UN Takes ‘Action’ Over Sudan

UN Takes ‘Action’ Over Sudan
Vol: 34 Issue: 31 Saturday, July 31, 2004

Over 100,000 people have been brutally murdered in recent months in the Darfur region of Sudan. At least 120,000 are living in tent camps, now being hammered by rains that turn the dust to mud. Diseases that thrive in the soggy ground continue, along with malnutrition, to drive the body count higher.

Many of the women refugees have been raped in a systematic campaign reminiscent of those employed by Bosnian Serbs to terrorize Muslims. The UN has yet to make a decisive move to characterize and prosecute wartime rape as a crime against humanity.

But the UN has yet to make a decisive move on anything. The last decisive thing the UN did was authorize the first Gulf War. Halfway through the war, they couldn’t decide whether to win or not, so instead, they left Saddam in power.

The UN couldn’t decide how to enforce its own resolutions, so instead, they punished the powerless Iraqi citizens with sanctions — but left the reason for the resolutions — Saddam Hussein — untouched for a dozen more years.

When Rwanda went up in flames in 1994, the UN couldn’t decide whether or not it was ‘genocide’ until after 800,000 ethnic Tutsi tribesmen had been hacked to pieces by the Hutu government.

The UN Security Council passed a resolution yesterday demanding that Sudan disarm marauding Arab militia and prosecutes its leaders or face ‘possible’ international economic sanctions.

The resolution requested UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to report in 30 days, and monthly thereafter, to it on Sudan’s compliance with the demands.

It “expresses its intention to consider further actions, including measures as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, on the government of Sudan, in the event of non-compliance.”

The Sudanese government swiftly rejected the resolution.


Although the UN decided to ‘express its intentions’ it couldn’t decide if they could call the murder of 100,000 black Africans by Sudanese Arabs ‘genocide’.

The reason they couldn’t decide if it was genocide is because a finding of genocide would require immediate UN action to put a stop to it.

Like they did in Rwanda. Once they ‘decided’ it was genocide, the world body put a stop to it. But not until after 800,000 men, women and children were brutally butchered.

Kofi Annan decided to call for a global moment of silence — ten years after he pulled UN troops from Rwanda to allow the bloodletting go unhindered.

“And let us,” he intoned, “by what we do in one single minute, send a message – a message of remorse for the past, resolve to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again – and let s make it resound for years to come.”

The UN Security Council’s threat of ‘economic sanctions’ against Sudan doesn’t pass the laugh test. Sudan’s only product is oil. (Heyyyy! What about an ‘Oil-For-Food’ program?)

The original resolution, submitted by the United States, called for an immediate finding of genocide, but was watered down at the insistence of the usual suspects, the Arab League, the Russians and the Europeans. Gives you a creepy ‘deja vu all over again’ kind of feeling, doesn’t it?

Unlike Rwanda, where the UN stood idly by for 100 days, the newly discovered Sudanese crisis has been raging unabated for decades.

The tragedy of Darfur is actually the second Sudanese genocide of our age. The first killed over two million African Christians and animists in southern Sudan.

In 1983, the Arab Sudanese imposed Islamic law on the entire country, including millions of Christians. Though that decree has since been tempered, it touched off the massive bloodshed whose aftermath the world is now witnessing.

Meanwhile, as the Sudanese government was spending its already limited resources fighting its own citizens, much of the country ended up in the throes of severe, African-style famine.

The resulting chaos — only a few hours’ flight south of Rome — resulted in the ongoing campaign that qualifies as the biggest mass murder anywhere since the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia during the late 1970s.

And it is NOT a civil war, but an openly declared Islamic jihad. A 1992 fatwa issued by a group of pro-Khartoum Sudanese imams declared:

“An insurgent who was previously a Muslim is now an apostate and a non-Muslim is a non-believer standing as a bulwark against the spread of Islam, and Islam has granted the freedom of killing both of them.”

This allowed for the murder of the Christians and animists in the south; now it has been turned against the Muslims of Darfur, whose Islam doesn’t measure up to Khartoum’s hard-line standards.

The blacks of Darfur and southern Sudan continue to be murdered and enslaved by Islamic Arab fundamentalists. The jihadists operate with impunity before a world that doesn’t dare give the name to the crime they are committing.

The UN has become an instrument of Islam — the Islamic states maintain an unbreakable solidarity. Global hesitancy to condemn Iraq for twelve years, for example, or the global support for Yasser Arafat’s terror state, as compared to the almost daily UN resolutions condemning Israel for something.

The UN is so completely under the thumb of the Islamic voting bloc that the only reason Israel still exists is because of the US veto. (Most anti-Israeli resolutions are unanimous, except for the votes of the United States, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia.)

Kofi Annan’s ‘moment of silence’ aimed at ‘ensuring such a tragedy never happens again’ is as transparent — and ultimately, as useless — as the United Nations itself.

It is corrupt from its Secretary General on down, dominated by Islam at a time when the world is supposed to be united in a war against Islamic terror, and

Only the most brain-dead liberal would deny that it is an utter failure.

But, as I’ve noted in the past, it has spawned a global infrastructure of international financial, political and military organizations that can’t be allowed to implode with the United Nations itself.

All those beaurocrats, all that hardware and all that red tape have to go somewhere. The need for a global government exists — indeed — people are crying out for it, particularly in the light of the United Nations’ domination by Islam.

By any political standard, Europe is only logical candidate to pick up the pieces. And the Bible predicts that is exactly what will happen.

Truly, we are eyewitnesses to the most amazing display of God’s power seen since Jesus ascended back into heaven.

(And we ain’t seen NOTHIN’ yet!)

As the Apostles gazed up at our ascending Lord, ‘two men stood by them in white apparel;’

“Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11)

The Apostle Paul tells us more about when Jesus returns in ‘like manner’ as they Apostles had seen Him go:

“For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

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

Special Report: Which America Should We Love Best?

Special Report: Which America Should We Love Best?
Vol: 34 Issue: 30 Friday, July 30, 2004

Special Report: Which America Should We Love Best?

For the first time in my life, I’ve had just about all the politics that I can stand, and I am pretty sure you feel almost the same way.

I would rather comment on almost anything that the Democratic National Convention, but I can’t think of anything more important to understanding the Big Picture for the last days than who will lead America for the next four years.

And Kerry’s speech provided a wealth of insight into what his America would look like.

John Kerry’s acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for President opened with Kerry delivering a passable military salute to his audience, saying, “My name is John Kerry, and I am reporting for duty.”

He then launched into his speech. When it was over, it occurred to me that the phrase, “My name is John Kerry” was the only true statement contained in it.

It was more than a little ironic, since, so far, the Kerry campaign has built its entire platform around accusing the Bush administration of lying.

At the risk of repeating myself, I am NOT enamored of George Bush. He has disappointed me on a number of levels, as he has no doubt disappointed you. But I love America more than I hate George Bush. And John Kerry’s vision is of two Americas — he says so in his own campaign hand-outs.

I’m not sure which America I am supposed to love best. Can anybody help me out with this one? While you’re at it, can somebody please email me with a list of George Bush’s lies?

Because if someone knowingly, falsely accuses someone else as a liar, by definition, he indicts himself.

So far, every single alleged lie about the Iraq war has been examined by a panel of five Republicans and five Democrats.

After having examined more than two million supporting documents, dozens of witnesses, and reams of transcripts, they unanimously concluded that the administration relied on flawed intelligence, but that the administration acted appropriately, given the intelligence they had.

They also concluded that every other politician, Republican, Democrat, French, German, American, Australian, Israeli or Egyptian, all had similar intelligence.

There’s no need to trot out the statements made prior to the Iraq War by Kerry, Daschle, Edwards, Kennedy, etc., all of whom concluded exactly the same thing the Bush administration did and based on the SAME intelligence reports.

The 9/11 Commission examined them all, and exonerated the current administration. It determined the administration acted in ‘good faith’ and did exactly what Kerry/Daschle/Edwards/Kennedy and the rest would have done, if their own pre-war rhetoric is any guide.

