Special Report: Forgiving Hanoi Jane

Special Report: Forgiving Hanoi Jane
Vol: 43 Issue: 19 Tuesday, April 19, 2005

“And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” – Luke 6:12

It was the Lord Jesus Himself Who taught His disciples how to pray. He taught, “. . .when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

Jesus was referring to the Pharisees of the time who would pray loudly in the streets, using long and formulaic prayers by which, all who passed by would know that this was a very pious man, indeed.

Note also that they are praying to deaf Ears; “for they THINK that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

Instead, said the Lord, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be

Thy Name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven, Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” (Luke 6:6,7,9-13)

The Lord’s Prayer was more than merely a lesson in how to pray, however. It is also an implicit admonition to be careful what you pray for. In the most commonly rendered version of the Lord’s Prayer, Luke 6:12 is modified to read, “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive our trespassers.”

‘Trespassers’ was substituted for ‘debtors’ — although ‘debtors’ is a better rendering of the Greek word, ‘opheiletes’. While the Lord’s Prayer ends with the word ‘Amen’ in verse 13, it doesn’t end His teaching on prayer.

He goes on to explain; “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

‘Opheiletes’ means ‘one who owes a debt’ but it also means ‘one who owes a debt to God’. Therefore, verse 12 requires us to forgive both those who are in debt to us, and also forgive those whom we feel owe us a debt because of some sin, or trespass, against us.

NOW, look with new eyes at what we pray for when we follow the Lord’s example of prayer. We pray, “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive our trespassers.” That little word, ‘as’ defines a huge truth. What we are really praying is, “Father, forgive us our sins IN THE SAME MANNER in which we forgive the sins of others.”

Like I said earlier, this is also a lesson in being careful what you pray for. I thank God through Jesus Christ that I will not be forgiven in like manner as I forgive others, but it is only by God’s gracious gift of salvation that I will not be held accountable. Nevertheless, it provides a bedrock understanding of our duty as Christians in the Eyes of God.

No human being is capable of anything approaching perfect forgiveness of others, any more than any human being is capable of ‘perfect’ anything. At best, all we can do is try and follow the Lord’s example as far as humanly possible, and count on the perfected Work at the Cross for the rest.

Which brings me to Jane Fonda’s World Apology Tour.

Jane has just published a new book entitled, “My Life So Far” that has been offered by the liberal mainstream as her ‘apology’ for her conduct during the Vietnam War. Her World Apology Tour also coincides with her soon-to-be released return to the Silver Screen in a new movie called “Monster-in-Law”.

However fawning Jane’s interviewers, Jane’s ‘apology’ for going to Hanoi as part of an anti-American propaganda campaign falls somewhat short of an ‘apology’ — in fact, it sounds downright insulting.

The London Times helped readers to locate her apology, saying, “As she has before, Ms. Fonda apologizes for being photographed laughing and clapping while sitting on an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi. (She writes that she absent-mindedly sat down in a moment of euphoria with her North Vietnamese hosts, and adds, ‘That two-minute lapse of sanity will haunt me until the day I die.’)”

Hanoi Jane also ‘apologized’ on “60 Minutes” saying; “I will go to my grave regretting that. The image of Jane Fonda, ‘Barbarella,’ Henry Fonda’s daughter, just a woman sitting on an enemy aircraft gun was a betrayal. It was like I was thumbing my nose at the military and at the country that gave me privilege.”

It was LIKE she was thumbing her nose? What would ACTUALLY thumbing one’s nose at one’s country look like?

Offering an ‘apology’ implies penitence, not regret. Hanoi Jane ‘regretted’ having her picture taken sitting at the anti-aircraft gun, which is different than being sorry for betraying her country. As she recalls the incident in her book;

“It is not unusual for Americans who visit North Vietnam (as if Americans ‘visiting’ an enemy capital has a ‘usual’ aspect – ed) to be taken to see North Vietnamese military installations, and when they do they are always required to wear a helmet like the kind I have been given to wear on air raids.”

Later, in recounting how she came to be photographed while wearing that helmet and seated at the controls of an enemy anti-aircraft gun pointed skyward toward American planes, she explained; “Someone, I don’t remember how, leads me toward the gun, and I sit down, still laughing, still applauding. It all has nothing to do with where I am sitting. I hardly even think about where I am sitting. The cameras flash.”

“As I get up, and as I start to walk away, the implication of what just happened hit me. “Oh, my God! It’s going to look like I was trying to shoot down US planes.” I plead with him, “You have to be sure those photographs are not published. Please, you can’t let them be published. ” I am assured it will all be taken care of. I don’t know what else to do.”

Then, struck by a sudden flash of brilliant insight, Jane writes, “It is possible that the Vietnamese had it all planned.”

In Hanoi Jane’s world, admitting it was a betrayal and a lapse of judgement is the equivalent to an ‘apology’.

To this old Texas lawman, it sounds more like a confession. One doesn’t attempt a coverup if one believes one’s actions are innocent. Regret is not repentance. Or even pentitence.

I remember a Death Row inmate I was once knew named Charlie Rumbaugh. He told me once he was sorry he had killed jeweler Michael Fiorello during an Amarillo robbery. I asked him what he was sorriest about. He said if he hadn’t killed the jeweler, he might not have gotten caught.

It was regret for how it turned out for Charlie Rumbaugh that he was expressing, not sorrow for having killed Michael Fiorello. Hanoi Jane’s apology reminded me of Charlie.

Now, we get back to the Lord’s principle of forgiving those who trespass against us in the same manner in which we trespass against others. Jane Fonda trespassed against every American POW that resisted torture to avoid giving North Vietnam what Jane Fonda gave them for free.

Jane Fonda trespassed against every American who ever wore a uniform and served his or her country. She trespassed against all those young men who gave their all to prevent Vietnam from becoming exactly what it became. And she trespassed against every Vietnamese civilian that has suffered under Hanoi’s boot heel since we allowed it to fall to the Communists.

I am just one old veteran, and I admit that Hanoi Jane’s ‘apology’ sounds more like an effort to justify her actions than an expression of remorse or a request for forgiveness. And I can only offer forgiveness for trespasses committed against me.

It is an extremely old grudge, and excising it will be painful. And I pray the Lord will forgive my admittedly reluctant and grudging effort. But I forgive you, Jane, whether YOU believe you did anything wrong or not.

My comrades will have to speak for themselves.

Arming For Armageddon

Arming For Armageddon
Vol: 43 Issue: 18 Monday, April 18, 2005

The 2004 Defense bill passed through both Houses of Congress with barely a word of opposition and almost no public fanfare. Buried within that bill were provisions to allow the United States to get back into the nuclear arms race.

Following a ten year moratorium, the provisions of FY ’04 authorized the Pentagon to resume developing, testing, and eventually building a new generation of exotic nuclear weapons.

In the ’04 budget proposal, the administration asked for, (and received);

a) a repeal of the 1992 ban on research and development of low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons — so called ‘mini-nukes’ — with a yield of less than 5 kilotons, for use in relatively close quarters by troops lobbing them at enemy troop concentrations from field artillery pieces.

b) fifteen million dollars for research on nuclear ‘bunker-buster’ bombs.

c) Six million for an “Advanced Concepts Initiative,” in which the national weapons labs would once again explore special-effects nukes for instance, nuclear weapons that, like the long-abandoned “neutron bomb,” would enhance certain types of radiation. A ‘neutron bomb’ is capable of destroying all life within a certain radius, without damaging buildings or other property.

d) The United States unilaterally stopped nuclear testing in 1992, on orders of the first President Bush, then formalized the cessation in 1995 by signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. FY ’04 authorized twenty-five million dollars to ‘gear up’ national weapons labs to the point where they could resume underground nuclear testing.

Although the United States already possess some 7,650 nuclear warheads, they are mostly large warheads mounted on ICBM’s that are capable of destroying large cities. They are not much use as tactical weapons — especially in a world where GPS-guided munitions can be targeted to strike within an eight-foot radius of the intended impact zone.

When you can launch a missile from a destroyer and put it through a window a thousand miles away you no longer need a warhead that can flatten a city. Instead, small warheads, dropped with precision and able to burrow into the earth and destroy underground command bunkers or WMD-storage sites more properly meet the needs of 21st century warfare.


When one considers the ease with which the United States military plowed through Saddam Hussein s Iraqi Army in 1990 (when it was the fifth most powerful military force in the world) it seems kinda pointless for Washington to be developing new weapons — especially new nuclear weapons.

The MOAB (Multi-Ordinance-Air-Burst a.k.a. Mother Of All Bombs) is a 21,000 pound behemoth capable of producing a conventional blast that would pulverize everything within a three mile radius. The shock wave is capable of extending the range of death outward three miles further.

Writing in the Washington Post, Senator John Kyl argues that, rather than developing new and more powerful offensive weapons, America’s first priority should be defensive.

Although it seems laughable to think America could be defeated militarily by any foreign power (barring total nuclear destruction by a force like, say, the Russians), Kyl argues that a single North Korean Scud missile armed with a single nuclear warhead, detonated far enough about the Midwest, could plunge America into the 1880s and render our amazing military advantages useless.

