Your Sacrifice Wasn t in Vain

Your Sacrifice Wasn t in Vain
Vol: 33 Issue: 28 Monday, June 28, 2004

As of 2:36 AM, June 28, the Coalition Provisional Authority ceased to exist. At that moment, Iraq became a sovereign nation, two days ahead of schedule, and without prior warning. News reporters were told they were being summoned to a background address to be given by CPA head L. Paul Bremer.

But instead, they were witness to the birth of what might possibly become the only free nation in the Middle East, apart from Israel.

The early handover didn t just blindside the reporters the terrorists were also caught flat-footed. They had big plans for the Coalition in the days leading up to the handover of power.

Just before they were ready to execute those plans, the Coalition vanished into thin air! Now the only target they have left is a sovereign Iraqi, Muslim government.

It was a brilliant stroke; in a moment of time, the Iraqi insurgency had all legitimacy stripped away. Foreign fighters now in Iraq are infidels fighting against a Muslim Arab government. The occupation ended — but according to Iraq s timetable a defeat for the terrorists.

This is a historic day,” said Iraqi president Ghazi Yawar. “We want a free, democratic Iraq that will be a source of peace and stability for the region and the whole world. We would like to express our thanks to our friends in the Coalition for the efforts and dedication they have spent.”

The president added: “We want to tell them all their sacrifices will not go in vain. We are determined, we are committed, there is no way to turn back.”


It was an astonishing moment. Hearing Iraqi officials refer to Islamic terrorists inside their country as infidels and Americans as friends think of it!

I received an email over the weekend from someone babbling about ‘Bush s immoral war against Iraq. As I was reading it this morning, it occurred to me how transparently absurd that suddenly sounds. While it may have resonated with my correspondent two days ago, it makes no sense at all, now.

Don t miss how significant an act this truly is. On Sunday, terrorists released a tape of a US Marine they kidnapped. The terrorists issued the usual threats and demands; release all Iraqi prisoners or they will behead their captive , etc., etc.

But this Marine is special — for all the wrong reasons — from the terrorist s point of view. To start with, they snatched Marine Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, an American Muslim of Lebanese descent.

The Arab world was treated to the image of a fellow Muslim, blindfolded and threatened with decapitation, while simultaneously hearing that the reason for his kidnapping in the first place is suddenly irrelevant.

There is no Coalition Provisional Authority to threaten. The CPA is now powerless to meet their demands. The Iraqi government is sovereign.

If they kill that Marine now, they aren t killing a symbol of American expansionism, occupation, oil greed, blah, blah, blah.

They don t even have the standard jihadist justification that they are killing an enemy of Islam.

It will expose them as the mad dog murderers they are.


Things are still chaotic, but we are getting there. Thanks for your continued prayers. Please add that young Marine captive to your prayer list. God bless you. And God bless America.

Fact or Fiction?

Fact or Fiction?
Vol: 33 Issue: 27 Sunday, June 27, 2004

Being temporarily internet challenged until we can move into our house, I ve had little material to work from other than the talking heads on TV.

Good heavens! (And more Americans get their news from ABC than any other source.)

I listened to one hour s worth with a notepad at my side. I just jotted down the allegations and compared them to just a few of the known, indisputable, provable facts.

Allegation: There is no evidence of pre-9/11 collaboration between Saddam Hussein s government and Osama bin-Laden.

Fact: New documents signed by Uday Hussein prove that there was a direct, collaborative effort to conduct joint terrorist attacks between Iraq and bin-Laden s group that were, in the words of the Iraqi intelligence document, initiated by our (Iraq s) side.

Allegation: The White House ginned up evidence to support a case for war.

Fact: There is clear evidence that until America actually got boots on the ground, that EVERYBODY, from the French to the conveniently amnesiac Al Gore, ALSO expected to find WMD.

Allegation: Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction because he destroyed them all during the weapons inspection s regime.

Fact: There exists the possibility that those weapons may yet turn up either buried in Iraq, or transferred to neighboring Syria or Lebanon. At best, all we know now is that we can’t find them.

Fact: Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on numerous occasions in the past.

Fact: In order to use weapons, one must first HAVE them.

Allegation: The Bush administration did not have Congressional authorization for invading Saddam Hussein s Iraq.

Fact: Congress authorized the White House in September 2001, to make war on any country that collaborated with al-Qaeda.

Allegation: The Bush administration used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to remove Saddam at the expense of the war against al-Qaeda.

Fact: America made war on Afghanistan in October, 2001. Documents found there linked al-Qaeda and Taliban to Saddam Hussein.

Fact: America did not go to war against Saddam Hussein until 2003, and after those linkages discovered in Afghanistan had been investigated.

Allegation: The United States acted unilaterally in invading Saddam s Iraq.

Fact: The United States headed a larger coalition of nations when we went into Iraq in 2003 than his father put together in 1991.

Allegation: The United States ignored the United Nations, and in so doing, defied world opinion.

Fact: The Oil-for-Food investigation has already established that UN officials, French officials, German officials and Russian officials were being paid off by Saddam Hussein.

Allegation: The United States was only interested in stealing control of Iraq s rich oil fields.

Fact: The first thing the United States restored to Iraqi sovereign control was Iraq s oil industry.

Is there an alternate universe? If not, somebody is lying. Check the facts. Maybe I’m the liar. Or confused? Or uniformed? You tell me.

Things that are different are not the same.

Note from Jack:

It appears we will be able to take possession of our home sometime tomorrow. I have an appointment scheduled for Wednesday to install broadband, and the phone goes live on Thursday.

In the meanwhile, a friend of mine told me he has broadband wireless so I can come over and sit on his deck in the mornings and work until everything is finally set up. God bless you all for your prayers. And God bless America.

