Special Report: Victimizing the Saudis?

Special Report: Victimizing the Saudis?
Vol: 22 Issue: 31 Thursday, July 31, 2003

Until recently, according to the US government, Saudi Arabia has quietly provided some assistance to the US war on terror. But at the same time, in an effort to quell its anti-American Wahhabi Islamist population, the House of Saud heavily criticizes American foreign policy. And the regime has been reluctant to allow Americans to participate in any investigations inside Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers.

There is an effort to portray the attacks on Riyadh on May 12 as Saudi Arabia’s September 11.

“May 12 to Saudi Arabia was what 9/11 was to the US,” says Rohan Gunaratna, an expert on terrorism and author of “Inside Al Qaeda.” “No government will target a terrorist group unless and until it perceives that the group is posing a direct and immediate threat to it.”

More spin. Equating the 35 deaths in Riyadh (8 of whom were Americans) to the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, together with the passengers of Flight 93, plus loss of four passenger planes filled with terrified passengers is like comparing the sinking of the Titanic with the loss of a rowboat on Lake Erie.

In any case, by portraying the Riyadh attacks to September 11 gives Saudi spin doctor Nail al-Jubeir a chance to say, “we are victims, too.” The fact is that the Saudis are taking a more proactive role in the war on terror, but not because they are new converts to a kinder, gentler Islam. They are taking a more proactive role because America isn’t buying the ‘victim’ story. And the House of Saud is getting worried.

The administration, for reasons not yet clear, is refusing to release 28 pages that allegedly implicate the Saudi government to 9/11. And it DOES makes it look like the administration is protecting the Islamic kingdom.

For that reason, the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan met with President Bush to ask him to declassify the redacted portions. Bush refused, citing concerns that releasing the information would expose US intelligence gathering methods.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld went further, saying that releasing the information would be the equivalent of signing the ‘death warrants’ of ‘certain persons’ that declassifying the documents would expose.

It would appear that Saudi Arabia is emerging as the administration’s top political liability.

A Senate hearing today exploring Saudi financing of terrorism will focus on several Muslim charities that are closely linked to members of the Saudi royal family, groups that are also cited in classified sections of a Congressional report on the September 2001 hijacking.

The New York Times says one of those named is Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz, Saudi Arabia’s powerful interior minister and a brother of King Fahd.

The Times cited ‘sources’ that say the redacted portion of the report concludes that senior Saudi government officials helped finance terrorist groups through charitable organizations and individuals.

Prince Nayef’s responsibilities involve regulating Saudi charities.

For at least the last month, the Treasury Department and other federal agencies have been pressing Saudi officials to monitor closely bank accounts designated for relief aid to Palestinians, according to the Times.

The accounts in question are known in Saudi Arabia as “‘Account 98” funds the designation Saudi regulators use for money destined for Palestinian charitable works. Similar accounts exist for Saudi money allegedly intended for needy Muslims in other parts of the world, like Bosnia and Chechnya.

Prince Nayef oversees the Saudi Committee for the Support of Al Quds Intifada, which provides aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers through specially designated bank accounts. According to Arab News, a Saudi daily, a single telethon early last year raised about $112 million for Al Quds.

While I have some serious questions about the Bush administration and its relationship with the Saudis, al-Qaeda’s war against the United States and Saudi support of terror didn’t begin with September 11.

The World Trade Center was first bombed in 1993. Saudi incitement of terror was well documented throughout the 1990’s.

The Khobar Towers were bombed INSIDE Saudi Arabia in 1996 and US investigators were stonewalled consistently by the Saudi government.

In 1998, al-Qaeda bombed the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

Did anybody notice that all took place in the PREVIOUS administration? And absolutely no action was taken by that administration against the Saudis.

Most of what the Senate is investigating took place on the previous watch, but it is ALL being piled on the current administration.

As I said, I have some serious questions about the way the current adminstration is dealing with the Saudis. But while terrorists declared war on America one year into the Clinton administration, we did nothing for eight more years.

The bulk of the Senate investigation focuses on the events leading up to September 11, 2001. The war was eight years old, the Bush administration had been in office for a year and a half. That’s reality, not a defense of the administration.

I don’t know what is in those redacted documents, or how they will impact the administration’s plans. I DO know the Saudis wanted the information made public and Bush refused. And that it made the Saudis mad.

The spin doctors and the agenda-weavers are still reworking the facts, but it is clear that there is more here than meets the eye.

It isn’t ALL oil politics.

The Precious Two Percent

The Precious Two Percent
Vol: 22 Issue: 30 Wednesday, July 30, 2003

According to a December 2001 decision by a Saskatchewan court of appeals, the Bible is hate literature if it is quoted verbatim and in context when it is used to condemn homosexuality as sin. The appellate court ruled for the provincial human rights board for fining a man for submitting a newspaper advertisement citing four passages of Scripture. The verses, Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 all address the Bible’s position on homosexuality.

[Imagine] “the hand-wringing if ever a federal court labeled the Koran hate literature and forced a devout Muslim to pay a fine for printing some of his book’s more astringent passages in an ad in a daily newspaper,” wrote Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton, Alberta, daily and quoted by WorldNetDaily.

Canadian attitudes toward homosexuality have permeated the American media, even as US public tolerance of homosexual conduct is on the decline.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found that after several years of growing tolerance, there’s a return to a level of more traditional attitudes last seen in the mid-1990s.

Asked whether same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, 48 percent said yes and 46 percent said no. Before this month, support hadn’t been that low since 1996, USA Today reported.

Support for legal relations among homosexuals had reached a high of 60 percent in early May.

In the survey, 49 percent said homosexuality should not be considered “an acceptable alternative lifestyle,” while 46 percent said it did.

Recently, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law, a Canadian court decision allowed homosexual ‘couples’ to marry in Ontario, and Wal-Mart expanded anti-discrimination protection to gay workers.

But among the liberal media, there is an increasingly casual attitude toward homosexuality and an absolute lack of tolerance toward any view that suggests there might be something wrong about homosexual conduct.

Last night, “Boy Meets Boy,” a dating game for homosexual men where some straight men are thrown into the mix, aired on NBC’s Bravo cable channel.

This came on the heels of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” another new Bravo show that last week got bumped up to prime time Thursday, the same night that NBC airs its homosexual-themed sitcom “Will & Grace.”

“Queer Eye” features a group of homosexual men giving a fashion makeover to a heterosexual man.

