All The King s Horses . . .

All The King s Horses . . .
Vol: 21 Issue: 20 Friday, June 20, 2003

The European Union was presented with its draft constitution in Porto Carras, Greece, and is now grappling with the details, like who will be in charge and whether or not they will be French.

Former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing ceremonially handed over a blue, leather-bound copy of the draft, prepared by a 105-member forum over 16 months, to the political chiefs on the second day of their summit in Greece.

He said the document struck a delicate balance between the interests of member states and the EU institutions , and urged leaders not to lobby for wholesale changes, like, for example, proposing that the French won t be in charge.

Spain, Austria, Portugal and Britain all expressed reservations about some of the new provisions like the ones that seem to leave the French in charge.

Reforms include the appointment of a long-term president of the European Council, which groups national leaders, replacing the current system in which the presidency rotates among all member states, regardless of size, every six months.

The draft also envisages a slimmed-down executive European Commission, a new EU foreign minister and an extension of majority voting at the expense of the national veto. European Commission president Romano Prodi criticized the new constitution as too timid because it didn t make the Italians in charge.

The British are less inclined to embrace the new constitution as written, precisely because they fear whoever WILL be in charge. Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted the document to expressly recognize that the only ones in charge of Britain should be the British.

Of particular importance to us is the recognition…that what we want is a Europe of nations, not a federal superstate,” Blair told reporters.

Blair said Britain would continue to resist any efforts in the IGC to scrap the right of national veto in areas like taxation, foreign policy and defense.


For centuries, European children have recited the nursery rhyme, Humpty-Dumpty, lamenting that after his great fall, all the king s horses and all the king s men, couldn t put Humpty together again. Until this generation, that is.

Now Humpty-Dumpty is coming together, and preparing to sit on the wall again. The European draft constitution provides for a replacement to the six-month rotating presidency plan currently in use.

As it stands, the leader of each member state takes a turn serving as president of the EU. That kept any one nation or any one European worldview from dominating. Now, the constitution envisages a long-term presidency in which the executive powers would be held by a man, rather than a state.

This is not a minor event. Allow yourself to step back for a minute, and take a look with new eyes.

In this generation, prophecies dormant for thousands of years are coming to pass with such frequency that one could almost argue that familiarity breeds contempt. That is to say, events are accelerating at such a pace that the sense of awe and wonder can get a bit dulled after a while.

The prophet Daniel predicted four successive world empires. Since each came to pass exactly as Daniel foretold, Babylon, conquered by Persia, which fell to Greece which then fell to Rome, it s a pretty cool prophecy if we were to stop right there.

But Daniel said that the Roman Empire would destroy the city and the sanctuary accomplished in AD 70 and that it would revive in the last days as an empire partly strong and partly weak like iron mixed with miry clay — and that revived empire would produce the antichrist.

While Daniel foretold the conquest of each world empire, and named its conqueror, the fourth empire was never conquered. Daniel said THAT kingdom would be revived in the last days.

While it s pretty neat to compare Daniel with ancient history and see how exactly right he was, it s utterly mind-blowing to consider just how meticulously accurate Daniel has been concerning the ten toes. As we ve already pointed out a number of times, the REAL power in Europe remains with the Original Ten nations of the Western European Union.

And in the days of THESE KINGS shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)

Familiarity breeds contempt, and it is far too easy to see all these things begin to come to pass with such regularity that it all slips into the background.

We are eyewitnesses to events that every generation has waited for since the Acts of the Apostles. The King is coming! He is coming soon!

He really is!!

And Now a Word from Her Majesty’s Secret Service . . .

And Now a Word from Her Majesty’s Secret Service . . .
Vol: 21 Issue: 19 Thursday, June 19, 2003

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5 and the REAL “M” made famous by the James Bond novels says that al-Qaeda is recruiting ‘renegade’ scientists to help them develop either biological, nuclear or chemical weapons. She told the Royal United Services Institute in London that, “We know that renegade scientists have cooperated with Al Qaida and provided them with some of the knowledge they need to develop these CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] weapons. . .My conclusion, based on the intelligence we have uncovered, is that we are faced with the realistic possibility of some form of unconventional attack.”

In January, British authorities discovered traces of ricin, a toxin used in chemical weapons. The poision was found in a police raid in London. The British have been at a state of high alert for terror attacks since September 11.

The British Joint Terrorism Analysis Center is, according to “M” handling some 150 terror alerts per day.

“The threat from international terrorism is with us for a good long time,” Ms. Manningham-Buller said. “If this is a war that can be won, it is not going to be won soon. Breaking the link between terrorism and religious ideology is difficult.”


I found that quote particularly disturbing. “IF this is a war that CAN be won?” spoke more loudly than all the threats and threat assessments combined. This is the first time I can recall any official of either the US or British government who suggested that it was at least possible that we cannot win the war against Islamic terrorism.

That is not to say that public pronouncements have not been cautious in the past — Bush has said this war could take decades – but he has never hinted that we might not win.

“M” says al-Qaeda has access to numerous people who are willing to die in a conventional or nonconventional weapons attack against Western targets. She did not envision a drop in the pool of suicide volunteers.

“The bomb and the suicide bomber remain the most effective tool in the terrorist arsenal,” the MI5 chief said. “Terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda have inflicted large-scale civilian casualties and they have deliberately attacked soft targets. In the front line, alongside military forces, diplomats and government targets, are tourists and people going about their normal business. al Qaeda’s targeting demonstrates the vulnerability of sophisticated Western societies.”

Meanwhile, intelligence reports continue to note the influx of al-Qaeda operatives into Iran, where Gulf State intelligence agencies say the terrorists are being given safe haven by the Islamic regime. Both the Saudi government and the Kuwaitis are expected to press Tehran to extradite wanted al-Qaeda members Tehran has ‘in custody’.

An unwinnable war with an elusive and invisible foe — and an unspoken alliance between Iran and al-Qaeda.

Tick, tick, tick.

Lying History

Lying History
Vol: 21 Issue: 18 Wednesday, June 18, 2003

It was just a matter of time before I had to put in my two cents worth about Hillary’s new book, “Living History”. I might as well get it over with. I was going to take a pass, but I just can’t. There is too much here that is relevant to the overall Big Picture to ignore.

