NY Times: What's Left To Say?

It would seem this increasingly irrelevant, financially insolvent rag, The New York Times, has figured out how worthless it is in a market economy. The fact is, playing rallying point and punching bag for the Right is its only real opportunity to play a significant role in media today. What else is it going to do to generate any buzz, no one reads it?

And so, banking on an Obama administration, their audition for the New Pravda is all but complete. All the news that's fit to print, assuming the messiah-in-chief would approve, of course. They should do away with margins in that bird cage liner, since the entire paper is so marginal now.

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

So what are you worried about? Have McCain print his editorial in the Washington Times or the New York Post. Drop it into the WSJ. Maybe get it read on FOX News. Surely these media outlets are just as valid as their Evil Liberal Counterpart NYT. McCain shouldn't have anything to fear on this, because the media is simply exercising its own discretion based on the expectations of its readership.

What? Do you want to run off in a huff and pass the Fairness Doctrine all of a sudden?

Seriously, go cry about it.

[SacTownMan]

More of the same.

I posted in the thread about Barry's free press Op ed last week in the "Rag" that they should be compelled to provide equal space due to the Equal Time law covering elections.

The MSM groupies follow him around like puppy dogs and the "Rag" continues to be in the tank for him. There are still those blinded by the "One" that claim the government is out to get them but are not bothered by a press that has no intention of ever doing their job in a "fair and balanced" way.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Seems that if no one reads the NYT it would sort of moot to print the rebuttal. Then it seems only fair and proper to give voice to both candidates. Something like 105 minutes of TV news for Obie vs 48 minutes for Johnny Mac. You're barking up the wrong tree if expecting fairness from the media (right or left) Like so many other things one party or the other does to stack the deck on their side, maybe the Fairness Doctrine wasn't the worst thing to have around. How de wheel do turns........

[JustOneMan]

Now now...this is all part of the "new" affirmative action program. Obama is a minority and diserves to have more time than that old white guy! I wonder which white guy on Barry;s payroll wrote it for him?

JOM

[Mr DeBakey]

Maybe McCain's piece was called
"Obama's Plan for Iraq - disaster along the Iraq/Pakistan Border"

[LogicalUS]

Guess what IslamoLlama...

Despite the salivating coverage by the media arm of the Democratic party, America will reject this moron for President and the "intelletuals" at NBC, CBS, NY Times will be left scratching their heads.

So enjoy your smirking at the full-on display on the what your boys, Reid and Pelosi, are constantly crying about. There is a reason why the NY Times has only about 5 more years before they go under.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Pravda had more points of view than the Times.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Guess what IslamoLlama...

Despite the salivating coverage by the media arm of the Democratic party, America will reject this moron for President and the "intelletuals" at NBC, CBS, NY Times will be left scratching their heads. --"

Oh shits! You're right!

[Swibbie]

"because the media is simply exercising its own discretion based on the expectations of its readership". IslamoLlama, you mean both of its readers are Obama supporters??? I'm shocked...shocked I tell ya.

But in an ironic way, McCain's editorial will be posted in all those places you mentioned and more. It will get FAR MORE exposure with the NYT rejection than it ever would have gotten otherwise. And rational thinking people will recognize this kind of thing for what it is. Trust me, this can only hurt Obama. But I don't suspect you're smart enough to realize that. Shipley at the NYT certainly isn't.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- But in an ironic way, McCain's editorial will be posted in all those places you mentioned and more. It will get FAR MORE exposure with the NYT rejection than it ever would have gotten otherwise. And rational thinking people will recognize this kind of thing for what it is. --"

Are you kidding? I'm fucking counting on it. If McCain's response to Obama is half as good as his "That's not change we can believe in" speech, we're in for a real swing in the polls. No doubt about it. McCain has the momentum here, and he's really going to move his numbers if he can just lots and lots of people to listen to him.

Please, someone give that man a mega-phone.

[sunflower]

So what are you worried about? Have McCain print his editorial in the Washington Times or the New York Post.

uh, I think the McCain team sorta punked you and the Times by giving it to Drudge. He's ruling the news cycle, so no need for the Post or Washington Post now, Einstein.

[sunflower]

So what are you worried about? Have McCain print his editorial in the Washington Times or the New York Post.

uh, I think the McCain team sorta punked you and the Times by giving it to Drudge. He's ruling the news cycle, so no need for the Post or Washington Post now, Einstein.

[seekeronos]

The NYT is hardly worthy to be considered for wrapping fish or lining bird cages.

Scooping up cat poop or dog poop might be an honourable vocation for anything coming off the NYT's presses though.