Kyl writes; “An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the American homeland, said one of the distinguished scientists who testified at the hearing, is one of only a few ways that the United States could be defeated by its enemies — terrorist or otherwise. And it is probably the easiest.”

Kyl notes that, “a single Scud missile, carrying a single nuclear weapon, detonated at the appropriate altitude, would interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating down to the surface at the speed of light.”

But here’s the kicker; “Depending on the location and size of the blast, the effect would be to knock out already stressed power grids and other electrical systems across much or even all of the continental United States, for months if not years.”

Lowell Wood, head of a Congressional advisory group, called the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, warns that the effects of an EMP airburst “on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the nation.”

He noted that a SINGLE airburst, at the proper altitude, would create an EMP burst powerful enough to affect the whole continent.

When atom bomb tests were done in the South Pacific during the 1950 s the EMP damaged stuff in Hawaii about 800 miles away. And those were low surface bursts.

An electro-magnetic pulse would fry most automotive electronic ignition systems, rendering them permanently useless. It would fry all unshielded computers and computer hard drives. Consider the effects of an EMP burst over Southern California, for example.

Millions of people are crammed into the LA basin, together with millions of cars. With one airburst, LA would be gridlocked.

Traffic lights would go out, elevators would stop, cars would quit running, telephones would go dead, gas pumps would shut down.

Aircraft would fall from the sky or crash as pilots tried to land them without electronic assist and guidance systems. Looters would scavenge anything, and everything. City water pressure pumps would shut down for months.

The functional damage burnout of chips that control everything today would throw us, technologically, into the middle of the last century.

Recently, a North Korean official observed that Pyongyang wouldn’t need to attack the US directly in the event of war. It would only have to get a nuclear weapon into the hands of al-Qaeda.

Senator Kyl noted in his column that, “a terrorist organization might have trouble putting a nuclear warhead “on target” with a Scud, but “it would be much easier to simply launch and detonate in the atmosphere.”

All that would be necessary, says Kyl, would be for a terrorist to launch a Scud from aboard a ship in international waters and make sure it can reach the right altitude.

And North Korean Scuds are available for purchase on the open market, notes the Senator, for as little as $100,000 cash.

There are defenses to an EMP attack. Circuits can be shielded, vital infrastructure systems could be backed up.

Unfortunately, instead of hardening our defenses against an electronic attack that would throw our military capabilities back to the days of horse drawn cavalry, US military planners are focusing their attention (and their money) on new weapons that are totally dependent on electronics in order to work as designed.

The existence and potential effect of an EMP attack against the United States provides yet another possible answer to the question of why America apparently plays no significant role in global events during the Tribulation Period.

“And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. . . Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” (Luke 17:26,28-29)

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:23)

Daniel’s ‘Little Horn’

Daniel’s ‘Little Horn’
Vol: 43 Issue: 17 Sunday, April 17, 2005

Daniel’s ‘Little Horn’

Fifteen consecutive polls conducted in France over the last three months indicate that the French may be about to scuttle their own brainchild.

Historically, the French have only favored the idea of a united Europe as long as they could run it.

The EU Constitution makes French dominance of a united Europe all but impossible, and consequently, French enthusiasm for its ratification is waning. Only three months ago, French voters were expected to vote ‘yes’ to the new EU Constitution by a comfortable margin of 60%.

As the French electorate became familiar with the document, popular support plummeted until, according to the last poll, a majority of French voters are now poised to vote ‘no’ on the May 29 referendum vote to ratify the new constitution.

Opponents to the EU Constitution are growing in number, with 56 percent of those surveyed saying they would vote against the referendum, according to a poll published in Saturday’s Le Parisien. That represented a gain of 1 percentage point.

Support for the Constitution dropped 1 point to 44 percent, the same survey showed.

Every member state of the EU must ratify the constitution, and if France fails to go along, the document is potentially doomed. France is one of the six original founders of the EU, which was born out of the six-nation Benelux Treaty agreement of 1948.

France is not only one of the founding nations of the EU, it is one of only ten full members of the Western European Alliance, which serves as the EU’s security and defense establishment and can also trace its roots to the 1948 Treaty of Brussels.

Notes the Guardian UK, “The original Common Market was a French creation, in effect, an extension of the French state and the accompanying subordinate relationship of capitalism.”

“Now that the EU is being transmuted into a network of European states, of which France is but one and in which the market has a much more central role, France is losing control of both the EU and an idea of France.”

The European Constitution would essentially consolidate all previous treaty agreements into one document governing both the EU and WEU Alliance. It also will change the union’s voting system, removing, for example, national vetoes from some policy areas, such as immigration, and streamlining the union’s administrative leadership.

Once it is ratified, France would no longer be the dominant power in Europe. And French voters don’t like it. Explains Bernard Kouchner, one of France’s most popular political figures and former Health Minister under the Socialists;

“The French believe that their system is the best and that they are the center of the universe. It’s not true. They don’t realize they are like an old ship sinking slowly in the sea.”


In addition to the French, there is a growing possibility that the Dutch may also reject the constitution in its own referendum scheduled three days after France’s.

The Netherlands, like France, is one of the EU’s founding Benelux members.

Michiel van Hulten, a former socialist member of the European Parliament told a Dutch newspaper; “Right now we are heading for a massive ‘no’ vote in Holland because no one is making the case for the constitution. The situation is like in Ireland before the referendum on the Nice Treaty in 2001 — everyone is assuming we are going to vote in favor, despite the reality on the ground.”

The 200 page proposed constitution also faces major opposition in Britain, yet a THIRD member of the Original Six and, like France and the Netherlands, a member of the WEU’s Ten FULL Member States.

Under the rules, the Constitution has to be ratified by all member states, but the EU could survive even with ‘no’ votes from France, the UK and the Netherlands.

Existing rules could be modified to allow for the government of the remaining 22 states, or modifications could be made to move the dissenting members into a different membership status that would allow them to participate despite rejecting the Constitution.

Writing for the Japan Times, former British cabinet minister and current member of the British House of Lords, Lord David Howell offered this assessment:

“Some argue that a rejection by France would be more than a momentary setback — it would be a catastrophe for the whole EU. Well, it would certainly be a nasty shock for most of the European government elites who have signed up to the lengthy and unreadable constitution document. But for the peoples of Europe, it would make remarkably little difference. Existing rules could be modified. . . “

Ratifying the EU Constitution would achieve the goal set forth by Western European Alliance Recommendation 666. That decision noted that, under its governing treaties, complete merger between the EU and WEU could not take place.

As a compromise, they supported a proposal to have the WEU Secretary General and the EU’s Office of the High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy preside over the PSC (Political Security Committee) and convene the council of the European Union in the event of an emergency.

Both jobs are filled by the same person, currently Javier Solana. That person, under the proposed Constitution, makes Solana (or his successor) the defacto head-of-state for BOTH entities.

The prophet Daniel had a dream one night of four great beasts, which he interpreted as four successive world empires.

The first three, a lion with eagle’s wings, a bear, and a leopard with four heads, correspond to the three successive empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia and the Greek empire of Alexander the Great.

The fourth, Daniel said, was ” dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had TEN horns.” (Daniel 7:7)

This fourth beast corresponds to Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the two legs of the Roman Empire and the ten toes of a revived form of the Roman Empire in the last days. (Daniel 2:41)

As Daniel was considering the ten horns, he writes, ” behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” (Daniel 7:8)

That Daniel was referring to an event in the last days is established by the next verse:

“I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire.”

Seven hundred years later, the Apostle John, recording his vision on the Isle of Patmos, identified the ‘Ancient of Days’ as Jesus Christ, Whom he described as follows:

“. . . One like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and His hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and His eyes were as a flame of fire; And His feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and His voice as the sound of many waters. . . ” (Revelation 1:13-15)

Jesus, the ‘Ancient of Days’ gave John a vision of the coming Tribulation Period, so Daniel and John are describing the same thing from different points in history.

Having established that, we return to the ‘little horn’ of Daniel 7:8.

Daniel describes the final form of the Roman Empire has having TEN horns (like the WEU) and identifies another ‘little horn’ coming up ‘before’ — or in authority over — them.

Pulling it all together, then, we find ourselves at this juncture in history:

Currently, the WEU, (comprised of ten FULL members and 18 associate or observer members) and the much-more diverse (and less powerful) 25-nation European Union have come up with a compromise, under the authority of WEU Recommendation 666, for a shared leadership under a single individual.

That position of power, created by WEU Recommendation 666, will be permanently enshrined by the proposed constitution, which so concerns three members of the Original Ten that they may not ratify it.

That would then mean either the collapse of the greater European unity experiment, or a compromise that would allow the greater EU plan to move forward without these three dissenters.

Daniel explains; “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be DIVERSE from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. ” (Daniel 7:23-24)

There are still some missing details, not the least of which is the Rapture of the Church, which are necessary before the complete picture fleshes out, but in the main, if this were a prophecy by Nostradamus or some other non-Biblical source, it would be headline news.