I was fascinated by a USA Today poll that said a full 56% of Americans don’t believe Mrs. Clinton’s claims in her tome, especially the part about her not knowing her husband was guilty of the Monica Lewinsky affair until after he ‘fessed up. What fascinated me about it was not the 56% who DIDN’T believe it, but the 44% who DID.

But take a second to think about what the poll response means. It means that more than half of America believes the Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is a liar.

That isn’t the way the liberal media characterizes her, though. To the liberal press, she’s a ‘polarizing figure’. Words like ‘liar’ are reserved for people like George Bush, the members of his administration and anybody who isn’t a Democrat.

Hillary’s book has the liberals panting heavily as they point to the 528 page autobiography as evidence that Mrs. Clinton is presidential material too valuable to let slip away or languish in the Senate.

You won’t read in the liberal media that Mrs. Clinton didn’t write it herself. Or that she went through a cadre of ghostwriters before she got one that was suitably sympathetic.

Hillary never answers any of the real questions that a presidential contender would want to get out of the way. Did she hire Craig Livingstone to collect FBI records on her political enemies?

Did she and her husband use the IRS as a weapon to silence opponents?

How did the subpoenaed but ‘missing’ Rose Law Firm billing records appear in her living quarters after months of unexplained absence?

Who whispered what in Hillary’s ear to enable her to make $100,000 on a $1,000 investment?

Enquiring minds want to know. Martha Stewart, for one.

Everybody knows that Bill Clinton dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. There are reams of evidence that have been produced to prove it. But in Hillary s Lying History, Bill Clinton was eager to do his part for America.

“I knew that Bill respected military service, that he would have served if he had been called.” But Real History says that they did call — and Bill fled the country.

The same Bill Clinton later wrote from Oxford to the local ROTC commander to champion “so many fine people” (like him) who were “loving their country but loathing the military.”


The liberal media has been fawning all over Hillary, attempting to recast Mrs. Clinton as Everywoman, strong, resilient and tough. She is all of that. But she is also manipulative, grasping, and a proven and unrepentant liar.

Which is why she only does the softball interviews from fellow liberals. On his late-night PBS talk show, Charlie Rose waxed sympathetically about her personal growth, as if Hillary emerged like a beautiful butterfly from the chrysalis of the Clinton White House.

“But you made a decision, because of your affection, love for him, to go to Arkansas where he wanted to pursue his dream. You gave up some independence because there was a higher value…Now, here in a sense it’s come full circle for you…it seems to be the emergence to me of a new independence for you since you’re on your own.”

Oh, puhleez!

The Washington Post prepared a story on her book s political ranting and raving against Kenneth Starr and other conservative enemies, “the author…declined to be interviewed about the political content of her book.”

Clever. That way, she can make all the charges and claims she wants against her political enemies without having to back them up with facts.

Frankly, I am sick to death of the Clintons. But they are a litmus test for the signs of the times. Do you believe that there is anybody out there of either political stripe who really doubts that Bill Clinton is a liar? Or that Hillary’s book is just another patchwork quilt of self-serving lies?

I said the Clintons provided the litmus test for the times in which we live.

Paul wrote that, “in the last days, perilous times shall come. “For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. . .” (2Timothy 3:1-5)

That takes care of Hillary. Now for Bill. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:6-7)

And, with all that real history — RECENT history at that — both of them are popular enough to be elected to public office. People will VOTE for them, knowing that neither one has even a passing acquaintance with the truth.

Elected office is, by definition, an expression of the public trust in the integrity of the politician they are voting for. Except for the Clintons.

For some reason, a significant proportion of the electorate would vote for them anyway, eyes wide open, knowing full well that both are proven liars and opportunists.

“Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their’s also was.”

Plans Within Plans

Plans Within Plans
Vol: 21 Issue: 17 Tuesday, June 17, 2003

Senior Israeli officials in Washington have told the Americans that Israel will not move ahead with the implementation of the road map peace initiative until Hamas agrees to a cease-fire.

The United States has stepped up mediation efforts in the Middle East and has been holding talks with senior Israeli officials in Washington with the aim of ending the violent cycle that hit the region last week and restarting the road map.

16 Israelis were killed and dozens were wounded last Wednesday after a suicide bomber blew himself up on a bus in central Jerusalem. Also last week, Israel assassinated several high-ranking Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip.

Senior diplomatic officials told Israel Radio that they hope that the talks with the Israeli officials will successfully sway the Americans to support the Israeli position not to move ahead with the ‘road map’ peace initiative until a cease-fire is reached with Hamas.

For its part, Washington has invited the head of the Israeli security service (Shin Bet) to a secret meeting. Avi Dichter met with National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and is to meet with CIA officials throughout this week to present a detailed survey of the Palestinian conflict from an ISRAELI point of view.

After two days of talks between a high-ranking Egyptian security delegation, Hamas said it would NOT cooperate with the peace process, effectively putting the brakes on the whole plan.

“Our people have the right to defend themselves and to resist the occupation until we achieve all our rights,” said a statement issued by the Hamas leadership in Gaza City Monday night. “The road map does not represent the aspirations of our people, and the enemy sees it as a means to end the intifada.”


Hamas is on the list of terrorist organizations maintained by the US State Department. Inclusion on that list is significant, because that is the list of organizations with whom the United States is in a state of war. Let that sink in for a second. Any organization on that list — and any of its members are enemy combatants, according to the Bush Doctrine.

Bush has been trying to force a peace deal through, but it isn t going to happen, and Bush is enough of a pragmatist to recognize that. In addition, he s been getting a lot of heat at home from folks who are asking why he would frown on Israel attacking Hamas when the US is doing the same thing with al-Qaeda. As Ariel Sharon has observed, and most clear thinking people can see, Hamas is Israel s al-Qaeda.

Most clear thinking people, that is. Not the French. France is thwarting an EU effort to have Hamas included on Europe s blacklist .

Dominique de Villepin is insisting that Hamas (and Yasser Arafat) remain engaged in the process, saying, “It is in our interest to have Palestinian interlocutors. . . I distrust a strategy based on cutting off dialogue.”

