poor man to violence, but to promise to protect him. If God would do this in the old dispensation, how much more so in the new?

Indeed, Doug Kutilek does find harmony between the testaments. He quotes Jesus quoting Exodus 22 to show that the Old Testament model was intended not to encourage retaliation, but to curtail it. He quotes Romans 12:20-21 as encouragement to love and be kind to our enemies. So far, he’s right in step with the doctrine of non-resistance. But this is as far as he is willing to carry it; his criterion for deciding whether to submit to one’s persecutors, or to take up violence against them, seems to be strictly utilitarian, and consists of lovingly submitting to persecution only if hopelessly outnumbered—as Israel was under the Romans, who could compel any able-bodied man to carry their rucksacks a mile. Thus, Jesus’ admonition to his outarmed and outnumbered disciples not to resist his arrest.

Now, it is significant that Doug’s son served as an infantry commander in the American forces occupying Afghanistan, and often found himself enforcing US foreign policy through the barrel of a gun, until he was himself disabled by a bullet to the leg. Bear that in mind when Doug writes, “Jesus’ words, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword,” . . . seems[sic] to address specifically those who as a matter of course resort to violence to force their will on others (robbers, gangs, bandits, and the like)." It would appear that the Kutileks exegete Jesus’ words to apply only to those who take up arms for their own personal benefit, rather than for the elusive benefits of a state.

As in the case of former South African Army commando Peter Hammond, we see that the author has a personal stake in parting ways with the non-resisters once the rubber meets the road. Should he accept Jesus’ words at face value, he condemns his own son as a murderer. Or does he? At this point in his essay he attempts to turn the tables on the non-resistors, to show their position as beset with hypocrisy: “Some pacifists and ‘non-resisters’ would insist that Jesus’ words are plain: ‘Do not resist an evil person,’ (Matthew 5:39), which they would take to mean at all times and under all circumstances, that is, we should never defend ourselves with physical force, weapons, etc. no matter what. However, if they really took literally and at face value the admonition (v. 39)--‘Do not resist an evil person,’ then they would never lock their houses or cars, remove their car keys from the ignition switch, or conceal their bank ATM password. And of course they do not do these things. They do ‘resist evil persons’ in matters involving property crimes. And if one may legitimately resist evil in matters of property, how much more may one resist evil when threatened in one’s health, well-being, safety and life?” 

First of all, Mr. Kutilek is committing a exegetical fallacy here, by ignoring other biblical uses of the same word. The word translated ‘resist’ in Matthew 5 is anqisthmi, which is translated as ‘withstand’ in Ephesians 6:13 (KJV): “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day.” Clearly God wants His people to resist evil on the spiritual and moral planes; concealing one’s house or car keys—or bank codes—is resisting evil; not physically, through threat of violence, but by avoiding what is called in legal terms “an attractive nuisance,” to avoid placing temptation in the way of an evil person, easily drawn away by his own lusts (James 1:14). 

Now it is that Mr. Kutilek shows his ignorance of the crucial difference between pacifism—which rejects the biblical authority of a government to wield the sword—and non-resistance, which affirms it. The question then raised is, could it be right for a Christian to participate in the sword-wielding activities of the government (as did Peter Hammond and Captain Kutilek)? Doug naturally says “yes,” and points to several biblical examples in his defense. Alas, neither the soldiers who questioned John, nor Cornelius, are ever depicted as doing anything militant. Nor was the centurion of Galilee, in whom Christ found such faith. Significantly, the only soldiers mentioned in the New Testament as doing anything that involved the use of arms were those charged with hunting down and killing the Christ Child, those involved in his arrest and execution, and those who guarded Paul the Apostle following his arrest. If being commended for one’s faith justifies one’s normal occupation, then the soldiers mentioned in Matthew 27:54, who, as Luke records, “glorified God,” justified their occupation of crucifying an innocent man, whilst gambling over his possessions. Would Doug Kutilek commend his son for doing that?

