Senate Chooses New King

Senate Chooses New King
Vol: 50 Issue: 18 Friday, November 18, 2005

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee favorably recommended Ben Bernake’s confirmation to the most powerful post in the Known Universe, the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve.

Bernake is a former Princeton professor and Fed governor who now serves as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Lawmakers and the administration are wasting no time on his nomination because they want him ready to take over when 79-year-old Greenspan retires Jan. 31 after 18-plus years at the helm.

The chairmanship of the Fed is the closest thing America has to a king, and during his tenure, his every expression of thought on the economy has all the authority of any Caesar of antiquity. A word from him can crush a dynasty, change an era, or spawn economic royalty.

Outgoing Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan once remarked the economy was showing signs of ‘irrational exuberance’. Greenspan’s comment came after the New York stock exchange had closed, but traders around the world were just starting their day.

In Japan’s market, the first to open, traders interpreted the Federal Reserve Chairman’s comments to mean that stocks in the U.S. market were overvalued and that, in response, the Federal Reserve might raise U.S. interest rates, thus affecting markets everywhere.

The Japanese stock market plunged 3.2 percent, as did Hong Kong’s. In Frankfurt, the German market fell 4 percent. In London, traders finished the day losing 2 percent of their market value.

And when the New York Stock Exchange opened the next morning, it fell by 2 percent within the first thirty minutes of trading. Not even the president has that kind of power.

The Federal Reserve Chairman is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but his decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.

The Fed does not receive funding from Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she is almost as independent as a U.S. Supreme Court judge, (although it is not a lifetime appointment.)

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is both a king and a king-maker. George Bush 41 blamed his 1992 loss to Bill Clinton directly on Alan Greenspan, who inexplicably tightened the money supply just before the election, causing a short-term recession that forced Bush to break his celebrated promise of “no new taxes.”

Only months before, Bush the Elder was enjoying approval ratings in the high 80’s following the successful prosecution of the Gulf War. Greenspan’s temporary recession, (never adequately explained) cut Bush’s approval rating in half in less than six months.

Clinton beat Bush 41% to 38% in the lowest margin of electoral victory since Teddy Roosevelt’s ‘Bull Moose’ Party split the 1912 ticket and resulted in incumbent (and central banking opponent) William Howard Taft’s defeat by central banking proponent Woodrow Wilson. And the rest, as they say, is history.

In the 1982 case Lewis v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals stated that the “Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Torts Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.”

As such, the Federal Reserve’s role is in direct violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution which specifically authorizes the Congress with the power “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” and makes no provision for the Congress to delegate that authority to an independent, privately-owned, for-profit banking institution.

The history of the Federal Reserve is one of the few conspiracist theories that exist in fact — the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking System in 1913 was the realization of the goals of a banking conspiracy dating back to the days of the American Revolution.

Our economy and how it works is a mystery to most people, and that is what makes it so easy to get confused, and is what made the Federal Reserve conspiracy possible in the first place.

The United States operates on a ‘deficit’ economy, and it has ever since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and the illegal confiscation of US gold in 1933. Prior to 1913, the US had operated as a ‘barter’ economy.

It is the ‘barter’ economy that most Americans believe is in operation today, and that is the fundamental flaw that gives spin doctors the green light.

In a ‘barter’ economy, something of value is exchanged for something of value. To have value, it must have substance, it must be acceptable in exchange for goods and services to the general public, and its supply must be finite — that is to say, it has to be sufficiently rare as to maintain its value.

In the US economy, the Currency Act of 1793 set the value of American currency as a weight of gold based on the Dutch unit of measure called the ‘Thaler’ — what we now call a Troy ounce. The ‘thaler’ became Americanized as the ‘dollar’ and it was a unit of measure for a substance of value.

With the confiscation of gold in 1933, the Gold Standard was repealed and replaced by the less-valuable Silver Standard. Suddenly a ‘thaler’ was not gold, but a weight of silver.

The Federal Reserve began issuing dollar bills called ‘Silver certificates’ and declared them redeemable in silver. These certificates of weight were replaced in 1963 by the Federal Reserve Note which promised redemption in ‘Lawful US Money’.

However, the Currency Act of 1793 declared one ‘thaler’ of gold to be ‘Lawful US Money’ — and has never been officially repealed by Congress. So when people demanded redemption of their Federal Reserve Notes in ‘Lawful US Money the face of the note was changed to read, “This bill is legal tender” — in effect, declaring a weight of a substance to actually BE the substance it is supposed to weigh.

Of course, it was theft, remains an unpunished theft, was perpetrated by the money trust that controls the Federal Reserve (which is neither ‘federal’ nor is it a ‘reserve’) and made possible the very thing the Fed was ostensibly created to prevent — inflation, deflation, recession and depression.

But it is a fait accompli, and the existing global economy now depends on it. Turning our economy back from a debit-based economy to a barter economy is as possible as turning a pickle back into a cucumber.

A debit-based economy REQUIRES high deficits to make it work. Investment, production and job growth DEPEND on high national debt. Reducing the debt weakens the overall economy. Those are contradictory-sounding facts, but they are nonetheless true.

