Not Just Sadists – Now We’re Thieves!

Not Just Sadists – Now We’re Thieves!
Vol: 32 Issue: 31 Monday, May 31, 2004

Not Just Sadists – Now We’re Thieves!

It took even less time that I thought. Only yesterday, I noted a shift in the Left’s focus, turning away from attacking the administration directly in favor of bringing their pens to bear against our military forces.

Memorial Day is the day we set aside to honor our troops. Reading today’s New York Times invokes many emotions, but pride isn’t among them.

The Times has beaten abu Ghraib to death, if you’ll pardon the pun, but it has only begun its assault against the rest of our forces. I mentioned yesterday that ‘convoys of reporters’ were out combing Iraq and Afghanistan looking for victims of American abuse.

The New York Times’ Eric Schmitt struck paydirt without ever having to leave his office. He took the usual tactic of combining facts and innuendo, supported by sources unfriendly to the administration, like Amnesty International, the Red Cross, or sources that are named only as ‘officials’ or ‘anonymous sources’.

The ‘facts’ are already well known, but Schmitt breathes new life into them, by introducing new allegations to establish that, not only are American soldiers brutal, sadistic sexual perverts, but they are thieves, too.

Yup, that’s right, folks! Soldiers from the richest nation on the face of the planet are stealing what little money and valuables that the poor Iraqis managed to accumulate. And lots more of our troops are thieves and sadists than we first thought, too.

And it must be true; it says so, right here in the New York Times! According to Schmitt, ‘senior Defense Department officials’ say the Army is investigating at least two dozen cases in which American soldiers are accused of assaulting civilian Iraqis or stealing their money, jewelry and other property during raids, patrols and house-to-house searches.

Schmitt reports that, “in some instances, investigators say, soldiers were reported to have stolen cash from Iraqis they stopped at roadside checkpoints, apparently under the pretext of confiscating money from suspected insurgents or their financial backers.”

Those ‘investigators’, like the Defense officials, are unnamed in Schmitt’s report.

“The Army’s Criminal Investigation Command is also examining at least six cases in which soldiers on missions reportedly kicked, punched or beat civilian Iraqis, or fired their weapons near the Iraqis to scare or intimidate them.”

And as if that isn’t bad enough, Schmitt finds other unnamed officials to repeat the tactic so successful with the al Ghraib scandal, suggesting that there are more American sadists (and now thieves) in uniform than meet the eye.

“While military officials here and in Iraq say the reports of thievery and lawlessness are isolated cases among more than 135,000 American troops, other military officials say the official numbers probably underestimate the actual offenses because most Iraqis are too frightened to file a formal complaint with the American authorities.”

Read Schmitt’s indictment again — make sure you see it in all its facets.

Schmitt’s ACTUAL information suggests two dozen ALLEGATIONS out of 135,000 troops. Remember they are only ACCUSATIONS in an, as yet, unconfirmed ‘investigation’. Then calculate what 24 out of 135,000 is, percentage-wise. Schmitt evidently didn’t.

Or maybe he did, because he extrapolates that there MUST be many more American thieves in the ranks that the Iraqis are ‘too scared’ to report.

(Because American soldiers aren’t just thieves, they are also brutal, sadistic abusers, in case you’ve been living in a cave and missed the Times’ coverage so far. . . it’s enough to make you sick)

Here’s another example of using a fact to create a fiction. Schmitt writes; “The Army has acknowledged it is investigating 37 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan involving prisoners in American custody.”

That statement IS a ‘fact’, so to speak.

Now look at the fact unspun. The Army is ‘investigating’ (that means they haven’t reached a conclusion) cases involving thirty-seven enemy deaths over the course of two different wars spanning two different countries over a period of more than three years.

Having placed this ‘fact’ into evidence, while carefully avoiding putting it into context, Schmitt switches from citing anonymous sources to ‘confidential documents’ to launch his next volley;

“Other confidential Army documents have chronicled a widespread pattern of abuse involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan that implicates more military units than previously known.”

Take a look at THAT one for a minute, in all its splendiferous hyperbole.

If Schmitt has these documents, then, by definition, they aren’t confidential, or he wouldn’t have them. In any case, ‘implicating a ‘SINGLE trooper from even ONE unit more than ‘previously known’ (to whom?) would make that statement ‘accurate’ without a word of it being true.

And ‘implicated’ is like ‘investigated’ or ‘accused’ — it doesn’t mean ‘guilty’ — and the accusations are, for the most part, being made by the same people who, if given the chance, would cut Schmitt’s head off with a butcher knife without giving it a second thought.

The New York Times piece assigns great credibility to its unnamed sources, secret documents, and Red Cross reports. But when it quotes officials that actually HAVE names, like General John Abizaid, well, those people all say the exact opposite. Schmitt calls THAT a ‘dismissive’ attitude.

“Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 19, Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander of American forces in the Middle East, sounded a dismissive note about at least some of the Red Cross findings, suggesting that the organization had little understanding of the confusing and deadly circumstances swirling on the battlefield.”

‘Suggesting’ — I like that choice of words. In other words, Abizaid ‘suggests’ the Red Cross isn’t made up of battle hardened warriors, but he is merely being ‘dismissive’, not necessarily accurate.

“I am aware that the International Red Cross has its view on things,” General Abizaid said. “A lot of its view is based upon what happens at the point of detention, where soldiers fighting for their lives detain people, which is a very brutal and bloody event.”

What do generals know about war and warriors, anyway? Let’s ask the Red Cross lady!


I was astonished with the speed with which yesterday’s prediction came true. It came true so fast it never even had time to BE a prediction.

The malice in this piece is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The object of the malice is the Bush administration.

But the victims are the soldiers now facing enemy forces so that Schmitt and the New York Times’ editors can cut and slash at them from the safety of their comfortable offices.

We aren’t just talking about morale or how the troops feel about themselves or whether or not it is embarrassing for the administration, here.

This kind of propaganda will do more than just make it harder for the troops to accomplish their mission. It will kill some of them.

The object of wartime propaganda is to demoralize the enemy while energizing your own forces. Here is where American political schizophrenia raises both its ugly heads.

The New York Times objective is to demoralize the enemy (the Bush administration) while rallying their own forces (Senator Anybody But Bush).

It shares that objective with most of the liberal mainstream media, who you can bet will finds lots of inventive ways to repeat the Times’ propaganda smear loudly and often.

So will the Left’s political operatives, together with politicians close to the Kerry campaign. Because they don’t have the same objective that the OTHER America has, which is to win the war. If the war goes well, the Kerry campaign goes south. So the war has to go south.

Where the schizophrenia comes in is when one considers the New York Times is in New York, which is presumably in the same America that is currently at war.

The New York Times has an editorial board that discusses, edits, argues and ultimately approves each and every news story that graces its pages, where it will be placed, how many column inches will be devoted to it, and finally, WHEN it will run.

The editorial board decided that Memorial Day would be a PERFECT day to run an unsubstantiated, vicious hit piece suggesting our own troops are little better than marauding Nazis.

Islam declared itself at war with the Jews and ‘Christian Crusader America’ simultaneously with secular America’s declaration of war against Christian America, whom the secular left lumps together under the generic name, ‘neoconservative’ or ‘neocons’.

The Left’s hatred for the religious conservative neoconservative worldview is so all consuming that it would rather feed the enemy anti-American propaganda machine than to see what they view as Christian conservatives recapture the White House.

As we approach the final countdown to the end of this age, several things jump right off the pages of Scripture.

The Proverbs say, that “He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house.” (15:27) They also say that “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind:” (11:29)

The Apostle Paul warned, “This know also, that in the last days, perilous times shall come.” (2nd Timothy 3:1)

The world is embroiled in a great religious war. It could be characterized as a war of the Christians and the Jews against the forces of an unlikely, unspoken alliance developing between Islam and secularism.

And, from the perspective of our enemies, it is a war of annihilation.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:34-36)

Eric Schmitt’s NYTimes propaganda piece can be found at this link:

The Media’s Memorial Day

The Media’s Memorial Day
Vol: 32 Issue: 30 Sunday, May 30, 2004

The memorial honoring what is now officially known as ‘the Greatest Generation’ was, fittingly enough, timed to open for this year’s Memorial Day. Those who fought World War Two aren’t known as the Greatest Generation just because they endured the challenges of war, although that by itself would qualify its members for the title.

