JesusLand, Gun Control and the Coming Prince

JesusLand, Gun Control and the Coming Prince
Vol: 39 Issue: 21 Tuesday, December 21, 2004

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (US Constitution, 2nd Amendment, ratified December 15th, 1791)

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is apparently written in language so mysterious and sublime that it means something different to everybody who reads it.

Evidently, it also changes meaning as the clock ticks forward, since it continues to be interpreted and re-interpreted as if there were an ongoing contest for the most original interpretation of a sentence that, to the ignorant and uninitiated masses, seems to make perfect sense just the way it reads on the surface.

For about the first two hundred years of the Republic, the 2nd Amendment meant American citizens had a Constitutional right to keep and to bear arms.

And, for about the first two hundred years of the Republic, the 2nd Amendment functioned as it was intended. It kept the government at bay.

Originally, the Constitution was approved without a Bill of Rights, then sent to the states for ratification. The states felt the Constitution, as written, failed to give enough protection to individual rights that they wanted specifically protected by amendment.

Among the rights the states sought to enshrine as Constitutionally-protected were the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to keep and bear arms.

The intent of the Bill of Rights was to protect individuals from government powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments as well as the American citizens that the Federal government would not try to take away the freedoms which many of them had so recently fought for.

Richard Henry Lee, the Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, noted at the time that, “to preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

James Madison said in the Federalist Papers that the 2nd Amendment preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Noah Webster observed that, “before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

Patrick Henry argued that the power to resist oppression rested entirely on the right to bear arms, saying, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”

It would seem, as I noted at the outset, that the 2nd Amendment was intended to mean pretty much what it says. Indeed, our country was born when a group of colonists rose up in arms against British rule.

Guns empower the masses: they are the last line of defense for a citizenry confronted with an evil government.

The regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s U.S.S.R. recognized this principle and seized all weapons, precluding any effectual resistance to their tyranny. One need only read the newspapers in New York and Los Angeles to realize that even the innocent have cause to fear the police.

Communities around the country are justifiably hesitant to relinquish their weapons and be at the mercy of local law enforcement. Law enforcement, by definition, is powerless to act until AFTER a crime has been committed. Police can’t protect individuals, they can only prosecute after the fact.

(Which, in the case of murder, is of little consolation to the victim)

In countries like Canada and England that have imposed what amounts to a ban on private ownership of weapons, citizens are most vulnerable in their own homes.

Home invasions (burglaries) became the crime of choice among criminals who became the embodiment of the slogan, ‘when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’

A 1998 study by the US Department of Justice found that there were 40 percent more muggings in England, and burglary rates were almost 100 percent higher than in the United States.

And, counter-intuitively, rates of crimes using handguns is on the rise. In 1999-2000, crimes using handguns were at a seven year high.

Apparently, criminals were easily able to access guns, but law enforcement officers and law-abiding citizens were not allowed. (When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, remember?)

In America, burglars aren’t sure if homeowners are armed or not, but the odds favor there being at least one gun in the house. So they avoid burglarizing occupied homes. Only thirteen percent of US burglaries are against occupied homes.

In Canada, the overall burglary rate is higher than the American one, and a Canadian burglary is four times more likely to take place when the victims are home.

In Toronto, forty-four percent of burglaries were against occupied homes, and twenty-one percent involved a confrontation with the victim.

Most Canadian residential burglaries occur at night, while American burglars are known to prefer daytime entry to reduce the risk of an armed confrontation.

A 1982 British survey found fifty-nine percent of attempted burglaries in the UK involved an occupied home, prompting the Wall Street Journal to report that;

“Compared with London, New York is downright safe in one category: burglary. In London, where many homes have been burglarized half a dozen times, and where psychologists specialize in treating children traumatized by such thefts, the rate is nearly twice as high as in the Big Apple. And burglars here increasingly prefer striking when occupants are home, since alarms and locks tend to be disengaged and intruders have little to fear from unarmed residents.” ( WSJ, Apr. 19, 1994, page A1)

The London Sunday Times, pointing to Britain’s soaring burglary rate, calls Britain “a nation of thieves.”

In the Netherlands, forty-eight percent of residential burglaries involved an occupied home.

In the Republic of Ireland, criminologists report that burglars have little reluctance about attacking an occupied residence.

In America, burglars are reluctant to invade an occupied home because they might get shot. One out of every 31 burglars gets shot. That is about the equal to the burglar’s odds of being sent to prison.

Assuming that the threat of prison is a deterrent to burglary, as in Canada or Britain, it seems reasonable to conclude that the equally large risk of being shot provides an equally large deterrent.

In other words, private individuals with firearms in their homes double the deterrent effect that would exist if government-imposed punishment were the only deterrent.

On the other hand, Switzerland has few restrictions on who can own or carry a firearm.

As a consequence, Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, despite very high levels of gun ownership. Also, despite being sandwiched between two aggressive powers during World War II, the country remained untouched, largely due to the heavy rates of private gun ownership.

Hitler and Mussolini knew that the heavily armed Swiss population would defend itself fiercely, (something they didn’t fear from the French, for example)

But these facts seem to be as lost to gun control advocates as is the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment. To them, being at the mercy of invaders, either foreign or domestic, is a small price to pay to get guns off the streets.

Most gun control advocates point to the recent upsurge in gun violence by children as an example of why guns need to be controlled.

The fact is, the upsurge in gun violence among corresponds with the various successes enjoyed by gun control advocates. There were more guns in circulation in America in previous generations, but far fewer gun deaths. (The first federal regulation of firearms in America wasn’t introduced until 1934.)

Previous generations of Americans grew up with guns. They were familiar objects around the house, like a shovel or a wrench. There was nothing mysterious about them. Kids knew better than to play with them.

Gun control advocates argue that the 2nd Amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms to a well regulated MILITIA, and not to the ‘people’. According to this interpretation, the 2nd Amendment gives the government the right to keep and bear arms via the National Guard.

The silliness of this argument is obvious to anybody but a liberal or an activist judge. Why would the government give itself the right to bear arms by Constitutional amendment, since the Constitution already gives it the right to do so in order to ‘provide for the common defense’?

But that has been the prevailing legal opinion since the passage of the Brady Bill. That the right to bear arms is granted to the government via a ‘well-regulated militia’ by the 2nd Amendment.

According to Title 10 of the United States Code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

In other words, the ‘militia’ and ‘the people’ mean the same thing.

Among the various documents and action plans uncovered among the terrorist camps in Afghanistan was a plan for suicide operatives to simply walk up to someone’s door and shoot whoever answers.

Another called for terrorist operatives to set up sniper posts in American cities simultaneously and starting picking off victims.

Both tactics have been used by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli settlements, but were seldom successful, since all Israeli settlers are armed to the teeth.

The terror threat facing the homeland prompted a reexamination of the gun control debate by the DoJ. It recently released a 103 page “Memoradum Opinion For the Attorney General” issued in August by Assistant Attorneys General Steven G. Bradbury, Howard C. Nielson, Jr. and C. Kevin Marshall.

They studied the history of anti-gun legislation and anti-gun court cases and reached the following conclusion:

“Our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views.”

The memorandum was titled; “Whether the 2nd Amendment Secures an Individual Right” and conspicuously put the conclusion in the subtitle; “The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.”

(The entire memorandum can be found at this link:

When I queried Google using the keywords ‘2nd Amendment’, there were only nine stories relating to the DoJ memo. Of them, only one was in the national media. The Washington Times carried the story under the headline, “Gun group urges 2nd Amendment observance”.

Other than that, the media seems to have spiked the story. To the liberal left, gun control is more than an issue, it is a matter of doctrine.

Gun control is a front for the advancement of the socialist agenda. Giving in to the idea that guns are dangerous concedes to the notion that it is better to let some lowlife steal your property, rape your wife, and beat you half to death than it is to expedite his passage into the next world.

(Your property was all gained at his expense anyway, so in a moral sense, he’s entitled to it as much as you are.)

That is the core of the socialist doctrine. And it is the dominant worldview of most of the industrialized world.

But that worldview is changing, it would seem, in the newly discovered country of ‘JesusLand’. The world is marching in one direction, but Red State America is beginning to turn itself around and march the other way, dragging the Blue States along, kicking and screaming all the way.

As a consequence, Red State America is now the only obstacle in the path of the globalist social engineers who are unwittingly, but eagerly, preparing the way for the antichrist.

Paul says that the ‘mystery of iniquity’ is already at work, but that the Restrainer will continue to restrain, ‘until He be taken out of the way’ at the Rapture.

Without the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit working through the indwelt Church, the Blue State Americans left behind after the Rapture will be only too happy to turn back around, throw away their guns, and defenselessly march in lockstep with their socialist cousins — straight into the waiting arms of the Beast.

“And THEN shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His Mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:8)

TIME To Make Amends?

TIME To Make Amends?
Vol: 39 Issue: 20 Monday, December 20, 2004

TIME Magazine named President George W. Bush as 2004’s ‘Person of the Year’ in what appears to be the first in a series of fence-mending moves among the media elite who finally recognize that he’s still gonna be president come January 20.

That the elite media pulled out all the stops to get Bush defeated is beyond question — but Bush won anyway, so, at long last, it really IS time to ‘move on’. The Bush-bashing of the last four years backfired — ‘big time’ — to use a quote from a bygone campaign season.

They’ve paid dearly for their efforts. It cost Dan Rather his anchor seat at CBS. The cost to CBS is incalculable — it has yet to release its report on the forged memo debacle, and CBS News may never recover its lost credibility. There is even talk of CBS abandoning its news department and giving itself wholly over to entertainment broadcasting.

