9/11 • 10 Years Later

“Eventually, September the 11th will be a date on the calendar. It will be like Pearl Harbor Day. For those of us who lived through it, it will be a day we’ll never forget.” – Former President George W. Bush, in an interview with the National Geographic Society, 2011

Time passes. The older I get, the more I realize that time passes, and seems to pass more quickly each year. Today’s events are tomorrow’s memories, and tomorrow’s memories soon become historical events. I was a freshman in high school during the 40th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This year marks 150 years since the start of the American Civil War. Next April will mark the 100th anniversary of the Titanic’s sinking.

And then there is today: The 10th anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

The September 11th attacks are still emotion-laden memory for most of us, but it will not be many years before the events of that day become just another item in a newspaper’s “This Day in History” feature – an important item, to be sure, but, still, just another historical event, like Pearl Harbor or the Titanic.

And yet, near or far, minor or momentous, anniversaries are important. They allow us to reexamine things; things that we think, things that we feel, things that we know. And to reexamine these things in the light of what we have learned since.

I would urge you to spend some time today in quiet reflection on the events from 10 years ago. May I suggest the following video, a panel discussion from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as a “jumpstart” to your reflections?

911 Panel Discussion from Southern Seminary on Vimeo.

Atom Bombs Save Lives! (And, Then Again, They Don't...)

Sixty-six years ago today, the United States dropped the first of only two atomic weapons ever used "in anger," i.e. for real, in battle, as weapons.

80,000 people died instantly in Hiroshima, with another 60,000 to die days, weeks, months, and even years later from the effects of the radiation burns they suffered that day. In total, it is estimated that 140,000 to 160,000 people died as a direct result of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Another 90,000 would die 3 days later, when the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

The United States War Department estimated that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would result in 500,000 to 1,000,000 American casualties, and at least twice that many Japanese casualties. Ending the war quickly saved 1.5 to 3 million lives, so, in that sense, the atom bombs saved many more lives than they ended.

But, then again, almost everybody who would have died in the invasion of Japan is now dead. Within the next 10 or so years, the entire WWII generation will have passed away. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, wars do not increase death, since 100% of us will die. All war does is concentrate death into a smaller space and time. But children were born who would not have been, if their parents had died in that invasion, so their lives, too, were, in a sense, spared by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So, in the light of history and the harsh math that a military planner must use, the atomic bombing of Japan saved a great many lives. But, also, in the harsh reality that, in a post-Genesis-3 world, everyone is under a sentence of death, the end of another war did nothing to stop the death toll that sin exacts.

The fact that all are sinners and that the just punishment for sin is death is the Bad News that makes the Good News so very, very good!

Declaration of Independence

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

69 Years Ago

69 years ago today, shortly before 8:00 a.m. local time, the Japanese attacked, and World War II began in earnest for the United States.


Sometime today, I'll watch Tora! Tora! Tora!. In my opinion, the best depiction of the attack on film.

National Geographic has a great page of Pearl Harbor stuff. (h.t. ThreeGirlDad)

Have You Forgotten?

9/11 Nine Years Later

For most of my life, the New York skyline was dominated by the twin towers of the World Trade Center rising from the south end of Manhattan. It’s hard to believe that they have been gone for most of a decade.

A lot of things have happened in the last nine years, countries have been invaded, governments of men overthrown... many things. We could discuss mistakes that have been made, possible justifications for asymmetrical warfare, the totalitarian aspects of Islamic culture, or the mindless bigotry, hatred, and intolerance that derive from some people’s worldviews. But I think that is best left to another time. Today we need to remember. Remember the attack we suffered. Remember the Americans who died nine years ago today and the families they left behind.

Some people think the war’s over. Others never saw it as a war in the first place. Many have forgotten, and many more have chosen not to remember. Have you forgotten? Here’s a reminder of what happened nine years ago today.



”Have you forgotten, when those tower fell, we had neighbors still inside, going through a living hell?”


Have you forgotten? I have not.

Historiography, Primary Source Material, and Norman Geisler

I love history.

I’ve always loved history. It fascinates me to discover what has happened in the past. In addition to my studies to prepare for Sundays, I’m often reading, for recreation and my own personal satisfaction, some sort of history.

But have you ever stopped and wondered just how we know what has happened in the past? I mean, how do we really know?

It is often said that, “History is written by the winners,” implying that all historical sources contain biased materials. This is true of many sources, but by no means all. Historians have, over the years, developed methodology and criteria for weighing source materials in their efforts to uncover the events of the past. This methodology and criteria is called Historiography.

Webster’s defines historiography as “the writing of history; especially: the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods.” Very basically, historiography encompasses the examination and evaluation of historical source material to determine it’s trustworthiness and usefulness in constructing the historical narrative.

Most people think of history as the study of the past, and, in a general sense, that is correct. But, more specifically, history is the study of the written records of the past. This is why times before written records are called “prehistoric.” The earliest records we have are clay tablets and inscriptions in stones. These are nice because they tend to last for a long time. For later periods, historians have records on papyrus, parchment and paper. For more modern historical periods, the types of records also extend to photographs, motion pictures, audio & video recordings, and electronic records of all types.

Archaeologists can tell you that a house once stood somewhere. They can tell you how big it was and how it was built. They might even be able to tell you what kind of food was cooked on the hearth. But archaeology isn’t able to tell you who lived in the house, what their names were, or why they even lived there in the first place. Written records, if they can be found, can tell you all of these things and more. Archaeology can help color in the picture that history draws, but archaeology isn’t history, and our knowledge of prehistory, while helpful and interesting, is, at best, very sketchy.