Throughout the history of warfare, the principle; ‘to the victor go the spoils’ generally described the purpose of warfare in the first place. The Axis’ goal was world domination, and they raped every country that they conquered.

But when they were conquered in turn by the Greatest Generation, the victors turned the spoils back over to the vanquished. For the first time in the history of war, (but not the last) nations vanquished by the Greatest Generation could count on emerging from the conflict better off than they were when the entered it.

(This was famously illustrated by the hysterically funny Peter Sellers in the 1960’s movie, “The Mouse that Roared.”)

It is hard to imagine the hardships endured by the men who landed on the Normandy beacheads. The late Stephen Ambrose and WWII historian (and veteran) helped design a computer game called Medal of Honor that simulates the journey from the landing craft to the seawall at Normandy from a first person perspective. (Ambrose oversaw the historical accuracy of the simulation)

Playing it, one wonders how ANY of the flesh and blood heroes it simulates ever actually made it to the seawall alive.

It strains the limits of the imagination to contemplate what it must have been like to be one of the men climbing up the sheer faces of the cliffs at Normandy as enemy forces shot them down from above.

And having survived, imagine the prospect of facing perhaps YEARS more of the same, liberating the whole of Europe, one town at a time.

The Greatest Generation was the generation that, having endured all that they endured at the hands of a determined, sadistic and vicious enemy, left their bitterness on the battlefield and built a world in which most of their children lived out their lives having never heard a shot fired in anger.

The Greatest Generation is also so-titled because of the tenderness with which it is treated by the media. It was the Greatest Generation that built and controlled the great media empires of their time. The veterans who had seen war understood both the cost of war and the price of peace.

They didn’t come home to saturate the pubic with stories of American atrocities against the enemy. They didn’t defame the men who fought and died for freedom, or those who survived to enjoy its benefits.

America’s warriors were portrayed by John Wayne and Randolph Scott, and they weren’t cowards or baby killers. To this generation, they seem corny and almost like caricatures, but to their audiences of the time, they were believable because they reflected the character and nature of the people that they attracted to the theaters.

There were honors and parades and plenty of commentators lamenting the passing of the Greatest Generation (somebody calculated it at 1,057 a day) and there were news cameras all over the place to capture the event — before broadcasting snippets of it in between stories of military misconduct and accusations of war crimes being leveled against US troops fighting in Iraq.


As America honors — and deservedly so — the generation that made America the greatest nation in the history of the world, an ROTC recruit complained to the New York Post Friday, “I’ve been called a baby killer,” by her fellow students at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University.

The future military officer told the paper, “I was thinking, I took an oath to defend their right to call me that.”

The peace and safety that was won by the Greatest Generation is now being defended by troops no less committed to America than were their grandparents, but it seems unlikely they’ll get any parades.

Since none of the other efforts to discredit the administration have borne fruit, the media has decided to attack the current Commander in Chief through his troops.

Consider the efforts that have been tried so far without success;

The war against Saddam was a neoconservative conspiracy, a capitalist conspiracy, a Zionist conspiracy, a Jewish conspiracy, and, according to some, a conspiracy between all the above and the faceless ‘oil companies’, (which are not to be confused with OPEC — the liberals LOVE those guys!)

Howard Dean went so far as to claim Bush knew in advance of the September 11 attacks, but did nothing to stop it. Dean’s comments were immediately picked up by the wire services and flashed to every newspaper editor in the world.

Then there was the effort to claim there is no evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam. (Despite reams of evidence to the contrary that seldom gets mentioned outside the pages of the Washington Times).

There has been what can only be called a bizarre effort to convince America there is absolutely no evidence that Hussein ever possessed WMD s, effectively rewriting history as it unfolds.

None of that has worked. So now the mainstream has turned on the military forces fighting in Iraq, representing them as war criminals fighting an illegal war.

Right now, as we honor the sacrifices made by our fighting men in prior wars, there are convoys of reporters scouring Iraq and Afghanistan, looking for former detainees to tell their stories of abuse and torture at American hands.

America is a nation at war. We are in a battle for our national lives, against a world filled with enemies. Even our alleged friends are suspicious of our motives, prepared to accept any story that confirms their pet suspicions, to the point that even when confronted with the evidence, still condemn us for removing Saddam Hussein and his terror machine from power.

And most of the anti-American propaganda abroad is being spread by the liberal media and American politicians so hungry for power that America’s national interests are secondary to partisan propaganda. And the idiots that support them.

The media’s Memorial Day honors those who protected America’s freedom in past wars. As we pray for America, let us remember those who are protecting us right now. May God bless and keep them safe.


As some of you may have noticed, something has happened to Hal’s website domain address, which is now being redirected to a search page. We don’t exactly know what the problem is yet, but in the meantime, you can still access Hal’s website at

”And Babes Shall Rule Over Them”

”And Babes Shall Rule Over Them”
Vol: 32 Issue: 29 Saturday, May 29, 2004

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” (Isaiah 3:12)

The California Supreme Court is deciding whether to throw out the conviction of a 15-year-old boy who served 100 days in juvenile hall for writing a poem that the government said constituted a threat to kill his classmates.

The case pits the right to free speech against the government’s responsibility for school security. A ruling is expected within 90 days.

The defendant wrote a poem that scared his teachers, who reported it to police, who were scared enough by it to lock him up in ‘juvey’ hall for three months.

In the poem, titled, “Faces,” George T. wrote: “I slap on my face of happiness but inside I am evil! For I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school.”

Attorneys for the San Jose boy, identified as George T. in court records, described the poem Thursday as ‘youthful artistic expression’.

The justices wondered aloud whether the kid’s poem was protected speech. The prosecutor, California Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Laurence told the court: The First Amendment doesn t protect against criminal conduct.

The law in question, usually invoked in domestic violence cases, carries a maximum one-year term for criminal threats that convey an immediate prospect of execution. The lower courts found that the poem met that definition.

One justice suggested there was no immediacy to the threat and therefore no crime was committed. The poem doesn t say I will be the next kid to bring guns to school. It says, I can.

Another questioned whether a poem could constitute an unequivocal threat.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown won the “Most Hideously Tortured Logic” prize when she suggested a hypothetical situation in which bank robber handed a teller a note saying, “Roses are red, violets are blue, give me the money or I’ll shoot you.”

“Would hiding the intention in a poem make the robber immune from charges? this presumed graduate of a recognized law school wanted to know.

Huh? The boy didn’t write a poem and give it to a bank teller. He showed it to a couple of his friends. I am not arguing in favor of the boy, but it is kinda scary to hear California Supreme Court justices think out loud. It makes you wonder what they think to themselves.

The 15-year old poet WENT TO JAIL for a poem. But Quentin Tarantino got an Oscar for writing and directing ‘Pulp Fiction’ — one of Columbine killers Harris and Klebold’s favorite movies.

(This isn’t a rant against Quentin Tarantino, but it makes at least as much sense as Justice Brown’s comparison between a kid’s poem and bank robber’s note.)

To summarize the facts of the case, the kid was completing his first week at his new school. He handed a written work with the words dark poetry on the top line to a student in his honors English class and to another acquaintance.

According to a lower court of appeals Dissenting Justice Conrad Rushing, he reviewed the poem, “line by line.” He concluded the young poet was, “a new student at the school with few friends, gave the poems to the girls because he wished to share his feelings and possibly make new friends, not to threaten them.”

There are no reports that the boy had ever owned or showed any interest in weapons, or that he tried to acquire any.


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,” observed Benjamin Franklin, “deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I am not a lawyer, and I am less concerned with the legal arguments than I am with the fact a case like this could ever grace the docket of an American court. There is a valid case to be made for rigorous investigation and prosecution of terrorists, foreign or domestic.

But this is, by all accounts, a poem by a shy 15 year-old boy written during his first week in a new school, not a recent convert to Islam or a kid with a locker full of guns and a bad attitude.

Absent any other evidence, it means that this kid got expelled from school and did 100 days in kiddy jail for writing a poem.

