Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Video: Obama Denounces His Re-Election Strategy

Using Barack Obama's own words against him should -- and will -- be one of the GOP's most potent weapons in the upcoming general election cycle. Captain Hopenchange claimed to be all about good government (except when it was inconvenient) and positive campaigning back in 2008. Never mind the fact that his words didn't match his campaign's actions; the media bought into it, so it somehow became "the truth." As we all know, even symbolic adherence to those lofty standards is being tossed out the window this year, despite the president's professed refusal to take the low road. What's so off-putting about the low road? I could explain, but I'd prefer to let him explain (pay close attention between the 16- and 30-second marks):

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run away from."

Here we have 2008's Barack Obama denouncing his entire 2012 re-election strategy. It's shameless, but it certainly adheres to his pattern. The Republican National Committee dug that gem up, and I hear there's a lot more material where it came from. As we'll be reminding you many times in the coming months, Hope and Change was an elaborate and effective fraud. Now that the mask is off, it's time to replace its ring-leader.

Monday, January 16, 2012

The Alice-in-Wonderland President


It’s official: Obama lives on the other side of the Looking Glass.

Not that there was any doubt based on his performance to date, but it’s nice to know that the White House has acknowledged that fantasy plays a major part of this president’s platform, policy and procedure.

To recap for the folks at home: Obama had a creepy, secret Halloween party at the White House produced by Hollywood’s head creepster, Tim Burton, which starred French resident-in-chief, Johnny “America’s a Big Dumb Puppy” Depp.

Why so secret?

Well, besides the little problem of having an anti-American expatriate like Depp at the White House, some in the president’s staff thought it might “look” bad to hold such an extravagant affair at a time that many Americans were out of work.

Image courtesy the Blaze.com

Pictures of Obama, White House Alice in Wonderland Party in 2009 With Johnny Depp

According to Jodi Kantor’s book, The Obamas, which publicly outed the party, “White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans — or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care — that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton’s and Depp’s contributions went unacknowledged.”

In fact, as a kind of life-is-stranger-than-fiction moment, Obama stole the premise from the movie A Few Good Men, and made sure that neither Burton nor Depp showed up in official White House logs that are supposed to record such visits, according to the UK’s Daily Mail. The White House claims that entertainers don’t log-in.

“White House visitor logs from 2009 do not list any of the stars that attended the party, but there certainly were some boldfaced-names that did make the cut,” reports the Daily Mail. “Actors George Clooney and Brad Pitt (listed under his legal name of William B Pitt) both visited the hallowed halls, Mr Clooney just a month after President Obama took office and Mr Pitt for a standard tour of the building.”

But missing in the outcry is this very simple observation: The White House staff understood how bad the party would look- it looks bad with good reason, too- yet instead of doing the right thing by NOT having the party, they decided to have the party and then lie to cover it up.

It only “looks” bad if you get caught, I guess.

Here’s a follow-up question for you: What else don’t we know that “looks” bad?

It’s a question that would have little consequence except that Obama’s whole presidency is predicated on one untruth after another.

I am daily reminded of this by volumes of bad news coming from the White House.

For example, Obama is now asking Congress for the power to merge certain federal agencies, he says, in a quest to make government “smaller.” I’m sure any day he’ll start “demanding” that Congress “act quickly” so he can make government “smaller.”

Obama? Smaller government? This guy’s no longer president of anything. He’s just a cartoon caricature of Warren G. Harding with a score of Tea Pot Domes: Stimulus, Solyndra, Soros, Fast and Furious.

A Do-Nothing Congress? Try a Say-Anything President.

In February of last year Obama presented a budget that asked for roughly another $1.5 trillion in deficit spending, but by July he was “demanding” that Congress cut the deficit by raising taxes.

Here’s a tip to Obama: You want to make government smaller, stop spending money; present a balanced budget; get off the backs of business in this country and let the economy do its proper job.

Or how about this: Fire ONE person at 1) the EPA; 2) The Department of Energy; 3) the IRS; 4) the Treasury, Education, Agriculture, Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services, Justice Departments.

Making government smaller doesn’t really take an act of Congress.

But demanding that Congress give him the power to make government smaller is just another Through-the-Looking-Glass day for The Knave of Hearts.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Bloomberg Hides Government Causes of Financial Crisis

Get Obama Poker for free!