Four years of incessant America-bashing by Peter Jennings has put ABCNews on the same slippery slide — one doesn’t hear ABC’s tag line, “More Americans get their news from ABC News than from any other source” as often, because it is no longer true.

Leading up to the election, the media elite did everything they could to hand the election to John Kerry. When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made allegations that John Kerry’s Vietnam service was not what Kerry said it was, the media went after the Swift Boat vets — not John Kerry.

Kerry got a pass from the media about lying about his alleged ‘Christmas in Cambodia’ — a lie he told for more than thirty years. But the media accepted Kerry’s ‘explanation’ that what had been “seared — SEARED in [his] memory” when he told the story from the Senate well in 1985 was an innocent misstatement. No harm, no foul.

But when allegations were made that George Bush might have missed the last few meetings of his National Guard service, it was headline news. When there were no facts to back up the allegations, the media manufactured them, including using forged documents when the real ones didn’t say what the media hoped they would.

To listen to the media elite’s description of the war in Iraq, America is losing. But the veterans who come home tell a different story. Since the news from Afghanistan is largely positive, it is largely ignored.

What had been the ‘graveyard of empires’ for centuries was transformed in three years into a representative democracy. Hamid Karzai was elected president of Afghanistan in that country’s first free elections — ever.

That got a grudging nod from the press in the first few minutes of the news broadcasts, before returning their attention to the latest bad news from Iraq.

Iraq is much larger than Fallujah, or the Sunni Triangle. For every insurgent there are ten thousand Iraqis yearning for freedom — for every attack there are ten thousand successes.

But there is almost never any good news from Iraq. In a nation of fifty million, how can this be? Enquiring minds want to know.

When Alberto Gonzales was nominated to be the first Hispanic Attorney-General, the media didn’t celebrate the diversity of the Bush cabinet. They complained he was too much of a ‘team player’ — as if that were a bad thing to have in a presidential cabinet.

Bush’s National Security advisor, Condoleeza Rice, was the second woman and first BLACK woman in history ever nominated to be Secretary of State. The media bypassed that fact, zeroing in on Rice as another ‘team player’.

The only notice given to the fact she was black was in overtly racist cartoons by liberal cartoonists like Tom Oliphant and Ted Ralls depicting her as a big-lipped parrot or an illiterate slave-era caricature sitting in a rocking chair saying things like; “I knows all about dose aluminum tubes.”

A Doonesbury strip depicted President Bush calling Dr. Rice ‘Brown Sugar’.

A Ted Ralls cartoon depicted Dr. Rice proclaiming herself Bush’s “HOUSE NIGGA.” A black man demands that Rice “HAND OVER HER HAIR STRAIGHTENER.” His t-shirt reads “YOU’RE NOT WHITE, STUPID.” The caption below the frame reads “SENT TO INNER-CITY RACIAL RE-EDUCATION CAMP.”

Dr. Rice is not the first Secretary of State to agree with her boss. The very first female Secretary of State in history was Clinton appointee Madeline Albright.

She had no problem taking a stand in defense of her boss when he was accused of perjury, sexual harassment and rape. Nobody in the media seemed to take exception to that. (Indeed, the elite media praised HER for her loyalty).

The elite media has engaged in four years of concentrated deception, trying to make good on its 2000 promise to make George Bush’s presidency the most unsuccessful in history. They thought they were doing a pretty good job of it, until Election Day came around.

Their initial reaction (“how could 56 million voters be so stupid?”) didn’t play that well with the fifty-six million dummies they had been attempting to ‘re-educate’ for the last four years, so they are trying to do a little fence-mending.

They’ve suddenly realized (and I DO mean ‘suddenly’) that they’ve lost credibility with the majority of America — and something even more startling — they aren’t automatically getting it back now that the election is over.

So now they are trying to manipulate themselves back into the public’s good graces. We can expect to see them applaud a few Bush administration initiatives, maybe say something nice about Red State America, (maybe even salute President Bush as the ‘Person of the Year’) – but only until they recover some of their lost ratings.

The Great Culture War of 2004 isn’t over — this is just a temporary truce until they can get their act back together. It has been a learning experience for both the media elite and the American public.

Looked at under the light of Bible prophecy, we can learn something else about the Big Picture for the last days. The media onslaught was successful, according to all the polls, everywhere EXCEPT in America.

Globally, George Bush is almost universally hated, with most of the world still convinced that Bush lied about the Iraq war, was probably complicit in the 9/11 attacks and that he stole the presidency in 2000.

The only ones who saw through the propaganda was Red State America — what the media elite sneeringly dismissed as ‘JesusLand’.

In outlining the chain of events that would eventually put the antichrist in power, the Apostle Paul noted that, “ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:6-7)

The ‘mystery of iniquity’ [sin], the Apostle says, is ALREADY at work, but is that evil is ‘let’ [Old English for ‘restrain’] by the Holy Spirit, ‘until He be taken out of the way’.

Had there not been a ‘Red State America’ the media conspiracy would have been as successful in America as it was in the rest of the civilized world. Were it not for Red State America, the media would have been successful in using deception to put their man in the White House.

At the Rapture, when the ‘Restrainer is taken out of the way’ Red State America will be no more. Paul says that, after the Restrainer is removed, “then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His Mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming:”.

I’m not saying John Kerry was the antichrist. But there is something here worth noting. If the antichrist WERE to make his appearance, the only ones who WOULDN’T buy into the ‘strong delusion’ would be those indwelt by the same Spirit of Truth that exposed the 2004 media propaganda blitz for what it was.

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send THEM strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (2nd Thessalonians 2:9-10)

The rise of the antichrist depends on deception.

So did the election of John Kerry. It failed, thanks to ‘JesusLand’.

So NOW “ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.”

Until He be ‘taken out of the way’ — at the Rapture.

Tyranny of the Stupid

Tyranny of the Stupid
Vol: 39 Issue: 19 Sunday, December 19, 2004

A high-school junior in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, filed a sex discrimination suit against the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association because the association refused to let him join the all-girls team.

According to the complaint, reported in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune and in WorldNet daily, the alleged discrimination based on Bukowski’s sex violates education amendments which prohibit “discrimination based upon sex in extracurricular activities at public schools.”

It gets better. Doug Chickering, executive director of the WIAA, has been standing firm in keeping Bukowski off the team, even though the girls’ coach had no problem with the boy’s participation.

He recently explained to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the reasons given by the WIAA for its ban and why girls are granted exceptions.

In his explanation is one of the most bizarre examples of political correctness it’s ever been my pleasure to laugh at. Chickering said — and I’m not making this up — “Our investigation of court cases indicates that there are physiological differences between boys and girls.”

Note that Chickering had to investigate ‘court cases’ to come up with this amazing discovery. Had he arrived this conclusion the old-fashioned way, well, then he’d have the ACLU and the National Organization of Women all over him.

It is politically incorrect to observe that men and women are physically different. It makes it harder for them to get jobs as cops, firemen or combat soldiers if anybody admits it out loud.

So instead, Chickering had to ‘investigate court cases’ in order to conclude; “These differences would strongly indicate that physical advantages would have to be given to the boys.”

They ‘strongly indicate’ that boys have physical advantages over girls? Has he ever BEEN a boy? Did he ever play on the playground with girls? (I used to love to play baseball against the girl’s team. It was the only time we could win)

This isn’t intended to slam women, but it IS intended to highlight the stupidity of political correctness (PC)

PC is a communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished.

It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community.

Soon those who were publicly declared politically INcorrect becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.

(In Canada, the use of politically incorrect words has already resulted in numerous criminal convictions before Canada’s human rights tribunals)

The rational behind this tyranny of the stupid is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behavior that may upset homosexuals, women, non-white, the crippled, the mentally impaired, the fat or the ugly. Giving rise to terms like ‘gay’, ‘feminist’, ‘physically challenged , special needs’, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Don’t misunderstand. I try not to give offense and would never deliberately insult someone for the sake of causing hurt, but that isn’t the same as being forced by the PC police to ‘investigate court cases’ in order to discover that boys have physical advantages over girls in competitive sports.

The concept (and the stupidity) of Political Correctness is not exactly new. The first use of the term in America dates back to a U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled “Chisholm v. Georgia” concerning whether a toast should be given to ‘the United States’ or the ‘People of the United States’.

(The Court ruled that toasting to the ‘United States’ instead of to, ‘the People of the United States’ was not ‘politically correct’.)

But it reached its height of stupidity in the 1980’s and has crossed over to become a form of social tyranny in the hands of the minority. The consequences are incalculable.

Take the practice of abortion, for example. It is politically incorrect to refer to practitioners of abortion as ‘abortionists’ which has the effect of sanitizing what it is that they do. They destroy unborn babies in the womb.

It is politically incorrect to use the phrase ‘pro-abortion’ in favor of ‘pro-choice’. Just as it is politically incorrect to use the phrase ‘pro-life’ in favor of the more negative-sounding ‘anti-choice’ or ‘anti-abortion’.

A recent situation at the L.A. Times illustrates PC tyranny in action: A news review of an opera included the term ‘pro-life’ — in the sense of ‘life-affirming’.

However it is Times policy to use the term ‘anti-abortion’ in lieu of the term “pro-life”, therefore the term was changed, even though the meaning was entirely different. It was a major embarrassment to the Times editors, who deny a left-leaning bias.

“Anti-abortion” has pejorative connotations alluding to a ‘challenge’ to women’s rights, while “pro-life” symbolizes an ‘active defense’ of the unborn children’s right to life.

Nobody wants to think about trading a woman’s rights for a human life, so PC-think can’t tolerate references to the unborn as being ‘alive’.