It might have been a dark and sad poem, and it may be violent, and maybe the kid needs mental help — but absent a locker full of guns and a history of violence, 100 days in jail? Followed by months of electronic house arrest?

For a poem?

Here are just a few other examples of just how scared we are of our own kids:

A nine year old dressed up in his dad’s duck-hunting gear for his school’s ‘Camouflage Day’, showing up wearing his dad’s hat, mesh face mask, shirt, bib, pants and boots. And in a pocket of his dad’s bib was a shotgun shell that got the straight-A student suspended for a week and almost charged with bringing explosives to school.

The other day another kid was expelled from school after he completed a school project that required him to put together a camping kit. He included a knife in the kit and was sent home for a month.

An eighth-grader in Virginia prevented a suicidal friend from cutting her wrists by taking her knife and stowing it in his locker. He challenged his suspension to Virginia’s 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. He lost.

A National Merit Scholar was prevented from attending her own high-school graduation last year in Fort Myers, Fla., because a table knife with a rounded tip was found on the floorboard of her car in the parking lot;

An 11-year-old fifth-grader was permanently banned from an elementary school in Oldsmar, Fla., for drawing pictures of a gun;

A 12-year-old honor student in Mount Airy, Md., was barred from extracurricular activities when she violated drug policy by sharing her inhaler with a fellow student having an asthma attack on the school bus; and, (drum roll, please),

A 5-year-old boy was suspended for dressing as a firefighter for his school’s Halloween party. (Part of his costume was a plastic ax). No, I am not making this up.

We are scared of our own kids. Scared to death of them. And, we have good reason, as Klebold & Harris, their mentors and their imitators have proved.

I opened with a quote from Isaiah 3:12; “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

The Apostle Paul confirms this prophecy, closing the circle with this letter-perfect description of this generation’s leading social characteristics:

“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: from such turn away.” (2nd Timothy 3:2-5)

Paul describes exactly the kind of social decay that would produce a) kids that violent and dangerous, and b) a society so schizophrenic that we’d lock up our kids for thinking; (while simultaneously decrying ‘profiling’ of male Middle Eastern men between the ages of 17 and 34).

Paul’s description is mirrored in the pages of the evening newspapers around the globe.

You can’t sow apple seeds and expect a peach tree.

“He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail.” (Proverbs 22:8)

Special Report: ‘A More Sure Word’

Special Report: ‘A More Sure Word’
Vol: 32 Issue: 28 Friday, May 28, 2004

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” (2nd Peter 1:16)

All the world’s large religions have their sacred texts; from Islam to Buddhism to Confucianism to the various Celtic and pagan religions. But among the world’s sacred texts, the Bible stands uniquely above them all.

That is no insignificant claim; Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘unique’ as “different from all others; having no like or equal.”

Muslims, Hindus, pagans and so on find that characterization of the Scriptures offensive, but indisputable. There are books LIKE the Bible, but they aren’t ‘unique’ in the sense the Bible is, even among those who follow their teachings.

The Koran was composed from the oral teachings of Mohammed. The Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith. Confusicious was the author of the religion bearing his name, as was Buddha.

The Bible is made up of sixty-six separate books. They were written over a period of 1600 years, roughly a span of forty generations. The human authors of the books of the Bible came from every conceivable walk of life.

Moses was a political leader who was trained in the universities of Egypt. Peter was a simple fisherman. Amos was a herdsman, while Joshua, a military general.

Nehemiah was a cup bearer to the king of Persia and Daniel, prime minister in the courts of Babylon. Luke was a physician. Solomon a philosopher-king. Matthew was a tax collector, while Paul was a converted Pharisee who made tents for a living.

For perspective, consider this. Imagine you could assemble your ten favorite writers and have each of them write a book on a single controversial subject. Now, you pull the whole thing together, unedited, as the ‘definitive’ work on that particular topic.

Would the finished product, do you imagine, flow together as seamlessly as do the books of Scripture? Would they be in harmony and without a single contradiction? Would they be accurate in all possible areas and each progressively explain and expound upon the book that came before?

Remember, you are using your ten favorite writers, all living at the same time, all addressing only one topic. The Bible is the product of 40 writers over 40 generations addressing every topic from science to medicine, from creation to the destruction of the world, from, as Norman Geisler once put it, “Paradise Lost in Genesis to Paradise Regained in Revelation.”

Moses wrote from the wilderness; Jeremiah from a dungeon. Daniel wrote from Nebuchadnezzar’s palace, Paul from within the walls of a Roman prison awaiting his execution.

John wrote from exile on the Island of Patmos when he was a very old man, while much of the old Testament was written on Israel’s battlefields by warriors and shepherds.

The Bible was written on three continents in three different languages; Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, yet it reads as if it flowed from a single pen.

It addresses thousands of controversial subjects, ranging from the origins of the universe and the natures of both God and man to the events that will take place in the last generation before the return of Christ.

And it does so in complete harmony.

Think of it! Now return, for a second, to your ten favorite authors analogy and look at them side by side. No contest, right?

The Bible is unique in its survival against supernatural odds. Though written on perishable material, it has been faithfully copied and recopied down through the ages, while its style, correctness, or existence did not diminish.

Manuscripts discovered at Qumran and known collectively as the Dead Sea Scrolls (including the complete Book of Isaiah), testify to the accuracy of the copyists.

Compared to other ancient writings, like those of Plato or Socrates, the manuscript evidence for the Bible is greater than for any ten pieces of classical literature combined, according to Josh McDowell’s ‘Evidence that Demands a Verdict’.

According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the Bible is the best selling book of all time, with sales of 2.5 billion copies between 1815 and 1975. By the end of the 19th century, the Bible had been translated into 337 languages. There are at least portions of the Bible now in over 2,000 languages.

There have probably been as many copies of the Bible burned by dictators trying to suppress it as there were copies that survived. In 303 AD, Diocletian attempted to exterminate the church and decreed that every manuscript of the Bible was to be seized and destroyed. He had the words ‘extincto nomine Christianorum’ ( the name of the Christians having been destroyed ) put over the ashes of a copy of the Bible.

(In 328, Constantine ordered fifty copies of the Christian Scriptures prepared at Roman government expense.)

Voltaire, the famous French atheist, predicted that Christianity would be swept from existence and pass into history within 100 years of his time. Voltaire died in 1778.

In a delicious irony of history, his house and printing press was eventually sold to the Geneva Bible Society — to print Bibles!

Unlike any of the other sacred texts of any religion, the Bible makes clear and precise prophecies concerning future events. Not only does it make those prophecies, but it claims 100% accuracy, 100% of the time.

The Bible’s track record of fulfilled prophecy — up to and including the restoration of Israel in this generation — conforms to the Bible’s impossible standard of perfect accuracy.

In addition to being a book of prophecy, the Bible contains scientific, medical, historical and geographic knowledge that was impossible for anyone to know at the time.

The oldest book of Scripture, chronologically speaking, is the book of Job. Job lived in the Middle East, probably in the area of southern Iraq.

Yet Job refers to the ‘frozen face of the deep’ and the ‘hoary frost'(38:30) as well as recording such scientific knowledge as the fact that light is in motion or that winds move in circular patterns instead of a straight line.

The speed of light and study of climatology are recent scientific disciplines. And no science can explain Job’s knowledge of Arctic conditions from southern Iraq — centuries before Moses was inspired to write the Book of Genesis.

While sailors in Columbus’ day believed the world was flat, Isaiah referred to the Lord as ‘sitting on the circle of the earth’ 500 years before Christ. (Isaiah 40:22)

Unlike other sacred texts that portray their principle characters as men of extreme holiness, the Bible’s characters were anything but. Not only do all authors agree on the same subject, unlike any other great work, they are painfully frank about their shortcomings and failures.

From Adam and Eve blaming each other and the serpent for the Fall to Noah’s drunkeness to Lot’s incest to David’s adultery and murder, the Bible’s patriarchs and prophets are flawed human beings, just like us.