Mr. Kutilek takes another exegetical leap in his last point, “There are times when threats and violence are imposed on us unprovoked, and in such cases we are not required to be “at peace with all men” (in reference to Romans 12:18). Of course it is not required of us—we cannot be at peace with anyone who is unwilling to be at peace with us. Paul’s entreaty here simply means that, insofar as the peacefulness is ours to bring about, we should do so. We can’t be held responsible for a war which someone else declares. But neither do we have any biblical responsibility to fight back. On the contrary, Scripture insists that we should leave that up to God, either through His direct agency, or through His ordained ministers who bear the sword not in vain. And, failing that, we must joyfully submit to any persecution suffered for His Name’s sake, with an attitude of love for our persecutors. To fight back bodily against such persecution—or even to participate as one of those ordained ministers in wielding the sword against evil—is never commanded, nor even commended, on the pages of the New Testament.

At the sound of the trumpet

"So the Spirit of the LORD took control of Gideon, who blew a trumpet, mustering the descendants of Abiezer to follow him into battle." --Judges 6:34 ISV

I don't follow World Net Daily news much anymore, having been burned a few too many times by their sensationalist approach to journalism. But I never dismiss any news out of hand due solely to the source, and this particular piece really caught my attention today.

In my coverage of mysterious air crashes, I keep running across the theory that a person could be pre-programmed to fly a plane into the ocean; it's about the least conspiratorial theory to account for several spectacular crashes in the past couple of decades. In this particular story, though--based on an eyewitness account now verified through the power of the internet--a trumpet was sounded to incited normally peaceable people to murderous violence.

“They were very hospitable and would invite you in,” she said. “But, if a distant signal was given – it sounded something like a trumpet – then they would instantly change, and would attempt to harm you. Yet if the signal sounded again, they would immediately switch back to normal.” 

It's the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. What other lessons could we--should we--learn from this event?

This week also marked the passage of a man who passed on to me, as he received it from the lips of a man who experienced it, unpublished information on the Battle of Shiloh (which he still referred to as the Battle of Shiloh Church). He may have been the last living person who was only one link removed from a first-hand account of a Civil War battle and its aftermath, which goes to show that it can often take over 100 years for the history of a war, or even a battle, to finish being written.

The Sad Fate of Flight Three Seventy

I've written before about airplanes that fly into the sea, and the various reasons why this might happen. Which brings us to what may well be my final post on the fate of Flight Three Seventy.

I just ran across one theory, which doesn't seem like it would hold much water: The Electronic Fog. I quote:

The first indication the airliner may have been in trouble is when the co-pilot signed off from Malaysian air traffic control. He said �all right good night 370.� Normally he would say something like �Malaysian 370 contacting Viet Nam at 128.4 thank you goodnight.� Maybe the electronic fog had just attached itself to the aircraft so he cut the procedure short. They never contacted Viet Nam airspace and strange things started happening immediately after that last call. The fog can disable the radios. The Boeing 777 has a glass panel cockpit. All the panels could have turned off and turned blank. The pilots would have no idea of their exact heading because even the whisky compass would be spinning. They would have to rely on their mechanical backup instruments to maintain control. They are the altimeter, the airspeed indicator and the attitude indicator.

They made about a 120 degree turn to the left, apparently trying to aim for the nearest airport. It appears they went up higher trying to get above the fog and down lower trying to get below the fog but it did not detach. When the time came to the point where they should be able to identify the airport there was no visibility. They made some more turns and that would have disoriented them to the point where they are not sure of their heading anymore. Many pilots that have been in the electronic fog that crashed, went through a series of turns then became spatially disoriented and ended up entering what is known as a graveyard spiral which always ends up in death.

They may have been able to control the autopilot but the heading would have to be controlled by their input. After going through a series of turns they would be becoming disoriented so they did something similar to Flight 19. They just continued until they ran out of fuel. Also like Flight 19 they unfortunately aimed for a remote location over the ocean where they may never be found.

I think a better supported theory is that of Marc Dugain:

Dugain, a well-respected French author, argues that the Boeing 777 carrying 239 people crashed near Diego Garcia, a British island in the middle of the Indian Ocean used as a strategic air force and intelligence base by the US military, in the six-page article in Paris Match.

The US has always officially denied that flight MH370 came anywhere near Diego Garcia.

The latest theory into the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 on March 9, 2014 has all the ingredients of a spy thriller and has grabbed the French public’s attention. The former boss of Proteus Airlines travelled to the neighbouring Maldives where residents told local media on March 9th that they had seen an airliner fly in the direction of Diego Garcia. Their claims were promptly dismissed by the authorities.