The Apostle Paul spoke to this specifically, writing, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. . .” (1st Timothy 4:1-2)

That is all PC-speak really is — a ‘conscience ironer’. It is a way to declassify sin as sin and reclassify it as an ‘alternative’ to the politically-incorrect concept of ‘normal’. Hence, being a homosexual is an alternative, but normal lifestyle. It says so in your child’s school textbooks, so it must be true.

Abortion is the exercise of a woman’s ‘rights’, not the destruction of her unborn child. Hence, it is not murder and has no social or eternal consequences. Some women have had multiple abortions and claim no regret. Their consciences have been ironed, pressed AND folded.

The fact that the whole concept is stupid (a politically incorrect, but accurate adjective) only seems to bother those tyrannized. The tyrants see themselves as the ‘enlightened ones’ and those they tyrannize as their social and intellectual inferiors.

It was Adolf Hitler who correctly deduced that the more outrageous a lie was, the more likely it was that people would not only accept it, but propagate it.

People want to believe that they are ‘enlightened’ — Hitler was an astute observer of human nature. Believing themselves to be the enlightened ones makes them feel more comfortable about the dark.

That’s how Hitler conned an entire nation into becoming complicit in mass murder. By making them feel good about themselves as being the only ones with the courage to impose the ‘Final Solution’.

PC-speak is another word for mass delusion. George Orwell used the concept of PC speak as the main plotline of his science-fiction classic, “1984” about a society totally controlled by ‘Big Brother’ by being constantly bombarded by what Orwell called ‘double-speak’.

The Apostle Paul spoke of mass delusion in the last days under the ultimate tyrant of human history — the antichrist.

According to Paul, “for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,” and explaining from his vantage point 2000 years ago, what Hitler only articulated in the past century; ” That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but HAD PLEASURE in unrighteousness.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12)

The Apostle John says the antichrist and false prophet; “deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.” (Revelation 13:14)

What is today the tyranny of the stupid is really the tyranny of the Big Lie in its infant form. With every passing day, the pieces of the puzzle for the last days come into clearer focus.

The prophet Daniel, when he was given his vision of the last days, was told by the revealing Angel;

“Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till THE TIME OF THE END.” The Angel continued; “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but THE WISE SHALL UNDERSTAND.” (Daniel 12:9-10)

The seals have been broken and Daniel’s vision and prophecy are no longer ‘closed up’ as they’ve been for the past twenty-five hundred years.

The wicked continue to do wickedly, and, as PC-speak proves, by definition, none of the wicked understand.

That leaves it up to us.

“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” (Ezekiel 33:7)

“But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” (2nd Timothy 4:5)

The CDC, Marriage and the Bible

The CDC, Marriage and the Bible
Vol: 39 Issue: 18 Saturday, December 18, 2004

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented some interesting — and some inexplicable — information on marriage, health and happiness.

The report, Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2002, was based on interviews with 127,545 adults aged 18 and over as part of the National Health Interview Survey, conducted by CDC s National Center for Health Statistics.

The study looked at health status and limitations, health conditions, and health-related behaviors according to marital status and also by age, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic factors such as education and poverty status.

One of the unspoken findings in the study found that people prefer to be married. That appears to contradict the statistics that say that every other marriage ends in divorce.

Statistcally, if you just got married, you’ve got a fifty percent chance of being divorced. If you are middle aged, the odds you’ve already been divorced are about the same odds that a coin toss will come up ‘heads’.

But despite all that, only about ten percent of Americans in this study were either divorced or separated. Only about six percent of Americans are cohabitating, which is about the same number of Americans who are widowed or widowers.

Nineteen percent of Americans have never married. (The study surveyed ‘adults’ as young as eighteen, accounting for the high number of never-marrieds)

But according to the study, a whopping sixty percent of Americans prefer to be married in the traditional sense of marriage.

I characterize that number as a ‘whopping’ percentage, because, as previously noted, fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce, statistically speaking, but only 10 percent of Americans in this study show up as being divorced at the moment.

That presents an statistically interesting corollary deduction: While fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, this study also proves about the same number of divorces end in marriage.

Marriages in America vary according to ethnicity, as well. Sixty-one percent of whites and fifty-nine percent of Hispanics are married, while only thirty-eight percent of blacks live in a traditional marriage.

The study also found that traditional marriage is a much healthier lifestyle, despite the claims of the minority who are lobbying against traditional marriage (and who seem to get all the headlines.)

The study found that adults in a traditional marriage are less likely than other adults to be in ‘fair or poor health’. They are less likely to suffer from chronic health problems than adults living other lifestyles. They are less like to suffer from psychological problems that adults in other lifestyles.

Adults living in a traditional marriage are less likely to be limited in their activities, from work to recreation to mobility. Adults in traditional marriages are less likely to smoke, drink heavily, and more likely to exercise and take care of themselves.

In fact, the study ‘discovered’ there is only one downside to traditional marriages.

Husbands tend to get fat.


Even the ‘down side’ is evidence of the spiritual and physical benefits of traditional marriage. The saying, ‘fat, dumb and happy’ wasn’t born in a vacuum — these old sayings tend to convey universal truths.

It is more than simply living with someone you love; the study found that adults who live in cohabiting relationships are also more likely to have health problems than traditionally married adults and ‘more closely resemble divorced and separated adults’, although the CDC study admits that “the reasons for better health status among married adults cannot be determined with the cross-sectional data collected in the National Health Interview Survey.”

Marriage is a spiritual union, according to Scripture, going all the way back to the beginning:

“So God created man in His Own Image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” (Genesis 1:27)

When asked by the Pharisees whether divorce was lawful, “Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.”

Jesus made it clear that marriage is a spiritual union, not once, but twice, before making it clear that marriage is ordained of God.

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:5-9)

This passage does not mean that Christians can’t divorce, as some in the Church contend. Jesus Himself identified adultery as grounds for divorce, saying, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication” (Matthew 19:9) and Paul cited spiritual incompatibility as another.

“But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.” (1st Corinthians 7:15)

Divorce is evil because of the pain it causes families, but in some cases, it is the product of frivolously entering into an unscriptural marriage in the first place.

In some marriages, divorce is the only option. (But that is a topic for a different Omega Letter — this one is about marriage)

The spiritual element of marriage is such that God uses it to describe His relationship with mankind. The Church is characterized as the Bride of Christ. God characterized the practice of idol worship among the ancient Israelites as ‘adultery’.

Ephesians 5:25 says, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it.”

Colossians 3:18-19 repeats the theme, saying, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.”

Proverbs 5:18 says, “Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.”

Ecclesiates 9:9: “Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.”

1 Corinthians 7:3-4: “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”

All these Scriptures are regularly used by the Useful Idiots to ‘prove’ the Bible oppresses women, or that traditional marriage somehow tramples women’s rights, and so on.

Ephesians 5:23 is the most often cited: “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church: and He is the Saviour of the body”. (That one sends the feminazis ballistic)

Look back at them again.

Ephesians 5:25 requires the husband to love his wife, “as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it.” Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified for His Bride. Husbands have a Scriptural duty to do no less for theirs.

As far as the husband being ‘the head of the wife’, Jesus taught the ‘two shall become one flesh’. There are no two-headed animals in nature. Somebody has to take the lead, but with it, comes the responsibility before the Lord. God said it should be the husband, as part of the curse pronounced against Adam; “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground”. (Genesis 3:19)

Corinithians puts the body of each under the power of the other — there is nothing one-sided about it.

Colossians 3:18-19 places equal responsibility on each. If both sides meet their responsibility, neither side can claim ‘oppression’.

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes speak to the lifelong joy that is part of a happy, traditional marriage. So does the CDC’s study.

Marriage has been part of the human social order as long as human beings have lived on this earth. Every civilization in history has had rules, customs and traditions associated with marriage.

Some civilizations sanction polygamy, others sanction arranged marriages, others follow the monogamous model given by Scripture, but there is no record of a civilization seriously questioning the basic principle of marriage — that it is unique to a man and a woman — until this generation, that is.

Even when all the scientific and social evidence proves beyond question that traditional marriages offer unique and lasting benefits, there are Useful Idiots everywhere questioning the system upon which civilization was built.

Traditional marriage is under attack primarily as a right-wing, religious tradition and therefore, worthy of redefinition for that reason, if no other, which is why the Useful Idiots on the Left have decided to back the gay rights effort to redefine mankind’s oldest institution.

Paul writes of this in Romans 1:26-28 saying,

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 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.”

So the CDC study proves the health benefits of traditional marriage. Other previous medical studies have established the healing power of prayer, still others, the health benefits of regular Christian fellowship, and, so on.

While documenting that these benefits are real and tangible, the CDC admits that it can’t explain why.

The reason is because the Bible is true. Its precepts are valid, its teachings are life-changing and its power is tangible, but how it works remains inexplicable to science.

The Bible proves itself with every serious study, which in turn causes the world to scratch its head and seek another, more comfortable explanation.

The Scripture that promises the joy and longevity associated with a happy, traditional family is the same Word of God that promises eternal life to those who trust Jesus for salvation.

Everything that CAN be proved in the here and now about the reliability of the Word of God pretty much HAS been proved; from historicity of Jesus Christ, to the benefits associated with Christianity, to the ancient prophecies directed at a single generation, somewhere in time, that are coming together in THIS generation.

One cannot ‘prove’ eternal life, since, by definition, eternity exists outside of the dimensions of space and time that make up our physical world.

But God has provided, in His Word, all the proof necessary to know the He exists and remains intimately involved in the affairs of men. The rest we take on faith.

The Bible is true. That means it is ALL true. Including the part about Jesus coming for His Church.

“. . . for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that Day.”