Since it is a Bible prophecy, it is only of real interest to Bible believers, which conforms with the Bible’s teaching that, “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Corinthians 2:14)

In any case, it is difficult to imagine a more precise fulfillment of Daniel’s vision than that which potentially looms before us.

“And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.” (Daniel 7:20)

I don’t know if the ‘little horn’ with a ‘look more stout than his fellows’ is Javier Solana, but the crisis that would be created by the rejection of the EU constitution by three of its founding members would certainly require drastic action that could easily result in their expulsion.

And whoever the ‘little horn’ of Daniel is, he is certainly the one we commonly refer to as the antichrist.

“I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.” (Daniel 7:21 – see also Revelation 13:7)

Daniel says that ‘same horn’ will make war with the [Tribulation] saints, “Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” (Daniel 7:22)

As I noted, we aren’t quite there yet, and there are still a number of details that have yet to fall into place. One of those details is the Rapture of the Church.

And if we can see the events of the Tribulation coming into view, then the Rapture is even closer.

“For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are ALIVE AND REMAIN shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”

“Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1st Thessalonians 4:16-18)

Special Report: Spirit of Antichrist

Special Report: Spirit of Antichrist
Vol: 43 Issue: 16 Saturday, April 16, 2005

I looked up the adjective, ‘cynical’, in a thesaurus once.

Suggested synonyms for ‘cynical’ included; contemptuous, derisive, doubtful, ironic, misanthropic, misanthropical, mocking, pessimistic, sarcastic, sardonic, scoffing, scornful, skeptical, sneering, suspicious, unbelieving, and wry.

Antonyms for ‘cynical’ included; believing, hopeful, optimistic, positive, and trusting.

Writing of the Church Age as it comes to its conclusion, the Apostle Paul wrote;

“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)

Before going on, let me try and smooth partisan hackles that I am relatively sure are rising somewhere. My intention isn’t to slam a political party or advance another political party, but rather to make a spiritual observation.

So stay with me and keep an open mind as we go on.

We live in a cynical age, and it helps to be somewhat cynical if one is to be successful in politics. And politicians are, after all, representatives of their various constituencies.

For every successful politician, there are a sufficient number of like-minded individuals to put him in office, or he wouldn’t be there.

For example, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry, by definition, represent the majority of Massachusetts voters who put them in office. And John Kerry received the greatest number of national votes ever cast for a losing candidate.

The Democratic Party represents almost half of American voters, and its platform is therefore the shared platform of virtually every other American.

And the chairman of the Democratic National Committee is the choice of the majority to prioritize and advance the goals that platform represents.

The chairman of the Democratic National Party is former Vermont governor and failed Democratic presidential candidate, Dr. Howard Dean, M.D.

The platform of the Democratic Party represents the core values of its constituency, and the chairman is that platform’s visible representative and the voice of the party.

(I know I am repeating myself, but that is a point I want you to keep going back to in your mind as we continue.)

Dr. Howard Dean, DNC chairman, attended a gay-rights breakfast in West Hollywood, reports the Los Angeles Times, under the headline, “Dean Says Democrats Will Make Schiavo Case an Election Issue”.

Actually, the Times cleaned up what Dean actually told his audience, which was; “We’re going to use Terri Schiavo later on.”

As I noted, it takes a healthy note of cynicism to be successful in politics. But when the legal counsel to Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez wrote a memo calling the Terri Schiavo case ‘a great Republican issue’, he was immediately forced to resign.

Not Dr. Dean. Dean told his audience that he planned to ‘use’ Terri Schiavo as a club with which to beat up on Republican Majority leader Tom DeLay for spearheading a Senate effort to save Terri Schiavo from court-ordered starvation.

“This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it’s going to be an issue in 2008,” Dean told about 200 people at a gay rights group’s breakfast in West Hollywood, “because we’re going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, ‘Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?’ “

Hmmmm. Terri Schiavo was put to death at the request of her husband, who remembered her desire to die only years later. And after he won a $1.2 million malpractice suit and entered into a ten-year common-law marriage with another woman with whom he has two children.

The decision to put her to death came after a ten-year court battle against Terri’s parents (also presumably her ‘loved ones’) and was upheld by a judiciary who totally ignored a law that passed unopposed by the Senate requiring the federal court to conduct a complete reassessment of the case.

Instead of re-hearing the case (which would have necessitated reconnecting Terri’s feeding tube) the courts merely reviewed the state court’s rulings, and not the evidence itself, which was what the law required.

The decision to put Terri Schiavo to death was NOT made by her ‘loved ones’. It was made by what would certainly have been Terri’s EX-husband, had she ever awakened. It was carried out under judicial decree, with law enforcement officers present to ensure Terri starved to death as ordered.

When the Senate intervened, Dr. Dean tried to seize the high moral ground by calling it a ‘case of Republican political grandstanding’ — but now that Terri is dead, he openly admits he intends to ‘use her’ for political advantage.

Dr. Dean’s question is a stunning example of cynicism in practice. The question Dean posed is, “Who do you want to decide whether you die or not?”

Think that through. One could make the same point by asking, “Who do YOU want to decide if you LIVE or not?” — but evidently, that option didn’t occur to the good doctor.

It gives one pause. Can such rhetoric actually ATTRACT voters? And, if it DOES attract new voters, what does that say about them spiritually?

In his breakfast speech, sponsored by “Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality”, (or, “ANGLE”) Dean also took issue with fellow Democrats who had voted for proposed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage.

“What I really object to is Democrats who support the constitutional ban, because I think putting in constitutional discrimination in either the United States Constitution or individual state constitutions is wrong,” said Dean.

What is the official platform of the party of Dr. Howard Dean?

I went to the DNC’s official website for answers. The planks were conveniently arranged in alphabetical order.

The DNC’s platform on abortion isn’t merely abortion on demand up to the last second before the baby emerges from the womb — it includes the right to FREE abortion on demand, paid for with taxpayer money.

Among the planks in the DNC civil rights platform are a ban on racial or religious ‘profiling’ to detect terrorists in our midst and rescinding a federal ban on gay marriage.

It favors expanding the global ‘free trade zone’, imposing punitive taxes on upper income earners, granting more power to the United Nations, and closing gun control loopholes on the theory that guns cause murder.

In addition, the DNC official platform calls for “putting science ahead of ‘ideology’ in research and policymaking” – that’s a direct quote.

It was ‘science’ that determined life begins at birth, paving the way for unrestricted abortion. Those who oppose abortion as ‘murder’ are, in this worldview, ‘ideologues’. . . CHRISTIAN ideologues, by unspoken political definition.

In the DNC’s official worldview, respect for life is based in an ‘ideology’ that not shared by the DNC. As respect for life decreases, so does respect for the process that creates and perpetuates it.

“Marriage” is the human equivalent of ‘mating’. The scientific explanation for ‘mating’ is the procreation (and preservation) of a species. Remove the ‘procreation’ aspect from ‘mating’ and the word ‘mating’ becomes meaningless in any scientific sense.

Interestingly, under the category, ‘family’ on the DNC’s platform list, is the sole entry, “Family is the center of American life.”


As I noted at the outset, the purpose is to discuss matters of the spirit, in light of Bible prophecy for the last days. The politics of the DNC is part and parcel of that end-times picture for two reasons.

The first is what those politics are, and how perfectly they mirror the Apostle Paul’s description of the social mores of the Church Age in the last days.

The second is that those social mores are shared by almost half of US voters, including many Christians, if the email I receive from angry self-professed Democrats is to believed.

The DNC favor free abortion on demand at taxpayer expense, euthanasia, gay marriage, confiscatory taxation; oppose nationalism, abstinence education, put science ahead of ideological concepts of right and wrong, and oppose any mention of Christianity in either public education or public life, while defending the practice of teaching such things as ‘alternative religions’.

The only religions that are illegal to study in American public schools are those based in the Bible.

The stated moral values of the DNC are, statistically, shared by almost half of American voters.

According to the CIA World Factbook, America’s religious culture is broken down as follows: Protestant: 52%, Roman Catholic: 24%, Mormon: 2%, Jewish: 1%, Muslim: 1%, other: 10%, none: 10%.

In total then, America is 78% nominally Christian, 14% non-Christian and 10% atheist. By any reasonable standard of measure, America is a predominantly ‘Christian’ nation.

We return to the adjective, ‘cynicism’ and some of its synonyms . . . scoffing, scornful, skeptical, sneering, suspicious, unbelieving, and wry.

Compare them to both the public statements of prominent Democrats and the official platform of the Democratic Party.

This isn’t about politics, it is about a moral worldview that permeates our society.

A worldview in which supporting the ‘right to die’ by euthanasia is as important as upholding the right to kill the unborn by abortion.

A worldview that can condemn an effort to save someone from starvation as ‘ideological’ and then openly exploit the death of a helpless human being for political gain.

And a society so cynical that such an approach is feasible as a method to attract new voters.

It is a worldview ‘without natural affection’. The Kerry campaign was a litany of ‘false accusations’, and characterized Christianity as ‘right wing politics’ (despisers of those that are good).