Night and Day

Night and Day
Vol: 33 Issue: 25 Friday, June 25, 2004

For most of the past two years, Gayle and I have alternated our time between our home in Canada and our new community in North Carolina. When in Canada, one of the things I really missed was the Fox News Channel.

While some of the talking heads programs get annoying when they turn into shouting matches, it is always refreshing to hear a different point of view. Canadians aren t permitted to hear such viewpoints.

In Canada, there are two choices for news and information. One can get those views approved by the Canadian government, or one can pirate a satellite signal from the United States.

The CRTC (Canada s FCC) will not allow Fox News to broadcast on Canadian cable systems, meaning the only point of view permitted Canadians is the general anti-American international press, and the equally anti-American CNN.

I recall some years back writing a series of reports for This Week in Bible Prophecy about some of the new restrictions then being imposed by the Canadian government concerning what one was allowed to say.

In Canada, the government-sponsored Vision TV is what passes for a religious broadcasting network. There is no Christian network. This Week in Bible Prophecy used to come on just before a program sponsored by the Wiccans.

A program we had written had offended the Wiccans and Jerry Landau, the network s censor, was all over me about it. Two weeks later, he called to threaten us with suspending our program because we had offended a gay rights group.

Eventually, we were put on probation and scripts had to be pre-approved by the network censors before taping. The year was 1994.

I speculated then that an information wall was being drawn along the US-Canadian border which would eventually give the government control of everything Canadians saw or heard.

In 1994, US-Canadian relations were warm and personal. Today, they are at their lowest point in living memory.

I don’t think it is a coincidence. . .


Not once since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq did I hear a report of anything positive being done by US forces on the ground in any news report broadcast to Canadians.

Most of you know just how ‘pro-America’ CNN s reporting is. And to Canadians, because CNN is allegedly a US-owned news organization, it defines what America really is all about.

I say all that to say this: I KNOW better. I am better informed about what makes America tick that most Canadians, having spent the majority of my adult life living in the United States.

I ve served alongside Americans as one of them. I ve lived with them in their communities, laughed with them, cried with them – I still can t hear the Star Spangled Banner without choking back a tear.

Knowing all that, after being bombarded for the previous couple of months with only CNN and other Canadian government-approved sources of information, I was shocked to find how much it had colored my own view. And, as I said, I KNOW better.

The power of the subliminal suggestions built in to the propaganda disguised as news became more real to me than it had ever been before. The difference between the information being fed to Canadians and that available to Americans are mirror opposites.

Two versions of everything, as different as night and day — but only one version gets a hearing north of the border.

It started to get to me . . . were we really in Iraq because of some secret, unnamed conspiracy between the neo-cons (translation: that s how you say Bush administration in Canadian) and big Oil? Were American boys streaming across the border into Canada in droves to escape the military, as CNN reported (and Canadian media trumpeted) recently?

Could it really be true that the 9/11 Commission found that there was ZERO connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam? (I thought that issue had been put to rest at least a dozen times over via documented evidence discovered in post Saddam ministry files.

Four weeks of Canada s federally-approved news broadcasts soon had me wondering . . . about that, about how John Kerry could be winning all the election polls, about how Bush ruined an economy that is simultaneously outperforming all the forecasts, or whether America is really losing in Iraq.

It was a great relief to get back home to America and find out it remains as I left it.

The land of the free, and the home of the brave. (Heavy emphasis on the land of the free part.)

God bless America!


To the degree possible, I hope to resume some semblance of regular publication by Monday morning. The publication schedule timing will probably be pretty chaotic for a week or so, while we are settling in to our new home.

I won t be fully online until late Wednesday June 30, but I should at least be able to manage dialup once we have our own landline hooked up. Until then, I am pretty much at the mercy of the broadcast media for information. Making me as blind as anybody else.

Thank God it s temporary.

Tidings From Persia . . .

Tidings From Persia . . .
Vol: 33 Issue: 16 Wednesday, June 16, 2004

Iran threatened on Wednesday to resume uranium enrichment if the International Atomic Energy Agency approves a draft resolution rebuking it for interfering with and stonewalling UN inspectors.

“I am not saying we will do something particular, but if this resolution passes, Iran will have no moral commitment to suspend uranium enrichment,” the allegedly ‘moderate’ President Mohammad Khatami told reporters after a cabinet meeting.

Britain, France and Germany drafted a resolution that “deplores” Iran’s poor cooperation with U.N. inspectors, and the IAEA board of governors are discussing it in Vienna this week.

According to US Ambassador Kenneth Brill, “What we’re seeing here is a full court press of intimidation by the government of Iran and its delegation here.”

Even the European Union is pressuring Tehran. According to an IAEA spokesman, “Despite the threats from Iran, the Europeans are standing firm. This is typical brinkmanship on the part of Iran.”

Startling brinksmanship, really, more on the order of the Stalinist North Koreans who, unlike Iran, don’t have much left to lose by playing nuclear roulette.

The speaker of the Iranian parliament yesterday warned that members may not ratify Iran’s signature to an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — something insisted on by the IAEA after it discovered that Tehran was attempting to develop atomic weapons in violation of its obligations as a signer of the NPT.

The speaker, Gholam Ali Hadad-Adel, suggested that by pressing Iran to tell the truth, the Europeans were doing the bidding of evil “Zionists.”

Late last month, the head of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards warned that the regime was prepared to launch suicide attacks or missile strikes against “29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West.”

According to a Washington Times editorial, Iran may win the stare-down contest; “Unfortunately, there is little evidence thus far that either the United States or the EU 3 will move decisively to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. While Britain and France seem to be inching toward a somewhat tougher approach, they have shown little interest in putting any kind of a deadline on Tehran.