(Yes, I know that archaeologists find written records, but learning about what happened in the past from written records in history not archaeology, even if it is done by an archaeologist. A brain surgeon might fix your car, but that doesn’t make auto repair brain surgery. But I digress.)

I find all history fascinating, but my particular interests lie in ancient and mediaeval history. And, the further you go back in time, the less and less sure you can be of all the details. Also, the further back in time you go the more and more the records you have are restricted to “important” things like kings and kingdoms and generals and battles and wars. Prior to the invention of the printing press in the 1400’s, all books and such had to be hand written, and so were rare and expensive. Also, nobody thought it was very important to record what Joe the Blacksmith did on a Tuesday afternoon in a small village in England in 1242. But people did record what the kings and queens and lords and ladies were doing. Especially important events like wars and plagues and the like.

Similar to a detective pouring over evidence and witness statements while trying to solve a crime, it is the job of the historian to pour through written records of historical events and try to construct a picture of what happened. Historiography is the science and methodology that they use to try to decide which records are trustworthy, which are not trustworthy, and just how much any of the records can be trusted, anyway. Basically, the historian asks, “Who says?” and “How does he know?”

“Who says?”

The historian must ask, “Who wrote this? Why was it written? What, if any, axe does the writer have to grind here?” A book written about Adolf Hitler by a Nazi officer may have some good information in it, but it is also going to have a different point of view then a book about Adolf Hitler by a survivor of Auschwitz. (Granted, those are two extremes, but you get the idea.)

“How does he know?”

The other thing the historian must do is determine what type of source he has to work with. Was the person in a position to know what really happened? Historians divided sources up into 3 categories based upon how far the records are from the historical events recorded: Primary Sources, Secondary Sources, and Tertiary Sources.

A primary source is written by someone who was in a position to know personally what happened. A primary source is eye-witness material, written by someone who was there when it happened. One of the things that made Ken Burns’ The Civil War so compelling was all the letters from actual soldiers that are read as part of the narration of the film. Those letters are what a historian would call primary source material. (Also, the photographs taken during the Civil War that were used in the film are also primary sources.)

A secondary source is a written record that has been compiled from primary sources. Historians look at all the primary records of an event or historical period and put them together into a more or less complete picture. A newspaper article or a police report based on witness interviews are examples of secondary sources. If you’ve ever been involved in something that made the newspaper, you probably have some idea of the unreliability of secondary sources.

A tertiary source is a written record that has been compiled from multiple secondary sources. Many popular histories fall into this category, where the author pulls material out of other history books and weaves together his narrative. Such works can be helpful, and are often enjoyable to read, but they are the least consistently reliable as far as historical accuracy is concerned. Generally, tertiary sources are to be avoided for serious research purposes.

One thing that is repeatedly pounded into history students in Introduction to Historiography class is the importance of primary sources to historical accuracy. The closer a source is to the events recorded, the more weight you can put on that sources’ account of those events. History books are written by people who have already done the research and reached their own conclusions. Their books are written to present the conclusions of the authors. History books are helpful, certainly, but the more important knowledge of history is to you, the more you want to rely of primary source documentation.

When you start taking college-level history courses, you don’t get as many of the nice, pre-packaged history books like you got in elementary and high schools. Instead, you often get stacks of narratives and accounts of events from people who were there. You are not reading the words written by some historical researcher, you are the historical researcher, reading the words of the people who lived and breathed the time, place, and happenings that you are studying. If you want to know what really happened, you need to go to the source materials yourself.

That is why I compiled The Caner File, so that interested parties could see and hear the claims that Ergun Caner had made and examine the primary source documents that refuted those claims. I studied history at the University of Montana back in the early 1990’s, and I learned that research that relied mainly on primary sources was the most reliable. History was my major, and, while I did not graduate, (for several reasons, chiefly financial,) I’d like to think that I did learn something useful.

Historiography, Primary Source Material, & Norman Geisler

Why am I bringing all this up? Because I read several things yesterday that I find very troubling.

About 10 or 11 o’clock yesterday morning, I was directed to the following statement posted on Norman Geisler’s Facebook page. Dr. Geisler is a well known Christian author, speaker, and teacher. He is the president of Veritas Theological Seminary. He wrote on his Facebook wall:

An extensive independent investigation has exonerated Dr. Ergun Caner of all the false charges made against him by extreme Muslims and others and has been retained as a Professor at Liberty University. In spite of a few misstatements (which we all make and he has corrected), nothing has diminished his testimony and orthodoxy as one of the great Christian voices of our time. I totally support him.

Dr. Geisler’s statement is troubling to me. Here he is, one of the leading Evidentialist apologists in the world, and he does not deal with any of the evidence. He does not say that he has examined the evidence himself, nor does he give his criteria for why he has rejected it. This is really a problem for an evidentialist, isn’t it?

Then, last evening, I read a twitter exchange between a presuppositional apologist & blogger, Joshua Whipps, known as “RazorsKiss,” and Dr. Leo Percer, a professor at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary & Director of their PhD program in Theology and Apologetics. They were discussing Dr. Caner’s removal as President and Dean of LBTS, and Liberty’s statement about it. I’m not going to reconstruct the whole conversation, but, at one point, RazorsKiss tweeted to Dr Percer, “@leopercer You do understand that there is evidence to look to, and has been for months, correct? You have examined it?” To which, Dr. Percer replied, “@RazorsKiss I haven't seen it, I said I don't know.”