Watching current events and comparing them to Scripture, the only reasonable conclusion is that ‘that Day’ is fast approaching.

Preaching the ‘Other’ Jesus

Preaching the ‘Other’ Jesus
Vol: 39 Issue: 17 Friday, December 17, 2004

This year’s annual competetion between Newsweek and TIME to see who can do the most effective hit piece on Jesus was close; but one has to award this year’s ‘Satan’s Little Helper’ award to Newsweek’s Jon Meacham.

Early on in his ponderous column, Meacham identifies his target audience, seemingly a bit incredulous about their numbers;

“A NEWSWEEK Poll found that 84 percent of American adults consider themselves Christians, and 82 percent see Jesus as God or the son of God. Seventy-nine percent say they believe in the virgin birth, and 67 percent think the Christmas story from the angels’ appearance to the Star of Bethlehem is historically accurate.”

Meacham then introduces his Star Chamber of New Thinkers;

“Others, though perhaps fewer in number, are equally passionate about their critical understanding of the faith. The Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars devoted to recovering the Jesus of history, is a battalion in this long-running culture war.”

The Jesus Seminar? “PERHAPS fewer in numbers” than the 232 million Americans (79% of the population) who believe in the Virgin Birth? Is he kidding? THIS is worthy of Newsweek?

Even if every single person in America who doubts the historicity of the Christmas story were passionate about this doubt which is highly unlikely they would still be outnumbered by over 100 million!

The objectivity of the ‘scholarship’ of the Jesus Seminar was laid bare by the opening remarks of its founder, Robert Funk, at its first meeting in 1985.

“What we need is a new fiction that takes as its starting point the central event in the Judeo-Christian drama [Jesus] and reconciles that middle with a new story that reaches beyond old beginnings and endings [creation and eschatology]. In sum, we need a new narrative of Jesus, a new gospel, if you will, that places Jesus differently in the grand scheme, the epic story.”

Having BEGUN from the ‘objective’ position that a ‘new fiction’ is required to replace the ‘old fiction’ of the Gospels, Funk explains: “Not any fiction will do. . . . The fiction of Revelation keeps many common folk in bondage to ignorance and fear. We require a new, liberating fiction, one that squares with the best knowledge we can now accumulate and one that transcends self-serving ideologies.”

Later in his speech, Funk warned that their findings would be unpopular — and he concluded that before the group had even had its first meeting!

“What we are about takes courage, as I said. We are probing what is most sacred to millions, and hence we will constantly border on blasphemy. We must be prepared to forebear the hostility we shall provoke.”

And as I just noted, to that point, the Jesus Seminar hadn’t ‘found’ anything. So how did Funk already know that the objective conclusions of the Seminar would be so hostile to traditional faith? Because he stacked the deck from the beginning.

Funk filled the Seminar with hyper-skeptical scholars who shared both his scholarly and his theological biases, before setting out to destroy Christianity from within by attacking its Source code — the Scriptures themselves.

THAT is the ‘Christian scholarship’ that Meacham relies on to ‘explain’ why the Virgin Birth celebrated at Christmas is really just a myth, like Santa Claus.

Under subheadings like, “The Jesus Seminar”; “Little To Work With”; “An Outlandish Message” and “Dubious On Every Score” Meacham systematically denies every single tenet of the Gospel, going so far as to argue that the Virgin Birth was really a cover story for an illegitimate birth, suggesting Jesus was not the son of God, but the bastard son of a Roman soldier.

“In later years Christians had to contend with charges that their Lord was illegitimate, perhaps the illicit offspring of Mary and a Roman soldier. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, some scholars treat the Christmas narratives as first-century inventions designed to strengthen the seemingly tenuous claim that Jesus was the Messiah.”

Notice carefully what Meacham is saying here; “some scholars” consider the Christmas narratives to be first-century inventions. This is true. Yet from this observation he concludes that the story of Jesus s birth is as riven with complexity and controversy as Christianity itself.

What does Meacham mean by ‘riven by controversy’? Let’s argue, just for fun, that there are 1,000 scholars who believe as Meacham does. Assuming there are a billion Christians in the world, then there are a million believers for every disbelieving ‘scholar’.

Expressed another way, Meacham (and Newsweek) produced the entire piece based on the opinions of .0001% of the Christian population, with the implicit corrollary understanding that other 99.999% of Christians are wrong.

Meacham goes on to ask; “Was the story of the virginal conception told to hide Jesus’ illegitimacy?” before answering his own ‘question’ using the Dan Rather method of journalistic patronization:

“As startling as the allegation is for many, it dates from at least the second century, and maybe as early as Jesus’ lifetime. “It was Jesus himself who fabricated the story that he had been born of a virgin.” Meacham notes that Celsus wrote in A.D. 180;

“In fact, however, his mother was a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. She had been driven out by her carpenter-husband when she was convicted of adultery with a soldier named Panthera. She then wandered about and secretly gave birth to Jesus. Later, because he was poor, he hired himself out in Egypt where he became adept in magical powers. Puffed up by these, he claimed for himself the title of God.”

Meacham, it is to be remembered, is explaining who the REAL Jesus is, as opposed to the Jesus the Bible says He is.

Meacham’s hit piece was subtle, but deliberate. Take this line, for example:

“Second- and third-century Christian writers alleged that some Jews also suggested Jesus’ birth was illicit.”

What the heck does that prove? OF COURSE ‘some Jews’ suggested Jesus’ birth was illicit. ‘Some Jews’ also say His Body was stolen from the Tomb, too. To say otherwise would be to recognize that when their Messiah came, they put Him to death.

But since Meacham tacks on the part about 2nd and 3rd century Christians stating the obvious, it comes across as an argument favoring the early Church questioning the Virgin Birth doctrine.

It is a clever lie, that Newsweek attempts to make palatable by Meacham’s incredible claim that he, too, is a believer!

In a statement from Newsweek’s editor published in the December 13 edition–the issue with the Christmas cover story–editor Mark Whitaker identifies Meacham as a graduate of the University of the South at Sewanee, “the only Episcopal university in America.”

Whitaker goes on to identify a professor who exercised a particular influence on Meacham, teaching him “that there is no inconsistency between belief in Christ and the willingness to question the worldly roots of Scripture.”

If I am understanding this correctly, Meacham allegedly believes in a “Jesus” Who was probably a fraud. As near as I can make out, that constitutes an outright admission that Meacham is a fool who believes in fairy tales — which to Newsweek, merits special mention as Meacham’s most impressive credential.

As Meacham outlines the problem with the Gospel narratives, Matthew and Luke were “confronted with a literary problem that had to be solved.” As he frames their challenge: “They wanted to tell the story of Jesus’ birth, but apparently had little to work with.”

Put simply, Matthew and Luke just made it all up, according to Newsweek!


Even Newsweek’s opening statement about Meacham’s credentials were deliberately spun. Meacham is neither a theologian or a historian. His ‘scholarly credentials’ amount to a BA degree from the University of the South. His REAL credentials are more illuminating of his worldview.

Meacham is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Global Leader for Tomorrow of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, according to the biography put out by his literary agent, Royce Carlton.

That’s it! A BA degree from an obscure university, PLUS membership in all the right clubs, makes Jon Meacham an authority on theology worthy of a Newsweek cover story.

While Meacham’s piece won’t have any effect among true believers (apart from a collective uptick in blood pressure) — it will have a tremendously soothing effect on those poor lost souls who are seeking some evidence from which they can take comfort in their unbelief.

But it also serves as a perfect illustration of what the Apostle Paul was speaking of in 2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12 where he writes;

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

That accounts for the popularity of the annual competition between Newsweek and TIME to see who can do the best job each year at Christmas in attacking the foundational truths that it celebrates.

All men are created in God’s image and in His Likeness, the Scripture says. That doesn’t mean that God looks like me, it means that I was created with the capacity for eternal life. As a consequence, each of us has, at our core, (for want of a better way of putting it,) a God-shaped ‘hole’ that aches to be filled.

That is why unbelievers are so hungry for information that offers them some comfort in their unbelief, because it IS uncomfortable. There is always that nagging feeling of uncertainty, a fear that they can’t quite put away, but dare not face in the open.

All of us who were unbelievers remember that quiet sense of desperation — it is what eventually brought us to the Cross.

The Jesus the world wants to embrace is a characature of the real Jesus, one that has a ‘form of godliness’ but without the power to save or condemn.

The Bible does speak to the concept of ‘another Jesus’. Paul wrote in 2nd Corinthians 11:4:

“For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”

Paul also spoke of him when he warned; “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;”

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” (2nd Timothy 3:1-5)

Rumors of Peace?

Rumors of Peace?
Vol: 39 Issue: 16 Thursday, December 16, 2004

“They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14)

Rumors of peace are breaking out all over the Middle East, with news headlines breathlessly reporting things like; “Abbes Calls on Palestinians to End Armed Struggle”; and, “Syria Makes Peace Overtures”; and this morning’s; “Egypt Charts New Course for Mideast Peace.”

Nobody is whispering the reason for the new wind of hope blowing through the Middle East anymore, either. It’s because Yasser Arafat is dead.

When he was alive, the blame for the Oslo War fell on Israel’s ‘occupation’. Now even the Arab press is admitting Arafat was the aggressor and not a victim.

He used to be referred to in the Western media as, “Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat” when he wasn’t being referred to as, “embattled Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat”, but now, when he is mentioned, it is usually in the context of, “Now that Arafat is dead, both sides are hopeful . . .” — which accounts for most of the rosy speculation now.

In life, Yasser Arafat was the ‘living symbol of the Palestinian people’ — a man whose passing was mourned by no less a personage than the Pope, who commented that Arafat was “a leader of great charisma who loved his people and sought to lead them towards national independence.”