On December 21, Bloomberg News breathlessly reported, "The leading Republican candidates for president have embraced an explanation of the financial crisis that has been rejected by the chairman of the Federal Reserve, many economists and even three of the four Republicans on the government commission that investigated the meltdown."

Reporter David J. Lynch further explained, "Both former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney lay much of the blame on U.S. government housing policies, saying they led to the real estate crash that almost brought down the banking system and has cost homeowners $6.6 trillion since 2006."

But it's not just Gingrich and Romney. Virtually every Republican and conservative across America recognizes what is by now well established in the literature -- the government caused the financial crisis.

Among the leading expositions of that government malfeasance are Paul Sperry, The Great American Bank Robbery: The Unauthorized Report About What Really Caused the Financial Crisis (Thomas Nelson, 2011), Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner, Reckless Endangerment (Times Books, 2011), John B. Taylor, Getting Off Track (Hoover Institution Press, 2009), and many contributions by Peter Wallison, including in particular his Dissenting Statement in Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States (December 24, 2010). My own book, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb (HarperCollins, 2011), explains in great detail how the government caused the financial crisis.

This is not just a matter of historical interest. It will be central to the debate throughout the 2012 election cycle. For if the liberal/left propagandists are right, and private sector greed and malfeasance caused the crisis, then President Obama's regulatory government takeover of the financial industry is the answer. But if the government caused the crisis, then the further extension of Reagan's free market policies are the answer.

Clinton's Overregulation

The fallacies of the last three Presidents, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, came together to cause the devastating financial crisis, costing the American people trillions in lost value of their basic financial assets, from their homes to their retirement accounts. Though these policies had earlier roots, they really sprouted under Clinton, who announced his new National Home Ownership Strategy to great fanfare in a splashy White House ceremony in June 1995. As Stanley Kurtz reported the event for National Review Online:

In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: "Our homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation." Clinton meant that informal partnerships between [federally established and backed mortgage backers] Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac] and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers "who have historically been excluded from homeownership." In the end, of course, Clinton's plan cost taxpayers an almost unbelievable amount of money.

This is where the subprime mortgage market was born.

Under this new Clinton vision, it became federal regulatory policy to force the nation's financial institutions to abandon traditional lending standards for home mortgages, on the grounds that those standards were racially discriminatory, as African Americans and other minorities could not qualify for mortgages to nearly the same degree as whites and Asians. This overregulation reached the point of forcing lenders to discount bad credit history, no credit history, no savings, lack of steady employment, a high ratio of mortgage obligations to income, undocumented income, and inability to finance down payment and closing costs, while counting unemployment benefits and even welfare as income in qualifying for a mortgage. As Sperry documents so thoroughly, this turned into government-sanctioned looting of the banks.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) was only one part of that federal regulatory policy. The CRA required banks to lend throughout the entire geographic area in which they operate, including the poorest neighborhoods, where qualification for credit under traditional standards was quite limited. Based on intense lobbying by the far left activist group ACORN, Clinton expanded this originally toothless regulatory ornament into a great lever to break open bank vaults.

The freedom of banks to operate their businesses in opening new branches, mergers, and lending was held hostage to each bank's CRA rating, which had to reach mandated goals to earn necessary government regulatory approvals. Clinton issued new CRA regulations requiring banks and savings and loan associations to meet quotas for mortgages to borrowers at or below 80 percent of median income in their service areas. He also doubled CRA examinations of banks by adding several hundred bank examiners to enforce tougher CRA rules.

Clinton's HUD contributed with new regulations greatly strengthening CRA requirements, as Wallison explained in The American Spectator in February, 2009:

In 1995, the regulators created new rules that sought to establish objective criteria for determining whether a bank was meeting CRA standards. Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified buyers wasn't enough. Banks now had to show that they had actually made a requisite number of loans to low and moderate income (LMI) borrowers.

But this was just the beginning. Even more powerful were so-called "anti-redlining" regulations, based on liberal mythology that financial institutions just arbitrarily redlined low income and minority neighborhoods for denial of home mortgages, which was considered racial discrimination in violation of the law. Under Clinton's innovations, pursued by his Attorney General zombie Janet Reno, any difference in lending to minorities or low income Americans was racially discriminatory "disparate impact," even if it resulted from mere adherence to traditional lending standards.