“I saw a huge plane fly over us at low altitude,” a fisherman on Kudahuvadhoo island told Dugain. “I saw red and blue stripes on a white background” – the colours of Malaysia Airlines. Other witnesses confirmed the sighting.

Dugain speculates – adding to the numerous other existing hypotheses about what happened to flight MH370 – that a modern aircraft such as Malaysia Airlines' Boeing 777 could have been hijacked by a hacker. “In 2006, Boeing patented a remote control system using a computer placed inside or outside the aircraft,” he noted. This technology lead Dugain to the idea of a “soft” remote hijacking. But the writer also suggests that a fire could have led the crew to deactivate electrical devices, including transmission systems.

Whatever the initial reasons for leaving its flight path, Dugain suspects that the plane then headed to Diego Garcia, where a number of scenarios may have played out – including the US Air Force shooting it down for fear of a September 11-style attack. Dugain met the mayor of neighbouring Baarah island, who showed him pictures of a strange device found on a beach two weeks after the plane had disappeared and before the Maldives military seized it. Two aviation experts and a local military officer concluded that the object was a Boeing fire extinguisher. Dugain points out that for the extinguisher to have floated, it must have been empty, having been automatically triggered by a fire. He adds that precedent exists in which fires on board aircraft caused all passengers and crew to die of asphyxiation, while the plane’s automated systems extinguished the blaze and kept it in the air.

Okay, so we have no direct evidence of an Electronic Fog, but we do have indirect evidence of a fire on board a Boeing aircraft--along with eyewitness testimony of just such an aircraft, bearing the Malaysian livery, being where it did not belong. We know that Diego Garcia is a strategically important air base, in the center of a very strictly enforced restricted zone. By the way, the rumour that Philip Wood was imprisoned there was a cruel hoax, and easily refuted. But no one, apparently, has tried to refute the eyewitness testimony and fire extinguisher, both of which place the airliner within shoot-down range of the Naval Air Facility.

This is what apparently happened: The US shot down the plane when it looked like it was on a suicide run toward the most important US base within a thousand miles. Unsure of what they had hit, government forces didn't say anything at first, but worked to misdirect the search effort long enough to make sure they had cleaned up the crash scene. Then, realizing they could sweep the whole operation under the rug, they kept up the cover-up to this day.

You can count on official disinformation whenever there is a cover-up, and here we have it. Taking a page from the Soviet's Flight 007 playbook, a US submersible faked a sonar ping from the airliner's black box, leading search efforts to concentrate thousands of miles from where the plane was actually shot down. Everything that came out of the US role in the 'search effort' was misinformation from that point on.

This still doesn't address the question of why Flight 370 was misdirected, but the fact that the pilot had practiced simulator landings on Diego Garcia, combined with his Islamic world view, shows a man with the method, means, and motivation to set back the US War on Terror for years to come.

If he really was targeting NAF DG, there's no reason why he shouldn't have been shot down; since 9/11, it is official USG policy to shoot down a passenger jet in such a scenario.  But why admit that they did, when it turned out to be so easy to leave everything a big mystery?

UPDATE FEBRUARY 2019:
Well, the search has been called off--critically, without EVER searching in what this 60 Minutes investigation says is the most likely final resting place of the plane.

The pagan hero vs the christian conqueror

I've written before about the warrior mindset and the pagan world view, but this is where they come together.

About a year ago I satisfied a sudden urge by reading through the entire Harry Potter series in a single week. I had basically ignored the series when it came out in book form, content merely to read reviews. I couldn't help being exposed, however, to images of the movie series, and after years of hearing one allusion after another I set out to see if I could examine the Potter phenomenon firsthand--thus my reading binge.

I came away from that binge with a better understanding of the pagan mindset--for Harry Potter's universe is, apart from passing references to Christmas and witch burnings, totally pagan. There is no supreme good or supreme evil, only an amorphous power that can be tapped equally for one or for the other, depending mostly upon the skill and dedication of the one tapping into it. And that is exactly the pagan mindset.

As I considered what made Harry such a powerful force (for good, as it turned out--or at least, against evil), I realized that the fact that he was good did help--but it wasn't sufficient. Other people in his universe were good, but being good was not sufficient in and of itself to overcome evil. Indeed, it was only the last straw at the tipping point. Harry's primary virtue was bravery. In every book in the series, he single-handedly took on the personification of evil, and prevailed. At other times, however, evil prevailed until he was able to acquire some magical tool to fight back. Tom Riddle also sought those tools, and had he managed to acquire them all, even Harry's bravery and goodness would not have been enough.