The Pope went on to bless the blood-soaked soul of the dearly departed, saying, “May God welcome in His mercy the soul of the illustrious deceased and give peace to the Holy Land. …” Ummm, YASSER Arafat?

Kofi Annan ordered UN flags flown at half-staff and said the dead terrorist “expressed and symbolized in his person the national aspirations of the Palestinian people,” and admitted he was ‘deeply moved’ by his passing.

French president Jacques Chirac called Arafat a “man of courage and conviction who, for 40 years, has incarnated the Palestinians’ combat for recognition of their national rights.”

Irish President Mary McAleese, who had just concluded her six month rotation as president of the EU, eulogized the terrorist by saying, “President Arafat has been a key figure in the efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict on the basis of two states living in peace within secure and agreed borders.

BUT, now that the key figure in the peace process, the Nobel Prize winning peacemaker who captured the heart of the Pope and deeply moved Kofi Annan at his passing is finally and permanently in the hands of Allah, suddenly, everybody is talking about the ‘winds of peace’ starting to blow across the Middle East.


In an editorial in the Jerusalem Post entitled, “Analysis: Hopeful Again” Herb Keinon summed up recent comments made by Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, noting, “It’s been a long, long while since an official at Shalom’s level in the government of Ariel Sharon has held out the possibility of peace with the Palestinians.”

Keinon expressed the general attitude of the Israeli public when he added, “Indeed, it’s been a long, long while since a battle-weary public has entertained such thoughts as well.”

Since Arafat’s death, there have been a number of events that have bolstered Israeli optimism, if not for peace, then at least for a break from open war.

Israel has only known two states of existence since its rebirth in 1948 — a state of war, punctuated by brief periods of discussions about peace, followed by more war.

To the shell-shocked Jewish state, those discussion periods were what passed for ‘peace’ in a life under otherwise constant threat.

So the advent of another round of talks that may lead to a cessation of hostilities, however briefly, is cause for optimism.

Egyptian President Mubarak recently said Ariel Sharon is the Palestinian’s best chance for peace, and drummed up support for peace in his visit to the Gulf states.

Egypt also released Israeli prisoner Azzam Azzam, after eight years in an Egyptian jail on an espionage charge that he denies.

The Palestinians and Israelis have begun talking about peace. All these signs give hope that the long nightmare of violence that began in September 2000 is at last over.

Fresh rumors about forthcoming Israeli concessions and Palestinian truce offers appear almost every day. The latest rumor claimed that Palestinians and Israelis have agreed to a truce and even to the major details of a peace deal.

But this peace deal, like many other rumors, is evaporating quickly.

Less than 24 hours after it first appeared, it was termed “premature” by Israeli officials. and Palestinians explained that it is only an agreement about election logistics. The PA is willing to agree to a cease-fire only long enough to elect a new warlord.

Arafat really WAS the embodiment of the aspirations of the Palestinian people, and those aspirations have not changed.

The Palestinians don’t want a state beside Israel; they want a state INSTEAD of Israel. And nothing less will do. Mahmoud Abbas has not dropped the demand for a Palestinian ‘Right of Return’.

It was Arafat’s insistence on the so-called ‘Right of Return’ that torpedoed Camp David and launched the Oslo War. And it was Abbas who counseled Arafat NOT to give in.

The ‘Right of Return’ demand is part of the PLO’s long-range strategy for the destruction of Israel. The Palestinians are demanding that the 1948 ‘refugees’ — and their descendants — be allowed to resettle in Israel.

And not the ‘right of return’ to a new Palestinian State. The Palestinians demand that those who fled in advance of the 1948 War, hoping to return and claim their land plus whatever remained of Jewish possessions, be resettled in Israel.

Should Israel agree to this, it would mean the almost instant dissolution of the Jewish State. The Palestinians claim the ‘Right of Return’ for almost 6 million Arabs, their descendants and their families.

A recent al Jazeera article explained; “Sharon would like the new Palestinian leadership, possibly led by Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), to compromise on such key Palestinian issues as East Jerusalem, the right of return and the creation of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But this, says Yacoub Shahin, a high-ranking official in the Palestinian ministry of information, will not happen.”

Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s likely successor after the elections, told the Palestinian parliament that he would walk in the footsteps of the late Palestinian leader.

“We promise you [Arafat] that our heart will not rest until we achieve the right of return for our people and end the tragic refugee issue,” he told PA lawmakers.

Abbas also reportedly agreed with Syria’s Bashar Assad to coordinate their strategy, so that Israel could not make peace with the Palestinians without making peace with the Syrians as well. This strategy will guarantee at least the neutrality of the Syrians toward Abu Mazen and the Palestinians.

On the other hand, since Israel is not likely to open peace talks with Syria, at least until the United States is satisfied that Syria has stopped supporting Iraqi insurgents; it adds an unnecessary and probably fatal obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

When Israel proposed an initiative to build housing for Palestinian ‘refugees’ (still living in squalid concentration camps in Arab countries after almost sixty years) INSIDE a proposed Palestinian State, Abbas was swift to respond, and in no uncertain terms.

“Any proposal regarding the resettlement of the refugees is completely rejected,” Abbas told reporters in Saudi Arabia.

The Ramallah-based Committee for Defending the Rights of Palestinian Refugees also rejected the Israeli plan and called on the international community to put pressure on Israel to acknowledge its responsibility for the plight of the refugees.

“Israel alone must admit that it is responsible for the problem of the refugees,” the group said in response to the Israeli initiative.

“Israel must recognize the right of the refugees to return to their homeland and properties and compensate them for the psychological and material damage.”

In a speech at a Palestinian ‘refugee camp’ in Lebanon only last week, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia sweetened the pot, telling the cheering crowd;

“No state without Jerusalem, no independence without Jerusalem, no peace without Jerusalem – just like other national legitimate Palestinian rights.”

So, there we have it.

Israel is already on record as saying it will never give up Jerusalem to the Arabs. And Israel’s desperation for peace will never reach the point of committing national suicide.

And the Palestinian insistence on the ‘right of return’ — to ISRAEL — and NOT to a Palestinian state makes clear that the Four Stage Plan for the Destruction of Israel has outlived its author, the late, lamented Yasser Arafat.

For them, peace is not an option; it is a weapon of war.

The recent initiatives by Egypt, the European Euromed initiative to include Israel in a greater EU free trade zone, and [even] a temporary truce for the Palestinian elections, seem like hopeful signs — but they are an illusion.

They have ‘healed the hurt of My daughter slightly’, as Jeremiah noted, ‘saying peace, peace — when there is no peace.’

But as Zechariah also noted, Jerusalem remains a ‘burdensome stone’.

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

To date, the only nation to truly burden itself with Jerusalem is the United States, whose support for Israel is credited by our enemies as the main reason for the 9/11 attacks.

The same prophets who so accurately forecast the situation so far are not going to suddenly stumble and drop the ball now.

Events continue to exactly mirror the description given by the prophets concerning Israel, the peace process, and Europe’s developing role in it.

Because we are living in the times of which they spoke.

There are two remaining events on the prophetic calendar that must be fulfilled before the Tribulation can begin.

The first is the Rapture of the Church. The second is the signing of a European-brokered peace agreement of seven years duration by the leader of a revived Roman Empire, an event that signals the beginning of the 2,520 day Tribulation countdown.

The second element MUST take place soon — it is unthinkable that there will NEVER be a breakthrough — not at this stage. Israel is under too much global pressure.

The only thing preventing an enforced settlement by the global community is the United States.

Now we revisit the first event on the prophetic calendar again — the Rapture of the Church — considering its probable effect on Israel’s sole global ally, the United States.

Now all the dots connect.

Special Report: “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmakwanzukkah”

Special Report: “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmakwanzukkah”
Vol: 39 Issue: 15 Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Increasingly, the greeting ‘Merry Christmas’ is vanishing from the public discourse in favor of the more generic (and meaningless) ‘Happy Holidays’.

This year, the latest renaming of the day commemorating the Birth of Christ is the ridiculous ”Happy Christmakwanzukkah” — which incorporates Christmas, Hanukkah and that old, traditional holiday season of Kwanzaa, which has been with us ever since 1966 thanks to that famous theologian, Dr. Maulana Karenga, (best known for making up a six-day blacks-only holiday period called ‘Kwanzaa’ in 1966.)

It appears that the Politically Correct want to be certain to insult everybody, Christians, Jews and American blacks equally, hence the name, Christmakwanzukkah. After all, if you offend everybody, then you offend no one, according to the dictates of Politically Correct New Think.

Here’s an example of how THAT works. One atheist in California gets offended because his Christian daughter has to pledge allegiance to ‘one nation, under God’. (The daughter isn’t offended, just the father.)

Because ONE GUY was offended, Politically Correct New Think, as expressed by the 9th Circuit Court, meant that everybody in the Western District (a third of the population) had to change their behavior.

On the other hand, ‘Christmakwanzukkah’ is certain to offend everybody equally, therefore, expect to see ‘Happy Christmakwanzukkah’ merrily hand-written below the signatures of federal court justices throughout the country as they render decisions demanding the removal of Nativity scenes from public parks while ordering Christmas trees redesignated ‘holiday trees.’

By next year, some enterprising New Thinker will remember that he forgot to offend the Muslims. How about “Happy Christmakwanzukkahamadan”? Or maybe “Happy Christakwanzukkadeathtoamerica”?

(Fortunately, Buddhists don’t get offended when they get ignored. They just jot it all down so they can change it when they come back next time around.)

The ones most offended (and therefore, the most fun to offend) are, of course, Christians. Christians feel that we’ve been hijacked, since we had it first.