We’ve done analogy before, but let’s take a family making, from all sources, about fifty thousand a year. Now, take that family’s credit away from them. No credit cards, no loans, cash only.

What kind of car can they afford? They would have to save up to pay cash for a new $25,000 car. What about their housing? How long would it take YOU to save up enough to buy your own home for cash? What about that new fridge? No credit cards, no revolving credit, just cash.

A family making a thousand dollars a week would be just getting by. Suppose we are talking about a family making $100,000 per year, about two thousand dollars per week, and a member of the American ‘rich’?

What kind of car would THEY drive? (Still unlikely to be new). They could probably save up and buy themselves a house in about 10 years. But it would be a starter home. They could buy a new fridge or stove or TV set, but that might put a dent in their home savings account.

Give both families back their credit cards, revolving charges, mortgage and car loans, and they are living the American Dream. The family making a hundred thousand a year live in a nice home in the suburbs, commutes to work in an expensive SUV, AND has a nice retirement savings account.

The family making fifty grand a year now drives a nearly-new mini-van, has a nice, but smaller, home in a less expensive neighborhood, and sometimes still has to choose between retirement contributions and big-ticket items. But, thanks to a debit-based economy, they can still live better than they would making twice as much but paying cash for everything.

It is in the interest of the banking and lending institutions to continue to lend them money against their accumulated equity because, first, banks make money from interest, and, second (and most importantly), the collateral is ‘real’ property.

Federal Reserve banks operate according to a scheme called ‘fractional reserve banking.’ Under this scheme, a Fed-member bank need only maintain a 10% asset-to-loan ratio. For a Fed bank to issue a $100k mortgage loan, it need only have $10k in assets.

The remaining $90,000 does not exist until after the mortgage is repaid. If the mortgagee defaults, the bank can seize real property — in exchange for money that never existed — and then post the entire transaction as a business loss!

In the debit system, the Fed issues fiat dollars to control the economy, but each one is worth fractionally less, since it is just a case of cutting smaller slices from the pie.

That is what creates inflation. The Fed controls inflation by either cutting back or increasing the supply of dollars.

But it is still theft, albeit legal.

In 1914, one could buy a fine men’s suit for a $20 gold piece. Today, the same suit costs $500.00 — but you could buy the store’s inventory with a 1912 US gold double-eagle.


The creation and existence of the Federal Reserve system is an absolute necessity to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the last days. As such, it serves as one of those examples of the differences between the knowledge of ‘right and wrong’ and the knowledge of ‘good and evil’.

The oldest lie in human history is the one from the Garden of Eden whereby Satan promises humanity the knowledge of good and evil. ‘Good and evil’ are not actions — the are outcomes. Outcomes are known only to God.

The Federal Reserve system is an evil planned by evil men for evil reasons by any reasonable definition of the word, but it is a necessary evil to God’s unfolding plan. And God’s will is the very definition of ‘good’. So, while the system is evil, God uses it for good. So there is no need to fight the system – it exists because it must.

The US National Debt Clock says that America is currently about $8.1 trillion in debt. To put that into some perspective, the US National Debt on January 1, 1791 was just over $75 million. The current national debt is increasing at the rate of $75 million PER HOUR.

Here is a little interesting tidbit of information. On May 1, 2000, Bill Clinton announced the US would begin paying down the National Debt. Soon, the National Debt Clock billboard near Times Square began ticking backward at the rate of $30 an hour. On September 1, 2000, the clock’s plug was pulled and the billboard covered by a red, white and blue curtain.

At the same time, the stock market began to falter, the boom busted, inflation made its first appearance in nearly a decade and the Clinton economic miracle collapsed into the recession that plagued Bush’s first two years in office.

Once the budget surplus was eaten up by post 9/11 military expenditures, the national debt started upticking again, and economic equilibrium was restored. The economy began to expand again. The best efforts of the administrations opponents in the House and Senate to talk it back down failed, because lawmakers have no more actual control over the economy than the White House does.

Since our economy is really based on debt, rather than assets, and there is no actual wealth supporting the dollar, currency is nothing more than an unnecessary illusion. (Think about the last time you bought a house, car or other big ticket item. Just how much actual currency did YOU see?)

Cash in our society is an anachronism — most people use credit or debit cards and use cash for small purchases only. Personally, I almost never carry cash. I can buy almost anything anywhere by using a debit card. Using it to take cash out of a bank seems an unnecessary step — especially if the ATM machine is going to charge me for dispensing it.

Eliminating cash as a form of economic exchange would not be a hard sell to the public. Without untraceable cash, the drug trade would collapse overnight. So would many kinds of crime. What is a burglar going to do with his loot? Open a warehouse? It would put international counterfeiters out of business, strangle off revenue to rogue states like North Korea, and cripple international terrorism.

The elimination of cash is an idea whose time has come. Where could Osama bin Laden use a debit card?

The system came into being slowly, a series of responses to the demands of the marketplace, security and the availability of technology. There are conspiracies and conspirators behind the plan, but it is not necessarily a Satanic conspiracy. There’s big money to be made and that always involves conspiracy and conspirators. Whatever the intent, it is here and almost completely prepared for its ultimate use.