Any troglodyte financial institutions failing to get hip with the New Age lending "standards" soon found themselves subject to discrimination suits brought by Justice or HUD, and pilloried as racist in the media. Kurtz quoted a colorful Chicago newspaper report explaining the effect of these new standards, "You've only got a couple of thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don't despair. You can still buy a house."

The big problem wasn't caused just by loans to low income borrowers. Once lending standards were trashed for these borrowers, they couldn't be maintained for more creditworthy borrowers. This let more well-heeled speculators in on the scam, now able to qualify for highly speculative mortgages they could not have qualified for previously. That vastly expanded the resulting credit risk vulnerabilities for the financial system.

HUD then broadened the developing disaster to the entire financial community, across the nation and even around the world, through mandatory regulatory quotas on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forcing them to drop their traditional lending standards as well for eligibility for securitization. That securitization pooled these vulnerable mortgages and sold shares in them, known as "mortgage backed securities" (MBSs), to other financial institutions. By the time the housing market collapsed, Fannie and Freddie faced three regulatory quota mandates. The first was to devote 56 percent of their mortgage funding to individuals with below-average income. The second required 27 percent of their mortgage funding to be granted to families with incomes at or below 60 percent of area median income. The third required 35 percent of their mortgage funding go to geographic areas deemed to be underserved.

The debasement of mortgage lending standards and massively increased mortgage funding through securitization of the new subprime and other non-prime loans greatly increased demand for housing, which spawned the rise of the housing bubble. Because the capital markets believed, rightly as it turned out, that the bonds issued by Fannie and Freddie to raise money for their mortgage financing were effectively government guaranteed, the two organizations were able to raise huge sums at low interest rates to pump into these mortgages and their securitization. That pumped housing prices beyond sustainability, and exploded the pollution of U.S. and world financial markets to toxic levels.

Going back to his ACORN days, and through his many years as an ultraleft politician, Obama was a supporter and cheerleader for these very Clinton housing policies. As President, he has been busily reinvigorating them, setting the stage for another housing crisis.

Bush's Cheap Dollar

The Bush Treasury supported a cheap dollar policy, falling for the Keynesian fallacy that a low dollar helps the economy by promoting exports. The central role of the resulting Fed policies in causing the financial crisis was most authoritatively explained by Stanford Economics Professor and monetary policy guru John Taylor in his timely book, Getting Off Track. Taylor begins:

The classic explanation of financial crises, going back hundreds of years, is that they are caused by excesses -- frequently monetary excesses -- that lead to a boom and an inevitable bust. In the recent crisis we had a housing boom and bust, which in turn led to financial turmoil in the United States and other countries. I begin by showing that monetary excesses were the main cause of the boom and the resulting bust.

Economics Professor Lawrence H. White, now of George Mason University, elaborates:

In the recession of 2001, the Federal Reserve System... began aggressively expanding the U.S. money supply.... The expansion was accompanied by the Fed repeatedly lowering its target for the federal funds (interbank short term) interest rate.... The real Fed funds rate was negative... for two and a half years. In purchasing power terms, during that period a borrower was not paying but rather gaining in proportion to what he borrowed. Economist Steve Hanke has summarized the result: "This set off the mother of all liquidity cycles and yet another massive demand bubble."

From early 2001 until late 2006, as White further explains, "the Fed pushed the actual federal funds rate below the estimated rate that would have been consistent with targeting 2 percent inflation," which had been the enormously successful, long term, Reagan Fed policy. Steve Forbes adds, "In 2004, the Federal Reserve made a fateful miscalculation. It thought the U.S. economy was much weaker than it was and therefore pumped out excess liquidity and kept interest rates artificially low."

But low interest rates by themselves do not mean monetary policy is excessively loose. That depends on what market prices are saying, as reflected by the dollar, gold and inflation. The Fed's loose monetary policies during the Bush Administration generated sharp declines in the dollar. The dollar was worth 1.15 Euros near the start of 2002, but declined by close to 50 percent near to 0.6 Euros by the start of 2008. The price of gold soared from $350 near the end of 2002 to almost $1,000 by the start of 2008. Even inflation, defeated 25 years previously, started to come back, increasing from 1.55 percent at the end of 2001, to as high as 5.6 percent in July 2008.