How many times do we have to remind everybody that the first syllable in ‘Christmas’ is ‘Christ’?

We are offended to our religious core at the mere thought of turning a Christian holiday into a secular one. The more offended we are, the angrier we get, (and the more fun we become to offend).

Of course, we don’t get as angry as the Muslims, which is probably why the ‘amadan’ got left off of ‘Christmakwanzukkah’ in the first place. While the secularists get a belly laugh out of Christian indignation, Muslim indignation sounds like this; “Allahu Akkbar!”(Kaboom!)

The Bible Answer Man, Hank Haanegraf, expressed his indignation at the commercialization of Christmas on his website (while trying to sell a Christmas CD), saying;

“Christmas is His Story. Our world is rapidly secularizing Christmas. It s called the holidays, winter break, gift-giving time, and other euphemisms. Saying Merry Christmas is even becoming politically incorrect! Please don t let your own Christmas fall prey to the anti-Christian cultural pressure. That s why I want to send you this CD to help refresh you with the joy of reflecting on the true meaning of Christmas and even pass it on to others.”

But before you rush to buy Hank’s CD so that you can reflect on the true meaning of Christmas, what IS ”the true meaning of Christmas”, Biblically speaking?

Ummmm, that is not as easy as it sounds. First off, we celebrate it at the wrong time. Jesus was probably born in March, according to the early Church fathers of the mid-2nd century.

For another thing, the shepherds would not have been watching their flocks by night on a hilltop in December outside Jerusalem. It would be too cold for the sheep (not to mention the shepherds).

The shepherds kept their sheep in the sheltered valleys around the city during the winter months where it was warmer and herded them back up the hills to graze in the spring.

So why celebrate the Birth of Christ on December 25th? For that, we have to go back at least six hundred years before Christ was born in a Bethlehem manger.

In Babylon the sun was worshipped as the supreme God. As the years progressed and the days grew shorter the people feared the sun was leaving them. On December 22nd they began conducting long rituals and sacrifices to the sun god, appealing for it to return for another year.

On December 25th they could determine the day was getting longer again and on this day they held a great celebration rejoicing in the rebirth of the sun!

It grew out the worship of Nimrod, his wife, Semiramus, and their son, Tammuz. Tammuz was born, according to legend, on the day of the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. From the day of his birth onward, the days got longer.

Tammuz worship was practiced right up to the time of the Roman as the feast of Sol Invictus (“rebirth of the sun”).

Statues of Nimrod and Semiramus holding the infant Tammuz were replaced by statues of Joseph and Mary holding the Baby Jesus after the Emperor Constantine was ‘converted’ and declared Christianity the State Church of Rome.

Jesus’ Birth was made to coincide with the Solstice celebration, and together with the statues to worship, Rome’s pagans made the transition easily. It kept the masses happy and the Roman Empire intact.

The oldest mention of Christmas in relation to Christ in old English is Cristes Maesse and dates to 1038, some thousand years after the fact.

The holly, the mistletoe, the yule log, and the wassail bowl are of pre-Christian times.

The Christmas tree has been traced back to the Romans. From there, it found popularity in Germany and eventually Great Britain, according to the Encyclopedia Americana.

The Bible says nothing about celebrating the Birth of Christ. The early Church didn’t celebrate His Birth, instead, they celebrated His death and Resurrection, in keeping with the Revealed Word of God.

Ecclesiastes 7:1 teaches that, “A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death [better] than the day of one’s birth.”

Logically and Biblically, a person hasn’t done anything worth celebrating until after the full measure of their lives have been taken into account.

Our tradition of celebrating birthdays is entirely Western and finds its origins in the practices of the Druidic witches of pagan England.

But, Jesus kept the cultural feast days of His era. Some of them were religious, some were not. He knew He was ‘in’ the world, but not ‘of’ it.

Paul wrote in Romans 14:5; “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

There is no sin in celebrating Christmas as the day we acknowledge God’s Gift to the world of a Savior. Neither can I see any Biblical basis for NOT celebrating Christmas because it isn’t really His Birthday.

To some it is a day on the calendar. To others, it is a day of frustration and anger because others fail to associate Christmas with Christ — a frustration so intense that it makes Christmas, for them, the least happy of all days.

Which is exactly the response hoped-for by the secularist New Thinkers who find Happy Christmakwanzukkah so appealing.

The world is populated by the spiritually insane [the lost] and the spiritually retarded [the saved, but as-yet in-the-flesh Church].

Don’t get offended. That’s why Christians are such a marvel to the angels. Because we are such spiritual retards.

The Apostle Paul concurred when he wrote;

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1st Corinthians 13:12)

It doesn’t matter if Jesus was born on December 25 or March 19, as Church father Polycarp estimated before being martyred in 155 AD.

It doesn’t matter if the world has a different agenda. We already know that. That is why we sought forgiveness for our sins, whereas the world loves its sin.

There is no sin in being happy. Even on Christmas. God knows who worships Him and who worships Santa Claus. He doesn’t base it on whether or not you have a Christmas tree (unless you start offering sacrifices to it).

This isn’t rocket science, but you needn’t take my word for it.

“He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.” (Romans 14:6)

“But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” (Romans 14:8)

Enjoy Christmas in all its joy and good will, according to your family customs and traditions.

Like most American Christians, I take offense at removing ‘Christ’ from Christmas, because I love Him and I want Him to have the glory and worship that He deserves.

But if I am waiting for the world to give glory to God for the Birth of His Son, I’ll still got a while left to wait — I am in good Company.

(That is what Jesus is waiting for, too. It won’t happen after the final Battle of Armageddon and the installation of the Millennial Kingdom)

Go ahead and put up a Christmas tree. Cook a turkey. Watch your kids open their presents and get ready to welcome all that company.

Christians don’t worship a DAY.

We worship the Author of ALL days.

Every day is the Lord’s, so share this Christmas as the Lord’s day while the rest of the world celebrates Christmakwanzukkah or Christmakwanzukkahamadan or Christmakwanzukkahdeathtoamerica or what ever else they want to call it.

Ours is more fun.

“[F]or I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.” (2nd Timothy 1:12) Don’t let the enemy steal your victory. Or your Christmas.

Enjoy the Christmas gift to you from the Lord.

“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:11)

On Fellowship and Prayer

On Fellowship and Prayer
Vol: 39 Issue: 14 Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Last night, as I was reading through our message boards and praying over your posted prayer requests, I was struck anew by the depth and breadth of our fellowship.

And even more than that, by the depth and the breadth of the love that exudes from it, for each other, for our lost friends and family, and for our Lord.

Several comments in our member’s forum about the recent dustup over the Javier Solana thing really leapt out at me. Particularly when contrasted against the kinds of comments one finds in other Christian discussion forums.

The first is your spirit of forgiveness. In times past, we’ve had all kinds of folks come into our fellowship forums to try and pick fights, bait members with taunts, or start meaningless debates that start to go around in circles.

But those folks seldom find a pigeon among our fellowship willing to take the bait.

And, on those rare occasions when one of us DOES get blind-sided, the rest of us are right there — not to jump on the bandwagon — but to put a stop to it before it infects the whole group.

The Lord really impressed upon me the fact that, while it might be the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest report that draws new subscribers, it is the fellowship of our membership forums that keeps them.

(Lest I grow fat in my own conceits)

Which brings me full circle to my original subject — which is the Omega Letter membership forum. Some of you remember how the Omega Letter was born in the first place.

We had experimented with a reader’s forum at Oracle, and it grew rapidly. Before long, we had more than ten thousand members. And nine thousand combatants.

Our forum moderators burned out like light bulbs. The harder we tried to police the place, the worse it got. Finally, we shut it down altogether before the bickering destroyed our testimony, which left an awful lot of our membership homeless in cyberspace.

We decided to try and create a safe place for fellowshipping on the web. The only way we could see to effectively police it was to charge a membership fee.

While there was no end of people who would join a forum for free, just for the fun of disrupting it, not many people would cough up ten bucks a month to disrupt our fellowship when they could go elsewhere and do it for free.

Only serious Christians who wanted a safe place on the web where they could fellowship in peace with like-minded believers would, and did, and still do.

(Some of you wasted no time making the move. For example, Lou’s membership ID number is lower than mine)

We abandoned the concept of having a forum moderator in favor of giving every member the option of ‘dusting’ innappropriate posts. It is still incredible to me how seldom any of you exercise that power.

Or how seldom you need to.


It’s been a bit over three years, now, and in that time, I’ve watched our fellowship mature and grow and develop into a formidible force of prayer warriors.

Together, our collective prayers have bombarded the Throne Room of God, and the resulting explosions have rattled the very gates of hell.

Our members have prayed for healings, marriages restored, loved ones miraculously come to Christ, the restoration of jobs and finances, and have witnessed amazing and miraculous answers to those prayers.

There is an iron-clad promise of Scripture I’d like to ask you to claim with me. Wylie told me this morning that one of our old comrades from our police service was just diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Ken left the police service to become a UN peacekeeper serving in Bosnia. He came home for a visit and a checkup and was informed he has terminal cancer of the liver and pancreas.

Though I haven’t seen Ken in twenty years, Wylie has. He believes that Ken is not saved. Please pray with me for Ken’s salvation.

1st John 5:14-15 promises: “And this is the confidence that we have in Him, that, if we ask any thing according to His Will, He heareth us: And if WE KNOW that He hear us, whatsoever we ask, we KNOW that we HAVE the petitions that we desired of Him.”

There are several elements here. Note first, that John promises that we can have ‘confidence’ in this promise, but imposes conditions.

