Does Islam or the Islamic Mahdi fit the definition of The Anti-Christ?

Even from an Amillennial perspective.

Lutherans have historically had an Amillennial perspective of eschatology.  In other words, their view of end times is that “a thousand years” (millennium) is Biblically figurative, so there is no absolute “thousand years” involved.  Consequently they believe the Bible predicts a continuous parallel growth of good and evil in the world until the second coming of Christ.

This reliance on a more symbolic/figurative view of scripture has not served Amillennialists well in the evangelizing department.  This article on “Why Lutherans Can’t Evangelize” does a great job in explaining how not only strict amillennialism, but also the historic Lutheran version of it cripples any sense of urgency to convert.

 So what does all this have to do with Islam and the Anti-Christ?  Well, it has to do with what in history is deemed most worthy to be called “Anti-Christ.”  Changes on the world scene over centuries create new revelation, new and clearer understanding.  Islam is the new “rising star” worthy of that mark.

Most other versions of end times doctrine, like Pre-millennialism, interpret Scripture much more literally.  For example, Pre-millers readily convert the old place names of the Bible, like Cush and Rosh to their current names, the areas around and including today’s Saudi Arabia to Iraq, and Russia.  This literalism enables the Bible interpreter to relate hundreds of prophetic Biblical passages to what is going on in the world today.

Amillers tend to interpret things much more figuratively.  Consequently they have had a more difficult time getting folks interested in the urgency associated with end times discussion because the dots not only remain unconnected, but are not even identified. 

Except for Lutherans. 

Lutherans apparently got stuck on the notion that Pope Leo was the Anti-Christ.  It has only been over the last several decades that this focus has changed – initially to an “eschatology really doesn’t matter – we don’t want to talk about end times” position, perhaps out of embarrassment of their Pope-Leo as Anti-Christ fixation -  and more recently to a position that faces the dual reality of:

• The need to impose a greater sense of urgency in evangelizing, and a more literal, but updated view of how what is going on in the world fits scripture, and
• The fact that what is going on in the world today is really fitting the end times descriptions of Scripture.

The Wisconsin Synod is an exception, teaching that the "Papacy" is Anti-Christ.

In “A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod” the denomination addresses the term “Anti-Christ”.  It agrees with most other views that there are two different uses of the term in Scripture:

• Biblical references to the fact that there will be many anti-Christs, both opposers and false-Christs, which there have been throughout history.
• A final and ultimate individual who is THE Anti-Christ.

Here is a relevant excerpt from the Report:

“ The term Antichrist is found in John's epistles (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7) and signifies both a substitute Christ (Greek anti means "in place of") and an opponent of Christ.
The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5, 23-24; Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke: 21:8; 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ's Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.
However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic "Antichrist" (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18).

Various folks throughout the previous centuries were declared to be THE Anti-Christ.  Besides Pope Leo, there has been Napoleon, Hitler, the United Nations, and now Obama.  A conservative denomination of Lutheranism still declares the Papacy as the Anti-Christ.

However, in view of evolving world events since the time of Martin Luther in the 1500’s and especially in the most recent decades let’s look with fresh eyes at what or who might qualify as The Anti-Christ.
According to the Report cited above:

The Scriptures reveal the following distinguishing marks of the Antichrist:
1. Just as Antiochus Epiphanes profaned the temple, so the Antichrist takes his seat in the "temple of God," that is, in the Christian church (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; 1 Tim. 3:15).

2. He is not Satan himself but operates "by the activity of Satan" (2 Thess. 2:9).

3. He ascribes to himself truly divine power and exhibits himself as God (Dan. 7:25; 11:36; 2 Thess. 2:4).

4. He is a pseudo-Christ, a satanic perversion of Christ. He has a "coming" to imitate the "coming" of Christ (2 Thess. 2:8-9). He performs "signs and wonders" (2 Thess. 2:9) to imitate the Christ who was "attested. . .by God with mighty works and wonders and signs" (Acts 2:22). He represents a "mystery of lawlessness" (2 Thess. 2:7) to imitate the "mystery of Christ" (Eph. 3:4; Col. 4:3) and brings a "wicked deception," strong delusion," and "what is false" to imitate and oppose the truth of the Gospel (2 Thess. 2:10-12). Thus, he denies Christ and persecutes Christians (1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7; Dan. 7:25).

5. He remains until Judgment Day when Christ will slay him (Dan. 7:13-14, 26; 2 Thess. 2:8).

Let’s look at how Islam fits this criteria, even the criteria cited by one of the most eschatologically-challenged denominations:

1. Profaning the Church:  Throughout the world, and especially in formerly Christian Europe Islam is transforming centuries old churches into mosques.  In the prior millenium, Muslim overran the Christian Middle East, including Jerusalem.  Not a church was left standing.  Today North Africa and the Middle East are dominated by Islam  with populations of these nations ranging from 95% to 99,9% Muslim.  Churches are prohibited in many, burned down in others, and persecuted in the rest.

2. Operates by the activity of Satan:  Islamic doctrine distorts both the Old and New Testaments.  Islam denies the deity of Christ.  Islam denies God had a son.  The nature of Allah differs from the Christian God in many substantial and significant ways.  The morality of Islam is opposite that of Christianity in many ways.    Books have recently been written that demonstrate that Islams Mahdi is Christianity’s Anti-Christ, and Jesus Christ is Islam’s Anti-Mahdi.

3.  Ascribes himself as God:  Islam declares Allah is the “one God.”  Allah is a pagan moon god.  Allah does not have the attributes of God of the Bible.  The Islamic Mahdi will assume this role.  The Mahdi is called “the Messiah promised to Islam.”