That cheap dollar monetary policy further inflated the housing bubble because it generated flight into real assets to escape the depreciating greenback. Because real estate is an especially long-lived asset, its market value is especially boosted by low interest rates.

When the Fed finally realized it had to rein in its loose monetary policy, or risk soaring inflation, skyrocketing housing prices slowed, flattened out, and then tipped into decline. The steep decline in housing prices produced chaos throughout the financial industry in the U.S., and ultimately the world, as widespread financial assets based on housing collapsed in value. As Taylor concluded, "[The] extra-easy [Fed monetary] policy accelerated the housing boom and thereby ultimately led to the housing bust."

The Crisis in American Media

Lynch argues in his Bloomberg article, "The Community Reinvestment Act can't explain why house prices in the U.K., Ireland, Spain and France doubled earlier this decade and almost doubled in Australia. All have suffered steep losses since then, with Ireland's home prices dropping 38 percent by December 2010 from the 2006 peak."

But this fails to recognize that the Fed managing the world's reserve currency effectively exported its weak currency policy globally. Other countries loosen their monetary policies to avoid the negative short term trade implications of appreciating currencies relative to the dollar. Moreover, the dollar's weakness masks the looseness of their monetary policies, misleading them into even looser policies. Their loose policies pumped up their own real estate bubbles.

Lynch argues further that federal housing policies can't explain the bubble in commercial real estate, which also contributed to the housing crisis. But the Fed's low interest rate, loose monetary policies would have the same effect in creating a bubble in commercial real estate that it had in housing.

Lynch adds that, "Losses on subprime mortgage-backed securities didn't start shaking financial institutions until 2007, three decades after the CRA was introduced and 15 years after affordable housing goals were established for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." But this fails to recognize that the CRA was not expanded into a real problem until the Clinton years, and even then it was only one factor in creating the crisis. The regulation carrying out Clinton's undeniable federal policy of trashing traditional mortgage standards was much broader, greatly exacerbated by the Fed's cheap dollar policies as well. This is why the problem extended well beyond CRA regulated institutions, which Lynch also fails to understand.

The crisis in American media now goes well beyond media bias. The real problem is now outright ideological partisanship and activism. Far too much of America's self-professed media are not journalistic enterprises at all. They are political activist organizations posing as journalistic enterprises. In this crisis, Bloomberg News is just another part of the problem.

View Full Article
Peter Ferrara

Peter Ferrara

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation and General Counesl for the American Civil Rights Union.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Obama's 'abuse of power' threatens to shut down Senate


Audrey Hudson
by Audrey Hudson

Key Republican Senators are bracing for legislative battles and Constitutional challenges to President Barack Obama’s unprecedented end-run around Congress to install several controversial political appointees.

Obama announced the decision Wednesday to make the so-called recess appointments -- even though the Senate is not in recess -- putting Richard Cordray in charge of a contentious new consumer protection agency and also naming three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board​ (NLRB) – Sharon Block, Richard Griffin and Terence F. Flynn.

“Business as we know it in the Senate is over for this administration in terms of accomplishing anything legislatively or finding any cooperation from this side of the aisle,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R. –Wyo.). “He has poisoned the well.”

“Apparently, advise and consent called for in the Constitution doesn’t apply to this Chicago-style politician. He’s more interested in rewarding his friends than living under the law Americans need to abide by,” Barrasso said.

The Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments, but the controversy in this case is whether or not the Senate is in recess.

“I believe it’s an abuse of power. Now he is saying he’s above the law -- the law doesn’t apply to him,” Barrasso said.

Republicans have kept the Congress in a pro forma session, gaveling in for a few minutes of official business every three days. It’s a tactic that was used by Democrats during the Bush administration to block recess appointments. Additionally, Obama’s own Justice Department argued before the Supreme Court in 2010 that Congress is not in recess unless it’s absent for more than three days.

Republicans say they are frustrated because Obama did not nominate the NLRB picks until last month -- just two days before the Christmas holiday -- allowing no time for the Senate to hold hearings.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats have stalled the confirmation of the lone Republican nominee for the labor board, Brian Hayes, since July 2009.

Another contentious factor in Obama’s maneuver, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the Dodd-Frank Act, requires that the new director be confirmed by the Senate, so Cordray’s appointment puts the agency’s legal authority in limbo.

