Judge Roy Moore: Another Perspective

Judge Roy Moore: Another Perspective
Vol: 23 Issue: 31 Sunday, August 31, 2003

A Gallup poll just out asked the straightforward, unambigious question: Do you approve of the federal court order to remove the 10 Commandments monument?”

According to the Gallup poll, 77% of Americans do NOT approve, 19% DO approve, and the rest are undecided.

A poll at Hal Lindsey’s Oracle website asked the question; “What do you think of the Alabama 10 Commandment Dustup?”

Of 2800-plus votes, some 91% of those polled were divided between the choices, “Judge Roy Moore is a hero and a patriot” and “Judge Roy Moore deserves the support of all Christians’.

The next most popular choice was “Judge Roy Moore is a religious fanatic who doesn’t belong on the bench” — which received 3.24% of the vote.

First, an unvarnished look at the facts of the case.

Judge Roy Moore clearly believes religion plays a role in the decisions he makes everyday on the bench. It’s a commitment he has vocalized since the beginning.

“I’m going to take my 10 Commandments with me to the Supreme Court of Alabama. I’ve said that many times,” Roy Moore said, even before he was elected as Alabama’s Chief Justice.

The platform he campaigned on in 2000 kept no secrets.

“This campaign is about morality,” says Moore. “It’s about a loss of morality that we’ve suffered in our state and in our nation. That’s what’s important and that’s what the people of Alabama have recognized. We’ve pledged to restore the moral foundation of our law.”

Those were winning words from the newly elected chief justice who took home 54% of the vote. Soon after, he wheeled in the cornerstone of his campaign: a freshly built monument of the 10 Commandments.

The relevant language of the First Amendment says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment as ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ As most of you know, the ‘wall of separation’ is not found anywhere in the Constitution. The phrase was from a letter of explanation written by President Thomas Jefferson 10 years later, saying the First Amendment s phraseology amounted to “building a wall of separation between church and state”, preventing government promotion of any one religious institution or belief.

In one ongoing case in Newport, Virginia, former High School pupil Anna Ashby is suing the county school board after being barred from singing at her graduation ceremony because of the song s references to faith and God.

And in a separate case six weeks ago in Punxsutawney, Philadelphia, high school pupil Melissa Donovan won a ruling in the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals that her school had been wrong to bar her from holding a student Bible club meeting before classes.

The Naval Academy in Maryland has been threatened with legal action by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for declaring the practice of a chaplain leading 4,000 midshipmen in saying grace before lunch will continue, despite a series of federal court rulings striking down a similar practice at the Virginia Military Institute as unconstitutional.

The academy s stand makes it the only US military training college to routinely say prayers before meals. The Air Force, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine academies have all abandoned it in favor of a moment s silence to avoid prosecution.

Clearly, the federal court’s interpretation puts emphasis on part ‘A’ of the 1st Amendment by violating part ‘B’. The court’s efforts to ensure that the government doesn’t endorse a religion is being enforced by prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This interpretation is wrong, it is a deliberate attempt to remove the influence of Judeo-Christianity from American public discourse, and it is applied selectively.

While no public school teacher in America would dare to read the Bible in class, the NEA has a MANDATORY curriculum called “A Simulation of Islamic History and Culture” which is being paid for with public money. These students soon find themselves fighting mock battles of jihad against “Christian crusaders” and other assorted “infidels.” Upon gaining victory, our mock-Muslim warriors “Praise Allah.”

Students study the Koran, recite from it, design a title page for it, and write verses of it on a banner. They act out Islam’s Five Pillars of Faith, including giving zakat (Islamic alms) and going on the pilgrimage to Mecca. They also build a replica of the “sacred Kaaba” in Mecca or another holy building.

Seventh graders adopt the speech of pious believers, greeting each other with “assalam aleikoom, fellow Muslims” and using phrases such as “God willing” and “Allah has power over all things.”


Now, to Judge Roy Moore — and please, read this carefully before you start cussing me out. First off, I agree with his position, obviously, that the root of American law is the Ten Commandments. That is a matter of historical fact amply attested to by Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law.

Blackstone’s Law has served as a sort of legal Bible for the Supreme Court since the first Justices were seated following the Revolution.

It is from Blackstone’s Commentaries that we derive our definition of a Constitutional Republic vs. a democracy.

Blackstone said that in a republic, certain laws are granted by the Divine and cannot be overturned by a majority decision, as would be the case in a pure democracy.

So the difference between a Republic and a Democracy is the source of its authority. A Republic, like the United States, derives the Source of its Authority to govern from God, whereas a democracy derives its authority to govern from the people.

The United States was set up to be governed by the people, but under the authority of God based on ‘principles which did not change’. A government BY the people, FOR the people, but not FROM the people.

In the American republic, the “principles which did not change” and which were “certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community” were the principles of Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. And Blackstone’s final Authority on whether or not God had already issued a Divine legal ruling was the Ten Commandments.

“To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.”

(Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 42-43)

That being said, exactly WHICH religion is ‘endorsed’ by the Ten Commandments? Is it Judaism? Christianity? To the observant Jew, the Decalogue forms but 10 of some 623 religious laws. To the Christian, the Ten Commandments have been replaced, on the authority of Jesus Christ, with the Golden Rule.

Islam has a version of the ten commandments and embraces the OT Ten Commandments as its own.

The ‘separation clause’ is a straw-man argument that is clearly designed to push the God of Israel, Isaac and Jacob — and His Son from American public life, while leaving the lesser gods intact. There are no Constitutional battles taking place over the role of Islam, or Buddhism or Hinduism in American public life.

Indeed, alternative religions are embraced and celebrated as symobls of American ‘diversity’ and the God of Scripture reviled as ‘exclusionary’ and somehow, therefore, a threat to the 1st Amendment.

So ridiculous has the argument become that the California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Pledge of Allegiance illegal because it mentions God.

Presumably, these justices paid for their morning coffee using US currency plainly emblazoned with the legend, ‘In God We Trust’. Does a greenback endorse a particular religion at the expense of another? Only if there is a religion that doesn’t have a ‘god’ of some sort.

Having said all that, we return to Judge Roy Moore. Personally, I would have chosen the “Judge Roy Moore is a religious fanatic that doesn’t belong on the bench” poll question at Oracle.

Shocked? Let me explain my reasoning here. The legal rulings in this case are stupid, but they ARE legal rulings. Judge Roy Moore undercut his own case in the statements that he made in connection to the monument all but sealed his fate and the monument’s fate.

Instead of making his case on legal grounds, he emphasized that this was about religion. It was about faith. It was about Christianity. Justice Moore was quoted saying, ‘when I use God, I mean Jesus Christ’.

So do I, for that matter. It so happens I agree with everything Roy Moore has said.

But that doesn’t mean he belongs on the bench, and here is why, in a nutshell.

Judge Roy Moore has made it clear that his legal rulings are based, in part, on the Bible.

If that is ok, then it is equally ok for a Muslim judge to base his legal rulings on the Koran. And that would NOT be ok with me.

Judge Moore was ordered by a competent legal authority to remove the monument. Moore appealed, and lost. Having exhausted his appeals, he defied the court order, based entirely on his religious worldview.

If he can do it, then so can some Muslim judge based entirely on Islam. If not, then being a Muslim would disqualify someone from serving on the bench.

There is NO wall of separation between church and state — there is an amendment that prevents the government from imposing one religion by not endorsing one over another.

And allowing Moore to defy the law (no matter how badly interpreted) because of his religion opens the door to either legally allowing the Islamic worldview into our court system or else using religion as a litmus test to disqualify judges who don’t adhere to the ‘right’ religion.

What would be wrong with that, provided Christianity were the ‘right’ religion?