Perhaps Monsieur de Villepin is confused. Or maybe it s just me. But I thought that Mahmood Abbas was a Palestinian . In any case, the French want to keep Hamas and Arafat engaged because the United States doesn t want them there.

It isn t like de Villepin is particularly stupid. When British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw protested that, Hamas has rejected the road map and is literally trying to blow it up, this was not a news flash to de Villepin.

The French know that neither Yasser Arafat or Hamas want any kind of negotiated settlement with Israel. Neither will they accept a Palestinian state beside Israel. So why would France back the sworn enemies to the peace plan that, as part of the Quartet, they had a hand in crafting?

Because while de Villepin and the government he represents isn t stupid, they are arrogant. Arrogant enough to believe that if they can sabotage this effort, then they will get their chance at solving it. Arrogant enough to believe that, once given the opportunity, they can succeed where a succession of White House administrations have failed.

And arrogant enough to believe that if they can succeed where the US has failed, then France will emerge as the leader among that bloc of nations who seek to counter US influence.

That s the plan, and who knows? They might pull it off. Things seem to be going their way. The French have been trying to take over as the point man in the Middle East since the collapse of the Soviet Union left a power vacuum that Paris believes it is destined to fill.

The Bible says that principle peace broker for the final push towards peace is European. Daniel predicted he would be a prince of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary meaning Jerusalem and the Temple.

Daniel penned his prophecy in the middle of the 6th century BC. The first half of the prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 by the Roman legions. It then follows that the antichrist, that coming prince would be a European member of the revived Roman Empire.

Think that though for a second. For two thousand years, that prophecy has stood unfulfilled. Europe endured dozens of wars aimed at reunifying the old Roman Empire.

Charlemagne, Napolean, Hitler, all sought to revive Rome by force of arms. But Daniel said that, by peace, he shall destroy many (Daniel 8:25).

Since Israel s rebirth in 1948, Israel has trusted no one but the United States to serve as its representative at the peace table.

A succession of presidents have attempted to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict and settle the issue of ownership of Jerusalem. All, as Zechariah predicted, that burdened themselves with Jerusalem were cut to pieces (Zechariah 12:3).

Jimmy Carter was the first to breakthrough with a treaty between Israel and Egypt. Look how his administration turned out.

Bill Clinton presided over Oslo and brought the two sides to the brink of peace at Camp David until Arafat rejected the offer. Look at how history will remember Bill Clinton.

Now we have George Bush. I noted with interest some of the comments in the forums about Bush. Most take the position that as a Christian, Bush knows better and that he is betraying the Scriptures.

First, if Bush were to govern according to his understanding of the Scriptures, everybody who held to a different understanding would be horrified and calling for his head.

There are plenty of serious, saved, well-meaning, sincere and well-intentioned Christians who think Bible prophecy is baloney.

Kingdom Now and Dominionist theologians teach that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled when Jerusalem fell in AD 70 and that the promises given to Israel were transferred to the Church.

Consequently, teach these theologians, modern Israel is NOT the Israel of the Bible and Christians have no business backing the killers of Christ. Kingdom Now and Dominionist teachings are rampant, particularly throughout the mainstream denominations, like the Methodists or Presbyterians. But they are sincere and believe their understanding of the Scriptures are correct.

I wouldn t want a president who believed as the Dominionists do, and governed according to his understanding of Scripture.

If Bush were to do that, the US would probably be siding with the French and supporting Hamas and Arafat against Israel.

It is important to remember that not all Christians hold to the same doctrine. The Founding Fathers remembered that, which is why there is a Constitutional provision forbidding the establishment of a state religion which is what would be the net effect of a president governing according to his understanding of Scripture.

The thing is, I don t know what Bush s understanding of the Scriptures are. I do know that they are different than mine, in at least a few respects.

Bush has termed Islam just another way to worship the same God . For that reason, I am eternally grateful that Bush does NOT make his decisions based on his understanding of doctrine.

Anybody who votes for a politician in the hope that politician will govern according to doctrine can expect to be bitterly disappointed. Or else can expect to see that politician done in by other Christians who DON T share that particular doctrinal worldview.

Judging Bush s performance based on how closely he follows Christian doctrine is a fool s errand, since there are so many different versions of Christian doctrine out there.

Christians can be sincere, and be sincerely wrong. All they have to agree on in order to claim the title Christian is faith that Jesus Christ has purchased their pardon for sin.

This isn t an apology for Bush on the surface, I think his policies towards Islam and Middle East peace are wrong-headed, but I don t judge his performance based on how I read the Scriptures. Bush s policy appears wrong-headed in the secular sense, as well.

But I suspect there is more here than meets the eye. I have a growing suspicion that what is taking place right now is the result of a plan designed in secret by Washington and Jerusalem to bring about a civil war between the Palestinian Authority and the competing terror groups, beginning with Hamas.

It is abundantly clear that there will be no peace as long as Yasser Arafat and his terrorist infrastructure remain intact and functioning.

The backlash from Washington following the assassination attempt on Abdel Azziz Rantisi was just a bit of political theatre.

Almost immediately after condemning the attack by the Israelis, the White House began focusing its attention on Hamas. There are rumors that Washington may be about to give Sharon the green light to go after Hamas with a vengeance.

Bush has his plan, de Villepin has his, but in the end, it is God s Plan that they are all working toward.

Whether they are aware of it or not.

Saddam Wins Gulf War II

Saddam Wins Gulf War II
Vol: 21 Issue: 16 Monday, June 16, 2003

Ever since Gulf War I, the only thing that Saddam ever had to do to defeat the United States was survive. Saddam s military machine was decisively crushed in a matter of weeks during Gulf War I. But Saddam himself survived, and to the Arab world, that meant he won.

In each subsequent confrontation, when the smoke cleared, if Saddam was still standing, it meant that he won.

For twelve years, any time Arab demonstrators got a chance to stick their thumb in Washington s eye; they would march up and down the street carrying big pictures of Saddam Hussein.