While Washington has done a commendable job of articulating the problem that would be posed by nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue governments like the one in Iran, it has shown little stomach for confronting the regime anytime this year. While the West delays taking action, congressional investigators reported yesterday that Beijing is sending nuclear technology to Iran in exchange for oil.”

The Washington Times editorial was refreshingly candid about the true state of affairs, unlike the New York Times, whose focus continues to be on the administration’s handling of Iraq.

Today’s New York Times didn’t even mention Iran, whereas the Washington Times ediorial reads like a countdown to Armageddon. . .

“It is looking more and more like 2005 will be the critical year when the West will decide whether it is prepared to live with an Iranian atomic bomb, or take decisive action to prevent one from being developed. We understand that the United States and Europe are exhausted by Iraq, but we don’t have the luxury of being exhausted.

The truth is that the world will become a much more dangerous place if Iran — ruled by a violent, paranoid cabal that routinely employs terrorism as an instrument of state policy — is allowed to acquire a nuclear capacity. That would be intolerable.”


Although the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program has even awakened the sleeping Europeans, Moscow promised on Tuesday to maintain its nuclear cooperation with Iran.

A representative of Russia’s federal nuclear agency said Moscow would continue building the Bushehr nuclear reactor despite IAEA opposition.

“The criticism of IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei in his report on Iran does not in any way concern the Russian project of constructing the Bushehr nuclear power station,” the Interfax news agency reported.

In a revisionist statement worthy of the old Soviet propaganda machine, Russia simply rewrote the situation to suit its position.

“[The] IAEA does not now and has never had any concerns with Bushehr. Therefore there is no basis for worries about Russia possibly ending its participating in this project,” Interfax reported.

While Russia and Iran cozy up, Iran is massing troops along its shared border with Iraq. The Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat quoted “reliable Iraqi sources” as saying, “Iran moved part of its regular military forces towards the Iraqi border in the southern sector at a time its military intelligence agents were operating inside Iraqi territory.”

This isn’t a ‘countdown to Aramageddon’ in any real sense, but the situation continues to mirror Ezekiel’s description of what he calls the Gog-Magog War.

In Ezekiel Chapter 36, the prophet describes the restoration of the ancient nation of Israel on her ancient homeland in the last days.

In the next chapter, Ezekiel describes what will befall the restored Israeli nation at the hands of an alliance headed by “Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.”

Scholars identify Gog as the Russian Federation, with Moscow being directly north of Jerusalem. Gog, Magog, Meschech and Tubal are the sons and grandsons of Noah who settled in the Russian steppes.

The Russian Gog heads an alliance including “Persia, [Iran] Ethiopia, and Libya [Islamic North Africa]. . . Gomer, [Eastern Europe, eg. Muslim Yugoslavia, etc.] and ‘all his bands’; the house of Togarmah [Turkey] of the north quarters, and ‘all his bands'” (Ezekiel 38:5-6)

Note the alignment of those nations today. Despite Moscow’s war against Islamic Chechen separatists, Moscow has managed to maintain a cozy relationship with even the most rabid Islamic states, like that of Iran [Persia] and even Saddam Hussein.

To the Islamic world, the myth that the ‘Zionists’ control US policy is accepted as a matter of religious doctrine. The Soviets quietly cultivated that myth for decades as part of its Cold War strategy.

The Russians have capitalized on it ever since. Most of the Islamic Middle East was armed by the Russians and there are Russian weapons ‘advisors’ and technical advisors in every Islamic country in the region.

Ezekiel predicts of the Gog Magog Alliance; “in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them. . . And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of UNWALLED villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates.” (38:10-11)

It is fascinating to note that Israel is building a security ‘wall’ around its perimeter, reverting to the most ancient of border defenses — in an age of laser beams and deathrays.

Any peace settlement will undoubtedly address that wall, making Israel of the 21st century a ‘land of unwalled villages’.

Ezekiel promises that the godless Russians will meet God in a personal way when they arrrive on the mountains of Israel’s West Bank:

“And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.”

That is the outline as given for a single generation, somewhere in time, as recorded more than two thousand five hundred years ago.

That outline began to take shape with the Cold War, which coincided with the 1948 Berlin Airlift, the 1948 establishment of the embrionic European alliance that became the EU, and the establishment of the State of Israel.

Today, a nuclear Russia is the patron of most of the Islamic states of the Middle East, Iran [Persia] is massing troops along Iraq’s borders while Russia is defying the global community to help build a nuclear Iran.

“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)

Supremes Hand God a Pyrrhic Victory

Supremes Hand God a Pyrrhic Victory
Vol: 33 Issue: 15 Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Supremes Hand God a Pyrrhic Victory

California atheist Michael Newdow had his case against God thrown out by the United States Supreme Court. But it was a best a Pyrrhic victory (one not worth winning) for the Constitutionality of God, since the case was never decided on its merits, but was instead thrown out on a technicality.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to hear Newdow’s case in the first place. Newdow and Sandra Banning (never married) had a child together. Then Banning became a Christian and the relationship ended.

Banning was awarded custody of their child. From his public statements and court records, it is pretty obvious that it was this custody issue that was really behind Newdow’s lawsuit to have the Pledge amended to remove references to God.

Newdow claimed that such references were ‘poisoning his daughter’s mind’ and, incredibly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. I say ‘incredibly’ because the child in question was being raised a Christian.

It isn’t like the kid was a Muslim, or an atheist or a Buddhist or something. Logic would dictate that she hears a lot more about God at home and in church than the single, generic, reference to God in the Pledge.

So the ‘poisoning her mind’ argument is so transparently obvious that it boggles the mind. But the 9th Circuit Court heard the case anyway. Let’s summarize the case as those justices understood it.