Which Christianity? Roman Catholic? Jehovah’s Witnesses? Mormons? They all claim Jesus Christ. Baptists? Methodists? Dominionists?

Bush is in hot water with most evangelical Christians because of his road map plan for Israel. Look in the forums. This phrase keeps coming up — “And George Bush is supposed to be a Christian??”

But there are whole denominations who side with the Arabs — the Vatican, the Dominionists, Kingdom Now, the Methodists, Presbyterians, United Church, the Lutherans, etc. Clearly some of them are genuine Christians as well. Just badly informed ones.

Given the differences even within the Church, it is clear that if America were to declare Christianity a state religion, we’d have to decide which Christian denomination would be supreme?

The Pope would insist it be the Vatican. Baptists would demand a literal reading of Scripture. The Jehovah’s Witnesses would abolish America altogether, since they don’t believe in national borders.

The Mormons would support polygamy and secret Temple rituals. Most Reformation mainstream Protestant churches would insist on supporting the Arabs since they see the Jewish claim to the land as having expired with the Cross.

And on and on and on — which is why America is governed by the rule of law and not by theologians or one particular theology — since there are hundreds just within Christianity.

Judge Roy Moore broke the law, whether I agree with his logic or not.

In defying the rule of law, Moore confirmed the Christ-rejecting world’s stereotype of Christians as effectively as the abortion foes that claim Christ and then bomb clinics or ambush abortionists. The lost see someone like Moore as a kook, and then go away comfortable in their unbelief.

The Ten Commandments don’t endorse a particular religion, but Judge Roy Moore does. It just so happens that he endorses mine. This time.

Soooo… I’ve made my case. I’ll be watching the forums. Let me hear yours.

The Helmet of Salvation

The Helmet of Salvation
Vol: 23 Issue: 30 Saturday, August 30, 2003

One of the most hotly debated points of doctrine (apart from the timing of the Rapture) among Christians of different denominations is the question of eternal security. Specifically, can a believer who was saved fall away and lose his salvation? Is there an unforgiveable sin for which a believer can be condemned?

Those who would argue yes are just as sincere in their doctrinal view as those who take the other side, and both sides have Scripture to support their view.

I thought it might be good to take a look at the Scriptures used by those say the Bible teaches that a believer can lose his salvation.

In 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 Paul writes, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” Is this referring to the falling away of part of the True Church?

First, let’s look at what falling away means in the context of the believer. The term ‘fall away’ was used by the Lord Jesus of His 11 disciples at the time of His arrest. The disciples deserted Jesus as was predicted and Peter obviously denied Jesus three times. This was said to be a ‘falling away’. (see Matt 26:31-35) Obviously, this is not a loss of salvation.

For the true believer it may involve a temporary period of ‘backsliding’ (an OT term not found in the New) or time of being out of fellowship with God.

There ARE times when for one reason or another, the believer is having difficulty in his Christian walk.

But a true believer would not however deny what they believe in their heart, even though their walk at that moment might not reflect what they believe.

But note that even though Jesus said they would ‘fall away’, in the very same context, he also said to Peter that he had prayed that his faith would not fail and when he returned, to strengthen his brethren. (Luke 22:32)

In other words, true believers may fall at times but their faith does not fail because Jesus intercedes for them.

Concerning this intercession we are told, “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us” (Romans 11:2)

We need that intercession most when we are struggling, yet some believers will argue that it is when we need the Lord most that He abandons us to our sin.

See also John 17:6-12 concerning this intercession by Jesus for His believers. In this High Priestly prayer, Jesus makes it clear that the ones that God has given Him he keeps safe.

And Romans 8:32-34 cites Jesus’ intercession as proof we cannot be separated from the love of Christ.

The ‘great apostasy’ of the last days is not referring to saved believers, but is instead referencing the kind of doctrinal dumbing down that would allow an openly homosexual Episcopalian priest to be elevated to the bishopric, or the attack on the Boy Scouts for not admitting homosexuals.

Jesus said this time would be like the days of Noah and Lot – “every imagination of the thoughts of [men’s] heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5) with rampant homosexuality (Genesis 19:8).

Hebrews 6:4-6 is often used to ‘prove’ a believer can lose salvation. It says, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

It appears on the surface to say that a believer can lose his salvation, but if you read it closely, it teaches the exact opposite.

It teaches that the believer cannot be renewed to repentance (born again – again!) because it would require crucifying the Lord again, and ‘putting Him to an open shame’.

If this passage teaches that a believer could lose his salvation, then it also teaches that believer is forever damned and beyond repentance. You cannot interpret ‘impossible’ in this passage to mean anything except ‘impossible’.

And the ‘open shame’ Paul says it would expose the Lord to is that He failed to keep all that God had given Him, as He said in His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Then there is the passage in Hebrews 10:26-27 which says, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”

First, the book of Hebrews was written TO the Hebrews (1st century Jewish believers). That doesn’t mean it is irrelevant to the Church, but there is a context here.

For a Jew to become a Christian in the first century was a death sentence as far as their relationship with their family was concerned. They lost any right to an inheritance and came under extreme pressure (including physical persecution) to leave Christ and go back to Judaism. And that is what many did, even though for a while they looked like true believers.

The ‘wilful sin” mentioned in verse 26 is linked to the verse before it because it starts with for if.. .

The verse before it is speaking of leaving the assembly of believers. The ‘wilful sin’ that this passage talks about is leaving Christ and going back to Judaism.

Under the Judaism they were going back to, there no longer remained a sacrifice for sin (vs 26) (because God didn t accept animal sacrifices anymore after Jesus had died for all sin, for all time.)

Another commonly misinterpeted Scripture refers to ‘a branch that doesn t bare fruit will be cast into the fire.’

1 Corinthians 1 Cor 3:15 clearly states that for a true believer, even if their work is burned up (ie no fruit) they are still saved, but as one who escapes ‘as by fire’. They are in Heaven, but they have no rewards.

Scripture never contradicts Scripture.

Another proof text used to prove salvation is dependent on doing good works is James 2:26; “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

This is another verse that is purported to prove one thing, but in fact, proves the opposite.

By definition, one who is saved cannot have ‘dead’ faith, since it is their faith that has saved them in the first place. Someone may have a belief, or head knowledge that certain facts are true without giving themselves over to that belief.

James 2:19 says, “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” Believing in God is not the same has having faith in Christ.

Dead faith is simply a head knowledge that cannot save.

Consider this; I know all about George Bush, but he doesn’t know me — that is to say, I have no personal relationship with George Bush, but I believe he is the president.

There are many who know all about Jesus, and might even profess to believe He is God, but have no personal relationship with Him. Works arising from that kind of relationship is by definition, dead, since it bears no eternal fruit.

The Scriptures clearly establish that a genuine conversion will stand no matter how great the adversity. “Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down” (Psalms 37:24)

The Apostle Paul told believers to put on the whole armor of God.

“Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” (Ephesians 6:13-17).

On the battlefield, the most effective way to dispatch an opponent is to go for a head shot.

Paul refers to the ‘helmet of salvation’ — if you know you are saved, eternally, the enemy can never take you out of the game.

He can’t use guilt to stop you from witnessing. He can’t convince you that aren’t really saved. He can’t convince you that you are unworthy to carry the Gospel to the lost. In short, he can’t take that ‘head shot’ that would render a believer useless to the cause of Christ.

In these last days, the Scripture says that Satan will pull out all the stops, ‘because he knows he hath but a short time’.

Those of us who are properly equipped with the truth, the knowledge that we are covered by the righteousness of Christ, are prepared with a knowledge of the Gospel, which we are prepared to share in peace, secure in our faith and certain of our standing before Him are formidable opponents in the battle for the souls of men.