Again, we see an intelligent and educated man, a professor of apologetics, who has not even examined the evidence for himself. Dr. Percer has been a vocal defender of Dr. Caner’s ever since the allegations of lying became public and Liberty University announced their investigation. It seems, by his own admission, that he has never bothering to check the sources for himself.

Also troubling is this statement, released a couple of weeks ago, by popular apologist John Ankerberg on his website:

To Whom It May Concern:

I have known Ergun Caner for nearly a decade. I am disheartened by the recent attacks upon his integrity and character. I have interviewed Ergun for more than a dozen television shows and believe his personal testimony to be completely true. Otherwise, I would not have allowed him to broadcast his story to the millions of viewers that tune in to my program across the globe. Ergun and his brother, Emir, are men of God who have taken a valiant stand for the Lord, even costing them and their families their safety. For someone to attack Ergun’s selfless sacrifice, especially since they malign his character without any substantiation, is both unchristian and unbiblical. Count me among the many who will stand with Ergun Caner, knowing he stands for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,
Dr. John F. Ankerberg
President

Again we have an evidentialist who refuses to address the evidence. All of Dr. Caner's "factual statements that are self-contradictory" are simply dismissed out of hand. Dr. Ankerberg makes no effort to show why the evidence is wrong or misleading.

Now some would say that Doctors Geisler, Percer, and Ankerberg are primary sources themselves, as they all know Dr. Caner personally. However, none of them knew him during the time that is in dispute. We do not know exactly when Doctors Geisler and Percer met Dr. Caner, but neither of them claim to have known Dr. Caner prior to his conversion. In fact, Dr. Percer says explicitly that he was not a witness to any of the events in dispute. Dr. Ankerberg says quite clearly that he has known Dr. Caner less than 10 years, so his personal knowledge of Caner came after September 11, 2001; after “Michael ‘Butch’ Caner” had become “Ergun Mehmet Caner.”

In fact, Doctors Geisler, Percer, and Ankerberg all have vested interests in keeping Dr. Caner "in the clear" that go beyond friendship.

In his statement, Dr. Ankerberg says, "I have interviewed Ergun for more than a dozen television shows and believe his personal testimony to be completely true. Otherwise, I would not have allowed him to broadcast his story to the millions of viewers that tune in to my program across the globe." This clearly links his credibility with Dr. Caner's. If Dr. Caner's credibility is in doubt, that reflects on Dr. Ankerberg and his ministry as well.

In the case of Dr. Geisler, it should be noted that Dr. Caner teaches at Dr. Geisler's seminary. Once again, we see that their credibility is linked. And Dr. Percer teaches at the school where Dr. Caner is, at least until midnight tonight, the president and dean.

I find it utterly amazing that none of these men see the damage that they are doing to their own credibility by blindly supporting Ergun Caner without any regard for the evidence that abounds in this case.

In all the discussions I’ve had over the last few months regarding Ergun Caner, I’ve not spoken to, corresponded with, or read anything written by anyone who was defending Ergun Caner where they actually dealt with any of the evidence. My Daddy used to always tell me, “Son, if one person tells you that you’ve grown a tail, you can laugh; but if everyone is telling you that you’ve grown a tail, you’d better turn around and see if you have.”

The Caner File

Note: Many of these links are now broken. For example, Dr. Caner's messages from 2007 are no longer available at the Ohio State Association of Free Will Baptist website. According to the Associated Press, "Since questions arose about contradictory statements, he changed the biographical information on his website and asked friendly organizations to remove damning clips from their websites. But the questions didn't go away, leading to the Liberty investigation." ~Squirrel

http://bit.ly/bX0B94<--- best chronology of the Caner saga I've seen thus far.Well done, Squirrel!

— James White (@DrOakley1689) May 11, 2010

This is the timeline that I’ve put together regarding the questions about Dr. Ergun Caner’s claims together with the evidence refuting them. I did this for my own edification, I’m posting it because I thought that others would find it useful. While it is rather lengthy, this is in no way an exhaustive treatment of the evidence available and I’ve tried to keep it very much in the spirit of Sgt. Joe Friday, “Just the facts, Squirrel.” Much of the information comes from the fine investigative work done by Jason Smathers, Turretinfan, and My Friend in Ireland. I have tried to link to everything I could find, but some links are broken, and some archived pages are no longer available.

November 3, 1966 – Ergun Caner is born in Stockholm, Sweden, to Acar and Monica Caner, who had been married on April 1st that same year. (Source: Acar’s and Monica’s separation agreement, Ergun Caner’s Facebook page (now a dead link))

July 16, 1968 – Ergun’s younger brother, Erdem (Mark), is born in Stockholm, Sweden. (No internet source)

Sometime in 1969 – The Caner family moves from Stockholm, Sweden, to Columbus, Ohio. (Source: Monica Caner’s sworn affidavit dated July 31, 1975.)

August 25, 1970 – Emir Caner is born in Columbus, Ohio. (Source: Emir Caner’s Official Biography.)

