Grace and peace unto you, brothers and sisters.

President Obama has just told us what the war on terror is really all about.  In a CNN interview, he reportedly made the following statement with regard to the government’s terrorism focus:

“The biggest concern we have right now is not the launching of a major terrorist operation, although that risk is always there.”

“The risk that we’re especially concerned over right now is the lone wolf terrorist, somebody with a single weapon being able to carry out wide-scale massacres of the sort that we saw in Norway recently.”

“You know, when you’ve got one person who is deranged or driven by a hateful ideology, they can do a lot of damage, and it’s a lot harder to trace those lone wolf operators.”

Recall that we previously discussed that the USA PATRIOT Act revised the government’s prior definition of terrorism.  It used to read:

“Acts that attempt to affect the conduct of a government by assassination, or kidnapping,”

It has now been amended to read:

“Acts that:

“involve acts dangerous to human life,

“appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce,

“influence the policy of a government‚ 

“affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” 

The change considerably broadened the definition of terrorism.  

Now the president has given us the definition of a new type of terrorist: the “lone wolf,” and it ought to worry everyone reading this.  To show you why, let’s look at the first sentence of the president’s statement again.

“The risk that we’re especially concerned over right now is the lone wolf terrorist, somebody with a single weapon being able to carry out wide-scale massacres of the sort that we saw in Norway recently.” 

A student of language can appreciate the grammatical sleight-of-hand the president uses.  It is both simplistic and deceptive.  Let’s break this sentence down.

“The risk that we’re especially concerned over right now is the lone wolf terrorist…”

Cut and dry.  The government is concerned about lone wolf terrorists.  Now President Obama goes on to tell us what a lone wolf terrorist is: 

“…somebody with a single weapon…”  

That’s it.  According to President Barack Obama, a lone wolf terrorist is “somebody with a single weapon.”  The rest of the sentence describes the weapon:

“being able to carry out wide-scale massacres”

The phrase “being able to carry out wide-spread massacres” is not intended to be a part of the definition of a long wolf terrorist.  If it were, the clause would read:

“…somebody with a single weapon, who is able to carry out wide-spread massacres…”

But the President does not say, “who is able.”  He says “being able.”

If he wanted to be clear that he was describing the ability of the weapon, he could have said:

“…somebody with a single weapon which (or that) is able to carry out wide-scale massacres…”

But he uses the phrase “being able,” which makes it unclear whether he is referring to the person or the weapon.  Anyone who has heard him speak knows that President Obama chooses his words very carefully.  One may assume, then, that the president said what he meant. 

Because of the terms “single weapon” and “wide-scale massacres,” it would seem the president was referring to a grenade or bomb, both of which are single weapons capable of producing mass casualties.  Is a lone wolf terrorist then, a person armed with a bomb?  Perhaps the rest of the sentence will tell us: 

“…of the sort that we saw in Norway recently.” 

Obviously, the president is not talking about a bomb, because a handgun and an automatic rifle were supposedly used in Norway.  The “single weapon” that President Obama is referring to, then, is a gun.  Wait.  Is the president calling handguns and rifles (even a .22 squirrel rifle) weapons of mass destruction?  The phrase “single weapon…able to carry out wide-scale massacres of the sort we saw in Norway” would seem to suggest that very thing. 

This is incredible, but totally consistent.  The War on Terror was supposedly about weapons of mass destruction.  If a handgun were classified a weapon of mass destruction, then the government could consider it a terrorist weapon.  Anyone carrying a gun then, could be classified as a terrorist.  Remember that President Obama defined a lone wolf terrorist as “somebody with a single weapon.”   That translates to ‘anybody with a gun.’ The War on Terror comes to Anytown, USA.

The problem is that the president bases his description of a lone wolf terrorist on the capability of a weapon and not the actions of an individual.  Instead of describing a lone wolf terrorist as “a single person who carries out wide-scale massacres,” the president focuses on the capability of a weapon to produce mass casualties as the basis for his definition.  He’s making it about the weapon and not the person.