“And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” (Romans 8:27)

The battle has been joined. And our victory is assured.

Don’t let anyone rob you of your weapons.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)

Terrorism, Inc.

Terrorism, Inc.
Vol: 23 Issue: 29 Friday, August 29, 2003

Terrorism, Inc.

Since the beginning of the week, Hamas cells fired 14 Kassam rockets at communities in the Gaza Strip and inside the Green Line. On Sunday, one landed on Zikim Beach near Ashkelon. IDF officers noted that, since the so-called cease-fire, 24 Kassam rockets have been fired at Israeli settlements and towns.

An Israeli man was killed this morning by Palestinian gunmen when he and his pregnant wife were ambushed at the Alon Junction near the Kochav Hashachar settlement. The attack was so vicious that the car was turned over by the hail of bullets.

Also in the Gaza Strip, Israeli border police bomb disposal crews blew up two bombs containing 120 kilograms of explosives near Ganei Tal.

Shots were fired at a convoy leaving Netzarim and at soldiers deployed near Rafah. On Wednesday night, 13 mortar shells and two anti-tank rockets were fired at communities in the Gaza Strip. One of the mortar shells hit the Kfar Darom museum, causing extensive damage.

A mortar shell was fired at a community in Gush Katif. Shots were fired at soldiers Jenin, and two bombs were thrown at troops in the Balata refugee camp in Nablus.

Hamas says the attacks are in revenge for the killing of the planners of the bus bomb attack. To the Arab world indeed, to most of the world, it is the Israeli retaliation for the attack that broke the ceasefire and not the Hamas attack on the Jerusalem bus itself.

That attack, it is important to remember, was an unprovoked attack on a busload of Israeli civilians mostly women and children, that killed 21 and maimed and wounded another 136.

Yesterday, after Palestinian Kassam rockets reached as far as the southern city of Ashkelon, Israel grimly warned that such attacks crossed “a red line.” Is an attack that takes, say, fewer than 20 victims a tolerable situation?


The European Union as a whole has decided that Hamas is NOT a terrorist organization. Well, maybe the guy who blew up the bus was a terrorist, goes the thinking, but Hamas has a military wing and a political wing.

So the EU concluded that the political wing isn t terrorism, meaning, Hamas isn t really a terrorist organization, it is an organization that has some terrorists in it.

Hamas knows it has some terrorists within its ranks, which it trains to be terrorists in terrorist camps funded by money from the political wing — which the EU says are not terrorists. Got all that?

This is the same logic that has hamstrung Israel concerning Yasser Arafat. Arafat has had ten years to figure out a way to make peace with Israel. Israel offered Arafat everything he had ever asked for at Camp David, and Arafat turned it down.

Nobody believes that Arafat has any intention of making peace with Israel. Everybody who has an IQ above room temperature in an igloo knows that Arafat is dedicated to Israel s destruction. He has thrown away chance after chance to achieve his alleged twin goals of Palestinian statehood and peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Had Arafat accepted the offer at Camp David in 1998, there would already be a UN member state called Palestine. But Arafat would not be its leader and he knows that.

What would a peaceful, legitimized state of Palestine need a terrorist mastermind for?

From Israel, we hear that Arafat is both irrelevant and a mastermind of terrorism. From the US, we hear that Israel must take no steps to deport or assassinate Arafat, because this would undermine Abbas.

The principal reason the US opposes the forcible removal of Arafat is because it is not convinced something better will fall into place. Better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t, as the saying goes.

Israel’s view is more or less the same, compounded by fear of international reaction. The European Union, and in particular the French, continue to insist that Yasser Arafat is the only legitimate leader of the Palestinian people.

Both Javier Solana and Dominique de Villepin continue to make pilgrimages to Arafat s Ramallah compound to conduct meetings with the old terrorist.

The EU just issued a letter urging the US administration to abandon all attempts aimed at sidelining the Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat as the group of 15 European states believes that all such maneuvers are hampering the implementation of the Middle East Roadmap to peace. It went on to say it also expects Israeli leaders to drop their policy of declaring Arafat “irrelevant.”

(Note that is NOT the terrorist attacks that hamper peace, but Israeli refusal to negotiate with the terrorists.)

Following a recent meeting with Kofi Annan, Colin Powell called on Arafat directly, saying, “I call on Chairman Arafat to work with Prime Minister Abbas and to make available to Prime Minister Abbas those security elements that are under his control so that they can allow progress to be made on the road map — end terror, end this violence that just results in the further repetition of the cycle that we’ve seen so often.”

This is a significant turn of events for Arafat, since it obliquely recognizes that he, and not Abbas, is the one in control, and therefore the one who is really in charge, and that the US may soon stop pretending he isn t.

Which leaves Israel with just two choices. Re-engage with Yasser Arafat diplomatically, or remove him from the equation permanently. In either case, Israel loses.

It is an absurd situation inexplicable from any human point of view. The world pressures Israel to negotiate with terrorists, while simultaneously saying, in defending their own refusal to negotiate with terrorists, that it would reward the terrorists and thus increase acts of terrorism.

Which is exactly what the last ten years of Israeli negotiation under global pressure has produced. That s how WE know not to negotiate with Osama bin-Laden, for example. Negotiating with terrorists is like paying off a blackmailer. In every case (except that of Israel), this is accepted conventional wisdom.

It doesn t apply to Israel, however, because Israel isn t like any other nation. Israel isn t assessed by the same standard as that used to assess her enemies. Indeed, Israel isn t assessed by the same standards as her friends.

If Israel were to respond to terror attacks the way the United States has since September 11, the Iranian, Syrian and the current Palestinian leadership would have beaten Saddam Hussein to the ash heap of history by several decades.

(Assuming Saddam was still there by March, 2003, which is doubtful)

Lebanon s Bekaa Valley would look like Afghanistan s Tora Bora and there d be no rockets raining down on Israel from anywhere Israeli warplanes could reach.

But Israel is assessed by a uniquely impossible standard of conflict that guarantees the continuation of hostilities, unlike any other place on earth.

Israel is not like any place else on earth. It is the seat of an ongoing spiritual conflict that is about to spill over into the here & now.

The current road map is supposed to lead to peace. As it stands, however, it is leading straight to Armageddon.

The literal one.

“Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” (Revelation 22:20)

Blue Helmets in Jerusalem?

Blue Helmets in Jerusalem?
Vol: 23 Issue: 28 Thursday, August 28, 2003

A growing number of bipartisan US lawmakers are floating the possibility of a United Nations multinational force being sent to Israel to enforce a Palestinian ceasefire.

Since there is no ceasefire, and Hamas rejected Arafat s public (and phony) call for renewing the ceasefire broken when Hamas blew up a bus filled with women and children, it makes one wonder what the real agenda is.

Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Washington should consider the possibility that U.S. and other nations’ troops be sent to the Middle East to provide stability for Israelis and Palestinians in the wake of deadly violence that threatened U.S.-backed peace efforts. “You have to have some military entity that is going to be able to control the terror,” added Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who opposed military action against Saddam.

“If we’re serious about having a situation of stability, a very direct action, I think, is going to be required,” Lugar (R-Indiana) told CNN on Sunday. “We ought to involve our NATO allies. We ought to involve others in the Middle East. In other words, we need to think through this carefully. But still, the terrorists have to be routed out because they will ruin any possibility for peace in that area,” he said.

Feinstein (D-California) agreed with Lugar’s statements. “I hope we’re not there, but we may well be. The Palestinians have wanted a United Nations or an American observer force,” she told CNN.

“I mean, it’s clear to me you can’t have just a straight observer force. But you have to have some military entity that is going to be able to control the terror. Otherwise, the situation is going to dissolve into nothingness,” she said.