1975 – Ergun Caner’s parents separate. According to his brother, Emir, their mom had adopted the lifestyle of a hippy. The brothers live primarily with their mother. (Source: separation agreement, Monica Caner’s sworn affidavit dated July 31, 1975, Emir Caner sermon from September 20, 2009)

1978 – Acar and Monica Caner’s divorce is granted. Ergun and his brothers continue to live primarily with their mother. (Source: divorce decree)

1979 – The Dukes of Hazard goes on the air. (Source: International Movie Database)

1981 or 1982 – Ergun Caner professes Christ at Stelzer Road Baptist Church at 2235 Stelzer Road
Columbus, Ohio. (There is some confusion as to the exact date of Ergun’s profession of faith. In Unveiling Islam November 4, 1982 is listed as the date of Emir’s profession of faith, and it say that it was a year after Ergun’s, but Ergun claims November of 1982 as the date of his conversion in several lectures, like this one in Ohio in 2007.)

Between 1982 and 1999, Ergun Caner pursues his education and serves as pastor of several churches.

1999 – Baptist Press reports on “E. Michael Caner, senior pastor of Central Baptist Church, Aurora, Colo.” and his work in the wake of the Columbine High School shooting in Littleton Colorado. (Source: Baptist Press)

2000 – Ergun Caner writes for Baptist Press under the byline “E. Michael Caner” (Source: Baptist Press)

After September 11, 2001, Dr. Caner, now using the name “Ergun Mehmet Caner,” begins to speak about his Muslim past, making claims that are in clear contradiction to many of the facts documented above. Following are some examples. (Again, this is not an exhaustive list.)

2001 – Ergun Caner speaks at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas. (Source: Focus on the Family’s April 23, 2010 broadcast “From Jihad to Jesus”)
Claims made:

• Came to America in 1978


• Father was an Islamic Cleric


• Ergun spoke broken English in 1982


• Wore a turban in high school

2002 - Caner tells the Associated Press "...that he was born in Sweden to a Turkish father and Swedish mother, who brought the family to Ohio in 1969, when he was about 3 years old. He said he accepted Christ as a teenager at a Baptist church in Columbus, and then pursued ministry, getting a degree from Criswell College, a Baptist school in Dallas." (Source: Associated Press article dated May 17, 2010)

May 2002 - SBC Life reviews Islam Unveiled. Review contains this paragraph with debate claims: (Source: www.sbclife.org)

The heightened interest in Islam has drawn each of the Caner brothers into additional debate settings at mosques and universities, speaking in English, French, and Arabic with Muslim scholars. And they have been interviewed by the BBC, CNN, Moody Broadcasting Network, Salem Radio Network, and USA Radio. Talk show invitations have come from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Marlon Maddux, and Zola Levitt.

2004 – Biography from erguncaner.com: (Source: www.archive.org)

He has been called the “Intellectual Pit Bull of the evangelical world” by the national media. He debated Michael Moore in a nationally syndicated column entitled “Hatriotism.”
He has spoken on over fifty university and college campuses, debating Hindi, Buddhist, Muslim and Bah’ai scholars. He has been interviewed on virtually every national media outlet, and has been castigated by the Washington Post and the LA Times. He has addressed the Southern Baptist Convention Pastors’ Conference twice, and has given keynote addresses at seven major denominational meetings. He has spoken to over fifty thousand college and high school students in major concerts. Recently, he was called the “leading young voice for cultural apologetics and world religions” by the PAX network.

In the war on terror, he understands both sides...because he has been on both sides. Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner is Full Professor of Theology and Church History at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Dr. Caner was raised the son of an Islamic leader. In 1982, he converted to the Christian faith after emigrating to this country. As a consequence of this conversion, he was disowned by his family. Caner has three Masters Degrees and two Doctorates, the Doctor of Theology coming from the University of South Africa. Along with his brother, Dr. Emir Caner (Professor of History and Anabaptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) Ergun is author of eleven books, including the new best seller CHRISTIAN JIHAD (Kregel 2004). CHRISTIAN JIHAD has been endorsed by Beth Moore and Ann Coulter, and examines the recent war in light of thirteen hundred years of Islamic-Christian conflict. His previous books on Islam have sold almost 200,000 copies. UNVEILING ISLAM won the Gold Medallion Award from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. Since the September 11th bombing, Caner has appeared on such national television shows as Fox News, various CNN shows, MSNBC, the 700 Club, Zola Levitt, John Ankerberg and others. He and his wife, Jill, have two sons.

2005, May 8th - The Washington Post publishes a profile of Ergun Caner, which says, in part, "Caner's star rocketed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when he became a controversial in-house expert on Islam for the evangelical Christian community" & "Caner said he believes that his popularity among Christians is largely attributable to his Islamic heritage" & "Caner was raised in Turkey and Sweden in an Islamic family before moving as a teenager to Ohio..."

2006 – Ergun Caner speaks at an unidentified conference in the Seattle area.
Claims made:

• Does debates with Muslims on college campuses


• Grew up in Turkey, near the Turkish-Iraqi border


• Learned about America by watching The Dukes of Hazard on Turkish television


• Came to the United States in 1978


• Wore typically Arabic clothing in high school


• Has done 48 debates with Muslims, Hindu, & Bah’ai

February 2007 – Ergun Caner speaks to the Ohio State Association of Free Will Baptists Men’s Retreat:
Claims made:

• Has a Ph.D


• Came to America in 1978


• Wore Islamic clothing in high school

2009 – Biography from erguncaner.com: (Source: www.archive.org)

Ergun Mehmet Caner (B.A., M.A., M.Div., Th.M., D.Min., Ph.D.) is president of the Liberty Theological Seminary at the Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Raised as the son of a Muslim leader in Turkey, Caner became a Christian shortly before entering college. Serving under his Chancellor and President, Jerry Falwell Jr., Caner led the Seminary to triple in growth since his installation in 2005. A public speaker and apologist, Caner has debated Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other religious leaders in thirteen countries and thirty-five states. The author of seventeen books, Caner lives in Lynchburg with his wife Jill and two sons, Braxton and Drake.