According to the Nexis database, 350 stories about homosexuality appeared in major papers from May 26 to June 25. That rose to 537 stories from June 26 to July 25. On Monday, the New York Post announced the establishment of the nation’s first high school for homosexual students in New York. Homosexuality ranked fifth in topics covered on the three major network prime-time weeknight news shows June 23 to 27.

On July 23, The Washington Post for the first time ran alongside notices of heterosexual weddings an announcement and photo of the “marriage” of Deb Price and Joyce Murdoch in Toronto last month. (The two women met in 1985 while editors at The Post.)

The last time homosexual issues occupied such a spotlight was in 1993 when the Clinton administration pushed to allow homosexuals to serve in the military.

Broadcasters and publishers appear to be sympathetic to homosexual causes, judging from the guest list of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, a 1,100-member group having its annual convention in September at a Hollywood hotel. Scheduled speakers include CNN anchor Judy Woodruff, CBS chairman Les Moonves, Black Entertainment Television executive producer Will Wright and Los Angeles Times publisher John Puerner.

Assessment:

Once again, I can only sit back in awe of the power of propaganda. The fact that forty-six percent of Americans believe homosexuality is an ‘acceptable alternative life-style’ is a monument to the efficacy of the propagandist’s pen. Gay rights groups claim a ten percent share of the population, but that is a media myth that has been widely debunked.

According to the most reliable statistics, homosexuals make up approximately two percent of the American population.

Approximately two percent of Americans believe they’ve been abducted by aliens, although not necessarily the same two percent. But it is unlikely that 46 percent of Americans share the belief in UFO’s as an acceptable, alternative religion.

There are a disproportionately high percentage of homosexuals working in the media, in Hollywood and in the public school system. As a consequence, there is a disproportionately high degree of tolerance for the gay rights agenda.

This helps us to understand how there can be a motive and a conspiracy – but without either a clear plan or malicious intent. The conspiracy is there, the agenda is clear, but most people who advance it believe they are doing a good thing.

Most mainstream broadcasters don’t believe they lean toward liberal causes — they really think they hold a balanced, centrist view. They believe that because their worldview is a product of their environment. If half the people you work with are gay, you are less likely to equate homosexuality as being as odd as believing you’ve been abducted by aliens and more likely to buy into the lie that it is an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

It grows easier to believe when your kids come home from school to explain to you patiently about sexuality and new studies and call you a bigot. Those teachers are not all part of a conspiracy to advance a private agenda; they also have a disproportionately high number of gay colleagues.

ABC has a homosexual-themed hit show like “Will and Grace . NBC can make money off ‘reality’ shows like “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” and “Boy Meets Boy”, so the entertainment media’s motive is obvious and without any particular malice.

It makes money, and, since they don’t see anything wrong with it, in their eyes, they are simply helping to ‘educate’ the ‘ignorant’.

The deception is complete, but what is interesting is the TOPIC of the deception. Nearly half of Americans have been convinced that homosexual conduct is an ‘acceptable alternative lifestyle’ when:

1) Most don’t know anything about the lifestyle except what they’ve been told in positive news stories and positive portrayals in popular TV programming’ and;

2) those same people would be horrified if their kids announced they were gay.

Why is that?

Because they know it means no grandchildren. They know it means no traditional family. They know it means the end of the line insofar as their family’s continued existence after they are gone. Homosexual children mean the death of the family line. What thinking person finds THAT acceptable?

In short, it is an ‘acceptable, alternative lifestyle’ for anybody else but their kids — because they KNOW in their hearts that it ISN’T, really. They buy the deception because they WANT to. It makes them sound compassionate, enlightened and progressive.

If half the population can be convinced that an aberration shared by 2% is normal, then how hard will it be for the antichrist to convince a Christ-rejecting world to accept him as God?

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2Thessalonians 2:10-12)

“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)

Shaping Young Minds

Shaping Young Minds
Vol: 22 Issue: 29 Tuesday, July 29, 2003

Educators often speak of ‘shaping’ the minds of the students the government has placed in their care. But kid’s minds are NOT Playdough. And educators are NOT parents. It is the parents who are tasked with ‘shaping’ the minds of children — educators are supposed to educate. That’s why we call them that.

Over the decades, this idea that schools are responsible for helping to shape a child’s worldview has taken root and flourished.

Bob Chase, as president of the National Educator’s Association (NEA) explained in a column carried in the union paper, “As teachers, counselors, school bus drivers, librarians, and custodians, NEA members are literally the guardians of the nation’s brain trust. We are more directly involved in shaping the minds and the characters of the nation’s children than anyone besides their families. Therefore, I believe we have a moral imperative to advocate for children’s education from Day One — for public preschooling that begins at age 3 and programs like Head Start, which help at-risk children make the grade. Children, after all, do not have a union. If we do not campaign for their well-being, we are reneging on our responsibility as teachers.” (NEA Magazine, February 16, 1997)

The end result? In most situations, the state’s view of what is an acceptable worldview for a child takes precedence over that of the parents. Between them, the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (NEA’s ideological twin) represent upward of 85 percent of the nation’s public school teachers.

In terms of shaping the content of public education, the NEA is more powerful than all the school committees and education boards in the land. And the NEA’s platform is indistinguishable from the agendas of the ACLU or People For the American Way. For example, the NEA sent more delegates to the Democratic National Convention in 2000 than did the state of California.

It supported statehood for the District of Columbia, comparable-worth legislation, abortion and “proscriptive” (confiscatory) gun control, but opposed official English and space-based defense.The NEA’s political program translates into indoctrination in the schools.

It supports and mandates that students be taught such concepts as multiculturalism, global education, environmental education and race, gender and sexual-orientation studies.

All of these courses are based on dubious premises and designed to advance a cause. One side of the argument is treated as received wisdom, the other essentially ignored.

In its resolution on environmental education, the NEA pledged to push courses promoting “the concept of interdependence of humanity and nature,” “an awareness of … population growth … on human survival” (but no consideration of the contributions of population increases to productivity), “solutions to such problems as … global warming, ozone depletion” and acid rain (which science has yet to establish as problems) and participation in Earth Day celebrations.

All that’s missing is a demand that Al Gore’s “Earth in the Balance” be adopted as a textbook and a call for teachers to collect contributions for Earth First.

In 1997, the California Federation of Teachers came up with a swell way to introduce grade-schoolers to the Jimmy Hoffa worldview. The federation is an AFT affiliate, but the curriculum it devised (called “Yummy Pizza Company”) has been endorsed by the NEA.