Other US lawmakers have concluded that peace would not be a reality until the Palestinian security forces were united under the alleged ‘leadership’ of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.

If America is as committed as I believe we are, and as dedicated as our actions suggest at times … then we’re going to have to support the Palestinians, and support particularly Prime Minister Abbas in more meaningful and bigger ways than we have up to this point,” said Rep. Howard Ford (D-Tennessee), speaking to Fox News yesterday.

Abu Mazen “has got to win a political power struggle with [Palestinian Authority Chairman] Yasser Arafat because he’s holding onto the old way of dealing with Israel,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina ) on “Fox News Sunday.” “[Arafat] doesn’t really want a two-state solution; Abbas does. And Abbas has got to make the decision to declare war, politically and militarily, against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.”


It is almost as if there are two realities the one the rest of us see — where Abbas is Arafat s puppet, Arafat still holds all the cards, where terrorism continues unabated and Palestinians march in the streets shouting Death of Israel. And the other reality that US lawmakers live in.

In that reality, the Palestinian Authority really wants peace, isn t dedicated to Israel s destruction, doesn t have any influence with Hamas and would stop the terror if Israel would just stop by so aggressive by retaliating. (Do any of the lawyers in Congress know what retaliation means?)

How can Representative Graham believe that Arafat doesn t want a two-state solution, but Abbas does ? On what evidence does he base that conclusion? On Abbas performance thus far? Or on empty promises none of which have been fulfilled?

Abbas promised to dismantle the terrorist network, instead, he negotiated a truce (that only Israel observed) and proclaimed he fulfilled his obligation. During the time that Abbas was fulfilling his obligation, more than fifty Israelis were murdered (as well as almost a dozen Americans).

And that was the ONLY obligation imposed on the Palestinians that the PA even paid lip service to. The terror attacks continued, before, during and after the alleged ceasefire that substituted for declaring terror groups illegal and breaking them up.

Israel is understandably nervous about having UN troops in Jerusalem, enforcing a ceasefire between the two sides. Israel is a state, the Palestinian Authority is a mob.

In the event of a Palestinian suicide attack on Israel, the PA can blame rogue elements. An Israeli retaliation, on the other hand, can only occur with the blessing of the state. Israel has no one to pass the blame to.

A UN peacekeeping presence would have little or no effect on terror, but it would hamstring Israel s ability to retaliate. The only ones that would be under any genuine UN protection would be the terrorists.

The UN has been trying to get involved with the Arab-Israeli conflict for decades, but Israel has wisely kept them at arm s length. Until now, the United States, as aware of the UN record as anybody, has rejected UN peacekeepers in Israel without their first being a peace to keep.

One needn t have a degree in international affairs to understand that sending in UN troops will NOT bring peace. The moment the UN takes an action the terrorists don t like, the UN will be declared a Zionist supporter, or a puppet of Washington, or whatever, and the UN s neutrality will be as respected by the Palestinians as it was in Iraq.

Keeping the peace between Muslims and Serbs in Kosovo isn t the same thing as keeping the peace between Arabs and Jews. In Kosovo, both sides are committed to ending the conflict.

In the Arab-Israeli equation, Israel wants to eliminate the conflict, and the Arabs want to eliminate Israel.

Note again Senator Lugar’s solution to the Middle East’s most implacable conflict, and compare it to the words of the Prophet Zechariah, penned 2500 years ago.

Here’s what Lugar said: “We ought to involve our NATO allies. We ought to involve others in the Middle East.”

Here’s what Zechariah said: “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. 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 12:3-4)

And here’s what Jesus said: “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

“Operation Clean Up?’

“Operation Clean Up?’
Vol: 23 Issue: 27 Wednesday, August 27, 2003

Israeli intelligence says that it has located some of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. The Bekaa Valley is the home base for Hezbollah, a terrorist group backed by both Damascus and Tehran. Syria is also controlled by the Ba’ath Party, as was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The Israelis used a spy satellite to photograph several tractor-trailer loads of suspected weapons into the Bekaa Valley, where the Islamist terrorist group is based.

Shipments there began in early January and ended the first week of March. According to Israeli intelligence, Saddam paid Syrian leader Bashar Assad $35 million to hide the weapons. In addition, Hezbollah now has an estimated 12,000 Katyusha rockets to use against northern Israel. The terrorist group also has anti-aircraft guns and sophisticated communications systems.

At the time, their importance largely escaped the CIA.

The flow of Iraqi trucks from Syria continued through March, just two weeks before the U.S.-led war. Over the last few weeks, following a dead-end in leads of WMD sites inside Iraq and near the Syrian border, the CIA has taken a second look. The Israeli information is now corroborated by US intelligence, who say they have detected tractor-trailers filled what appear to be WMD and missile systems moving from Iraq through Syria and into Lebanon. The trucks and the equipment have been brought to underground sites in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. The area is heavily fortified with Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians and Hezbollah operatives.

The US has been conducting inquiries in both Tehran and Damascus, but, unsurprisingly, the Iranians and Syrians continue to stonewall investigators. That stonewalling has some lawmakers in Washington pressing for a US military operation in the Bekaa against Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has been firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel indiscriminately in recent days with the full support of the Syrian government. Syrian President Assad defended Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel to U.S. Mideast envoy William Burns. He said the escalation was a natural result of Israel’s retaliation against Hamas for the suicide attack on a bus filled with Israeli children.

Syria’s official news agency SANA quoted Assad as telling Burns: “It is no longer acceptable to shut one’s eyes to acts of killing and assassination by Israel while the Lebanese side is asked to be calm and restrained.”

Israeli warplanes and artillery attacked suspected Hezbollah sites in southern Lebanon Monday after an Israeli teenager was killed by a Hezbollah shell, part of volleys fired by the guerrillas toward Israel.

According to US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, the US intends to broaden its strategy for the war on terror to include Hezbollah and the threat from Lebanon. Calling Hezbollah the ‘A-Team of terror’, Armitage said that, “right now, we are focused on al-Qaeda, but one day, we will get around to Hezbollah.”

Getting around to Hezbollah means getting around to Syria and getting around to Iran, in much the same way that taking on al-Qaeda after 9/11 made getting around to Saddam Hussein a foregone conclusion. The risk of Iraq furnishing al-Qaeda with biological or chemical weapons was too great to ignore.


It is beginning to look more and more like the seeming chaos in Iraq is actually part of a carefully thought out managed-crisis. What appeared to be a series of tactical errors in retrospect, such as allowing defeated Iraqi divisions to melt away rather than taking POW s, the failure to secure Iraq s borders against the influx of terrorist fighters and the chaos in Baghdad caused by the terrorists may really be a strategy.

One designed to draw al-Qaeda into a trap, of sorts. Going over the transcripts of comments made by Paul Bremer on the weekend talk shows was revealing.

America s official policy regarding al-Qaeda is that we are in a war to the death. We will fight al-Qaeda wherever we can find them, and we will not stop until al-Qaeda is destroyed and the terrorists are either captured or killed, the president said in the policy speeches he gave shortly after September 11.

While not confirming it as an official strategy, Bremer hinted that the US was drawing al-Qaeda into Iraq deliberately. Asked that question directly by Brit Hume, Bremer answered, Well, you know, obviously speaking for those of us here, in Iraq, it doesn’t look like a very pleasant alternative. But I have to say, from a national point of view, if we’re going to fight terrorists, and we have to, we would, I’d rather have us fighting them somewhere outside the United States, than fighting them inside the United States.

Bremer answered Hume s question, in a manner of speaking.