What makes the Bible unique among the sacred texts of the world’s religions is its Author. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2nd Peter 1:21)

Because of its Divine Authorship, the Bible claims, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16)

We all know people who know nothing of Scripture that are more than willing to debate its intricacies and dispute its truths. If you were to ask those same people to debate the relative merits of the Texas Penal Code provisions on disorderly conduct, they would probably decline because they never studied the Texas Penal Code.

But they will argue about ‘whether a loving God could send people to hell’ until the cows come home, misquoting Scriptures they can’t cite and denying truths before they hear them.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

The evidence of its Authorship abounds, from its composition to its inerrancy to its unique standing among the world’s literature.

No one can be truly considered educated unless he is familiar with Scripture. And one truly familiar with Scripture could hardly be considered ignorant.

“Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.” (Proverbs 30:5)

“For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know Whom I HAVE BELIEVED, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.” (2nd Timothy 1:12)

The verse that sits dead-center between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 is Psalms 118:8 — which says it all in a single verse.

“It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.”

Terror, Tricks and Apoplectic Fits

Terror, Tricks and Apoplectic Fits
Vol: 32 Issue: 27 Thursday, May 27, 2004

The U.S. Justice Department released a list of seven people wanted for questioning Wednesday after authorities received a stream of credible intelligence reports pointing to a terror attack of Sept. 11 proportions in the United States this summer.

CNN managed to squeeze in a story about Ashcroft’s warning in between a piece about how we are losing Iraq and another story about abu Ghraib prison.

It is almost as if it didn’t register the first time around, so let me say it again. The US Attorney General announced he had credible intelligence that suggests al-Qaeda plans an attack — on the scale of September 11 –somewhere in the United States this summer.

Among the seven named by General Ashcroft was Abderraouf Jdey, a Tunisian who obtained Canadian citizenship in 1995. After a US airstrike killed bin-Laden’s military chief, Mohammed Atef in 2001, the US found five videotape suicide messages among the rubble of Atef’s home.

Jdey’s ‘martyrdom message’ was one of the five, suggesting whatever al-Qaeda has planned has been on the drawing board for a long time.

According to Ashcroft, “Al Qaeda’s own public statements suggest that it’s almost ready to attack the United States.” He noted al-Qaeda had announced it was 70 per cent ready to strike a U.S. target in January, then raised that to 90 per cent after railway bombings in Spain on the eve of elections in March. And he said that al-Qaeda’s preparedness self-assessment is “corroborated on a variety of levels.”

Asked whether intelligence suggests the seven individuals named might be involved in pending attacks, Ashcroft replied, “We know some of them to be very adept at the variety of things that are necessary for the achievement of an attack in the United States. Some of them are very familiar with the United States.”

“Obviously, several of them, by having lived here, been educated here, speak English well, understand the country well. Those are very important things.” Indeed.

Ashcroft made his announcement on the heels of the release of a new FBI bulletin issued to the nation’s law enforcement agencies.

According to the FBI bulletin, public statements by al Qaeda leaders suggest that plans for a U.S. attack were nearly complete, and that any of several upcoming high-profile events — such as the G-8 Summit in Sea Island, Georgia, the national political conventions this summer in Boston and New York, and the November presidential election — were possible targets.

The FBI also says al-Qaeda is changing its tactics and its method of operation. The ideal al Qaeda operative, the FBI says, is probably in his late 20s or early 30s and may travel with a family to lower his profile.

Ashcroft took great pains at the conference to underscore the fact that intelligence says that a major terror attack is ‘imminent’ — not ‘possible’ or even ‘probable’, saying “This disturbing intelligence indicates al Qaeda’s SPECIFIC INTENTION to hit the United States HARD.”


The September 11 Commission raked the administration over the coals over its preparedness in the days leading up to the September 11 attacks, with the media attaching more blame to the eight months of the Bush administration than it did to the eight years under Clinton.

As noted earlier, CNN found time to squeeze in a few words about al-Qaeda in between stories about the ‘quagmire’ in Iraq and the ‘atrocities’ at abu Ghraib prison.

The New York Times questioned the ‘timing’ of the announcement, saying, “some opponents of President Bush, including police and firefighter union leaders aligned with Senator John Kerry, the expected Democratic presidential candidate, said the timing of the announcement appeared intended in part to distract attention from Mr. Bush’s sagging poll numbers and problems in Iraq.”

Kerry issued a statement in which he said he knew Americans had been “struck by the seriousness and concern coming from this administration,” but went on to attack the administration for not doing more to bolster domestic security.

It would make one laugh, if the stakes weren’t so high. Instead, it’s just sad.

The police and firefighters are ‘questioning’ being PREPARED for a terrorist strike? Why? Because they back John Kerry. John Kerry suggests warning of an imminent attack is a political ‘trick’ to draw attention away from Bush’s sagging numbers.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who is a member of the intelligence committee, suggested the same thing. Durbin said in an interview that the committee had received no word of any new information of the type Mr. Ashcroft described.

Durbin went on to say that if there were credible new information about a possible strike, he believed the intelligence committee should have been told about it. In other words, it’s just a political trick. Don’t worry about it. Go back to sleep.

Bush’s numbers are sagging because of Kerry’s continually drawing attention to the fact the administration WASN’T prepared for the last one. At the same time, administration efforts to prepare for the next attack is being characterized as a ‘political trick’ — until AFTER it succeeds.

In that case, Kerry, and ‘other opponents of the Bush administration’ (like the New York Times) can slam Bush for not being prepared enough, again.

Al Gore again proved himself Useful Idiot-in-Chief in a raving, spittle-spewing rant sponsored by al-Qaeda’s sister organization,

In his remarks, Gore blasted the American treatment of “helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners” at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The abuse scandal, Gore said, was not just the fault of the low-ranking soldiers who committed the acts, but of the highest levels of the Bush administration, “who approved a policy of establishing an American Gulag.”

“How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people,” Gore said, his voice rising to a shout and his face taking on a strained, angry expression.

(Actually, a better description would be somewhere between ‘apoplectic’ and ‘insane’. Drudge has a GREAT picture of the ex VP during his speech posted on his website this morning)

“How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace,” Gore thundered. “How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein’s torture prison.”

Gore was talking about the handful of National Guard MP’s, not the Iraqi and al-Qaeda terrorists housed there. Of them, Gore demands the Bush administration extend them their rights under the Geneva Conventions.

(The Geneva Conventions ONLY apply to prisoners of war taken IN UNIFORM on the battlefield — combatants out of uniform can be shot out of hand as spies. Both sides did it all the time during World War Two.)

I was talking all this over with my wife this morning. Speaking of Gore, Kerry, and Company, she looked at me and asked, “Are they nuts?”

I thought about it a minute, and considered the stakes involved, not in terms of politics, but in terms of US national survival.

“Yes, they are.” I replied.

Like I said, it would be funny, if it weren’t so deadly serious.

al-Qaeda Recruiters Meeting Quotas

al-Qaeda Recruiters Meeting Quotas
Vol: 32 Issue: 26 Wednesday, May 26, 2004

In an exclusive interview with CBS “60 Minutes” retired Marine General Anthony Zinni broke faith with the Corps and his fellow Marines by publicly criticizing his country, his leadership and the war effort in Iraq on national television.

Maybe that sounds too harsh — I’ll continue, and you can make up your own mind.

General Zinni told 60 Minutes that, “We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world.” Zinni slammed senior Pentagon and administration officials for clumsy strategies in Iraq, saying it is high time for heads to roll after they “have screwed up”.

“The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States – the take down of Iraq as a priority.”

Zinni said he has been accused of being anti-Semitic for calling top Pentagon Jewish officials as “neo-conservatives” though “they describe themselves as neo-conservatives”.

“I mean, you know, unbelievable that that’s the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn’t criticize who they were. I certainly don’t know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I’m not interested,” he told CBS.

He continued: “I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody – everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do”.

CBS said Zinni was hinting at Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis Libby.

It said that they pressed for the war on Iraq to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel.

“I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don’t believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn’t know where it came from,” said Zinni.

General Zinni further told CBS that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time.

“I can’t speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him.”

He also hit out at the faulty pre-war intelligence about Iraq s alleged weapons of mass destruction that led to the current anarchy.

He said Rumsfeld should not have been now surprised at the stiff Iraqi resistance.