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (Revelation 13:16-17)

John says the mark of the beast is also an act of worship. No Christian can ‘accidentally’ take the mark, so Christians needn’t fear debit or credit cards. If anything, the system proves that events are unfolding as God intended, and God can be trusted.

The point is this. The Mark of the Beast prophecy was never technologically possible at any point in history until this generation. Today the infrastructure is being developed that will make it possible, even probable.

It is a direction foretold 2000 years ago from a cave on the island of Patmos, but to be fulfilled in a single generation, somewhere in time.

The same generation that would witness the rebirth of Israel, the development of globalism, the exponential increase in knowledge, and the development of space technology.

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

Lies, the Big Lie, and THE Lie

Lies, the Big Lie, and THE Lie
Vol: 50 Issue: 17 Thursday, November 17, 2005

From time to time, it is helpful to step back and take a look at the Big Picture as outlined for the last days by Bible prophecy and compare it to the Big Picture as outlined by the cable news outlets and mainstream newspapers.

Bible prophecy for the last days details events and trends as they unfold during the last generation before the return of Christ at the conclusion of the war of Armageddon.

At some point during the lifetime of that last generation, according to the Apostle Paul, society will be characterized by its willingness to discount truth and embrace a lie for the sole reason that they prefer the lie over the truth.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12)

Specifically, and in context, Paul’s Big Lie relates to the embrace of the antichrist as a deity and the rejection of Christ.

But a whole society’s willingness to embrace a lie simply because they either like the liar or prefer the lie isn’t something that happens in a vacuum. Neither is it something that happens overnight.

It takes years of conditioning.

Consider the Big Lie scenario in the light of a situation in which more than half of Americans in a recent poll have been convinced to oppose their own country’s war effort while US troops remained engaged in combat — based on a lie so transparent it takes one’s breath away.

Yesterday, Democratic members of the Senate attempted to wrest control of the war away from the administration and military by setting a ‘date certain’ withdrawal from Iraq.

It didn’t pass, but the mere fact any US politician would consider voting to put the conduct of a war in the hands of a Senate that can’t confirm a judge without months of bloody combat is a benchmark measure of how easy it has become to dupe the public.

The Senate measure was based, in the main, on the Democratic contention that George Bush started an unnecessary and illegal war by deliberately manipulating intelligence. No secret, alternative intelligence sources not available to the Congress have been identified. Nobody has offered an example of the administration’s refusal to share intelligence with the relevant lawmakers.

(Even after Senators Jay Rockefeller and Dick Durbin acknowledged details of a secret ‘black ops’ program on national television that compromised the operation and put the forces involved in serious risk.)

This is just the most recent example of the self-induced Blue-State mass delusion, based on the greater delusion that Al Gore was cheated out of the White House in 2000, (even though not a single recount before or after EVER put Gore ahead).

Paul’s description of society in the final days of the Church Age reads like the platform for the American Democratic Party.

I know it sounds harsh, but I neither wrote Paul’s description or scripted the speeches emanating from the Left. And, unfortunately, many of the characteristics outlined by Paul are shared on both sides of the political aisle. And not just in America, but throughout the ‘Christian’ West.

Nonetheless, Paul seems to be outlining the DNC’s political platform specifically;

“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof . . ” (2nd Timothy 3:2-5)

Some will dismiss this as a partisan attack against the Democrats or some defense of the Republicans. That is unfortunate. The point is that, unflattering or not, it is true. And it is true of an entire segment of the population in this generation. What we are looking at is a developed social trend. It is either there or it is not. You be the judge.

I’ve read through Paul’s list many times, and it never fails to rock me back on my heels. There is not a single characteristic in Paul’s outline that doesn’t dovetail with some liberal policy or part of the DNC’s political agenda. It is just that Paul doesn’t use euphemisms like ‘pro-choice’ — he calls it being ‘without natural affection’.

He doesn’t call politicians who show up with big, black Bibles on Sunday at African-American churches, but then support gay marriage, abortion, evolution, ‘alternative lifestyle’ families, America as the Great Satan, denigrating Christian holidays etc.,’liberals’ — Paul calls them ‘blasphemers, false accusers, traitors, incontinent and despisers of those that are good’.

Same thing. Just absent the usual PC-speak. And they are values shared with half of America and most of post-Christian Europe.

Compare those values with American or European values of the World War II generation. See what YOU come up with.


The deception of the last days isn’t confined to American, or even European social conditions or moral values. Paul said that the deception would work because if people WANT to believe the lie, it won’t matter how thin or transparent it is.

Take, for example, the global attitude concerning Israel. Leaving Islam’s religious duty to hate the Jews aside for a moment, what excuse works for the civilized world? It is the official policy and unified goal of the western democracies to spread democracy throughout the world. Efforts at rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan as democracies are being shared by dozens of free Western nations involved in the process.

A working democracy in the Middle East, they reason, would by its prosperity and freedom, inspire the surrounding nations to seek the same prosperity and freedom.