And if we can capture or kill these guys here, that’s fewer people who are likely to fly planes into buildings in the United States. So, from a from an overall national security point of view, we’ve got war on terrorism. And we’re going to have to fight it where we can find the terrorists. And we’re finding them here now, Bremer said.

As Bremer points out, it is in America’s national security interests to fight terrorists in the Middle East, if it means we aren’t fighting them in New York or Washington.

With that in mind, consider the following sequence of events; The US was attacked on September 11 we went after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. We got as many as we could, the remainder escaped to Iran. At the same time, evidence had been mounting for years of Saddam s WMD arsenal and Saddam had been growing increasingly belligerent during the period up to 9/11 while he tested the new president.

The war with Iraq ended the Saddam regime a laudable goal in itself. Osama bin-Laden promptly declared a new jihad against the United States to drive the Americans out.

Once the US pulled out of Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda s cause was gone and Osama and his surviving network could melt back into the woodwork, their goal achieved, and American justice unsatisfied.

Until the US occupied Iraq. From that moment forward, it has become a magnet for al-Qaeda terrorists world-wide, aided and supported by both Syria and Iran. And it’s al-Qaeda that is calling the shots on the ground, not Saddam loyalists. Responsibility for the bombing of the UN headquarters was claimed by al-Qaeda.

Consequently, Iraq most likely has the highest concentration of al-Qaeda fighters anywhere in the world today. And the US has deployed most of its combat troops in Iraq, waiting for them.

Do you see the trap? The United States must fight al-Qaeda somewhere. That is already a foregone conclusion. As Bremer said, it is in the national interest to conduct that war in the Middle East instead of Middle America.

How does all this come together? After al-Qaeda, Hezbollah is next, says Armitage. The US is currently building a powerful case against both Syria and Iran Hezbollah s (and to a degree, al-Qaeda’s) two main sponsors.

The Bush Doctrine calls for the elimination of global terror and regime change in the states that sponsor it. Nuclear regulators just reported to the UN that tests showed traces of weapons grade uranium in Iran for which Tehran had no good explanation. It is an open secret that Tehran has nuclear ambitions.

US intelligence estimates say those ambitions will be realized within the next year or two, unless something is done to prevent Iran from continuing its development project.

US intelligence is leaking information that there are weapons of mass destruction hidden in Lebanon with Syria s enthusiastic assistance.

Connecting the dots, it appears that the administration might be getting ready to go for broke and clean up the Middle East once and for all.

If so, recent history suggests it will play out like this: The only unwavering support the United States can count on will come from Israel, with possibly some lukewarm support from Britain or Australia. Russia will oppose America but the opposition will be more form than substance. The rest of the world will stand firmly against us, especially Europe.

It will be America and Israel, alone, against the terrorists, Syria (with its hidden WMD s) and a probable nuclear Iran.

Sound about right?

That’s how Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah saw it, too.

The Signature of God — Part Three

The Signature of God — Part Three
Vol: 23 Issue: 26 Tuesday, August 26, 2003

As we’ve already seen, prophecy is God’s Signature. It proves the Divine Authorship of the Bible and establishes beyond all doubt that the Scriptures are truly the Word of God.

It was God Himself Who hurled the challenge to the pretenders, saying, “Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. (Isaiah 41:23) Because only God can know the future.

Consider what it means for Ezekiel to describe, 2500 years in advance, the geopolitical alliances of the 21st century. It was only sixty years ago that the world was at war — the alliances described by Ezekiel didn’t exist until that war forced them into being.

It was from the ashes of the Holocaust that the nation of Israel was reborn, setting events in motion for the Final Confrontation to come. But take a second and see it in all its majesty with me.

Sixty years . . . six hundred years. . . sixteen hundred years. . . double that — it makes no difference. Every single event in every single generation from the day God revealed the future HAD to be exactly in order. What if Hitler’s maternal great-great-grandmother had died at birth? Would the Holocaust have occurred? Would Israel now occupy that narrow strip along the Meditterranean?

Would the Jews of Europe still be content in their homes and businesses, as they had been before Hitler’s madness? Without that single life, sometime in the 18th century, what would the world look like today?

The Scriptures say that the ‘hairs on your head are numbered’ — multiply that times every single person who ever lived. Every single one of them had free will choices and the choices made by our ancestors, no matter how far back we go, shaped the world we live in today. The same one foretold by the prophets.

Imagine picking out the winning team in the 2234 World Series? Who knows if we’ll even still play baseball?

But the Hebrew prophets named alliances between nations that didn’t exist in their world, and in some cases, didn’t exist until this generation.

We’ve seen the literal fulfillment of ten prophecies concerning the life of Christ. And the literal fulfillment of ten prophecies concerning the life of Israel.

Now we’ll look at ten prophecies in the process of fulfillment in this generation.

1. ‘Take heed that no man deceive you’ “And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matthew 24:3-4)

It’s often been said that the ‘devil’s greatest trick is convincing people that he doesn’t exist’. Deception has been raised in this generation to an art form. We expect to be deceived by our politicians, our entertainment, advertisers and the media.

2. An increase in disasters and wars. “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. ” (24:6) World War One and World War Two were cataclysmic events that shaped the 20th century, but they were domestic disputes in comparison with what World War Three with the Soviet Union would have looked like. For fifty years, the two sides were locked in ideological combat in what history calls the Cold War. Every morning for fifty years, each side woke up wondering if the Cold War would turn hot — the ultimate rumor of war — that ended only a decade ago. But, as Jesus noted, see that ye not be troubled, for the is not yet. And it wasn’t.

3. The great “Falling Away”. “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

The Alabama Courthouse tragedy in which the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court lost his job for refusing to uproot a monument to the 10 Commandments from the courthouse is just the most recent example. I needn’t waste column inches on other examples. You know them as well as I.

4. “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” (Daniel 12:4. Until the beginning of the 20th century, very few commentaries existed on either Daniel or the Revelation. Both were considered to be filled with metaphors and symbolism. Even Calvin and Luther passed up the challenge. The words were ‘sealed UNTIL THE TIME OF THE END’.

In this generation, the mysteries of Daniel and Revelation are largely unlocked.

Columbus sailed to the New World 1500 years after the Apostle Paul made his Meditterranean journey. Both sailed on wooden ships equipped with sails, as did ships until the end of the 19th century. One hundred years later, the same trip takes a few hours by air. 1900 years to get from Paul’s ship to the Titanic. Sixty years later, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. We certainly can go ‘to and fro’.

Moore’s Law says that computer capacity doubles every 18 months. Knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate. There is technology being developed to make computers out of strands of DNA.

5. “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” (Matthew 24:12) — Anybody else notice how many parents are murdering their children lately? Each of you can make as strong a case for the increasing tolerance of sin and the collapsing moral structure of society as eloquently as I can.

6. The emergence of the antichrist. Daniel says that the antichrist’s seminal act of power will be to make peace between Israel and her neighbors. Until this generation, there was no Israel to be at war. Today, the effort to bring peace is the single most important foreign policy goal of the US, EU, UN and Russia — who together form the “Quartet” that developed the current ‘road map’. The world is crying for a leader who can solve the global problems of the Middle East, terrorism and outlaw nations. Today. In this generation.

7. Earthquakes, Famines, Wars and Pestilences — Matthew 24:7 speaks to all of these as being like labor pains — growing in intensity and frequency as the time approaches. Earthquake activity is demonstrably on the increase, while ethnic wars rage across Africa and entire populations face starvation at a time when other countries are throwing leftovers in the garbage.

The entire sub-Saharan continent of Africa is facing extinction by the pestilence of AIDS — while the technology exists to arrest it. We can make computers out of DNA strands, but the earthquakes, famines, wars and pestilences just keep getting more intense.