[sunflower]

So what are you worried about? Have McCain print his editorial in the Washington Times or the New York Post.

uh, I think the McCain team sorta punked you and the Times by giving it to Drudge. He's ruling the news cycle, so no need for the Post or Washington Post now, Einstein.

[Fred]

The NY Times should have published McSame's editorial. Then the American people would have something to put in the birdcage, or to clean up with after the dog has had an accident.

A shitty editorial deserves a shitty destination.

This election is going to be a rout. An absolute pounding.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The NYT is hardly worthy to be considered for wrapping fish or lining bird cages.

Scooping up cat poop or dog poop might be an honourable vocation for anything coming off the NYT's presses though. --"

This still begs the question of why the right wing it turning itself into a tizzy over being denied the honor of an editorial post. Why even offer? Shouldn't McCain be snubbing the NYT and printing exclusively in right wing periodicals, due to their innate superiority?

This is all so confusing.

[BobInStamford]

Oh my! A 23%er has declared the NYT irrelevant!! This is the chance that the CONSERVATIVE Moonies over at the Washington Times have been waiting for!! The Moonie paper of record is here!!! That little old man will be heard from yet!

[templar knight]

Just more proof of how hypocritical the bastards on the Left are.

Here's the NYT's speaking, "Uh, well...just so long as your editorial agrees with our nutroot biases, we will be glad to publish it, but if you were to disagree, that just can't be allowed, as our readers prefer an echo chamber. They're very sensitive."

[SacTownMan]

Hey Lame-o you have finally posted something I can agree with:

"This is all so confusing."

I posted a while back about the law requiring equal time for candidates and the fact that with the "Rags" free sponsorship of Barry's "plan" for Iraq (you know.. cut and run) that they should be compelled to provide equal time for McCain.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/07/obama-i-have-a.html#comment-122445986

This should not be compared with that famous leftist version of sensorship called the "Fairness Doctrine". Well you said it much better than I could at the time...

"a dirty liberal anti-freedom-of-speech measure only evil communists who can't get real media attention".

The times actually expects him to rewrite his op-ed to include withdrawl timelines and dates to "mirror" Barry's pile of crap.

[Concerned Citizen]

Is the rejected editorial posted at Drudge?

If not, you can find it posted at Gretawire.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"This election is going to be a rout. An absolute pounding."

YES!!!! And thanks to you assholes driving less our 9% congress feels compelled to raise fuel taxes 10 cents. Inconsiderate bastards, dont you know that roads still have to be maintained. Youo leave them no choice.....

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Here's the NYT's speaking, "Uh, well...just so long as your editorial agrees with our nutroot biases, we will be glad to publish it, but if you were to disagree, that just can't be allowed, as our readers prefer an echo chamber. They're very sensitive." --"

HAHA! Wow, that's some healthy ignorance. The NYT didn't reject the essay because it failed to agree with anyone's base. It rejected the essay because ...

"-- 'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.' --"

Yes, that's right kids. McCain produced another multi-paragraph screed about "winning in Iraq" and yet once again failed to define what "victory" would actually entail. Shipley, uninterested in printing another vapid puff piece (because he's already got Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and Roger Cohen on the payroll), decided to reject McCain's little ditty because it failed to provide his readership with additional insight into McCain's plans or platform.

Now, McCain could happily have shopped his editorial around. He even had the good decency to have it all printed on the Drudge Report - although Hurricane Dolly appears to get top billing - and I'm sure the WaTimes or the NYP or the WSJ would be happy to carry it. But he still needed to take another time out to stomp his feet and cry about how unfair the big mean media machine can be.

I'm guessing Shipley won't be invited to any future McCain BBQs. And that choice set on McCain's Straight Talk Express? Right out.

Don't worry, though. The NYT is going out of business in five years anyway. So they'll all get what's coming to them while McCain enjoys two healthy terms as America's 44th Big Puma.

:-p hehe.

[templar knight]

"The NYT's didn't reject the essay because it failed to agree with anyone's base."

Posted by IslamoMoe at 3:55pm

"...because the media is simply exercising its own discretion based on the expectations of its readership."

IslamMoe, you're stupid. Now you're contradicting yourself on the same thread. Next thing we know, you'll be arguing with yourself. Good luck with winning that one! LOL!

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Isn't the NYT rejection a good thing? Since the Times is irrelevant and going broker, as evidenced by its brand new shining skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan (I guess they could only afford an undesirable and cheap plot of real estate built in an area known for inexpensive construction costs), wouldn't McCain rather have his editorial published at a more relevant forum? Plus, the conservatives get to whine about the cursed evil bias displayed, yet again, by a newspaper that should be tried for treason. This is a big win for McCain.