“There were a number of people, before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in there,” Zinni recalled.

“Not just generals, but others — diplomats, those in the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours in the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should have known that.”


I said at the outset that General Zinni’s remarks ‘broke faith’ with the Corps, his fellow Marines, and his country. A Marine swears an oath to his country, to protect it from all enemies — foreign and domestic.

That oath doesn’t terminate at retirement or discharge — that’s why the Marines have a saying: “Once a Marine, always a Marine.” The Marine Corps motto is ‘Semper Fidelis’ — ‘ALWAYS Faithful’.

Read from where I said at the beginning of this briefing that maybe I was being too harsh — from that sentence, to the final quote before I began the assessment was cut and pasted directly out of an article about Zinni’s CBS appearance — from Islam Online!

Zinni provided the enemy with better anti-American propaganda sound bytes than they could have written on their own — and then added the credibility of his rank and uniform to his comments.

Comments that turned up on Islam Online suggesting that the administration’s ‘neo-cons’ are mostly Jews — you know, the ‘Bush-as-a-Zionist-puppet-doing-Israel’s-bidding propaganda line that al-Qaeda’s recruiters use to such great effect.

Related links from the Zinni story lead the reader to other Islam Online stories bearing headlines like;

“Pro-Israeli Think Tank Influence Controlling U.S. Foreign Policy: Paper”; “Public Opinion Super Power Against U.S.: Chomsky”; “Majority Against U.S. Administration, Not People: IOL Poll”; “Americans Ashamed Of Iraqi Prisoners Abuse”; “Berg’s Father Says Bush “A Weapon Of Mass Destruction”; “Senior U.S. Officers Slam Rumsfeld s Blunders” and, “American Marine “Ashamed” Of Iraq Experience”.

THAT is what the Arab world woke up to in THEIR newspapers this morning. The sources for the above article headlines were American media outlets.

On CNN this morning, news anchors breathlessly announced details of yet another new report — this one saying al-Qaeda’s recruiters are having no problem finding folks to replace the ones killed or captured during the war on terror.

Also according to CNN, al-Qaeda has some 18,000 fighter secreted around the globe, and they are planning ‘something big’ against an American target this summer. Good heavens! How did THAT happen?

We’re glad you asked. CNN followed up by helpfully producing a list of ‘formers’ from the Clinton administration to explain how the Bush administration ‘allowed’ anti-American sentiment to reach such a global fever pitch that al-Qaeda is able to expand.

Am I missing something here? CNN and her ideological soul mates throughout the mainstream media are the ones that are providing the ammunition for anti-American propaganda being spread throughout the Islamic world. Look back up at Islam Online’s headlines.

Supporting them are enemies of the Bush administration so venomous that they take every opportunity to provide the enemy with useful propaganda for his war effort, because the worse the war goes, the worse it looks for the Bush administration.

I am not arguing against free speech or the First Amendment. The Supreme Court long ago held that there are reasonable limits to free speech. As an example, the Court noted that shouting, “Fire!” in a crowded theater is not protected speech. Neither is giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war an example of protected speech.

Something has happened to America in the past decade or so. Something strange. Right and wrong aren’t as clear as they were even ten years ago. Truth is more elusive than ever — but now, it s the media doing the political spinning — and nobody seems to have a problem with that.

Half the nation wants a country where abortion is legal; God is illegal, where the economy is run according to principles of Marxist class warfare and liberalism.

Running for president is a Massachusetts liberal who actually out-liberaled Teddy Kennedy, according to his Senate voting record. His suspicious war record is only slightly less troubling than his subsequent anti-war activities, but that sits just fine with that half of America. He isn’t George Bush.

The other side wants a nation where abortion is outlawed, God is welcome, the economy is run according to the principles of capitalism and the country is run as a Constitutional Republic instead of a pure democracy.

Running for re-election is one of the most divisive Chief Executives in the nation’s history, although, compared to the previous occupant, this one is a choirboy. But Bush represents everything the other America hates — the ‘other’ America that Howard Dean derisively mocked as being obsessed with, “God, guns and gays.”

To listen to the mainstream media, his political enemies at home, and his military enemies abroad, Bush is worse than the antichrist.

We often discuss America’s absence from Bible prophecy in the last days. Abraham Lincoln noted during the Civil War that a ‘house divided against itself cannot stand.’ Lincoln was quoting Jesus, from Matthew 12:25:

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:”

“All They That Hate Me Love Death”

“All They That Hate Me Love Death”
Vol: 32 Issue: 25 Tuesday, May 25, 2004

As al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq , he asked, “Is it not time for you [Muslims] to take the path of jihad and carry the sword of the Prophet of prophets?… The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered [his army] to strike the necks of some prisoners in [the battle of] Badr and to kill them… And he set a good example for us.”

“As for you, Bush, dog of the Christians, anticipate what will harm you… And you will only get shroud after shroud and coffin after coffin slaughtered in this manner.”

Chief Palestinian Authority cleric Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri said in an interview; “We tell them, in as much as you love life, the Muslim loves death and martyrdom. There is a great difference between he who loves the hereafter and he who loves this world. The Muslim loves death and [strives for] martyrdom.”

Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah revealed in an interview after the recent prisoner swap between Israel and his group: “We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are the most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win, because they love life and we love death.”

Tunisian intellectual Al-Afif Al-Akhdar asked in an article for the liberal Arabic-language website “Why do expressions of tolerance, moderation, rationalism, compromise, and negotiation horrify us [Muslims], but [when we hear] fervent cries for vengeance, we all dance the war dance?… Why do other people love life, while we love death and violence, slaughter and suicide, and [even] call it heroism and martyrdom?”

The love of death is, to the Western mind, the most incomprehensible thing about our enemy.

The president made reference to the concept in a recent speech in which he said:

“On a tape claiming responsibility for the atrocities in Madrid, a man is heard to say, ‘We choose death, while you choose life.’… It is a mindset that rejoices in suicide, incites murder, and celebrates every death we mourn. And we who stand on the other side of the line must be equally clear and certain of our convictions.”


President Bush summarized what it will take to defeat an enemy who loves death, even if it fell on mainly deaf ears. “We who stand on the other side of the line must be equally clear and certain of our convictions.”

Therein lays America’s Achilles Heel. America’s greatest strength is also its biggest vulnerability. The enemy is coming through crystal-clear; his intention is to kill us for no reason other than we are not Muslims. And he is not just prepared to die to do it, but looks forward to it as an ‘opportunity’.

On the other hand, America’s ‘convictions’ are nowhere nearly so clear. Polls say America remains committed to staying the course in Iraq, but by lesser margins. Anyone reading America’s major newspapers or watching the network news broadcasts would question America’s convictions about anything.

America’s goal was to free Iraqis from the brutality of Saddam, but night after night, new pictures of American soldiers humiliating Iraqi prisoners, like a constant drip from a leaky faucet, continue to show up, two by two, on the nightly news.

For every story of a positive development in Iraq brought about with American assistance, there are ten stories about Iraqi resistance, American brutality, or the frightening collapse of order in Fallujah and Najaf.

There are more than 7,000 cities in Iraq. Of them, there are four or five trouble spots. Tikrit, Fallujah, parts of Baghdad, Najaf and the ubiquitous ‘Sunni Triangle’ come to mind.

There are other cities that are somewhat less than joyful at being under US occupation, but in the main, there are about 6,995 or so cities where Iraqis are NOT uprising, and are actually working in concert with the coalition while rebuilding their country.

The enemy knows that. His only hope of victory is to keep that information from the American public and convince America that all Iraq opposes them and that Iraq will become another Vietnam.

That is a goal shared by the enemies of the Bush administration, as well.

It is a conundrum that the only way for Bush’s political enemies to achieve political victory is to join forces with the enemy in the propaganda war.

The enemy’s only effective weapon against America is propaganda. Violence is simply propaganda taken to the next level — history establishes that.

I’ve spent considerable time and prayer examining that conundrum. The enemy is committed to the path of jihad, following his god into battle — not against a political enemy, but against a spiritual enemy.