October 15, 2009 – Dr. James White asks for help in locating examples of Dr. Caner’s debates. This caused some people to take a closer look at Dr. Ergun Caner’s claims. More questions begin to be asked.


February 25, 2010 – Dr. Caner releases the following statement: (Source: SBC Today

Recently a concerted effort has been made by a small group of professing believers, joined with a particular Muslim that posts videos, questioning my conversion, and the conversion of my brothers. And, what saddens my heart immensely is, this small band of professing Christians have now cited the Muslim’s videos as reason to attack my testimony as well. Indeed, the Muslims have used clips that attempt to show that through two decades of ministry and hundreds of sermons there exist discrepancies in my testimony. In all honesty, I probably could have saved them a lot of time and trouble. The truth is, I would be surprised if no discrepancies were discovered, given the hundreds of messages I have given during all that time!

Nonetheless, while normally it is wise to ignore these types of attacks, the Muslim’s videos- now surprisingly being cited by professing Christians- have sadly produced such ardor that I feel the need to speak to the issue. This has been done repeatedly to Muslim converts, but in this instance, I bear some responsibility to clarify.

MY TESTIMONY:
I was born in Sweden, with a Turkish father and our mother who was a Turkish citizen.
I was born and raised a Sunni Muslim, just like my brothers.
I was led to Christ at the Stelzer Road Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio, just like my brothers.

MISSTATEMENTS:
Now, on to the other issues:
Every minister has made pulpit mistakes. Being called a “liar,” however, is a serious charge, especially when it is made by Christians. That would indicate that (1) the accusers can know the motives of the accused person’s heart, and (2) the accused person intentionally misled people.

I have never intentionally misled anyone. I am sure I have made many mistakes in the pulpit in the past 20-plus years, and I am sure I will make some in the future. For those times where I misspoke, said it wrong, scrambled words, or was just outright confusing, I apologize and will strive to do better.

DEBATES:
A second question raised concerns debates. One gentleman believes it is misleading to call my interaction with people from other faiths and world religions “debates.” Since his definition of debate is limited to moderated, formal debates, that is his prerogative. He can call them whatever he wishes. My podcasts are readily available online through this website. If he finds them less than satisfying or helpful, then he does not have to listen to them. I do not offer them for his approval or his attention. Please feel free to look elsewhere. God has been gracious to call many Christians to practice evangelism and apologetics in a variety of ways.

The truth is, several evangelical apologists employ the “formal” debate template and are very effective in their presentations. Norman Geisler, Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig come to mind. Nevertheless, I will continue to do exactly as I have done. In fact, in order to attempt a measure of peace, I am more than happy to call my engagements “interviews,” or even “dialogues.” Since this is historically my method of choice, I shall continue to offer these podcasts here, for the edification of those who care to listen.

However, I would caution all evangelicals that no single method meets consensus. Nor is there only one exclusively biblical model. Certainly there is much good to be found in formal debates, and I also believe that there is enough room for all types of interaction. In fact I believe there is great value to be found in all forms, including conversational and informal methods.

Finally, there is a legitimate complaint which I must address, namely, referencing a Muslim scholar that I have never met. Listening to the audio, I honestly have no idea who I was referencing, but it certainly could not have been the man I referenced. For this unintentional but nevertheless horrible mistake, I repent for saying his name, and I ask the forgiveness of all those who heard it. Sin is sin, and if I am dumb enough to say something like that, I should be man enough to deal with it and aim to never make such a grievous error again. This applies to any time when I wrongly used names. I shall be more careful.

OTHER ACCUSATIONS:
As for the countless other volleys aimed at discrediting the work I do, I am unsure how to respond. If my pronunciation of Arabic phrases is not correct, then I apologize. The language of my lineage is Turkish, not Arabic. Even Arabic dialects differ regionally, such as Jordanian and Egyptian. Indeed, 80% of the Muslim world does not speak Arabic, so I doubt anyone will be fully satisfied at this juncture. I must add, however, the misguided attempt by Muslim apologists to discredit converts to Christianity is not limited to me; in fact it seems to be standard operating procedure. I do not believe I can do anything to stop these attacks. All I can do is continue to teach as I have for years, and continue to serve the Lord with the best I can give.

A FINAL WORD ABOUT THIS CURRENT SITUATION:
Criticism is many times helpful. In this particular instance, it has enabled me to correct the careless mistakes I addressed above. Nonetheless, I want to be clear about this current situation. This constant stream of criticism, blogging and berating is not acceptable between believers. I am as guilty as anyone else in instigating such things over the years, but these personal attacks are too much. I shall not participate in this anymore. This is absolutely of no interest to me.

So, may the Lord judge between us.