4.  Imitator of Christ; mystery of lawlessness; wicked deception; opposes the truth of the Gospel; denies Christ; persecutes Christians:  Well, this is a mouthful.  Where to begin.  The Christ of Islam is merely a prophet – an imitator of Christ without the substance.  The Islamic Mahdi is an imitator of Christ -  a false Messiah.  Islamic nations are hotbeds of lawlessness.  Islam desires to spread its evil lawlessness around the world via its Sharia – i.e. “Islamic Law” which mandates morality contrary to the laws established based on Biblical morality.  The Islamic doctrine of taqiyya (lying to defend Islam) certainly promotes "wicked deception" and “strong delusion."   Islam denies the real Christ and declare “God had no Son.”  Islam persecutes Christians throughout the world.

5.  Christ will slay the Anti-Christ at Judgment Day:  This is the same day that Islam declares the Mahdi will slay the Christ.
The evidence is strong that Islam has a better fit with the Lutheran standards for Anti-Christ than the Papacy does.
The Lutheran Report continues:

Taken in its totality, the Scriptural teaching on eschatology will prevent Christians from succumbing to two opposite extremes which from apostolic times have been a recurrent threat to faith--feverish preoccupation with the "signs of the times," and spiritual laxity based on the mistaken notion that Christ's coming is no longer imminent. The church ought not therefore engage itself in uncertain speculations regarding the signs of the times. Rather, Christians must devote themselves to the clear proclamation of Law and Gospel, that people may, come to faith in Jesus Christ, and through daily repentance prepare for His coming.

I choose to believe that the “signs of the times” are rather important.  Christians devoting themselves to the clear proclamation of Law and Gospel, whatever that means, is all well and good.  But there is little stimulation for coming to faith in Jesus Christ and daily repentance preparing for His coming if there is no relevant sense of urgency.  The Lutheran Church was engaged in uncertain speculations from their very beginning:  Pope Leo, indeed.  Now they are stuck in a rut; paralyzed with “the fear of speculating” that keeps them from addressing reality – current world events – that may actually portend the Anti-Christ.

The Bible and Jesus Christ himself made a great case for a sense of urgency.  Lutherans appear to be watering down that sense of urgency by their mandated discounting of relevant current events.  I can understand their reticence to be totally preoccupied with pop end times theological speculation.  But when new current events begin to overshadow the churches own early speculations (like Pope Leo being THE Anti-Christ) it is time to readdress reality.

Many eschatologists deny Islam or the coming Islamic Mahdi fits their mold of the end times scenario based on their chosen interpretations of various prophesies of Scripture.  But evidence is growing.  And despite my own misgivings about the Islam-pandering doctrines of the Catholic Church as headed by the Papacy, the evidence for an Islam-related anti-Christ is today much more believable than the 500 year old alternative.

With Islam representing the gates of hell in the Middle East, and now Europe, along with their institutionalized doctrines promoting Satan-inspired deception, we need to wake up.  Identifying the Anti-Christ as related in some way to Islam is no less demonstrable today as identifying Pope Leo was in the 1500’s.  With the terror and mayhem and persecutions and church burnings promoted by Islam around the world today, I cannot understand why the Church Universal, Lutherans included, can’t at least entertain the possibility of an updated rendition of who THE Anti-Christ might very well be.

Reconstructed memory manipulated into false conclusions–the shame of shrinks

Have you ever known anyone who later in life was “guided” by a shrink to conclude childhood events that never happened?
The shrink profession, which I hold in relatively low regard, often engages in reconstructive memory practices as one form of “therapy.”  Taking two aspirin and going to bed would be more helpful.

As often as not, the “patient” is manipulated by the shrink to “fill in the blanks” of missing memory fragments based on the shrinks own predetermination of what she thinks the fragments should be.  The “memory fragment events” that she believes might most quickly reach a conclusion or “solution” are the ones she manipulates the “patient” into believing took place.

Here is an excerpt from the article reproduced in full on the website HERE  as well as below:

“… concerned mainly with how the recollections of eyewitnesses can be deliberately manipulated by misinformation. In extreme cases, this can lead to completely false memories of events that did not take place.
“upon recall, the subjects altered the narrative of the story to make it fit in with their existing schemata. Participants omitted information they regarded as irrelevant, changed the emphasis to points they considered to be significant, and rationalized the parts that did not make sense, to make the story more comprehensible to themselves.”

If this applies to eye witness accounts days or weeks after an incident, consider how much more dicey such reconstructed recollections are likely to be years or decades after an event.

Here is the complete article.  There are many more just like it under the Google Search “reconstructive memory.”

_____________________

 

Reconstructive memory: Confabulating the past, simulating the future

Posted on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 by Mo Costandi under Cinema, Psychology
The term ‘Rashomon effect’ is often used by psychologists in situations where observers give different accounts of the same event,and describes the effect of subjective perceptions on recollection. The phenomenon is named after a 1950 film by the great Japanese director Akira Kurosawa. It was with Rashōmon that Western cinema-goers discovered both Kurosawa and Japanese film in general – the film won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival in 1951, as well as the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film the following year.
Rashōmon is an adaptation of two short stories by Akutagawa Ryunosuke. Set in the 12th century, the film depicts the trial of a notorious bandit called Tajomaru (played by Kurosawa’s frequent collaborator Toshirô Mifune), who is alleged to have raped a woman and killed her samurai husband. In flashbacks, the incident is recalled by four different witnesses – a woodcutter, a priest, the perpetrator and, via a medium, the murder victim. Each of the testimonies is equally plausible, yet all four are in mutual contradiction with each other.
The film is an examinantion of human nature and the nature of reality. It compels the viewer to seek the truth. Each testimony is influenced by the intentions, experiences and self-perceptions of the witness. They all tell their own ‘truth’, but it is distorted by their past and by their future. Under Kurosawa’s masterful direction, the characters start off happy in the knowledge that they know exactly what happened between the samaurai, his wife and the bandit. One by one, each character begins to doubt their own account of the incident. In the end, both the cast and the viewer are left in a state of confusion and bewilderment.
The idea that we do not remember things as they actually happened is usually attributed to Sir Frederick Bartlett (1886-1969), who spent much of his professional career at Cambridge University, where he became head of the psychology department. He describes the process of memory in his classic 1932 book, Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology:

Remembering is not a completely independent function, entirely distinct from perceiving, imaging, or even from constructive thinking, but it has intimate relations with them all… One’s memory of an event reflects a blend of information contained in specific traces encoded at the time it occurred, plus inferences based on knowledge, expectations, beliefs, and attitudes derived from other sources.