8. As it was in the days of Noah and Lot (Matthew 24:37, Luke 17:28-30)

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5) That wickedness is the hallmark of this age can be proved by picking up a newspaper. The president refers to ‘evil’ and ‘evildoers’ in every speech. What could be more wicked than deliberately blowing up a bus filled with children to make a political statement?

Television could be described as ‘imagination in a box’. We are entertained by vicariously participating in the story line. What entertains us the most? According to the box office receipts, murder, mayhem, war, destruction, occultic fantasy and sex.

Lot lived in Sodom, a place where homosexuality was rampant and widely accepted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Today, we have parades for homosexuals in drag, or in various stages of undress, flaunting their wickedness to the enthusiastic applause of the audience. (Romans 1:32)

9. “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.” (Matthew 24:14) Right now, some of you are reading these words in South Africa. Others in the UK. Still others in New Zealand, Australia, Mexico City, Vancouver, Nigeria and Bahrain. That’s just the Omega Letter subscribers. There are literally thousands of Christian websites doing the same thing, with the same global reach. Soon, there will be no corner of the earth that the Gospel has not penetrated. Jesus said that once that happens, THEN shall the end come.

10. “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24) I could make a list. But so could you.

Bible prophecy is the Signature of God, the proof of His existence and the assurance we have of our salvation. “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:” (2 Peter 1:19)

The same Voice that proclaimed, “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11) also proclaimed, “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” (John 10:28)

He also said, “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)

Tell your friends. The King is coming!

The Signature of God — Part Two

The Signature of God — Part Two
Vol: 23 Issue: 25 Monday, August 25, 2003

In part one of this series, we looked at the incredible detail with which the prophecies concerning the Messiah’s First Advent were fulfilled in the life and times of the Lord Jesus Christ. We also discussed that movement within the Church that says all prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70 and that the Church has replaced Israel as the recipient of the promised blessings. (But none of the corresponding curses).

It was an easy enough sell in previous generations, when it seemed like that was the case. There had been no significant activity in the area of Bible prophecy for almost 2000 years, during which time, the only thing that fell on Israel were the curses.

But then, following the Second World War, a miracle occurred, setting the stage for a whole series of events, all prophesied by Scripture for the last days. Moreover, those events were lining up with Bible prophecy as specifically and with as much detail as did the prophecies regarding the First Advent. Remember Professor Stoner’s illustration of the odds that ten prophecies could be fulfilled in the life of one individual?

One chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000.

What are the odds regarding the restoration of Israel to the same piece of ground from which she had been expelled twenty centuries earlier? Unfortunately, I don’t know. Nobody has calculated them, to my knowledge. Especially since those ancient prophecies are continuing to be fulfilled before our eyes.

The Bible prophesied of the nation of Israel;

1. Disobedience would lead to the nation of Israel being scattered amongst all nations. (Deuteronomy 28:64, Leviticus 26:33, Jeremiah 9:16, Ezekiel 12:15)

2. No rest for their souls while in exile amongst the nations (Deuteronomy 28:65-66) For nearly 2000 years following the destruction in AD 70, the ‘wandering Jew’ has lived without a homeland, flag, or national identity, apart from being a Jew. subject to the strongest racial prejudice and torment suffered by any ethnic group in all recorded history. The first nation to ever extend full citizenship to the Jew was the United States of America in 1776. To this day, in many nations, simply being a Jew is a crime.

3. God himself would restore the Jews to the land of Israel from all the nations. (Jeremiah 16:14-16. Jeremiah 3:14, 31:8-9, Isaiah 60:8-9, Deuteronomy 30:3, Amos 9:15.)

4. The desolate land of Israel would again blossom and be fruitful in the last days. (Zechariah 7:14, Leviticus 26:14, Ezekiel 15:8 Jeremiah 9:12-13, 23:10, 44:22 Isaiah 32:13, 35:1, Ezekiel 36:35) Israel is the single largest exporter of citrus fruit to Europe indeed, Israel exports tulips to Holland. But until the Jews returned to the land in the 20th century, it remained a barren desert.

5. God Himself would defend Israel and cause Israel to be mighty in battle. (Zechariah 12:8) Israel s military might is ranked among the great nations of the world. The rag-tag survivors of the Holocaust, equipped with obsolete war surplus arms and equipment, defeated the combined might of the Arab legions in 1948, then again in 1956, 1967 and 1973.

6. In the last days, Jerusalem would be a burden to the entire world. (Zechariah 12:2-3) Israel is just 0.01% of the world s population, but has been the object of one third of all resolutions passed by the UN.

7. In the end, all nations shall come against Israel. (Zechariah 14:2, Revelation 16:14-16)

8. The final battle will be over Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:2) Is there a city on the face of the earth whose ownership is more hotly contested?

9. The antichrist will come to power by confirming a seven-year covenant between Israel and her enemies. (Daniel 9:24) This is a prize sought after by all the nations of the earth and all the world s most ambitious diplomats peace in the Middle East.

10. Israel in the last days will be restored a pure language. (Zephaniah 3:9) Hebrew, a language dead since the days of ancient Rome, is today the working language of the Israeli state.


All these events have been fulfilled, or are clearly on the verge of being fulfilled, in this generation. There is no foreseeable outcome to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is precisely the way the Bible said it would be when the antichrist makes his power play.

The conflict is the center of global attention at all times. And there is nobody who is neutral. Any nation who does not back Israel, actively works to destroy her. Those nations who do support Israel are immediate targets of terrorism.

“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 . . .” (Zechariah 12:3)

Those who assert that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 and that Israel’s blessings transferred to the Church almost invariably despise Israel and support the Palestinian ’cause’.

That much is evident from the exchanges that take place in our unregistered forums. The venom with which they advance their argument is ample evidence of its source, and we’ll leave it there. “By their fruits, ye shall know them” saith the Scriptures.

Clearly, Bible prophecy has been fulfilled literally concerning the First Advent and it is certain that God has not abandoned Israel as His plan for His Chosen People continues to unfold.

Tomorrow, a look at the prophecies concerning the Church in the last generation.

The Signature of God, Part One

The Signature of God, Part One
Vol: 23 Issue: 24 Sunday, August 24, 2003

“All things are mortal, except the Jew. Other forces pass but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?” So wrote Mark Twain a hundred years before there was any place on earth known as ‘Israel.’

It’s a good question; the Jew has been the target of hundreds of separate efforts aimed at his annihilation down through the centuries — more so than any other ethnic group in human history.

So, what is the secret of his immortality? The simplest answer is the best.

The Jew, by his very existence, proves the existence of God. Therefore, his destruction would disprove Bible prophecies saying that when God forgets the laws governing the sun, moon and stars, then — and only then — would Israel cease to exist as a nation before Him. (Jeremiah 31:35)

There is a movement within the Church that attempts to spiritualize the Jews, transfer God s promises to the Church, and deny Bible prophecy by claiming all was fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of the Temple.

The existence of Israel is, therefore, a particularly difficult problem for their theological worldview, and so are Christians who support that existence based on the authority of Bible prophecy. They call us Christian Zionists and, if our forums are any indication, they hate us as much as they do Israel.

The Bible says, Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Peter 3:3)

The Bible is under assault in America like in no time in its history. In a nation in which its freedoms are openly acknowledged as a grant from a Creator by its founding documents, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is facing jail for displaying the Ten Commandments.

There are scoffers a plenty out there, and it is incumbent upon each of us to be ready at any moment to give the reason for the hope that is in you . (1 Peter 3:15)

Over the next three issues of the Omega Letter, we are going to look at Bible prophecy, past, present — and that which is about to come to pass.