So, we return to the liars who lie by continuing to accuse the administration of lying even after they KNOW their accusations are false.

For example, Kerry accused the Bush administration of sending our forces into battle without the necessary equipment. He droned, You don’t value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service.

But both Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, voted AGAINST the $87 billion funding package that would have paid for the body armor in the first place. Families had to take up collections for body armor because of Kerry and Company, not because the administration doesn’t value families. Liar.

Kerry told the convention, We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world.

Liar. Isn’t that exactly what Bush was doing in the conflict that Kerry and his party s base now criticize so harshly?

The 9/11 Commission concluded that contrary to the shrill gainsaying of Kerry advisor Joe Wilson Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. In fact, according to the report, this is one of the few claims about Saddam s WMD programs conclusively accepted by the Commission as being unequivocally true.

Ted Kennedy explained the difference between Kerry and Bush last week on the Democrats new favorite network, al-Jazeera. Last week, Teddy told the terrorist-friendly network:

I am personally convinced that if John Kerry was president of the United States during that time we never would have had an Iraq war. We never would have gone to war. No wonder ten out of ten terrorists support John Kerry.

Kerry told the convention-goers, Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.

Liar. What if the UN won’t let him? Would he ‘go it alone’ and risk ‘squandering America’s good-will’ like he says Bush did?

Note that Kerry only vowed to protect the American people from a threat that was real and imminent this is the only justification for going to war. How does one define ‘real and imminent’ in John Kerry’s world?

The Twin Towers collapsed almost three years ago. That was real. The same folks who attacked us then still want to attack us now. That is justification.

And what WAS Saddam gonna do with that yellowcake uranium, anyway?

As the anybody-but-Bushers are quick to parrot, there was no other hard evidence that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program. But there is plenty of evidence of pre-9/11 contact between Saddam Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda.

So, I repeat my question; how DOES one define ‘real and imminent’ in John Kerry’s world? Liar.

That returns us to the view of the War on Terror as primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.

Translated, that means waiting for the terrorists to strike, appointing them legal counsel, sentencing them to American prisons often more luxurious than their homes, and occasionally launching blind retaliatory raids against aspirin factories and empty tents.

I will immediately reform the intelligence system, Kerry told them, so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. Liar.

The 9/11 Commission concluded President Bush had not distorted the facts for political reasons; whatever mistakes were made happened long before the intelligence reached the president s desk.

It is this kind of hysterical rhetoric that has destroyed President Bush s (and America’s) credibility and diminished his ability to stop nuclear proliferation in the world s most dangerous hot spots: Iran and North Korea.

Kerry used the phrase middle class eight times, while referring to terror or terrorism only five.

He promised us nationalized health care, protectionism and environmentalism. He vowed to increase funding for the failure known as Head Start, shrink class sizes and increase social spending. He didn’t say where he’d get the increased funding from. Another lie.

John Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards, invented the slogan, two Americas but now warns against narrow appeals that divide us. Liar.

Kerry will discuss national security when forced, but prefers his platform of redistributing America s wealth as being the nation s top priority.

Kerry thanked Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton by name for teaching me and testing me but mostly, we say thank you for standing up for our country and giving us the unity to move America forward. (I can only hope Kerry’s lying there)

Consider: John Kerry learned umm, WHAT from Dennis Kucinich? That US troops are deliberately slaughtering Iraqi civilians, as Kucinich has publicly charged? And I am still trying to figure out what the ‘Reverend’ Al Sharpton taught John Kerry about ‘unity’. Does anybody else remember the Tawana Brawley case? It makes you wonder what is going on in the minds of almost half of Americans.

Perhaps nothing.

Kerry’s campaign-opening speech outlined his vision for America. It would have been a wonderful speech, almost Clintonesque in its scope. Except for the ‘war’ thingy that Kerry the war hero doesn’t quite seem to understand.

Among the INVITED guests to the DNC Convention was that bastion of unbiased truth, the al-Jazeera network. In fact, the original plan was for al-Jazeera to have an al-Jazeera sign, including its name and logo, as part of the network’s backdrop during photo shots from its skybox across the FleetCenter.

At the last moment, Kerry campaign officials decided to remove the sign, but not because al-Jazeera is an anti-American propaganda rag with ties to al-Qaeda. Nope, they took down the sign because they needed the space to put up a 20-foot-long “JohnKerry.com” sign. I’m NOT making this up!!!

“We needed that spot for our production,” said Peggy Wilhide, a convention spokeswoman.

“We’re glad Al-Jazeera is here and that they have a skybox,” Wilhide said. “But the bottom line is we’re not here to advertise for the media, we’re here to put on a convention.”

Without the DNC to straighten things out, one might have suspected Kerry took down the sign out of respect for the thousands of Americans killed by the terrorists al-Jazeera regularly incites. But by the DNC’s own admission, al-Jazeera is more than welcome, but John Kerry wanted more ad space for himself.

Although many have feared terrorists would strike one of this summer s political conventions, the Democratic Party allowed Jihad TV, a network whose media roster occasionally includes terrorists, into a skybox overlooking the entire Fleet Center.

From al-Jazeera s coverage, the terrorists back home were able to see the party s attack on the War on Terrorism, especially in Jimmy Carter and Al Sharpton s demagogic remarks.

John Kerry’s America is best exemplified by his own words.

“I ask you to judge me by my record . . .” whereupon he bragged that he “reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW’s and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam.”

To this day, John Kerry holds a place of honor (and notably, John McCain does not) in the Communist Vietnamese “War Crimes Museum” (AMERICAN war crimes) — not as a war criminal, but in recognition of his antiwar activities that helped to ‘end the war’ (a euphemism for helping Vietnam WIN the war).

As I said before, I love America more than I hate George Bush. And neither of John Kerry’s two Americas look like the one America I’ve loved since that day in 1969 when I took the Marine Corps oath to defend her against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I have seen the enemy, and it is Skerry.

Ezekiel’s Roster

Ezekiel’s Roster
Vol: 34 Issue: 29 Thursday, July 29, 2004

The mad mullahs running Iran are convinced that the United States won’t dare attack because Washington doesn’t think it can win. At least, that is the assessment of Iranian Army commander Brig. Gen. Nasir Mohammadifar. Mohammadifar told Iranian troops on July 25 that Teheran could engage in a war with Israel AND the United States.

“America would have attacked Iran by now if it were sure it could defeat us,” Mohammadifar said. “It has been intensely aware of its absolute inability to attack Iran.”

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps public relations chief Masood Jazairy was quoted by the official Iranian student news agency ISNA as saying that Teheran would destroy Israel if it attacked Iranian nuclear facilities. Jazairy said both Israel and the United States have been deterred by Iran’s military capabilities.

“The United States is showing off by threatening to use its wild dog, Israel,” Jazairy said. “They will not hesitate to strike Iran if they are capable of it. However, their threats to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities cannot be realized. They are aware that Teheran’s reaction will be so harsh that Israel will be wiped off the face of the Earth and U.S. interests will be easily damaged,” he said.

Two days ago, the London Daily Telegraph reported that the Iranians had broken the seals on nuclear equipment monitored by the IAEA. The paper also said that Iran had resumed construction and testing of components capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Iran’s intelligence community believes an Israeli attack is not imminent either, because of a downward-revised Israeli intelligence threat assessment issued last week.

Israeli intelligence concluded that the International Atomic Energy Agency has significantly affected Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons capability. The revised assessment says that Iran would require three years to reach nuclear weapons capability and another year to develop its first atomic bomb.

The latest assessment was relayed to Israel’s cabinet on July 21. Israeli military intelligence chiefs and a representative of the Mossad determined that Israel’s leading threat was from Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

The intelligence assessment was that Iran would reach the “point of no return” in developing nuclear weapons capability in 2007.