According to Bartlett, memories are organized within the historical and cultural frameworks (which Bartlett called ‘schemata’) of the individual, and the process of remembering involves the retrieval of information which has been unknowingly altered in order that it is compatible with pre-existing knowledge.
Bartlett’s ideas about how memory works came to him during a game of Chinese whispers, in which a short story is relayed through a chain of people, each of whom makes minor retrieval errors, such that the final retelling may be completely different from the original. One of his experiments involved asking subjects to read a Native American folk story called The War of the Ghosts, and then recall it several times, sometimes up to a year later. He chose it because the cultural context in which it is set was unfamiliar to the participants in his experiments.
Bartlett found that upon recall, the subjects altered the narrative of the story to make it fit in with their existing schemata. Participants omitted information they regarded as irrelevant, changed the emphasis to points they considered to be significant, and rationalized the parts that did not make sense, to make the story more comprehensible to themselves. In other words, memory is reconstructive rather that reproductive.
Although Remembering was largely ignored upon its publication, it is today highly influential. Elizabeth Loftus, a professor of psychology and law at the University of California, Irvine, has devoted her career to studying the reconstructive nature of memory in relation to eyewitness testimony.
Loftus is concerned mainly with how the recollections of eyewitnesses can be deliberately manipulated by misinformation. In extreme cases, this can lead to completely false memories of events that did not take place. One of Loftus’s more famous studies addresses the use of ‘leading’ questions in the courtroom. In the study, students were shown film clips of a car accident, and then asked a question about the accident. Those asked “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” gave answers which averaged about 39 mph, whereas those asked “About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?” gave answers with an average speed of 32 mph.
Loftus’s research, like that of Bartlett’s, shows that our memories are quite often not as accurate as we would like to think they are. The knowledge that memory is to some extent confabulation has very serious implications for the use in the courtroom of eyewitness testimonies, because if eyewitness testimonies can be unreliable, then the validity of criminal convictions based upon them is open to question.
As well as confabulating the past, the brain also envisages events that have not yet occurred. The process of anticipating oneself attending a future event probably involves drawing on past experiences to generate a ‘simulation’ of the future event. In an essay in this week’s issue of Nature, Daniel Schacter argues that this ‘episodic-future’ thinking is entirely dependent on reconstructive memory:

…future events are not exact replicas of past events, and a memory system that simply stored rote records would not be well-suited to simulating future events. A system built according to constructive principles may be a better tool for the job: it can draw on the elements and gist of the past, and extract, recombine and reassemble them into imaginary events that never occurred in that exact form. Such a system will occasionally produce memory errors, but it also provides considerable flexibility.

Most of the evidence that reconstructive memory may be essential for envisioning future events comes from amnesic patients who also have difficulties picturing themselves in the future, and now there is also some experimental evidence. For example, in a paper published in advance on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences website earlier this week, Szpunar et al describe functional neuroimaging studies which show that some of the brain regions that are activated when recalling a personal memory – the posterior cingulate gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus and left occipital lobe – are also active when thinking about a future event.

Obama’s hollow threat to Syria: Portrait of a fool

President Obama’s threats against Syria make him a fool on so many levels.

What would be the Syrian government’s motives to gas civilians?  Isn’t a false flag attack by the rebels a more likely scenario?  Are we convinced that only the Assad government controls possession of all the gas-laden weapons and means to launch them?  Weren’t the targets random, as if there was little command and control behind their firing, as if the rebels forces coordinated a “hail Mary” multiple launch?  The Brotherhood and the rest of the Islamic terrorists have demonstrated their proficiency at coordinated terror attacks.

Another report indicates that Saudi Arabia supplied the chemical weapons to Syrian rebels.

What would a superficial attack – a slap on the wrist, so to speak – against Syria accomplish?  Do we really believe if it was the Syrian government that did the gassing that a few dozen cruise missiles would reverse such behavior?  Where would that action lead if Assad continued that behavior, assuming he did it in the first place?  Would we have to send in another round of cruise missiles?  A no fly zone?  Troops?  More democratizing of another Islamic nation that is as sensible as feeding Porterhouse to dogs.

And what about the reaction of Syria’s close ally, Russia, and the dozen Muslim nations in the Middle East that have conflicting views on both Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood – and mostly hate the US except as an oil customer.

And now, what happens if Obama and the US do NOTHING, after all the blustering threats and “Red Lines?”  There is no place for fool Obama to hide on this one.  He has made his fool’s bed and he now needs to lie in it.

Read this story about US military officers having deep concerns about Obama’s threats HERE.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

Taxpayers to fund sex change for traitor?

UPDATE August 23: 

The day following his conviction and 35-year sentence to military prison for sedition, Bradley Manning (a fitting name, eh wot?) declared himself a girl.  His attorney will be demanding that taxpayers foot the bill for sex change hormone therapy and suggests that Manning’s gender confusion contributed to his handing over US secrets to the world.

From a Christian perspective we might be charitable and simply recite the Old Testament lament from Judges that “every man did what is right in his own eyes” acknowledging a human rebellion against God’s moral standards and against God himself.

My very first inclination is to suggest that Manning’s attorney is an unprincipled whore servicing his gender-confused client.  My second inclination is to suggest that Christianity in America is deserving of its decline due to its failures to speak out boldly with conviction against our culture’s sexual/gender/procreation rebellion.  Instead many churches and denominations endorse the rebellion, falling all over themselves to be the most ‘gay friendly’ or most ‘pro-choice friendly’ (aka ‘murder-in-the-womb’ friendly).  Even conservative churches choose the passive middle ground of indifference to this rebellion by merely noting the “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” passage. 