(Until September 11, that is. Since then, there were TWO posters in every militant demonstration Saddam and Osama)

After the first Persian Gulf War, the discovery of Hussein’s advanced nuclear weapons program following years of international inspections surprised everyone. When U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they catalogued Iraq’s continuing possession of, or proven failure to disclose, one of the biggest chemical and biological weapons arsenals in history.

The existence of those weapons was a matter of fact, not speculation. They existed. There is no doubt of that. They were USED against more than forty Kurdish villages and their use during the Iran/Iraq war is a matter of historical record.

On Capitol Hill there is a move afoot to argue that, after seven years of elaborately deceiving the United Nations, Saddam threw out the U.N. inspectors from his country in 1998, and then decided to change course unilaterally.

Continuing this theme, Saddam then disarmed himself over the next four years. But he refused to provide any realistic proof that this disarmament occurred.

To make this case, it appears that crimes of the most brutal dictator of a generation are about to be swept under the rug by political partisans to whom no dictator is worse than George W. Bush.


Where are the weapons of mass destruction? We need an INVESTIGATION to determine if the President of the United States, his Cabinet, the Pentagon, the US intelligence services and foreign intelligence services CONSPIRED to DECEIVE the American public.

If I heard that once on the Sunday talk shows, I heard it a dozen times. The partisans don t want an inquiry to determine if intelligence broke down over Iraq s WMD program, they want an investigation to see if all the president s men were part of a big conspiracy to deceive America.

Is there anybody who seriously believes that this is anything but partisan politics? Many of the senators now calling for an investigation into a Bush-led conspiracy voted to authorize the use of force, including Senators Clinton and Daschle.

And although it s been pointed out before, nobody made a peep when President Clinton bombed the soup out of Iraq in 1998 under the code-name Operation Desert Fox and issued the first presidential call for regime change in Iraq.

The partisans are claiming that the only reason for the war against Iraq was Saddam s WMD program.

This is another one of those mind-numbing, eye-glazing mantras designed to reshape history to fit a political agenda.

To advance that agenda, it is necessary to pretend that the first Gulf War DIDN T end in a conditional cease-fire. They have to pretend that the conditions DIDN T include resuming the war if Saddam failed to meet the obligations that cease-fire imposed. It is necessary to pretend there were not 17 previous resolutions defied by Saddam during the twelve- year ‘ceasefire’.

And more than that, to advance that agenda, the partisans must argue that, if there is a benefit of the doubt, it should be extended to Saddam Hussein, not the president of the United States and the combined efforts of Western intelligence.

Why did the United States really go to war? America went to war because Saddam failed to account for weapons he had previously possessed. Weapons he had proved a willingness to use. Weapons that Saddam behaved as if were still at his disposal.

The war was to defend the security of the United States against the threat from Hussein’s proven weapons programs and his refusal to come clean, his record of aggression against his neighbors, the utter collapse of containment, the possibility of his cooperation with terrorists, and his brutal oppression of the Iraqi people.

To argue otherwise is to pretend that last twelve years didn t take place. It is to argue that the entire Clinton administration was equally involved in a conspiracy against Saddam Hussein during its tenure, and that the Bush administration merely followed his lead.

In this generation, truth is not what is true. It is what people want to believe is true. A couple of decades ago, there was a debate about what is called situational ethics . The thinking was that there are no moral absolutes and that certain situations call for different ethical standards.

It was applied situation ethics that brought the Supreme Court to the conclusion that it is ethical to kill unborn human beings in the womb, under certain situations.

In this generation, we have the concept of situational truth. What is true is only true if the situation is right. Should the truth be inconvenient, then only those parts that ARE convenient are relevant.

This is another example of the brainwashing technique we ve been tracking together for almost two years. Create a mantra in this case, Where are the weapons of mass destruction? and keep repeating it, over and over.

Soon, the most sophisticated, well-educated, well-informed and most civilized nation on the face of the earth can be convinced that the weapons used hundreds of times in the past, the same weapons that justified Clinton s Operation Desert Fox never existed.

The Apostle Paul said that when the antichrist comes to power, he will convince the entire world that he is God and the same world that rejects Jesus would accept him without reservation. I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. (John 5:43)

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (2nd Thessalonians 2:11)

How strong a delusion would be necessary in a world where the default attitude is that Bush is lying and Saddam telling the truth, unless proved otherwise?

In this generation, people believe what they want to believe.

The textbook definition of ‘delusion’.

Happy Father s Day

Happy Father s Day
Vol: 21 Issue: 15 Sunday, June 15, 2003

Today is the day set aside to honor fathers. Scripture says, Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise. (Ephesians 6:2) The promise is that thy days may be prolonged (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16).

Remember the rule; when God REALLY wants to make a point, He makes it several times.

Father s Day was first observed in the United States on June 19, 1910. It was the brainchild of a Mrs. John B Dodd, who wanted a special day to honor her father, William Smart. Smart was a Civil War veteran who raised six children alone on a rural farm in Washington State.

Although President Calvin Coolidge supported the idea of a national Father s Day , it wasn t until Lyndon Johnson signed a presidential proclamation in 1966 designating the 3rd Sunday in June as Father s Day.

Each of you, if you still have your Dad, imagine what it would be like if you didn t. Keep that in mind today when you honor yours. Dads can be a real pain, but nothing like the void when they are gone.

I know. I lost mine 27 years ago and have missed his both his counsel and his wisdom every day of my life since. Not to mention the security that came from knowing that wherever my Dad was for as long as he lived, for me, THAT was home. As a young man, with a developing family of my own, my house was my home, but it was just a subsidiary of my REAL home, which was one goes for shelter from the world.

When my Dad died, that shelter was gone. Together with the best counselor and advisor I ever had. Dad was the only person whose motives I could absolutely trust to be in my best interests. Even if my best interests diverged from his own.

That s what fathers do. And when you still have your Dad, you take him for granted, simply BECAUSE he is always there for you. A shelter in a time of storm, if I may borrow a phrase and apply it to the earthly shelter of home .

But when your Dad is gone, your world changes.

And on Father s Day especially, you realize what an empty place this old world is without Dad.


Father s Day is an excellent time to remember to honor our Heavenly Father, as well. When He wants to make a point, He makes it several times, as we ve already noted.

Deuteronomy 6:2 commanded the children of Israel, (His children) That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.