“We are talking about an assessment that has political implications,” said an Israeli official. “If the Iranian nuclear threat won’t emerge until 2007, then there is no sense of immediacy in dealing with the issue.”

The revised threat assessment lists Iran’s nuclear program as the number one military threat to Israel, followed closely by Syrian ballistic missiles already in place and pointed at the Jewish State.

Syria has been developing an arsenal of medium-range surface-to-surface missiles, including the Scud C and Scud D missiles, with ranges of 550 and 700 kilometers, respectively.

The threat assessment report also said Syria could be trying to begin uranium enrichment as part of its weapons of mass destruction program. But intelligence officers could not say for sure if Damascus has launched a significant uranium enrichment project of its own.

The Tehran Times ran an interesting report under the headline: “U.S., Israel Have No Claim on Iran Nuclear Program: Russian Official.” The report quoted from an interview with a member of the Russian Duma (parliament), Youri Savilov. Savilov told the interviewer for the website, ‘Iranro’ that, “The threats by the U.S. and Israel against Iran contravene international law.”

Savilov said Israel’s claims has no basis since it posses a large arsenal of nuclear armaments. He also said that the US administration has “misled its public and international community by falsely claiming the existence of biological and chemical weapons in some nations.”

Gee, I wonder where our enemies learned stuff like that to use against us? Oh, wait, I know. The New York Times, Richard Clarke, the LA Times, John Kerry, John Edwards, the whole of the Democratic National leadership, etc., etc. They continue to broadcast the message that America is untrustworthy and its leadership corrupt — even though they know it’s not true.

They also know that every time they raise those charges; they damage America’s standing abroad, providing a form of aid and comfort to the enemy while increasing the risk for Americans abroad. And they don’t care. As long as it will win votes.

And Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Egyptian journalists that Russia ‘supports the right of Iran as a member-state of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes’.

“We praise prospects for Russian-Iranian relations. Iran is our neighbor and our traditional partner,” he said. “The two sides intend to implement projects that will amount to about 10 billion U.S. dollars,” Lavrov added.


No matter how many times I revisit the subject, I am continually awestricken by it. Ezekiel’s prophecy of the Gog-Magog War, I mean. The precision and attention to detail of Ezekiel’s description is simply staggering.

“Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, [Russia] the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal: And I will turn thee back, and PUT HOOKS INTO THY JAWS, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords . . .” (Ezekiel 38:2-4)

It is fascinating to watch Russia being slowly, inexorably drawn into the Middle East conflict, almost against its better judgment, forced by its economic need into what could easily become a showdown over Iran.

The current situation mirrors the precise image that Ezekiel conveyed with the ‘hooks in the jaws’ word picture — and the even more fascinating, “I will BRING thee forth”.

Ezekiel’s roster of nations for the Gog-Magog war continues to fill me with awe:

“Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet: Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee.” (v5-6)

Iran was known as ‘Persia’ until the early 1920’s when the country’s name was changed to Iran. The other nations on Ezekiel’s Roster are all either Russian client states or old Soviet client states, with the exception of Turkey — which is rapidly being pushed back into the Islamic world by the European Union.

“After many days thou shalt be visited: 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.” (v8)

We learn much from this one passage. We learn that the war is slated to take place in the ‘latter years’ — once Israel had resumed her place at the table of nations. The entire history of the Israeli Diaspora is contained in this one verse.

In Ezekiel’s day, “Israel” had not existed for generations and the Kingdom of Judah was in Babylonian hands. From 702 BC until 1948, there was no place on earth called ‘Israel’. Israel was ‘gathered out of many people’ the land was ‘brought back from the sword’ (it took five wars, including a War of Independence to do it).

Until the Jews returned to the Land, it had ‘always been waste’ exactly as Ezekiel predicted, but now that it is ‘brought forth out of the nations’, the Jews again have a homeland where they can take refuge from persecution.

Ezekiel’s prophecy is like a jigsaw puzzle. The more pieces that fall into place, the clearer the final picture becomes. Iran’s nuclear plans cannot be permitted to come to fruition. It is just as simple as that. And the mad mullahs are right — the United States is unlikely to start a war with Iran — we’re spread too thinly now. And both Iran and Russia are keenly aware of the fact that eventually, Israel WILL attack Iran’s nuclear facilities rather than let them go operational.

There can only be one possible way to prevent Israel from attacking Iran:

“Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought: 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.” (v10-11)

According to Ezekiel, the invasion of Israel will be a sneak attack, prompting a weak diplomatic protest from abroad, but not much more.

“Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?” (v13)

The puzzle piece that has been missing down through the ages is the one that explains why. Why does the Gog-Magog alliance take the risk? What does Israel have that makes it worth invading? There’s no oil wealth, no mineral wealth apart from that in the Dead Sea which so far remains unrecoverable. The whole country isn’t as big as Rhode Island, most of it is desert or mountains and the only ones who really even want it are the Israelis. The Russians don’t want it. Neither do the Iranians.

Iran’s nuclear dilemma is the missing piece that brings Ezekiel’s vision into focus. The closer we get to the actual event, the clearer Ezekiel’s picture becomes.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions will also be the Gog-Magog alliance’s ultimate undoing:

“And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.” (v22)

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Jesus Christ, Luke 21:28)

Special Report: The Silent Invasion

Special Report: The Silent Invasion
Vol: 34 Issue: 28 Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Special Report: The Silent Invasion

According to an article in the tiny Tombstone (Arizona) Tumbleweed, two groups of Middle Eastern males have been caught entering the United States from Mexico in the past six weeks.

Information officer Andy Adame, from the Border Patrol Tucson sector told the Tumbleweed; I guarantee it s not true, but the paper disagrees.

Instead, it says it has verified information that a flood of Middle-Eastern males have been caught entering the country illegally east of Douglas, Arizona.

The increased patrols in the Huachuca Mountains area of Cochise County, the paper says, seems to have diverted the flow of OTM s, other than Mexicans east to the Chiricahua Mountains.

So just who are, and from where, is this invading force of encroachers coming from?

“Can’t tell you that”, said Border Patrol spokesman Andy Adame when queried by the Tombstone Tumbleweed newspaper. Agent Adame declined to say what countries the OTM illegals are from, although he admitted detainees include “people from all over the world.”

Adame added, “We apprehend them, process them, and turn them over to [the U.S. Department of] Homeland Security and the FBI and that is all I can say.”

But, Adame says, since October 1, 2003, the beginning of the fiscal year for Border Patrol; agents in the Tucson sector have apprehended 5,510 illegals from countries other than Mexico or other central or South American countries. Adame described them as people from all over the world .

But in the last month, the Tumbleweed has confirmed at least two documented accounts of Border Patrol agents encountering large groups of non-Spanish speaking males in the Chiricahua foothills and on trails along the high mountain areas.

On June 13, 2004 Border patrol agents from the Wilcox station encountered a large group of suspected illegal border crossers, estimated to be around 158, just east of the Sanders Ranch near the foothills of the Chiricahua Mountains. 71 suspected illegal aliens were apprehended; among them were 53 males of Middle-Eastern descent.

The paper said its source was a Border Patrol field agent, who said the men were suspected to be Iranian or possibly Syrian nationals.

One thing s for sure: these guys didn t speak Spanish and after we questioned them harder we discovered they spoke poor English with a middle-eastern accent; then we caught them speaking to each other in Arabic this is ridiculous that we don’t take this more seriously, and we re told not to say a thing to the media, but I have to, said the agent, who spoke to the Tumbleweed with the promise of anonymity.

The information was corroborated by a local rancher in the area who reports that sightings of groups similar to these are on the rise. The rancher reports that groups of heavily armed paramilitary drug smugglers have also been seen in the same area.

We ve had groups in the hundreds coming through again. They were gone for awhile but now they’re back. And of course we have the drug mules again and many are carrying automatic weapons. Many other ranchers in the area have been frustrated with the lack of response from Border Patrol. After calling over and over again to the Wilcox headquarters, we might get a response a few hours later. We call them in to the Border Patrol, we only have the Wilcox station, and they re so darned far away. By the time they send in the helicopters these groups are long gone. I don t know how many they catch but they re coming through here heavy right now.