That this war is spiritually-based is undeniable. The jihadists attack any manifestation of Judaism or Christianity as the target of choice. Secondary targets, whether secular European, or even Muslim targets like those in Saudi Arabia, are designated based on the impact they will have on either Israel or America.

Osama bin-Laden declared war on Crusader Christian America’ — and he meant exactly what he said. If the jihadists conquered all of Europe, that wouldn’t end the war for the jihadists.

They’d just use it as a weapon to conquer America and destroy Israel — the only real targets of the jihadists. Just before al Zarqawi cut off Nick Berg’s head, he identified the real enemy: “Bush, dog of the Christians.”

Now we come to those in America who have chosen to ally themselves with the jihadists in the propaganda war; the politicians, the news media executives, the liberal media establishment in general, and even those states that sent the politicians to Washington in the first place.

In the spiritual war now ongoing, what god do they follow? There is no question that Christianity has historically had a positive effect on American life. They owe their freedoms to its influence in America’s foundation, as well as America’s development right up to World War Two.

It would seem logical, then, to at least give Christianity the benefit of the doubt. When was the last time you saw a positive portrayal of Christianity in the mainstream press?

Or any of the Anybody But Bush political spectrum standing up for Christian values? What god do they follow? Is there evidence that they have a special hatred for the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ, and the tenets of Scripture?

(Think Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Daschle, Jennings, Brokaw, Rather, CNN, the NYTimes Michael Moore and his crowd, Al Gore, Al Franken and Air America. Where are they on issues like abortion, euthanasia, public prayer, etc?)

Now, how many gods are there? Scripture tells us there are two. There is the God of Creation, the Creator God of Scripture — the same God worshipped by Christians and Jews. Christians call Him ‘Father’ or ‘Lord’ and Jews call Him ‘Adonai’ and ‘Lord’ — both call Him by His revealed Name, ‘Jehovah’.

“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the Name of God Almighty, but by My Name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.” (Exodus 6:3)

The other god identified in Scripture is “the god of this world” that Scripture says “hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.” (2nd Corinthians 4:4)

Scripture says that, “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12)

Scripture says that the ‘god of this world’ is “the prince of the power of the air” further identifying him as “the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:”

Pulling it all together, a picture begins to emerge of the spiritual battlefield. On one side are those who follow the god of this world, and on the other, those who follow the God of Creation.

There are no borders in the asymmetrical, spiritual war of the last days. And not all of our enemies follow Islam, but they follow the same god.

“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:14)

Proverbs 8:36 says that “all they that hate Me love death.”

Following the same theme, Jesus told us how to identify the enemy.

“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:20)

Special Report: From Oslo To Hell

Special Report: From Oslo To Hell
Vol: 32 Issue: 24 Monday, May 24, 2004

Special Report: From Oslo To Hell

During the 1991 Gulf War, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority threw their support behind Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. While the rest of the Arab world reluctantly fought beside American troops to throw Saddam out of Kuwait, Arafat made a trip to Baghdad to encourage the dictator.

Arafat’s support of Saddam cost the Palestinians dearly.

The Saudis and Kuwaitis, until the Gulf War, were among the PLO’s chief patrons, supplying the bulk of Arafat’s operating capital. More than two hundred thousand Jordanian ‘Palestinians’ had lived and worked in Kuwait for generations — another four hundred thousand in Saudi Arabia.

During that time, they were sending a portion of their salaries back home to Jordan (where Palestinians came from) to help support their families.

When Arafat backed Saddam, that all came crashing to a halt. The Kuwaitis and Saudis cut off PLO funding. All the ‘Palestinian’ workers in both countries were immediately deported — to Jordan.

Suddenly, hundreds of thousands of displaced ‘Palestinians’, instead of helping to support Jordan’s economy, now dotted the Jordanian desert in hastily thrown-up refugee camps. Jordan’s King Hussein refused to assimilate them into Jordan’s general population and, since Arafat was responsible for their expulsion, he left it up to Arafat to deal with.

Supporting Saddam cost Arafat his funding, his most powerful political supporters, forced his people into concentration camps in Jordan and left him with no other recourse but to seek peace with Israel.

On September 13, 1993, Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin stood together in the Rose Garden of the White House, shook hands, and signed the Oslo Accords.

The Oslo Agreement was set up in three stages. The first two years of the agreement were to be an experimental period during which time Israel would grant the new Palestinian Authority ‘limited autonomy’ over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank town of Jericho.

During this period, the PA was to be given autonomy over local government services, like trash collection, public education and local law enforcement. Certain obligations were imposed on both sides.

For example, a shared capital at Jerusalem was off the table. In fact, the PA agreed not to conduct any official business within the city limits.

Before the ink was dry, Arafat set up his official ‘government’ offices at the Orient House in East Jerusalem and dared Israel to do something about it.

Arafat stood on the Jericho Road and claimed ALL the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as his Palestinian State — within two months of signing an agreement promising he would not.

The next phase of the agreement was to run three years, during which time, assuming the ‘limited autonomy’ experiment was successful, it would be expanded over a greater part of the West Bank.

The two-year ‘limited autonomy’ did NOT work, Arafat broke every part of his agreement, and by the time Phase Two was due to start, Arafat had already claimed the whole West Bank as his eventual Palestinian State.

The Oslo Agreement specifically precluded any consideration of statehood until Stage Three — the final dispostion of Jerusalem period. Phase Two was due to run its course for three years, ending in September, 1998. If the experiment in expanding limited autonomy was successful, the two sides would begin negotiations over Jerusalem.

Of course, Phase Two was NOT successful, Arafat broke every part of his agreement, and turned down everything offered him at Camp David. The offer extended him by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was so generous it is doubtful it would have passed the Knesset.

It gave Arafat 97% of the West Bank plus all the Gaza Strip for his Palestinian State and even offered Arafat a shared capital in Jerusalem.

So, the two year ‘final status’ phase of Oslo, ostensibly over the permanent status of Jerusalem, was already decided before it was due to come to the table. Barak offered Arafat everything he had been demanding, and Arafat turned it down cold.

Oslo also required regular Palestinian leadership elections. Arafat honored that once, in 1996, and claiming the title of ‘President’ in violation of Oslo. The next election was due in September, 2000, and for the first time, it really looked like his people were ready for a change.

On September 13, 2000, seven years after Oslo’s land-for-peace effort began, instead of peace, Arafat launched the current war against the Jews.

To the average Palestinian living under Arafat’s regime, life has become a living hell, and it just keeps getting worse.

During his heyday, Arafat and his entourage showed up to negotiating sessions, exiting their chauffer-driven Mercedes wearing silk Armani suits, paid for by Western aid packages designed to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Arafat didn’t WANT to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, because if they were happy, they’d be disinclined to resume the conflict with Israel, which was Arafat’s plan all the time.

(His 1974 Phased Plan for the Destruction of Israel called for obtaining all that was possible through negotiation, and then to use the acquired real estate as a base for operations aimed at Israel’s destruction.)

Since Arafat’s funding has dried up, he can no longer pay salaries to his security forces. Now, Arafat is taking a page from his deposed hero Saddam, and is encouraging security officers to rob, pillage, rape and even kill ordinary Palestinians who get in the way.

A new report was just issued by the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, entitled, “Intrafada, the Chaos of the Weapons.”

The report documents official Palestinian abuse of their own people and the transformation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip into a wasteland of violence.

According to the report, those who can, run. The report said Christian migration has increased and cities with Christian majorities have been taken over by the Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Hamas and Jihad encourage this migration.

First, they target Christian women who don’t dress according to Islamic norms. Then they take over Christian homes for use in attacks against Israeli forces, particularly in the Bethlehem area.

The report said 90 percent of what it termed “gang lawlessness” can be traced to people on the PA payroll. The report said Fatah operatives often bring their guns to a dispute between Palestinian neighbors.

According to the report, the most effective tactic is to denounce someone as an ‘Israeli collaborator’ – a charge that can carry a sentence of death without trial.

The PA or the terror gangs often swoop in to detain, torture and even kill a Palestinian accused of collaboration. No one bothers to investigate, even if Arafat orders a probe.

Collaboration also provides an option to punish women. The accusation by a husband that his wife is a collaborator has a chilling affect on the family.