National Israel failed to honor their Father, and their days of life as a nation were cut short.

But it is more than fear our Father expects of us. He expects us to love Him. Not by doing great things, or being Joe Christian or by some ritual or gesture.

For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalms 51:15-16)

It is with that broken spirit and contrite heart that we come to our Savior. And any who come are not despised, but welcomed as prodigal sons, who were lost, and now are found.

When Abram, the father of the Jews, made his covenant with God, he asked God for a legal contract. In the legal system of the time, this entailed dismembering certain animals in a ritual, and intermingling their bloodied parts in piles, forming a kind of aisle through which both parties would walk, hands joined.

This was a BLOOD covenant. The symbolism of the joined hands and the grisly piles meant both parties were forever joined, but if either party broke the contract, they would end up as dismembered as the animals that formed the aisleway.

But as Abram waited for God, a deep sleep fell on him, during which time he saw what transpired in a vision. Instead of Abram being made a party to the covenant, and behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp [that] passed between those pieces. (Genesis 15:17)

Abram (and his descendants) were made the beneficiaries of the covenant, but were not held accountable for keeping it. However, in order for it to be valid, somebody had to die, and God signed on both sides!

At the appointed time, God in the Person of Jesus Christ His Son, stepped out of eternity and into space and time to pay Abram s ransom. In so doing, He paid the ransom of sin for us all.

In Mark 14:36, as He prayed before honoring the Father s wishes, He cried out Abba!

To this day, Israeli children call their parents Abba (Daddy) and Eeema (Mommy). That was the relationship that existed between the Lord Jesus and The Father, as the Father prepared to allow His Son to be dismembered so that your ransom might be paid.

The Apostle Paul tells us that we now enjoy that same relationship with our Father, with the added security of adoption.

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:15)

Under Hebrew law, a father could disown his son under certain circumstances, and that son would be, in terms of any relationship with his father, declared legally dead.

BUT, the same law FORBIDS a father from disowning a son by adoption. The reasoning is that by adoption is a solemn responsibility that once entered into voluntarily, cannot be broken.

Don t forget your Dad this Father s Day. And have your priorities straight.

You aren t doing it for him. You re doing it for YOU.

Thank You, Abba. Happy Father s Day.

Special Report: The ‘Defeated’ Christan

Special Report: The ‘Defeated’ Christan
Vol: 21 Issue: 14 Saturday, June 14, 2003

You ve all seen him. The defeated Christian. The guy who tries and tries, but after being saved for thirty years, he still hasn t quit smoking. Instead, he hides his cigarettes before coming to church and won t get too close when shaking your hand for fear you ll smell the smoke on him.

Or the Christian who you know is saved, but he just can t quite give up the bottle. Or the Christian who got saved, but doesn t go to church, because he just doesn t think he fits in with the rest of the crowd?

Or won t go because he thinks that everybody at church is a big hypocrite? That defeated Christian who knows that even though he is saved, it just didn’t seem to take like it seemed to with everybody else, so he d just as soon not be reminded of it all the time by being around those to whom it did.

Especially since, if he were to mention it, somebody would point out it was either because of some unconfessed sin, or maybe they just weren t all that sincere when they first accepted Christ.

Why is it that some Christians get saved, and immediately become a new creature, where others get saved, and look remarkably like the old one?

Don t tell me you don t know somebody like that. Maybe you even ARE somebody like that. And it s hard . . . so hard to keep trying and trying when it seems to come so easy to everybody else. It s enough to make anybody give up.

I m going to leave the usual beaten path, now, to address an issue that comes up fairly regularly in our forums. Those of you who have no besetting sin, no secret sin in your heart that only you and God (and the enemy) know of, go make yourself a nice cup of coffee. The rest isn t for you.

Now, for the honest readers . . . Why does God deliver some people from booze, cigarettes, pot . . . fill in your besetting sin here _______?

The answer? I don t know. Disappointed? Don t be. Sometimes He just doesn t. It doesn t mean you aren t a Christian. It doesn t mean you aren t saved. It doesn t mean God has abandoned you. It only means you feel defeated. You still have that sin.

Now, how come you feel defeated? Is it your weakness? God s? Haven t you been to Him with this? How come it s still an issue in your life? You KNOW God is real, or else you wouldn t be subscribing to the Omega Letter. What s WRONG WITH YOU?


Welcome to the Church of the Walking Wounded. That s why so many people find fellowship on the internet they don t find in church. No guilt. Nobody can see you sneaking that cigarette or that beer.

You come looking for God, and looking for that forgiveness you keep hearing about, but never find in church.

Instead, you learn that if you smoke, (or whatever) you are defiling the temple of the Holy Spirit and you must give that up first to find fellowship. Except you have been trying for years and just can’t quite make it.

You sit there in the pew, thinking about the cigarette you are going to have on the way home, and you feel ashamed, guilty. Why even go back to church? You hypocrite!

You are taught that God forgave you at the Cross, but now you are on your own. All these sins you now know about yourself are left for you to deal with on your own. Only NOW you know what they are.

So every time you sneak that cigarette, you feel guilty. Fred got saved and within a week, he cut out smoking, he cut out drinking and he cut out cursing.

(You think to yourself, Sure. And for entertainment, Fred is cutting out paper dolls, but then there you go you sinned again!)

This is a very difficult subject I am approaching it with much fear and trepidation. There will immediately be those who will jump on me for preaching a license to sin. I am not. Before you jump on me, read it again first, please.

Sin is the disease of the human race. No human being is exempt from it. The Apostle Paul, speaking of sin, said, This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. (1 Timothy 1:15) Creative hyperbole? Or do you believe every Word of God is true?

The Apostle Paul was, according to God s Word, chief among sinners. He must have had a difficult time being chief among sinners and chief among the Apostles, but that s what the Bible says.

It must have bothered him, like it bothers you. (Those not getting coffee right now) Knowing what is right, but succumbing to temptation to do the wrong thing. Over and over.

Paul writes, For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (Romans 7:14-15,17)

Maybe Paul isn t speaking to you, but he is playing MY theme song. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:22,23)

Does this sound to you like a guy who was having an easy time of it? Why didn t he just do what the pastor tells you? Just take it to the Lord and He ll take care of it.