[Yoda]

Unequal OpEd access like this sounds suspiciously like a defacto campaign contribution for Obama in the form of free advertising.

[LOL]

It's good to know the wingnuts never stop complaining about the slightest of slights. What a bunch of whiny titty-babies y'all still are. No wonder you screwed up in Iraq.

[yuri 202]

the fun part is watching the liberal working today's shift - it's obvious there's really only a couple of them. they change names, but the snarky whining is identical - watching the liberal defend this crap.

like they always do, no matter how egregious the latest outrage. like they did when those *other* leftist icons ended up butchering millions of their own people. "hey! everyone knows you really DO have to break eggs to make an omelette!" scratch a liberal, wound a control-freak fascist.

sadly, the major networks were unable to comment on this, as they're all on obama's plane overseas.

[Spartan112]

Is it possible the thing was just badly written?

[Comrade Socialist Sheep for Obaaaaa-ma]

"--- YES!!!! And thanks to you assholes driving less our 9% congress feels compelled to raise fuel taxes 10 cents. Inconsiderate bastards, dont you know that roads still have to be maintained. Youo leave them no choice..... ---"

No, no, no, my dear Comrade Willie.

We MUST increase the road (gas) taxes by at least $1.50 per gallon. Only when gasoline is $7.57 per gallon or more can we successfully change from the outdated imperialist system of measure from gallons to the system the rest of the civilised world uses, the Système International. Only our poor, beleaguered hypercapitalist nation (along with such noteworthy world powers as Myanmar and Liberia) still do not use this most brilliant Système International, known to us also as the Metric System.

If we can get gas over $7.57, then we can also say that it is $2 per litre, thus making everyone feel better with smaller numbers, paying off the cost of the Great White Devil's war, AND helping the newly selected Great Leader Obama to pay for the new Revolutionary Government which shall bring HOPE™ and CHANGE™ to every little American boy and girl, and all socialist sheep as well...

Just think! $2 per LITRE, and only half of it going to the kind and loving mother, our government, lead by our Great Leader, to give us a brighter tomorrow!

Only then shall our grand designs for relocating everyone from wasteful suburbs to high-density ecopolises powered by cow farts, wind, and solar, where great murals of happy, contented citizen-workers living under the peaceful and beneficent care of our Great Leader adorn the adobe walls of great, earth-friendly buildings be realized.

[seekeronos]

SacTownMan brought up an excellent point on the difference between "Fairness Doctrine" (which was a form of censorship) and the "Equal Time" law regarding political candidates.

Don't get me wrong, I am big believer in the market driven media (a big reason why the NYT and other established lefty-biased old media outlets are not fairing as well as they did a generation ago when the Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land)... but candidates - especially for the office of the POTUS - should get equal time.

Ms. Shipley has her editorial right to reject a badly written piece, but she should also realize that it opens her up for much more close scrutiny, especially at a time where the MSM is seen as wetting itself to be Obama's lap dog.

It doesn't do much for the MSM's projection of its supposed "impartiality" when the newsies/groupies completely ignore McCain to sheepishly follow Obama about, doing nothing but fluff pieces on how well he can shoot a basketball.

Indeed, it looks suspiciously like a free campaign advertisement.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- "The NYT's didn't reject the essay because it failed to agree with anyone's base."

Posted by IslamoMoe at 3:55pm

"...because the media is simply exercising its own discretion based on the expectations of its readership."

IslamMoe, you're stupid. Now you're contradicting yourself on the same thread. Next thing we know, you'll be arguing with yourself. Good luck with winning that one! LOL! --"

The readership expected a definition for victory in Iraq. There is no contradiction. McCain could have defined victory in whatever manner he chose. He could have spelled out any strategy for victory he preferred. The NYT was not censoring him because they didn't like the options he gave. But simply saying "We have to stay till we win" was not an informative opinion, and the editor wasn't going to waste column space on it.

If he were writing about the economy and made the statement, "We have a strong economy" without defining what "strong economy" meant, I imagine even the WSJ would be looking at the statement sideways. If he claimed the budget needed to be balanced, but refused to discuss what he intended to cut and what he intended to continue, who would take him seriously?

But when asking for an explanation or definition is a sign of liberal bias... I don't know what to say. Clearly, "bias" has taken on its own new definition, because I've never heard anyone claim that conservatism was built on a platform of being deliberately vague.