On June 21, 2004, agents from the Wilcox Border Patrol station apprehended 24 members of a larger group of Arabic speaking males located just east of the Pierce/Sunsites area of Cochise County.

At least half of the males escaped capture and disappeared into the United States.


The Tombstone Tumbleweed is a tiny newspaper in a tiny Arizona town best known for the Gunfight at the OK Corral, so that might be why the major media hasn’t picked up this story. What is more likely is that the story is being ‘spiked’ out of some misguided sense of political correctness.

Just a few weeks ago Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge visited Fort Huachuca, in the Arizona desert near the Mexican border and to get an update on the Border Patrol’s use of unmanned aerial vehicles as an aid to enforcement.

(Does anybody really believe the Department of Homeland Security is deploying UAV’s to catch migrant Mexican farm workers?)

The paper says it spoke with three different Border Patrol agents, all of whom confirmed the June 13th roundup and offered up chilling insights about the detainees.

They told the paper that these suspects wore clothing that is normally worn by migrants: baseball caps, tennis shoes, jeans, T-shirts even with patriotic American slogans.

But the agents said what was particularly odd was that all the clothing worn by the Middle Eastern males was brand new. Each one in the group looked to have had just been to a barber shop with fresh new haircuts, all clean cut, with the exact style and cut of mustaches.

Border Patrol sources, at the risk of being in violation of orders and losing their jobs, offered a subsequent chilling revelation.

On June 21, 2004, they and their colleagues from the Wilcox Border Patrol station apprehended another 24 Arabic-speaking males in the area of Pierce/Sunsites. These small towns are approximately 25 miles northeast of Tombstone and not far from the Chiricahua foothills.

Even more worrisome, the agents say, is that the 24 men who were seized were only part of a larger group. Particularly since, as already noted, at least half of the group escaped capture and remain on the loose in the United States.

Two weeks later, on July 7, top officials from the CIA, FBI and Homeland Security Department warned members of Congress that al-Qaeda could try to launch new attacks in a ‘bid to influence upcoming US election’.

All members of the House of Representatives were invited to a closed-meeting with Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller, Homeland Security Under-secretary Asa Hutchinson and John Brennan, a representative of the Central Intelligence Agency.

“There is a steady drumbeat of reporting,” Christopher Cox, chairman of the House homeland security committee, told reporters after the meeting. “The threat has not abated.”

The Washington Times carried a report from an eyewitness on a cross-country domestic flight. She said that 14 Syrian men boarded her flight, taking different seats and pretending not to know each other.

Once the plane took off, the witness said, they began congregating in groups of two or three, stood nearly the entire flight, and consecutively filed in and out of bathrooms at different intervals.

One man took a McDonald’s bag into the bathroom, and then passed it off to another passenger upon returning to his seat. When the pilot announced the plane was cleared for landing and to fasten seat belts, seven men jumped up in unison and went to different bathrooms.

The Times spoke with a pilot who told them that on one of his recent flights, an air marshal forced his way into the lavatory at the front of his plane after a man of Middle Eastern descent locked himself in for a long period.

The marshal found the mirror had been removed and the man was attempting to break through the wall. The cockpit was on the other side.

This is the real deal — Homeland Security has been repeatedly warning of an impending terror attack. A recent book called ‘Osama’s Revenge’ says al-Qaeda has sleeper cells all over the United States who have ALREADY planted Soviet nuclear ‘suitcase’ devices in ‘seven to nine’ cities across America.

Both candidates for president are running, essentially, on the same platform — the peace and safety of the Homeland.

“But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, PEACE AND SAFETY; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.” (1 Thessalonians 5:1-4)

“Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.” (1 Thessalonians 5:6)

The Butterball Solution

The Butterball Solution
Vol: 34 Issue: 27 Tuesday, July 27, 2004

When it comes to the war on terror, all roads lead to Riyadh. Information gained from captured terrorists from Afghanistan and Iraq link back to the Saudis. Investigators have found links that run directly from members of the Saudi royal family to al-Qaeda.

According to several Western intelligence agencies, two Saudi princes, Prince Nayef Prince Salman and King Fahd s youngest son Abdulaziz are still maintaining ‘back-channel’ contacts with al-Qaeda.

Yet the administration not only continues to do business with the House of Saud, Prince Bandar is a regular guest at the Crawford Ranch. When a Congressional report was released post-9/11, the White House ordered 28 pages of it redacted (blacked out) because they showed Saudi ties to 9/11.

Senators who read the redacted material said there was no need for it to be classified, at least from a national security standpoint.

But the White House refused to release it, leading to speculation that something else was at play–perhaps a courtesy had been extended between two families said to be very close–the Saudis and the Bushes.

In his book, ‘Sleeping with the Devil,’ ex-CIA agent Robert Baer says a lot of past and present administration officials have benefited from financial gifts and sweetheart business deals with the Saudis, and may in fact be beholden to them.

Stephen Schwartz is the author of ‘The Two Faces of Islam’. Schwartz says Saudi Arabia’s friends in Washington make sure this special and lucrative relationship continues.

When 911 happened, they sprang up and said oh, Saudi is just as much of a target as we are trying to tell us Wahhabism as a form of Islam was somehow comparable to the Methodist church or Unitarians, which is ridiculous and the kingdom, they’re our best friends 15 out of the 19 terrorists on September 11th were Saudis. If 15 out of 19 of them had been Bosnians, or to say a non-Muslim country, Colombia, or Irish, or some other group in the world, everything would have been completely different but because they were Saudis, our government has taken this position of spinelessness.”


Is there a special relationship between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family? Prince Bandar, as I noted, is a frequent guest at the President’s Crawford ranch. During the first Gulf War, that friendship served American interests well. Saudi Arabia opened its borders to American troops staging Operation Desert Shield and as a forward operating base during Operation Desert Storm.

But it was the American presence in Saudi Arabia that gave Osama bin-Laden his cause. And it was Saudi-sponsored Wahabbi Islam that provided him with an army of jihadists to carry it forward.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and there is considerable evidence to suggest members of the Saudi royal family were directly involved with some of them. And it is pretty obvious that the administration is not eager for anyone to pursue ties that might lead back to the Saudis.

Is it the Bush family ties that are protecting the Saudis from being implicated in the 9/11 attacks? Lots of people believe it is.

It seems to make sense. The Bush family and the Saudi royals have a long-standing friendship. If it were proved that the Saudi government had direct ties to September 11, the Bush Doctrine puts them in America’s crosshairs. So, because of his family ties, the thinking goes, Bush is whitewashing any Saudi involvement.

As I said, it SEEMS to make sense. But it really doesn’t. As obvious as it is that the Saudi royals are getting the royal treatment, personal friendship isn’t the reason.

It’s the oil. Even the Democrats tread lightly when it comes to the Saudi-Bush connection, because they are afraid to push the Saudis any harder than the Republicans would. Every president since Nixon has bent the knee before the Saudi king, and America is willing to expend plenty of blood for oil, chanting idiots notwithstanding.

In 1973, the Saudis, co-ordinating with OPEC, sparked the longest and most severe economic recession America had seen since the 1930’s. All they had to do was embargo oil, and we were driven to our knees. By the mid 1970’s, friends would greet each other, not by saying, “How’re ya doin’?” but rather, “Are ya workin’?”

Oil is America’s lifeblood, and the Saudis control the tourniquet that can shut off its flow whenever necessary. Or, as in recent years, increase production when OPEC cuts back, preventing a rerun of 1973.

The useful idiots chanting, ‘No blood for Oil’ arrive at their demonstration sites in vehicles powered by oil. They complain as loudly as anyone at paying $2.09 a gallon for gas.

Most places in Europe pay five dollars or more per gallon. If US gas prices went to that level, those same useful idiots would be demanding the president’s head, no matter what party he belonged to.