The Kerry campaign proposed giving the UN veto power over US foreign policy, (traitors) and opposed making social policy on gay rights or abortion or cloning or stem cell research based on ‘ right-wing ideology’ (lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.)

(And, it got more votes than any losing campaign in US history).

Howard Dean recently issued a ‘talking points’ memo advising Democrats to pepper their speeches with Bible quotes and references to God and Christianity, in order to recapture lost voters from the South’s ‘Bible Belt’.

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. . .’

Many theologians and teachers have tried to find some evidence of America, the world’s most powerful and most Christian country, mentioned in Bible prophecy for the end times.

They’ve pored over Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, and systematically dissected the Book of the Revelation.

They are looking in the wrong place. America plays no role in the Tribulation Period, but one can see America’s spiritual fingerprints are all over the Scripture’s account of the final days of the Church Age.

The Apostle Paul called it a ‘perilous time’ to be a Christian, before outlining a mirror-image description of the political platform and expressed worldview of ‘Christian’ America’s second-most powerful political party.

“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (1st John 1:43)

I am not saying that Howard Dean is the antichrist. Nor am I making the case that Republicans are good.

One just finds fewer deniers of Christ among Republicans — regardless of whether its due to political savvy or genuine conviction. Those who get elected reflect the worldview of their electors.

The point isn’t about politics, its about the worldview of the society that puts politicians in power — and what that worldview says about the spiritual condition of that society.

Comparing Dean’s public statements to his party’s official platform makes a point about America’s spiritual condition relative to Bible prophecy for the last days.

“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Luke 12:34)

Deeper and Deeper

Deeper and Deeper
Vol: 43 Issue: 15 Friday, April 15, 2005

Two high-ranking UN officials have been cited in a U.S. criminal complaint against a South Korean businessman in the Oil-For-Food scandal.

The reported involvement of the two unidentified UN officials was likely to cast a new shadow on the already-shady global debating society.

The complaint calling for an arrest warrant against Tonsun Park was made public at the same time as an indictment charging a Texas oil company owner and two oil traders from Britain and Bulgaria with paying millions of dollars in secret kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime to secure oil deals.

The allegations regarding the unidentified UN officials were contained in a complaint accusing Park of accepting millions of dollars from the Iraqi government while he operated in the United States as an unregistered agent for Hussein during negotiations with the United Nations on establishing the oil-for-food program and after it started operating.

According to a co-operating government witness in 1995 that he needed $10-million from Iraq to take care of his expenses and his people, which the witness believed meant a person identified in court papers only as UN Official 1.

And at least some of the $2 million transferred by diplomatic courier from Baghdad to Park was earmarked for ‘taking care of UN officials’ according to secret Hussein-regime documents discovered after the war.

And it’s not like Park slipped in under the radar. In the 1970s, Park was at the centre of what became known as the Koreagate scandals in which he was accused of trying to buy influence in Congress, so his reputation as a ‘fixer’ was already well-established.


Of late, the news media has given official sanction to the appellation of a new adjective when mentioning the UN. That adjective is ‘tarnished’ and it usually is used in context with ’embattled’. Consider the following example;

“Embattled UN Secretary General-Kofi Annan, seeking to deflect some of the blame away from the tarnished United Nations, told reporters today that, (quoting from Reuters) ‘the United States and Britain bore part of the blame in the Iraq oil-for-food debacle by allowing unsupervised oil exports that Saddam Hussein exploited.'”

How’s that again???

Annan, addressing a seminar on the United Nations and the media, said most of the money Saddam earned was by oil sold to Jordan and Turkey outside of the $67 billion U.N. program.

Only countries like the United States and Britain had interdiction forces that could have stopped it. But he said they “decided to close their eyes to Turkey and Jordan because they are allies.”

“The bulk of the money Saddam made came after smuggling outside the oil for food program,” Annan said. “It was on the American and British watch.”

Of course, the media ate up Annan’s comments like candy, drawing together all the evidence it could muster to support Annan’s allegations, as if Washington and London were as involved in the scandal by NOT policing their allies as the UN, France, Germany, Russia and China were by taking bribes and kickbacks.

Despite the media’s willingness to overlook the fact that the bribes were paid to UN officials and the kickbacks went to government officials in France, Germany, etc., it wasn’t enough for Annan, who also complained, “I sometimes bridle at press criticism that seems politically biased and ideologically inspired.”

For example, complained Kofi, the United Nations was criticized for wanting to let Saddam’s regime have spare parts for its oil industry. Yet, says Annan, after the war, US and British officials were ‘the first to acknowledge’ the equipment was worn out.

Hmmm. Not sure exactly what that is supposed to prove, since the idea of sanctions was to suffocate Hussein’s economy by embargoing Iraq’s oil industry.

One of my personal favorites is Annan’s complaint that the UN turned over some $9 billion in Oil for Food money to United States and the coalition and that the UN ‘still has not received a proper accounting for it’.

One thing at a time, Kofi. First, it wasn’t your money, even though you seemed to think so — it is the property of Iraq. The Iraqis aren’t worried about the money turned over to the US, they are concerned about the billions stolen by corrupt UN officials.

Since the end of the 2003 war, Iraq has released lists of kickbacks from the Saddam Hussein government. The lists are a veritable ‘who’s who’ of UN-connected political groups and UN-connected individuals from whom the former Iraqi government wanted to buy influence.

Brian Urquhart, a former U.N. undersecretary-general, complained that criticism of the UN has reached ‘a fever pitch’, courtesy of an unnamed ‘faction’ within the United States.

“There was always a faction in U.S. politics which regarded the United Nations as a curse on humanity which had to be eliminated,” Urquhart noted.

While Kofi Annan and Co. were complaining about ‘not getting a fair shake’ from the media, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is preparing to issue its annual resolutions condemning human rights violations around the world.

Iran needn’t worry. Neither had Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes in the world with one of the worst human rights records in modern history.

China, whose mighty economic engine is fueled by free labor provided by prison ‘factories’ populated by inmates incarcerated for their religious views, will not be cited.

A resolution condemning the Sudan for the genocide still taking place against the mainly-Christian south by the mainly-Muslim north is not expected to pass, despite a death toll surpassing two hundred thousand and a refugee problem numbering in the millions.

A resolution condemning Cuba for human rights abuses barely made it, with 21 countries voting in favor, 17 voting against, and 15 abstentions.

While the resolution managed to pass, thanks to heavy US lobbying, a full sixty percent of the Human Rights Commission members, either by abstention or by a no vote, refused to condemn Castro’s Cuba.

In recent years, the commission has stopped criticizing Iran and Zimbabwe. It has never reprimanded China, Saudi Arabia or Syria. Instead of fearing censure by the UN’s human rights commission, these dictatorships seek to join it.

But the UN Human Rights Commission had no problem finding enough votes to condemn Israel as the world’s worst human rights violator. Although countries like China and Saudi Arabia received not a single mention, Israel was condemned in five separate resolutions.

The UN Human Rights Commission has a permanent special investigator assigned to documenting Israeli human rights abuses. The Commission operates on the principle that it is the actor, and not the act, that is the deciding factor.

That is why it condemned Israel for deporting the 45 Palestinians who laid siege to the Church of the Nativity and used the traditional Birthplace of Christ for a toilet, but offered NO words of condemnation for the act that prompted the deportation.

The Commission takes note of the 7000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons, despite the fact it openly acknowledges those prisoners were involved in killing Israeli civilians.

It says nothing about Palestinians shooting down other Palestinians in the street for allegedly ‘collaborating’ with Israel. There are no words of condemnation for the Palestinian practice of ‘honor killings’ of Palestinian women.

No mention of Palestinian terrorists recruiting children to deliver suicide bombs to Israeli checkpoints, despite UN prohibitions against using children in combat.

Instead, by a 39-2 vote, Israel was condemned for having settlements inside Palestinian-occupied territories, a resolution that amounts to UN-approved ethnic cleansing.

Under the terms of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Treaty, ‘ethnic cleansing’ meets the legal definition of ‘genocide’. Serbia’s efforts at ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Muslims in Kosovo resulted in the UN charging Slobodon Milosevic with ‘crimes against humanity’.

Efforts at ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank and Gaza resulted in a resolution being passed AGAINST the VICTIMS of what would otherwise constitute crimes against humanity.

Allow yourself to dwell on THAT, for a second, and see if you can make any logical sense out of it. I have tried. And failed.

The resolution called on Israel to guarantee the safety of Palestinian civilians, but said nothing about the Palestinian practice of deliberately targeting Israeli women and children in civilian neighborhoods.

The commission also passed a resolution condemning the use of force by Israel against Palestinian civilians by a 29-10 vote.

A third resolution calling on Israel to respect the human rights of Syrian citizens in the occupied Golan Heights was also adopted by a 32-2 vote.

The Commission also singled out alleged ‘ethnic and religious profiling’ of Muslim minorities in the post-9/11 world as an example of human rights violations against Muslims.