But Israel is the only working democracy in the Middle East. It is the only nation in the region that affords its citizens basic human rights, full representation in government, freedom of speech and religion and is, by far, the powerful and most prosperous nation in the entire Middle East.

So why is it the most hated government on earth? Why is it the most often-censured by that bastion of democracy, the United Nations? Why is it the recipient of global criticism, while its dictatorial neighbors, like Jordan, are feted as strong allies of the West?

How can it be that more resolutions of censure have been aimed at Israel by the UN than all the Islamic countries of the world combined? Why would the world side with an openly terrorist organization against the only legitimate, western-style democracy in the Middle East?

Why is it that when Israel puts up a fence to protect itself from bombers, the world condemns Israel’s fence without saying A SINGLE WORD about the reasons that make it necessary?

There can be only one answer possible. The world hates the Jews more than it hates totalitarianism, Islamo-facism or terrorism. No other answer explains why Israel ranks, according to a global poll, as ‘the most dangerous nation on earth’.

What makes Israel’s continued existence so dangerous? Israel has the population of New York City and has spent all of its existence since 1948 fighting a war FOR its existence against those repressive Islamic dictatorships.

Bible prophecy for the last days goes beyond the Church Age and outlines how God’s plan for the national redemption of Israel will be accomplished. According to Bible prophecy, in the last days, the most hated nation on earth with be Israel, and the most contested piece of real estate on earth in the last days will be the city of Jerusalem.

According to the prophet Zechariah, “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto ALL THE PEOPLE round about, when they shall be IN THE SEIGE 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)

Until about the end of the 19th century, few people could point to Jerusalem on a map — most believed it was a lost city from the ancient world. Today, it is the focal point of global attention to the exclusion of all else. What happens in Jerusalem is more important to world peace that what happens in Baghdad, Kabul or even Moscow.

But most people could not tell you why they hate Israel. Neither can the leaders of the western democratic countries can identify why Israel is more of a pariah nation in their eyes than Syria or Iran. They just know that every bad thing that happens is somehow related to their level of support for Israel.

The Bible says that, in the last days, Israel will stand alone, without a champion, against the combined armies of the world, for a twofold reason; to reveal Himself to a lost and dying world, and to reveal Himself to Israel.

“Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD.” [Ezekiel 38:23]

“So the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward.” (Ezekiel 39:22)

Now, step back with me again and look at just these two prophesied scenarios. Look at the detail with which Paul described the political worldview that would prevail during the final hours of the Church Age. One can argue these characteristics are hardly unique to this generation — until one tries to apply them across-the-board to previous ones. They just don’t fit.

Now consider the global political worldview where Israel is concerned. The only western democracy in the Middle East, desperately seeking allies from among the western nations without success, while the world turns its attention away from the war on terror — just long enough to express its support for the creation of a terrorist state on Israel’s borders dedicated to Israel’s destruction.

Absent the Bible’s outline for the last days, can you find any way to make any of it make sense to you?

“And He spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:29-32)

The Difficult Doctrine of the Trinity

The Difficult Doctrine of the Trinity
Vol: 50 Issue: 16 Wednesday, November 16, 2005

One of the most difficult doctrines of Christianity, even for mature believers, is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It is even more confusing for Jews and Muslims. Indeed, non-Christians not only find it confusing, but many find it offensive.

To the Muslim, Christians are polytheists. They see the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as the equivalent to the worship of three different Gods. And trying to explain the Trinity as One God in Three Persons is like trying to describe the color red to someone blind from birth.

As with any Bible doctrine, there are those who have made it their life’s work to disprove it.

One argument often advanced is that the Trinity doctrine was unknown to the early church and was invented sometime around the 4th century.

“For there are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these Three are One.” (1st John 5:7)

Hmmm. To get around this problem, those who dispute the Biblical authority of the Trinity say 1st John 5:7-8 were’ not found in any old Greek manuscript.’

The manuscripts translated into the modern NIV are physically older than the Textus Receptus that was translated into the KJV. One was found in 1844 in a monastery in the Sinai. It dates to the 4th century. The second, the Vaticanus, was ‘discovered’ in a vault at the Vatican and also dates to about the 4th century.

I won’t go into an exhaustive comparison of the differences between the Textus Receptus manuscripts and the Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts — one can find the differences for oneself by turning to Acts 8:37 in an NIV Bible. (It isn’t there)

Why is that significant? By the 4th century, the Vatican had suppressed the reading of Scriptures by laymen. Bibles were chained to pulpits to keep ordinary people from making off with them and worse, reading them. This suppression of the Scriptures are the reason historians refer to this period of history as the ‘Dark Ages’.

It was also during this period that the Vatican introduced new doctrines, such as the doctrine of infant baptism for the remission of sins. Infant baptism, priestly confession and absolution, the doctrine of purgatory and the sale of plenary indulgences gave the Vatican the authority over heaven and hell.

Since none of these doctrines are found in Scripture, it became necessary to suppress the Scriptures to maintain the power. So, we find, using a 4th century Vatican manuscript, that Acts 8:37 has been removed from the canon.

