Fools Rush In — The Partisan ‘Patriots’

Fools Rush In — The Partisan ‘Patriots’
Vol: 12 Issue: 30 Monday, September 30, 2002

This week the Sunday talk shows were focused, not on Iraq, but on Washington, with some American lawmakers sounding “like spokespersons for the Iraqi government” as Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles put it.

Nickels is a politician and it is pretty much in a politician’s blood to exaggerate, but concerning the case in point, I’d have to accuse him of understating the situation somewhat.

Representative Jim McDermmot, (D-Wa) appeared on ABC’s “This Week” by satellite link from Baghdad. He was in Baghdad with two other Congressional colleagues, Rep. David Bonior (D-Mi) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA).

They went to Iraq, hoping to persuade Saddam’s regime to accept unfettered weapons inspections,avert a war and return as heroes.

The three, who previously have called the 12-year U.N. sanctions program against Iraq “barbaric,” oppose the proposed U.N. resolution that the United States is seeking.

They are equally opposed to the congressional resolution now being hammered out that would authorize U.S. military force against Iraq.

Jim McDermott took this week’s prize for the offering the most aid and comfort for the enemy in the name of ‘patriotism’, telling ABC’s George Stephanopolis that he believes that, when it come to Iraq, President Bush would be only too happy to lie to the public.

“I think the president would mislead the American people,” Mr. McDermott said on ABC’s “This Week” about the president’s campaign for support for a military campaign against Iraq.

He told CNN “We don’t have to pass a resolution in the Congress or in the Security Council right now. Things are moving forward.”

McDermott told Fox News that America needs to “take Iraq at its word” on weapons of mass destruction. In his view, it has nothing to do with Saddam, weapons of mass destruction or any potential threat to America.

Instead, McDermott believes “They keep saying they want a regime change because they want control of the oil fields.”

This is the same Jim McDermott who voted against impeachment for President Clinton.

When presented with Article I of resolution (H. Res. 611) to ‘impeach President Bill Clinton for perjurious testimony to federal grand jury on his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky’ McDermott voted no.

So if McDermott believes a president might lie, he has already proved that’s not such a big deal to him anyway.

For the rest of the Iraqi position, we turn to US Rep David Bonior. “We need to go back to an unrestricted regime,” Bonior said on ABC. “And we also need to do that without the pressure of Iraq or the United States. Let the U.N. inspectors do their jobs.”

Bonior and McDermott harmonized regarding Iraqi assurances. The Iraqis, said Rep. McDermott, “would allow us to go look anywhere we wanted. And until they don’t do that, there is no need to do this coercive stuff where you bring in helicopters and armed people and storm buildings.”

“The Iraqis,” Bonior chorused, “we have talked to have said basically [inspectors] will have that unrestricted ability to go wherever they want to inspect.” (Bonior was another staunch Clinton supporter during the impeachment hearings — lying is only bad if you are a Republican)

On ABC yesterday, George Stephanopoulos pointedly asked both Democratic congressmen why “should we take the Iraqis at their word they have a decade-long record of denying inspectors access and deceiving U.N. inspectors.”

Mr. Bonior responded: “We could go back and play the blame game here until the moon comes out. But that’s not going to do us any good.”

Ah. The ‘Blame Game’ — where have we heard that phrase before?

Unlike Bonior and McDermott, though, the third member of the Congressional fact-hiding party, Mike Thompson did criticize Saddam. Speaking of blame, Thompson said on CNN’s “Late Edition” that Saddam was ‘partly’ to blame for the Iraqi people’s sufferings in the past decade.

And, still speaking of blame, wasn’t Iraq under ‘barbaric’ UN sanctions for the entire two terms of the Clinton presidency? Or did those sanctions only start to hurt innocent Iraqi civilians after January 20, 2001?


Let’s set aside the fact that some will oppose war with Iraq based on deeply held convictions and that some will support it for the same reasons.

Instead, let’s take a look at the Big Picture. Al Gore came out to blast the administration on the war. Gore spoke of the ‘betrayal’ he felt when Bush the Elder failed to take out Saddam in ’91.

Except that back then, Gore applauded Bush 41 for staying within the mission goals of removing Saddam from Kuwait and then withdrawing.

Jimmy Carter has also been burning up his word processor writing columns for the New York Times decrying the Bush Doctrine as ‘war mongering’.

In the House and Senate, we find Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt playing both sides of the fence, claiming to be united ‘as Americans’ behind the president. BUT using Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to get out the message.

And what, exactly, IS the message? Is it that Saddam is not a threat? All concede that he is a threat.

Is the message that weapons inspections will work? Hardly. To argue for weapons inspectors as a legitimate method of ending the Iraqi threat is more than building castles in the air. It’s closer to packing your stuff and trying to move into one.

Is the message that war can be avoided? I haven’t heard a single member of Congress that said they believed that was possible as long as Saddam rules Iraq.

Is it because Bonior, McDermott and company really believe Saddam is only ‘partly’ responsible for his people’s suffering?

These worthy gentlemen are aware of Saddam’s torture chambers. They are aware of Saddam’s history. They know he tested chemical weapons by wiping out forty Iraqi villages.

The mid-term elections are coming. The last thing the Democrats need is an America united behind a president from the other party — if they hope to pick up any new seats. Even if it means embracing Saddam.

So what is the message?

It’s that this president can’t be trusted. He is a liar who would do anything to help corporate America by securing Iraqi oil fields for American exploitation. That its about Big Oil. Or that it is about a cover up. Or its a personal matter between Bush 43 and Saddam.

Following this logic, Bush is about to start a war just to settle a grudge.

Is the message true? Is Bush a liar exploiting the Iraqis for political advantage and out of corporate greed? Is the war with Saddam a personal grudge match?

What does the evidence say? It says that Saddam was a threat before Bush got here. It says that Bush gave Saddam the same attention that Clinton did — until the attacks on September 11.

It says that this entire non-debate over a non-issue like whether or not Saddam needs to be removed is nothing less than putting party ahead of country.

The Congress is largely made up out of the Vietnam generation. The ones who keep yelling ‘No more Vietnams’. What MADE Vietnam a ‘quagmire’?

Dividing Americans is good politics, but lousy patriotism.

The Left scoffs that ‘questioning the president is tantamount to treason’ while loudly proclaiming their ‘patriotism’.

But for the life of me, I can’t find a single Democrat whose record suggests they genuinely disagree with the upcoming war or the reasons for it. Clinton and Carter both sent troops into harm’s way, Carter in Iran, Clinton in Iraq.

Bonior, McDermott and Company don’t agree with Saddam. They just disagree with Bush because he’s a Republican.

They didn’t take this stand when Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Not Bonior, not Daschle, not McDermott, not Carter.

How do they spell ‘patriot’? P-A-R-T-I-S-A-N.

The hypocrisy is stomach-turning.