Part One: The First Advent

About 27% of all Scripture, according to some authorities, is prophetic in nature. Bible prophecy is the Signature of God.

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah 46:9-10)

In this God establishes His uniqueness among the pretenders. There were no prophecies heralding the birth of Buddha or Mohammed. No other world religion makes the claim of absolute foreknowledge, let alone the added claim of 100% accuracy 100% of the time.

Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. (Isaiah 41:21-23)

So, where are the fulfilled prophecies of the other gods, that we may behold it together? The Bible prophesied the coming of the Messiah to Israel, His life, death and Resurrection, with such stunning attention to detail that the world prefers to believe He staged it all to fit the prophecies, that the Scriptures were manipulated after the fact, or say it is all a matter of interpretation.

The Bible said of the First Advent;

1. He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)

2. He would be preceded by a messenger (Isaiah 40:3)

3. He would be betrayed by a friend. (Psalm 41:9

4. His price would be thirty pieces of silver. (Zech 11:12)

5. His price would be thrown in the Temple and used for a potter s field. (Zechariah 11:13)

6. His Hands and Feet would be pierced (Psalms 22:16)

7. He would be wounded and whipped by His enemies (Isaiah 53:5)

8. He would be spit upon and mocked (Isaiah 50:6)

9. He would enter Jerusalem riding on the back of a colt. (Zechariah 9:9)

10. Lots would be cast for His clothing (Psalms 22:18)

We know all these events took place in the life of Christ, and we can track each prophecy back to its source. But none of the world s explanations can explain it away. Take the it was all staged by Jesus and His disciples theory.

Compare that to Zechariah 11:13.


And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.


And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. (Matthew 26:15)

Note that it is God who says ‘Cast it to the potter that magnificent (sarcasm!) price at which they valued me…’ How could man put a price on God? It didn t make sense until God Himself, Jesus Christ, came to earth and was valued and betrayed for exactly 30 pieces of silver!

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders . . .And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces . . . And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field. . . .” (Matthew 27:3,5-7)


Interpretation? Seems clear enough just as it stands.

Were the Scriptures manipulated after the fact? Every word had been studied and parsed, and each nuance extrapolated, long before Jesus was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver.

If the Scriptures were manipulated AFTER the fact to make it fit with the Gospel account SOMEBODY would have noticed. The Old Testament Scriptures had been around for centuries at the time of Christ. The scribes and the Pharisees attempted to trip Jesus up by using them against Him.

Why would Judas and the Sanhedrin want to cooperate in a conspiracy to give Jesus claims of Godhood credibility?

And that explanation demands that every single Jew who has ever lived since then was part of the conspiracy of silence about the manipulation of their Scriptures. And every archeologist who s worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other finds that support the life and times of Jesus Christ. And so on.

And how could it have been staged by Jesus or His disciples? Jesus was in the Tomb and the disciples in hiding. This is one of the more ridiculous explanations, but it was the explanation advanced in the book, the “Passover Plot.” And there are plenty of people who believe it.

Finally, the coincidence theory. Mathematicians have calculated the probability of any one person fulfilling all these detailed prophecies in a single lifetime as a matter of random chance, and assigned the following odds.

One chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Professor Stoner illustrated what that number meant by saying it was the equivalent of marking one silver dollar, covering the state of Texas 3 feet deep with silver dollars, blindfolding a man, dropping him somewhere at random, and his finding the right one on the first try.

We are living in the last days, the time is short, and there are many more people who can cite the theories than there are who know the facts.

Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. (Luke 10:2).

Tomorrow: Israel and Fulfilled Prophecy

The ‘Other’ Iraq Option

The ‘Other’ Iraq Option
Vol: 23 Issue: 23 Saturday, August 23, 2003

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan responded to the US call for help with troops to maintain security in Iraq by hinting at a coming UN power grab in Iraq. He said that the US would get no help from the United Nations unless the US allowed the UN to take charge of Iraq s reconstruction.

Adding insult to the injury, Annan said that he was counting on US troops to provide security for its mission in Iraq, following the bombing of its Baghdad headquarters on Tuesday. In essence, Annan is threatening to leave the US twisting in the wind unless the US hands control over to him. And just to make things interesting, he tossed on the added burden of responsibility for protecting the UN as well.

It is important to remember, when considering the UN s fitness to take over Iraq s reconstruction, that the UN hired former Saddam intelligence agents to guard their facility. (The guards are suspected of helping the bombers.) The UN refused US security. And the truck carrying the bomb was traced to Syria, who is the current serving president of the UN Security Council.

But if the US wants any help in the form of any meaningful military aid, it will come at that impossible price. “It is not excluded that the [Security] Council may decide to transform the operation into a UN-mandated, multinational force operating on the ground with other governments coming in,” Annan told a press conference.

Then the kicker: “It would imply not just burden-sharing but also sharing decisions and responsibility with the others. If that doesn’t happen, I think it is going to be very difficult to get a second resolution that will satisfy everybody.”

Translation: If Washington doesn t allow the UN to take over the operation it messed up for more than twelve years, then the UN will let Iraq collapse into a pile of extremely ancient ruins. The political equivalent of beginning a round of negotiations by taking hostages.

So much for humanitarian concerns and the UN s much ballyhooed role as the global champion of the oppressed. In truth, it is all about politics, and the UN doesn t give a fig about what happens to the Iraqis. As an organization, it wants power global power and if that means allowing Iraq to implode to get it, then so be it.

Annan learned a lot watching the French maneuver and manipulate events to its advantage. If the French can do it as part of the UN, why can t the UN just cut out the middle man?

Axel Poniatovski, a member of the foreign affairs committee in the French National Assembly, told the BBC that it was “difficult to understand why the US, today, wouldn’t want to be under a UN mandate”.


Why wouldn t the US, today, want to be under a UN mandate? That is a question so profoundly stupid that it could only puzzle a member of the French government.

(I can t resist. Please forgive the spleen-venting, but if I don t, I fear a stress related stroke I ll just lay here on the couch and you take notes and nod infrequently)

Ummm, because the UN doesn t have a clue what it is doing?

The FBI is investigating the United Nations security guards, who were selected by Saddam Hussein s regime before the war. They reported to Iraqi intelligence on the movements of U.N. staff at the Canal Hotel compound, which served as a base for weapons inspectors.

The United Nations continued to employ the guards after the war because they were familiar faces. The UN said it didn t want the US to provide security before the attack because they said they didn t need it.

Who would the UN put in charge of Iraqi internal security? Saddam Hussein? That could be a reason why the US might not want to be under a UN mandate in Iraq? Given UN reluctance to remove him in the first place, who knows?

Could it be because Washington remembers the UN performances in the Balkans? In 1995, Dutch UN peacekeepers stood by and watched as 7000 Muslim men and boys were massacred by Bosnian Serbs in a UN-declared safe area .

A subsequent Dutch parliamentary probe said the UN and its own troops were to blame for failing to prevent Europe s worst single atrocity since World War II.

It concluded, The entire international community was trailing behind events and was insufficiently prepared for the war crimes that were committed by the Bosnian Serbs.

Maybe that s why Washington doesn t want to place itself under the UN s mandate in Iraq. They read the Dutch report of a UN debacle so sweeping that the Dutch parliament couldn t even exonerate its own troops.

The Bosnian Serbs were amateurs compared to the swelling ranks of al-Qaeda terrorists flooding into Iraq. Does anybody really think UN peacekeepers are a match for al-Qaeda terrorists? Anybody? I’ll wait.

Let’s not forget the swell job the UN has done with the Middle East since 1947. Or the UN s successful interventions in Africa? Like when the Cubans were finally driven out of Angola, for example. The same Cuban soldiers showed right back up in Angola months later as part of the UN peacekeeping contingent. Soon there were reports the Cubans were aiding the rebels from within the UN.