Michael Newdow is the child’s biological father. The child’s mother has full custody. According to the custody order, Banning has the final say over their daughter’s education. Banning filed a brief with the court saying she was being educated according to her wishes and that she wanted her daughter to recite the Pledge without amendment. Banning teaches her daughter every day that America is a nation under God.

Newdow claims that the reference to God was forcing religion on his biological daughter, over whom he admitted he had no custodial standing. Newdow admitted that his daughter was being raised by a Christian as a Christian, in accordance with the custody order.

Knowing that Newdow had no legal standing to bring the lawsuit, having heard that the child was being raised in accordance with the custody order, and hearing that the child was a Christian, the 9th Circuit Court not only heard the case, but decided in favor of Newdow.

The effect of the 9th Circuit’s decision was to make it illegal to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its district, which covers most of the Western United States.

So, when the case reached the Supreme Court, they threw it out because it never should have been heard in the first place.


A US Newswire release describes the Supreme Court’s decision as, “Supreme Court Upholds ‘Under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance”.

The New York Daily News’ headline hopefully proclaimed, “The Pledge is Safe”.

The San Francisco Chronicle came the closest to getting it right in its headline; “High Court Rules Dad Can’t Sue — Under God Stays”.

Despite all the cheering, there really is no victory to be found here. The Supreme Court didn’t hear the case, so that means that the issue is still unresolved.

While Newdow’s own case is dead, Newdow told CNN yesterday, “There’s no problem in bringing the case right back. I have numerous people who have expressed a willingness to be plaintiffs, so it’s just going to go right back.”

To get it right, the Chronicle’s headline should have read “High Court Rules Dad Can’t Sue” and then left it at that. This is a much wider issue than kids pledging allegiance. You’d think somebody would comment on THAT.

The United States Constitution makes America a Constitutional Republic. What that means is that certain inalienable rights are endowed by the Creator and not the government.

And what the Creator has given, the government cannot take away. That is the most basic American fundamental. It was deliberately thought out as a measure to limit the government’s authority.

The Constitutional guarantees formed the basis for Newdow’s challenge in the first place. One of those ‘unalienable rights’ is the right to seek justice. So, under the Constitution, Newdow challenged the existence of God, which brought him to the steps of the Supreme Court, who refused to hear it.

Had the Court heard this case, they would have been ruling specifically on the Constitutionality of God. Not on the Constitutionality of Christianity, or Judaism, but on whether or not it is Constitutional to acknowledge America a nation under God.

What if Newdow HAD been heard, and worse, what if he had won? If it is ruled unconstitutional to acknowledge God as the Author of our liberties, then our liberties HAVE no Author, and the Constitution itself is vulnerable to legal challenge.

One can’t very well have a Constitution that guarantees basic individual liberty based on the authority granted by a legally-defined myth, can one?

God is not merely a part of American life, He is its Guarantor — the Constitution crumbles without His Hand on it. Remove the Guarantor, and who is left to guarantee? The government?

That’s EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers constructed the Constitution under the Authority of God. To keep our freedoms outside the review of government.

To this point, the courts have whittled God down to where it is a crime to identify Him via the Bible, but it is not yet a crime to acknowledge His protection over America.

The President closes almost every speech with ‘God bless America’ — the Supreme Court itself opens its sessions with the invocation, “God save this honorable Court and God Bless the United States”.

But should Newdow and his gang be successful in having God declared unconstitutional and that ‘pledging one nation under God’ is illegal, it is only a matter of time before somebody challenges the Constitutionality of the Constitution itself.

The Bible makes no mention of America in Bible prophecy. Maybe because without God, there’s no America to mention.

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Romans 1:28,32)

“Then You MIGHT be the Antichrist. . .”

“Then You MIGHT be the Antichrist. . .”
Vol: 33 Issue: 14 Monday, June 14, 2004

“Then You MIGHT be the Antichrist. . .”

It seems that everywhere one turns, one finds somebody who has diligently searched the Scriptures for clues to the identity of the antichrist, and claim that they have finally discovered it.

It reminds me of the Jeff Foxworthy “you might be a redneck’ skits. “If your name adds up to 666 and you are a liberal, you might be the antichrist. . .”

One such theory is presented in “The Antichrist and a Cup of Tea” in which Charles, Prince of Wales, is the antichrist. Consider the following offerings concerning Prince Charles:

His name calculates to 666 in both English and Hebrew; the symbols in his heraldic achievement or coat of arms are identical to those of the “first beast” of Revelation 13.

He claims descent from David, Jesus, and Mohammed, he wants to be the King of Europe; he heads the United World Colleges; he steers the environmental ethics and business agendas of over 100 of the world’s largest multinational corporations; he is credited for the success of the Rio Earth Summit and thus the Kyoto Protoco. . . Need I go on?

Clearly, Prince Charles of England might be the antichrist.

The late Charles Taylor proposed King Juan Carlos of Spain as an ideal candidate. King Juan Carlos has versions of his name in 10 languages, each using the same numbering system (except for Latin, which uses the Roman numeral system), which each add to 666.

King Juan Carlos is hereditary heir to the title, “King of Jerusalem”. King Juan Carlos has a sailboat named “The Dragon.” Spain is heavily involved in the Middle East peace process; (The Madrid Accords) and Javier Solana, a Spaniard, headed NATO.

With all King Juan Carlo’s credentials, he might be the antichrist.

Then there is Mikhail Gorbachev. He has a ‘mark’ on his forehead. He fell from power, and now wants to be elected Secretary-General of the United Nations, thereby healing his ‘deadly’ political wound. Gorbachev’s ‘Perestroika’ and ‘glasnost’ were fulfillments of Daniel’s prediction, ‘by peace, he shall destroy many.’