That resolution, passed by a 31-16 margin, “expressed deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still in evidence parts of the world.”

It strongly deplored physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centers and places of worship of all religions as well as targeting of religious symbols, and called on the international community to initiate a dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and religious diversity.

But the only religion cited by the UN as being a recipient of such human-rights abuse was Islam — as if a Jew or Christian in an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia had more religious freedom than a Muslim in Hamtramck, Michigan.

Noted former US Senator Rudy Boschwitz dryly, The U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which sits in judgment of the human rights of others, must have some reasonable standards of membership. This Commission must be made up of firefighters, not arsonists.

According to Scripture, the last generation before the return of Christ can expect to see the following:

1) the existence of a Jewish state in Israel (Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 66)

2) a global effort against Israel, over the issue of possession of Jerusalem. (Zechariah 12)

3) a global government that eventually becomes a tool in the hands of the antichrist for a global persecution of Christians and Jews.

4) a failed seven-year peace covenant between Israel and her enemies. (Daniel 9)

5) the emergence of a global religious conflict pitting Jews and Christians (Daniel, Revelation) against a ‘strange god’ in a scheme to ‘divide the land for gain’ (Daniel 11:39)

Of course, this list is anything but comprehensive, I just picked out five prophetic scenarios at random out of the hundreds that apply to this generation to the exclusion of all previous generations. Today’s headlines did the rest.

Now, let’s put it into perspective. Let’s sit down with pad and paper and make five predictions about the geopolitical, religious and social attitudes that will exist in the year 4025, some 2500 years into the future.

Pick a country that hasn’t existed in 150 years or so that you are 100% certain will exist under the same name in the year 4025 as it did in the year 1850. Now name, (by name) what the global regional groupings will be in the year 4025.

Outline the basic reasons for conflict between the nation (that doesn’t exist now but will in 4025) and what nations and regional groupings will be their greatest ideological opponents.

Predict the exact duration and nature of a peace covenant that will exist between our restored nation and her predicted enemies. Now predict the terms of that agreement.

Got all that? Now, just to make it interesting, outline the events that will take place in the intervening years between 2005 and 4025 that will ultimately conspire together to bring about the conditions you just predicted for that one generation, 2500 years from now.

If you want to make it interesting, cross reference your predictions with predictions made by somebody you never heard of, on the other side of the world, who won’t exist for, say, another five hundred years or so.

And invite 40 others, (some of whom won’t live for another thousand years), to make their own predictions of the same events.

Put it all together in one book, and promise, before most of its contributors have even been born, that every single one of your predictions, together with those of your co-authors you’ve never met, will be 100% accurate, 100% of the time.

Now, imagine, just for a second, that it IS the year 4025 and people are reading your predictions, most of which have already come true, while maintaining your minimum benchmark standard of 100%.

Those people 2500 years into the future, observing the fulfillment of your predictions so far, read what you have predicted will happen next — and inexplicably, they express doubt that your accuracy rate will continue to hold.

“And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive. . . But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.” (Matthew 13:14,16)

Thank You, Jesus, for the blessing!

“It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” (Psalms 118:8)

Special Report: The Trial

Special Report: The Trial
Vol: 43 Issue: 14 Thursday, April 14, 2005

“And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” (Revelation 20:1-3)

During the thousand year Millennial Reign, the earth will be populated by ordinary, living, breathing humans, some of whom survived the Tribulation Period, together with those who will be born (in the usual manner) during the Kingdom Period.

The human lifespan will return to what it was in the days of Adam, but they will be mortal humans in the sense that, even with Satan bound, men will still die, and sin will still exist;

“There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.”

Further proving that the inhabitants of the Kingdom Period are ordinary humans; they will need food, and shelter, and to get it, they will have to work for a living, even as they enjoy an extended lifespan:

“And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.” (Isaiah 65:21-22)

Coinhabiting the earth with mortal humans, Scripture tells us, are the immortal resurrected dead.

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.” (Revelation 20:4-5)

Notice two key points John makes in this passage.

First, those being addressed are undeniably those who came out of the Tribulation. And second, John says that, AFTER the Tribulation, (in which they were beheaded) they both live AND reign with Christ for the full thousand years.

This passage is often used as a proof text to argue in favor of a post-Tribulation Rapture. After all, they are clearly those who endured the Tribulation. And if it is the ‘first’ resurrection, then it must take place concurrent with the Rapture.

That seems to make sense, until you look at the passage again. Those referenced there are ONLY those who came out of the Great Tribulation.

Church Age believers and the Old Testament saints are not mentioned, since they have already received their resurrection bodies. (Matthew 19:28, Daniel 12, Job 19:25)

“Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:6)

Revelation 20:4-6 mentions a “first resurrection” and identifies those involved as “blessed and holy.” The second death (the lake of fire, Revelation 20:14) has no power over these individuals.

But how does one have two ‘first’ resurrections; the first at a pre-Trib Rapture, and the second at the end of the Tribulation Period?

Actually, the Bible identifies the ‘first resurrection’ as occurring in four stages, not two.

The first resurrection, in general, is the raising of all believers from all ages.

It corresponds with Jesus’ teaching of the “resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14) and the “resurrection of life” (John 5:29).

And it clearly takes place in various stages; the first was Jesus Christ Himself two thousand years ago.

He was the ‘Firstfruits’ (1 Corinthians 15:20) Who prepared the way of salvation for those who Trust Him during the Church Age.

The second stage involved the resurrection of the saints of Jerusalem;

“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 27:52-53).

Stage three is the resurrection of the “dead in Christ” followed by the Rapture of “we which are alive and remain” at the Lord’s return for His Church at the conclusion of the Church Age. (1st Thessalonians 4:17)

And finally, the resurrection of the martyrs at the conclusion of the final seven years of the Age of the Law. (Revelation 20:4, Daniel 9:24)

All these groups are part of the ‘first resurrection’ upon whom the ‘second death’ (in the lake of fire) will have ‘no power’.

There is no inconsistency between resurrection of the saints at the conclusion of the Church Age, followed by a separate resurrection of the martyrs at the conclusion of the Tribulation, anymore than there is an inconsistency between the Resurrection of Christ followed by the separate resurrection of the O. T. saints in Jerusalem.

From the Resurrection of Jesus to the resurrection of the Tribulation martyrs and O.T. saints (Daniel 12:13); it is all part of the general ‘first’ resurrection of the dead in four stages, each of which is clearly separated according to Scripture to a specific purpose in the overall Plan of God.

The second resurrection, then, is the raising of all unbelievers; the second resurrection is connected to the second death. It corresponds with Jesus’ teaching of the “resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29).

The event which divides the first and second resurrections is the millennial kingdom.

The last of the righteous are raised to reign “with Christ a thousand years” (Revelation 20:4), but the “rest of the dead [that is, the wicked] lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” (Revelation 20:5).


As part of understanding Scripture’s outline of the overall Plan of God, consider the various epochs of human history from the perspective of the angels who did NOT join the rebellion, and who, by nature, have no understanding of what sin really is or how it really works.

“Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; WHICH THINGS THE ANGELS DESIRE TO LOOK INTO.” (1st Peter 1:12)

We are a mystery to the angels. The Bible says they are charged with ministering to us, but that one day, they will be judged BY us. (1st Corinthians 6:3)

“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with SO GREAT A CLOUD OF WITNESSES, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,” (Hebrews 12:1)

Isaiah 14 introduces us to the first outbreak of sin in the universe.

“For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

For his sin of arrogance, God pronounced judgement on Lucifer, the most honored of His angels, and those rebellious angels who followed him; “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:12-15)

The existence of humanity is often described by theologians as the ‘trial of Satan’.

The courtroom is Planet Earth, with Jesus as the Righteous Judge, the angels as witnesses, and with sinful mankind serving as evidence. It is more than just the trial of Satan. Sin itself is on trial.

Lucifer, called in Scripture, “the anointed cherub that covereth” was highly favored of God; “and I have set thee so” (Ezekiel 28:14) Isaiah 14:14 defines that first sin as, “I will” — the sin of pride.

The trial is to prove what ‘one little sin’ can do — the classic ‘slippery slope’ scenario.

The trial opens with Exhibit 1 — Adam and Eve. They are placed in a perfect environment and given only one command — to avoid the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. They fail — and man inherits a sin nature.

Man is allowed free reign until the Flood — the so-called “Age of Conscience”. Without Divine interaction or instruction, society becomes so sinful and corrupt that God saves Noah and his family alive and destroys the rest in the Flood. Exhibit 2.

During the Age of the Patriarchs, God spoke directly to chosen individuals; Abraham, Noah, Lot, etc. Each, even having spoken directly with God, commit some heinous sin. Exhibit 3.

Having gone from one commandment (the Age of Innocence) to no commandments at all (the Age of Conscience) to direct confrontation,(the Age of the Patriarchs) God progresses to giving mankind the Ten Commandments (the Age of the Law).

Not one person ever kept all ten of them throughout his lifetime, no matter what the circumstances. (David, for example, broke all ten of them.)