To all who are reading this, I want you to know– I am a clear example of a person who is constantly in need of God’s grace. Because Jesus Christ died on the Cross for the world, that includes all of us. He died to forgive my sin, and resurrected to give me life. He did the same for you. When I repented of my sin, and put my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, He gave me new life. He can do the same for you. We are all sinners, and in need of forgiveness. If you will trust Jesus Christ and turn from your sin, you can find forgiveness and freedom from all the guilt that is upon you. Jesus loves you.
-Ergun Caner

February 26, 2010 - Fred Butler makes the first comparison between Ergun Caner and Mike Warnke that I'm aware of.


February 26, 2010 - @ErgunCaner blocks @Shinar_Squirrel from following him on Twitter.

March 12, 2010 – The February 25, 2010 statement is removed from erguncaner.com (Source: James White’s blog.)

March 29, 2010 – Jason Smathers publishes Ergun Caner’s Secret Biography, & provides the hard evidence about when Ergun Caner came to America.

April 14, 2010 – the following biography goes up at erguncaner.com: (Source: erguncaner.com)

Ergun Caner is the President and Dean of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School in Lynchburg, Virginia. Raised as a devout Sunni Muslim along with his two brothers, Caner converted in high school. After his conversion, he pursued his call to the ministry and education. He has a Masters degree from The Criswell College, a Master of Divinity and a Master of Theology from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Doctor of Theology from the University of South Africa. He has written numerous books with his brother, Dr. Emir Caner, who is the President of Truett-McConnell College, a Baptist college in Georgia

April 19, 2010 – A Squirrel in Babylon publishes Like Watching a Train Wreck; @XIANITY tweets a link to it, bringing a great deal of attention to this blog.

April 23, 2010 – A Squirrel in Babylon is interviewed by Christianity Today for an upcoming article about Ergun Caner’s embellishment of his life’s story.

April 28, 2010 – People for the American Way’s Right Wing Watch publishes an article about Ergun Caner.

May 3, 2010 – Christianity Today publishes their article on Ergun Caner.

May 4, 2010 – A Squirrel in Babylon publishes a response to the Christianity Today article.

May 5, 2010 – Associated Baptist Press publishes an article on Ergun Caner.

May 10, 2010 – Liberty University announces that a committee is being formed to investigate allegations of dishonesty and wrongdoing on the part of Dr. Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

It is now in the hands of Dr. Ron Godwin and the committee that he has formed. Please join me in prayer that they will follow the evidence wherever it leads them and that they may reach an unbiased and fair conclusion. Let us pray also for Dr. Caner, that he may come to repentance, and for God’s Grace upon Dr. Caner and his family.

UPDATE - June 25, 2010 - Ergun Caner removed from office of President and Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary but retains full professorship for the 2010/2011 school year. Liberty University issues the following statement (Source: The Lynchburg News & Advance):

After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Ergun Caner’s public statements, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are self-contradictory.

However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager, but, instead, found discrepancies related to matters such as dates, names and places of residence.

Dr. Caner has cooperated with the board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review.

Dr. Caner’s current contractual term as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary expires on June, 30, 2010.

Dr. Caner will no longer serve as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

The university has offered, and Dr. Caner has accepted, an employment contract for the 2010-2011 academic year. Dr. Caner will remain on the faculty of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary as a professor.

Further your arboreal rodent sayeth naught.

Times of Change

Have you stopped lately and considered what amazing times we live in? I’m talking about our material culture; our technology. When’s the last time you really gave it some deep thought?

If you go back to the beginnings of recorded human history, which we cannot reliable extend further then about 2000 BC (I would place Noah’s flood in the 3000 to 5000 BC range, certainly no further back then 8000BC +/-), you will find a world much like the world that would exist for thousands of years afterwards. Let’s take Hammurabi’s Babylon, circa 1800 BC, or thereabouts. In Hammurabi’s Babylon, people heat their homes, cook their meals, and light their nights with fire. They walk and ride horses to get around. Cargo is moved by wagon or by ship. And the ships are moved by the wind or by muscles. War is fought face-to-face, with weapons of bronze.

Fast forward almost 2000 years, to 334 BC when Alexander the Great overthrows the mighty Persian Empire. Other than a few language issues, a man from Hammurabi’s Babylon would pretty much be right at home in the world of Alexander’s Macedonian Empire. People still heat their homes, cook their meals, and light their nights with fire. They walk and ride horses to get around. Cargo is moved by wagon or by ship. And the ships are moved by the wind or by muscles. “Hey,” our fictitious Babylonian time-traveler might say, “your iron is a bit better then my bronze, where can I get some?”

Continue our fast forward journey through time, and we see that, through the Roman times, the Dark Ages, the High Middle Ages, even into the Renaissance, technology remains pretty much the same. Let’s have out time traveling Babylonian land in Colonial Williamsburg in the 1750s, almost 4000 years from when he began. What does he find? People still heat their homes, cook their meals, and light their nights with fire. They walk and ride horses to get around. Cargo is moved by wagon or by ship. And the ships are moved by the wind or by muscles. And, “Hey, those muskets are kind of neat! Where can I get one?” (I’m not saying that gunpowder had not already changed warfare, but the sword was still a viable weapon on the battlefield. And, let’s face it; a musket in the 1750’s was mostly just a one-shot spear…)

But now look at the 260 years since 1750. Steam engines provided power to ships, trains, and vast factories. The automobile, the airplane, even spaceships. We’ve gone from muskets to B-2 Bombers armed with nuclear bombs that can wipe out entire cities in one pop. Our Babylonian time traveler stayed in a mostly recognizable world for 4000 years, but a guy born just 100 years ago would be lost today. He’d have seen automobiles and airplanes by 1910, but you set him down on the south side of LAX by the freeway and his brain would flip out!