If you own Microsoft, you might be the antichrist, too. Bill Gates name can be added up using ASCII numbers to reach 666. He controls all the world’s software. (This one is a bit vague, but hey, Bill Gates as the antichrist plays well around software developers — or anybody whose Windows crashed as he was completing a deadline. I kinda like him for it)

Then there are the endless theories; must he be a Jew?; (hey, what about Cardinal Lustinger?); could he be from the Middle East?; What about a terrorist like Osama bin-Laden?; could the religion of the antichrist be Islam?; Now, let’s see, how well does Islam fit Daniel’s 11:34?

If you’re an Islamic terrorist whose name adds up to 666 and you want to rule the world, well, you just MIGHT be the antichrist.


The Scriptures identify five different crowns that believers can earn. Some are more expensive than others, (the martyr’s crown leaps to mind) but the relevant crown reward in this instance is the ‘crown of righteousness’ promised in 2nd Timothy 4:8

“Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, BUT UNTO ALL them also that love His appearing.”

Personally, THAT is the crown I am shooting for. My passion for understanding Bible prophecy is driven by my love for His appearing. That is to say, I believe that this is the generation of His appearing, and I am awestruck at the prospect that I have been blessed to live in this generation.

I want to use the study of Bible prophecy, and the understanding it yields, to teach others how to love His appearing and to anticipate it — without fearing its hallmarks, like earthquakes and famines and wars.

Those signs, given unto this generation to the exclusion of all others, prove that God remains on the throne and intimately concerned with the affairs of men. What’s not to love?

Among those signs is the revival of the old Roman Empire in advance of the antichrist’s appearance on the world scene. And the development of the various tools that the antichrist will use on his rise to power.

The centralized propaganda machine represented by the media. The ever-centralizing global economy. The cry for global government. The global willingness to place themselves in subservience to such a government.

The world’s sudden preoccupation with religion, and particularly with religious fundamentalism, setting the stage for some future, all inclusive, global religion of the antichrist and false prophet.

But I am not looking for signs of the antichrist. Let me scandalize you for a second;

When it comes to the antichrist, I plead both ignorance and apathy. That is to say, as far as who he might be, I don’t know. And I don’t care.

A lot of prophecy teachers claim that they know. Many others scour the Scriptures, seeking clues to his identity. They miss the point.

The central message of Bible prophecy to the Christian on this side of the Rapture is to know when His coming ‘is near, even at the door’ — not the antichrist’s. Trying to identify the antichrist is, to the Christian in the Church Age, an exercise in futility. We’ll never know if we guess right anyway.

It does sell books, but it does so by sensationalizing something that is of no consequence to the Church. The coming of the antichrist is the evidence, not the substance, of the Blessed Hope of the Church Age. Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are spectacular enough on the surface.

The Bible promises a crown of righteousness for those who love His coming. Not for watching for His enemy. Looking for the antichrist misdirects the focus away from the Lord’s return — an event that must occur first.

That is the mid trib and post trib rapture views’ fatal flaw. Their proponents are looking for signs of the antichrist, and expect Christ later. But the Crown of Righteousness is for waiting for HIS appearing, not the antichrist’s.

The two are inconsistent positions. Indeed, they are more consistent with the Jewish view of the Messiah showing up at the end.

They put their faith in signs, like the antichrist, and expect Christ to come later, looking for (and fearing) the rise of antichrist, instead of looking for the coming of Christ for His Church.

And that is, after all, the mechanism the Scripture says the antichrist uses to fool the world. They are looking for the wrong Messiah.

It is important to understand the difference. Knowing that the antichrist is waiting in the wings is a sure sign of the soon coming of the Lord for His Church.

On the other hand, knowing for sure WHO the antichrist IS — well, that’s an even surer sign you missed it when it happened.

The UN Said WHAT?

The UN Said WHAT?
Vol: 33 Issue: 13 Sunday, June 13, 2004

Wouldn’t it be nice if, after all the global abuse being heaped on the United States for going to war against Saddam Hussein over WMD could be silenced by a UN finding that the WMD’s were there, after all?

Wouldn’t it be great if it turned out that nobody could accuse the leaders of the United States of lying to the world in order to start an unnecessary war?

Imagine how great it would be to read retractions and corrections in the New York Times, BBC World Service, International Herald Tribune, etc., should a UN panel find those weapons actually existed, and simply haven’t been found.

Not to mention the world leaders, like Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, Vladimir Putin and the rest, who joined the “Bush Lied” chorus to cover up their own dirty deals with Saddam. Wouldn’t it be great to see them eat a little crow? (Sigh)

I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but I, personally, would have been absolutely thrilled to have discovered that Bill Clinton didn’t really lie.

I had no use for him as a politician, but when he was proved a liar, the whole country’s image suffered as a result. I would much have rathered to learn it was a mistake.

So, too, one would imagine, President Bush’s domestic political opponents must also prefer to believe he was telling the truth, since proving he was would improve America’s image abroad.

If they are truly honest themselves, they would not want to be part of maintaining a fiction that paints all America with the same brush of dishonesty.

Even putting patriotism aside, the perception that America is led by liars and cheats is not particularly flattering. We learned that in the last administration.

After all that, one would think the “L” word would be the last word Americans of either political persuasion would want attached to their president.


The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings Sunday that say Saddam DID have weapons of mass destruction, right up to 2003. What’s that you say? You didn’t know that?

Let’s see what else isn’t in today’s papers. The New York Times didn’t report that UNMOVIC’s briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war.

Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared. The Los Angeles Times didn’t think this was important enough to cover, either.

UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destinations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads.

“It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for,” Ewen Buchanan, an UNMOVIC spokesman, said. “You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax.”

The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, still tagged by UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles.

UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey.