Ever do that and then He didn t? So you found some good reason why not, or instead just figured you weren t worthy? Or maybe that He cared more about Fred the King of the Paper Dolls?

Paul wrote of, a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. (2 Corinthians 12:7) Now, I ve heard this verse exegeted many times.

To listen to the theories, Paul must have fallen into a thorn BUSH. I ve heard Paul had a speech impediment, that it was his failing eyesight, that he was unattractive to look at, even one argument that he had halitosis!

What does the Bible say Paul s thorn in the flesh was? Everybody looks for something specific to make sense of the verse. They are looking for some physical flaw that Paul thought would hamper his effectiveness for God. In so doing, they miss the forest for the trees.

The Apostle Paul, the chief among sinners , specifically said that his thorn was a messenger from Satan sent to buffet him. Paul s thorn was his SIN. that kept him from being ‘exalted above all measure.’ For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. (2 Corinthians 12:8)

Stay with me here and see the picture. Here s poor Paul, knowing the task the Lord has set before him, knowing that he is chief among sinners and knowing his weakness for whatever that sin might have been.

So he takes it to Jesus, (just like you did) sincerely expecting Him to handle it for him, just like the pastor told you He would for you.

And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for My strength is made perfect in weakness. (v.9)

The Bible says that we are sold unto sin. That it is our natural state. That the most unnatural thing a man could do is NOT sin. You are saved, you believe, yet you wrestle with your besetting sins.

Every time you whip one down, a new one crops up that you have to deal with. It s a never ending battle and you are losing. How can this be?

How can you be sincere, be sincerely saved, and still battle with sins that don t seem to bother other Christians?

There is only one logical answer. It is so simple you are going to immediately say, I knew that. But you probably really didn t.

Jesus did it all. Really. ALL. The most simple of principles, yet most preaching is based on the deception that He didn t. Instead, most are taught in principle, that Jesus got the ball rolling at the Cross, but now that you are saved, whether or not you fail or succeed in beating back your sin nature is up to you.

Therefore, when constantly confronted with your sin and how bad it is, it is much easier to give up and not go face the weekly confrontation. You are defeated.

Rather than being free, you are in bondage to your guilt. How many people do you know who went to the altar call on Sunday who weren t guilt-ridden by Wednesday?

Salvation is either a gift of grace through faith or it is a product of faith plus good works.

Moses had faith and good works. So did Abraham. So did David. But without the Savior, they would be dead in their sins.

The bondage of sin to a Christian is the weight of the guilt of that sin that keeps him from seeking God s face. Jesus set us free from the bondage of sin. Is this a license to sin? As Paul said, God forbid.

All things , Paul said, are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. (1 Corinthians 10:23) Interesting word, expedient . Means, Appropriate to a purpose.

The reality is, we are humans. Even after we become new creatures in Christ, we coinhabit the castle of flesh with the old man.

You will have your battles, but your defeat only comes when you give up. Following Paul s lamentations about his struggle with the flesh and the duality of man, Paul writes, beginning with Romans 8:1, There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

This verse also tends to get spiritualized out of context. I ve heard it argued that if you sin, then you are walking after the flesh, rather than after the Spirit.

I put it to you: Did you ever, since you were saved, commit a sin and not care, not feel any responsibility before God? Well, then, Who are you walking after? The irresponsible flesh? Or the living Spirit?

It isn t sin that defeats the Christian.

It isn t that you still haven t quit smoking, or whatever else it might be that you think is defeating you. Sin is what humans do. Forgive is what God does.

It s GUILT that keeps you defeated, and keeps you from the Throne. It keeps you from telling people about Jesus. It keeps you beaten down.

It is incumbent upon a Christian to try and live a more Christ-like life, but the dichotomy is that the Bible says it is impossible.

If we COULD live a sin free life, then why was a Savior necessary? And what was Paul rambling on about when he talked about the ‘good that he would’ and so forth?

If there were a formula that involved accepting Christ and THEN living a sinless life, then why did He need to go to the Cross at all?

Why not just make the revised Ten Commandments read, ‘Accept Christ and don’t sin” and THEN you can go to heaven? The answer is obvious. Nobody would be there.

We are living in the last days. There is no time to bandage the walking wounded, the battle has been joined. Every soldier is desperately needed on the line.

A soldier on the line does his best, and that is all anyone can ask. Especially the One Who really KNOWS that you are doing the best you can.

And He not only understands, He made you to a specific purpose, which is why all things were lawful to Paul, but not all things were expedient.

What may appear as defeat to you from your vantage point in the action may actually be a tactical victory somewhere else up the line. Only our General knows, and He says, ‘Trust Me’.

Take heart! Don’t let the fact you are a sinner steal your victory. The only prerequisite for being a Christian is that you must be a sinner first. God has a plan for your life, and He has somebody for you to talk to.

That appointment is so important to God that He has arranged your whole life until now — just so you would be available to keep it when that appointment comes due.

Will you be there to keep it? Or will you be licking your wounds in defeat off in a corner somewhere? We’re running out of time, and the enemy’s sole focus for your life is to keep you defeated and ineffective as the hours tick down to the Final Confrontation.

And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 2 Corinthians (12:9)

The rest of you can come back from the kitchen now.

When Does an Activist Become a Terrorist?

When Does an Activist Become a Terrorist?
Vol: 21 Issue: 13 Friday, June 13, 2003

When Does an Activist Become a Terrorist?

According to Fox News’ Laurie Dhue, yesterday’s strike against two Hamas leaders killed, “the activist, his eight months’ pregnant wife, and three-year-old daughter.” According to Dhue, the two activists, the wife and children died along with several “innocent” bystanders.

Dhue went on to say that the strike was a retaliation for the ‘bus bombing’ in Jerusalem. In that casce, she reported, the bomber was identified as an “18-year-old activist.”

I have a friend who is always working towards advancing the agenda of the AARP. SHE is an ‘activist’ — the Hamas leaders and the kid who blew up the bus in Jerusalem were TERRORISTS.