Why? Phillip, having preached to the Ethiopian eunuch about Jesus and the necessity for salvation and baptism, was traveling with him when the eunuch exclaimed, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (Acts 8:36)

Look closely at the question. “What hinders my being baptized?” That is a major question — particularly when compared with the Vatican practice of infant baptism. The answer is contained in the next verse, (which was conveniently omitted from the Vatican’s copy.)

“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:37)

That verse utterly demolishes the doctrine of infant baptism. In context, what hinders a person from being baptized is that the person must first believe ‘with all thine heart’ that ‘Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ That is the Scriptural prerequisite for baptism — and an impossible feat for an infant to accomplish.

So the Vatican simply removed it as inconvenient.

The argument against 1st John 5:7 as being a ‘late addition’ is equally suspect. And historically inaccurate. The doctrine of the Trinity was firmly established by early Church Fathers well before the 4th century.

In his 155 AD ‘First Apology’ Justin Martyr wrote, “Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.”

Polycarp (AD 157) wrote of the Trinity, as did Irenaeus in his seminal work, “Against Heresies.”

Tertullian wrote in AD 213, “Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other.”

Origen, writing in the early 2nd century, wrote; “”[T]he statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages.”


Clearly, the early Church Fathers were working from the earliest Greek manuscripts when they penned their 1st century commentaries. And just as clearly, they were united in their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.

But that doesn’t really explain exactly how God can co-exist in three Persons, distinct from one another, while remaining one God.

The Bible presents each Member of the Trinity has having a distinct ministry insofar as man is concerned. God the Father sits on the Throne of Heaven as the One Who holds the universe together.

In this light, it is interesting that, although science can split the atom, it cannot explain what holds it together in the first place.

Whatever holds it together also contains its energy. It is the splitting of a single atom that releases the explosive power of the atom bomb. In His capacity as God the Father, He is the Force that binds the atom. If God forgot me for one second, I would be a radioactive crater the size of Manhattan.

The Bible tells us that the Second Person in the Godhead, Jesus Christ, is the Creator of the universe and everything in it. John 1:1-3 reveals of Jesus that, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” Jesus is also the Savior of the world. He created it, He justified it by His blood, and He will judge the world according to His Word.

The Third Person in the Godhead is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit’s ministry is to bear witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. He is our source of spiritual power and authority and it is through His indwelling presence that He guides and leads us into all truth as we journey through this life.

But all three are One. It is still very confusing. Let me try an admittedly imperfect analogy.

I am but one man. However, while being just one man, I am also a father, a husband and a friend.

To my children, while I am but one man, I am also Dad. My children come to me based on that unique relationship, and that unique relationship brings with it unique privileges.

To my wife, I am husband and spouse. That relationship is also unique. Gayle can expect different things from me than my children can.

To my friends, I am just Jack. They would never expect of me the things my children take for granted as a matter of relationship. My wife can expect of me things my friends would never dream of asking.

I am husband, father, and friend, but I am just one man. However, my wife, my children and my friends all know a different person.

As I noted, it is an imperfect analogy, but it does help (for me, at least) to get my head around the concept of One God in Three Persons, while remaining One God.

As we approach the end of this age, basic Christian doctrines are under attack like no time in living memory. As watchmen on the wall, it is our job to know; “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the Word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation: in Whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory.”(Ephesians 1:13-14)

The time is short, the Gospel is under attack from all sides, and the arguments grow more sophisticated as the enemy steps up his activities, ‘knowing he hath but a short time.’ (Revelation 12:12)

We are admonished to; “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:15)

We are the watchmen on the wall for the last days, and with that title comes an awesome responsibility.

“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” (Ezekiel 33:6)

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


“Notice That At No Time Will My Fingers Leave My Hand!”

“Notice That At No Time Will My Fingers Leave My Hand!”
Vol: 50 Issue: 15 Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Two years after the invasion of Iraq, the effort to use terrorism to bring down the White House continues unabated. It isn’t that al-Qaeda has been all that effective against the American homeland, or even against US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The number of US troops stationed in Iraq is roughly the equivalent to the population of a mid-sized American city, say, Buffalo, New York. A quick glance at the Buffalo News’ obituary column provides the math that says more Americans died in Buffalo, New York since the invasion of Iraq than have actually died IN Iraq.

A comparison of gun deaths in Washington DC over the equivalent period provides math that says that, statistically, an American in Washington DC has a better chance of being shot to death in Washington DC than he does serving in Iraq.

Comparing the risk of violent death between Americans in Los Angeles and Americans in Afghanistan, an American soldier in Afghanistan satistically has the safer assignment.

And comparing the reception American forces can expect to get from liberated Iraqis and the reception US Armed Forces recruiters get in Seattle’s federally funded schools. . . well, in Baghdad, troops have to GUESS whether they are being cheered or cursed.

There is an old magician’s trick that exhorts the audience to look and see that he has ‘nothing up my sleeve’. That presupposes there will be people in the audience clever enough to see how the trick is accomplished if their attention is not misdirected.

But saying, ‘notice at no time will my fingers leave my hand’ is sufficient distraction to convince a Blue Stater that George Bush is a “bigger threat to US security than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden combined” as one recent email flamer proclaimed while calling ME gullible.