“I don’t think he has the full authority to run this agency,” said J.W. Verrett, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University and a senior scholar at the Mercatus Center.

“The president’s decision is a purely political one, and not about consumer protection,” Verrett said. “In fact, he’s sacrificed consumer protection. He’s more interested in being tough on Congress than being tough on predatory lenders.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R. –Utah), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said these actions were not ordinary recess appointments but “egregious and inexcusable” acts of a president who thinks he’s above the law.

“As a matter of raw political force, can he do it? He just did,” Lee said.

“I think the president wanted to pick a really big fight, and he has surely chosen one,” Lee said. “This is a direct affront to the American people and the constitutional system of government that we have.”

Republicans are hesitant to give away their game plan on how they will respond to Obama’s move, but Lee suggested that Congress could withhold the salaries for the new federal appointees.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. Ky.) said Obama “upped the ante” and set “a terrible precedent that could allow any future president to completely cut the Senate out of the confirmation process, appointing his nominees immediately after sending their names up to Congress.”

“This was surely not what the framers had in mind when they required the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate in making appointments,” McConnell said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R. –Utah) said Obama made the appointments to placate his “big labor allies,” but that it might not be enough to save him come Election Day.

“The president put his own political future and the radical views of his far-left base ahead of constitutional government. The president will have to answer to the American people for this power grab," Hatch said.

Vincent Vernuccio, a labor policy lawyer with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the NLRB appointees are a gift to Obama’s labor backers, and that Griffin comes to the board directly from a labor union.

“The vacancies on the Board have occurred because Obama has insisted on nominating pro-union ideologues too controversial to pass Senate confirmation,” Vernuccio said.

Richard Trumka​, president of the AFL-CIO, congratulated Obama on overcoming what he called “Republican obstructionists.”

“Working families and consumers should not pay the price for political ploys that have repeatedly undercut the enforcement of rules against Wall Street abuses and the rights of working people,” Trumka said.

Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court. Follow Audrey on Twitter and Facebook.


Sunday, January 1, 2012

Warning to America: 'We are at crossroads'

Will church 'collapse' and nation become 'Third World' country?


By Andy Butcher

© 2012 Charisma

Used with permission from Charisma magazine, January 2012. Copyright Charisma Media, USA.


Jonathan Cahn

As he looked across the waters of the Hudson River from the Statue of Liberty, the twin towers of the World Trade center spiking the New York City skyline, Jonathan Cahn had a deep sense of foreboding.

The Messianic rabbi had joined with other prayer and prophetic leaders at the nation's symbolic gate – Lady Liberty greeting the many immigrants arriving at nearby Ellis Island, where they would take their first steps in their new land – to seek God. They had gathered with a shared burden to pray for the city and a sense of concern about a possible terrorist attack on the United States. Two years later, the suicide flights that stunned the world would touch Cahn's, too. His future wife, Renata, was to have been at the World Trade Center for an appointment but changed her plans at the last minute, as did other members of his congregation who worked there. Two who were in the Twin Towers were among those who escaped before the collapse.

But in addition to feeling personal relief, Cahn was pitched into a journey of discovery. It would take him to ground zero, historical sites and research libraries, collecting hundreds of pages of notes in a mission to uncover the deeper story behind the shocking news footage.

From disparate fragments of present-day events, key moments in America's past and somewhat obscure biblical passages, he has pieced together a jaw-dropping jigsaw puzzle that presents a disturbing picture of a nation on the brink.

(Story continues below)


Cahn shares what he has uncovered in his new book, "The Harbinger," revealing that the 2001 terrorist attacks, the war on terror, the economic collapse, the actions of the U.S. government and even the words of its leaders all are part of a modern-day replaying of an ancient drama. Laying out current happenings over an Old Testament template, Cahn presents an uncanny match.

The message: Israel's fall to judgment for failing to return to God, as described in Isaiah 9, is being reenacted step by step in the U.S. today with the appearance of nine prophetic harbingers, or warning signs, from ancient times manifesting to America. The Assyrian invasion, Israel's ruin and ultimate exile are remarkably being mirrored in a sequence of events that started unfolding on 9/11.

Read "The Harbinger: The Ancient Mystery That Holds the Secret of America's Future" for yourself!