"-- Don't get me wrong, I am big believer in the market driven media (a big reason why the NYT and other established lefty-biased old media outlets are not fairing as well as they did a generation ago when the Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land)... but candidates - especially for the office of the POTUS - should get equal time. --"

Yeah, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. The Fairness Doctrine was an attempt to extend the Equal Time protections to more media sources - namely, talk radio. And, again, you're being absurd. McCain has no trouble getting his Op-Ed published. Drudge was happy to publish it and he's got - what? - 3 million readers a day? The WSJ, the WaPo, the WaTimes, the NYP, the Chicago Tribune, the LATimes... how many of these alternatives would have been willing to publish McCain's piece? There is no shortage of mega-phones for McCain to speak from.

Furthermore, conservatives were beating the drum for months on Obama's Iraq visit.
http://www.gop.com/
The FOXites were practically slobbering over themselves waiting for a gaff they could pounce on. Aside from the fact that Barry is simply more interesting and charismatic than Johnny, Obama is touring the central front in the GOP WoT, while McCain goes on fund raisers in Middle America. The Obama's Trip To Iraq has been pimped out endless on the GOP's side of the aisle. This was supposed to be their big moment to prove how Barack was totally wrong and we'd finally found all the flowers and candy we were promised back in '03. That it got turned into a media circus shouldn't surprise anybody. Everything worth TV time gets turned into a media circus.

The GOP got exactly what they asked for, and now they're all bitter and sore about it.

[templar knight]

Moe, you don't know what the hell the readership of the NYT's expected from McCain. They had no expectations beyond reading what the guy said in his op-ed piece. The editor decided he didn't want the positions of McCain and Obama compared, and that's fine with me. I don't give a rat's ass, myself.

My only concern in the whole affair has to do with the NYTs calling itself the newspaper of record, when in fact it isn't, since it only prints one side most of the time. But everyone with a brain knows the NYTs hasn't been objective, and has supported Democrats and liberals for years, so there. That's why it is losing readership and money, two facts you liberals can't deny. If it goes away, it won't be a loss for the majority of Americans. My hope is that a lot of liberals who are investing in it lose a lot of money. Poetic justice that would be!

[Mr DeBakey]

"It is standard procedure on our [NYT] Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously."

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Moe, you don't know what the hell the readership of the NYT's expected from McCain. They had no expectations beyond reading what the guy said in his op-ed piece. --"

I know piece rejection is not unprecedented.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/22/bolton-nyt-mccain/
And that the editor of a newspaper has the freedom to publish what he sees fit.

"-- My only concern in the whole affair has to do with the NYTs calling itself the newspaper of record, when in fact it isn't, since it only prints one side most of the time. But everyone with a brain knows the NYTs hasn't been objective, and has supported Democrats and liberals for years, so there. That's why it is losing readership and money, two facts you liberals can't deny. --"

Print media has been losing steam across the board. Singling out the NYT for losing readership because it is too liberal, when the WSJ, the Washington Times, and a host of local papers have been fading makes about as much sense as singling out Bank of America for bad mortgage loans because they hire too many gays, when the entire industry been feeling the pinch.

The NYT isn't losing readership because it is "liberal". It's losing readership because the medium is becoming increasingly defunct in an internet age. You'll notice that liberal blogs Daily Kos and Firedoglake are doing just fine - Kos being second only to Drudge in daily unique readership. Liberal broadcasters like Keith Olbermann have actually been gaining viewership in the face of fading FOX News ratings. And liberal political candidates have been winning elections.

[Althor]

The only "standard procedure" at your NYT, Mr. DeBakey, is to deride America, divulge classified information that would help our enemies and put our troops and our citizens at risk, uphold the secularist godless agenda of the liberal "Elitists" that know better than all of us Yahoos holding in resentment to our guns and Bibles, and unashamedly openly campaign for an Obama "Marxist" victory in November!

The NYT, by its own editorial choice, is no longer even a "rag"! It's but a propaganda surrogate of the Marxist, socialist, hate-America, internationalist, "Fifth Column" left! At this point the National Enquirer has more credence, than the NYT.

And the day it goes bankrupt, good riddance! There are better uses for newsprint paper...such as inexpensive toilet paper that will not smudge you with cheap ink, as when you clean yourself with one of the NYT pages...which is the only thing that they are good for!

Now, be a good "comrade" and tell that to your Editor, would you.

Althor

[Mr DeBakey]

Not my NYT - I read it maybe once a month.

“unashamedly openly campaign for an Obama "Marxist" victory” – That’s very interesting, could you link to couple of articles for me?

“Obama "Marxist" victory” – To me most of Obama's policies are quite moderate/conservative [He's no Denis Kucinich] - Which of his policies indicate his Marxist nature?

“It's but a propaganda surrogate of the Marxist, socialist, hate-America, internationalist, "Fifth Column" left!” - The NYT has printed at least seven op-eds by Mr McCain in the past dozen years; is he part of the conspiracy too?