Kids role-play as workers who make pizzas. Management (the teacher) cuts their wages and increases their hours. The children are then encouraged to organize, engage in collective bargaining and go out on strike. Since the NEA is the largest union in America, and its members frequently strike for higher wages, there’s more than a little self-interest at work here.

Students are also given problems to solve. One involves a business called “Kids for Hire,” owned by Mr. Ink, which employs children to cut lawns, wash cars and baby-sit. Ink pays them less than he charges his customers (otherwise known as capitalism – a concept teachers, as government workers, are probably unfamiliar with). The kids think it’s unfair. Mr. Ink tells them to quit if they’re dissatisfied.

But he’s the only employer who’ll hire them, the lesson plan instructs. (Note that the students are NOT taught they can open their own competing business. They are instead totally dependent on their employer)

The lesson plan calls for the teacher to ask the students, “What do you think the employees should do?”

Suggestions from the students have included things like going on strike, slashing Mr. Ink’s tires, vandalizing his property and beating up scab workers.

Lenin said give me a child for the first five years of his life and he’ll be mine thereafter. The NEA has your child for 12 years.

Assessment:

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” – Adolf Hitler

The Tenth Plank of the Communist Manifesto contains the following provisions: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

A former NEA leader, William Carr wrote in 1947, “The psychological foundations for wider loyalties must be laid…. Teach those attitudes which will result ultimately in the creation of a world citizenship and world government… we can and should teach those skills and attitudes which will help to create a society in which world citizenship is possible.” (“On the Waging of Peace”, NEA Journal, October 1947; 496.)

The Apostle Paul wrote, “This know also, 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 . . .” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

In 1948, the most common discipline problems noted by educators were chewing gum in class and talking. In 1998, it was bringing guns to class and drug abuse. Most teachers in the 1998 survey indicated they are frightened by many of their students.

“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.” (2Timothy3:6-7)

“Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” (Revelation 12:12)

“He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” (Revelation 22:20)

Note:

Yesterday’s Omega Letter was inadvertently sent out with the wrong date (again). Sorry. Mike is working on a new and improved, redesigned Omega Letter that will eliminate errors like that. (Not to mention being a thing of beauty, if I do say so myself)

The book is now in the final stages of editing. We will resume a six-day per week schedule by mid August. I’ll keep you posted.

I thank God every day for the blessing you are to me. God bless you all.

Special Report Mahmoud Abbas: Peacemaker or Terrorist?

Special Report Mahmoud Abbas: Peacemaker or Terrorist?
Vol: 22 Issue: 28 Monday, July 28, 2003

Palestinians cheered and sounded car horns in noisy celebration on Sunday as an Israeli army bulldozer tore down a key West Bank checkpoint and opened a road leading to dozens of villages. Palestinian traffic flowed freely through the Surda checkpoint north of the city of Ramallah for the first time since the army erected the roadblock a few months after the Palestinian uprising began in September 2000.

Palestinians interviewed by an MSNBC reporter chanted in praise of Abbas, who met President Bush in the White House on Friday.

The Palestinians should be chanting praises for Abbas. He has managed to accomplish what Arafat ultimately could not make promise seem like actions. The current mantra about a new day in the Middle East is just that a mantra to be repeated over and over until it becomes the accepted truth .

At the meeting on Friday, President Bush praised Abbas for what Bush called his bold decisions and promised him that the United States would “strive to see that promises are kept,” and monitor the progress toward creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel..

An article in the Toronto Star was headlined Abbas Future Said to Rest on Israeli Concessions”. The article explained helpfully that if Mahmood Abbas isn t able to bring home an acceptable deal to the Palestinians, he might be deposed. However, what constitutes an acceptable deal to the Palestinians varies widely. And any deal has to pass muster with Yasser Arafat, meaning that Abbas is really just an empty suit to begin with.

Assessment:

Spin is spin, whether it emanates from the right or from the left. And arguing that there is anything resembling a mutual effort towards peace is enough to leave any honest observer dizzy. Let s set the Way Back Machine to start of the process, and try and stop the rotation long enough to see some of the details as they actually are.

On June 24, 2002, President Bush set forth the conditions that the Palestinian Arabs must fulfill in order to merit U.S. support for the creation of a Palestinian Arab state. Among the major obligations are that the Palestinian Arabs must “dismantle the terrorist infrastructure,” “end incitement,” “elect new leaders not compromised by terror,” and unequivocally embrace democracy and free market economics.

In March 2003, Yasser Arafat chose Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the number two man in the PLO since the 1960s, as the new prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas took office on April 29, 2003.

Less than a day later, the Bush administration unveiled its “Road Map” plan, which set forth conditions that the Palestinian Arabs must fulfill prior to the creation of a Palestinian Arab state. The Road Map stipulates that the Palestinian Arabs are required to undertake concrete steps to combat terrorist groups and democratize Palestinian Arab society.

Point One: “Cease All Violence”

What They Are Required to Do: “In Phase 1 [May 2003], the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence.” Note the words, unconditional cessation they are supposed to have meaning.

On June 29, 2003, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah issued statements saying that they would suspend attacks on Israelis for a period of 90 days IF Israel ceases all counter-terror operations and releases all imprisoned terrorists.

This is one of Abbas bold actions. Morphing an unconditional cessation of violence as part of a first step into a temporary conditional truce six weeks after the fact.

During the first 12 weeks since Abu Mazen became prime minister and the Road Map was published, there have been a total of 338 Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks or attempted attacks, in which 51 people were murdered and 318 wounded.

Point Two: “Call for Recognizing Israel and Ending Violence”

What They Are Required to Do: The Road Map obligates the Palestinian Arabs to “issue an unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere.”

Compare denouncing terror under Mahmoud Abbas government to that of Yasser Arafat s record. For example, the comments of Abbas Minister of Information Nabil Amr — Doha Al-Jazira Television, June 14, 2003:

“As regards the word ‘terrorism’, I do not know why when the Palestinians denounce the word terrorism, certain people think that this means resistance. There is no text anywhere that says that the Palestinian people’s resistance is terrorism, which we denounce…Yes, we denounce terrorism. Anyone who says that denouncing terrorism means denouncing resistance is doing an injustice to legitimate resistance and is in effect labeling it with terrorism.”

Point Three: “Dismantle the Terrorist Infrastructure”

What They Are Required to Do: The Road Map obligates the Palestinian Arabs to carry out the “dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure.”