Turks Grab 33 Lbs of Enriched Uranium Near Iraqi Border

Turks Grab 33 Lbs of Enriched Uranium Near Iraqi Border
Vol: 12 Issue: 29 Sunday, September 29, 2002

Editor’s Note: Network problems are responsible for the lateness of today’s Omega Letter. Please accept my apologies

I felt a lot safer when I thought that maybe all the missing nuclear weapons grade materials might just be errors in bookkeeping. That’s what the Russians have been saying for the last ten years.

Back in 1992, when I first became aware of the fact a number of ‘nuclear suitcases’ couldn’t be accounted for, both the US and Russian governments protested that no such weapon exists.

Then they said such weapons actually were developed as demolition munitions by the KGB during the Cold War, but that they weighed hundreds of pounds and were much too big to either fit in a suitcase or be portable.

Until it was revealed that the United States had also developed a similar weapon called the ‘nuclear backpack’ that weighed less than sixty pounds.

Once that news broke, all doubt of the existence of the nuclear suitcases was dispelled and both governments grudgingly acknowledged the existence of the weapons, but denied General Alexander Lebed’s sworn testimony before Congress in 1997 that more than a hundred could not be accounted for.

(General Lebed was killed in a helicopter crash in April, so we can’t ask him anymore).

Nobody is talking about the suitcases anymore, either. But nobody is denying they exist, either.

In listening to many in Congress, one comes away with the feeling that Saddam Hussein is a bit like those nuclear suitcases.

We know they exist. We know we can’t account for them. We don’t know if they have fallen into enemy hands. So we’ll pretend there’s no present threat so we can get on with the domestic agenda.

Until we can’t look the other way anymore.

Not a single one of the Democrats who advocate stalling on the war with Iraq — from Tom Daschle to Ted Kennedy — deny that Saddam has already stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Or that Saddam has a crash nuclear program ongoing.

But they feel safe in stalling, hoping Saddam can’t get all the materials together until after the mid term elections in November.

But that was until this morning, when it was reported that the Turks seized 33 POUNDS OF WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM in the southern province of Sanliurfa.

Sanliurfa borders Syria. From there, it is about 155 miles to the Iraqi border.

Authorities believe the uranium came from an east European country and has a value of about $5 million.

Police in Istanbul seized more than 2.2 pounds of weapons-grade uranium last November that had been smuggled into Turkey from an east European nation. Those smugglers were detained after attempting to sell the material to undercover police officers. These were way better organized.


The Turks say they are ‘investigating’ whether or not the uranium was bound for Iraq. News reports say simply that the suspects were planning to ‘sell’ it. Like they were a couple of Bedouin tribesman who found it in the desert or something.

Weapons grade uranium isn’t something you pick up at bargain prices in a black market somewhere and then hope you can find a buyer. Especially when you’re talking about something that costs five million dollars.

We already know that Iran is funnelling weaponry into Syria for use by guerilla forces in Lebanon.

We know that Tehran has the ability to enrich uranium, thanks to the nuclear power plant at Bushehr.

We know that Iran has been using Syria to supply Saddam Hussein. And we know that Bashar al Assad and Saddam Hussein have buried the hatchet and are cooperating much more closely than US intelligence wants to admit.

It is relatively obvious that the discovery of 33 pounds of weapons grade uranium in the border regions between Syria and Iraq constitutes the smoking gun that the doves in Congress have been asking for.

Syria and Iraq share an ultimate destiny as prophesied by the Bible and that takes place in the last days. Both Assad and Saddam seem determined to hurry it along.

The destruction of Damascus was prophesied by the prophet Isaiah. “The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap. ” [Isaiah 17:1]

Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. In its long history, the city has never been destroyed. But that destiny is inevitable, should Syria throw its lot in with Iraq — especially if it can be proved that Assad is part of the uranium smuggling operation.

The city of Babylon is located about thirty miles outside of Baghdad. It has a population of about thirty thousand. Saddam has largely rebuilt the city, including several of Nebuchanezzar’s palaces. Saddam’s favorite palace, the rebuilt Southern Palace of Nebuchadnezzar, is also located there.

Jeremiah prophesied of Babylon, “And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.” [Jeremiah 51:37]

Of the kingdom of Babylon, [modern day Iraq] Jeremiah says, “Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness, a land wherein no man dwelleth, neither doth any son of man pass thereby.” [Jeremiah 51:43]

The Bible claims 100% accuracy, 100% of the time, past, present and future. None other among the world’s sacred writings make similar claims. Only the Bible.

It remains an open challenge to the world system. Over the centuries, every generation has had its great thinkers and philosophers who dedicated their lives and considerable intellects to disproving the Scripture.

“Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” (Isaiah 45:20-24)

How Much Is That Ally In The Window?

How Much Is That Ally In The Window?
Vol: 12 Issue: 28 Saturday, September 28, 2002

UN diplomats have leaked details on the US sponsored draft resolution on Iraq. The draft would give Iraq seven days to agree to unlimited weapons inspections.

The resolution, if passed, would warn that if Iraq fails to comply, all necessary means – a diplomatic term for military action – would follow.

Some other provisions to the draft that are unlikely to make the cut:

Iraq would have 30 days to make a full declaration of any and all nuclear, chemical, biological or ballistic weapons.

There is also talk of what some diplomats are calling a protection force that would accompany UN weapons inspectors while they work in Iraq.

The operative phrase here is “if passed” since it appears unlikely that it will.

The French, Russians and Chinese have already voiced their objections.

Since France, Russia and China are all Permanent Members of the Security Council, any one of them can veto any resolution the US might bring to a vote.

The French are demanding a nonsensical two step process. In Step One, the UN votes a new resolution into effect so that Saddam can violate it.

If he does, then the French want to implement Step Duh. We go back to the UN to debate a new resolution warning him about the importance of keeping UN resolutions.

The Russians now say that there is “no clear proof” that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. (That statement alone should be all the proof necessary for even the most thick-headed in the Congress).

Beijing also opposes a military strike ‘unless it is authorized by the UN’ — an authorization that requires Beijing’s approval to pass.

The inscrutable Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji explains China’s ‘position’ that the inspections Saddam won’t allow must be completed before taking any action against Saddam for not allowing them.

“If the weapons inspections do not take place, if we do not have clear proof and if we do not have the authorization of the Security Council, we cannot launch a military attack on Iraq – otherwise, there would be incalculable consequences”.

Ah. Confucious would be proud!

Since the beginning of the decade-long struggle between the United States and Iraq, France and Russia have been the leading powers sympathetic to Saddam Hussein.

Linked by oil contracts, military sales, and loans, they have been Iraq’s partisans, protectors, and proxies.

This isn’t about inspectors or evidence, this is about money.

Russian and French economic interests are not insignificant. Few reliable statistics are available, but trade between Russia and Iraq could run as high as $4 billion a year.