So, the formula for success in the pagan universe basically breaks down to:
Ownership of all the magical tools = victory every time.
Ownership of some of the magical tools + bravery = victory, unless going up against
Ownership of some of the magical tools + bravery + good. In that case,
Ownership of some of the magical tools + bravery + good = eventual ownership of all remaining magical tools, or at least all the most powerful one(s), thus resulting in victory.

Now, in the Christian world view, magical tools can be totally overcome, not by more powerful magical tools, but by spiritual purity (Matthew 17:21). Thus good is not the final ingredient needed only when up against a magically equal but evil force; it is the primary weapon against evil.

Thus  massive power struggle ensues, wherever the Christian worldview confronts the pagan one--with bravery and good on one side, and bravery and magical tools on the other. For the Christian, however, bravery is merely the last ingredient, to be pitted merely against the remaining bravery of the sorcerer who has just seen his most powerful magical tools rendered useless by an invisible foe.

Elijah on Mt. Carmel is an excellent example of the Christian world view confronting the pagan in a massive show of force. Mustering all the magical tools at their disposal, represented by hundreds of ecstatic priests sacrificing their own blood to Ba'al, the pagans were confronted by the spiritual purity of one man, represented by restoring the altar of God on the high place of Mt. Carmel. Elijah showed his superior bravery by daring to challenge and even mock Ba'al, and when the power struggle came down in favor of Elijah, by ordering the deaths of all his opponents.

It was a lack of bravery, however, that removed Elijah from the scene when no number of palace guards could even arrest him. When his bravery failed, all the spiritual purity he could muster availed him nothing, and he fled for his life from henpecked Ahab's pagan wife. Elijah needed some personal ministering, not only by an angel, but from the Voice of God Himself, before his powers returned.

Sorcerers can be defeated without any human or magical powers, simply by applying the formula of good + bravery against the foe of magic + bravery. The pagan's bravery will vanish when he sees his magical powers rendered inert, but he will try to win by threatening the Christian with physical harm instead. In order to prevail the Christian will have to show bravery against both attacks.

End Game in Iran

Three Ramadans have come and gone since I first started writing about "the impending war with Iran." I'm glad to say that none of my bellicose predictions have yet come true, but at the same time it's clear that war with Iran is at least as immanent as it ever was.

For the last year or so I've let my blogroll link to Joel Rosenberg's blog tell the story, but this time I'm going to comment directly on his latest post.

Denver, Colorado — Evidence is mounting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is increasingly prepared to order a massive preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. Here’s why:

1. Iran aggressively pursuing two routes to nuclear weaponry, one via uranium enrichment, the other via plutonium.

2. Thus, Iran is steadily approaching the “red line,” the point at which Netanyahu has said Israel would have no choice but to strike.

3. Officials in Jerusalem do not see the Obama administration taking decisive action to prevent Iran from getting The Bomb.

4. To the contrary, Israel sees President Obama and Secretary John Kerry weakening their resolve and opening the door to indefinite negotiations with the new Rouhani administration, which they perceive as “moderate.”

5. Israeli military leaders believe they have the operational capabilities to destroy — or at least seriously damage — Iran’s nuclear program, but they have a shortening window of time, after which the task would be beyond Israel’s capabilities.

Now, the approaching deadline is the activation of the new plutonium-generating reactor in Arak. In the view of the US at least, the environmental damage caused by blowing up a working reactor would be unacceptable.

I'm beginning to doubt that such a threat would be enough to stop Israel at this point. Look at Operation Orchard--where the Israeli air force flew through Turkey to to Syria's norther desert and blew up a nuclear reactor being built by the North Koreans. Look at the numerous nuclear accidents in North Korea itself. It's clear that the aftermath of a nuclear catastrophe is no longer as unthinkable as it once was.

Which brings us to the matter of route and weapons. Israel is reported to have stowed MOABs at an airfield in Azerbaijan, which would allow a total fly-over of Iran without much of any warning. It's also possible that Israel would use low-yield nuclear warheads to permanently disable Iran's underground nuclear facilities, which are also far enough out in the desert to minimise the ecological fallout of such a strike.  I don't see an attack at this stage in the game being desperate enough to resort to that, though.