It matters not at all how stupid or even how impossible the charge is, provided it will get the job done. The ‘job’ is to ensure George Bush’s presidency is a failure. I have been trying to find an example of what one might call an American ‘loyal opposition’ emanating from the Left.

That is to say, I’ve been trying to find an example of a Bush opponent who is not merely opposed to Bush’s policy because they ARE Bush’s policies, but one who has a workable alternative to advance in its place.

America’s political checks and balances are guaranteed by the existence of a governing party and the ‘loyal opposition’.

Here is how it is supposed to work:

The governing party’s job is to advance American interests based on what it believes is best for the country. The loyal opposition’s job is to advance American interests based on what IT believes is best for the country.

When they disagree, it is the duty of the loyal opposition to convince the voters that it has the better plan for advancing American interests. This loyal opposition keeps the governing party’s focus on proving it has the better plan.

In theory, that serves to create checks and balances on the governing party, and forces both sides to converge closer to the center, thereby representing the broadest range of American opinion on how best to advance America’s interests.

The operative phrase here is ‘best advance American interests’. Nobody is elected to office on the promise to work against America’s best interests.

So, what is the ‘loyal opposition’ up to? Dick Durbin told the world — from the well of the United States Senate — that US forces are comparable to Nazis. He cited a classified FBI report to back up his charge, knowing, since it was secret FBI report, any denial would sound like a cover up, but the full report would never come to light in context.

Durbin alleged American treatment of terror detainees at the Guantanamo Naval Base is comparable to torture at the hands of Nazis, Soviet gulags and even Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot.

Currently, there is a major Democratic push to convince America that the United States invaded Iraq on false pretenses and is fighting an illegal war in which American forces are being asked to lay down their lives for a lie.

Not a single Democrat has offered a workable alternative — apart from abandoning the Iraq battlefield to the enemy and hoping he’ll leave us alone afterwards.

I ‘googled’ the phrase, ‘misled this nation into war’ this morning. I got 667 ‘hits’ on the phrase.

At the top of the list was a ‘Yahoo’ news feed entitled, “Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Anti-war Critics.” The Albany Times led with; “Manipulating Facts” as the title of its editorial telling the world America is a warmongering superpower run amok.

Canada’s Globe and Mail’s story covering Bush’s denial that he lied to America is headlined, “Bush Attacks Iraq War Critics”. New York’s “Media Channel” had a story under the headline, “We Do Not Torture — And Other Funny Stories.”


One wonders, which is LEAST in America’s best interests, given the current global situation? Advancing an alternative plan to Bush’s existing policies?

Or telling the world that America is a superpower run amok, torturing and killing at the whim of a mad leadership and a conscienceless military?

An honest examination of the charges being leveled against the Bush administration by leading Democrats finds the following to be true:

If the Bush administration lied about the reasons for war, so did they. If they were deceived by the intelligence, then it follows that so was Bush. To argue otherwise is to condemn themselves.

Current Democratic claims that Bush had intelligence they didn’t have is an admission that they voted to put American troops in harm’s way without doing their own jobs. Every member of Congress has full access to any intelligence the President does. Let me put it another way. The President cannot withhold intelligence from Congress.

Anything the Congress wants, the Congress gets. If a member of Congress asked for something and did NOT get it, there would be Congressional subpoenas flying around like flies at a picnic. If a member of Congress doubted the pre-war intelligence and voted for the war without checking it out for himself, he was derelict in his Constitutional duty.

By charging they were misled by the Bush administration, they are admitting to such dereliction of duty. But that doesn’t seem to matter. “Notice, at no time will my fingers leave my hand,” and presto!

“Only Congress can authorize war, but we were misled by the White House and so that’s why none of us did our jobs” becomes an anti-Bush rallying cry.

The misdirection is so complete that the Useful Idiot Brigade marches right out and announces to the enemy that they are really the good guys and that they are being oppressed by the bad guys in Washington. And most of them are so stunned by the magic trick that they can’t figure out how they were turned into supporters of anti-American terrorism.

I am so stinkin’ sick of having to explain the obvious that it really makes me shake my head in disbelief. What fascinates me is that anyone who dares defend America’s integrity is automatically assigned the label of ‘Republican’– as if supporting America during wartime is a political, rather than existential, issue.

In any case, it flat doesn’t matter whether one is a Republican or a Democrat — facts don’t change according to party affiliation.

Fact: America is at war with an enemy who has promised that if we don’t kill them, they will certainly kill us.

Fact: American forces, equipped with the most effective weaponry in human history are fighting al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Fact: American citizens, equipped with the finest briefcases money can buy, are NOT fighting al-Qaeda terrorists in New York City.

Fact: The enemy’s stated rationale for war is that America is an anti-Muslim, immoral and dishonest superpower whose goal is to replace Islam with American-style democracy.

Fact: The enemy’s stated goal for war is that the only defense is to impose an Islamic style democracy on an anti-Muslim, immoral and dishonest American superpower as a favor to the world.