The Russian firm Lukoil, which is trying to extract 667 million tons of crude from the West Qurna oil field, says its contracts could be worth another $20 billion.

And let’s not forget that Iraq still owes Russia $7 billion for weapons purchased during the Cold War.

France’s economic stake is also substantial. The largest long-term contract in Iraq’s oil-for-food program is with Paris.

The French helped develop industrial support for Iraq’s military and helped build the nation’s electronics facilities.

US intelligence has officially designated China as one of the world’s main suppliers of missile-related technologies and nuclear materials, in particular to North Korea and Iraq.


This reads very much like the history books explaining the root causes of World War II.

You know the ones I mean. Where they lament the fact that all the signs were there, but none of the world leaders at the time could read them?

The regional conflicts remain unresolved; Greece vs Turkey, Pakistan vs India, Israel vs the Arabs; the former Yugoslavia continues to smolder beneath the surface.

The Russians still want the world to look the other way while they deal with Georgia and Chechnya.

The Chinese want the world to look the other way while they deal with Taiwan.

The French are just being French.

Historians would note as a telling sign the speed with which the UN mobilized global condemnation against Israel for cornering terrorists in Yasser Arafat’s compound, rushing to the rescue of one terrorist while obstructing action against another.

All the while proclaiming solidarity with America’s war on terror.

The world is crying — screaming! — for leadership at the global level before we destroy civilization in a new global war.

The Bible pictures exactly that scenario in the last days. It is out of exactly this kind of chaos that such a leader will emerge.

The stage is set for the final seven year drama that begins with the rise of antichrist and ends with Christ’s return.

The coming Tribulation Period is close. It could take another few years for the remaining details to fall into place. Or it could begin with the next war. Or it could start tomorrow.

This much is certain. Time is running out.

‘Not Playing Politics’, Dems To Delay Iraq Vote

‘Not Playing Politics’, Dems To Delay Iraq Vote
Vol: 12 Issue: 27 Friday, September 27, 2002

The day after Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle accused the administration of politicizing the war, a group of House Democrats are planning a strategy designed to delay the vote on Iraq until after the November 5th elections.

Democratic Representatives Ellen Tauscher of California and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have requested a meeting of all 209 House Democrats to round up support for delaying the vote on a use-of-force resolution until January.

In a self-indicting statement, Tauscher and Kucinich said in a letter to fellow House Democrats, The war has become a political issue in House and Senate campaigns.

Ellen Tauscher told the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call that she resented what she saw as efforts by GOP House Whip Tom DeLay to make the Iraq vote a manhood test.

Daschle said Republicans had made it much more difficult to reach a consensus by politicizing the Iraqi issue and he said was now “unsure” the resolution could reach the Senate floor by next week as planned.

Daschle doesn’t say how the White House is politicizing the war. Evidently by jumping through the political hoops Daschle keeps putting in the way.


Not all Democrats are lying through their teeth, although one would have to be an idiot to argue that Daschle has any objective apart from winning seats in November. He can deny it all day long, but his actions say something else.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, speaking for a small breakaway group of Democrats, said, We stand today with President Bush not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans who share the president s belief that its time once and for all to stop Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction,

Other Democrats meeting with Bush included Reps. Leonard Boswell of Iowa, Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota Bob Clement of Tennessee and Bart Stupak of Michigan.

If Daschle cared about the safety of American troops, he’d be doing exactly the opposite of what he is now doing.

The US needs to attack no later than January, and have wrapped up the war by February in order to avoid having troops in heavy chemical suits fighting in the desert heat.

It is our troops who will sweat the effort to protect Democratic seats in the Senate, not the senators who put their reelection hopes ahead of national security.

Or the country in general. If the vote is delayed long enough, the Pentagon will be forced to postpone the war by a full year until the weather favors a ground war.

That’s all the time Saddam needs to develop a nuclear weapon, according to both US and British intelligence.

As I pointed out yesterday, Daschle took to the well of the Senate to denounce President Bush by accusing him of politicizing the war in a speech he made. Except Bush wasn’t talking about the war, didn’t mention the Democrats and didn’t say what Daschle accused him of.

When these (somewhat salient) facts were pointed out to him, neither Daschle nor Gephardt missed a beat. “Maybe that’s not what he said,” both acknowledged under direct questioning, “But that’s what he meant.”


The truth is not in them. The Democrats are desperate to find something that will prove they were right about Bush. Somewhere. The strategy is failing.

According to the Democrats, Bush is responsible for the recession; (that began before he took office) the Bush tax cuts made it worse; (it didn’t, it served as a cushion) Bush was running roughshod over the Congress on Iraq; (the opposite is actually true).

Just last month, the Democrats were insisting the president bring the debate to Congress. In August, Daschle said it would be a big mistake for the administration to act without Congress and without its involvement.

In September, Daschle said: “It would certainly be in [the president s] best interest, our country’s best interest, for him to go to . . . the United Nations, to solicit their support.”

The president went to the U.N. and laid out a clear and compelling case to that body.

Since the president has done and said everything the Democrats demanded of him, the tactic now is to go after him for things he didn’t do or say.

Now Daschle says that a ‘trusting relationship must be restored’ with the White House before the Senate can move on the resolution, which the administration had hoped to see done next week.

It was the first truthful statement offered by either Daschle or Gephardt regarding the White House this week.

Daschle noted during what some in the media are calling his ‘breakdown speech’ that, “Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they see going on right now. We’ve got to be better than this, our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we’re giving now.”

Daschle thought he was talking about the President. He should read his words again.

There are but three questions facing Daschle and Company.

First, is Saddam Hussein a clear and present threat to his neighbors and to regional peace? Second, does that threat extend to America? And third, will that threat go away by itself?

Do you think those questions remain unanswered?

Now, one more question. Which is more important? The security of the United States? Or getting re-elected?

Is the war being politicized by Bush? I dunno. Is Bush responsible for the March 2000 recession?

Is Al Gore the guy you’d like to see running the country at this moment?

I’d love to be able to ignore American politics and stick to the meat of Bible prophecy, but there is no way to separate the two and hope to understand the scenario of the last days .

The government of antichrist is political as well as spiritual.

A political climate of deception must not only exist — it must be politics as usual — for the world’s most prolific deceiver to enjoy any measure of success when his time comes.

Separating politics from end time prophecy would be like trying to understand science apart from mathematics.

You can’t get there from here.

When asked what would be the sign of His coming, the FIRST thing Jesus said was, “Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matt 24:4)

Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much

Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much
Vol: 12 Issue: 26 Thursday, September 26, 2002

I heard someone recently compare the United States Senate to a bunch of idiots. I am sorry to say that at the time, I heartily agreed with the statement.

I would like to apologize, here and now — to any idiots I may have offended by the comparison.

I was fascinated when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle ripped into President Bush from the floor of the Senate, demanding the President apologize for implying that Democrats were ‘not interested’ in the security of the American people.

Here’s the background statement made by President Bush. “The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure.”