First, he tells us we must ask ‘according to His will.’

What is God’s will? Well, Scripture makes it clear what God’s will is NOT.

2nd Peter 3:9 tells us that:

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, NOT WILLING that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

Secondly, John imposes the condition of faith; “And if we KNOW that He hear us, we KNOW we HAVE the petitions we desired of Him.”

In my thirty-odd years as a Christian, I can testify that every person for whose salvation I have ever prayed, (to my knowledge) eventually came to know Christ.

In some cases, the Lord granted me the privilege of personally introducing them to His Son, in others, it was someone else, but in no instance (that I am aware of), has the Lord ever failed to keep His promise as John outlined it.

I don’t know if it is His will that Ken be healed, although I humbly ask you, my fellow prayer-warriors, to pray that this cup be removed from Ken and Wanda’s lips, with the understanding that, as our Lord taught us, nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” (Matthew 26:39)

Scripture makes it clear that it is certainly God’s Will that Ken come to know Jesus, and it is also God’s Will that Ken’s wife Wanda be saved as well. Please pray with me for them.

There is no prayer that a Christian can offer that is more important to God than the petition for a lost soul.

“Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” (Luke 15:10)

The value of a single sinner who comes to Christ cannot be overstated: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” asks the Creator Jesus. (Mark 8:26)

To the enemy, our fellowship is a power to be reckoned with, and is therefore a major target. When the enemy can’t obtain permission to attack our members directly, (Job 1:12) he goes after our fellowship, and failing in that effort, he sets his sights on the Omega Letter the way an enemy would try to knock out an advancing tank.

Without getting into specifics, he’s been trying to find a bazooka big enough to stop the tank, but so far, all he’s been able to do is scratch off some of the paint.

It is unlikely that he is going to give up, especially as we draw closer to that Day.

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

Your Omega Letter is vulnerable to attack in many areas; attacks on its reputation, attacks on its funding, attacks on its mission or doctrinal views, and, occasionally, the Lord allows him to take a shot at some of us as individuals, including yours truly.

Please pray for your Omega Letter and for our brothers and sisters among our membership, for a hedge of provision and protection about each of us individually, and all of us collectively, as we approach a new year of battle.

Pray for our loved ones, that they might be saved. Pray that our fellowship will continue to be a force for good, and that our members will be granted the petitions they ask of Him.

Pray for our finances and that God will bring new members to our fellowship.

And, if I may be so bold, please pray for me.

Pray that the Lord will make me an effective witness for Him, and pray that the awesome responsibility He has put before me will honor Him and be effective in enlarging the Kingdom.

Pray that the attacks leveled at us as a fellowship, and at me personally, will be of none effect.

Pray for encouragement, for yourselves, and for me, for Mike and for our families as together, we continue to press forward in battle.

The attacks are wearying, and, like the rest of the signs of our times, they are increasing in both frequency and intensity.

James 5:16 reminds us, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

“Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the Word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:” (2nd Thessalonians 3:1)

As for me, I pray God will richly bless each of you — as you continue to bless me. (A very powerful blessing, indeed)

Until He comes.

The Bush Doctrine and Armageddon

The Bush Doctrine and Armageddon
Vol: 39 Issue: 13 Monday, December 13, 2004

An Israeli senior military told Israeli lawmakers recently that the terrorist group, Hezbollah, has grown so powerful that it has actually achieved a state of deterrence against Israel.

Hezbollah has acquired a missile arsenal so large that the Israelis are actually afraid to provoke them for fear of retaliation. Israeli senior commanders estimate that Hezbollah has as many as 15,000 rockets and missiles of varying ranges that could blanket most of the Jewish State.

As a consequence, it is Hezbollah — and not Israel — that is calling the shots along the Israeli/Lebanese border. An Israeli Defense ministry study found that, should Hezbollah launch an all-out attack on Israel, much of the northern part of the country ‘could be destroyed’. Several Israeli communities would be wiped off that map. Hezbollah rockets within range of chemical plants in Haifa could unleash a toxic cloud that would kill everyone for miles around the facilities.

In the event of a war with Syria, Israeli military commanders say, a Hezbollah attack could flatten northern Israel and open up a second military front that could force Israel to use non-conventional weapons to prevent the country from being destroyed.

Senior Palestinian officials in Gaza say that Hezbollah is trying to recruit terrorists from among the Palestinians in Gaza while Iran works to undermine any renewal of the diplomatic process between the PA and Israel.

Israel has arrested 19 Palestinian activists recruited or controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In addition, security services have identified Hezbollah’s smuggling weapons and other military equipment through tunnels connecting the Sinai to the Gaza Strip.

Israeli security services attribute 21 attacks to Tanzim cells controlled by Iran. Some 50 Israelis have been killed and 216 injured in those attacks.

According to intelligence estimates, Iran and Hezbollah will concentrate their efforts in undermining any chance of renewing the peace process, and if a cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinians is achieved, they will seek to destroy it.

Iran is opposed to negotiations between Israel and Syria and the possibility that an interim agreement may result in Hezbollah’s withdrawal from Lebanon’s southern border with Israel.

Intelligence information also suggests that Iran is passing over millions of dollars to Palestinians via Hezbollah contacts, picking up where Saddam Hussein left off when he was overthrown by the coalition.

The Palestinian organization with which Iran has the closest affiliation is Islamic Jihad. Hamas maintains a permanent representative in Iran.

Hamas also gets significant financial and technical assistance from Tehran and its agents.


Hezbollah is dedicated to the destruction or removal of all non-Islamic influences in the Middle East, especially that of the United States, and in particular, Israel. It was Hezbollah, backed by the Islamic authorities in Iran, that was behind the bombing of the US Marines in Beirut in 1983.

In his September 20, 2001, speech to Congress, President Bush pledged that the U.S.-led war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

Hezbollah s cells outside the Middle East, its reported involvement in the January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the Palestinian Authority, and its role in the 1992 and 1994 attacks in Argentina make it a ‘terrorist group of global reach’.

Hezbollah was even named specifically by President Bush by name as a terrorist group of global reach during his 2002 State of the Union speech.

Indeed, in June, 2002, Singapore accused Hezbollah of recruiting some of its citizens in a failed plot to attack U.S. and Israeli ships in the Singapore Straits.

Following the September 11 attacks, the president outlined his policy, known as the Bush Doctrine, which says the United States will “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”.

It was under the authority of the Bush Doctrine that the United States went into Afghanistan and ended the terrorist regime of the Taliban. The US demanded the Taliban hand over Osama bin-Laden. When the Taliban refused, the Bush Doctrine required the US to view Afghanistan as an enemy state.

Under the terms of the Bush Doctrine, so are Iran and Syria.

The Bush Doctrine was fully delineated in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States issued on September 17, 2002.

The Bush Doctrine can be broken down into its component elements; the first of which is also the most controversial — preemption. A preemptive attack is defined as “an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending and unavoidable war.”

The Bush Doctrine gives the United States the right to take unilateral action without the approval of the United Nations, if necessary.

Despite the declaration of the Bush Doctrine, Iran and Syria continue to arm and equip Hezbollah with relative impunity. As a consequence, Hezbollah, estimated to number only a few thousand fighters, is in a position to hold Israel hostage by virtue of its ability to decimate the northern part of their country.

Thanks to the efforts of Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian backers, the United States has been rendered all but useless as a legitimate peace broker between Israel and her Islamic enemies.

Under the Bush Doctrine, the states with which peace must be negotiated are not just Israel’s enemies, they are the declared enemies of the United States.

As a consequence of that fact, the Bush administration is aggressively pushing the Europeans to take a wider role in the process, something that the Europeans have been eyeing for years.

Having Europe on board would pay dividends because the Europeans are believed to be capable of influencing the Palestinians.

Of course it isn’t going to result in a genuine peace. The prophet Daniel says that the Roman antichrist ‘confirms’ a seven year covenant (such as the failed, seven-year Oslo Accords) but that covenant also collapses halfway through.

There can never be peace between Israel and the forces of Islam, no matter who confirms it or how badly Israel wants a peace agreement to work.

The Bible says so, but so does logic.

For the forces of Islam to recognize Israel’s right to exist would be tantamount to admitting that Allah lied. That the Koran is wrong. The Koran says once Islam takes root in a nation, that nation will always be Islamic.

Any non-Islamic entity is therefore, by definition, a temporary ‘occupation’ by a foreign power or it means the Koran is wrong.

Islam can no more recognize Israel’s right to exist than Israel can recognize Islam’s right to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. The side that gives in not only gives up territory, it must also give up the basic fundamentals of their religion.

It is a war, not between nations, but between gods. Specifically, the God of the Bible and the god of this world. It cannot be settled by negotiations between nations, or by the threat of the imposition of force, as the impotence of the Bush Doctrine regarding Iran and Syria makes painfully obvious.

The war that began with Israel’s declaration of statehood in 1948 is the same war that the Israeli prophets predicted would be settled, not at the negotiating table, but on the plains of Megiddo.

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till ALL these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:34)

Credit Where Credit is Due

Credit Where Credit is Due
Vol: 39 Issue: 12 Sunday, December 12, 2004

Last week, I published a short series of columns regarding the European Union, Western European Union and Javier Solana.

Shortly thereafter, my email box started filling up with accusations that I had somehow stolen the material from another website operated by someone named Herb Peters.

It began with an email from Mr. Peters himself:


I’m Herb Peters owner of

I want to thank you for daring to report with me about Solana. I’ve dedicated the last few years to getting this information out. For someone without a name, this was almost an impossible task. Now that you and Hal are on this information, I could use your help. My long battle trying to get this information has cost me my occupation. I have no retirement. I’m 58 years old and have a wife who is not healthy.