The PA did NOT outlaw Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, or any other terrorist groups; there were no reports of the PA shutting down any bomb factories or terrorists’ training camps; the PA continued to ignore Israel’s 45 requests for the extradition of terrorists; there were no reports of the PLO leadership punishing PLO factions that are engaged in terrorism, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP).

Abbas said in no uncertain terms last week in Africa that he had no intention of cracking down on any of the terrorist organizations in the PA s jurisdiction for fear of starting a civil war .

Point Four: “Confiscate Terrorists’ Weapons”

What They Are Required to Do: The Road Map obligates the Palestinian Arabs to “commence confiscation of illegal weapons.”

In mid-July, there were media reports that PA security forces had confiscated 20 illegal weapons from individuals in Gaza. TWENTY illegal weapons! And as it turned out (but went unreported in the mainstream) Israel Radio reported on July 12 that the individuals were common criminals, not terrorists.

On July 14, after media reports claiming that PA policemen were searching cars for weapons, a “senior PA security official” denied the reports, telling the Jerusalem Post: “What you saw on television was not real; it was part of a drill. We carried out an exercise with the participation of 600 policemen. That’s all.” (Jerusalem Post, July 15, 2003)

No steps have been taken to democratize Palestinian society, no elections have been scheduled or are being seriously contemplated, there are no plans to draw up a Palestinian constitution or draw up legal reforms. There has been no effort at separating powers, and Yasser Arafat remains in charge in fact, if not in name.

In short, I can see no evidence of the bold actions on the part of Mahmoud Abbas to justify all the lavish praise.

Instead, what I see is Israel making ALL the concessions, and Abbas making all the demands. Any demand by the Israeli side for a modicum of Palestinian compliance is immediately rebuffed as Israeli stonewalling and any demand no matter how outrageous that is not immediately met by the Israelis is grounds for the fragile cease-fire (that is the substitute for an immediate and unconditional cessation of violence) to be broken by Abbas not-so-secret weapon of renewed terrorist attacks by the groups Abbas is unable to control thanks, in some way, to the Israeli crackdown on terrorism.

As we ve noted many times, in any other universe but this one, the Israelis would be the good guys and the Palestinian Authority would have as much legitimacy as a government as does al-Qaeda.

But the Palestinian Authority is fighting against Israel. And when it comes to Israel, no Arab violation is too egregious to derail the road map while no Israeli violation is too slight to qualify as justification for a new round of terror.

“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” (Zechariah 12:3)

And THEN Shall the End Come

And THEN Shall the End Come
Vol: 22 Issue: 25 Friday, July 25, 2003

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come..

The Great Commission given by Jesus to His Church rings down through the ages; to all churches and all generations, the single most important purpose for a Christian s life is to be a witness to all people of the power of salvation. God effects change in different people in different ways, according to His purpose.

For some, seeing the transformation of a person s life from one of sin to one of piety is a miracle of God that kindles a spiritual hunger to know more about the Savior. For others, however, just telling someone that if Jesus can save a sinner like you, then it means He can save anybody. And that is oftentimes enough. God knows — that’s why He expects us to trust Him.

The message of the Gospel is not about being perfect, it is about being saved. It s about TRUSTING Jesus, not only to save you, but to transform your life according to His purpose. And about telling others the Good News.

I was speaking this morning with one of our writers, Joe Wynne. He asked me about the new book and how it is going. We began to discuss the book s release (scheduled for October) and how it will impact things in general. One of the things I dread about this whole book process is still ahead. It is the part where the publisher books radio and TV interviews so that I can shamelessly promote myself something that makes my skin crawl. It is all part of the whole process, but it is kind of creepy. (I know me the way God knows me)

The book is not an end unto itself, but rather, a means to an end. In promoting the book, I will have a chance to promote the Omega Letter website, which is, of course, my real ministry. Leading someone to Christ through a book, or through some column the Lord uses to open someone s eyes to their lost condition is gratifying, but the problem with website conversions is that there is no follow up. Being a Christian is hard work. A website conversion means one more spiritual infant thrust into the world without guidance.

The Omega Letter has a unique mission. While most websites for Christians offer sermons or Bible verses, or seek to convert the lost to Christ, the Omega Letter seeks to strengthen the faith and knowledge of the one-on-one evangelists out there. While a big website dedicated to leading the lost to Christ might result in many conversions, there remains the problem of then what? to consider.

The Omega Letter is, to my knowledge, unique, in that we focus on providing you with the tools you need to clearly demonstrate the accuracy of Scripture, the nearness of the Lord s return and the evidence of Bible prophecy, so that YOU can not only lead that person to Christ, but be there to disciple them afterwards.

The Omega Letter reaches places I would never have dreamed of. Australia, South Africa, Bahrain, the UK, Ireland, Mexico even FRANCE! Jesus said that when the Gospel is preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations — THEN shall the end come.

I read in the forums and in my emails of the effectiveness of the Omega Letter so far people forward them to their friends, then their friends begin to ask questions, or they forward them to other friends. . . each one tells one about the Kingdom.

As many of you know, I also am the editor of Hal Lindsey Oracle. We ran a poll once there to try and get a feel for our audience. I was astounded to find that less than one percent said they were NOT already born again Christians.

A Christian website draws Christians in many cases then, we find ourselves preaching to the choir. The Omega Letter doesn t preach to the choir, but instead it focuses on making disciples of the King, ready to Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (2nd Timothy 4:2) and prepared to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. (1 Peter 3:15).

Every one of you has put your money where your mouth is and, in so doing, are helping to keep this work moving forward. The forums testify to the effectiveness of our shared mission. Each of you is as much a part of the overall mission as any of us here. Not just by your prayers and financial support — both greatly appreciated — but by USING this information to advance the Kingdom.

The purpose of the Omega Letter is to help move things along by preaching the Gospel into all the world by equipping evangelists in all the world. Jesus said that once that is accomplished, THEN shall the end come.

Each of us is a part of that effort, but you play the larger role. Each one, tell one.

And THEN shall the end come.

Atlantic Alliance Continues to Crumble

Atlantic Alliance Continues to Crumble
Vol: 22 Issue: 24 Thursday, July 24, 2003

According to a new poll conducted in Germany by the weekly magazine, Die Zeit, a significant number of Germans don t believe that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington. According to the poll, they think we did it ourselves. Not a few on the lunatic fringe, but one in three Germans under thirty and almost twenty percent of Germans overall think the attack was orchestrated by Washington.

Asked whether they believed that the U.S. government could have ordered the September 11 attacks itself, 31 percent of those surveyed under the age of 30 in the poll answered “yes”. And 19 percent of Germans from all age groups gave the same answer.