The entire population of sub Saharan Africa faces annihilation from AIDS because of the cost of treatment and prevention when they have enough money in the World Bank to lend money to Malaysia to develop its global electronics market. AIDS has been around for two decades and they still can’t figure out how to buy medicine.

(Hint — maybe they could make it themselves. The UN has all the ingredients and even some guys who can read recipes — never occurred to them in 20 years?)

How long will it take for the UN to fix Iraq? Two centuries?

Does anybody ELSE remember Rwanda? The UN stood idly by while one person in seven was slaughtered in an ethnic genocide. The UN let them kill each other until the only ones left were the wounded, the sick and the little kids. Then they set up refugee camps just in time for them to die by the tens of thousands when the UN realized in their yearlong ‘rush’ to rescue the Rwandans they forgot some of their tents and were out of medicine.

The UN was actually only given one really important job to do all by itself, as a sovereign body. That was to enforce the sanctions it imposed on Iraq as a condition of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire.

How about this for a reason why the US isn’t leaping at the chance to let the UN run things? In Iran, former president and leading cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani gave a sermon on Friday, saying, “If the UN is put in charge, many great countries around the world will help. The Russians will come. The Germans will come. The French will come. The Indians will come. Islamic countries will come. They will try to somehow solve the problem that the Americans have created, the tragedy that they have brought upon our region.”

And that is the whole UN agenda in a nutshell, straight from the mouth of America s most implacable enemy. The Russians will come. The Germans will come. The French will come. Oil executives in tow, with construction contracts already filled out.

Didn t they already come, about twelve years ago, and prop up the world s most despicable dictator in exchange for those same contracts they are trying to get now?

Iran is for it. That s a good reason to be against it.

But there is the other option, one I hope the US would take for the sake of my spleen, but pray it does not for the sake of Iraq.

Let em have it. The whole kit and caboodle. Pull out all our forces. Bring home all our guns. While we re at it we can withdraw our participation in the UN since we don t seem to be welcome there anyway. Tell Israel they are free to handle their own war on terror any way they like, since we are going home.

Then send a note to Osama bin-Laden that Kofi Annan is now in charge of the Iraq occupation and that the best way to get his attention is to bedevil the French, now that Israel has nuked Iran and Syria and we’ve cut off his supply of North Korean nuclear weapons. Not to mention our solving North Korea’s energy problems without UN interference, (now that it glows in the dark all by itself).

And we can sit here at home and watch Allah sort it out on TV.

Chirac’s Back — UN Back to ‘Normal’

Chirac’s Back — UN Back to ‘Normal’
Vol: 23 Issue: 22 Friday, August 22, 2003

Fresh from his month-long vacation in relatively cool and comfortable Canada (during which time 10,000 of his countrymen perished in the heat wave back home) Jacques Chirac is back in the saddle and the US is back to having problems with the UN. Allow me to set the stage.

First, the United States offered to provide security for the United Nations mission headquarters in Baghdad. The UN refused, saying they were there on a humanitarian mission and didn’t want the presence of coalition troops to ‘militarize’ their role. Instead, they preferred the familiar faces of the Iraqi guards who used to protect them under Saddam Hussein’s regime.

The ‘guards’ Saddam sent to ‘protect’ foreigners were ALL Iraqi intelligence agents. Even if we didn’t KNOW that for a fact, one would think that somebody at the UN could have figured it out on his own through the process of deductive reasoning.

But the UN trusted the remnant of Saddam’s regime more than it did US forces. Ok.

Until the truck bomber whizzed right by security, positioned itself at exactly the right place, at exactly the right time to make sure UN Envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello would be at his desk when it went off. It did, he was, and Sergio Vieira de Mello was killed.

Immediately after the bomb went off, UN diplomats began screaming, ‘where was our security?’ and blaming the US for not having ignored the UN refusal and surrounding the UN mission with troops anyway. Didn’t the US military understand that when a diplomat says no, it really means yes? Except when it means no? Don’t these guys know anything?

US investigators determined that the Russian-made truck used in the bombing was not registered with the Iraqi government, meaning that it may have entered the country after the war. The Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, said today in New York that the truck had entered the country from Syria.

So the Syrians, who hold the presidency of the UN Security Council at the moment, are linked to the bombing of the UN headquarters building in Baghdad and the death of one of the UN’s rising stars.

UN Secretary Kofi Annan demanded improved security, and backed a US call for member states to send troops to help protect the Iraqi people (as well as UN operations). “We all realize that it is urgent to help bring peace to Iraq, bring peace to the region,” he said. “An Iraq that is destabilized, an Iraq that is in chaos, is not in the interest of the region or the world. And we do have a responsibility to ensure this.”

Not so, say the French. Not unless the French get a big piece of the reconstruction pie in Iraq. France, which led opposition to the war in the United Nations, responded by chiding the United States for failing to build a “genuine” international partnership.

Iraq’s reconstruction requires “the joint mobilization of the entire international community,” French Ambassador Michel Duclos said.

“But that is only possible if the Coalition Provisional Authority acknowledges they could not succeed alone,” he said, using the name for the U.S.-led administration in Iraq.

“To share the burden and the responsibilities in a world of equal and sovereign nations also means sharing information and authority,” the top spokesman for the Axis of Weasels told the world body.


It is important to remember that this newest flap isn’t over the US flaunting some UN ‘directive’ or the US or Israelis responding to some terror attack against their own interests that the UN is debating.

The UN was attacked DIRECTLY. By any conceivable interpretation, the attack was as much against the French as it was any other member state. The symbolism of the attack itself was to serve notice that any member state is a target. Even the French. The attack proved that merely being the world’s Appeaser in Chief is no protection against terror. Opposing Israel in every instance is no protection against terror. Opposing the United States in all things is no protection against terror. The UN has made a practice of doing all this — and Sergio de Mello is dead anyway.

The French have led the appeasement effort in Europe, evidently believing that the terrorists won’t bother them if they do everything they can to make it easier for the terrorists to bother somebody else.

Besides, there are profits to be had, in any case. What terrorists blow up has to be rebuilt. They just want the reconstruction contracts.

The French, Germans and Russians opposed the war because it meant the end of the backroom deals (and the huge profits) that they had with Saddam’s government.

They oppose any UN involvement in rebuilding Iraq unless the UN is in charge — so they can use their influence (and veto) to ensure that the reconstruction contracts go to them.

A spokesman in the German Foreign Ministry said flatly, “Germany will not send soldiers to Iraq.” The Russians and Chinese say that responsibility for security rests with the US, not the global organization that was created expressly for that purpose.

In summary then, the UN, having been the victim of a terrorist attack for the first time in its history, is responding by refusing to do anything to protect itself.

While blaming Washington for not providing protection the UN itself had rejected — until the US pays off certain states by rewarding them for violating UN sanctions for 12 years while they were circumventing the embargo and trading with Iraq.

Leading the charge for the UN to follow this clearly suicidal policy (for UN credibility) are what Donald Rumsfeld called ‘Old Europe’ and the prophet Daniel called Revived Rome. Among the supporting characters are Russia (Gog-Magog) the militant Islamic states of the Middle East and China (the Kings of the East).

It seems odd that nobody at the UN, with all that assembled brainpower, is able to discern the somewhat obvious fact that terrorists are NOT their friends. Even after their headquarters gets blown to smithereens, that simple truth still eludes them.

It makes you wonder what they are smoking in the Security Council chambers, until you take a step back and look at the Big Picture.

And compare it to the Big Picture outlined by the Scriptures for the last days.

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

Then it begins to make sense. Sort of.