The non-combatant American

An earlier post reflected on the European desire to kill or be killed for the motherland. Rose Wilder Lane very elegantly explained that this ideal never became part of the American psyche:

War has always been the primary function of Old World Government. Men living in the Old World use a large part of their energy in killing men and in destroying food, shelter, and all other necessities of human life. Americans in general do not understand this. Neither do most continental Europeans understand the American attitude toward war.

When I was living in Albania I had a friend who was one of the finest persons I ever knew. He was an Italian of English ancestry. His mother and his maternal ancestors for many generations had been English. He was fourteen and his brother was nine, when their parents were drowned at sea. The boys had no other near relatives and from that time they were inseparable. They stayed together in schools and universities; they got from the King himself a special permission to do their military service together. They went together to Argentine, and in 1915 returned to join their regiment. They were both wounded at Caporetto, and abandoned on the field. My friend reached his brother but was too weak to do anything for him. The brother died during the third night. My friend's wounds still required him to return to hospitals at intervals.

For weeks I tried to explain to him the American attitude toward war. He could not understand it. I was confused, myself, for like most Americans I had taken it for granted that no one wants war. My friend had the best European schooling, Italian, German, and English. He was widely and accurately informed; he was intelligent, open-minded, and eager to understand my puzzling country. The clue, he said, was in our attitude toward war. It baffled him.

"War has always been the primary function of Old World Government." He laughed at the superficial European belief that Americans are mere dollar-chasers. He knew several Americans intimately. He did not find them mercenary, nor cowardly, nor weak, nor — exactly — unpatriotic. American patriotism is peculiar, he said. Americans never say "my fatherland," "my motherland." What a peculiar attitude toward your country, to call it Uncle Sam. And notice, he said, the tone in which you say "Uncle Sam," or, "The States." It is affectionate; it has a sound of — what should he say? equality? tolerance? — as if a confident young man were speaking of a good old uncle. That is not the way in which a man speaks of his country, the fatherland, the motherland, the parent whose child he is. And then, the curious American talk about war. He did not believe that it was entirely hypocritical. But would I explain the facts?

The United States are made by unprovoked military aggression. They attack the Indians and take half a continent; they attack Mexico and take Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California; they attack Spain, and take Cuba; they attack the Filipinos and take the islands. Then why don't they hold and subdue Mexico, when American troops have taken Mexico City? Why don't they attack Canada while the mother country is embroiled in Europe? Why do the United States reverse all history, and fight for an older empire instead of helping to dismember it? Now (in 1928) the United States are the strongest world power; why do they no have compulsory military training? They have used military power to dictate to all Europe; then why has the army no influence in our foreign policy? Why do the sons of our upper classes go into business or professions, why not into the army and navy? Why do Americans not honor their great Generals above such men as Edison and Hoover? Why, when General Pershing is an American, do Americans make a small-town editor the President of the United States?

One morning his servant brought a note, asking if he might see me at once, for only a moment. He came in, excited, apologizing for calling at that hour, "but I could not wait to tell you! It came to me in a flash, suddenly, just now. It is materialism! As you have said, Signora: Americans hate war because it kills men and destroys property. Suddenly, it comes to me. What are lives and property? Material things. All men die, time destroys all property. Lives and property have no value. The immortal value is the soul of a nation, and war regenerates the nation's soul. Americans cannot see spiritual values. That is it, Signora; yes, yes, that is the truth. Deep down, at base, au fond, your countrymen are pure materialists. You see only the material world; you cannot see what war is, because it is spiritual."

He had seen his brother die at Caporetto, and he died in Ethiopia, a fine, brave, honorable man, who believed with his whole mind that an individual is a cell in the body of The State, that Authority controls all human beings, and that his own life had no value whatever but service to Immortal Italy.

That is the cause of war.

Men who have that pagan belief will always make war. They must make war, because of the nature of human energy. Not knowing that individuals control themselves, they do not recognize and accept that responsibility; they try to make their own energy work on a false basis. It will not work on a false basis, and one of the results of trying to make it do so, is war.

--Rose Wilder Lane, from The Discovery of Freedom

Yom Kippur War--lessons learned?