Daschle went positively ballistic. According to Daschle, Bush was saying the Democrats were unwilling to give Bush the authorization he is seeking to attack Iraq. And that Bush was implying Democrats cared more about their re-election in November than homeland security.

“That is wrong,” Daschle thundered. “We ought not to politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death.”

Not to be outdone, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia demonstrated what fifty years in the Senate can do to a man.

[A selected excerpt: “Wrong!” (pause) “Wrong!” (pause) “Wrong!”]

“We’ve got to rise to a higher level,” Daschle said. “Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they see going on right now. We’ve got to be better than this, our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we’re giving now.”

“You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people” because they are Democrats, Daschle said later in his daily question-and-answer with reporters. “That is outrageous.”

Wow. They got all that out of the previously noted statement about the Office of Homeland Security?

Couple of things to note about that core statement. First, the context. Bush wasn’t talking about the Iraq resolution. He was talking about the debate over elevating the Homeland Security office to a Cabinet level post.

Bush said that Senate Democrats were slowing debate in a politically motivated effort to preserve civil service protections that he said would tie his hands.

So, the tantrum in the Senate was unrelated to Iraq.

And Bush’s response to Daschle’s outburst didn’t sound like it was too concerned with politics to me.

“I am as determined today as I was on September 11th to pursue an enemy which still wants to hurt America,” Bush said. “The American people should expect me and any president to do everything we can to protect the homeland, and I will.”


The threat posed the United States by Saddam Hussein’s regime is real. Bush isn’t making it up. The politicizing of the war is equally real.

It only becomes political when it gets made political. The Bush charge that some in the Senate are more interested in ‘appeasing special interests’ than homeland security has resonance.

Bush wants the authority to hire fire or transfer federal civil service employees of the Office of Homeland Security.

The Senate is holding it up under pressure from labor unions that fear it will erode civil service protections.

Let me say first that they’re right. It WILL erode some collective bargaining power for the labor unions.

At present, federal civil service employees are essentially entrenched for life. The federal government is the nation’s largest single employer. That makes the collective bargaining authority representing them a powerful political force.

Here’s my best effort to translate the doublespeak.

In assuming that the party supported by the federal labor unions is the equivalent to Democrats, Daschle acknowledged the ‘special interest’ pressure referred to in the Bush comment was true.

That’s how Daschle made the connection that Bush MEANT Democrats when he said “the ‘Senate’ is more interested in special interests in Washington.”

Now, how did Bush ‘politicize’ the war?

It was Daschle who decided to take the rest of it out of context, apply it to his own reluctance to act independently of the United Nations, wrap himself in the American flag and demand an apology from Bush for impugning the patriotism of the Democratic Party.

Except Bush didn’t say any of that. The FACTS say all that, but Bush didn’t. The flap in the Senate is over Democratic reluctance to give Bush ‘bargain-busting’ authority.

The Senate has already heard testimony that ’employee entrenchment’ — or career federal civil servants who can’t be fired or transferred for non-performance — contributed to the breakdown of the intelligence gathering apparatus leading up to 9/11.

Let’s look at the equation. The unions don’t like that part of the plan. The unions support the Democrats. The Democrats don’t like that part of the plan, either, although they know it helped bring about 9/11.

A conundrum. Especially if somebody, like the president, points out the obvious. NOW what?

Umm. . .politicize the war by accusing the White House of politicizing the war? Change the focus of the spotlight AWAY from the fact ‘some’ in the Senate are putting their re-election hopes over national security?

This whole thing is an elaborate pre-election con game.

But this is not the time. Nor the place. America is facing a REAL war, against a determined enemy, at a time of unparalleled global unrest.

The Middle East is already primed and ready for war. Even without America’s planned invasion of Iraq.

There are terrorist cells living undetected among us.

America is opposed by most of our traditional allies.

In Germany, all Gerhard Schroeder had to do to come back from behind and win reelection was to hate America with more venom than his opponent did.

Russia announced today it would not support any new UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein.

America, with a handful of allies, stands alone against the rest of the world.

This is not the time for politics as usual.

“The Sleepers Have Awakened”

“The Sleepers Have Awakened”
Vol: 12 Issue: 25 Wednesday, September 25, 2002

US intelligence officials present at the interrogation of Ramzi Binalishib say that the rules have changed for al-Qaeda sleeper cells world-wide.

According to the most recent information being developed, the al-Qaeda network has decentralized its command structure, and has sent instructions to sleeper cells to attack their assigned targets at will.

The information was developed by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, one of the most well connected reporters in Washington and one of my most trusted sources.

Gertz said that terrorist cells now have more autonomy to conduct attacks around the world, quoting officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“The decentralization means the danger from this group is growing,” one U.S. intelligence official is quoted as saying.

So, how credible is the ultimate source? Is Binalshib for real?

One of the al Qaeda militants arrested two weeks ago with Binalshibh in Pakistan has been identified as one of the killers of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl, a senior Pakistani police official told the Associated Press last week.

The official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, refused to identify the suspect but said he was not among the five persons, including Binalshibh, who were handed over to U.S. authorities on Sept. 16 and flown out of the country.


If true, it would be the first evidence linking al Qaeda to Pearl’s abduction and killing. Pearl was kidnapped in January while investigating links between Pakistani militants and Richard C. Reid, the ‘shoe bomber.’ Reid was arrested in December on a flight from Paris to Miami trying to set off explosives in his shoes.

So let’s start connecting the dots.

Binalshibh’s a Yemeni national. So are the Lackawanna Six. Pearl was investigating Reid’s connections to al-Qaeda when he was killed by an al-Qaeda terrorist arrested with Binalshib, from whom this information was obtained. Previous US intelligence estimates put as many as 5,000 al Qaeda members of sleeper cells inside the United States.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said two weeks ago in announcing a heightened alert status that “widely dispersed, unsophisticated strikes” by lower-level al Qaeda operatives are a danger.

The alert status has been downgraded from ‘High’ to ‘Elevated’ but Ashcroft says it was because maintaining the level at ‘high’ without a specific threat would be meaningless.

Added together, one comes up with a pretty accurate picture. And it isn’t pretty.

How America reacts under the strain will determine America’s future role in the global political arena.

There are already calls to abandon ‘traditional foreign policy objectives’ — double-speak for abandoning Israel — and embrace the ‘common global security structure’ of the United Nations.

Christians are now a target of Islamic warriors world-wide. Six Pakistani Christians were executed at a Pakistani charity for the crime of being Christians earlier this morning. This is just one in an ever-increasing wave of attacks specifically targeting Christians.

America is perceived as a Christian country by the Islamists. The next logical step for appeasing the Muslims would seem to be for a movement calling upon America to disavow Christianity.

Where is America in Bible prophecy? It isn’t mentioned. We may soon find out why.