Cahn reveals how Scriptures recording Israel's defiance of God have actually been quoted by America's leaders in the wake of the terrorist attacks and that contemporary events have often unfolded on dates with specific significance in the Jewish calendar. He traces the ways in which occurrences at ground zero have inexplicable links to Bible texts and connects the dots of the economic collapse to God's progressive judgment.

"We are at a crossroads," says Messianic movement leader and broadcaster Sid Roth simply of Cahn's book. "Either the church will act like the church in the New Testament or it will collapse and the U.S. will become a Third World country and we will not fulfill our destiny."

Though Cahn describes "The Harbinger" as a trumpet call, it may ring bells for some who recall messages from David Wilkerson in the wake of 9/11. The famed New York City pastor and author told how he believed that the strikes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were a sign of God's judgment – referencing Isaiah 9. The Harbinger expands on Wilkerson's early broad-brush alarm, with Cahn inheriting the now deceased pastor's prophetic mantle and "building on the shoulders of his revelation," Roth says.

He became aware of the first stirrings of Cahn's message several years ago. Cahn had spoken about what he believed God was showing him at the Messianic congregation he leads in New Jersey and some conferences. But Cahn turned down an invitation to talk more widely about the message on Roth's TV and radio broadcasts, sensing that the time was not right.

After the economic collapse of 2008, Cahn realized that what was revealed and foreshadowed in the nine harbingers was affecting the entire American and global economies. Cahn says: "A lot of believers have a sense regarding America – this sense that America is rapidly departing from God and that if it doesn't return, its future is bleak. The book is a revelation that behind this sense is a deep and uncanny biblical reality."

An atheist finds Yeshua

While the book releases in print only this month, its message has already created waves through early interest in an e-book edition, made available in September, and Cahn's two appearances on Sid Roth's "It's Supernatural" TV show in the fall. The broadcasts – "the most important prophetic show you will ever see," Roth says – produced "a phenomenal response."

Though the bearded 52-year-old, who might be mistaken for an amiable college professor, may be unfamiliar to many, Cahn is well known and respected within the Messianic movement. Since 1988 he has led Beth Israel Worship Center, one of the country's largest Messianic congregations. Members travel from four states to a former furniture department store in Wayne, N.J., where Jerusalem's Western Wall and the old city gates are being recreated as part of the fellowship's celebration of the Jewish roots of their faith.

Located 20 minutes outside New York, the center is also home to Cahn's Hope of the World, an outreach ministry with radio broadcasts – including Cahn's weekday "The Nice Jewish Boy" – and compassion programs providing clean water and supporting orphanages overseas. Cahn has traveled to Cuba, Nigeria and India on ministry and spoken at the United Nations. He often symbolically blows the shofar at gatherings, echoing its Old Testament call to worship.


Cahn leads Beth Israel Worship Center, a messianic congregation near New York City

Cahn is known for unlocking Bible mysteries through the understanding born from his Jewish background, and his heritage and personal history have prepared him to sound the trumpet in "The Harbinger." Descended from the line of Aaron, whose priestly role included calling the people to worship and leading Israel into battle through the sounding of the shofar, he grew up in a reformed Jewish home, the youngest of three children to scientist parents.

Though he attended synagogue services, he became an atheist at age 8. "In the synagogue, people would say the prayers by rote," he recalls. "There was no sense that God was real in their lives. It made me question the whole thing."

Cahn was dubbed "The Atheist" at school for his vigorous unbelief, but things started to change when he became a teenager. He began to question his atheism and then to embark on a quest for the truth through science, philosophy, the occult, even UFOs. He was surprised to find Jesus mentioned in many of the books.

"God got me through the back door," he says with a smile, recounting how in a store one day he stumbled across a book that seemed by its cover to be like some of the others he had read. It was "The Late Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey, a best-selling exploration of end-times prophecy that brought many to Christ.

Eventually Cahn came to accept that the Bible was true and that Jesus, Yeshua, was the Jews' long-promised Messiah. He even witnessed to others about Him and led them to faith – but he wasn't ready to take the step himself.

Cahn told God he would surrender His life when he reached old age. Two car accidents within a few months – one of which saw him escape unscathed when his vehicle was crushed "like aluminum foil" by a train on a railroad crossing – caused him to reevaluate. As a 20-year-old college student, Cahn climbed to the top of a mountain overlooking the Hudson River and told Yeshua he was ready.