The highest priority has become being “charitable”, “tolerant”, “non-judgmental.”  This non-reaction to evil would be correctly  labeled “indifference” and is in fact part of the church’s own rebellion against God and his moral standards.  But who are we to judge?  Who is the Pope to judge?  We tiptoe around evil by parsing distinctions between judging and discerning.  I admit to not being well versed in the distinction.   I suppose the difference between “judging” and “discerning” is that judging is active – it requires our reaction to sin – either our opinion of the sinner, or altering our behavior toward the sinner.  Discerning, on the other hand, is passive.  It just requires taking notice, but going on with life as though there is nothing to see here folks.  This passive approach is what some call “charitable” as if there is little real problem with the sinful behavior.  After all, they say, who are we to judge – only God can judge – so let God do the judging while we just ignore the whole sordid mess.  We may only “discern” evil, but God forbid we judge evil behavior.  And this is the path of most conservative churches in America.  The majority of liberal mainline churches go the extra step of denying the existence of  sexual/gender/procreation sin altogether. 

One pastor explained to me that such indifference is in fact the opposite of “charity.” Passively allowing the sinner to rot in his own immoral cesspool while merely taking note (discerning) is not very charitable.

And just a question:  Why were “judges” called “judges” in the Old Testament?  And why are “judges” called “judges” today and not “discerners?”  I can just see the District Discerner up on his high Discerner’s bench stroking his discerning beard doing his “discerning”, and then doing nothing about the murder he has just discerned, as he declares silently to himself:  I’ll let God do the judging.

I can understand not being the judge, jury AND executioner.  Executioner is the domain of our government.  But judging?  Judging based on well founded moral principles of our God IS our duty.*

*Note:  Some theologians suggest that only Jesus/God can judge - that we are not to judge.  These same theologians are convinced from Scripture that we are to be “like Christ.”  This seems rather contradictory.  Which aspect of Christ’s behaviors are we to limit ourselves to mimick?  Only his resistance to temptation?  Only his love for us?  How about his recognition of evil?  Are we to ignore that?  Are we to ignore passages following his narrowly focused “do not judge lest ye be judged” passages when he himself clearly judges by admonishing “do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw our pearls to pigs.”  This is not merely “discerning”; this is judging, calling for our action in how we relate to the people being judged.  Are we to ignore this aspect of Christ?  God forbid!

__________________________________

Original post…

“Defense lawyer [for Bradley Manning] David Coombs portrayed Manning as a well-intentioned but isolated soldier with gender identification issues, and he asked Lind to impose “a sentence that allows him to have a life.”

Washington Post, August 21, 2013

Let me understand this.  If an individual has “gender identification issues”, that should entitle him to a lesser punishment if he chooses to commit a crime.  In other words,  being a homosexual or a sexually confused individual entitles him to sympathy and preferential treatment. 

Not even suffering from terminal cancer justifies a lesser sentence.   But “gender identity issues?”  What does that have to do with ANYthing?

I’m confused.  I thought mainstream opinion on sexual preference is that varied gender identification is now as normal and acceptable as motherhood and apple pie – if not for the sexism involved in motherhood and the unhealthy carbs involved in apple pie.

So it IS true then, that attorneys will try to pull any stupid-sounding stunt to get their clients off the hook.

Muslim Brotherhood social welfare networks…

The promise of something for nothing, what we currently call the “entitlement mentality”, doesn’t just permeate the United States welfare and food stamp rolls, but its tempting promises are a part of just about every leftist/fascist/Communist/Islamic despot attempting to gain supporters.

This is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is known for.  Here is one example from Yahoo News:

“Nidal Sakra [Brotherhood political strategist in Egypt]  predicted that the Brotherhood would survive the latest blow, and make it back to politics within two or three years, because it would adjust, as it always has.

One key to its survival, he said, may be its vast and highly organized social welfare networks that made it popular in Egypt.”

Yes indeed, “vast and highly organized social welfare networks that made it popular in Egypt.”   By golly, that is exactly what Obama and his socialist promoters are doing here in the good ol’ US of A.  What a coincidence.  The ancient “something for nothing” tactic.

In fact, this tactic is so ancient it reminds me of something straight out of ancient literature:

4 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted^[a] by the devil. ² After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. ³ The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

⁴ Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’^[b]”

⁵ Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. ⁶ “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’^[c]”

⁷ Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’^[d]”

⁸ Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. ⁹ “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

¹⁰ Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’^[e]”

¹¹ Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

Matthew Chapter 4, verses 1-11 (New International Version)

Or perhaps, more appropriately, a technique straight out of the pits of hell.

We might suggest this story to those Christians who are hell bent on distorting the Bible into a “social gospel.”

Brotherhood influence in White House is showing…

Why is the US waffling about which side to pick in Egypt?  US policy toward Egypt should have been a slam dunk.  Which side to pick?  You have got to be kidding.   The predisposition of an Islamist president is to pick the Islamist side, in the case of Egypt, the Islamist side is the Muslim Brotherhood.  Of course the we know that 90% over there are Muslim – but not all are as “devout” as the Brotherhood, which is perhaps 20% or so of their population.  Democratic election, you say?  True, much of the other 80% had a bad case of “hope and change” that backfired on them, much as it has in the US. 

But because of the President’s preference for all things “Brotherhood”, he sides with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The President’s preference is a chicken and egg thing.  Does he support the Brotherhood because of his Brotherhood appointments, or did he appoint Brotherhood advisors because he supports the Brotherhood.  And does that really matter?

What matters is he has chosen the wrong side of the battle, the wrong side of what is best for America, by siding with the Muslim Brotherhood.

And the wife of Weiner, Hillary’s personal friend and close advisor, Huma Abedin, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Muslim adds influence to the putrid stew.  There are many others.

