As a result of this post about what I believe BHO’s true identity to be (a theory many are not yet aware of, much less willing to credit, possibly including him) and the many new readers it has brought here, I thought it worth filling in more on the background/journey that brought me to this conclusion after 9+ months of entertaining the possibility and repeatedly pushing it aside as just crazy. This is not the complete picture, just another, slightly more earthly angle on it — one I expect will be far more familiar and easy to see.

Early last month, I wrote:

…the name of BHO’s enforcer, Rahm Emanuel, which in Hebrew can be translated as “Thunder, God with us.” In Revelation, thunder presages ominous announcements…

The origin of Rahm Emanuel’s first name is a bit murkier. The name Raham ([רחם, pronounced rakh'·am, with an extra ‘a’, in 1st Chronicles 2:44 [the only mention in scripture] means “pity, mercy, compassion” and also, according to my hard copy of Strong’s (H7357 & H7356): “womb; cherishing the fetus”.

Take OUT the ‘heh’ (i.e., reverse the process that God took with Abram, [blessing him] when he made him ‘Abraham’, and with Sarai, his wife, when He made her ‘Sarah’) and what do you have? Rahm.

In other words, take God out of ‘cherishing the fetus’… take God out of all notions of “pity, mercy and compassion” and replace them with their twisted, earthly equivalents [add in thunder] and you have… Rahm Emanuel, the right-hand man to the guy doing more to promote abortion and persecute Israel than anyone in a generation…

Ram/[Rahm also] implies a goat… often associated with both Islam… and Satan.

I also wrote, back in March, (when BHO took a run at crimping VA health benefits — head-feinting in the opposite direction he appears to be going in now with national healthcare communist ‘medicine’) about what a hypothetical leader would do if his goal were Derrida-esque, deconstruction (i.e., systematically chain-sawing the philosophical pillars of Western Civilization):

If one were to systematically and deliberately set out to destroy everything this country has stood for since it’s founding (and I take it as self-evident that those foundational, Constitutional principles are in the truest and most enduring sense ‘progressive’, e.g., that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness…) then there are several attributes one would need to have, and several critical, strategic things one would need to accomplish on the way to winning power and, very quickly, upon obtaining it.

Later that month, I expanded on that idea:

I am increasingly of the view that Obama is operating under an entirely different set of long-term objectives than most people assume he is. The idea of the “big lie” is that it is so big nobody will believe it until it’s too late and that anyone who does is automatically labeled a nut.

Specifically, if BHO is not attempting to “right the nation’s economic ship” and return life to roughly American/capitalist ‘normal’ in the way most people think about that, but instead is holding more steadfastly to his promise to ‘change’ than most imagine, then perpetuating a sense of crisis so as to consolidate power, shifting towards an unapologetically Socialist-European model and, erasing the distinctiveness of nations are precisely on track to his vision.

Then, yesterday, I found myself in discussion with good friend RB (H/T’d here on the update item), trying to explain how I’d come to reconcile the seemingly contradictory theories I’d laid out in an early-March post about BHOs already-evident failures (‘Bad Timing/Luck, Incompetence, or Malfeasance’). The short take: If he’s becoming increasingly effective at de(con)struction (aka, ‘change’), then how can he be incompetent? And if he’s incompetent, how can he be so effective at achieving those goals?

The conversation was extremely useful in that it forced me to crystallize my answer to that question… a kind of unified field theory of BHO that makes him, in my view, the ‘man of lawlessness’ or ‘coming world leader’ (aka, antichrist) described in scripture. If I were to sum it up in one word (and one word seldom does anything justice) it would be: arrogance.