Cahn's first job as a new believer was as a night watchman, at one stage guarding property that included the headquarters of an outreach to Jews. Keeping night watchman hours to this day – he typically studies and works until the early hours, rising later in the day – Cahn observes of his past: "I think that the Lord prepares us in our life, and He gives us signs and indications of His will."

The start of 'Something Big'

There was also a prophetic element to "The Harbingers" acquisition by Charisma Media. Having finished the manuscript, Cahn had someone in mind to speak with about finding a publisher. "I wanted it to get out God's way," he says. "There's conventional wisdom in publishing that you have to promote yourself, but I didn't want to do that."

Mulling things during an early morning layover at a North Carolina airport on his way to speak at a Promise Keepers conference, Cahn bowed his head and prayed that the Lord would get the message of "The Harbinger" out His way. When he looked up from praying and reading his Bible, he noticed a man sitting to his left.

"He was looking at me," Cahn says, "and he said, 'What's the good word?' I figured he was a businessman who didn't know the Lord, so I started witnessing to him." Cahn was half right. The man was Hubie Synn, a New York accountant – a believer with a prophetic gifting. Synn had once told client David Tyree, a devout Christian and wide receiver for the New York Giants, that God was going to highlight his skills.

Synn's word to the athlete was delivered several months before the 2008 Super Bowl, during which Tyree dramatically snagged an Eli Manning pass with his right hand, pressing the ball against his helmet. Footage of the stunning play became an Internet sensation, and ESPN SportsCenter dubbed Tyree's catch "the greatest play in Super Bowl history."

When Cahn realized that Synn was a fellow believer, the two began talking. "Then he began to prophesy over me," Cahn says, "telling me that God was about to do something big."

When Cahn later mentioned that he had been working on a book, Synn suggested that he contact Charisma Media founder Steve Strang, whom he knew for having published Tyree's book, "More Than Just a Catch."

Synn recalls being at the airport because his flight had been delayed and initially being reluctant to follow the nudging he felt by the Holy Spirit to speak to Cahn, because he was preoccupied with family concerns. "The way my gift works, I don't really know what I say, it just blows right through me," Synn says.

But when he bowed to God's prompting and finished telling Cahn that an important book he had written would be published, Cahn told him he had been praying to know what to do about his book. "God literally answered his prayer right away," Synn says, "because he opened his eyes and I was there."

Cahn originally documented his revelatory findings as nonfiction but decided to rewrite and present them in story form to reach a wider, general audience intrigued by past-and-present mysteries such as "The Da Vinci Code" and "National Treasure." "In the Bible, God uses images, symbols, stories and parables to convey prophetic messages or spiritual truths," he explains.

But why would God choose Cahn to deliver the message of "The Harbinger?"

Cahn shrugs, cross-legged in the chair of his basement home office that looks out over a small lake. "He chooses the foolish things of the world," he says. "At school I was known as 'The Atheist.' Perhaps that makes me the least likely person."

Roth offers other reasons, pointing to Cahn's prophetic gift, his rich understanding of the Old Testament as a Messianic believer, his proximity to ground zero and that premonition two years before 9/11 that something was going to happen. All of it makes him "a very unique person," Roth says.

He also wonders whether Cahn's personality – passionate but restrained, a combination Roth says makes him like "a kind John the Baptist" – fits him well to deliver such a sobering message.

With a thoughtful manner belying the intensity of his message, Cahn says that he is driven by love, not anger. "If you see people who are in danger of calamity and you don't warn them, and you say nice things to them and make them feel good, that's not love," he says. "If you love them, you will sound the alarm. You will plead with them and you will do everything you can, even if it costs you, to get them saved. That's what love is."

Andy Butcher , an award-winning journalist, is the editor of Christian Retailing and former news director of Charisma.

Used with permission from Charisma magazine, January 2012. Copyright Charisma Media, USA.

Read more: Warning to America: 'We are at crossroads' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=381921#ixzz1iGMlaKa9

Thursday, December 29, 2011

The Ron Paul Vote

It has little to do with the Texas congressman.

By DANIEL HENNINGER

As if they didn't have troubles enough, the Republicans have not one, but two Ron Paul problems.