Muslim influence in the White House is well known and widespread.  I recommend a great, new book by Eric Stackelbeck, “Muslim Brotherhood” that tells the whole sordid story.

And if that isn’t enough, here is a some evidence that Obama’s brother is a leader and advocate of the Muslim Brotherhood in Africa:

Obama’s brother: Muslim Brotherhood leader?

Speaking yesterday on Bitna al-Kibir, a live TV show, Tahani al-Gebali, Vice President of the Supreme Constitutional Court in Egypt, said the time was nearing when all the conspiracies against Egypt would be exposed—conspiracies explaining why the Obama administration is so vehemently supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose terrorism has, among other atrocities, caused the destruction of some 80 Christian churches in less than one week.

Al-Gebali referred to “documents and proofs” which Egypt’s intelligence agencies possess and how “the time for them to come out into the open has come.” In the course of her discussion on how these documents record massive financial exchanges between international bodies and the Muslim Brotherhood, she said: “Obama’s brother is one of the architects of investment for the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Here the confused host stopped her, asking her to repeat what she just said, which she did, with complete confidence, adding “If the matter requires it, then we must inform our people"—apparently a reference to Obama’s support for the Brotherhood against the state of Egypt, which is causing the latter to call all bets off, that is, causing Egyptian officials to spill the beans as to the true nature of the relationship between the U.S., the Brotherhood, and Egypt.

She did not mention which of the U.S president’s brother’s she was referring to, but earlier it was revealed that Obama’s brother, Malik Obama, was running an African nonprofit closely linked to the Brotherhood as well as the genocidal terrorist of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir.

Posted by Raymond on August 20, 2013 9:42 AM | 4 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Is Russia behaving better than the US?

In many anti-Communist books and pamphlets over the decades we are warned that one of  the USSR’s most effective tactics against the US is to encourage decadence – hasten our moral corruption until we become an inert, neutered, self-absorbed, impotent, and corrupt nation.

To judge the real cause of our current moral condition is tricky.  Its difficult to know how much is self-created and how much was influenced by outside interests.  But we cannot deny we have become as decadent a country as exists on the planet.  We are the world’s greatest exporter of licentious movies, music, TV, porn.   Progressives, liberals, socialists and Communists love Hollywood.

With decadence comes corruption, both in industry and government.  And, might I add, loss of privacy and freedoms.  The NSA and IRS snooping scandal, selective law enforcement against political enemies, invasive airport pat downs of average citizens, out of control spending and entitlements causing half the population to be government dependent instead of independent and self-sufficient are all stark testimony to our nation’s decline.

Why did Snowden go to Russia?  Is he that stupid?  Is he a Commy spy?   A traitor?  Or does he know things that we don’t?

There are a number of indications that Russia is on a better track to preserve its morality and national interests than we in the US are.  Here a a few:

Why does the US government support the Muslim Brotherhood which is known to be a violent and seditious arm of Islamic Jihad; and Russia outlaws them?  Up until recently, Russia was considering softening its Brotherhood restrictions to strengthen ties with Egypt.  But you can bet that all such proposed “softenings” are now off the table with Egypt’s overthrow and suppression of the Brotherhood.

Pro-homo folks in the US believe that Russia’s anti-gay-flaunting laws are awful.  Those with higher moral standards (some in the US; more in Russia) believe they are essential to maintain social order.

Pravda claims the US is concerned about Christianity in Russia as a result of Russia’s laws against promoting homosexuality.  THIS ARTICLE may contain a healthy dose of Russian propaganda, but it correctly portrays the differences between Russian and US Christian moral standards.

Russia has a “flat tax” at a rate that is much lower than the “progressive” federal income tax in the US.

Articles in Russia’s Pravda newspaper declare Obama a “Communist”.  Coming from Pravda, that is quite a claim.  Many in the US feel the same way.  Is it possible that the US has become more Communist than Russia?  And Trevor Loudon documents this piece of trivia HERE.

There are significant indications that the US has become something it never was (Obama’s ‘hope and change’ that brought about ‘radical transformation’) while Russia has become something that we in the US might consider aspiring to.

Muslims planning “Million Muslim March” on 9-11 to protest anti-Muslim bigotry…

How many ways are there to describe “insane audacity” of Muslims to declare such grotesque excuses for a march my Muslims on 9-11?  We thought the ground zero Mega-Mosque was Islamic hubris.  That pales.

Synonyms for bigotry include: 

intolerance, narrow-mindedness, opinionatedness, partisanship, sectarianism, small-mindedness

Here is what is narrow-minded and small-minded:  Anyone whose mind is so infinitesimally tiny that they don’t understand the evil of Islam and the insanity of any Muslim who proposes or participates in that march.

As for “intolerance”:  Islam is the personification of “intolerance.” 

As for opinionatedness, here is mine:  Muslims that propose or participate in that march can go strait into the lake of fire.  So call me a bigot.

And “partisanship”":  Islam is the bane of the earth and needs to be eradicated.  But some Muslims may be “good people”, just terribly brainwashed and confused.  (This is part of my attempt to practice “hate the sin [Islam] and tolerate the sinner [Muslims].”)

And finally, sectarianism:  The sect of Islam is inferior to all other religions and is a real and present danger to humanity.

By the way, the very idea of calling someone a “bigot” for their beliefs makes the accuser a bigot, so it really ends up being a useless term that most of us are unnecessarily offended by.

I’ll provide a preemptive tidbit:  Some may call the above opinions “hateful.”  Is it still tolerable in this “tolerate everything” culture to hate evil?  Well, I do.

Obama vs. Christians

This is a Coptic Christian church in Egypt that was recently torched by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  President Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood.  He was instrumental in influencing Mubarck’s ouster and bringing the Brotherhood to power in Egypt.  Remember Director of National Intelligence’s James Clappers infamous statement declaring the Brotherhood is “largely secular.”  Yes, as secular as Satan.