Now is the time to pray for our country. And for our faith. And for the lost in America at risk of having their chance to decide for Christ robbed from them by an al-Qaeda sleeper cell terrorist.

Your friends and co-workers will want to know what it is that the war is all about. First, tell them what it s NOT about. It s NOT about US foreign policy. It s NOT about US support for Israel. It s NOT even all about the USA, in the final analysis.

Christians anywhere in the Islamic world are at risk. Now so are Christians in America.

What is this war about? Add up the available facts, filter out the spin and take a look at who this war is against.

It s against Jesus Christ — and those who claim Him. We are dedicated to providing you with the truth and the evidence to back it up. That s why we come at you from some many different angles; media propaganda, liberalist agendas, national politics, international politics, the Middle East all point to war against the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus and those who claim Him.

A war against those who believe the Bible is the living Word of God.

Is this the beginning of the Tribulation? No. That comes with the signing of the confirmation of the treaty of Daniel 9:26. We aren t there yet. But we are certainly close.

This isn t the end, or the beginning of the end.

But it is certainly the end of the beginning, to borrow a line from Winston Churchill.

Pray for the spiritual condition and enlightenment of our leaders. Pray for America.

But keep your powder dry.

He’s My President, Too!

He’s My President, Too!
Vol: 12 Issue: 24 Tuesday, September 24, 2002

With those words, Al Gore put a cap on the most contentious and fractious presidential race in US history. You remember how it all went down.

There was the effort to ‘take the high road’ by repeating the mantra, “every vote should count” while simultaneously conducting a court battle to disqualify hundreds of military votes.

The rallies in which candidate Bush was accused of ‘stealing the election’ while Gore’s lawyers tried to have it declared invalid; the double standard in which the Florida Supreme Court’s rewrite of Florida election law was appropriate but the Supreme Court intervention was a political coup d’etat.

Then, when it was all over, after long weeks of constant sniping from the Gore side, the magnanimous concession speech in which Al Gore announced that George Bush was “my president, too.”

Since then, Gore has maintained a bit of momentum from the charges that Bush ‘stole’ the 2000 election.

That dog won’t hunt anymore. The FEC concluded Clinton-Gore BOUGHT theirs in 1996.

This week, the Federal Election Commission has finally closed its books on the 1996 Clinton fund-raising scandals, announcing Monday that it fined the Democratic National Committee $115,000 for accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from non-U.S. citizens and other illegal sources.

FEC documents described how Democratic fund-raisers demanded illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals in China and other countries in exchange for meetings with then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.

Penalized, among others, were the Democratic National Committee, $115,000; the Clinton-Gore campaign, $2,000; and the Buddhist Progressive Society, $120,000, the Washington Post reported.

The paper also said the DNC also agreed to surrender an additional $128,000 representing illegal campaign donations that were not returned.

On the heels of all that, Al Gore came roaring back with a vengeance this week, launching an all out assault against George Bush the man, George Bush the Commander in Chief and the Bush economic platform.

When it came to Iraq, Al Gore used to be a hawk, until he saw a possible political advantage in attacking the administration over whether or not we should move against Saddam Hussein.

He said on Monday that Bush’s position regarding Saddam Hussein has ‘hurt the United States’ standing and could dangerously undermine the rule of law around the world’ according to published accounts.

“After Sept. 11, we had enormous sympathy, goodwill and support around the world,” Gore said Monday. “We’ve squandered that, and in one year we’ve replaced that with fear, anxiety and uncertainty, not at what the terrorists are going to do but at what we are going to do.”

Did I remember to mention that Gore also accused Bush of ‘politicizing’ the war to his advantage?


What I DO remember that ‘enormous sympathy, goodwill and support’. It began with celebratory marches across the Middle East, disingenous expressions of sympathy like the proffered Saudi donation of $10 million to Rudi Guiliani (provided we admitted we brought it on ourselves by supporting Israel) and the refusal of European states to cooperate in the prosecution of known terrorists in US custody.

Unless Gore is speaking of the outpouring of condolences from those friendly nations who, as the shock wore off, began pointing to US foreign policy as the underlying cause of September 11.

Gore says all that is the fault of George W. Bush. The Democratic presidential candidate accused Bush of abandoning the goal of a world where nations follow laws.

“That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States,” he said.

“If other nations assert the same right, then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear,” and any nation that perceives itself threatened would feel justified in starting wars, he said.

Apparently, George Bush isn’t Al Gore’s president anymore. And, if the Democrats are to be believed, Al Gore isn’t their candidate for president anymore, either. But nobody told Al Gore.

His speech was not vetted by the DNC, and the Democratic establishment is scrambling to distance themselves from their former champion’s comments.

Gore was all over the map, first praising Bush 41’s prosecution of the Persian Gulf war, then criticizing him for not taking out Saddam. (Gore didn’t mention the fact that the mission objective was to end the Kuwaiti occupation and contain Iraq — not to end Saddam’s regime).

Gore admitted that he knew Iraq had secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons back when he was vice-president, but skipped the part about the ineffectiveness of a weapons inspection program that left him with sufficient stockpiles to kill everybody on earth, if Saddam could develop an effective delivery system.

According to Gore, President Bush is out to rule the world, not end the threat posed by al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein.

Gore says Bush’s policies threaten to “destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.”

Gore has decided that faced with ‘his president’s’ judgment on what’s best for America’s security, he feels safer relying on the judgment of the United Nations Security Council.

Gore picked a good time to remind America he is still the Man with the Plan. The DNC, having concluded they can’t win by tacking the administration on Iraq, is trying to shift attention away from the war and toward the economy.

Already every major Democratic presidential candidate has laid down his take on what President Bush and the U.S. should do with Iraq, and almost all of them, from Lieberman to Edwards to Gephardt have taken a more hawkish stand than Gore himself took earlier this year in a speech before the Council of Foreign Relations.

Suddenly there is Al Gore, shifting the debate back toward the war, irritating both the Republicans and his own party – which is still trying to recover from the Clinton-Gore hangover.

Al Gore stands as a living monument to the power of a sympathetic press corps’ ability to turn black into white, up into down, lies into truth and scandals into political advantage.

It doesn’t matter what reality is, provided you have the backing of the mainstream media.

Why is Al Gore a fitting topic for a news briefing dedicated to Bible prophecy? Because this isn’t about Gore. It’s about deception. Gore is just the illustration.

The Bible says that, when the time comes, the world will be ripe for the greatest deception of all time when the antichrist comes to power.

Americans have traditionally believed that with our free press and open society, we’re too sophisticated to fall for the siren song of globalism that will be put to such effective use by the antichrist in the last days.

Al Gore isn’t the antichrist, but he is a master of mass deception.

The antichrist could pick up a few pointers from this latest speech.