I ran the search terms, UNMOVIC, WMD and Saddam through the Google news search engine. There were three stories dealing with the UNMOVIC report; the World Tribune, Free Republic, and one from a parody site. All the rest of the stories were about the fact that nobody has found them yet.

As I said at the outset, wouldn’t it be nice if the UN agreed with Washington’s stated case for war? Wouldn’t it be great if all those folks who ran down the administration and the country were forced to admit that America was not fighting an unjustified war?

Imagine how it would play for America’s image if every paper in the country carried the headline: “UNMOVIC Says Saddam Had, Hid WMD”.

But the lie that America invented justification for war is so deeply ingrained in the global psyche that nobody is interested in evidence.

UNMOVIC has had a year to investigate without interference from Saddam and his goons, and they concluded the weapons were there until the outbreak of war.

After a year’s investigation, their conclusion is exactly the same one reached by the Bush administration on the eve of war — Saddam was manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

We can’t find them, because the global opposition at the beginning of the war gave Saddam time to hide or export them all.

That’s the conclusion reached by UNMOVIC — so why haven’t we heard it from CNN or Peter Jennings?

Because they don’t want to believe its true. They prefer to believe the lie, because believing the lie advances their own agenda, whereas accepting the conclusions of UNMOVIC means explaining how they could give their own country a black eye in order to ‘get’ the president.

I mentioned the Google search. There were three stories about UNMOVIC, as I said. But the remainder of the news stories retrieved continued to make the case against the Bush administration for lying about Iraq’s WMD program.

Years ago, I used to wonder about the ‘strong delusion’ that 2nd Thessalonians 2:11 says will come upon the earth after the Rapture.

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

But Paul explains the reason they are so willing to believe a lie in the next verse. Consider the spiked UNMOVIC report as you re-examine verse 12 with new eyes”

“That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had PLEASURE IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.”

In this generation, what is true isn’t necessary what is factual. In this generation, truth is truth only if it is popular.

“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)

The Conservative Laodicean

The Conservative Laodicean
Vol: 33 Issue: 12 Saturday, June 12, 2004

President Reagan’s passing has brought his conservative ideology and its effect on American society out of the closet as even CNN struggled to praise President Reagan without praising the ideology he championed.

We often discuss liberals and conservatives in the Omega Letter, and how they interact, and even how the two philosophies dovetail with Scripture in the last days.

But defining a ‘conservative’ is a little like trying to describe the color red to a blind man. At best, all you can do is describe it technically; red is one of the prime colors, etc. You have to see red to know what it really IS.

So some of this background information might seem a bit dull. I apologize. It is necessary to the ultimate point.

To begin with, a conservative worldview is defined more by what it isn’t than what it is. In the broadest possible definition, it means supporting things as they currently are, and being somewhat skeptical of change.

Social conservatism is a social doctrine first clearly articulated by the Irish thinker, Edmund Burke. Burke wrote at a time when European thinkers were beginning to develop the ideology of modernism.

‘Modernism’ as an ideology, emphasizes progress guided by reason. That isn’t to say that conservatives oppose progress, or reject reason.

Instead, conservatives believe that human reason alone is incapable of ensuring a good society, and believe in the necessity of humility when confronting the unknowable.

One way to describe a conservative would be one who puts his emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated.

To a conservative, existing institutions, like religion, have virtues that cannot be fully grasped by any single person or interest group.

There are Jewish conservatives, Christian conservatives, even agnostic conservatives, but all recognize the importance of faith to the social fabric of human society.

Conservatives fear efforts driven by reason alone to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society for the sake of some unproved doctrine or theory. The risks posed by the law of unintended consequences looms large in the conservative worldview.

In broad strokes, then, a conservative embraces an attitude that is deeply suspicious of any attempt to remake society in the service of any ideology. Human freedom is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster.

Social conservatives emphasize traditional views of institutions such as the family and the church. For example, social conservatives would typically define family in terms of formal marriage and kinship, and would oppose innovations in the institution of marriage.

They are less likely than others to consider unmarried heterosexual couples, even those with children, as families. Social conservatives see gay marriage as one of those examples of how tinkering with the institution of marriage can invite the law of unintended consequences.

Religious social conservatives tend to reject any reinterpretation or modification of what they see as traditional beliefs in areas of morality and biblical scholarship.

Conservatives also tend to respect other traditional institutions, like the military and traditional government.

Most people on the political left tend to view ‘right wing’ and ‘conservative’ as interchangeable terms. Conservatives would find little in common with what actually are ‘right wing’ objectives, like establishing a single religion, even Christianity, as the state religion of the United States.

Finally, the major political difference between a conservative worldview and a liberal one is how each views the source of the government’s authority to govern.

To a liberal, the authority to govern is derived from the people themselves. A liberal worldview has no room for political absolutes; the majority rules. If the majority approves of gay marriage, then, to the liberal, gay marriage is moral. If the majority approves of abortion, then killing the unborn in the womb is a ‘right’.

If the majority voted to legalize prostitution, recreational drug use and lowering the sexual age of consent to 12 years old, then liberal ideology says these things would become morally acceptable.

To a conservative, authority to govern is derived from the Almighty. If the majority voted to legalize something prohibited by the Ten Commandments, it would not be moral, and engaging in the prohibited practice would be wrong, even if it were legal.

Politically, the differences between the two worldviews mirror the differences between a Constitutional Republic and a pure democracy. A pure democracy could legalize murder with a majority vote, whereas a Constitutional Republic could not.

Now, we’ll try and pull everything together. Be patient with me. There’s a lot to cover.


In His appearance to John at Patmos, Jesus dictated seven letters to the seven churches of Asia. Each of the letters corresponded to one of seven church epochs, or ages.

Jesus outlined the leading characteristics in the life of the church at different periods in history, from John’s day to the Last Days.