There are alternatives. One of them is what I’ll call the “Butterball Solution.” We’ve discussed it before, so I’ll just give a quick recap. There is a working process called Thermal Depolymerization that will convert almost anything into sweet, pure crude oil.

The “Butterball Solution” comes from the fact the first plant was built outside a Butterball turkey rendering plant. Instead of throwing out the unusable parts of a turkey, guts, bones, feathers, etc., this process turns them into petroleum, carbon suitable for printer toner and other products, fertilizer and potable water. In goes garbage, out come useful products.

Thermo-depolymerization mimics the Earth’s own recipe for fossil fuels, but shaves millions of years off the production time. Waste turkey guts, for instance is mixed with water and ground into a thick slurry, which is then heated to 500 degrees Fahrenheit, pressurized at roughly 600 pounds per square inch, and cooked for about 15 to 60 minutes until the organic material’s molecular structure its polymers begin to break apart.

Pressure on the mixture is then dropped, releasing steam that is recaptured to power the remaining process. More heat, then distillation, creates the byproducts natural gas, which is diverted back to fuel the bio-reformer; crude oil, which can be sold to refineries; minerals, to be used in materials like fertilizers; and water.

Barring nuclear waste, anything can yield these goods, according to proponents of the process: 100 pounds of tires, for instance, yields 44 pounds of oil (along with the other byproducts); a similar quantity of medical waste would result in 65 pounds of oil.

So, why aren’t we building TDP plants all over America? Is it because of the Bush-Saudi friendship? If true, George Bush should not only be impeached, he should be tried for treason. Or so it seems, on the surface.

The “Butterball Solution” would instantly impoverish the Arab Middle East. The resulting backlash from a couple of billion starving Muslims is almost unthinkable. The relative handful of Islamic terrorists with whom we are now at war have claimed almost five thousand American lives so far — and unlike all previous American wars, most of the American war dead are civilians.

There are almost 2 billion Muslims in the world, and about five hundred million of them would have nothing to do but plot ways to get revenge on America for impoverishing them. The risks are enormous — whether we do something, or whether we do nothing — the risks are the same.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey said on July 1 that Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz could be the next leader of the kingdom. Woolsey described Nayef as a Saudi minister “whose views have closer similarity” to bin Laden than the United States.

The US has already begun reexamining its relationship with the House of Saud. No matter who wins in November, the old relationship is already on its way out the window.

Last week, the U.S. House voted to cut security aid to Saudi Arabia. Although the amount of aid was minuscule $25,000 the House measure would also end discounts in the sale of U.S. weapons to Riyadh.

Kerry proposes a plan for the United States to end its dependence on Middle East oil over the next decade. He said this would allow the United States to confront Saudi support for al Qaeda-inspired violence.

That also SEEMS reasonable, except for the ‘five hundred million hungry Arabs backlash’ thing. In any case, the end result will be the same, according to the prophets.

“And he [Ishmael] will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. (Genesis 16:12)

“Thus saith the Lord GOD; Art thou he [Ishmael] of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?” (Ezekiel 38:17)

Could be. “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” (Romans 13:11)


Feeding the Dragon

Feeding the Dragon
Vol: 34 Issue: 26 Monday, July 26, 2004

While the Western propaganda machine continues to spin out stories about America’s leadership and how dishonest and evil they are, it turns a completely blind eye to the activities of its sister organization in the Arab world.

The New York Times has murdered millions of trees in order to communicate the evils of the Bush administration to the Arab world, but nary a sapling has been sacrificed to give coverage to something as inconsequential as the evils of the enemy.

In the Middle East, there is a saying; “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” If the Western media were accurately reporting the anti-American incitement still ongoing in allegedly ‘moderate’ places like Saudi Arabia, support for the war would rise — which would aid George Bush’s reelection effort.

The Arab world wants to see John Kerry elected over George Bush — all the polls bear that out. So does liberal America. ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’ principle in action.

Given that Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Wahabbi Islam, Osama bin-Laden, the modern concept of ‘jihad’, and sixteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, it seems odd that the only evil the liberal Western press can locate currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.


News Flash! The true source of evil facing America isn’t the President of the United States, even if you don’t like him. Even should the unthinkable actually happen and America decides to trust John Kerry with its national survival (let THAT scenario play out in your mind for a second), the true source of evil will remain the ideology that drives young men to kill innocent strangers in order to receive an eternal ‘reward’.

The Saudis claim they are opposed to Islamic terror and that terrorism in any form is against Islam. Evidently, the folks down at the Saudi Ministry of Education didn’t get the memo.

An investigation by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace looked into what Saudi kids are learning in official Saudi government-sanctioned schoolbooks.

Here are the kinds of things you won’t learn from our own press, currently preoccupied with explaining why the Arabs hate us because of George Bush.

Saudi children in order to learn proper diction, are taught to saw the following phrase;

“Now [Palestine] is occupied by the Jews, a people of treachery and betrayal, who have gathered there from every place: from Poland, Spain, America and elsewhere. Their end, by God’s will, is perdition.”

In geography class, they learn that New York Jews are actually behind what Saudi kids call ‘the gang state’ occupying ‘Palestine’.

In history, schoolkids learn that the Jews were behind the First World War and the Bolshevik Revolution. (Not to mention both Gulf Wars.)

Among the standard classes in the Saudi education system, of course, are classes in Islam. While the Saudi government assures the West that Islam is a religion of tolerance and love, one text book has school kids filling in the blank in the following sentence: “Those who have incurred God’s wrath are_________.” The correct answer to that question, according to the teacher’s edition, is “The Jews.”

Saudi ‘education’ is free from kindergarten to the university level. By the time Saudi kids have finished with their primary education, then they are ready to enter universities like Un al-Qura.

Dr. Ahmad abd al-Latif teaches there. al-Latif was asked on the Saudi government-owned TV1;

“Some imams and preachers call for Allah to annihilate the Jews and those who help them, and the Christians and those who support them Is it permitted according to Islamic law?” Professor Al-Latif responded: “What made them curse the Jews is that the Jews are oppressors The same goes for the Christians, because of their cruel aggression against Islamic countries while the truth is that this is a crusading war whose goal is to harm Muslims. This is why a Muslim is allowed to curse the oppressors from among the Jews and Christians Cursing the oppressing Jews and the oppressing and plundering Christians and the prayer that Allah will annihilate them is permitted.”

On May 10, Dr. Yassin Al-Khatib, a professor of Islamic law at Um Al-Qura University, declared on the UAE’s Al-Majd TV;

“. . . the honor, blood, property and mostly the fact that they entered the country [i.e. Iraq] make it every Muslim’s duty to go out against them, not only the Iraqis. This is every Muslim’s duty. Jihad today has become an individual duty that applies to each and every Muslim. It is forbidden for a person to remain silent When the Muslims fought in Afghanistan they destroyed the Soviet Union, which was a superpower. It collapsed and Allah willing, so will this [the U.S.] collapse.”

Saudi preacher Sheik Said Al-Qahtani told his Iqraa TV audience;

“In this case, there is no choice besides defense, self-sacrifice, and what religious scholars call Defensive Jihad We attacked their country, and this caused them to wake the dormant enmity in their hearts Especially since there is global Zionism, the enemy of Islam, and Judaism, and fundamentalist Crusaders They interpret this whole incident as only the beginning and thus there is no choice but a preemptive strike. . . .Allah said, ‘prepare against them all the force and horsemen that you can.’ What for? In order to strike fear into their hearts At the same time, [we should] establish strategies for the future, even if only for the short term, and prepare so that one of these days, even 100, 200, or 400 years from now, we will become a force that will be feared by the infidel states.”

Consider the choices facing the editorial boards of the liberal left spin machine, as exemplified by the New York Times. (But you could also use CNN, the Washington Post or the LA Times as examples. It’s just the New York Times is the one that claims to be America’s ‘newspaper of record’ — so they asked for the spotlight)

The Saudis continue to turn out ideological jihadists despite assurances to the contrary. Bush relied on the same intelligence every other country had regarding Saddam’s WMD program when he made his ‘Yellowcake’ statement that was eventually vindicated by the 9/11 Commission.