“as when you clean yourself with one of the NYT pages.” – I’ve never tried that, thanks for the heads-up!

[seekeronos]

"--- The NYT isn't losing readership because it is "liberal". It's losing readership because the medium is becoming increasingly defunct in an internet age. ---"

This is probably much more the case, given the NYT's market share in NYC, which as a voting bloc has tilted generally to the centre-left for several decades. The NY lefties, and what few righties there are, are taking much more to the blogs and online media. It is sort of like what happened in the decades following Mr. Gutenberg's printing press, where squadrons of manuscript transcription monks and other scribes began to find other work as typesetters and such.

"--- You'll notice that liberal blogs Daily Kos and Firedoglake are doing just fine - Kos being second only to Drudge in daily unique readership. ---"

I wouldn't know firsthand. I try to stay away from the mind-poisoning cesspool that is the Big Orange of Scariness, and I think I have heard of FireyLapDog in passing conversation once. So I guess I'll just take yer word for it that they are the blogs du jour for all respectable liberals, lefties, hippies and other such life.

"--- Liberal broadcasters like Keith Olbermann have actually been gaining viewership in the face of fading FOX News ratings. ---"

Really? That guy is easily as big of a blowhard as Rush Limbaugh ever was. Except that unlike Rush, he isn't even remotely listenable, much less even occasionally humourous.

He is absolutely and completely convinced of his own inflated rhetoric, and takes himself way more seriously than most people do him.

"--- And liberal political candidates have been winning elections. ---"

Perhaps so in 2006, , and though Obama is practically the first horseman of the Apocalypse (read about him in Revelation chapter 6 ... I have no time for a lengthy explanation of Biblical eschatology today) but this remains yet to be seen in the 2008 downticket races.

Indeed, I think Obama will win, and it will not be a good thing for this nation.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- I try to stay away from the mind-poisoning cesspool that is the Big Orange of Scariness --"

That's 'The Great Orange Satan' or GOS for short.
It's important to remain aware of these internet traditions.

"-- and though Obama is practically the first horseman of the Apocalypse (read about him in Revelation chapter 6 ... I have no time for a lengthy explanation of Biblical eschatology today) but this remains yet to be seen in the 2008 downticket races. --"

Obama isn't the Anti-Christ. Even Pastor Hagee assured us of that. The Anti-Christ has to be Jewish or blah blah religious dogma blah blah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse#White_Horse

Under certain interpretations, the first horseman of the Apocalypse is actually Jesus. And I'm pretty confident that Jesus is a good thing. Maybe after Obama gets elected President, everyone who voted for him gets Raptured. Who knows? I'm banking on just another Presidential election, but the Mayan Calendar runs out in 2012, so...

[seekeronos]

There are some distinctions between the First Horseman (in Revelation 6) and the return of our Great god and Eternal King, the Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 19).

I do not believe that the First Horseman (hereinafter, "H1") is the Antichrist. He may represent the forces of anti-Christianity, or the primacy of a particular world institution or a world power. Nor do I believe that H1 is a type of Christ, nor an actual appearance of Christ, since the Bible only discusses two appearances of Christ, the first as the Suffering Servant and Lamb of God which took away the sins of the world, and the second as the Redeemer-King Conquering Lion of Judah, the Salvation of the Lord, Yahshua Ha Mosiach.

Consider the equipment H1 shows up with: He has a single crown on his head, and carries an empty bow. He somehow goes forth conquering everything, but without using a sword (the typical implement used in ancient warfare), and one wouldn't think you'd get much accomplished as an archer without any arrows. The white horse marks him as a sort of a triumphant figure, as he brings a sort of a peace to the world.

H1's purpose is as symbol, pointing to an illusory and rather short lived peace brought about by some implied use of force. Now my own personal opinion on H1 is that he represents the effects of a particularly popular politician (not necessarily the person of "the Antichrist") or a political movement which popularizes the surrender of national sovereignty to a supranational or global entity or council.

Who better for such a role in this current era than the sitting US president - especially one who may claim to renounce Bush's pre-emptive/preventive war policy in favour of diplomatic/soft-power solution that would cause others to "follow the beast" and surrender up their national prerogatives for the global good?

This horse has tried to ride before, in the forms of world Communism, and to a much more limited degree, the attempts of both Islam and the Holy See of Rome as well (though all having mandates for suborning all secular potentates under them, but lacking either power, economy, or opportunity to do so).

Now contrast this with the appearance of the Saviour, our Blessed Hope, in Revelation 19:

King Jesus returns upon a white horse, crowned with many diadems (crowns) upon His Head. He carries with Him a sword (the Word of God) which He uses to slay the wicked. Note that unlike the pretender "conqueror" of Rev. 6, not only is King Jesus a conquering King, but He has the power and the weapon to back up His claims. Following behind Him are the armies of heaven, the angelic host and the cloud of believers who are witness to His glory.