Senatorial Double-Speak and Global Government

Senatorial Double-Speak and Global Government
Vol: 12 Issue: 23 Monday, September 23, 2002

Senator Carl Levin [D,MI] made all the international papers with his comments on the Sunday talk shows about how best to deal with Iraq. Levin is the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and after about five minutes of listening to him tell us what was best “in my judgment” it was clear he didn’t have very much judgment.

Indeed, for the chair of the powerful Armed Services Committee, his answers suggested he hadn’t given Iraq much thought at all.

Levin waxed eloquently about the need for inspectors when telling Tony Snow why he couldn’t support the president on Iraq.

“Well, first of all, I think the — we ought to focus on getting the United Nations to issue an ultimatum for inspection, to put down deadlines to have these be unlimited, unrestricted inspections, and to have the U.N. authorize member states to use force to enforce that resolution, as well as earlier resolutions.”

In Levin’s view, the administration should be “focusing on the inspections to try to get those inspections done, but authorizing force if Saddam fools around.”

It is significant to note that the president has determined that United States policy regarding Saddam Hussein is a regime change, not a return to the UN inspection regime. It would have been helpful for someone to have alerted the head of the Armed Services Committee to that fact.

Tony Snow tried to. He reminded the Senator that passing another resolution is unlikely to work, given Saddam continues to ignore sixteen of them now.

This is where Levin really started to scare me. “Well, it may or may not make any difference. I’d be skeptical that he would open up to inspections. But if force is going to be used, having the weight of the world behind the use of force is very, very important in terms of the response of much of the world to the use of force.”

Who does Levin represent? The people of the United States or the architects of the New World Order?

What if Saddam strikes while the Congress waits for permission from the UN to defend America, Snow wanted to know. Levin’s answer never addressed the question. I even went back and read the transcripts. (,2933,63764,00.html)

Snow asked Levin — directly — if the Congress should wait for the UN to act before it did. Snow asked Levin twice and got two different answers.

Snow asked Levin, point blank, “The United Nations has passed a series of resolutions that in retrospect are toothless. Do you believe the United Nations needs to act before you and members of Congress can act on a war resolution? “

According to Levin, “I think the United Nations should issue the ultimatum, put down very clear dates, what he must do in terms of being unqualified, unrestricted inspections, and I believe that the United Nations should authorize member states to use force to implement those resolutions.”

Sounds like yes to me, but to Levin, that meant no. Snow asked Levin again, “I want to get clear on one thing. Should Congress wait for the U.N. to act before Congress acts on a resolution?”

Clarity was the last thing Snow got. “No. I think we should adopt a resolution urging the United Nations to adopt the kind of resolution which I’ve just outlined.” But then he went on to say the opposite (again).

How’s this for clear as mud? Keep in mind, this is the top dog on the Senate Armed Services Committee speaking about America’s right to self defense.

“So, to answer specifically what I think you’re driving at, I would say that, if the U.N. adopts the kind of resolution authorizing force to enforce the kind of inspections that they should have a resolution adopted for, then I believe this resolution should say, in the event the U.N. adopts a resolution authorizing member states to use force to enforce the inspections, I believe this resolution should say that, under those circumstances, we should authorize force to enforce that U.N. resolution.”


So, does the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee think that the power to declare war rests with the United States Congress, or with the UN Security Council? Can you tell?

Correct me if I am just a bit thick, but it appears that Levin’s reply to the question, is the Congress subservient to the UN, the answer is “No, we are” or something to that effect. The Congress should act independently of the UN, but only if the UN acts first or some such mumbling nonsense.

It was hard to tell if Levin was trying to avoid taking a position or if he didn’t know what his position was, but what I found interesting was this.

For years, any discussion of the coming global hegemony of the antichrist was always predicated by a discussion about whether or not the world — and in particular, America — would put themselves under a global authority.

Watching the Sunday talk shows answered that question. Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said keeping the word “region” in the resolution would set ‘too broad’ a precedent.

Biden had a unique way of saying the same thing Levin did, without even taking as definite a position as Levin avoided. “There is a degree of confidence that increases in direct proportion to the notion that we are not going to be going alone with this.”

Translation: ‘Let’s hide behind the UN’.

Somehow, since 1990, US foreign policy has become secondary to UN policy FOR US foreign policy, if you can follow that convolution.

This, in spite of the fact that UN foreign policy is exactly the opposite of what the US sees as being in its best interests.

UN foreign policy represents the majority of the world, and the US is not a majority player. It represents six percent of the global population and, although it has the veto, so do the French, Chinese, British and Russians.

But the Europeans have a vote for each member state. So do the Arabs. And European foreign policy favors the Arabs, whereas US foreign policy favors Israel (who also has one vote).

Generally, the world votes this way whenever Israel is concerned. The US, Israel, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia consistently vote on one side, the rest of the world on the other.

Ten years ago, the challenge was to prove that there really was a global government. Today, it is a fact of no particular interest to the public in general.

But the tide is shifting. The UN, despite the high esteem some American lawmakers hold it in, is an anachronism for the 21st century. Iraq is indeed the UN’s Abyssinia. I think that is obvious and that the UN s days are numbered. There is no way it can recover its lost credibility. It s bias is too well established for it to ever be accepted as anything more than a rubber stamp for European and Arab interests.

But like the League of Nations before it, it will not simply cease to be. Instead, a new global organization will rise to take its place — one more representative of the needs and desires of the OTHER 94% of the global population.

It won’t be the United States.

The Bible says it will be the revived Roman Empire. And ten years from now, if the Lord tarries, I’ll be writing a column marveling about how it came to pass, just as the Bible predicted.

While nobody really noticed.

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” Luke 21:28

Special Report: Where We Are – Where We’re Headed

Special Report: Where We Are – Where We’re Headed
Vol: 12 Issue: 22 Sunday, September 22, 2002

Saddam seems bent on setting the Middle East aflame, even if it means his own self-destruction. At this point in time, there is no way that he can believe he would survive the next war. Last week, he blunted the US forward momentum at the UN in a single stroke by offering an unconditional to the Gulf War inspections regime.

Immediately after, the whole world and half the US Congress forgot all about Saddam’s WMD. The Russians were satisfied. So was all of Europe, except for Great Britain. The Canadians were happy and the UN announced that a crisis had been averted.

Saddam’s stall tactics appeared to have a good chance of being successful. As we pointed out, all Saddam needed to do was stall until mid-winter and he’d have almost a whole year before weather conditions would permit a full-scale attack.

Instead, inexplicably, he then turned around and handed Washington exactly the provocation it needed to justify an attack, with or without UN support.

When Saddam Hussein said he would not comply with any new UN resolutions, he sealed his fate. War will come to Baghdad before springtime will.

This war won’t be survivable for Saddam Hussein. He knows that. The Iraqi declaration wasn’t just political suicide, it was an act of suicide in every conventional sense of the word. Saddam’s only hope of living another year was to stall another year — and he deliberately provoked war instead.