So the editorial board meets to sift through the news to determine what is the most important information Americans need to know.

(“Hmmm. A tough call. Saudis Train Jihadists to Kill US? or – British Intelligence Report May Have Been False? Stop the presses!” Headline: Bush Lied)

In the last days scenario as outlined by Scripture, all of America’s traditional enemies play prominent roles, from the Russians to the Chinese to the Islamo-facist Middle Eastern states to Europe. The central focus of global attention is the tiny state of Israel. All the major players for the last days are on stage, already on their marks, and awaiting their cue.

Except America. For whatever reason, she isn’t there.

Special Report: Bizarre in Boston

Special Report: Bizarre in Boston
Vol: 34 Issue: 25 Sunday, July 25, 2004

Democrats are gathering in Boston for their national convention – with John Kerry expected to be crowned as their nominee to run for president. With just 100 days left before polling day, Kerry told the New York Times enough time remained for him to prove his credentials on national security.

“I’m just quite confident that as the next months of the campaign go on, I am going to have the ability to be able to make it clear to America that I can make this country safe and strong,” he said.

This morning, as part of its coverage of the week-long party, MSNBC profiled the beginnings of John Kerry’s political career, including considerable footage of young John Kerry’s criticism of the Vietnam War and the men who fought in it.

The footage included the famous medal-throwing incident in which Vietnam veterans took turns throwing their medals over the White House fence. There was footage of John Kerry describing his former comrades-in-arms as ‘monsters’ who committed unspeakable atrocities in combat.

I don’t know if it was deliberate or not, but during the commercial break, a John Kerry campaign ad aired in which Kerry’s service in Vietnam and his three Purple Hearts were the highlight of the spot.

It was probably a coincidence that it aired when it did, but it seemed more than a little bizarre to watch the young John Kerry damning all Vietnam veterans as monsters in one moment, and then to see an older John Kerry asking voters to elect him because he is a Vietnam war ‘hero’.

Even more bizarre, given the circumstances, was when MSNBC returned to its coverage of John Kerry, describing his efforts to convince America that the Kerry/Edwards ticket will make America safer than George Bush — because Kerry served in Vietnam while Bush was a National Guard pilot, ‘ensuring Texas didn’t get invaded by Oklahoma’, as Kerry once sneeringly described it.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think John Kerry quite gets it. The Vietnam War is over, and we lost. The reason that we lost was because of John Kerry and his compatriots. The Vietnam War had been won militarily in 1969, but the political war concurrently waged by Hanoi on the home front was racking up victory after victory. Hanoi’s aim was to use public opinion to accomplish what the communists failed to do using force of arms.

In the political war against America, Hanoi’s top ‘general’ was John Kerry. The Watergate Scandal resulted in a judicial coup d’etat by the Democrats against Richard Nixon. John Kerry led the anti-war front, while Hillary Clinton was among the fresh-faced Democratic lawyers orchestrating Nixon’s ultimate removal from the Oval Office.

I know, I know. Nixon broke the law. Then he lied about it. So did Johnson (Gulf of Tonkin), as did Kennedy before him (Bay of Pigs) and Eisenhower (Gary Powers/U2 incident) before him . . . I could go on, but that should be sufficient to making the point.

Historians like to explain it as a ‘turbulent time in our history’ and let it go at that, because nobody wants to be seen defending Richard Nixon. Forget about Richard Nixon for a minute, and look at the Big Picture.

The sitting President of the United States was forced from office — during wartime — over a cover-up effort that, when compared to the whoppers told by his three consecutive predecessors, barely rose to the level of a scandal, let alone a full-blown impeachment. With Nixon’s resignation, Gerald Ford became the first appointed President in US history. (Nixon appointed Ford as VP after Agnew had similarly been forced from office)

Are you starting to get the picture? No? Within months of Nixon’s resignation, Hanoi declared victory over South Vietnam and Saigon was renamed Ho Chi Minh City.

We now return to John Kerry’s Vietnam ‘service’ — not the part he wants to highlight, but the part he wants to hide. The part where he went to Vietnam, somehow managed to garner three Purple Hearts in four months without actually getting hurt, before returning home to lead the political effort to end the Vietnam War in Hanoi’s favor.

What Kerry doesn’t get is that there aren’t any more Vietnam War protestors, especially among its veterans. Like Kerry, they’ve gotten older, and now see things from the perspective of hindsight. In retrospect, they see what their comrades died for. One need look no further than what Vietnam became once the North took control. I typed the search phrase “Vietnam Christian” into Google and the following news report came up second.

“An estimated 400 Christians have been killed in brutal repression of peaceful and prayerful demonstrations by Montagnard Christians in the Central Highlands of Vietnam, according to the Barnabas Fund, quoting information from The Montagnard Foundation.

The report states that on Saturday April 10 up to 400,000 Vietnamese Christians, from the Degar people, gathered in several Vietnamese cities to demonstrate against the government s refusal to allow them to follow the Christian faith freely.

“The demonstrators in the cities, which included the Central Highland city of Buonmathuot, were attacked by soldiers, police and other Vietnamese civilians. The Christians were shot at, beaten with electric batons and bombarded with rocks and stones. Hundreds were killed (400 according to one report) and many others have suffered broken bones,” the Barnabas Fund said.”

To get a sense of what Americans shed their blood on the battlefields of Vietnam to PREVENT, browse http://www.persecution.org/Countries/vietnam.html — judge for yourself.

The men who died in Vietnam didn’t ‘die for nothing’ — they died for a noble cause that guys like John Kerry dragged through the mud for their own political gain. They died for the cause of freedom — to prevent Vietnam from becoming what it is today. They didn’t die for a lost cause; the cause was betrayed for political gain.

This week, the Democrats will honor their heroes, with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter all slated to speak to the party faithful, and by extension, to the nation and the world.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Watergate lawyer. Bill Clinton, who avoided the draft by breaking the law, Jimmy Carter, who was elected on a platform that amounted to a total capitulation to Hanoi. Al Gore, whose own service in Vietnam was the subject of controversy after it was revealed that Senator Gore’s son Al was kept from combat and had a cadre of ‘bodyguards’ assigned to him.

All there to introduce John Kerry, the antiwar leader that Richard Nixon himself called the ‘most dangerous’ of the antiwarrior leadership. Kerry will undoubtedly cite his service in Vietnam, proudly display his medals that he once claimed to have returned in the medal-throwing protest, and talk about how only John Kerry can keep ‘America safe’.

And there are still people out there who think they are too smart to be brainwashed. Even as their brains are in full spin cycle. Previous generations of Americans would shake their heads in astonishment — this generation is unique.

It is the generation that will one day worship the antichrist, mindlessly chanting the mantra of the day;

“And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” (Revelation 13:4)

Special Report: The Great Mystery

Special Report: The Great Mystery
Vol: 34 Issue: 24 Saturday, July 24, 2004

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

Throughout the New Testament, the word translated as ‘mystery’ comes from the Greek ‘musterion’ which literally means ‘secret’ or ‘hidden thing’. In our modern English, however, ‘mystery’ is understood in the Agatha Christie or Sherlock Holmesian sense of the word.

Paul’s use of the word ‘mystery’ when describing the Rapture in 1 Corinthians 15:53 means a truth that had not yet been revealed.

Paul cannot be referring to the Second Coming of Christ; His return at the end of the Tribulation is one of the oldest prophecies recorded in Scripture.

Daniel 12:1-3; Zechariah 12:10; 14:4 all mention the 2nd Coming, and Jude quotes Enoch, the “seventh from Adam” who “prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints.” (Jude 1:14)

The Rapture, therefore, is a previously unrevealed secret, a ‘hidden thing’ of God previously unknown to men.