There is also further description of the Rider in Rev. 19, as having a few names exclusive to Himself:

"Faithful and True" (v.11)

"The Word of God" (v.13)

"King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (v.16)

As well as a name only He Himself knows. (v.12)

The writer, St. John, goes on to describe in great detail many other things about Conquering Redeemer-King -- a much greater role and far more enduring than the passing of H1 and his three fellow horsemen - where H1 can only offer a temporary man-made peace which will fail when H2 (War) shows up, Jesus brings eternal peace to the troubled family of Mankind.

Where H1 is followed by H2 (War) and H3 (Famine), Jesus will feed us with the Words of Life as well as the fruit from the tree of Life, along with Living Water.

And Jesus has defeated H4 (Death) through His sacrifice on the Cross, and will execute Righteous Judgment by tossing Death and Hades into the Lake of Fire, which was prepared from eternity for the Devil and his fallen angels.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- H1's purpose is as symbol, pointing to an illusory and rather short lived peace brought about by some implied use of force. Now my own personal opinion on H1 is that he represents the effects of a particularly popular politician (not necessarily the person of "the Antichrist") or a political movement which popularizes the surrender of national sovereignty to a supranational or global entity or council. --"

That allusion could just as easily point to Ronald Reagen as Barack Obama. Reagen used the threat of nuclear war - an empty quiver - as an open ended tactic against the USSR. His "star wars" project masterfully parlayed Soviet fear into political capital. And after the Soviet Union collapsed, the Western World entered into an era of peace not seen since before WWI.

Meanwhile, Reagen funneled money and guns to Saddam and the Iranian Mullahs while diverting cash to Nicaraguan Contras. That sounds like a "false peace" if ever I heard of one.

I'm not sure where you're getting the "one world government" shtick, although NATO or generic US Imperialism could be used to fill this hole. I still don't see the biblical metaphor you are referencing beyond the singularity of H1. A universal non-governmental movement towards peace could just as easily exemplify this as an actual one-world government.

And if you went back to post-Napoleonic Europe you could find other adequate analogies between biblical prophecy and world events. The fact is that human history repeats itself often as warring people grow tired and put down their weapons while their peaceful decedents pick them back up again in response to scare resources or aggressive ambitions.

Revelations was written during the height of the Roman Empire, when many dissatisfied citizens were eagerly awaiting its downfall. John was a political prophet and foresaw the end of a Dynasty some thousand years old. Perhaps he picked out the threads of fate and was able to foreshadow the fall of every major human civilization. In that sense, he was truly a savant. But claiming that President Barry is really and truly the first, last, and only figure to meet the H1 mold writes off a great deal of history on the assumption that THIS time you're really living in the ends times, unlike every other time when biblical scholars have claimed the same thing.

[seekeronos]

"--- But claiming that President Barry is really and truly the first, last, and only figure to meet the H1 mold writes off a great deal of history on the assumption that THIS time you're really living in the ends times ---"

Did you truly read my post, Moe?

You seem to neglect the fact that my reference was to the office of the POTUS, and not specifically Barry O. More loosely, the role of H1, like his partners, is not necessarily limited to the agency of one human or a human lifespan; the horsemen are very symbolic of the activity of humankind throughout time, and especially in the time between Christ's ascension and His awaited return.

And yes, human history is quite cyclical, repeating itself often.

"--- I'm not sure where you're getting the "one world government" shtick, although NATO or generic US Imperialism could be used to fill this hole. I still don't see the biblical metaphor you are referencing beyond the singularity of H1. A universal non-governmental movement towards peace could just as easily exemplify this as an actual one-world government. ---"

I disagree. The "New World Order", as presaged by the first Pres. Bush in 1989, has long been a goal of certain movements and Utopian idealists going back well before the birth of our Republic. It is only in this century, and the latter half of the last one, that such a world order - really a code word for a united world government that has sway in the affairs of all of humanity - been truly possible.

NATO is but a regional organization that was originally built to repel the Soviet Union, itself a proponent of its own world order for global socialism/communism. Soviet Russian aspirations for global dominance were significantly dimmed by the acquisition of American nuclear power, along with the failure to gain the whole of Germany and its economic power under Soviet control -- or at least denying it from Europe and the USA... and add to that, the USSR's failure to maintain Red China as a vassal state. NATO's role was necessary for as long as the USSR remained a threat, and admittedly, Reagan's handling of the Russia vis-a-vis its weakness following its disastrous Afghan adventure alongside its failing economy was masterful.