It is also worthy of note that Israel did NOT target the wife and family of Yasser Taja, unlike the bus bomber, whose mission would have been a failure if he did NOT kill somebody’s wife, and somebody else’s children.

In a statement, the Israeli government said, “During the operation, mistakenly, other members of his family were killed. IDF regrets this and is investigating the circumstances of the event.”

Hamas’ response was a pledge to kill more Israeli civilians, promising an ‘earthquake’ and saying every Israeli is a target.

“The Jerusalem attack is the beginning of a new series of revenge attacks … in which we will target every Zionist occupying our land,” Hamas said in the statement. “We call on international citizens to leave the Zionist entity immediately to preserve their lives.”


A sample of a few of this morning’s US headlines: “Report: 2 Israelis Hurt In Shooting”; “Every Israeli A Target: Hamas”; “Israelis Shot On West Bank” etc. CNN’s headline read, “Israel vows new strikes on Hamas”.

The Europeans, particularly the UK, are focusing in on the CNN angle — not that Hamas has declared open warfare on Israel, but rather than Israel has vowed new strikes against Hamas.

The media is beginning to cover the Middle East the way that they did BEFORE September 11 — and in that world, terrorists are ‘activists’ or ‘militants’ and Israeli retaliation is an escalation in the cycle of violence, etc., etc.

Dead Israelis are generic and faceless. Do YOU know how many Israelis on that bus were children? Old men and women? But you DO know that Yasser Taha’s wife was eight month’s pregnant when she was killed by the Israelis. And that he had a three-year-old daughter who was killed by the Israelis.

More than 100 Israeli civilians were wounded in the bus attack. What does being ‘wounded’ by a bomb mean? First, there are the burns. An explosion, simply defined, is a very intense, very fast fire, that has no place to burn fast TO.

It is the rush of fire that envelopes the affected area, blanketing everyone in the blast zone, whether they are protected from shrapnel or not. Many of the 100 ‘wounded’ in the bus blast were horribly burned.

In addition to the burns, there is the shrapnel. The sudden burst of fire (the explosion) sends out thousands of embedded nails, bolts, and bits of metal in all directions with the velocity of a bullet.

Those pieces of nuts, bolts and nails tore through many of the victims, damaging internal organs, putting many of the wounded on life support or dependent for life on machines to replace or augment permanently damaged kidneys, livers, and other internal organs.

Parts of the bus also became missiles as sharp jagged edges of metal slice off arms and legs.

That is the unreported story behind the 17 anonymous Israeli dead and 100 ‘wounded’ by the eighteen-year old Hamas ‘activist’ to balance against the killing of Yasser Taja (who sent him) and his family. That is not to say that I am not as horrified as anybody about the death of a pregnant woman and three year old girl.

But it didn’t occur in a vaccum.

“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3)

The “Cycle” of Violence

The “Cycle” of Violence
Vol: 21 Issue: 12 Thursday, June 12, 2003

The latest wave of violence has killed more than fifty people in Jerusalem and Gaza over the past week. Last night, the Israeli army was ordered to completely wipe out the terrorist organization, Hamas, from the lowliest member to Sheikh Ahmad Yassin.

The latest round of killings and retaliations began on Tuesday, when Israeli helicopter gunships fired missiles at the car of Hamas’ political leader, Abdul Aziz Rantissi, in a failed bid to kill him.

Rantissi, who was lightly wounded in that attack, promised bloody revenge, which led to the bombing in Jerusalem on Wednesday. Credit for the attack was claimed by Hamas’ armed wing, the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades.

Since the Aqaba summit where Ariel Sharon and PA Prime Minister Mahmood Abbas shook hands last week, Palestinian terrorists have murdered twenty-three Israelis. Sharon dismissed Palestinian claims that they are unable to control the terror.

Sharon noted that there were no attacks during the Aqaba Summit and called the PA leadership crybabies who are letting terror run rampant”. He called Mahmoud Abbas a “fledgling whose feathers are yet to grow.”

Abbas has said that he has no plans to outlaw Hamas or move militarily against any of the major terror groups, including Hamas, saying that there is no substitute for dialogue .

And the father of all terrorists, Yasser Arafat, made a public appearance to condemn the terrorism by warning Hamas, to avoid being dragged into the trap set up by Israel in order to destroy efforts aimed at salvaging the peace process.”


President Bush strongly condemned ISRAEL for what it called an escalation in the cycle of violence by attempting to kill Rantissi. Let s stop here for a second.

First, the phrase, cycle of violence is a semantic construct designed to create an air of moral equivalency between a terrorist who targets a bus filled with civilian women and children and an Israeli military operation that targets those who send them.

It is NOT a cycle of violence , because the violence would continue whether Israel retaliated or not. There are no recorded instances of unprovoked Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians as part of the alleged cycle because there is no cycle . There is just violence.

The phrase is repeated over and over, like one of those mind-numbing mantras, until everybody is convinced that Israel is as responsible for the cycle as the Palestinians are.

Try and apply cycle of violence to describe September 11 and the subsequent war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Try and use it in a sentence and see if it flows.

The reason there is no ‘cycle of violence’ in the al-Qaeda war is simple. The US is hitting al-Qaeda at every opportunity, preventing them from regrouping or mounting an effective offensive.

If the US were pressured, as Israel is, into adopting a defensive posture and allowing al-Qaeda to regroup and strike back, THEN there’d be a ‘cycle’ of violence.

Secondly, Abdel Azziz Rantisi is the spokesperson and co-founder of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that is on the State Department s list of terrorist groups. The United States is at war with terror.

President Bush has previously and repeatedly called on all governments to strike out and destroy terrorist groups wherever they might be found and famously issued the challenge, if you aren t with us, you are with the terrorists.

The Bush Doctrine gives the United States the authority to kill terrorists by whatever means necessary. So how does it follow that President Bush can condemn Israel for adhering to the Bush Doctrine?

The hypocrisy is stunning. Consider this for a moment. An al-Qaeda terrorist kills American citizens. The administration obtains the location of one of the terror cell s leaders. What comes next?

Six al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen found out what comes next a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone that blew their car (and them) to smithereens.

Israel responded in exactly the same way that the United States would have under similar circumstances. Except Israel didn t go to Yemen to kill terrorists. This was a strike against terror in their own back yard.