By the way, I've just finished extensively editing my Obama Chronology post, with so many details of fraud that I've added deception to the post labels. Both of Barack Obama' parents gave fraudulent dates when filling out government paperwork, and if there's one thing his mother apparently couldn't stand to do, it was to actually live with any man she was married to. Barack never lived in the same home as his mother and father, nor for all but a handful of years of their 15-year marriage, his mother and stepfather. It appears that the vast majority of his childhood was spent in his grandparent's home, usually with his mother present but never her husband.

Now, on to today's topic.

Joel Rosenberg had an article a few days ago about how the Israeli government was blind-sided by their refusal to prepare for the Yom Kippur War of 1973 (by the way, I remember what I was doing on that fateful day. I was sitting in my parents' bedroom staring at the radio as word was relayed that Israel had been attacked--it was the first time I had ever heard the term 'Yom Kippur'). Anyway, heads rolled big time after Israel found itself the closest it had come to annihilation since its initial war of independence.

It's my considered opinion, based on what I have read, that the top echelon of Israel's leadership actually knew the war was coming (even down to the day it would start) but refused to act pre-emptively because they thought it would greatly improve their world standing if they were attacked first.

Apparently,  the powers that be are not about to make the same mistake again--but they do seem to be holding off a pre-emptive strike on Iran until the very last minute, for the same reasons they didn't attack at all before the Yom Kippur War--they harbour a desire, however futile it may be, not to be seen as the bad guys.

Massive mobilization in Jerusalem?

I received a rumour by email today that Israel is gearing up for war in a massive way. The email started out,

"WHILE I'M UNABLE TO VERIFY THIS REPORT. . ."

and continued,

"My friend's brother and his family live in Jerusalem - he is a minister and former Navy SEAL, with an office located close to one of Israel's largest underground military bases. Calling last night, which is very unusual - usually it is email, to say that he is sending his family back to the US immediately due to what he is seeing occur within the last week and what is being inferred by his military contacts in both there and US, noting he is seeing military movements the likes of which he has never seen in his 20+ years in Israel. What he called a massive redeployment and protective tactics of forces is underway."

Okay, folks, we need go no further. This email has all the hallmarks of a hoax:

1. The sender is passing on something he received originating from someone that he doesn't know personally, but is a 'brother' of some 'friend' way up the line.

2. The account can't be verified, but is so urgent as to require immediate action.

3. The source of the report is identified as someone we should be able to trust: a minister; and someone who should know what he's talking about: a former SEAL.

4.No names or dates are mentioned. Were the technology available, this email could have been floating around since 1973 and we'd have no way of knowing it.

So, there you have it, folks. It's a hoax. Don't believe a word of it. If you want to know what's going on in Jerusalem, ask Google News. Or call the Israeli consulate closest to you and ask if they're accepting any volunteers for a special foreign legion unit in the IDF.

If things really were that desperate, they probably would be.

Added only an hour later:
I may have actually managed to strangle this rumour in the cradle. This post was just viewed by someone at a major international news outlet.

Much ado about Iran

I'm copying here various news articles from the Times of Israel, to give an idea of how the Iranian threat, and the appropriate response to it, are perceived in Israel and the USA: http://israeli-defense-officials-iran-won't-hit-back-at-us-targets-if-israeli-attacks

Tehran is not interested in raising the stakes in its standoff with Israel and would not strike US targets if Israel were to attack its nuclear program, Channel 10 news reported Wednesday, quoting unnamed senior Israeli defense officials. Contrary to previous assessments that Iran would turn an Israeli attack into an all-out regional war — involving the US and its Middle Eastern allies — current wisdom holds that it would avoid drawing the US into battle and settle for retaliating solely against Israel, the report quoted the officials as saying.

i-dont-want-to-be-complicit-in-a-strike-on-iran-says-us-army-chief

The US does not want to be “complicit” in an Israeli strike that “probably” would not only fail to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, but could also undo international diplomatic pressure on Tehran, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs General Martin Dempsey said Thursday in London. An attack by Israel would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” Dempsey said, adding: ”I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.”
The US’s top general – the Guardian reported – said that he could not presume to know Iran’s ultimate intentions in pursuing a nuclear program, as intelligence was inconclusive on that score.
It was clear, however, he maintained, that mounting pressure from the American-led “international coalition…could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely.” Last week, Dempsey said that Israel and the US did not see eye to eye on the Iranian nuclear threat, admitting that Washington and Jerusalem were on “different clocks” regarding Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. He noted, however, that he understood Israel’s urgency in calling for action against Iran’s nuclear program. “They are living with an existential concern that we are not living with,” he acknowledged, according to AFP.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-sharp-rebuttal-un-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon-denounces-iranian-threats-to-israel-and-denial-of-the-holocaust