The first is a cranky congressman from Texas named Ron Paul who won't disown a third-party spoiler candidacy. The second problem is the Ron Paul vote, which as we'll see has little to do with Ron Paul.

The congressman named Ron Paul has served in the House off and on since the 1970s to no discernible effect. Every four years he runs for president, tapping into a vestigial base of Newsletter Libertarians, whose support qualifies him for the debates.

Let no one deny that swimming eternally amid the rightward waves of American politics is an ever-present school of fish that would solve Washington's spending problem mainly with cuts in the defense budget (ending foreign "entanglements"), set a place at the nuclear table for Iran ("Who are they going to bomb?"), cut Israel loose, cut the Federal Reserve loose, and legalize many currently controlled substances.

The Ron Paul vote is a separate matter. In June, polling put the familiar Mr. Paul at about 5.5% for the Iowa caucus and 8% nationally. That would be his normal ceiling. Suddenly, Ron Paul is the Iowa front-runner at over 22.5% and is up to 12% nationally. Why?

Daniel Henninger writes in The Wall Street Journal's Wonder Land column that it has little to do with the Texas congressman.

Is this surge a vote for the congressman named Ron Paul? Impossible. It's in fact the Republican Party protest vote. Since summer, this block of votes has jumped from one candidate to another, desperate for an anti-Obama champion whose anti-Washington intensity matches its own.

In July the Republican protest vote fixed on Michele Bachmann, who materialized in the No. 2 spot. In September it became the Perry vote, cresting at 31%. He couldn't debate, so in October it became the Cain vote. When he collapsed, the "left for dead" Gingrich candidacy miraculously rose to 35%. With Newt carpet-bombed and again left for dead, the GOP protest vote mounted its last pony, the Ron Paul campaign.

The policy set of any of these candidates has been of minimal importance to voters who've boiled down their beef with Washington to one idea: Attack.

Meanwhile Mitt the Whale swims serenely onward at 25%, month after month, dipping occasionally to feed on these pilot fish. But the whale should be worried. These Republican protest fish have sharp teeth. Unless fed something soon, they may tear the Romney campaign to pieces. And there are a lot of them.

Political commentary sometimes refers to one of these second-tier candidates as appealing to "the tea party vote." This is intended as condescension—you know, it's those people who gave the Republicans Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller and Sharron Angle in 2010. Ah, yes, 2010.

In the no-longer-mentioned November 2010 elections, the often disrespected "tea party vote" handed the Republican Party a victory of historic magnitude and depth. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives but also won state offices on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.

WL1229

The 2010 election was the result of a coalition that extends well past the formal tea parties. It combines Republicans of all stripes, libertarians, independents and worried centrist Democrats. They all are "fiscally conservative" and socially all over the map. The Republican nominee, however, will be produced by only one part of this fiscal-conservative coalition—the angriest, most politically committed Republicans and libertarians.

The Paul candidacy is of course doomed. But the Paul vote won't die. This vote has been building in the depths of the American political ocean since the spending spree of the second Bush term. These people see the upward spending trend in annual outlays and accumulated commitments not as a "problem," as the Beltway prefers, but as a threat to their well-being.

The Romney campaign may assume that this vote must land by default in their man's lap. By the relentless logic of the Romney camp, that's true. But if we've learned anything the past several months, it's that this is one of the most volatile Republican electorates in a long while.

Mr. Romney is running a campaign strategy indeed targeted at the broad fiscal conservative coalition that emerged in 2010: Hold the worried independents and centrist Democrats by avoiding what in his Dec. 24 Wall Street Journal Weekend Interview he called "incendiary things." OK, we get that. Independent voters are easily flustered, dependent as they are on the policies of strangers.

But if the former Massachusetts governor doesn't reach out pretty soon to the Paul-Perry-Bachmann Republican protest voters, he may never get them. The longer he waits, the more pressure will build for a third-party challenge that will cost him the election. That it would be led by a Ron Paul or Donald Trump is irrelevant to why these people would vote third party—or stay home.

Mr. Romney is going to have to take a risk with some piece of his locked-down strategy—the RomneyCare denial, the "middle-class" ceiling on his tax cut, naming a running mate who could have beaten him in the primaries.

Mr. Romney needs to give these Republicans a reason to come in his direction, before they walk away from him forever.

Write to henninger@wsj.com