As the end of this present Age approaches, there are many Christians who are beginning to wonder if we might already be in the Tribulation now. We aren’t. I know that for sure. How? Well, I’m still here!

There are lots and lots of folks who think I am way out there for adhering to a pre-Tribulationist doctrine. (I know this to be true, also, because I get emails from them every time I comment on the Rapture, saying, “Kinsella, you’re way out there!”)

They’ll go on smugly (and endlessly), playing word games like ‘the word ‘Rapture’ isn’t even in the Bible’ as if that meant something. (Try and find the word ‘Bible’ in the Bible. Does its absence mean there’s no Bible?)

Or babble mindlessly about Margarent MacDonald and C.I. Schofield, before pronouncing Dispensationalism and a pre-Trib Rapture a modern-day ‘invented’ doctrine. I say ‘mindlessly’ because they don’t know what they are talking about — they are just quoting somebody else’s research as if it were the Gospel itself.

We have dealt with the Margaret MacDonald argument in previous Omega Letter reports, (http://omegaletter.com/briefings.asp?BID=975) so we won’t address that particular ‘controversy’ here.

Instead of building the argument based on what the Bible doesn’t say about the Rapture, it is helpful to take a good close look at what it DOES tell us about the Rapture.

First, notice that the Rapture involves the movement of believers from the earth to Heaven:

“For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

The ‘dead in Christ’ rise first, those believers who are ‘alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds. The operative word here is ‘rise’.

At the Second Coming, the Lord returns WITH His saints;

“To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.” (1st Thessalonians 3:13)

So the Rapture is not the same event as the Second Coming. Things that are different are NOT the same, and the Rapture and the Second Coming are clearly different.

What would be the point of Rapturing the Church then, anyway? The Lord returns to establish His kingdom on earth, so why pull out all the Christians? Who is He gonna rule?

“And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And He shall set the sheep on His right Hand, but the goats on the left.” (Matthew 25:32-33)

If all the believers are raptured at the Second Coming, that would also include the Tribulation saints. Where would the believers in mortal bodies come from if they are raptured at the Second Coming? Who would be able to enter into Christ’s Kingdom?

Then there is Daniel’s 70 weeks. The Church was absent for the first sixty-nine weeks — the countdown was suspended at the Cross so the Church could be born. Daniel makes it clear that all 70 weeks are determined ‘upon Israel’. (See http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=98)

Revelation 19:7-8 says, “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.”

If the Bride is made ready to accompany Christ to the earth at the Second Coming, (while part of the bride is still on earth during the Tribulation) then how does the Bride (the church) also come with Christ at His Return?

There is the example of Enoch. “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” (Genesis 5:24) Not only does Enoch prefigure the Rapture, note that Enoch’s Rapture was pre-Flood, not mid-Flood, or post-Flood.

The Scriptures are plain, clear and concise on the topic of a pre-Tribulation Rapture — provided one interprets the Bible literally, instead of figuratively or symbolically.

While no man knows the day or the hour of the Rapture, the Second Coming can be accurately predicted, since Daniel tells us He returns exactly 1,290 days after the antichrist;

“opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:4)

“And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” (Daniel 12:11)

The pre-Tribulation Rapture is often called the “Blessed Hope” by those who look for His return before the Tribulation begins. Those who believe the Church will go through the Tribulation sneeringly call it the ‘Great Escape’.

Don’t let anybody steal away your Blessed Hope:

“For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1st Corinthians 15:16-19)

The Rapture happens before the Tribulation, which means that He is coming for us soon! Call it the Blessed Hope or the Great Escape, but He IS coming.

And given the current state of global affairs, it it can’t be much longer until we hear the trumpet. Maranatha!

Report: ‘Safer, but Not Safe’

Report: ‘Safer, but Not Safe’
Vol: 34 Issue: 23 Friday, July 23, 2004

The much-anticipated 9/11 Commission Report was finally released yesterday. Its conclusion, in a nutshell, is this: America is safer today than it was on September 10, 2001. Safer, but not safe.

Although the Commission itself is widely praised for being ‘bipartisan’, all the old promises not to politicize September 11th have been forgotten. Both John Kerry and George Bush will be campaigning on that equation — with George Bush focusing on the first part, and John Kerry focusing on the second.

Bush declared that America is safer no less than 11 times Wednesday night during a speech that aides signaled would encompass themes of his fall campaign.

John Kerry said the commission’s report “carries a simple message about our current state of security for every American who remembers that dark September day — we can do better. We must do better.”

Does anybody remember the somber promises in the dark days post-September 11? You know, when everybody promised to put partisanship aside when it came to protecting America?

“The 9/11 report is just one more issue that casts doubt on the truthfulness of this White House,” said Stephanie Cutter, Kerry’s campaign spokeswoman. “This White House is operating under a cloud of secrecy, and the American people have lost the ability to trust them.”

The panel had become “a tool for partisan politics,” Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), a member of the House Republican leadership, charged in an interview last month after the Commission staff released a ‘preliminary report’ concerning Saddam and al-Qaeda.

“With the latest commission finding coming out that there were allegedly no ties between Hussein and al Qaeda, I think they are totally off their mission, and I think that’s indicative of the political partisanship.”

Ouch! Good point. Especially since the staff report got it wrong.

On the question of Iraq and al Qaeda, the final report is a marked improvement over the preliminary staff report.

In point of fact, the report issued yesterday strongly suggests that collaboration between Iran and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization lasted for more than a decade and was more extensive than previously thought.

The 9/11 Commission report comes on the heels of the Senate intelligence report and the so-called Butler report published in London, both of which were mandated to look into intelligence failures before September 11 and in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

The picture that has emerged so far and now reinforced by the September 11 commission is that, overall, incompetence and lack of good information, not government duplicity, were the problems.

Even chief weapons inspector David Kay told the committee that he, too, would have gone to war on the available evidence at the time. However, in one instance at least the information seems to correct:

Both reports conclude that Saddam Hussein was indeed seeking to buy enriched uranium in Niger.


So much for ‘Bush lied’ — but the belief that he did is, by now, so embedded in the public consciousness that they still believe it, even after it has been proved by three separate, exhaustive investigations.

For example, John Kerry: “The Bush administration doesn’t get honesty points for belatedly admitting what has been apparent to the world for some time — that emphatic statements made on Iraq were inaccurate.” How’s that again?

Or that great bastion of truth and integrity, Teddy Kennedy: “It’s bad enough that such a glaring blunder became part of the president’s case for war. It’s far worse if the case for war was made by deliberate deception. . . .We cannot risk American lives because of shoddy intelligence or outright lies.”

In February 2002, Wilson had gone to the African nation of Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein sought to purchase uranium in that country. Wilson claimed that he came up with no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had sought uranium, but that the White House had ignored his findings on the issue.

According to Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts, “Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had ‘debunked’ the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa . . . [N]ot only did he NOT ‘debunk’ the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.”

The British investigation resulted in the release of the Butler Report, which concluded, “[T]he statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the government’s dossier, and by extension the prime minister in the House of Commons, were well founded.”

Having exonerated Tony Blair, the Butler Report went on to say, “By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s state of the union address of 2003 that ‘the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well founded.”

None of this seems to matter. Most headlines about the Commission’s reports are along the lines of the New York Times headline; “Report Cites Lapses Across Government and 2 Presidencies” — which of course it does not.

Instead, the report concludes that neither president was well-served by their respective intelligence services.

Here’s how the Times characterized the Commission findings;

“In the end, the commissioners reached no definitive verdict on whether Mr. Clinton or Mr. Bush deserved greater blame for the lapses and inaction. The report seemed to portray Mr. Clinton as better informed and more intensely engaged than Mr. Bush.”

The Times’ next paragraph is a textbook example of liberal doublespeak; “In contrast to Mr. Bush, the report said, Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, had “a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on bin Laden’s reported location.”

(The Times doesn’t mention another contrast between Clinton and Bush — eight years vs. eight months.)