I’m old enough to remember life when there were only 3 television channels. Now, I’m not so old as to remember life before television, that is my parents’ generation, but I’ve been around for a while. Who knows how many channels are in existence, now. More than any of us want to watch, I’d wager.

The first computer I ever worked on had 8 kilobytes of RAM. The year was 1980, and I was able to take computer science in high school. And our school had four computers! Wow! I remember telling my Dad that one day computers would be like televisions & most every house would have one & that they’d all be hooked together. He scoffed and said that he’d never own one; yet, within 3 years, he had bought one for Mom to use keeping the books for his construction company. (It was an IBM AT, and had a 1 megabyte hard drive. I told Mom that hard drive was so big that she’d never fill it up…)

What’s the point in all this? Am I leading up to some deep theological zinger? No, not really. Just taking a little time to be amazed at the world we live in & wondering what new & wondrous things tomorrow will be bringing. (Me? I still want my flying car!)

I'm Hoping That They Are Wrong...

Since I'm not posting anything substantive today, I thought I'd point you towards some stuff that I think is worth reading. The Question of the Day seems to be, "Will America keep having elections?" and/or "Will America's elections remain free and fair?" We've seen ruthless power grabs in other countries, why are so many so certain that it cannot happen here?

Thomas Sowell writes, "What will it matter if Obama's current approval rating is below 50 percent among the current voting public, if he can ram through new legislation to create millions of new voters by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? That can be enough to make him a two-term president, who can appoint enough Supreme Court justices to rubber-stamp further extensions of his power."

Rush Limbaugh said yesterday, "They won because they held Congress and the presidency, and therein lies the lesson: We need to defeat these bastards. We need to wipe them out. We need to chase them out of town. But we need to do more than that. We need to elect conservatives. If there are Republican primaries, elect conservatives and then defeat the Democrats -- every last one of them -- and then we start the repeal process. And by "repeal," I mean use every single legislative and bureaucratic tactic we can muster to obstruct, derail, and defeat them. Just saying "repeal" does not make it happen. We're going to have to turn out en masse in November and stop these people. As you have seen, the law will not stop them, the Constitution will not stop them, hoping that they will do the right thing will not stop them because their definition of "the right thing" has nothing in common with ours."

Whistleblower Magazine shows, step by step, how the socialists (I refuse to call them "Democrats" anymore) could steal the next elections, and end liberty in the United States for the foreseeable future.

America stands at a crossroads. Liberty hangs in the balance. I really really don't want to say, "I told you so!" on my way to the gulag.

Were The Moon Landings Faked?

Fred Butler at Hip and Thigh posted a link today to a clip from the television talk show The View in which Whoopi Goldberg expressed some doubts as to whether or not the Moon landings were faked.



Oh, wow! I almost feel sympathy for Goldberg. It is horrible to have to display your ignorance on national television that way. “Who took the pictures?” have you ever heard of a tripod, Whoopi? And then Walters has to cap it off by trying to explain that Mike Collins, still in orbit aboard Columbia, was some of taking the pictures. And people watch this show?

Okay, about the flag, when they set it up it began to swing, not from air resistance but from gravity and inertia. Without air to slow it down, the bottom corner of the flag kept swinging like a pendulum for quite some time. This is been replicated in vacuum chambers more than once. Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel recently did a whole show debunking many “the Moon landings were faked” myths.



Several years ago, I was sitting in my office and I had a picture from Apollo 15 on my computer desktop. A really nice color shot of one of the astronauts standing by the flag in front of the lunar module with the lunar rover parked close by. A guy came into my office, saw the picture, and remarked, “You know that was all faked, don’t you?” Initially, I thought it was joking, but it was soon evident that he was quite serious. After a few minutes, it was also quite apparent to me, that no amount of discussion would change his mind. This was my one and only personal encounter with a Moon-landing Denier.



The main “evidence” that was brought up that day, the same “evidence” that such Moon-landing Deniers always point to, was; #1) the waving flag; #2) the lack of stars in the background of the photographs from the Moon; and #3) the shadows of objects in the photographs from the Moon. The waving flag we have already dealt with. The lack of stars in the backgrounds of the photographs is easily explained when we understand that the camera’s aperture was set to take photographs in full daylight. Compared to everything in the foreground, the dirt, the rocks, the lunar module, and the astronauts, all standing in full sunlight, the stars are too faint to show up in the photographs. The problems with the shadows disappear when you realize that the surface of the Moon is not flat and uniform. Shadows cast on a sloping surface will seem to be pointed in a different direction from shadows cast on a flat surface.

The fact that so many people believe that the Moon landings, all six of them, were faked, and denying the Moon landings while using personal computers, cell phones, the Internet, and watching satellite television, is just another testimony to the total inadequacy of the American education system!

For detailed refutation of the "Moon myths" see here and here.

Has It Really Been 40 Years?

Exactly 40 years ago today, at 20:17:39 GMT (3:17 PM EST,) the first manned spacecraft to ever visit another world landed on the Moon. I was only four years old, but I remember my dad getting me out of bed when, almost 7 hours later, Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the Moon. I have a very vivid memory of sitting in my pajamas with my sisters on the green carpet in the den in front of the television.