Our alleged alliance with old Europe continues to deteriorate, as bewildered Americans wonder how it could be that a nation like Germany could hate us so much? After World War II, the United States footed the bill to rebuild Germany, helped it build a strong, prosperous economy, and preserved and protected it from Soviet domination for forty years.

The Germans became our closest and most valuable European allies and our friendship was both warm and strong. But, after two generations of guilt, young Germans are now demonstrating against the United States and feeling good about themselves because it is the United States, not Germany, that is seen by many as the aggressive warmonger.

This anti-Americanism is much worse than what has gone before. Analysts warn that a whole generation of America-haters is being created, a European generation which they say believes Americans deliberately bomb civilians and kill Arab babies.

In a recent and widely discussed book on America, Apr s L’Empire, credited by many with having influenced the position of the French government on the war in Iraq, Emmanuel Todd writes: “A single threat to global instability weighs on the world today: America, which from a protector has become a predator.”

A similar mistrust of American motives was clearly in evidence in the European media’s coverage of the war. To have followed the war on television and in the newspapers in Europe was to have witnessed a different event than that seen by most Americans.

During the few days before America’s attack on Baghdad, European commentators displayed a barely concealed glee – almost what the Germans call schadenfreude – at the prospect of American forces being bogged down in a long and difficult engagement.

Max Gallo, in the weekly magazine Le Point, drew the typical conclusion about American arrogance and ignorance: “The Americans, carried away by the hubris of their military power, seemed to have forgotten that not everything can be handled by the force of arms … that peoples have a history, a religion, a country.”

Anti-Americanism in Europe historically comes in waves. In the 1980s Europeans vilified then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Before that there were anti-Vietnam War protests against U.S. presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

Yet the current outbreak has new elements, including a demographic shift: In Britain, there are now more worshippers in mosques on Fridays than in Church of England churches on Sundays.

Among Europe’s growing Muslim population, the United States has few friends.

Says Dominque Moisi of the French Institute of International relations: “Today’s anti-Americanism in Europe is a combination of what America is doing — preparing to go to war in Iraq — and what America is: the country of the death penalty, the country — in European eyes — of arrogance.”

Adds Manfred Guttamacher of Potsdam University in Germany: “We are on the brink of a fundamental rift between the United States and Europe which goes much deeper than the rifts that came up in the course of anti-American sentiments in the ’60s or early ’80s.”

In the 20th century — in the fight against Nazism and later the Cold War against communism — a European-American political alliance emerged that many thought would last forever. That assumption looks somewhat less certain now.

Assessment:

Old Europe continues to come together under the contradictory banners of anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and pro-globalism. At the same time, the Europeans have decided that they should play a leading role in enforcing a peace deal between Israel and the Arabs.

The Israelis are beginning to look to old Europe as well not because they trust the Europeans, but because it looks like the Europeans may be the only ones who can offer any realistic hope of security.

The Israelis are floating the idea of joining the European Union (a plan heartily endorsed by EU President Silvio Berlusconi of Rome) hoping that membership in the EU might provide some measure of collective security against external attack.

Increasingly, Israel s close association with the United States has become a liability in the negotiations with the Arab world. The Arabs won t talk to Israel directly, and so Washington has traditionally served as Israel s representative. But the Arab world doesn t trust Washington anymore than it does Jerusalem. So now it is Washington that needs a representative to carry on political discourse with the Arabs for the same reason Israel needed Washington in the past.

Inexorably, the United States is being weaned away from its role as protector of Israeli democracy, in favor of Europe, which stands in waiting.

US protection of Israel has included efforts to divide Jerusalem and make it a shared capital between the two proposed states.

The prophet Zechariah warned that in the last days, Jerusalem would become a burdensome stone for all people, and that all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces a pretty fair description of what has happened to the US international relations over the past decade since Oslo.

Daniel says that the final arbiter of peace between Israel and the Arabs will be the coming prince of the revived Roman Empire, not the president of the United States. Somehow, Daniel says, he will divide the land for gain, saying that, by peace [he shall] destroy many.

According to Daniel, the antichrist will CONFIRM a seven-year plan for peace, and that halfway through, he will withdraw his hand of protection from the Jewish state. Europe is being positioned for its coming appointment with destiny. In this generation. What does that mean for the Church?

“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: Once to Die, But After This the Judgment

Special Report: Once to Die, But After This the Judgment
Vol: 22 Issue: 23 Wednesday, July 23, 2003

There are a lot of bad guys still out there; Osama bin-Laden, Mulla Omar, ‘Chemical Ali’ and Saddam Hussein — but two of the worst, Uday and Qusay Hussein — are dead. They were killed by US forces who surrounded a house in Mosul where they were told the two sons of Saddam were holed up.

The world is much improved by their absence — the murderous pair could, in terms of personal brutality, give lessons to Hitler and his henchmen.

The older son, Uday, controlled propaganda in Iraq and allegedly oversaw the torture of athletes who failed to perform to his liking.

As head of the paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam, Uday helped his father eliminate opponents and exert iron-fisted control over Iraq’s 25 million people.

Iraqi exiles say he murdered at will and tortured with zeal, and routinely ordered his guards to snatch young women off the street so he could rape them. The London-based human-rights group Indict said Uday ordered prisoners to be dropped into acid baths as punishment. The Caligula-like Uday seemed proud of his reputation and called himself Abu Sarhan, an Arabic term for “wolf.”

Uday’s brutality cannot be overstated.

Uday owned Iraq’s most widely circulated daily newspaper, Babil, which he used as a platform for regime propaganda, publishing signed editorials full of bombastic rhetoric. He also oversaw Al-Zawra, a weekly published by the journalists union that he headed, and owned the popular Youth TV.

Much of Uday’s notoriety abroad stemmed from his position as head of the National Iraqi Olympic Committee.

According to Indict, the committee once made a group of track athletes crawl on newly poured asphalt while they were beaten, and threw some of them off a bridge. Indict also said Uday ran a special prison for athletes who offended him. The International Olympic Committee in Lausanne, Switzerland, accused by critics of overlooking allegations of torture, said earlier this year that it was investigating the reports.

One defector told Indict that soccer players, after failing to reach the 1994 World Cup finals, were jailed and forced to kick a concrete ball. Another defector said athletes were dragged through a gravel pit and then dunked in a sewage tank so infection would set in.