This is frightening.  It would be the same if a guy went around bashing people’s skulls in with a baseball bat.  Would the government consider baseball bats weapons of mass destruction?  Would all baseball players then be considered terrorists?  Do you see where this type of thinking would go in a hurry?

But what separates baseball players and terrorists is, among other things, ideology.  We should know something of the psychology and ideology of the lone wolf.  The President’s next statement gives us some ideal:

“You know, when you’ve got one person who is deranged or driven by a hateful ideology, they can do a lot of damage, and it’s a lot harder to trace those lone wolf operators.”

This is the final characteristic of a lone wolf terrorist.  Not only does he carry a “single weapon” (READ handgun), “able to carry out mass-scale massacres,” but he is “deranged” and “driven by a hateful ideology.”  No one would disagree with the first part of this statement.  A deranged person with a handgun can do a lot of damage.  I would have a problem with the second part, however, because the President doesn’t define what he (and by extension, the government) considers a “hateful ideology.”

Or doesn’t he?

Remember, the president referred to the Norway massacre, and it’s no secret that the media is calling the alleged shooter, Anders Breivik, a “Christian fundamentalist.” 

Is “Christian fundamentalism”—what we would call Biblical Christianity—the “hateful ideology” to which President Obama refers?  Well, anyone who has heard his opinions on Christianity would have no difficulty answering this question.  Also notice that, with his wording, the President associates insanity with Christianity.  That ought to tell you what he really thinks of us.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvnY8WY24bA

Understand, folks, that the President is communicating a major policy shift with regard to terrorism.  When Bush invaded Iraq, beginning the War on Terror, the impetus was supposedly weapons of mass destruction, which, at the time, meant nuclear weapons (remember the hearings on C-Span featuring that one Arab gentleman talking about the nuclear weapons inspections in Iraq?), and the terrorists were the Taliban.

Now what President Obama is essentially saying is that, at least for now, the Taliban is on the back burner, and “lone wolf terrorists,” (which, by his definition, means anyone with a weapon and a “hateful ideology”), are the government’s primary concern.  The term “weapons of mass destruction” no longer applies only to nuclear weapons, but has been expanded to include a “single weapon” (such as a handgun), because it is “able to carry out wide-spead massacres.” 

It is being implied (but later it will be openly stated) that handguns are weapons of mass destruction, and it is being implied (but later it will be stated openly) that Christians are terrorists.

What Christians need to understand is that it seems the President is giving us a very simple math equation.

A person + A handgun + A Christian ideology = A Terrorist

It will soon be open season on all Christians.  And that is what this is really all about.

By the way, have you noticed that the media have conveniently forgotten that survivors of the Norway massacre originally said that there was a second gunman?  In a court of law, their testimony would be considered evidence and conveniently forgetting it would be obstruction of justice.  The same thing happened at Columbine, where the survivors said there was a third shooter.  The same thing happened on 9/11, where survivors AND firefighters on the scene said there were explosions in the towers.  We are being set up–again.  

I have believed all along that the Norway massacre was a planned event that would be used to get rid of guns–and Christians.  

Prior to his election, President Obama was rabidly anti-gun.  

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z745MfGynYY

He only employed pro-Second Amendment rhetoric to get elected.

The Bible has given us ample warning that these things would come to pass, and now we are seeing it with our own eyes.  Persecution is coming.  Are you spiritually prepared?  Is your family?  Get right with Jesus.  Pray for the strength to overcome to the end.

If you need encouragement, go to the end of The Book.  We win.  

If you are not a Christian, but you can see that the Bible predicts events like Norway, and you realize that if the Bible is right about that, then perhaps it is right about other things–like God’s coming judgment on this sinful world, then you need to get right with Jesus.

Understand that things like the Japanese tsunami are merely a dress rehearsal for the final act, coming to a neighborhood near you.  Make the right move.  Get right with Jesus now.  It will be the best decision you will ever make.

Be encouraged and look up; your redemption draweth nigh.

The Still Man