Have other presidents been arrogant? No question. I would assert that he has taken it to a new level, in which everything needs to be superlative and responsibility for those superlatives — however flawed they may be in fact — need to track back directly to him. As but one small example, consider the words he uttered on either side of his EPT (ever-present teleprompter) crashing and shattering at/on his feet Monday (his first day back at work in his ‘third’ hundred days):

And that’s one reason why we took swift and aggressive action in the first months of my administration to pull our economy back from the brink, including the largest and most sweeping economic recovery plan in our nation’s history. If we had not taken that step, our cities would be in a even deeper hole, and state budget deficits would be nearly twice as large as they are right now, and tens of thousands of police officers and firefighters and teachers would be out of a job as we speak. And I think that all of you are aware of that.

I’m not going to elaborate on all the ways in which this reeks of arrogance. You either see it or you don’t. [I suppose that's a little arrogant on my part. I don't have my hand on the tiller of Western Civilization.]

Arrogance is the opposite of the Godly quality of humility. It is the opposite of intellectual honesty (being able to see and think clearly and admit mistakes rapidly and and move on without undue internal turmoil). It is the opposite of openness to Godly correction towards wisdom.

At its apogee (and this is hard, because much of what I’m describing here is lauded in our culture nowadays — i.e., we’re fish, attempting to determine if the water is wet and, if so, if that’s a bad thing) arrogance involves the projection of supreme, self-aggrandizing self-confidence, whether or not the same is felt. It can grade, easily and silently over into narcissism. In national and other leaders, that quality is hardly unknown, but in full flower, the disorder of NPD has been shown, throughout history, to be extremely dangerous.

By definition, arrogance and narcissism push others and their opinions aside. Including (especially) God, who by definition does not have opinions. He and His simply ARE.

In that vein, I highly recommend anyone to read C.S. Lewis’ short, lively speculative tract ‘The Great Divorce’, concerning the characteristics of hell and those who choose to go there (an infinite turning inward towards self that begins here on earth and continues for all eternity).

To the degree that Western Civilization has, at least nominally and with more than a few zig-zags and back-slides, developed along Judeo-Christian-God-fearing lines over several millennia, the man of lawlessness — the man of arrogance — seeks to change those things and remove the very foundations.

We should not be surprised when those wild ambitions come crashing down. It could not be otherwise.

In light of all this, and what I take to have been an auspicious if as-yet unheralded turning point in an ongoing spiritual war this past weekend, I thus find it unremarkable (i.e., fitting the expected template) that with the help of Rahm Emanuel, BHO is proposing to ‘ram’ through communist ‘medicine’ on a partisan vote during the sleepy summer season when it’s harder (e.g., for punch-drunk opponents) to marshal for a political fight and simultaneously make the U.S. government one of the biggest landlords since serfdom in the Middle Ages.

OK, I exaggerate… a little. 

In the meantime, I’m made aware, via comments, of another theory worth keeping in the back of our minds  based on another ‘big lie’ — “global warming” — and another supremely arrogant character convinced, quite literally, that he is the one destined to save the entire planet from certain doom via global government.

Hint: נגח (H5055, pronounced nä·gakh’), a verb that, especially in reference to horned animals, means “to push [aside], thrust, [or] GORE… to engage in thrusting, [to] wage war”, e.g., Exodus 21:28-32.

Of even greater interest is the use of the word נגח (nä·gakh’) in Ezekiel 34:20-24 which, in the ESV reads:

Therefore, thus says the Lord God to them: Behold, I, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you push with side and shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns, till you have scattered them abroad, I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep. And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the Lord; I have spoken.

With what seems like almost breath-taking significance in this context though, is the use of the word in Daniel 8:4 in what has been taken to be Daniel’s vision of Alexander the ‘Great’ (remember: scripture nearly always ‘echoes’… one historical event seldom being the only reflection of a given scriptural truth). Daniel 8:3-6 reads as follows in the ESV:

I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. No beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great. As I was considering, behold, a male goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground. And the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the canal, and he ran at him in his powerful wrath.

There are several other uses of H5055 in scripture but I’m out of time today to research them (and probably out of your kind readers’ patience also!) Discuss.