Women who don’t listen to their fathers have been accused of collaboration to ensure that they are killed. Fatah terrorists often rape and then kill women who refuse to marry them and later charge the victims with being collaborators.

“Violence permeates the security forces, and it is worsened by legal confusions,” the group said in the report.

“Unless and until more accountability and order is introduced, the problem will remain and could worsen as PA control continues to deteriorate. Sometimes violence erupts between police members and loyalists of political factions.”

It is important to remember that this report wasn’t authored by the Americans or the Israelis, or even by the UN. This report was authored by Palestinians living under what Arafat calls a ‘government’.

It notes that Arafat operates more than 12 security and police agencies. They include the civilian police, civil defense, national force, Preventive Security Apparatus, coastal police, civilian intelligence, military intelligence and the presidential guard.

There are also secret intelligence and security cells that conduct operations so dirty that the PA doesn’t want to be formally connected.

The report cited an absence of a command structure in the dozen or more PA security agencies, including the police, Preventive Security Apparatus, intelligence services, coastal force and presidential guard.

“The confusion is especially dangerous with regard to the multitude of Palestinian policing forces, whose roles remain ambiguous, but who exist independently of each other,” the report stated.

“Even insiders do not know who is in charge and which branch is responsible for which tasks. The overlap of jurisdictions can result in both verbal and physical infighting among those forces designed to protect the larger populace from violence.”

The report also noted that, “Arafat only exacerbates the problem by playing each security chief off against the other in order to secure his own position.”

Finally, the report notes that an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip would be disastrous for Palestinians. When the Israelis are gone, the report said, Palestinians expect an increase in PA abuse, corruption and dictatorship, with their only hope being a Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinian group does not envision cooperation between Hamas and the PA in sharing power.

“Two opposing power centers — the PA and Hamas — cannot co-exist or coordinate affairs, especially if there is no geographical continuity,” the report said. “The ‘Gaza First’ initiative thus raises the prospect of two separate Palestinian states — an Islamic one in Gaza, and a PA-controlled one in the West Bank.”


As is now evident, the ‘land for peace’ equation was accurate only in that, as long as Israel was actively giving up land, there was an illusion of peace.

When Barak made what amounted to a final offer of land, Arafat had no reason to continue the illusion of peace.

Since the collapse of Oslo, the United States and European Community have launched various initiatives aimed at salvaging Oslo. Together with the UN and Russia, the so-called ‘Quartet’ have agreed to the creation of a Palestinian State beside Israel, despite the PA’s history and Arafat’s leadership.

But Israel declared the Quartet-sponsored Road Map dead as well, and is launching its own pullout from Gaza, effectively turning it over to the terrorists who already control it.

The prospect of two separate Palestinian states is a real possibility. And this is where it all starts to tie in to Bible prophecy.

The Gaza Strip was never part of Eretz Israel. Although it was granted to Abraham, God ordered Joshua to destroy Canaan’s inhabitants and expressly forbid any alliances with them.

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

What is today the Gaza Strip was, in King David’s time, inside the borders of the land of the Phillistines. To this day, they are as thorns in Israel’s side, and the followers of Allah are dedicated to Israel’s annihilation.

The failed Oslo Agreement was a covenant between Israel and those same traditional enemies of seven year’s duration. Subsequent efforts to revive the agreement and confirm its terms have so far been unsuccessful.

The prophet Daniel wrote of the coming antichrist:

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” (Daniel 9:26)

Daniel’s ‘week’ is a ‘week’ of years — the Hebrew calendar calculates in ‘weeks’ of seven years the way the Greek calendar calculated ‘decades’ of ten years each. The one-week covenant already exists.

It failed, but only because there was nobody willing to confirm its terms. The Bible says the antichrist will come up with a way to ensure both sides keep the revived agreement.

The possible separation of Gaza and the West Bank fits with Zechariah’s prophecies for the last days concerning the war over Jerusalem and the disputed territories.

“The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.” (Zechariah 12:7-8)

The modern West Bank ‘territory’ is Biblical Judea and Samaria — the House of David didn’t include Gaza, and neither does Zechariah.

“And when these things BEGIN TO COME TO PASS, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh,” Jesus told the generation that would witness the complete fulfillment of prophecy and His return at the conclusion of the Armageddon War.

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till ALL be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:28,32)

Answering the Skeptic: Does God Exist?

Answering the Skeptic: Does God Exist?
Vol: 32 Issue: 23 Sunday, May 23, 2004

Answering the Skeptic: Does God Exist?

One of the first challenges out of the mouth of the skeptic when confronted with the Gospel is often a demand for proof that God exists in the first place. “You prove God exists, and then we can talk about becoming a Christian,” or something along those lines.

To the Christian, being asked to ‘prove’ God exists is like being asked to ‘prove’ air exists. Just as the fact we are alive and breathing makes the existence of air self-evident, to the Christian, the fact there is air is proof of the existence of the God Who created it.

Where does one begin? How about a choice? We can look at the evidence for God’s existence and believe that He is there, or we can set aside the evidence and decide that there is no God.

But in the final analysis, there are only two options:

Option One: God DOES Exist

Romans 1:19-20 puts into words what Christians instinctively know in their spirit:

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

The more science learns about our universe, the more scientists are reluctantly forced to acknowlege the existence of Intelligent Design. That the universe demands a Designer as obvious as a wristwatch requiring a maker or a dictionary requiring an editor.

Then there is the existence of human conscience. It exists as an inner voice that allows the person to follow his best judgment and highest instincts. It is unique to humanity, and it is that conscience that demands to know about God.

(After all, if the atheist or skeptic didn’t desire to know about God, the challenge would never have been offered in the first place.)

The Old and New Testament Scriptures speak in behalf of God in a manner that is consistent with the evidence of God in both creation and conscience.

The very existence of Christianity after two thousand years, built entirely upon the life and death of a 1st century Jew named Jesus, is evidence of the existence of God. So the the miraculous preservation of the Jewish people and their restoration to their homeland 2000 years after they were dispersed.

Option Two: God Does NOT Exist

The Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Psalms 14:1)

Quoting that Scripture to a skeptic might be accurate, but if you can’t back it up with facts, you might as well keep it to yourself. Nobody likes to be called a ‘fool’, especially by a God they don’t believe exists.

But the skeptic’s arguments AGAINST God, when examined closely, make a stronger case for Psalms 14:1 than they do for the non-existence of a Creator God. Compare what God says about the one who says, “There is no God” to the arguments they offer to ‘prove’ it.

1.) Our world, with all its resources, complexities, and orderliness came about with no personal impetus, cause, or source. Everything just happened.

2.) The laws that govern our universe have developed without guidance or direction.

3.) Great and almost magical leaps were taken along the evolutionary way, allowing nonplants to cross the chasm to become plants, and nonanimals to become animals. Without guidance, these beings developed brains where nonbrains had been and sensory organs where nothing like them had been.

4.) Randomness accounts for the delicate, unique composition of our planet that makes possible our existence on this oasis of life in the desert of a hostile universe.

5.) Man is without a spirit. His existence ends at death, just as it does for dogs and cats.

6.) Any morality that man possesses is contrived and societal in origin. Therefore, no one can be expected to make value judgments for others, and the human conscience is instilled by social structure. (Refer back to #5, above)

7.) The Bible–a Book that was written by 40 diverse men who lived over a span of 1,500 years, kept separate records, recorded events independently, and told a remarkably singular story–is an incredible coincidence.

8.) There is no master plan for mankind. Our existence is an accident, our work on earth is fruitless, and our relationships with one another are ultimately meaningless. Like a pack of wild animals, we have no other purpose on earth but survival.

9) Christ was not telling the truth when He said He was the Son of God who came from heaven to rescue us from eternal death and bring us to God.

10) Neither were the Twelve Apostles, all of whom suffered loss of family, friends, community, and ultimately death, for the witness of Jesus.

But when they died for the ‘witness of Jesus’, they were actually EYEWITNESSES to Jesus, His Life and His Death. They either saw what they saw, or they ruined their lives and ultimately suffered torturous deaths for what they KNEW was a fraud.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.” (Psalms 53:1)

Calling an atheist or skeptic a ‘fool’ isn’t an insult. It’s an undeniable statement of fact.