(As a side note, it is noteworthy that the American empire is doing what the USSR failed to do, in maintaining a military presence in A'stan and Iraqi; moreover, it is doing it over a far greater distance and a far greater expense for a longer period of time, with comparatively less economic damage done over that same time, although what that has been done is beginning to be felt strongly, sub-prime mortgage crisis/bank collapses notwithstanding.)

The UN is a side-show distraction with little power to do much of anything but act as a glorified debating club, passing weak and ineffective resolutions, and foul up the economies of developing nations, or utterly destroying (or being an accessory to the destruction of) impoverished nations. Like NATO, it played a certain role in the post WW2 world, but the nation in the driver's seat of world affairs for much of its run was the USA, with the UK acting as a sometime navigator, and France and Germany as the impatient and often inconvenient brats in the back seat perpetually whinging about how awful the USA's driving has been, and the former USSR being much like that ill-mannered SUV driver who doesn't know his turn signal from his brake pedal.

Nevertheless, apart from the USA's influence, the UN is largely useless as a purveyor of world government, however much it would like to pretend that it is.

The only few powers capable of truly binding the world up (or most of it) under one power would be the USA, and possibly Red China, should the USA fail utterly through the destruction of its economy or its rapid devolvement into several dozen balkanized city-states (a possibility given its imperial makeup of several discordant and disparate groups of people, especially if many of these have given up on the Constitution and see its federal government as having irrevocably broken its contract with its peoples).

The EU also possesses the possibility of emerging as the final driver for a (mostly) one world government, but I see a US-breakup as being more likely in this century than a single, unified Europa under a single constitution and a single armed forces among the many other things that European can't seem to reach an agreement on (partly the giving up of sovereignty, and the old "don't trust the Germans with guns" phobia).

Red China, as of now, lacks the one thing that sets the US as the best candidate for heading up the global, end-times empire -- a global currency and a global culture of counsumption that appeals to nearly everyone.

Despite what some sectors of the media might say about the Sinosphere and the Islamosphere rejecting "corrupt American ideas", the American-designed, Chinese-manufactured Nikes are flying off the shelves, and MTV is marketing its Halal-form of Arab-sourced but American influenced Islamic friendly entertainment into millions of households in oil-soaked Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states.

I wouldn't worry for Chinese ascendancy until and unless Chinese original designed and manufactured autos are more prevalent in US showrooms than Japanese or US marks, or until Chinese original designer labels and franchise restaurants overtake their US or European equivalents inside the USA.

It is altogether possible that China can do such a thing, with its natural advantage of having the greatest share of the earth's population at more than 20%. Or India, which is actually better positioned to become the world's pre-eminent economy (and with two security threats at its borders China and Pakistan, and a far greater burden of raising the standard of living for its multiple millions of impoverished citizens, it isn't of a great mind to intervene in the rest of the world's affairs as the USA feels free to do).

Therefore, for the time being, the USA remains the most likely candidate through which single world government may come.

As we draw nearer to Christ's return... in no other era has any one global imperial power possessed such a measure of both soft and hard power far beyond any other in history relative to its contemporaries' power) had the ability to bring about a world peace, either by cultural influence (European, Latin American, and Pacific Zones), economic entrapment (consider our "trapping" of Red China with our trade debt, and certain developing nations through WMF loans) or as Bush wont to use, pure military force.

In short, the USA at present, is such a global empire strong enough to force a peace upon a broad enough sector of the world so as to meet the Biblical criteria a certain period of global peace such as has not existed in the 16 or so centuries since the fall of Rome, (which exclusive of the Sinosphere and Indosphere, as well as whatever civiliations existed in the Americas or sub-Saharan Africa at that time), nor throughout human history as a whole if inclusive of those nations unknown to the Roman worldview of St. John's time.

Indeed, there truly has not been a global empire where all the sons of Adam could sing the same song under the all of the stars of heaven together as one nation ever existed, save for the first empire on the Plains of Shinar under Nimrod's terrible reign, which God put an end to when He confused the speech of men.

Therefore, while H1 is a _type_ of an unifying antichrist, much as Friedrich Barbarossa, Cao-cao, Ghengis Temujin Khan, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Suleiman the Magnificent, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Kennedy, "Ronaldus Maximus" Reagan, the Roman Caesars, the Megadoux of the Alexandrian Empires, Kings of the Medes and Persians, and the Kings of Babylon and Syria as the successor states to Nimrod's Empire, all of these men were at best regional conquerors and/or unifiers, when taking into account the wider world.

They were types, pointing to the one consummate imperial power which will subjugate or otherwise compel all nations to yield themselves to that power, and that without the massive use of weapons that would ordinarily attend a plan of world conquest in ages past.