The White House stopped pretending, Bush stopped protesting that “there are no war plans on my desk” and the New York Times is competing with the Washington Post to see who will earn the prize for supplying the most detailed military intelligence to the Iraqi government.

One this is for sure. Tikrit is sure to be a ghost town during the mid-winter months. The Post told the public (and the Iraqis) that,

“the bull’s-eye is Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, where about 50,000 people live on the Tigris River about 100 miles north of Baghdad. . . Experts on Iraq say that Tikrit is the nexus between Hussein, the security police and his weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. “Iraq’s WMD are under the control of the special security organization,” Khidir Hamza, a former Iraqi nuclear engineer, recently testified on Capitol Hill. “This is the same group that are charged with Saddam’s security. This feared and ruthless organization is mainly composed of conscripts from Saddam’s hometown and very loyal tribes in the adjacent areas.” “


It seems that is unlikely to be the case once the Iraqi ambassador opens his morning copy of the Washington Post. On the other hand, last week the New York Times printed a completely different set of war plans as the ‘definitive’ Pentagon Plan A.

For a highly secretive Pentagon developing super top secret military invasion plans, they sure have a lot of leaks. If Supreme Allied Command had operated the way the Pentagon does, June 6, 1944 would have been the day the Allies lost World War II.

Either the Pentagon has been heavily infiltrated by spies and traitors or the multiplicity of leaks are designed to keep the Iraqis off-balance.

Iraq’s future was sealed by the words of Hebrew prophets thousands of years in advance, and it appears that Saddam is bent on bringing about its fulfillment.

The city of Babylon is located about thirty miles outside of Baghdad. It has a population of about thirty thousand. Saddam has largely rebuilt the city, including several of Nebuchanezzar’s palaces.

Jeremiah prophesied of Babylon, “And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.” [Jeremiah 51:37]

Of the kingdom of Babylon, [modern day Iraq] Jeremiah says, “Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness, a land wherein no man dwelleth, neither doth any son of man pass thereby.” [Jeremiah 51:43].

Babylon the city fell into disrepair over the centuries, but has never been wholly uninhabited. Neither was the entire kingdom been left desolate, “without an inhabitant” throughout all the long Chaldean history.

The Medo-Persians absorbed Babylon, and was, in its turn absorbed by Alexander the Great’s Greek Empire, which was swallowed up by the Roman Empire.

When Rome collapsed, Iraq (then Mesopotamia) had no definitive boundaries, apart from the land which lies between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, but it continued to exist, as did its cities, many of which date from Biblical times.

The city of Ur, the home of Abraham is known today as Tall al Muqayyar, Iraqi cities were never before ‘without an inhabitant.’

Developing events suggest that Jeremiah’s prophecy may be fulfilled in the near future.

The New York Times is reporting that Ariel Sharon has ‘informed’ the Bush administration that it will ‘retaliate’ if Iraq attacks Israel.

According to a recent poll by the newspaper Yediot Ahronot, 70 percent of Israelis believe that the nation should retaliate if it is subjected to the same sort of Scud attacks it endured in 1991.

“There are many more options now for Israel to be defended,” said David Ivri, Israel’s former ambassador to Washington and a senior defense official during the Gulf War. ” . . there is also much more of a tendency to respond this time,” Mr. Ivri said. “Otherwise, we will lose deterrence. We did not retaliate in 1991. If we do not retaliate another time, neighboring countries may think we do not have confidence in our ability.”

The fact that Israel intends to retaliate — and says so — is significant. Although intended as a warning, it is in fact an invitation.

Saddam’s strategy is to invite a retaliatory strike that will so inflame the remainder of the Middle East that the Arab world will rise up as one and drive the Jews into the sea.

Saddam knows that he must die to make it happen, but he is convinced that he will be remembered as the 21st century’s answer to Nebuchadnezzar — the only Arab leader to conquer Israel in battle in history. Saddam wants to go down in history as the 2nd Nebuchadnezzar.

To ensure a massive Israeli retaliatory strike, Saddam is likely to unleash Scud missiles tipped with chemical or biological warheads. Israel has made no secret of its nuclear defense policy.

That policy is divided into two distinct levels — the Samson Option and the Masada Complex. Samson was the Biblical Judge who pulled down the house on himself in order to destroy his enemies. The Masdada Complex referred to the Roman seige at the Jewish stronghold of Masada. Rather than surrender the defending Jews burned the entire complex — leaving a single storehouse packed with food and supplies intact. Then they committed mass suicide. (the storehouse, with supplies, was left intact as a message to the Romans that they chose death over conquest)

An Israeli counter-strike to a chemical or biological attack would almost certainly be nuclear. Strategically speaking, every second between the first Iraqi WMD strike and the certainty of Iraq’s inability to strike again reduces Israel’s survivability as a viable nation.

A nuclear counterstrike is demanded under the Samson Option.

Such a strike would guarantee Israeli security from additonal incoming Scud attacks from that entire region of Iraq.

With nuclear weapons, precision is not that big a deal, since the strike zone will be ‘without an inhabitant.’ Baghdad is a certain target, as are Saddam’s surrounding military complexes (including those at his southern palaces in Babylon).

Directly to Israel’s north, Syria has missiles already tipped with chemical and biological warheads and already pointed directly to the south.

The Masada Complex comes into play here. Damascus also has an unfulfilled destiny, according to Scripture.

Damascus, the capital of Syria, is the oldest continually inhabited city on earth, with a history that goes back as far as the earliest records of antiquity. The operative words here are “continuously inhabited”.

Unlike most other cities of antiquity, Damascus has never ceased to be a major Middle Eastern population center — not even for a brief period. Damascus is made mention of as early as Genesis Chapter 14.

Israel has more than 400 nuclear weapons in hidden silos in various places within their borders, as well as at least two submarines in the Mediterranean that are launch capable. And you can be certain that in the event of a massive WMD attack by the Syrians, Israel will respond in kind.

Isaiah 17:1 speaks to Syria’s capital, saying, “the burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.”

Historians and skeptics often argue that the prophecies concerning Babylon were fulfilled when Babylon fell, but Jeremiah is much too specific –‘without an inhabitant’ means what it says.

The same argument is advanced for the prophecies concerning Damascus, that, while continuously inhabited throughout history, it has been sufficiently destroyed in previous wars to warrant marking this prophecy ‘fulfilled’.

Isaiah says that the destruction of Damascus shall occur “In the day shalt thou make thy plant to grow, and in the morning shalt thou make thy seed to flourish: but the harvest shall be a heap in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow.” -Isaiah 17:11.

Israel, God’s ‘fig tree’ (Matthew 24:7), ‘born at once’ (Isaiah 66:7) is the modern state of Israel. Israel did not exist in Isaiah’s day (the kingdom of Israel was destroyed a century before by Sargon) and did not exist again as a nation until May 14, 1948.