Exhibit 4, therefore, is the Age of the Law, during which time the Commandments of God became so corrupted and perverted that it became necessary to scrap the whole system and replace it with the Age of Grace.

To accomplish that God Himself stepped out of space and time, took on the form of sinful man, kept the Law on our behalf, and paid the price for our sin. (Death)

In so doing, He made a way for all mankind to be saved by faith through grace.

But most of mankind rejects even the free offer of grace, preferring a life of unregenerate sin.

That constitutes Exhibit 5 — and it must make the angelic witnesses gasp in disbelief.

From the perspective of the angelic witness, then, ‘one little sin’ has thus far brought mankind to the point it is today. So far, God has given sin every opportunity to prove itself worthy of its wages.

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23)

The Age of Grace concludes at the Rapture. The Rapture removes the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit, giving Satan (and sin) free reign for seven years. And the end result is the near-destruction of all human life.

Exhibit 6.

Jesus then returns at the 2nd Coming, binds Satan for a thousand years, and reigns Personally from Jerusalem.

Mortal humanity has no excuse, He is right there, in Person, for all to see.

Satan’s influence is restrained, lifespans are extended, there are no more wars, famine or poverty, and humankind is returned to the Eden-like state from which it began.

With God Himself on the Throne of human government, ruling with a rod of iron for a thousand years, Satan is loosed for ‘a little season’.

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.”

The mortal humans who have lived in a state of God-given idyllic bliss for a thousand years, under the influence of Satan, raise an army to bring against the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Himself. Exhibit 7.

Sin is judged according to its works.

“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.”

This is the SECOND resurrection. Unlike the first resurrection, it has only one phase.

“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.”

“And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:10-12,14)

In the overall Plan of God, as outlined in Scripture, everything has a purpose. There are no omissions, no errors, and no inconsistencies.

From Genesis to Revelation, a central theme of Scripture is that sin is the cause of death, and will ultimately be eradicated from existence, together with all those who “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:12)

Praise the Lord for that OTHER central theme of Scripture.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Special Report: Bashing Bolton

Special Report: Bashing Bolton
Vol: 43 Issue: 13 Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Special Report: Bashing Bolton

President Bush’s choice for US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton will most likely pass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and come to a full vote this week, but the confirmation process has been typically ugly.

Bolton’s nomination is being viciously opposed by the Left, who generally oppose any nomination advanced by the administration, but Bolton is a special case. The Left REALLY hates John Bolton.

Bolton doesn’t particularly like the way the United Nations runs roughshod over US interests, and the Left fears he might alienate the UN by representing US interests on the Security Council.

The New York Times has led the media blitz aimed at preventing Bolton’s confirmation, calling him a ‘unilateralist’ — one of the dirtiest words in the liberal Left’s lexicon of insults.

In their view, a ‘unilateralist’ at the UN would prevent the UN from getting anything accomplished.

(You know, the same way the Left keeps both Houses of Congress tied in knots and unable to get anything accomplished).

Rich Lowry defined a liberal this week in his column as ‘someone who won’t take his own side in a fight’ — that pretty much sums up the opposition to Bolton’s confirmation as UN Ambassador. The Left is terrified that Bolton might side with America.

Bolton is on record as opposing US membership in the International Criminal Court, arguing the administration line that allowing an international criminal court jurisdiction over the United States would put US troops at risk of international prosecution in the event of war.

Bolton wrote in 1998 that signing the ICC would make the “president, the cabinet officers who comprise the National Security Council, and other senior civilian and military leaders responsible for our defense and foreign policy … the potential targets of the politically unaccountable Prosecutor in Rome.”

The Left sees that as a BAD thing.

As the New York Times expressed it’s take on John Bolton, it seemed (to me) like every ‘criticism’ it offered of Bolton was an argument in favor of his confirmation:

“The longer John Bolton’s Senate hearing for the post of United Nations representative went on, the more outrageous it seemed that President Bush could have nominated a man who had made withering disdain for that world body the signature of his career in international affairs. Some fear that the aim is to scuttle the United Nations. . .”

But, notes the Times, darkly, “It’s more likely, but just as disturbing, that this is another example of Mr. Bush’s rewarding loyalty rather than holding officials accountable for mistakes, especially those who helped build the case for war with Iraq.”

Before going on, I want to call your attention to something that may well be a record for the New York Times. It took a full three sentences before the Times found a way to link this story to the liberal article of faith that the entire administration lied to the public and invented a case for war.

I call it an ‘article of faith’ because one must first accept the premise that the president has sources of information not available to either US or foreign intelligence services.

Once one can get past the logic hurdle that the president should have known what nobody else knew (including some of Saddam’s own generals), it isn’t that hard to make a case that the entire administration is composed of self-serving, dishonest and corrupt officials who would put American troops in harm’s way to advance their own private interests.

As I understand the meaning of the term, a UN ‘ambassador’ is supposed to represent his country, not the UN. But it seems that is what is hurting John Bolton — the perception that he actually might represent US interests. And, even worse, notes the Times, is Bolton’s loyalty to the administration.

(If you’re confused, so am I. I thought loyalty to the government was an important facet of government service?)

According to the Times, the “hearings also provided a detailed indictment of his views on the U.N., multilateral diplomacy and treaties.”

It noted that, “Bolton tried, but failed, to explain away his long public record of attacking the United Nations.”

Bolton has long been a critic of the United Nations, but what does the New York Times call an ‘attack’?

How does one ‘attack’ an agency that tried to prop up Saddam Hussein for the sole purpose of continuing to loot Iraq’s Oil for Food fund?

Would it be an ‘attack’ to point out that UN peacekeepers weren’t sent to the Congo to rape children? Would pointing out the UN’s total abrogation of its responsibilities in Rwanda be an ‘attack’?

Or that peacekeepers stood by and watched while men, women and children were butchered before their eyes after seeking a UN-promised ‘safe haven’ in Srebrenica?

Would noting the hypocrisy inherent in Kofi Annan’s declaration of a ‘moment of silence’ to ‘ensure’ a genocidal effort like that in Rwanda would ‘never happen again’ – as genocide rages in the Sudan — be an ‘attack’?

Noted the Los Angeles Times, “In a long, bruising hearing, Senate Democrats painted Bolton as ideologically hostile to the United Nations, undiplomatic, and too compromised by his handling of intelligence to be entrusted with America’s top U.N. job.”


One has to ask, what is wrong with having a US ambassador to the UN who is ideologically hostile to the United Nations?

Both Houses of Congress are filled with lawmakers who are ideologically hostile to their own government. If you were to ask Barbara Boxer or Joe Biden, they’d tell you that was a good thing — they’d say that having a loyal opposition is what keeps the government responsive to the will of the people, etc., etc.

You can tell more about the character of a man from his enemies than you can from his friends.

With that in mind, it is worth noting that six of the eight Democratic senators opposing Bolton during the confirmation hearings are on billionaire whacko liberal George Soro’s contribution list, and that four of THEM are also beholden to the Citizens for Global Solutions, a political action committee that favors world government and global taxes on American citizens to pay for it.

Two other Soros-backed groups, the Open Society Policy Center and the American Progress Action Fund — are working with Citizens for Global Solutions to defeat Bolton.

In a column entitled ‘Armageddon Man” — and under the subtitle, “Legal Sleaze” — Tom Barry of the liberal think tank, ‘Foreign Policy in Focus’ outlines the Left’s chief objection to John Bolton’s confirmation as America’s representative to the UN.

He might represent America’s interests.

“John Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, rejects the legitimacy of international law at least when international conventions, treaties, and norms constrain what he regards as U.S. national interests.”

Having leveled THAT bombshell, Barry goes on to note that, “Bolton also has a record of questionable legal and ethical dealings at home.”

Did you catch that? Putting US interests ahead of the UN’s is, to Barry, part of a greater record of “questionable legal and ethical dealings”. To prove what an unethical and dishonest representative Bolton might be at the UN, Barry pointed to a June 25, 1995 op-ed piece Bolton authored in the Washington Times.

In his op-ed piece, notes Barry, “Bolton lambasted President Clinton for continuing the funding of “programs on international population control and environmental matters rather than fundamental economic reforms in developing countries.”

Can you imagine having a UN Ambassador who favors reforming the economies of poor countries over killing off the excess population? No wonder the Left questions Bolton’s ethics.

Another reason to oppose Bolton, argues the Left, is that Bolton is an outspoken champion of Israel. Notes Barry derisively;

“Bolton boasts that one of his most important achievements was the central role he played at the State Department in 1991 in leading the successful campaign to repeal the 1975 General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism, “thus removing the greatest stain on the U.N.’s reputation.”

For all these reasons and more, the Left opposes making John Bolton US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Which proves he is clearly the right man for the job.

The Greatest Fraud in History

The Greatest Fraud in History
Vol: 43 Issue: 10 Sunday, April 10, 2005

A planned Temple Mount march and protest fizzled when Jerusalem police, backed up by Army units, closed the Temple Mount to both Jews and Arabs.

Throughout the Old City police had set up roadblocks and checkpoints barring all private vehicles from entering the area, while a strict security cordon of hundreds of police officers lined the Western Wall Plaza.