There yet remains one last imperial state and its leader who will more completely fulfill this role, as much as H2 (war) and the other horsemen will bring wars, famines, and death and pestilence though they have patrolled the earth for thousands of years, and have wrought their deeds in a smaller yet increasingly larger scale until now, when they are revealed in the fullness of the Revelation given by the Lord Jesus unto St. John, their works shall be of such a scope unseen since in human history.

I make no prophecy regarding Barry O. as that "man on the white horse with an empty bow, subduing the world before him", but I am just observing that his words and proposed actions seem to be better able to rise to meet the standard better than many others in recent history. JFK succeeded in narrowly averting a nuclear war over Cuba (though coming chillingly close to touching it off), much as Reagan and his men helped contribute to the USSR's eventual downfall; while these events were helpful to the rise of the West in the 20th century, they hardly brought an end to all wars.

The coming antichrist power, as referenced to by the activity and appearance of H1, shall bring peace to nearly ALL the nations of the earth for a period of 42 months, or nearly 3½ years. After that, "all hell breaks out" on earth as this temporary peace fails, and the other three horsemen bring their horrible gifts along with them.

To claim that some sort of non-governmental organization or idea or philosophy is capable of creating the sort of change in human thinking on a global level smacks of intellectual dishonesty; humans are essentially greedy and evil, selfish creatures that at best will seek to make their lives better up through a community or possibly a regional level: therefore government - a powerful government that controls both the economic destiny as well as the regional military security of most of the world, as well as the media engines/mass mind control abilities that former empires and their leaders could only dream of possessing - is capable of such an astounding feat.

Truly, that government will be like the Beast of Revelation 13:

"----- And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? -----" (Revelation 13:4, KJV)

Beyond that, most nations are ill-equipped to compel the majority of the world's nations (which have vastly divergent and often conflicting national interests) to give up their sovereignty for a "greater global good".

Frankensteinish monstrosities such as the UN and the WMF and WHO exist not because of some globalist sense of equality between the great powers and minor powers, weak nations, and former colonies; they exist because of a need for a balance of power (the greed of the haves vs. the "needs" of the have-nots) as well as a fleeting alignment of interests of some nations with others, i.e. certain African nations giving up their mineral/petroleum/monetary policy rights for food to the elite first-world nations.

Rather, NGOs like the UN and the WMF etc. exist because of a very small group of extremely powerful elites exact a great deal of wealth from enforcing and continuing the inequities and imbalances between nations whilst pretending to reverse them and "bring peace". The "peace" that exists today through the agency of these NGOs is hardly any more equitable or just (concerning the "conquered" or more currently "managed" nations of this era) than that endured by the various colonies and protectorates of the Pax Romana of St. John's time.

Human-made Religion in and of itself will not work, as Islam and poltically-driven Christianity (read: Catholicism and State Protestantism) have largely failed to subdue the world under the feet of their ecclesiastic structures. Nor have the Dharmic/Buddhist faiths done as much, but that is less a failure on their parts since the Dharmic faiths, to their credit, tend not to pursue or outwardly encourage an expansionist agenda.

Nor has any particular secular humanist philosophy achieved any success in bringing together fractious humanity under its banner, since humanist moral relativism continually moves its goalposts in a seemingly evil direction. Perhaps the only (questionably) good result of secular humanism is forcing the irrelevancy of State Protestantism and Catholicism.

Today, most European State Churches are very hollow, and have few followers in Europe and in the former European colonies; their counterparts in the USA and Canada are loosing so much steam that they have nearly gone apostate in hopes of gaining some easy believers instead of preaching a hard message of repentance and seeking after God's Word; those who are convicted of sin and preach repentance are disregarded as "extremists" and reactionaries who lack in Christ's love by not being accommodating of long-time regarded sins as homosexuality or adultery or the murder of children, much less adherence to the Bible in seemingly lesser issues.

Most modern "mainstream" churches are falling into Biblical heresy - the foremost being the ultra-heretical Church of England and most of its Anglican/Episcopalian offspring, and though secularism has largely succeeded in confining the Old Tigress of Rome in into her gilded cage in the Vatican, she ever struggles to break free - and to convince the other broken shards of unbiblical "christianity" to follow her lead, and perhaps even to join hands with pagans in a wider version of the Unitarian-Universalist apostasy.

The only truly just, equitable, and loving solution to the problems and sins that beset the sons and daughters of Adam's race is Jesus, and only when He is revealed from Heaven with His judgment against all unrighteousness will there be peace.

And then shall King Jesus rule with a righteous judgment, with a rod of iron over all the nations of Adam's family.