There is Ephesus, bold in resolute endurance, discerning, intolerant of departures from the faith — this was the Apostolic Age.

There is Smyrna, battling nobly with tribulation and danger in the midst of poverty and suffering rich in faith and good works. The Age of the Martyrs.

There is Pergamos, married to the world. This church epoch began with the Emperor Constantine declaring Christianity to be the State Church of Rome.

The Church at Thyatira was condemned for its continual sacrifice and the introduction of new doctrines during the Dark Ages. (Purgatory, indulgences, and the Inquisition).

Sardis was the ‘dead church’ as it had become by the time of the Reformation. The period from the Reformation in the 15th century to the end of the 19th century, was the epoch of the Church of Philadelphia.

This was the ‘missionary church’ that took the Bible to the New World, to darkest Africa, to China and the far corners of the earth.

The end of the Philadelphia Church Age coincided with the ‘Enlightenment’ in Europe, brought about by ‘modernist’ thinking near the end of the 19th century.

From Philadelphia to Laodicea, distinguished for its worldly riches, its high-toned profession and spiritual pride; yet lowest in the scale and standard of all, neither cold nor hot a religion of boasting words, but devoid of moral strength “poor, blind, and naked.”

Partly conservative, partly liberal, completely lukewarm. Still with me?

The Church of Laodicea is the last church epoch in human history. Unlike all the others, Jesus has NO words of commendation to offer it.

Instead, He says it is lukewarm, sickening, “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:14)

Jesus’ counsel to the last-days church at Laodicea continues through to the end of Chapter 3, concluding with this cryptic comment; “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” (3:22)

So, we sharpen our ears and listen. There is a message from the Holy Spirit to each of the Churches. What does the Spirit have to say to the Laodicean age?

Jesus described — in detail — the characteristics of each church epoch. And He did it so clearly that we can look back through history and map them in reverse.

As we stand in our place in the timeline of history, we can look around us and easily identify this epoch as corresponding in every respect to that of the Laodicean epoch.

Here is where it all comes together; note the very next verses — (Revelation 4:1-2)

“After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither . . . (whereupon John says he was translated) “And immediately I was in the Spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.”

Are you still with me? Chapter Four begins the Tribulation Period, with its judgments, from the perspective of heaven. From that point forward, there is no mention of an earthly church, despite the preceding three chapters being devoted to no other subject.

So, where is the earthly Church from Chapter Four to Chapter 22 of Revelation? Compare John’s description to that of the Apostle Paul:

“For this we say unto you BY THE WORD OF THE LORD, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (John’s immediate translation into the Spirit)

“Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH THE LORD.” (1st Thessalonians 4:15-17) (John’s ‘catching up’ into heaven)

“Come up hither . . . immediately I was in the Spirit . . . a throne was set in heaven. . .”

Paul described it from one perspective, John from another, but both were describing the same event; the conclusion of the Church Age with the Rapture, followed by the Tribulation.

We are well into the Laodicean Church Age — and the Bible gives no indication of any church epoch to follow. We ARE the generation that will see the return of Christ.

But at some point before the Tribulation Period kicks off, we, who are alive and remain, will first hear, ‘Come up hither!”

“Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:18)

Too Many Cooks in Gaza

Too Many Cooks in Gaza
Vol: 33 Issue: 11 Friday, June 11, 2004

It was a straightforward, uncomplicated, if controversial plan. Since Israel has nobody credible with which to negotiate peace, Ariel Sharon decided to deprive the terrorists of some targets in the Gaza Strip.

At the heart of the controversy in Israel over the Gaza Withdrawal Plan is that it appears to many to be a surrender to the terrorists. Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America, said that pulling out of Gaza is a sign that the “terrorists” have won.

“It seems to me that Sharon’s proposal to unilaterally give land to Palestinians and throw Jews out of their homes in fact reinforces Arafat’s terror campaign and shows (that) terrorist campaigns work,” said Klein.

“The only choice (is) to give land away for nothing?” he continued. “It seems to me if you have to make unilateral decisions because you have no partner … you don’t decide to give land to terrorist regime but take land back (to) send a message.”

One can’t dispute one thing. Israel IS giving something to the Palestinians and getting nothing in return. It is uprooting some 7,500 Jews living in Gaza, and has already begun encouraging Jews to leave.

It is Israel that will have to buy these cities back from their Jewish inhabitants, at fair market prices, only to turn them over, gratis, to their Palestinian enemies.

But it has some saving graces, Sharon argued. Sharon first announced his “disengagement” scheme last December. He issued a warning the Palestinian Authority that Israel would increasingly cut them out of the picture unless they began implementing signed peace agreements.

In March, Sharon announced that, by unilaterally creating facts on the ground in line with Israel’s needs, the “Palestinians” would realize there was a price to pay for their non-compliance.

The Palestinian Authority, using typical Middle Eastern logic, immediately condemned Israel’s Gaza withdrawal as a “land grab.” It complained that Sharon is trying to trade Gaza for effective annexation of large chunks of the West Bank.

In Washington, Sharon adviser Zalman Shoval said the houses at the settlements would be destroyed, but the public buildings would remain. He told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a private research group, that many Israelis did not want to see Palestinian flags flying from homes once occupied by Israeli Jews.

Shoval also called it a form of ‘Prozac’ for the displaced settlers. He said they would feel a “sort of visceral, emotional revulsion to see a Hamas or Palestinian flag” in the houses they left behind.

While accusing Israel of using the Gaza withdrawal to cover a “land grab” the Palestinians launched a little land grabbing campaign of their own.

Ziad Asali, President of America Task Force on Palestine, said that the destruction of houses in the evacuated settlements would be a “prescription of endless hatred on the other side.”