In defiance of police, hundreds of Palestinian youths, together with West Bank Hamas leader, Sheikh Hassan Youssef, managed to enter the Temple Mount compound early Sunday morning.

In a live broadcast from the Temple Mount on the Arabic news channel Al-Jazeera, Youssef called on Palestinians and Muslims from all over the world to come and ‘save Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem from the Jews’.

Palestinians officials had denounced the rally as a ‘provocation’, and had warned that such a visit could lead to a renewal of violence nationwide.

The three major Palestinian terror organizations, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, announced separately that they would resume terror attacks if the event goes ahead as planned.

In addition, one of the Sunni Muslim world’s most respected clerics predicted on Saturday that the Middle East would explode if Jews visit the al-Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem, Israel Radio reported.

The Palestinians claim that Israel has no historical claim to what they call the “noble sanctuary” where Islamic tradition (and NOT the Koran) says Mohammed rode a winged steed into heaven in an Islamic version of the Ascension.

It is a measure of the power of propaganda that the Muslim claim to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount is repeated ’round the world, despite the indisputable evidence of prior Jewish claim set forth by Scripture.

It is an affront to history to deny Jerusalem’s foundation by King David, or the prior existence of both a First and Second Temple.

The Arab propagandists spin their web of lies within the shadow of the ‘Wailing Wall’ — a three thousand year old section of the retaining wall built around the Temple by David’s son, Solomon. They just pretend it isn’t there, and the world pretends with them.

Israel was reborn the year the United Nations issued its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since that time, more than 400 UN Resolutions have been passed by the UN General Assembly condemning Israel over its claim to either Jerusalem or portions of Holy Land.

During the same period, the UN not only has failed to pass a single resolution condemning Arab terrorism, it still hasn’t come up with a definition of what ‘terrorism’ is.

There is no way to apply logic or conventional wisdom in such a way as to make any of it fit — yet that is Israel’s situation report five years into the 21st century. Israel is a tiny democratic country surrounded by a sea of repressive Arab dictatorships.

Yet to the democratic West — together with the allegedly democratic United Nations — it is Israel that is the problem. A recent poll taken across Europe found the United States and Israeli in a virtual tie for which nation presents the greatest threat to world peace.

(It is worth noting that there has never been a case in world history in which two democratic nations ever went to war with one another — democracies are notoriously peace-loving until their freedom is threatened).

The Arab claim to Jerusalem is arguably the greatest — and most easily proved — fraud in history. The Koran, not compiled until almost six hundred years after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, does not make a single reference to Jerusalem throughout its entire text .

Twelve hundred years before Mohammed dictated the first words of the Koran, the Psalmist, under the inspiration of God, wrote from captivity in Babylon;

“If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her skill! If I do not remember you, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth – if I do not exalt Jerusalem above my chief joy.” (Psalms 137:1-6)

Since Israel recaptured the Temple Mount from Jordan in the 1967 War, religious Jews have dreamed of rebuilding the Third Temple on the spot now occupied by the al-Aqsa Mosque. On June 7, 1967, Israeli Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren declared,

“We have taken the city of God. We are entering the Messianic era for the Jewish people, and I promise to the Christian world that what we are responsible for we will take care of.”


Despite the claims and counter-claims — and in the face of global opposition — Israel is already preparing for the day that the Temple will be rebuilt and Temple worship restored.

A rabbinical school (or yeshiva) for the training of the priests for this temple is presently in existence in the Old City. To ensure ritual purity, its students live on elevated platforms and are not permitted to touch Israeli soil until the Temple area can be ritually cleansed.

Sacred vessels and priestly garments have been prepared. Cedar from Lebanon captured in the north during the war there in 1982 has been placed in storage for the next temple, and so on.

Thus there has been considerable preparation for the Third Temple by the religious Jews of modern Jerusalem. Both the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem agree that such a temple will be built as soon as circumstances permit.

But the worship and sacrifice MUST be performed on a ritually cleansed Temple Mount. According to the Temple Mount Institute’s website, they know where to locate the Ark of the Covenant, in a secret chamber buried deep inside the Temple Mount.

The Prophet Daniel said that halfway through the seven year Tribulation, the antichrist will break his covenant with Israel and will ’cause the sacrifice and oblation’ to cease, indicating a restoration of Temple worship, including ritual animal sacrifice.

To be legitimate under Jewish Law, animal sacrifice can only be performed by ritually pure members of the cohanin and only on the site of a ritually pure Holy of Holies.

In his 2nd letter to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul linked the existence of a restored Temple and the recovery of the Ark of the Covenant to the antichrist and the Tribulation. Paul gives the Third Temple the seal of authenticity.

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

Note that Paul doesn’t call it the ‘Temple of Antichrist’ — Paul says it is the temple “of God”. This is further proof that the Church Age has concluded and that God’s attention is turned to the national redemption of Israel.

No Jewish Temple could be legitimately termed a ‘Temple of God’ during the Age of Grace.

Note also that it would not be necessary for the entire Temple to be rebuilt before the restoration of the Jewish system of Temple worship and animal sacrifice. (David’s first temple was a tent to house the Ark of the Covenant).

Today the fragile peace that prevails on the Temple Mount grows more and more tenuous to this hour. Certain groups are clearly preparing to build a Third Temple. The Government of Israel is determined to keep things as they are.

The prophet Zechariah wrote that in the last days, God will “make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.”

“And in that day, will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” (Zechariah 12:2-3)

The eyes of the world are upon Jerusalem, City of Peace, today as never before. This is a city that has been besieged about forty different times and destroyed (at least partially) on thirty-two different occasions.

The rulership of Jerusalem has changed hands some twenty-six times. Since 1948 Jerusalem has experienced four wars.

By all historical standards, the city of Jerusalem should have ceased to exist centuries ago. It has no natural wealth, no oil reserves and no particular strategic military value.

The ancient trade route known as the ‘Kings Highway’ ran north and south along the plateau of Jordan — bypassing Jerusalem.

During its centuries of Muslim rule, Jerusalem was a dusty backwater so unimportant that it never even achieved the status of a regional or provincial capital, let alone being the capital city of a mythical ‘Palestinian’ people.

Despite 2000 years of mediocrity, Jerusalem is today is the focal point of never-ending debate among the great superpowers.

In this generation, for the first time in two thousand years, the implements of Temple worship have been reconstructed.

A pure red heifer, whose ashes are needed to purify the Temple site before worship can be restored, has been ritually certified by Israeli rabbis as the first acceptable red heifer ‘without spot or blemish’ in two millennia.

A ritually-undefiled Jewish priesthood is already in existence. Israel’s greatest rabbinical sages are convinced that the Jewish messiah will make his appearance in this generation.

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way.”

“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 2:6-7)

And before THAT takes place, the Apostle Paul reveals;

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:”

“Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”

“Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18)

When A Snub is a “Breaththrough”

When A Snub is a “Breaththrough”
Vol: 43 Issue: 9 Saturday, April 9, 2005

The New York Post reported that Pope John Paul II may have performed the Catholic Church’s prerequisite three miracles necessary for elevation to sainthood during his own funeral.

According to widely-published reports from Rome, Israeli President Moshe Katsav allegedly shook hands with the presidents of both Syria and Iran, and embraced Algerian president Adelaziz Bouteflika.

Algeria is among those Islamic nations that has refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist, while both Syria and Iran remain in technical state of war with the Jewish state. All three are pledged to Israel’s destruction.

Peace talks between Israel and Syria broke down in 2000, while Israel and Iran have had no relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.

According to the Israeli daily, “Ma’ariv”, Katsav said the first handshake occurred when he turned to shake hands with the nearby Swiss leader.

“The Syrian president also stood there. We exchanged smiles and shook hands. During the prayers, according to the Christian tradition we exchanged handshakes … During this, it was the Syrian president who extended his hand to me and we again shook hands.”

The handshakes had all of Israel buzzing with excitement. Katsav’s spokeswoman, Hagit Cohen, called the exchanges historic. “There is no doubt that this is a precedent, it was a historic moment and unique opportunity,” Cohen said.

Katsav himself downplayed the incident, telling Israeli TV that his interactions with the three Muslim leaders were ‘not political’, saying, “I don’t think this has any diplomatic importance.”

Katsav continued, “We are cultured people and say hello nicely and shake hands, but I don’t think our differences have disappeared.”

Despite Katsav s downplaying of the significance of the handshake, it was noted by news organizations from Europe to China, and from South Africa to Iceland.

Even more exciting were the reports that Katsav and Iranian President Mohammed Khatami had a lengthy and friendly discussion in Farsi. Both Khatami and Katsav were born two years apart in the same city in central Iran of Yazd.

The reports were so encouraging among Israelis that the excitement didn’t abate, even after Iran vehemently denied any such friendly encounter ever took place and Syria issued an official press release stating any interaction was simply out of politeness and was otherwise meaningless.


The incident provides something of a sad snapshot — Israel is so hungry for peace and for some sense of friendship that it finds hope, even in a snub.