If you or Hal could credit my work and book, perhaps God would provide for us there. It’s rapture neutral, because I wanted it to reach all God’s people no matter how they believed on this issue.

Another consideration is a co-authorship between me and either you or Hal. I don’t think there is enough time to write and publish a book starting from scratch. I’ve got one ready to go. And, everyone who reads it loves it.

Please let me know what you think.


I replied carefully, declining the offer to put my name on a book I had nothing to do with researching or writing. My reply was exactly as follows:

Hi Herb

I appreciate the offer. However, I am not convinced that Solana is indeed the antichrist, just that he fits the profile. So I would be uncomfortable in making a case that he was.

As I wrote in my original column, “I am not saying Javier Solana is the antichrist. I don’t know who the antichrist is, and 2nd Thessalonians 2:8 teaches we will be taken by the Rapture before ‘that Wicked is revealed.'”

I am not Rapture-neutral. I don’t believe it is possible to make sense of Bible prophecy apart from understanding the Dispensations. If the Church Age is concurrent with the Time of Jacob’s Trouble, for example, then Revelation 13:7 contradicts the revealed Word of God in 1st John 4:4.

My mission is not to reveal the antichrist to the world, but rather to point out that the world is prepared to accept him when he comes on the scene.

When that time comes, it won’t matter to the world that he fits the Bible’s profile of the antichrist, because it doesn’t matter now. Solana proves that — he’s already gained world-wide acceptance, except among the true Church who recognize the signals.

But I couldn’t make a case that he IS, and I am not sure what purpose it would serve if I could. It will have no bearing on the Church, since they are already saved, and the world won’t believe it anyway, according to 2nd Thessalonians 2:-7-10.

To those who are saved DURING the Tribulation, my prior identification of Solana as the antichrist will be meaningless. If he is the antichrist, he will prove it by his actions during the Tribulation.

Our mission and ministry is to provide evidence from Scripture to point out to the lost in the Church Age that time is running out to accept Jesus.

My definitive naming of Javier Solana AS the antichrist would be little more than speculation ON the evidence, and not presenting the evidence itself.

I can’t see how making a case that Solana is the antichrist will serve a purpose, since we won’t know if it is true until after the Church Age is concluded.

But it could be proven false during the Church Age by something as simple as Solana’s premature death in a plane crash or a car accident or from a heart attack.

In which case, I would be a proven false prophet and the Message that the Lord is about to return would be as suspect as my message that Solana was the antichrist.

I appreciate the work the Lord has called you to do. But He has called me to a different ministry and I must remain true to my calling as it was given me.

So I must respectfully and prayerfully decline your invitation to co-author your book.

In Christ


It was after that exchange that I began getting emails accusing me of plagiarizing Mr. Peters website, presumably from readers of Mr. Peters’ website.

I thought that odd, since the lion’s share of the material I used came from Wikpedia’s web encyclopedia and websites operated by the EU and WEU.

Until I wrote the column and started getting emails, I had never heard of either Mr. Peters or his book and website. (And it is hardly the first time that I have written on the topic of Europe and the revived Roman Empire).

But once I started receiving accusations of plagiarism, I went to Mr. Peters’ website to see if I could figure out why. It seems that Mr. Peters asked his readers to try and convince me to accept his offer, writing on his website;

“For the second day in a row Jack Kinsella’s Omega Letter targets the same information we’ve been focusing on here at FulfilledProphecy. Jack is a fast learner. And, it’s apparent he understands what the information implies.

I emailed him today and offered a co-authorship for my book to either him or Hal Lindsey. My reasoning was, if the information is what we think it is, there may not be enough time to research, write and publish a complete, well-documented book. Mine, however, is ready to go.

Friends, as you know, Linda and I have been struggling to get this information out over these last few years. It has cost us much by way of lost productivity to my business. It’s interesting how, as we may be nearing the end of our ability continue, the news is finally breaking. However, now we could use some help from those who will benefit from this information.

So, pray with me that God will put it on someone’s heart to want to publish Recommendation 666. After all, Recommendation 666 may very well turn out to be the conclusion to Hal Lindsey’s, Late Great Planet Earth.

Friends, we’re not alone anymore.

One more thing: Those of you who have read my book could help. If enough of you send a good endorsement to Jack Kinsella or Hal Lindsey, it may just do the trick.”

While I appreciated Mr. Peters’ comment that I am a ‘fast learner’ who understood my material, the ‘endorsements’ I received were along the lines of “shame on you for not crediting Herb’s work” and so forth.

(As noted, I had never heard of either Mr. Peters or his book until the email campaign began.)

But when I declined, Mr. Peters decided to turn up the heat on me a little. His most recent column, dated 12-10-04, not-so-tacitly suggested that my column was a ripoff of his work for which he was not given credit.

“You may have noticed that I wasn’t quick to respond to Jack Kinsella’s third Omega Letter. By way of reminder, here are the recent chain of events. On December 7, Kinsella wrote a commentary that looked like a What Herb Thinks. It was all about the EU’s High Representative Javier Solana, the 10-nation Western European Union and its Assembly Recommendation 666.

The next day, Kinsella did it again. His Omega Letter covered basically the same information we do here at FulfilledProphecy. Naturally, we all got excited. For the first time, one of the big boys in Bible prophecy was reporting the unreported news along with us. We weren’t alone anymore.

And, if Kinsella was on this information, I reasoned Hal Lindsey was too. Not only that, it appeared to me that Lindsey, although not directly, was agreeing that my book, Recommendation 666, could actually end up being the conclusion to his best selling book, The Late Great Planet Earth.

I thought perhaps my break had finally come. I sent an email to Kinsella offering co-authorship to either him or Lindsey. I also wrote a commentary asking those who have read my book to email an endorsement to either Kinsella or Lindsey. The message got through. Not only did Kinsella respond publicly in a third Omega Letter, he was kind enough to responded to me personally also.

Unfortunately, Kinsella respectfully refused my offer. And, many of my readers were disappointed. Some even felt it was wrong Kinsella used the information we’ve been trying to get out for years now, and didn’t give us any credit. Instead, he named other sources. And, to be honest, I felt a little hurt too.

However, after thinking about it for awhile, I realized there is another way of looking at what has transpired. By making that decision to report this information in their Omega Letter, Kinsella and Hal Lindsey’s Oracle have given FulfilledProphecy and my book enormous credibility.

And, if you recall, in a recent What Herb Thinks, I stated it was time for us evangelicals to set aside our minor differences and start working together. This could be their response. I may be reading this wrong. But, I suspect their answer to my request for help could be a yes and a no. What Kinsella and Lindsey may be saying is, we agree with the possible importance to what you’ve been reporting, but we won’t directly support your ministry.

So, we better stay tuned!

And, from now on, I’d stay tuned to Kinsella and Lindsey too.”

Since he publicly challenged my credibility, I decided to publish the entire exchange in today’s Omega Letter.

Mr. Peter’s comment that my first column “looked like a What Herb Thinks” was followed up by his comment that it was “wrong Kinsella used the information we’ve been trying to get out for years now, and didn’t give us any credit. Instead, he named other sources. . .”

I named the sources I actually used, not ‘other sources’. At the risk of repeating myself, I had never heard of Herb Peters until he contacted me, which was only AFTER I had published the Solana piece. For Mr. Peters to suggest I some how wrongfully appropriated his material without crediting him rocked me back on my heels.

His comment that suggested my refusal was related to some unnamed ‘differences’ among ‘us evangelicals’ was another stunning revelation to me.

Not wanting to attach my name to a book I didn’t write is NOT the product of some ‘differences among evangelicals’ — as if there is some secret history of dispute between Mr. Peters and us.

The only difference I can think of that Mr. Peters might possibly be referring to is my unwillingness to change my outlook to accommodate a ‘Rapture-neutral’ worldview.

A ‘Rapture-neutral’ view when examining Bible prophecy means squeezing two different Dispensational Ages together to occupy the same time frame.

Without the Dispensational divide, there are all kinds of problems to explain. Are the Tribulation saints indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

If so, then Revelation Chapter Seven loses any sense of meaning, since it is devoted to the ‘sealing’ of the Holy Spirit into the 144,000 Jewish evangelists who carry the Gospel during the Tribulation Period.

If all Christians are ‘sealed’ by the Holy Spirit during the Tribulation, as during the Church Age, why would this be necessary?

“And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are SEALED unto the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30)

“In Whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the Word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation: in Whom also after that ye believed, ye were SEALED with that Holy Spirit of promise.” (Ephesians 1:13)

The Apostle John wrote of the indwelling Holy Spirit during the Church Age, “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world.” (1 John 4:4)

“I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have OVERCOME THE WICKED ONE.” (1 John 2:13)

But John writes that during the Tribulation Period, “And it was given unto him to make war WITH THE SAINTS, and to overcome THEM: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Revelation 13:7)

One cannot explain these contradictions — or even understand them — from a ‘Rapture-neutral’ position.

Finally, Mr. Peters interpreted my decision to decline the offer of co-authorship as ‘a yes AND a no’, writing, “But, I suspect their answer to my request for help could be a yes and a no. What Kinsella and Lindsey may be saying is, we agree with the possible importance to what you’ve been reporting, but we won’t directly support your ministry.”

Mr. Peters didn’t ask me to support his ministry, he asked me to put my name (or preferably, Hal Lindsey’s) on a book we had nothing to do with writing that reaches conclusions we do not share.

I would have preferred that Mr. Peters simply accepted my decision, but he chose to selectively interpret it to make us appear mean-spirited and somewhat dishonest to his readership instead.

That is simply unacceptable. And it isn’t true.