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon delivered a sharp rebuttal to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday, after Khamenei delivered a speech denouncing Israel, the UN and the US at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran. “I strongly reject any threat by any [UN] member state to destroy another, or outrageous comments to deny historical facts such as the Holocaust,” Ban said. “Claiming another UN member state does not have the right to exist or describe it in racist terms is not only utterly wrong but undermines the very principles we have all promised to uphold,” the UN chief added. Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters in Iran, accused Israel of being made up of “bloodthirsty wolves,” a day after Ban asked the cleric to tone down his rhetoric against Israel.

What? Time for another Iran update already?

Yes, as things heat up toward the end I expect to report every significant piece of news. This one isn't so much news, as speculative editorial, but look at the source--it's not an Obama Administration leak nor an Israeli press interview, but someone currently on the "outside" who ought to know what he's talking about:

F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.

 Okay, so the gist of his speculation is that evidence points to, on one hand, a sudden "Middle Eastern"  concern about hardening military infrastructure against an Electromagnetic Pulse attack; on the other hand, some cryptic hints from Israel that Iran is entering a "zone of immunity" from military attack.

Given that we were told years ago that Iran would "soon" have both an operational nuclear program and immunity to it being attacked, it's likely that this is a reference to the ability of Israel to shut down Iran's electrical grid. I wrote about this last November, when the weapon of choice was thought to be a drone that would harmlessly shut down power temporarily. Now the thinking is that a high-altitude nuclear explosion would not just shut down the grid, but permanently disable every piece of electronic equipment within 250 miles of Isfahan--preventing a launch order from being able to get through.

Whatever the case, I can't imagine that any attack scenario would be without one or the other element.

A Nuclear Iran only six weeks away--unless Israel stops it

I could be commenting on a daily basis on the buildup of the Persio-Israeli war, but I hate to overstate the obvious: unless Iran stops working on a nuclear weapon with which to target Israel, it will be attacked before the year is out. Period.

Regardless of how the National Election goes in the United States--helped by the fact that Romney is leading both in fundraising and at the poll, and that the next cover of Newsweek will contain a death knell for a Second Obama Administration--Israel is prepared to go it alone in defence of its national existence. And DEBKAfile has reported that Iran is within about six weeks of having 250 kilograms of 20-percent grade uranium, exactly enough to build its first nuclear bomb.

That deadline prompted Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s comment Sunday, Aug. 12: “All threats against the home front are dwarfed by one – Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear arms!” Hence the leak by an unnamed Israeli security source Sunday, Aug. 12, disclosing Iran’s progress in developing the detonator and fuses for a nuclear warhead ready for the Shehab-3 ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel.

The Obama administration continues to waffle about its willingness to stand by Israel when the preemptive attack occurs; apparently they think they have the Jewish Vote sewed up, or that by such posturing they can postpone any such attack until after the November Elections. But Israel is not going to wait; November may well be to late.

So, we have three forces at work:
1) In Iran, government forces are feverishly working to have an operational nuclear-tipped missile capable of striking Dimona as soon as possible. The sooner they can launch it, the less Israel will be prepared.
 2) In Israel, government forces are feverishly preparing for long-distance strikes against Bushehr, Natanz, and/or Fordo, and the retaliatory strikes sure to come from Iran, Lebanon, and possibly Syria and even Egypt. The sooner they can launch them, the less likelihood of Iran having a nuclear weapon to with which to shoot back.
3) In America, government forces are simultaneously:
a) working to undermine Iran's capability for a nuclear first strike
b) working to undermine Israel's ability to launch a surprise preemptive strike
c) working to arm Israel against the Iranian attack which is sure to come, whether or not Israel strikes first.

The war only awaits a convergence of All Systems Are Go signals from Israel and at least one of the other two countries. Should the US and Israel agree on an attack, it will commence forthwith. Should Iran reach the level of preparedness that Israel is at, the preemptive strike will be launched unilaterally. The only other possibility is that Iran is further ahead than anyone knows, and will preemptively launch the first nuclear-tipped missile ever to be used in warfare.

If that does happen, it's going to be in the next few weeks.