“I see something embryonic, very tentative that could be in the withdrawal,” he continued, but destroying houses is “no way to start anything on a positive note.”


Sharon’s Gaza Plan won support from Egypt, the Arab country with most leverage on the Palestinians. Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, hosted Israel’s foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, in their third meeting in the past six months.

Both men expressed support for a plan to increase Egypt’s security deployment along its border with Gaza, and to send Egyptian police into Gaza itself to help train their Palestinian counterparts.

Most importantly of all, Egypt is demanding that Yasser Arafat truly step down from power, and turn control of his security forces over the Palestinian Prime Minister. Arafat continues to stonewall, but he did send a vague letter to Mubarak to the effect he was ‘prepared to make security reforms’ — almost exactly what he told the Quartet two years ago.

Speaking of the Quartet, it appears that the Gaza Withdrawal Plan was going far too smoothly without their help, so they met to draft “an action plan” whereby they would bring the Palestinians in as full partners in the withdrawal.

The “Gaza Disengagement Action Plan” outlines several steps for the PA to take as Israel withdraws. Those steps take the imitative away from Israel, restore the failed ‘land for peace’ formula, and give the Palestinians an official say in Sharon’s unilateral imitative.

The Quartet’s ‘action plan’ turns the Gaza Withdrawal Plan from a unilateral disengagement into an Israeli surrender, just as its critics allege. It is attempting to introduce elements that will force Sharon to negotiate the withdrawal.

It would let the Palestinians negotiate to prevent Israel from destroying the settlements; so that they can appropriate property they neither built nor bought.

Ha’aretz reported that PLO chief Yasser Arafat is busy forming a three-man committee – consisting of himself, PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and Gaza “security” boss Mohammed Dahlan – to oversee Palestinian involvement in what the Quartet is turning into Israel’s retreat.

The Hypocritical Christian

The Hypocritical Christian
Vol: 33 Issue: 10 Thursday, June 10, 2004

One of the most common challenges one faces when witnessing about Jesus Christ is effectively responding to the question, “Why are Christians such hypocrites?” What makes it challenging is the fact the question is legitimate. Lots and lots of Christians ARE hypocrites.

Before you clobber me, let me rush to say, “Not all of them” (I think). But there are certainly enough for the charge to have legitimacy. And you can bet your skeptic will provide you with plenty of examples, just in case you can’t.

All any skeptic needs to do is turn on his television to see all the evidence he needs to convince himself that Christians have the corner on hypocrisy. Take the ‘seed faith’ doctrine of Oral Roberts, R. W. Shambach or John Avanzini.

This ‘doctrine’ proposes a spiritual LAW that says giving money to a ministry will cause God to return more money to the giver than the actual gift.

More than that, even. It teaches that if you don’t give money to a ministry, God has nothing to work with, but if you give Him money, He will send it back to you 100-fold. Kind of like a spiritual lottery ticket.

It is hard to tell which is the more hypocritical; those who use God to squeeze money out of people, or those who send in money for the purpose of getting more back.

To the skeptic, it is evidence that Christians are not only hypocrites, but also pretty stupid. . . In 1986 Oral Roberts claimed that God appeared to him and said the following;

“I want you to use the ORU medical school to put My medical presence in the earth. I want you to get this going in one year or I will call you home. It will cost $8 million and I want you to believe you can raise it.”

Pleading to his adherents that God would kill him if he didn’t raise the money; Oral Roberts received the $8 million dollars by April of 1987 and claimed he had $9.1 million, which was $1.1 million more than was needed.

John Avanzini teaches that Jesus Christ was a very rich man, who lived in a mansion, wore designer clothes and had a ministry that took in so much money that it had to have a financial manager, Judas Iscariot, which is why he carried the bag of money.

R. W. Shambach tells TBN viewers that they are guaranteed a 100-fold return for every dollar they contribute to TBN. The skeptic asks why Shambach isn’t throwing every dime he can into TBN himself, or why he isn’t a multi-billionaire if he has.

There are no end of examples of Christian examples of hypocrisy, and no end of folks to point them out. “You Christians are all a bunch of hypocrites! Why would I want to be like you?”

Christians instinctively understand both the question and the answer, but often can’t articulate it. The answer is actually pretty simple, as are most things of the Spirit, except for the skeptic. By definition, he cannot discern the things of the Spirit in the first place.

“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 Christian is not a perfect person, and never will be in this life, but wants to reflect the nature and work of Jesus Christ in his life. But, because of the weakness of human nature, the attainment of the goals is not always accomplished.

This is not hypocrisy, it is the sin nature common to all men, saved or unsaved. The world is well tuned to note hypocrisy; hypocrisy is a knowingly conducted act of deception.

Like pretending you are better than you really are, thereby diverting to yourself the Glory due Jesus for using you AS you are.

The skeptic looks for hypocrisy in others in order to justify his own failures, rationalizing his own actions by finding a perceived greater fault in others. That way, he can turn away from the discussion, comfortable in his unbelief.

But the Bible tells us to be “confident of this very thing, that He which hath BEGUN a good work in you WILL PERFORM IT, until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6)

That is to say, Jesus BEGAN a PROCESS at the point of salvation that He continues to perform until we stand before Him.

Christians are perfected in the SPIRIT at the moment of salvation, but, as Paul asked the Galatians, “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3)

The Christian understands the old adage that, ‘the only entrance requirement for Christianity is that you must first be a sinner.’

The answer to why Christians are such hypocrites because they are people, just like everyone else. The difference is that a Christian has recognized his failures and is being conformed and molded, by a continuing process, into a likeness of Jesus Christ.

But the skeptic holds the Christian to an impossible standard, comparing the Christian’s life to the Life of Jesus Christ.

While they themselves reject Him while asking, “Why CHRISTIANS are such hypocrites?”