The Brotherhood:  “If you see a Christian, kill him.”

Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood behind Benghazi.

From Fox News a few months ago:

"The term 'Muslim Brotherhood' ... is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam," Clapper said.

But the DNI later issued a statement to "clarify" that claim.

"To clarify Director Clapper's point, in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak's rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation. He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization," DNI spokesperson Jamie Smith said.”

Clapper and Smith are both ignorant Obama tools.  “Largely secular and eschewed violence.”  Yah, sure, you betcha.

Homosexuality: Does it really matter?

When considering the tendency toward or the practice of homosexuality, it’s helpful to break the topic down in several ways. Two main subtopics need to be considered.

1)  The nature of the tendency, the practice, and the belief in its “normalcy”, and

2) Whether the tendency/practice is cultural or genetic, or a combination.

The nature and degree to which the homosexual tendency is part of the mindset and overtly practiced breaks down as follows:

• Those who have passing homosexual thoughts that are not acted on
• Those who have obsessive homosexual thoughts that are not acted on
• Those who act on their homosexual thoughts as a fling or sporadically
• Those who act on their homosexual thoughts regularly
• Those who actively promote their homosexuality to others, i.e. “activists.”

The further down the list of above bullet points one supports, the greater the negative impact that support will have on our culture and our nation.

The debate about genetics vs. culture vs. a combination is not settled although those who argue for strictly a genetic motivation will argue it is settled.

I have come down on the side of homosexuality most often being a genetic predisposition that is controllable just as other genetically-induced predispositions, but that its practice is motivated by a number of cultural factors.

The genetic predispositions to homosexuality might be considered to be similar to the genetic predispositions to alcoholism, sex addiction, drug addiction, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, obsessive/compulsive disorder, and depression.  None of these other “genetic disorders” are promoted as “normal” or desirable by society as homosexuality has been.

There is no rational analogy between homosexuality and having blue eyes or black skin.  None.  Those are physical features, not behaviors.  That analogy is a red herring that comes close to calling those who believe in Biblical morality “racist.”  We humans are capable of controlling our own behavior, although we are known for promoting behaviors we most enjoy without consideration of the consequences.  Sometimes these behaviors are driven by genetic predispositions.    Then just like any addict, we do all in our power to justify that behavior despite it possibly being counterproductive, illegal, or a perversion. Does that make these behaviors appropriate or unmanagable?

In the case of alcoholism, drug addiction, and sex addiction, the proponents of the use or abuse of these substances or behaviors argue that they don’t hurt anyone.  They proclaim that the use of these substances is personal or between willing participants.  In fact, each one of these substances or behaviors have formal or informal advocacy organizations promoting the consumption or behaviors.  The entire culture promotes the use of alcohol despite the existence of large numbers of alcoholics.  A number of organizations promote the legalization and greater use of drugs despite the existence of large numbers of drug addicts and the damage drugs do to people and society.  And a few groups promote what is still considered by the mainstream as perversions such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and the promotion of bestiality or zoophilia which some say may be the next sex rights movement.  One homosexual (and likely many others) states bestiality is OK if animal consents.

Homosexuality has been considered a perversion for several millennia.  Christianity has considered homosexuality a perversion since its founding 2,000 years ago, until very recently.  Many homosexuals, via their parades, pronouncements, and prolific politicking have demonstrated that homosexuality naturally leads to greater perversion.   And without any religion/faith-based taboos, humans become increasingly desensitized to perversion.  Homosexuality among priests has led to child abuse.  Homosexuals defend and promote man/boy sex and bestiality.

A sixties hippy mantra defending free sex and free drugs was “if it feels good, do it” and various versions of “if it doesn’t hurt anyone, why not” and “if there are two willing partners, why not"?  This licentiousness is most often practiced by the least disciplined and the least productive of society.  The alcoholic, drug addict, and sex addict claim the same thing:  If it feels good, do it.  If it feels so right how can it be wrong.  This form of reasoning justifies marital cheating as well.  We hear the very same arguments defending homosexual practice as “normal.”

If it doesn’t hurt anyone, why not?  Consenting animals?  How about the argument for consenting children that NAMBLA and abusing priests would claim if anyone believed them.  “They like it.”  “They didn’t object.”  Rapists try to make the same argument all the time.

“Homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone.  It is between two consenting people.”  Really?  It doesn’t hurt anyone?  Consider the cultural impact the normalizing of homosexual practice has on those who may not be genetically predisposed to it.  The overt practice of homosexuality then does become a cultural norm.  And that cultural norm leads to convincing those who may not be genetically predisposed to pursue that lifestyle for a number of cultural reasons:   Peer pressure, escape, boredom, or any number of personal rationalizations. 

Two moms?  Two dads? I understand how that confuses kids in our transitioning culture.  But once “two moms” and “two dads” is normalized, do you believe that will have no negative effect on our culture and our birth rate?  I have my doubts that gay families among the gay population will EVER become “gay mainstream.”  After all, it is a perversion and perversion never seeks mainstream.  Perversion begets greater perversion.

“But I know a nice gay guy next door…”  This is on the same order as “I know a nice Muslim next door.”  Appearances and casual acquaintances are superficial.  Once we accept that people who practice perversions or  evil religions are “nice”, our former values and culture go downhill from there.  There are many gay priests who were thought to be “nice”.  We see where that got us.  One unchecked perverted predisposition begets another.

Speaking of birthrate, Europe is our “Canary in the coalmine.”  Christianity and all the self-discipline and family values Christianity promoted through the centuries is in steep decline there. Churches are being converted to mosques all over.  Paralleling that decline and caused by it is the sub-replacement level of the native European birth rate.  The native European population is rapidly aging and shrinking, while North African and Middle East Muslims are sought after immigrants to do the work the aging and faithless Europeans no longer want or are able to do.  Muslim birthrates are high and Muslim populations are mushrooming, most of it of the poisonous variety.