So the partisanship continues, pretty much guaranteeing that all America will get in return for its investigation is a lot of hot air.

The three thousand Americans killed by al-Qaeda are largely forgotten as people — instead, they’ve become just another partisan symbol to be used as political currency to buy votes.

Dissenters Cry, ‘Censorship!’

Dissenters Cry, ‘Censorship!’
Vol: 34 Issue: 22 Thursday, July 22, 2004

Continental Features President Van Wilkerson conducted a survey of his readership, asking them whether or not he should drop Garry Trudeau’s ‘Doonesbury’ comic strip from his newspaper consortium.

In the poll e-mail he sent Continental’s newspaper clients this spring, Wilkerson wrote: “(I)t is my feeling that a change in one of the features is required. I have fielded numerous complaints about ‘Doonesbury’ in the past and feel it is time to drop this feature and add another in its place. … If the majority of the group favors a replacement, you will be expected to accept that change.”

Of the 38 papers that run the Continental-produced Sunday comics section, 21 wanted to drop “Doonesbury,” 15 wanted to keep it, and two had no opinion or preference. “I wouldn’t call the vote [to drop ‘Doonesbury’] overwhelming, but it was a majority opinion,” Wilkerson said.

One of the newspapers affected, The Anniston, Alabama, ‘Star’ called the decision ‘censorship’.

Star publisher H. Brandt Ayers e-mailed Wilkerson to say he and his paper’s editors “strongly object to an obviously political effort to silence a minority point of view. . . This is wrong, offensive to First Amendment freedoms.”

Singer Linda Ronstadt finished a concert in a Las Vegas casino by dedicating her last song to Michael Moore and urging everyone to go and see ‘Fahrenheit 911’ — an alleged ‘documentary’ whose main points were obliterated by the 9/11 Commission’s report.

The audience reacted by booing, ripping down Linda Ronstadt posters from the ballroom walls, throwing drinks in the air, and even walking out and demanding their money back. The reaction was so raucous that the casino’s president said he didn’t even allow the singer back in her luxury suite afterward and she was escorted off the property.

Whoopi Goldberg was dumped as the spokesperson for Slim-Fast because of her crude and vulgar comments about President Bush at a John Kerry fundraiser held in New York’s Radio City Music Hall.

“We are disappointed by the manner in which Ms. Goldberg chose to express herself and sincerely regret that her recent remarks offended some of our consumers. Ads featuring Ms. Goldberg will no longer be on the air,” said Terry Olson, general manager of the Florida-based diet giant.”


When actor Tim Robbins took to the airwaves to denounce the Bush administration and the war against Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, Bush’s ‘theft’ of Election 2000, etc., etc., ad nauseaum, the Baseball Hall of Fame ‘uninvited’ him to a special event celebrating the movie ‘Bull Durham’.

Robbins promptly called a press conference at the National Press Club to announce that his 1st Amendment rights had been violated, and that he was being ‘silenced’.

“In the 19 months since 9/11, we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred,” he claimed. “Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear.

“A unified American public has grown bitterly divided,” Robbins continued, “and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state.”

I recall noting at the time the odd sense of disconnect that comes with watching a guy calling together the national press corps to announce he wasn’t being allowed to speak and comparing his national audience to Soviet-style repression.

His wife, Susan Sarandon, made similar comments and the United Way dropped her as quickly as Slim-Fast shed Whoopi Goldberg.

Ronstadt, Goldberg, Robbins, Sarandon, not to mention George Clooney, Jeanine Garafalo and others, have all paid some price for expressing their political views, and every single one of them screamed ‘censorship!’ or whined about their 1st Amendment rights being violated.

This is a good time to revisit the 1st Amendment and what it actually says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Apparently, celebrities aren’t any better versed in Constitutional Law than they are in political science.

Slim-Fast isn’t Congress; neither is the Baseball Hall of Fame or the United Way. Neither were the patrons of the Ronstadt concert who paid for a concert, not a liberal political rally.

Moviegoers who boycott outspoken celebrities aren’t Congress. Neither are ordinary Americans the boycott the advertisers who sponsor them.

The Continental Features decision to drop Doonesbury wasn’t made as a consequence of a government decision or even an effort on the part of the organization to impose their own views. They took a poll — let the readers vote — and then acted according to the majority decision. That isn’t censorship — rather, it is the essence of free speech.

John Lenin (the Communist politician, not the deceased Communist rock star) once referred to the millions marching to advance the cause of Communism ‘useful idiots’.

They were useful because they advanced his ’cause’, but in his view, they were also idiots because they didn’t have a clue what his ’cause’ really was. Moreover, if there were any repercussions, they would fall, not on him, but on the idiots supporting him.

Saddam Hussein managed to turn most of Hollywood, half of Congress and hundreds of thousands of ordinary people into useful idiots to his cause. (The evidently less-idiotic French, Germans and Russians got PAID to be useful)

The Anybody-But-Bush lobby has its useful idiots as well. Each of the celebrities who found themselves paying the price for expressing their views immediately started complaining about being ‘censored’ or about their 1st Amendment rights.

But all that proves is that they lack the courage of their convictions. Somebody told them freedom of speech is free, and they believed it. Their subsequent cries of ‘censorship’ firmly establish their ‘idiot’ status, even if their usefulness is a topic for debate.

The 1st Amendment affords everyone the right to free speech, the right to petition the government, the right to peaceably assemble, and forbids the government from passing laws that might interfere with those rights.

But NOWHERE does the 1st Amendment say we have to listen to free speech if we think it is stupid. There are no 1st Amendment guarantees that free speech will automatically become popular speech or that Americans must either like or patronize the speakers.

Nonetheless, the cries of ‘censorship’ are resonating with other liberal idiots like Peter Jennings. When Tim Robbins complained about being “punished” for his unpopular views, Peter Jennings and company dedicated an entire segment to it and even compared a few ‘disinvites’ to McCarthy-era ‘blacklists’.

At the top of the April 16 World News Tonight, Jennings teased: “And here at home, the well-organized effort to get at entertainment stars who thought the war was a bad idea.”

At the first ad break, Jennings plugged the upcoming story: “And at the end of the broadcast tonight, the dangers of being anti-war — if you work in Hollywood.”

Actor Mike Farrell: “We know that there have been organized attempts to get people fired from their jobs.”

Promoting the story before a later ad break, Jennings intoned: “When we come back this evening, being against the war and in show business. And the people who want to punish you for that.”

In the liberal, Orwellian-style double-speak, supporting America’s war on terror is ‘false patriotism’ while slamming your country in wartime is evidence of a real patriot.

Up is down, black is white and only the ‘smart people’ get it. People want to believe they are smarter than the average bear, and when they hear somebody like Tim Robbins say something so obviously stupid, they figure he must know what he was talking about or he wouldn’t say anything that stupid in the first place.

So they believe it — and pretty soon, they even start repeating it, smugly aware that they know something you don’t, even if they can’t explain it.

The deception works because it addresses humanity’s oldest and most enduring spiritual defect — pride. Paul says the ‘strong delusion’ of 2nd Thessalonians 2:11 works because the people “received not the love of the truth” (v. 10) and because they “had pleasure in unrighteousness” (v. 12)

The net effect of all this is described by Paul to Timothy, prefaced by the warning, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” (2nd Timothy 3:1)

The next four verses sum up the liberal agenda of those who now cry ‘censorship’ because their audiences are drying up.

“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.” (2nd Timothy 3:2-5)

We quote this passage regularly in your Omega Letter but I pray that it won’t lose its impact because of its familiarity. Read v.2-5 again. Look at them. Compare them to the ’causes’ espoused by the Useful Idiots on the liberal left.

See it for what it is — an incredible prophecy — a letter-perfect description of the liberal agenda of the last days, penned twenty centuries ago, but being fulfilled in THIS generation.

Get excited about it! Remember how Paul prefaced the chapter:

“This know also, that IN THE LAST DAYS, perilous times shall come”.

So will Jesus.