Isaiah accurately forecasts the global reaction already evident in the world’s relationship with Israel. “Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations, that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters! The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.” (Isaiah 17:12-13)

Isaiah further establishes that this is a future event and not history. Of Israel’s enemy, Isaiah says, “And behold at eveningtide trouble; and before the morning he is not. This is the portion of them that spoil us, and the lot of them that rob us.” (Isaiah 17:14)

Isaiah speaks of overnight destruction — ‘at eveningtide trouble; and before the morning he is not’ says the prophet. Ancient armies didn’t make war at night and the overnight destruction of a city of Damascus size was a physical impossibility, even if the invaders met zero resistance.

Israeli use of nuclear weapons is made even more likely by the probability of a open war — on a scale not yet seen — by a determined anemy already ‘within its gates’ — the Palestinians.

Numbers 33:55 says, “But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.”

The ancient Israelites were warned, says Judges 2:2-3, “And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.”

All in all, a pretty coherent description of the developing crisis in the Middle East. Lightning war, entire regions made uninhabitable, specific details like identifying Damascus and Babylon — Israel’s two most likely targets in the event of war — by name.

All of it happening at precisely the same point in history, under the precise geopolitical situation existing in this generation (to the exclusion of all generations prior to 1948) all leading to the exact outcome foretold by the prophets.

We are living in the last days. If you don’t know Christ, you can. It’s a simple plan. You can find out how by going to our website and clicking on this link.

If you know Christ, now is the time to introduce Him to your friends.

The Omega Letter exists for the express purpose of equipping you with the tools you need to prove to the lost that there isn’t time to put it off.

2nd Corinthians 6:2 says “behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”

The fields are white with harvest. We have much work to do, and, from all the indications, not much time in which to get it done.

Saddam, Arafat Writing Political Epitaphs

Saddam, Arafat Writing Political Epitaphs
Vol: 12 Issue: 21 Saturday, September 21, 2002

Two of the world’s most repulsive dictators are apparently making preparations for their political swan songs. The only question remaining is how many of their own people they will take with them.

They’re both toast, and they both know it, but both hope to strike out at the enemy one last time. The harder, the better. As far as the consequences, hey, what do they care? They’ll both be dead.

The first is Yasser Arafat, who is writing is political epitaph as we speak. The Israeli army moved to put into effect yesterday what looks like the final stage of a plan to destroy Yasser Arafat politically, blowing up all the buildings in his Ramallah headquarters except his own forlorn offices.

This morning, reports say that Arafat is holed up in a third floor building and that bulldozers have knocked out the only stairwell leading to the outside.

Israel Defense Forces said they are looking for four senior Palestinian security and intelligence officials they claim are holed up in the compound — an allegation Palestinians deny. The IDF has released details of the four who Israel accuses of financing and aiding terrorists.

And Saddam Hussein announced over Iraqi radio that the government of Iraq will NOT cooperate with any new UN resolutions.

The Iraqi announcement is a direct challenge to U.S. President George W. Bush’s push for a new resolution that puts teeth into current ones, creating concise and strong consequences should Iraq renege on its agreement.

“Iraq announces that it will not cooperate with a new resolution which is different to what was agreed upon with the secretary-general (Kofi Annan),” said a statement issued following a meeting of top Iraqi leaders chaired by President Saddam Hussein.

“The American officials are trying, according to the media, to issue new, bad resolutions from the Security Council,” the statement, carried by Baghdad radio, said.


I heard an idiot on Fox News today who pointed out that the Iraqi communique only specified ‘new’ UN resolutions. “As long as he complies with the old ones,” Ellen Ratner thinks, “we’ll be ok.”

The logic of this thinking completely escapes me. Iraq hasn’t complied with any previous resolutions, has just declared it won’t accept future resolutions and is in violation of 16 existing resolutions at this moment in time.

To suggest that parsing the word ‘new’ somehow gives Iraq a clean slate upon which to write its future is to me the most idiotic thing ever contemplated. Yet it has most of the world’s governments tied up in knots.

Kofi Annan once asked, “Can the US be right, and the whole world be wrong?” I keep asking myself a similar question. Is it just me? Can the whole world be wrong? Am I just an spokesperson for a lunatic fringe group?

What keeps me from packing it in and calling the guys with the butterfly nets to take me for a nice long rest is the answer to that question. Only if the Bible is wrong. If I am gonna be nuts for believing the Bible then I can only admit I’m bonkers.

The Bible says that as the countdown continues, there is a concurrent conflict taking place at the spiritual level. One can see the spiritual nature of the conflict manifested in three distinct ways.

First, there’s always the ‘god factor’. There is God and all the god wannabes. The winner gets Jerusalem. That defines most of the western religious conflicts.

The fact that the UN is bringing its pressure to bear against God’s side proves the Biblical teaching the Satan is the ‘god of this world’.

The Bible says, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14. Reading that passage was a relief.

The answer to the question, “Can the whole world be wrong?” is therefore either yes, or the Bible is wrong. And if the Bible is wrong, then everything up to now is just a big coincidence. If I believed that, THEN I’d be nuts.

Second, it seeks the ‘high moral ground’ in the valleys. When the global establishment sides with the bloodstained regimes of Yasser Arafat or Saddam Hussein against the United States or Israel, I note that they always attempt to draw some kind of moral equivalency. “The Palestinians are terrible, but the Israelis are doing the same thing. . . .” or, “Saddam’s regime has killed lots of innocents, but what about the US bombs that killed innocents in Afghanistan?”

That kind of worldview requires a breathtaking degree of blindness. And since it is so sincerely advanced as being a legitimate argument, I suspect that at least some of those advancing it believe it.

But the innocents killed by the Palestinians were on purpose. Those innocents killed by al-Qaeda were on purpose. There is no moral equivalency between killing someone on purpose and killing someone by accident.

If there were no difference, would you ever drive a car again? Forty thousand people die in auto accidents every year in America. If there were no difference, then either there would be forty thousand murder charges a year or else anybody could kill anyone without fear of consequence — as long as he were driving a car.

You don’t get charged with an accidental death because it is an accident. Things that are different are not the same.

But apply the same logic in the international arena, and it gets reversed when applied to Christian America or Jewish Israel.

So, given the evidence, is the whole world wrong? Am I misreading something here?

The third manifestation of the spiritual nature of the conflict is that it is exactly backwards in terms of understanding.

My common sense tells me that something is upside down in the global worldview. It follows no logical pattern in comparing evidence to observation. Adding the two only gives one sensible answer, and it seems to elude every nation on earth except the United States and the State of Israel.

The only pattern that does overlay what appears to be a global state of insanity is the one outlined by the Bible. If the rest of the world doesn’t believe the Bible, does that mean it is wrong? The Apostle Paul contemplated this same question regarding the blindness of the Jews to the truth of Christ,

“God forbid!,” Paul wrote. Instead, he just restated the obvious answer to the question, “Can the whole world be wrong?”, by saying, “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.(Romans 3:4)