Look forward to this scenario translating to the United States.  The rapid transition of our churches from being our moral bulwark to immorality enabler will assure a complete transition of our culture.  It will also lead to the church giving up its primary reason for existence:  Promoting the Biblical narrative that leads to a saving faith in Christ.

Churches that promote homosexuality as “normal” have to ignore centuries of Biblical interpretation and teaching.  They have to discredit dozens of verses and the tight knit role these verses have in the entire moral/salvation lesson of the Bible.  These are some of the better known verses on homosexuality:

• "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13).
• "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you." (Leviticus 18:22-24).
• "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
• Jude testifies about God's fiery destruction of Sodom for "sexual immorality":
  "As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 7)
• Exactly what type of "sexual immorality" and "strange flesh" had the Sodomites "gone after"? It was homosexuality:
  "Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." (Genesis 19:4-5)

Note that these verses are from both the Old and New Testaments.  If you believe these verses don’t mean what they say, what other parts of the Bible are you going to doubt?  Were they just cooked up by the bigots of the day?  Were they only a reaction to the pressures of cultural or political correctness of the day.  Have they been misinterpreted and misunderstood for over 2,000 years?  Hell no.  The whole Bible is politically incorrect.  Jesus was politically incorrect, so how could these verses be simply a consequence of cultural norms and political pressure of the day?

What is the reason why otherwise well meaning pastors and church leaders and believers today reinterpret significant chunks of church teaching?  Could it be the peer pressure of a corrupt culture?  Nawww.

I have observed that the same churches that normalize homosexuality or go along with gay marriage are the same ones that see no problem with Islam and are in ecumenical partnership with it.  Their leaders call anyone who brings orthodox moral principles to their attention “uncharitable” or claim they are unduly influenced by “right wing bigots.”  What does that tell you about their faithfulness to Christian doctrine and the defense of their faith?

Once the counter-cultural moral mandates are removed from church teaching in the United States, starting with normalizing homosexuality and gay marriage, the Church will have no real purpose.  We will see a decline in its existence as is unfolding in Europe today.   The Church will be little different than the Federal Government.  For social service, rely on the government.  For social interaction, join the Women’s Club or the Elk’s Lodge.  For entertainment, turn on your nearby iPad. 

The mandates of a corrupt culture and a corrupt government will replace the mandates of a loving God, self-control, and a believing Church.

Pope urges Christians and Muslims to have “mutual respect”

The “moral equivalency” red herring flops around again

“What’s wrong with Christians and Muslims having mutual respect?  Seriously.  I don’t see anything wrong with that.” 

That’s the response of most people before they give any thought to that urge.

How about these urgings – anything wrong with these?:

• Luigi urges Christians and Nazi’s to have “mutual respect”
• Luigi urges Christians and Satanists to have “mutual respect”
• Luigi urges Christians and the LGTB community to have “mutual respect”
• Luigi urges Christians and the Man/Boy Love Association to have “mutual respect”

“But Moochie, not all Muslims are bad people!”

But are “all Muslims” worthy of respect?  Declaring every individual in a group IS worthy of respect is just as ignorant as ignoring that an entire  group may  NOT be worthy of respect.  Just because one is Muslim, should he be worthy of respect?  Just because one is Christian or atheist, is he automatically worthy of respect?  Of course not.

True, there are some fine Muslims out there.  But because of the nature of their belief system, Islam, one never knows which Muslim to respect.  Respect ALL Muslims?  That depends on how devoutly they practice their anti-Christian, anti-western, anti-civilizational, pro-terror, coercive, Jew-hating, woman-abusing, supremacist ideology.  Taliban Muslims?  al-qaeda Muslims?  Hamas Muslims?  Muslim Brotherhood Muslims?  There are 145 terrorist organizations identified by nations around the world .  Over 75 of them are Islamic/Muslim-affiliated and inspired.  Most of the rest are Communist related with a small minority dealing with Irish independence.

Which Muslims who aren’t directly involved with one or more of these 120-plus Muslim terror groups indirectly supports or sympathizes with them?  Are these Muslims worthy of “respect?”  Do you know which ones?

Are Muslims who insist on remaining associated with the Islamic ideology and the terror and evil that “religion” represents worthy of respect?

And yes, there are some mighty nice lesbians, gays, transgender and bi-sexual folks out there.  Some child predators, even in the church, appeared quite nice and “respectable.”  But does their superficial appearance require us to respect them?  Might knowing the truth about their preferences, allegiances, deeds and lusts require something other than “respect?” 

There is a word used to describe a “good person.”  That word is “respectable”:  A person worthy of respect.  That presumes there are people who are not worthy of respect.  Shouldn’t we be allowed to choose which of these people to respect?  Should we be required to respect the unrespectable?

An individual who appears to be a good person based on a shallow acquaintance may appear respectable.  But if we knew his seditious associations and preferences for evil, would he still remain respectable? 

It has recently become standard operational procedure in churches to refuse to call out evil for fear someone would be offended, that the church or pastor might be called “intolerant”, and lose their culturally polluted members and financial base.  To avoid that possible outcome, that same church adopts a new doctrine of  “tolerate” everything and offend no one for any type of behavior because if we do, we are “uncharitable.”

There were periods in Christian history when the Christian faith was worth defending, and aggressively defended itself and its ideals.  Defense of the Christian faith today is ostracized, even within the Church.  THIS PAPAL PRONOUNCEMENT is one example.  All religions are worthy of respect?  Really?  Unfortunately, this lack of discernment runs throughout most Christian denominations.  Several key considerations are ignored.

The first ignored consideration:  Individuals who hate and who promote evil and immorality are not worthy of respect.  Those who espouse hateful, evil, or immoral ideology or religion are not worthy of respect.  Note to defenders of “respect everything and everyone”:  Choosing not to respect does not mean “hate.”  It means know what you’re dealing with.  We can still be kind and tolerant - up to a point.  We tolerate, as in “put up with”; accept their existence.  We don’t “tolerate”, as in “respect” and “agree with.”  I don’t respect evil or those who promote or defend evil.