The Books of the Apocrypha

The Books of the Apocrypha
Vol: 32 Issue: 22 Saturday, May 22, 2004

The Books of the Apocrypha

I once recall hearing televangelist Jack Van Impe regarding the sitting Pope during one of Van Impe’s TV broadcasts. In the broadcast, Van Impe was making the case that the current Pope believed that we are living in the last days and also that the current Pope believed in the pre-Trib Rapture.

This is neither an anti-Pope nor anti-Jack Van Impe piece. Stay with me a minute.

The specific statement that stuck with me was Van Impe’s claim that the Pope believed in the pre-Trib Rapture because ‘he stands on the same Bible we do’.

I guess the reason I recall his claim so clearly is because of the way my mind works.

Since the Catholic Douay Version of the Bible contains the extra books of the Apocrypha, my mind pictured the Pope needing the extra height boost from the thicker Douay Bible.

Anyway, it spawned all kinds of funny and (not-too-spiritual) mental images in my mind, and consequently got stuck in that involuntary but permanent ‘do not delete’ file in my brain.

Recently, a friend emailed me about those extra-canonical books.

“I’m having a discussion on whether or not the Bible really is only the 66 books, on a chat board. . . . But I don’t know a lot about the Catholic Bible nor about these other sources this guy is asking about. . . Can you help?”

What is the difference between the Books of the Apocrypha in the Douay Version of the Bible and the sixty-six Books that make up Canon of Scriptures?

Further, why are they accepted as equal in authority to accepted Scripture among Catholics, but not among Protestants or evangelicals?

The collection of extra-canonical books are known as the Apocrypha. The term was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar St. Jerome and refers to the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament), but not included in the Hebrew Bible.

Several works ranging from the fourth century B.C.E. to New Testament times are considered apocryphal–including Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, various additions to the Book of Esther (10:4-10), the Book of Daniel (3:24-90;13;14), and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The apocrypha have been variously included and omitted from bibles over the course of the centuries. The original King James 1611 Version of the Bible included them, although collecting them together as the ‘Books of the Apocrypha’ and placing them in an appendix.

The Apocrypha consists of 15 books of Jewish literature written during the intertestamental period. The Rheims-Douay Version (1582 A.D.) lists 7 additional books, adds to Esther and Daniel, and combines the “Letter of Jeremiah” with “Baruch” — thus including 12 of the 15 apocryphal books to the Old Testament.

In this context, the term “apocrypha” generally refers to writings entirely outside of the biblical canon and not considered inspired (such as the Gospel of Thomas). These same books are referred to by Protestants as the “pseudoepigrapha.”

In other words, it is not the Inspired Word of God, and as such, not part of the collection of works that Timothy says is “given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2nd Timothy 3:16)

The question that most often results from saying the Apocryphal Books are NOT Divinely inspired is, “Oh, yeah? How do you know?”

The best most Christians can do in reply is something like, “Well, they aren’t in MY Bible,” or try and explain that the early Church Fathers rejected them, without really being able to explain why.

Which then has you explaining why you trust the early Church Fathers so much, etc., etc. It can be frustrating, since you don’t REALLY know.

That argument usually collapses when somebody points out that there WERE early Church Fathers who cited them in their writings and listed them as Canonical.

But the most compelling reason why the Books of the Apocrypha were excluded is also the most obvious. They conflict with accepted Scripture. God’s Word does not conflict with itself.

Let’s take a look at some of the legitimate reasons for rejecting the Books of the Apocrypha and see if they hold water on their own merits. First, although Jesus and the Apostles quoted extensively from Old Testament Scripture, not once did they quote from the Apocryphal books.

Ok, maybe that isn’t enough. Reading through them, they lack both the power and the majesty of God’s Word — they just don’t FEEL like Scripture in the spirit, but that isn’t, by itself, that convincing an argument to the skeptic.

(Or to me, either, since ‘feelings’ can also come from the enemy, while seeming to come from the Lord. ” And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” 2 Corinthians 11:14)

But what makes Scripture so powerful is that it is without error. We’ve discussed many times what effect it would have on Judeo-Christianity if somebody conclusively proved that something in the Bible was wrong, historically, scientifically, medically, etc., since the Bible claims its authorship is of God and therefore without error.

If such a claim of fraud could be proved, then the Scripture would lose its authority and would join the ranks of the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the writings of Buddha or Zoroaster and become just another ‘holy book’.

So, if the Apocryphal Books are Divinely inspired, they should pass the same test of inerrancy and be in harmony with the rest of the Revealed Word.

But the Apocrypha contains chronological errors and statements contrary to history, as well as doctrinal teachings that contradict the rest of revealed Scripture.

A few examples:

* Baruch 1:2 (compared to Jeremiah 43:6-7)

* Bel and the Dragon 22 (Xerxes did it); Bel and the Dragon 33

*Tobit 1:4 (He could not have been “still a young man,” or even born yet. *The rebellion of the northern tribe against Jerusalem in 1 Kings 12:19-20 took place around 922 B.C.)

* 2 Maccabees 12:44, 45 condones prayers for the dead.

* Sirach 3:34, 14, 30; 30:11-12 2; Esdras 7:7; 8:33, 36; Tobit 12:9, 8a; 14:11 all teach salvation by good works.

* Tobit 6-8 teaches the use of magic in demon exorcism.

* Tobit 11 teaches the use of magic in healin.

* Sirach 8:19 teaches the use of magic to obtain good fortune.

* Tobit 12:15 teaches of the intercession of angels (Rafael)

* 2 Maccabees 14:41-46 contradicts Scripture regarding suicide.

* Sirach 38:16-23 (especially verses 20-21) teach mourning for the dead, also in contraction of the Canon of Scripture.

* In the Prayer of Manasseh 8, it teaches of the ‘sinless’ lives of OT personalities.

* Tobit 6:2-7, 16-17 describes ‘miracles’ that can best be described as just plain silly. Unless one believes that placing incense smoke on the organs of a man eating fish can ward off evil spirits.

Or that a demon in love with the woman killed her last seven husbands on their wedding night, etc., lines up with God’s Word as revealed elsewhere in Scripture.


The first question I promised to address was ‘what was the difference between the Canon of Scripture and the Books of the Apocrypha?’.

The difference is that, if one were to include the Books of the Apocrypha, then one could easily prove the Bible was no different than any other holy book, containing great wisdom, but also containing some ‘inconsequential’ errors.

While the other great religions of the world have sacred books, not even Muslim scholars will go so far as to say the Koran is without error and unchanged down through the centuries.

The same can be said of Buddhists, Mormons, JW’s — etc., etc. (One of Islam’s major arguments is that the Jews changed the Old Testament)

As a consequence, these religions also have other authorities of equal weight to their sacred writings. Islam has imams and fatwas that are equal in authority to the Koran and its traditions and interpretations.

Buddhism has the Dalai Lama and Buddhist tradition. Mormons have revised the Book of Mormon dozens of times. The JW’s declared the world ended in 1914 and that Jesus is not God — and they have revised Scriptures to ‘prove’ it.

The Bible is unique. It remains unchanged, its claim of infallibility unchallenged, and its authority unmatched by any other religious sacred book — unless one includes the Apocrypha.

The easily-proved contradictions and historical errors contained in the Apocrypha are part of the reason that, over the years, the Catholic Church has developed its theological view that Vatican teaching and tradition are of equal weight and authority with the Bible.

It is an undeniable fact that those who trust the accepted Canon of Scripture cannot assign it equal authority to the pronouncements of men.

To argue otherwise is to deny all accepted Scripture as false, while defending the historically inaccurate and doctrinally contradictory Apocryphal books as true, since things that are different can never be the same, no matter how convincingly one tries to argue otherwise.

As I said, this is not an attack on the Catholic Church — it is merely an historical explanation of why the Canon doesn’t include the Apocrypha while the Vatican does.

Whenever one attempts to clear the historical record, it is immediately seen by Catholics everywhere as an ‘attack’ on the Catholic Church. It is not.

To those who see it as such, I can only refer you the canonized Scripture, specifically, Proverbs 28:1.

“The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.”