As a teenager in 1983, Uday reportedly bashed an army officer unconscious when the man refused to allow Uday to dance with his wife. The officer later died. Uday also shot an army officer who did not salute him.

Uday was so brutal that he even disgusted Saddam, who passed him over as heir apparent in favor of younger son Qusay. Qusay was no less vicious than Uday, but more subtle.

He had plenty of blood on his hands – but the crazed germaphobic personally detested getting them dirty.

It was Qusay who preferred torturing prisoners by dropping them headfirst into a shredding machine or hacking off their feet with chain saws. Qusay was a germophobic who was so obsesive that if one of his kids touched him, he’d have a special aide called a ‘cleaner’ to disinfect him.

Dubbed “The Snake” by Iraqi locals for his quiet, slithering style, Qusay grew from a pampered, pouty kid to become his father’s most trusted aide – head of all of Iraq’s intelligence and security services and its ultra-elite Republican Guard.

Qusay was the one in charge of the regular prison ‘cleansings’ in which thousands of prisoners would be ordered executed en masse to make room for a new crop of his father’s enemies. Qusay oversaw the systematic murders of as many as a million Shiites in the post-Gulf War I uprising. He personally began the executions by walking up to the first batch of 300 Shiite prisoners, calmly removing his side arm and personally shooting the first four in the head.

Assessment:

Uday and Qusay are dead, but they have yet to meet justice for their crimes. Hebrews 9:27 tells us that, “And as it appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” Jesus revealed to the Apostle John the existence of the ‘second death’ (Revelation 2:11) when He promises that those who are saved ‘shall not be hurt’ by it.

Scripture tells us that there are two resurrections. The first resurrection takes place at the Rapture of the Church. Paul tells us that;

“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1Thessalonians 4:14)

Further, Paul explains, “Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

This is the first resurrection. Those who ‘sleep’ in Christ will rise first, will be ‘changed’ (receive their immortal body – “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” [1 John 3:2]).

After they have been resurrected, we who are alive and remain will also ‘be caught up with Him” where we will likewise exchange our corruptible bodies for incorruptible, Resurrection bodies.

But what of Uday and Qusay? The Bible says that there is a real hell, and after that, the lake of fire. This is the second death. It is at this point that Qusay, Uday, Saddam and all those who died in their sin will also receive an immortal body.

We get a picture of hell — the waiting place until the Final Judgment– from Jesus Himself. Luke 16:19 opens with Jesus saying, “There was a certain rich man. . .” It is important to note that Jesus did NOT say, “learn the parable” . . or “the Kingdom of God is like . . .” — but instead He said, “There WAS a certain rich man. . . ” He was speaking from His own Divine Knowledge of an actual individual. Jesus went on to describe what the rich man experienced in hell.

To keep this OL manageable, I’ll summarize the relevant verses (Luke 16:19-31)

The rich man died and is in hell awaiting judgment at the Great White Throne, at which time he too will receive his resurrection body. (Revelation 20:11-15)

In the meantime, Jesus tells us a number of things about hell.

* The lost go immediately to hell (Luke 16:22), just as the saved go immediately to heaven (2 Corinthians 5:8).

* It is a place of torment — (Luke 16:23)

* The torment is in the form of a literal flame (16:24)

* In hell, your memory of life on earth is intact (16:27)

* You have eternity to consider your fate and the eternal fate of those you love. (16:27-28)

And finally, note two things. Although Jesus refers to the beggar, Lazarus, by name, the rich man is simply ‘the rich man’. In hell, you have NO NAME! You don’t need one. Qusay and Uday Hussein are alone in the dark, memories intact, in eternal and constant torment, knowing they will never hear their names again.

At the resurrection unto death, they will stand before the Great White Throne, but their names will not be found in the Book of Life. They will never hear their names again, because they won’t need them. They will spend eternity alone, in the lake of fire, where the Bible says the beast and false prophet are.

Qusay and Uday will not spend eternity in the lake of fire because a harsh God ‘sent’ them there. It is abundantly clear that these two monsters condemned themselves by their actions.

It is important to remember that the fate so richly deserved (by our standards) for Uday and Qusay and eventually, Saddam himself, will be shared by every person who stands before the Great White Throne and does NOT hear his name read from the Book of Life.

We have a responsibility to those unfortunates who, through ignorance and persistent brainwashing, do not recognize their lost condition and their need for a Saviour.

Scripture says “Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” Ezekiel 3:20

Your Omega Letter exists to this single purpose. To prepare us for the work ahead. God can use you — He can use anybody, but He won’t use you if you aren’t willing.

Everybody you meet — whether it’s the kid who delivers your paper or the waitress at the coffee shop — has an eternal destiny. That destiny will be one of two possibilities. Either they will spend eternity in heaven, with Christ, in unspeakable joy, or they will join Uday and Qusay for an eternity of unspeakable agony.

The time is short, the fields are white with the harvest, but the laborers are few. “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” (1 Peter 3:15)

That is what your Omega Letter is all about. Help us keep the fires burning. Tell your friends. Time is short.

The Most Trusted Names In News

The Most Trusted Names In News
Vol: 22 Issue: 22 Tuesday, July 22, 2003

Earlier this month, former CNN News Group Chairman Walter Isaacson gave an interview to Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball. In it, he described the organization he used to run in glowing terms; CNN is a pure journalistic network that tries and has ingrained in its DNA, good reporting, straight, et cetera, whereas, I think cable is very good with provocative, opinionated stuff. CNN, when I was there and now, still doesn t want to have opinionated talk show hosts.

A few hours AFTER that, CNN’s Aaron Brown and CNN correspondent David Ensor discussed the latest news ‘scoop’; There is, as you know, a story that s been circulating on the Web today that there was at some point a conversation between the President and a CIA consultant where the consultant directly told the President that this African uranium deal was bogus. Do you have any reporting that supports the idea that the President was directly told it was fake before he included it in the State of the Union speech?

Ensor’s reply sounded very professional: I have no way to confirm that story, and it is somewhat suspect I would say, but we ll have to check it.

So you see, CNN is good, straight, unbiased reporting. Except the story had been discredited as a hoax by that same internet site that allegedly ‘broke’ the story. The site had printed a full retraction four hours earlier.

But as long as the ‘charge’ was phrased as a ‘question’ and the ‘fair and balanced reply’ was that it was ‘unconfirmed’ instead of completely discredited, the message came through loud and clear. The Bush administration is dishonest. Honest!