Whether or not the handshake and conversation took place between Katsav and Khatami or not, the Iranian denial did little to dampen Israeli enthusiasm.

The Jerusalem Post reported the story as fact, and only peripherally mentioned that all three countries immediately disavowed any suggestion of detente.

So did most other news stories, with the exception of the Islamic press. Even reports bearing headlines like, “Khatami Strongly Denies Handshake” highlighted the event and mentioned the denial only in passing.

The New York Times reported the incident, and added the following in parentheses:

[On Saturday, Mr. Khatami denied shaking hands with Mr. Katsav, the official IRNA news agency said, according to Reuters. “I strongly deny shaking hands, meeting and talking to the Israeli president,” Mr. Khatami told IRNA, Reuters reported.]

To Israel, any outstretched hand not containing a weapon is welcome, even one as stained with Jewish blood as that of Syria or Iran. Friendship and peace are foreign concepts to Israel, despite sixty years of effort.

Israel has few friends on the planet, and those it does have, when compared to most other international relationships, are about as warm as those between, say, Washington and Moscow.

Israel is hated globally for only one reason — it is a Jewish state.

Israel was born out of the Holocaust — its raison d’etre is to ensure that Jews would never again be marked for extermination by their host countries.

Israel’s role as global pariah state was not earned, but rather, is the price paid by Jews for being God’s Chosen People.

God chose the Jews to be His ensign to the nations.

“And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth . . .And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.” (Deuteronomy 28:1,10)

Note carefully that God promised Israel that if they kept faith with His commandments, they would be blessed above the nations of the earth, for the express purpose of revealing Himself to the heathen through the example of Israel’s blessing. But the ‘blessing’ was a double-edged sword.

“But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt NOT hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee . . .And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.” (Deuteronomy 28:15,37)

“And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.” (Jeremiah 24:9)

Israel continues to serve its Divine Purpose. No people in human history have been more persecuted and reviled than the Jews.

God said they would become an ‘astonishment’ , a ‘proverb’ and a ‘byword’ among all the nations. Among Gentile nations, negotiating for a better price is commonly described as ‘trying to Jew somebody down’.

Gayle has a plant in our living room that is called a ‘Wandering Jew’. When Shakespeare needed a villain for his play, “The Merchant of Venice” he invented Shylock, the grasping, money-lending Jew.

The Jews were selected to be God’s Oracle, and are the central focus of Bible prophecy.

Frederick the Great reputedly once asked his advisors to provide for him some concrete evidence for the existence of God. One of his advisors immediately spoke up, saying, “Have you considered the Jew, Your Majesty?”

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

There are those who resent Israel’s role as ‘God’s Chosen People’ — indeed, that resentment is the root of most anti-Semitic philosophy.

To the world, the existence of Israel is a thorn in its collective side. Because Israel is a thorn in the side of the god of this world.

He has thrown everything he could at the Jew for two thousand years, trying to wipe him from the face of the earth and break God’s prophetic promise of Israel’s national redemption in the last days.

The survival of the Jew, and the restoration of Israel to the land is proof positive that God remains on the Throne, that His Word will NOT return to Him void, and that all the chaos and terror of the world notwithstanding, all continues to go according to His plan. And, that these ARE the last days.

“But these things have I told you, that WHEN THE TIME SHALL COME, ye may remember that I told you of them.” (John 16:4)

That time has come. We remember.

And we pray, “even so, come Lord Jesus.”

“Time To Go Be With Jesus”

“Time To Go Be With Jesus”
Vol: 43 Issue: 8 Friday, April 8, 2005

“Time To Go Be With Jesus”

A few weeks back I was taken to task for comments I made in a series of columns discussing Terri Schiavo.

Among other things, I drew the historical parallels between the Nazi euthanasia program and America’s new policy of exterminating the old and the infirm.

That earned me all kinds of adjectives, from ‘heartless’ to ‘despicable’ and pretty much everything in between. Most of the flamers took exception to my contention that we are sliding down a slippery slope (Vol 42, Issue 20 “The End Thereof are the Ways of Death”)

I noted that, “This is how far we’ve ‘slid down the slippery slope’ since the Supreme Court took it upon itself to define ‘life’. It determined thirty years ago that an unborn baby was not ‘alive’ until after it drew its first breath. That began the slide.

A generation later, being labeled’ pro-life’ is a pejorative and a political liability. A nominee for the judiciary who is ‘pro-life’ cannot hope to pass the confirmation process.”

I pointed out that, in 1972, nobody expected Roe v. Wade to unleash a holocaust that would claim tens of millions of unborn human beings.

And certainly, (one hopes) nobody envisioned the right of a woman to have a first trimester abortion to be extended until any baby whose feet had not yet fully exited the womb could be ‘aborted’ by plunging a pair of nine inch scissors into its skull and vacuuming out the baby’s brain.

In the forums, a debate broke out about whether or not Terri Schiavo was being ‘allowed to die’ or was being killed by forced starvation.

One dissenter wrote; “God intended for her to die 15 years ago and man is keeping her alive for selfish reasons. It is time to let her go home to her Father. I’m only sorry they are starving her death after all of this time in prison. If I were her parent I would have fought less to keep her alive and more to allow her to be lethally injected with morphine. It is the only humane thing to do at this point.”

“Your comparison of this ordeal to Nazi Germany is despicable at best. You have certainly lost respect in this Christian’s eyes. You are starting to sound more like the nuts over at PrisonPlanet.com than the Jack Kinsella I have been reading for the last several years.”


I am not sure who the ‘nuts’ over at Prison Planet are, but I stand by my contention that Terri Schiavo’s case opened the floodgates for ‘mercy killings’ in America AND my comparison to Nazi Germany.

Hitler employed the use of ‘gradualism’ to progress from ‘euthanizing’ the disabled and mentally defective, gradually breaking down barriers and taboos until, at the end, the definitions of those ‘eligible’ for euthanasia included Jews, Christians, homosexuals, Gypsies, Slavs, Russian POWs and political dissidents.

But it began with the extremely old, and the extremely disabled.

Terri Schiavo hasn’t been dead two weeks, and now comes a report from Georgia in which an 81-year-old widow who is neither terminally ill or even comatose who is being starved to death at the behest of her granddaughter and a local Georgia probate court judge.

Worldnetdaily reports that Mae Magouirk was transferred to a hospice in La Grange, Georgia, after being admitted to an intensive care unit of her local hospital following a heart problem. At the time of her admission she was lucid and had never been diagnosed with dementia.

Her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, evidently without prior legal authority, requested that her grandmother be starved to death.

Remember, she was both lucid and conscious. She has been kept sedated with morphine and ativan, a powerful tranquillizer during her starvation and she is today clinging to life, having been denied food and water since March 28.

The dehydration is being done in DEFIANCE of Magouirk’s specific wishes, which she set down in a “LIVING WILL,” and without agreement of her closest living next-of-kin.

In her living will, Magouirk specifically set down that food and water were to be withheld only if she were in a persistent vegetative state or comatose. She is neither.

She isn’t even terminally ill, which is a basic requirement for admission into a hospice. Hospice care is not medical care in the traditional sense. Hospice care is designed to ease a terminal patient’s suffering as life comes to a natural end.

So much for the ‘protection’ afforded by a living will.

When Magourirk’s next of kin discovered that Gaddy had only financial power of attorney and not medical power of attorney, they instructed the hospice to reinsert her feeding tube. Gaddy obtained a court order from a local probate court judge granting her ’emergency guardianship.’

Under the terms of his ruling, Gaddy was granted full and absolute authority over Magouirk, at least for the weekend. She took advantage of her judge-granted power by ordering her grandmother’s feeding tube pulled out, just hours after it had been inserted.

WND quoted Ron Panzer, who is president and founder of the Hospice Patients Alliance. “This is happening in hospices all over the country,” he said.

“Patients who are not dying are not terminal are admitted [to hospice] and the hospice will say they are terminally ill even if they’re not. There are thousands of cases like this. Patients are given morphine and ativan to sedate them. If feeding is withheld, they die within 10 days to two weeks. It’s really just a form of euthanasia.”

Three weeks ago, I registered my astonishment at the focus of the Schiavo debate. The focus was NOT about whether or not the government can order you put to death, but rather, it was about the circumstances under which the order can be issued.

My detractors, most of whom evidently have more faith in government than I do, based their argument on the “nobody would want to live like that” defense. Others said it was time to ‘let her go to be with God’ — and as I noted at the time, the proponents of that argument generally don’t believe in God anyway.

How far have we slid down the slippery slope? Consider the ‘logic’ offered by granddaughter Gaddy for putting her grandmother to death.

“Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus,” Gaddy told Magouirk’s brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. “She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?”

Let that sink in: “Grandmama is old, and I think it is time she went home to Jesus.”

That’s all it really takes to qualify, for want of a better term, as a candidate for ‘involuntary euthanasia’ in America’s new culture of death. Living will or not, all that is necessary is for somebody ELSE to decide:

“She’s old and its time for her to go home to be with Jesus.”