And Bush condemned Israel even AFTER Rantissi ordered more terror strikes from his hospital bed. The day after Rantissi swore not to leave a single Jew in Palestine an 18-year-old high school student disguised himself as an ultra-orthodox Jew, and then blew himself up aboard a civilian bus. The videotape he left behind said the attack was retaliation for the strike on Rantissi.

If there IS a cycle of violence the responsibility for it lies not with the Israelis for striking back in self-defense, but with the terrorists who struck FIRST. To argue otherwise would be to argue (as some idiots have) that the United States bears the responsibility for the September 11 attacks. Or that the United States war on international terror is illegal or illegitimate.

America was hit hard, but it was only hit ONCE. But the US has been hitting back for two years, and there is no sign there is any intention of letting up to permit al-Qaeda to regroup and come after the US again.

But the Bush administration is demanding Israel do exactly the opposite, absorb the terrorist strikes, do nothing to defend itself, and negotiate with Abu Mazen, even though the real power remains firmly in Yasser Arafat s grasp.

On what plane of reality does this make any sense? If Germany or France or Mexico or Canada were to suddenly begin hitting terrorist leaders within their own countries, the Bush administration would be heaping praise on them as partners in the war against terrorism.

But when America s only real partner in the war on terror strikes terrorists that are on the State s own terror list, they are condemned by the same Bush administration.

It doesn t make any sense, in the natural, because the conflict between Israel and the rest of the world is SUPERnatural. It is the culmination of all Bible prophecy and is the backdrop against which the antichrist comes to power.

Daniel says the antichrist confirms a seven year covenant between Israel and her enemies that looks like a genuine peace deal.

Before the roadmap to peace, there was the Oslo framework, which called for a three-stage process that would culminate at the conclusion of seven years with a Palestinian state and a final disposition regarding ownership of Jerusalem.

The roadmap to peace is clearly a roadmap to nowhere. Revisiting and reworking the Oslo framework is the only peace strategy that had any possibility of success. And it would have succeeded, had the Palestinians really wanted peace in the first place.

The Europeans have made it clear that, should Bush fail, they intend to step in and try and salvage the pieces. And the Oslo Accords were authored by the Europeans in the first place.

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:32)

Canning Spam, Defending Truth

Canning Spam, Defending Truth
Vol: 21 Issue: 11 Wednesday, June 11, 2003

Every morning my first order of business is to delete all the Viagara ads, those bizarre offers to modify portions of my anatomy, and the letters from unknown African officials who all have fifty million dollars to spirit out of the country, if only I would help.

Because our email addresses are posted on the website, we are spam magnets, and Mike is currently spending about half of his morning routine just writing new anti-spam rules to try and filter out the latest crop.

It is a losing battle. I am beginning to worry for Mike s sanity. (Even more than usual)

We ve been brainstorming ways of controlling the spam onslaught, which generally runs about 60% spam, the rest virus infected emails. Overall, about 90% of the email that hits our mail server is either infected or unsolicited ads for things too crude to describe that I can t imagine anybody actually wanting.

Soon, we will be sending our new, members only contact addresses so that we can deal with our important email first, and worry about canning spam afterwards.

Oftentimes, there is so much spam that legitimate email is either trapped by one of our spam filters at the server end, or gets nailed by the message rules I have set up in my email client to catch the ones that get past Mike.

As a result, despite my New Year s resolution to reply to every email, I hear regularly from people asking, How come you didn t answer me? to emails I don t remember getting.

If that is you, I am sorry. Odds are it got lost in the blizzard of spam. But we are working on the problem and we think we might have at least a temporary solution. We ll keep you posted and I ll send the new addresses out under a separate mailing once we get everything set up.


And speaking of email, there is one persistent theme I d like to address here as well. The ‘George Bush Right or Wrong’ syndrome.

The emails almost always begin the same way: How can you defend Bush? You ve seen examples in the commentary forums. Bush isn t really a Christian . . . Bush was a member of the Skull and Bones when at Yale . . . Bush was a drunk who used cocaine . . .Bush lied about Iraq s WMD program . . . etc., etc.

First off, there is a difference between defending a person and differentiating between fact and fiction.

For example, whether or not George Bush is a Christian is immaterial. He wasn t elected based on his faith and if he were, he would have immediately lost my support. Here s why.

Not every Christian sees things the same way that I do. A theological perspective is important when electing a pastor, not a president. Jimmy Carter claims to be a Christian. I believe him, since salvation is a private issue between an individual and Christ. But I wouldn t vote for him unless the other candidate was Saddam Hussein and then I d have to think about it.

Whether or not Bush was a member of the Skull and Bones Society at Yale is equally immaterial. Every US president since George Washington was a Mason except Ronald Reagan, who received an honorary 33rd degree Masonic title after being elected to the White House. And George Bush was in his twenties when he was at Yale.

George Bush was arrested for DWI in 1980. After that, he quit drinking. Rumors of cocaine abuse have never been acknowledged or proved.

Bush s alleged misrepresentation of the facts regarding Iraq s WMD is a similar red herring. The UN believed Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction — it passed 17 resolutions to that effect.

Not even the venerable Hans Blix would say only that he wasn t able to find them, not that they weren t there.

I don t agree with George Bush on every issue. I disagree with him completely on a number of issues, from his blindness where Islam is concerned to his wishy-washy opposition to stem cell research.

I disagree with him giving federal funds to religious organizations any Islamic group is a religious organization so are the Mormons, Jehovah s Witnesses and the Raelians. Religious organizations should be funded by religious adherents, not by the federal government.

Since Election 2000, there has been a concerted effort by the Democrats to condemn George Bush for the same crimes that they defended Bill Clinton. If they can prove Bush is a liar, then Bill doesn t look so bad and neither do they for defending him.

It isn t a case of defending George Bush. If he lied about Iraq, then he would have had to have known what the UN still doesn t know for sure that Saddam didn t have WMD s and that he wasn t concealing them.

George Bush isn t Truth. Truth is truth, whether is comes from George Bush or even in the unlikely event it were to come from Bill Clinton.

But nobody has ever accused me of defending Bill Clinton.