CNN’s non-opinionated Aaron Brown opened his July 14 Newsnight broadcast with this tease: “The President campaigned for the job in part on the notion that he was the anti-Clinton, a man who said what he meant, meant what he said, no sentence parsing needed. Square that with today and critics who say you ve got a bonanza for sentence parsers and at least the makings of a credibility gap.

After eight years of non-stop serial lies and deception under Bill Clinton (so beloved by CNN that its critics used to call it the Clinton News Network), Brown finds the ‘sentence parsing’ of the Bush administration (said ‘parsing’ being a repeating of the original 16 words accurately instead of selectively) as ‘at least’ the ‘makings’ of a ‘credibility gap’. (I would agree, but it is Aaron Brown whose credibility is on the line).

CBS News’ July 10 website headline screamed, “Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False. Wow!

Peter Jennings teased ABC’s July 8 program thusly: On World News Tonight, the Bush administration admits that a vital argument for going to war against Iraq was not true.

ABC says more Americans get their news from ABC News than from any other source. It must be true, since ABC scooped the rest of the world. How does Peter Jennings know that the British intelligence cited in the speech isn’t true when British intelligence still believes that it is?

Assessment:

I continue to be amazed at how easy a job it is to convince the public that up is down and black is white by the simple expedient of repeating it over and over until people start repeating it back. I know I’ve been almost single-minded about this, but SOMEBODY has to tell the truth.

The latest polls suggest that just over half the country now believes that George Bush lied in his State of the Union speech expressly to deceive the country into going to war with Iraq. Half the country!

Half the country believes that when the president said that British intelligence ‘believes’ Saddam tried to get uranium from Africa, Bush was lying. British intelligence STILL believes it, according to British intelligence. But what do THEY know?

Maybe Bush ‘knew’ — the mainstream liberal press sure wants you to believe that he did. But the fact is, NOBODY knows yet. Not only is it impossible to prove a negative, but Saddam DID get uranium from Niger in the 1980’s. Real uranium. That is a historical fact.

So when the British develop intelligence — independent of the US — that not only confirms US suspicions, but dovetails with his historical pattern, (intelligence Britain STILL stands behind) how then does it follow that the White House knowingly mislead the country?

There may come a time when it is proved that this administration DID mislead the country, But this isn’ it.

This is spin, pure and simple. It ignores 12 years of reasons, twelve years of almost daily conflict, not to mention 18 UN resolutions and an unfulfilled ceasefire agreement.

The proof is in the watching. Have you heard any newscast dwell on all the other reasons for war? Or has whether or not Saddam sought uranium from Africa become the single most important reason for heeding Clinton’s 1998 call for regime change in Iraq?

This is the Principle of the Big Lie at work. Test it out for yourself. Ask anybody you meet if they think Bush may have lied in his speech. See how many of them think so. Then ask them about what. Then look at how sincerely they believe it, even when they aren’t sure what it is he lied about. Then remind yourself of WHO his accusers are.

Behold, the power of propaganda!

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” 1 Peter 5:8

Report Redacts Saudi Involvement

Report Redacts Saudi Involvement
Vol: 22 Issue: 21 Monday, July 21, 2003

Report Redacts Saudi Involvement

Key portions of a joint congressional report on the September 11 attacks have been classified by the administration. According to most reports, the redacted portions deal with the possible complicity of the Saudi government with the hijackers.

The report made headlines for what it did say, but the biggest headlines should be reserved for what it didn t say. A 28-page section of the report dealing with the Saudis and other foreign governments was completely removed from the public version.

Before examining what the report doesn t talk about, we ll look at some of the things that it does.

The 911 page report (clever, huh?) says the FBI blew it and should have been able to prevent the September 11 attacks. While hindsight is always 20/20, the report does paint a pretty dismal picture.

For one thing, the FBI had an informant in San Diego who actually hosted two of the hijackers at his home. The informant also had earlier contact with another hijacker, Hani Hanjour. But even though the informant was in regular touch with his FBI handler, the bureau never pieced together that he was living with terrorists.

The report says the bureau also failed to pursue other leads, including a local imam who dealt with several key 9-11 figures. The report, one congressional investigator said, is a scathing indictment of the FBI as an agency that doesn t have a clue about terrorism.

The report also contains potentially explosive new evidence suggesting that Omar al-Bayoumi, a key associate of two of the hijackers, may have been a Saudi-government agent.

But the bureau never kept tabs on al-Bayoumi despite receiving prior information he was a secret Saudi agent, the report says. In January 2000, al-Bayoumi had a meeting at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles and then went directly to a restaurant where he met future hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, whom he took back with him to San Diego. (Al-Bayoumi later arranged for the men to get an apartment next to his and advanced them their first two months rent.)

The report criticizes the Pentagon for resisting military strikes against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan prior to 9-11, and the CIA for failing to pass along crucial information about Almihdhar and Alhazmi at a terrorists summit in Malaysia.

Given what has already been released, the 28 pages that the administration has classified top secret are potentially explosive.

Assessment:

Is the administration covering up evidence of a direct involvement with the September 11 attacks? Is the Saudi government directly complicit in the murder of 3000 Americans? If so, why would the administration want to keep it a secret?

Congressional lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have criticized the administration for stonewalling its investigation. Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Phil Graham of Florida, publicly accusing the administration of using national security as an excuse to block “embarrassments” and speaking openly of a “cover-up.” Since Graham is running for president by courting the far left of his party, much of it can be discounted, but not all of it.

Even the Republican co-chairman of the joint congressional inquiry, Florida Rep. Porter Goss, while not endorsing the cover-up accusations, has complained about the administration’s unwillingness to allow public disclosure of crucial information.

US intelligence wasn t blindsided by the news of direct Saudi involvement with international terrorism.

By 1999, the evidence was so clear that Vice President Al Gore contacted Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to set up a secret meeting between U.S. counter terrorism experts and high-ranking officials in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.

“We wanted to show how seriously we took the issue, and requesting the meeting through the vice president was one way to do that,” said William Wechsler, a former counterterrorism director with the National Security Council.

Gore’s help arranging the secret 1999 meeting, which has not been disclosed until now, sheds new light on how top U.S. government officials grappled with the threat from al-Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001, and how powerful bureaucratic and diplomatic currents worked against them.

The 1999 trip shows the U.S. and its longtime ally Saudi Arabia knew a great deal about al-Qaeda’s organizational structure long before the Sept. 11 attacks, going back to the early days of the Clinton administration. In hearings held this week, one al-Qaeda expert said the United States allowed Afghanistan to become a “terrorist Disneyland” in the 1990s. “You didn’t do what was necessary to prevent your country from being humiliated,” Rohan Gunaratna, a former United Nations investigator based in Singapore, told the panel.