Fact: The best sources for proving America is an immoral, dishonest and out-of-control superpower to a skeptic are the New York Times and the US Congressional record of speeches offered by the ‘loyal opposition’.

Fact: It is NOT in America’s best interests to officially confirm the enemy’s assessment of America from the Houses of Congress as part of a political strategy.

And this one, final fact. There is ZERO evidence that anybody DELIBERATELY misled anybody in the first place. Without knowing what is true, how can one lie?

Twenty years ago, I would study the outline of Bible prophecy and I would always stumble over the part where the antichrist deceives the whole world into accepting him as a god. Impossible, I always thought. Even the REAL God didn’t get the whole world to accept Him and He used the truth.

Ten years ago, I had fewer doubts that it would happen, but I always had trouble picturing it, somehow. I still couldn’t picture the people I knew ever lining up to get a literal government ‘stamp’ in order to participate in a political and economic system.

The Clinton administration dispelled a lot of my doubts that one day, great masses of the public would worship a man as a deity. While Clinton-worship never rose the level of actual belief in him as divine, it established beyond any doubt in the willingness of the masses to accept, and even defend an obvious lie, provided they liked the liar.

Today, we bear witness to another milestone. Great masses of the public truly believe that America is the Great Satan. Including members of America’s loyal opposition who have yet to explain why Bush would invent a case for war when the real reasons were more than adequate.

Even though making it all work requires; a) believing George Bush is omniscient, and, b) a tacit admission that the Democrats who voted for the war are either stupid or derelict.

Paul writes of a coming ‘strong delusion’ in the last days. “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:10)

Given what passes for ‘fact’, maybe that delusion won’t have to be THAT strong, after all.

Remembering Oslo

Remembering Oslo
Vol: 50 Issue: 14 Monday, November 14, 2005

A poll commissioned on the tenth anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination found only 50% of Israelis polled believed Rabin was right on Oslo.

To the Jerusalem Post, a 50% approval rating means the ‘prevailing’ view among Israelis looks upon the Oslo experiment with favor. The Post, (Israel’s most liberal newspaper) has championed the Oslo Accords since the day Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shook hands in the Rose Garden and began the systematic dismantling of Israel.

Yitzhak Rabin’s legacy is somewhat similar to the John F. Kennedy model.

JFK was a womanizer, a disastrous president under whose watch the CIA attempted an illegal invasion of Cuba (the ‘Bay of Pigs’) before abandoning the expatriate Cuban invasion force to Castro’s tender mercies.

It was during the Kennedy administration that America first sent troops into Vietnam, and in October, 1962, reacting to US pressure against its client state off the coast of Florida, Moscow began setting up nuclear weapons in Cuba.

The resulting Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came to nuclear annihilation.

I am certainly not faulting Kennedy for standing firm and backing Khruschev down, but it was the Kennedy foreign policy that gave Moscow the excuse in the first place.

In addition, the 1960 race that brought the Kennedys to the White House was one of the closest in history. Had Kennedy not won Chicago, he would have lost Illinois and Nixon would have come to office eight years earlier.

Fortunately for Kennedy, Chicago came through, garnering more votes for the Democratic ticket than Chicago had living voters. And fortunately for America, Nixon chose to concede rather than challenge the election like Al Gore did in 2000.

(The difference being, had their been a Chicago recount, either it would have been declared invalid and Nixon would have won. Kennedy got as many votes from dead voters as he did from living ones. Nixon knew this, but put the country ahead of his presidential ambitions. That is a matter of historical record.)

Given Kennedy’s abysmal foreign policy record, the growing series of behind-the-scenes scandals, the charges of nepotism, cronyism and growing concern about his health and addiction to painkillers, had he survived to stand for election in 1964, he almost certainly would have lost.

The reason for his ill-fated trip to Dallas in the first place was to try and salvage traditionally-Democratic Texas from his Republican opponent.

In 1964’s election demographic, Texas would have been the swing state for Kennedy. If he didn’t win Texas, he wouldn’t win re-election. On the morning of November 22nd, 1963, John F Kennedy’s presidency was in serious trouble. By that evening, he was well on his way to being beatified as America’s first sainted martyr.

All sins were forgiven, and to this day, John F Kennedy is remembered as one of America’s great presidents, based largely on two memorable speeches and the shock of his assassination.

In a sense, Yitzhak Rabin received the same sympathetic historical revisionist treatment that Kennedy did, and for the same reason. Had he lived to see Arafat’s Phased Plan for the Destruction of Israel as it played out (after Rabin had been warned of it by Benjamin Netanyahu in early 1993), Israeli history would not be quite so kind to his memory.

Well before the signing of the Oslo Agreement, political rival Benjamin Netanyahu ticked off each element of the agreement, signed in Cairo on June 9, 1974 and never subsequently repealed;

1. Through the “armed struggle” (i.e., terrorism), to establish an “independent combatant national authority” over any territory that is “liberated” from Israeli rule. (Article 2)

2. To continue the struggle against Israel, using the territory of the national authority as a base of operations. (Article 4)

3. To provoke an all-out war in which Israel’s Arab neighbors destroy it entirely (“liberate all Palestinian territory”). (Article 8)

Speaking just after the announcement of the Israel-PLO accord, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat announced that the historic agreement “will be a basis for an independent Palestinian state in accordance with the Palestine National Council resolution issued in 1974…. The PNC resolution issued in 1974 calls for the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws or which is liberated.” (Radio Monte Carlo, 1 September 1993)

Ariel Sharon has called Oslo “a horrible plan with only disadvantages. It was based on the false notion that there was a partner on the Palestinian side. There is no philosophy more different.”