The second ignored consideration is:  Islam is evil.  Muhammad was an evil man.  Islamic leaders today are evil men.  The Islamic ideology demands and promotes evil actions.  Those who don’t recognize these evils have chosen to remain ignorant.  They have other priorities.  They go blissfully along seeing/hearing/speaking “no evil.”  And they criticize those who know anything on this topic as “uncharitable” or “hateful” or  “incendiary.”  Among liberals, truth is the new hate speech.  Among Christians, truth is the new “uncharitable.”  Rather than promote “respect” for evil they know nothing about, it is better for them to keep their ignorance to themselves rather than feed us false propaganda excusing or promoting evil.  Unfortunately, too many of these people are leaders of our churches.

Jesus is characterized as being “full of grace and truth.”  God is described as One who metes out “mercy and justice.”  There were times in Christian history when “truth” was as important as “grace” and when “justice” was as importanct as “mercy.”  Not anymore.  Today’s church promotes “grace and mercy” with little “truth and justice.”  Some have described modern Christianity as “the church of nice”, the “feel good church”, the “ego-building and guilt-ignoring” church.  Eliminate personal guilt by declaring there is no such thing as sin.   Self-esteem and “feel good” are now partners with “tolerate everything” as the highest value.

Mutual respect based on ignorance is like letting a Trojan Horse into your home.  On the other hand, if you don’t have any values or standards worth defending you can respect just about anything.

Embassy closings and Islam-appeasing Presidency…

Virtually all of the US Embassies in the Middle East will be closed down this weekend due to specific threats from our President’s Muslim friends in the region.  Whether the shutdown is a paranoid over-reaction to Benghazi’s fallout or something even more serious cannot be know by us outsiders.

But one thing can be known.  The President’s penchant for all things Muslim Brotherhood is coming home to roost.  He has been emboldening our unindicted enemy Islam since he stole office.  Every single speech, every single policy, every single invite to the White House, and virtually every friendship perpetuates his ill-conceived outreach to “the great religion of Islam”, the Muslim Brotherhood, or their clones-in-spirit, enabling Communists.  Obama is the great promoter of growing Islamic boldness and terror.  He is the prime influence behind the failure of US policy regarding Islam.  Why?  Because he denies the threat.  He is blind to who the enemy is.  Why?  Because he is actually one of them, in heart, if not by overt declaration.  Although I don’t know how much more overt he could possibly become to be known as one of the greatest proponents of Islam among world leaders.

Is it obvious yet that voters have been on the wrong side voting for what’s best for our nation, and Obama ain’t it – and remaining blind to the evil of Islam and the Brotherhood and Islam’s Sharia ain’t it?  Nope.  I guess not.

Here’s more from ABC News and Robert Spencer, noted scholar and truth teller on Islam, banned from the United Kingdom by the Home Office because they believe truth will incite Muslim violence in Britain.  (no kidding – after all, truth is considered the new hate speech)

*****

U.S. issues global travel alert, closes embassies in Muslim countries because of imminent threat of jihad attacks

This is the President, you may recall, who was going to mend relations with the Islamic world. Yet after four and a half years of his appeasement policies, the jihadis are bolder than ever. An update on this story. "US issues global travel alert over Al Qaeda threat, prepares to close embassies," from FoxNews.com, August 2:

The State Department issued a worldwide travel alert on Friday to U.S. citizens over an Al Qaeda terror threat as Washington prepared to close its embassies and consulates throughout the Muslim world this Sunday over security concerns.

U.S. officials have not offered many details on the nature of the threat, but apparently are taking it seriously.

A White House official said Friday night President Obama was being updated on "a potential threat occurring in or emanating from the Arabian Peninsula."

"There is a significant threat stream and we're reacting to it," said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He told ABC News in an interview to be aired Sunday that the threat was "more specific" than previous ones and the "intent is to attack Western, not just U.S. interests."...

Great Britain announced Friday night it would also close its embassy in Yemen "as a precautionary measure" on Sunday and Monday and urged its nationals to leave the country.

The travel alert issued Friday warned Americans of the "continued potential for terrorist attacks, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, and possibly occurring in or emanating from the Arabian Peninsula."

It said: "Current information suggests that al-Qa'ida and affiliated organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks both in the region and beyond, and that they may focus efforts to conduct attacks in the period between now and the end of August."

The alert reminded Americans about the potential for attacks on transit systems and other "tourist infrastructure."

Pentagon officials also said there is an increased alert among security personnel in the region in response to the Al Qaeda terror threats.

"Actions have been taken," one Pentagon official told Fox News.

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News military analyst, said the threat is yet another sign that Al Qaeda and its affiliates are emboldened -- and stressed that the U.S. needs to do a better job securing its embassies.

"It has got to be one of our top priorities," he told Fox News.

Keane said it appears Al Qaeda is trying build off the Benghazi terror attack. "When they sense weakness, they attack," he said. "They believe that we're pulling back, and they were stunned ... that we did not come after them immediately after that attack."

State Department officials said Thursday, after announcing the temporary shutdown of embassies and consulates on Sunday, that they were acting out of an "abundance of caution."

Spokeswoman Marie Harf cited information indicating a threat to U.S. facilities overseas and said some diplomatic facilities may stay closed for more than a day.

Sunday is a normal workday in many Arab and Middle Eastern countries, meaning that is where the closures will have an impact. Embassies in Europe and Latin America would be shuttered that day anyway. The State Department on Friday released a list of 21 embassies and consulates affected.

"We have instructed all U.S. embassies and consulates that would have normally been open on Sunday to suspend operations, specifically on August 4," a senior State Department official said Thursday night. "It is possible we may have additional days of closing as well."

Other U.S. officials said the threat was specifically in the Muslim world....