Whether or not this administration is covering up for the Saudis, or whether this is an effort by the intelligence agencies to cover up a decade of incompetence remains to be seen. But in any event, this is not good news for this administration.

Or for the nation.

Impeach George Bush!

Impeach George Bush!
Vol: 22 Issue: 18 Friday, July 18, 2003

Impeach George Bush!

According to Bob Graham, the alleged ‘lie’ that British intelligence believed Saddam attempted to buy uranium in Africa is more serious than Bill Clinton’s perjured testimony before both a federal judge and a federal grand jury.

“If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard,” he said.

Let’s give that another look. Kennedy lied about the Bay of Pigs. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. Nixon lied about the Watergate break in. Jimmy Carter lied about being the commander of a US nuclear sub. (In fact, he was once AB0ARD one during a training mission). Reagan lied about Iran-Contra. George Bush the Elder lied about ‘no new taxes’ – at least, that is what defeated him. Only one lied to protect his personal reputation.

Bill Clinton lied to protect his reputation at the expense of another. A citizen who demanded her Constitutional right to a fair and impartial hearing before the judiciary had that Constitutional right trampled on by the head of the Executive Branch. Doesn’t anybody remember that?

And Bill Graham wants to IMPEACH George Bush on the grounds he ‘lied’ when he accurately stated that the British had intelligence that Saddam may have tried to procure uranium in Africa? And that those 16 words were intentionally vague, and said only that Saddam was trying to buy uranium is the ONLY reason we went to war? According to Graham, if Bush HADN’T said that, we would not have deposed Saddam.

It is outrageous in the extreme, but it is starting to resonate with the press. They smell blood in the water, and they think that it is the hated George Bush s.

And they may be right. Not because Bush lied. The British still maintain the information is accurate and sourced from a third Western intelligence service independent of the suspect evidence that the CIA has. So Bush only lied if he didn t believe Tony Blair. And even then, the statement remains factually accurate to this moment. But a United States Senator and presidential hopeful is suggesting Bush should be IMPEACHED and that his lie is more serious than the serial lies of Bill Clinton? Do I have this right?

Behold the power of the Big Lie!

Assessment:

While the Democrats are trying to pin the president to the mat with the 16 words they think require impeachment, soldiers are dying in Iraq virtually every day, almost three months after the cessation of formal hostilities on May 1.

The National Security advisor and Secretary of State, instead of advising the president on security and projecting global influence, are making the rounds of the talk shows to remind America that attempting to buy uranium from Africa is NOT grounds for war with Iraq. It was less than the icing on the cake, at best, it was a little decoration.

This is brainwashing at its finest. It is also part of the partisan strategy. Distract the president, hoping he will drop the ball on the economy, mess things up further in Iraq, maybe even drag the country through a trumped-up impeachment, whatever it takes to regain power.

What about what is BEST for Americans? Is it in America s interests to attempt to destroy this administration or any other — during wartime? If the economy falters, who gets hurt? The partisans? Or you?

If the spin doctors convince the public that the war with Iraq was based on sixteen words, what happens if circumstances demand we do something about North Korean or Iranian nukes? What kind of global support will we have in the event we really need it, if the country has been convinced, as has the rest of the world, that George Bush is a liar?

Are there truly any people out there who, having thought this through, believes the war with Iraq was unjustified? I have yet to have a discussion on this with anybody who could hold their own when they tried to make that case.

They can t quite get over the hurdle of the Gulf War ceasefire. The war was justified when Saddam failed to live up to it ninety days later. Trot out that original cease-fire agreement, read its language out loud. If breaking it justified war then, it justified it now. The rest is spin.

The motive is to seize power by any means and at any cost. Think of the cost the partisan bickering has already cost America in terms of global prestige. Thanks to the stated we ll get ya promises post Election 2000 the presidency is already so weakened that with 12 years of defiance, September 11, Saddam s proved brutality, and 18 UN resolutions, Saddam beat Bush in a global popularity contest. This is the same Saddam that Bill Clinton bombed with impunity for virtually his entire term.

The same Saddam that prompted Bill Clinton to issue the first presidential directive calling for regime change in Iraq. The same Saddam that Bill Clinton launched a totally unauthorized air war against in 1998 under the operational name Operation Desert Fox.

But the partisans and the spin doctors have so hamstrung this administration that what Clinton could do unilaterally without a single peep of protest, Bush couldn t do with Congressional authorization.

The spin doctors and those who ve been spun by them will tell you that this is really democracy, and that what they are doing, they are doing it for rather than TO the country.

As the debate heats up, so does my email. I’d prefer to move on to something else, but this is blatant deception. I am sick of being accused of being a George Bush defender on the grounds I am not pressing an attack.

This story is more evidence of the Big Lie — and how it works — not a partisan defense. Things that are different are NOT the same.

Spin is effective only if it presents an alternative reality that matches what the spun already WANTED to believe. And that desire to believe is so powerful that it doesn t even matter if it works against their own best interests.

Stay with me here. Ask yourself a few questions. Is the country diplomatically weaker, or stronger, as a consequence of this debate? Is the country militarily weaker, or stronger, as a consequence of this debate?

Is this a time of national peril? Is America subject to attack from her sworn enemies? Who benefits politically from the weakening of US foreign and domestic policy? Finally, what do you call someone who deliberately seeks to weaken his own country during time of war?

Now, compare that to the spin. Evaluate what partisanship has already cost America in terms of domestic harmony and global prestige. Add to that the partisan effort to talk down the economy in the hopes it will tank in time for the election and they can seize power so they can protect the little guy from the rich .

Who gets hurt when the economy tanks? The rich? Or the guy who lives paycheck to paycheck and then gets a pink slip?

But half the country buys the spin, even when it works against what are obviously their best interests. Now to the point.

We live in a world where this can happen. People will believe what they want to believe, despite the evidence of their eyes and ears.

The Bible describes the same world in the last days, a world which could not ever have existed in any generation before this one. It is a world where a man with a look more stout than his fellows and a mouth speaking great things can sit down in the Temple of God, showing himself that he IS god and be accepted by the masses who will buy his every word, saying, who is like unto the beast, and who can make war with him.

One where lies are celebrated as truth and truth is discounted as partisan apologetics unless it suits the existing preconception.

A world like this one.

And when you see these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh. . . So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall NOT pass away, till ALL be fulfilled. Luke 21:28, 31-32)