To get into the mood for this anniversary, Mrs. Squirrel and I watched The Right Stuff on Friday night, and then HBO’s From the Earth to the Moon on Saturday. (Mrs. Squirrel drew the line and would not let me watch Apollo 13 today. (Well that’s not quite true, but I could tell that it would not have pleased her.))



Here are some interesting facts that you may not known about that first Moon landing:

Because Neal Armstrong diverted from the primary landing site and landed manually some distance away, Mike Collins was never able to spot the landing site from orbit.

While Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 ½ hours on the surface, they only actually walked outside for 2 hours and 36 minutes.

The "dashboard" of the Apollo 11 command module had 24 instruments, 566 switches, and 71 lights. The command module also had approximately 15 miles of wire, enough to wire about 50 houses.

Mechanical problems with the command module’s water filtration system caused hydrogen bubbles to build up in the drinking water supply, resulting in some rather odiferous “out gassing.” It affected all three crew members, so at least no one could point fingers. (From all reports, after a few days in space without any kind of shower facilities, an Apollo capsule wasn’t the most pleasant place to be. I understand that things are much better now aboard the space shuttle and the international space station.

When Armstrong and Aldrin came back inside from their moonwalk, their suits were coated with a fine powder of Moondust. Armstrong said that it smelled like “wet ashes in a fireplace” while Aldrin described it as a “spent gunpowder” smell.

Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) that directed Eagle, the Apollo 11 lunar lander, to and from the surface of the Moon, had 74 kB of memory and 4 kB of ram! Oh, and it cost $150,000+… (my cell phone has over a gigabyte of memory, and cost about $100…)

Before they left the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin threw their boots, EVA backpacks, and garbage out the hatch and left it all on the Moon.

The Apollo 11 crew only spent 21 ½ hours on the Moon. The last Apollo mission, Apollo 17, would spend the longest time on the Moon, at just over three days.

NASA's Apollo 11 40th Anniversary page
Wikipedia's Apollo 11 page
Apollo 11 Fact Funs
More Fun Facts



Mankind is visited the Moon only six times, and each time only two men walked on its surface, and all that took place in three short years 40 years ago. We haven’t been back since. In total, in the entire history the world, 12 men have spent a total of 300 hours on the Moon. That is less than two weeks.

Maybe it’s a result of such early exposure to space travel, but I’ve always been nuts for outer space. The vast majority of my recreational reading is science fiction, and I’m talking the hard, technically oriented stuff. Honestly, growing up, I figured that there would be all sorts of space based industries by now. But all that we have is one itsy bitsy collection of components without a commercial application on board; about the equivalent of a dozen or so shipping containers held together of baling twine.

But 40 years ago, expectations were much, much higher. If you watched the television coverage or read the newspaper reports from the time, it’s easy to see that they expected us to have permanent settlements on Mars by now. Even with the turmoil and social unrest of the late sixties, there was a much higher level of optimism in the future then we see today.

The space shuttle, now almost 30 years old, is slated for retirement some time in 2010. And the Constellation program, with its Ares rockets and Orion crew vehicles, essentially updated 5-man Apollo-type capsules, which is the manned space vehicle that is supposed to replace the shuttle, now faces an uncertain future due to possible NASA budget cuts.

If NASA’s budget will allow it, the Constellation program plans on returning man to the Moon by the year 2020, 48 years since our last visit. Plans are then to establish a permanent base on the Moon, and push on to Mars.

So today as we look back it that achievement 40 years ago, and salute Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Mike Collins, let’s see if we get our imaginations going about the future again.

The Squirrel's Nut Cache - 7/16/09

The Nut Cache - a collection of recent things I found interesting, or amusing, or nutworthy.

As you are probably aware, I am a space and technology nut. 40 years ago today, the a Saturn V rocket was launched from Florida, taking Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins towards the moon in their Apollo 11 spacecraft. NASA is streaming the complete audio of all communications between the ground and the spacecraft as it happened exactly 40 years ago. Give it a listen here!

The Iowa state fair. A wholesome, all-American sort of thing. And what could be more American, or Iowan for that mater, then a sculpture honoring Michael Jackson in... Butter! That's right, a butter sculpture of the now room temperature pop star will be featured at this years Iowa state fair. I was unaware until now, but butter sculpture seems to be something of a tradition in Iowa. But, wait! The weirdness is not done! PETA is protesting the butter sculpture, and demanding that Jackson be immortalized in cow-friendly non-dairy spread, instead.

Here's a story about an 88-year-old woman and a purse snatcher... except this time the 88-year-old woman is the purse snatcher! Italian police say that 88-year-old Filomena Barbetta has a rap sheet for petty theft related charges going back to the 70's. When asked to investigate an rise in pick-pocketing at the weekly market in Pesaro, Italy, guess who the police caught? Some people just need to know when to retire.

I quit smoking a long time ago, and when I quit, a pack of cigarettes cost about $2.00. I, of course, had heard that, due to increased taxes & some lost lawsuits, prices had gone up. But at these prices I think even the most hardcore smoker will soon quit. I mean, $23,148,855,308,184,500 for a pack of smokes? Ouch!

Australian snipers to penguins: "Don't worry, little birds. We've got your back!" Something, most likely a dog or a fox, is eating the fairy penguins that reside in a national park outside of Sydney, Australia. Well, now they're getting cover from a pair of snipers, charged with "instructions to do what it takes to protect these tiny creatures." Sleep well, flightless waterfowl, you've got friends!

That's the Nut Cache for this week. Stay nutty!