Despite Rabin’s mystical status, as Israelis watched Arafat’s Phased Plan unfold precisely as predicted. Israeli doves like Rabin and Peres were replaced with hawks like Netanyahu and Sharon.

Israeli Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said during one of the Rabin memorials that he objected to the “intertwining of the assassination s memory with what has become known as the Rabin legacy, in what Rivlin terms a package deal.

Rivlin’s comments reflect a recognition of the ‘Kennedy Effect’ saying, “it is not because of the Rabin legacy that we have come together today, but rather because of the murder, because of the unrelenting shock, because of the shame that the murderer has brought on us all and because we are not sure we can withstand another murder.


The Oslo Accords, far from being a diplomatic triumph overseen by the deft administration of Yitzhak Rabin, was really the diplomatic disaster on a proportionate scale that made the Bay of Pigs seem like a US diplomatic triumph by comparison.

Far from being the statesman who ‘brought peace to Israel’, more Israelis were killed by terrorists in the first four years of Oslo than in the preceding fifteen, including the 1989-1993 intifada that pressured Israel into seeking peace with the PLO.

And as it stands now, more Israelis have been killed by terrorists since making ‘peace’ in 1993 than were killed during the entire period from the establishment of the State of Israel to Oslo.

Interestingly, Yasser Arafat didn’t sign the Oslo Agreement — his deputy, (now PA Chairman) Mahmoud Abbas signed on his behalf. That is interesting because it betrayed Arafat’s intentions from the beginning.

Arafat often referred to the Oslo Agreement as ‘the peace of the brave’ — a reference to the Hudaybiyah treaty signed between Mohammed’s forces and the Quriash tribe that at that time occupied Mecca.

Mohammed never intended to keep the Hudaybiyah treaty, either, so he had his deputy sign instead. Mohammed broke the treaty and during the Battle of Badr, slaughtered the entire tribe and took the city for himself.

Arafat’s vision of peace with Israel, as he stated on many occasions, was based on Mohammed’s Treaty of Hudaybiyah. Like Mohammed, Arafat was free to make whatever promises were necessary to accomplish the goal of slaughtering the Jews and taking the land for himself.

It can be understood why fifty percent of Israelis still support the Oslo Experiment — the vast majority of Americans think Kennedy was among our greatest presidents, too. But few Israelis now believe peace will ever be possible with the Palestinians.

Of all the signs of the times pointing to this generation as the generation that will witness the return of Christ, the failed Oslo Agreement is the most astonishingly precise.

Twenty-five hundred-plus years ago, the prophet Daniel was given a vision of the future of the Jewish people, encapsulated into a time frame of 70 ‘weeks’ of years, 490 in all.

The first 483 years of Daniel’s vision were concluded with the Crucifixion of the Messiah. Then the clock stopped to allow for the ‘times of the Gentiles’ — or the Church Age.

At the conclusion of the ‘times of the Gentiles’, the countdown for the last seven years of Daniel’s vision will restart with a false peace treaty based on the principle of ‘dividing the land for gain’ (Daniel 11:39) — which could just as easily be expressed as ‘land for peace’.

Daniel identifies the peace broker in this land for peace deal as a coming prince of ‘the people’ who destroyed ‘the city and sanctuary’ (Jerusalem and the Temple) which was accomplished by the Roman Empire in AD 70.

That prince of the Roman Empire, Daniel writes, will ‘confirm the covenant with many for one week’ before breaking the deal ‘in the midst of the week’ and unleashing a wave of unprecedented persecution against the Jews of Israel. Speaking of that coming persecution, Jesus advised those Jews living at that time to ‘flee’. (Matthew 24:6)

Of the covenant, Daniel specifically says the coming prince will CONFIRM it, not negotiate it. One cannot ‘confirm’ that which does not yet exist. (Call your doctor and try confirming an appointment you never made.)

Also, Daniel is specific regarding the terms of the covenant. It will be based on a land for peace formula and it will be of seven years’ duration.

The failed Oslo Agreement was broken into three phases, with the third and final stage, the negotiation for the final status of Jerusalem, scheduled to be completed on September 13, 2000, exactly seven years after its initial signing in Washington.

Every subsequent effort at reviving the ‘peace process’ has followed the Oslo formula of ‘dividing the land for gain’ except that now Israel has virtually no more land to negotiate away and the Palestinians are continuing to move forward with the next step in the Phased Plan.

America, the principle broker since Oslo, is losing credibility with the Arab side, which views it as hopelessly pro-Israel. In an effort to balance its image, Washington is losing credibility with the Israeli side, who have begun to see Washington as increasingly unreliable champion.

That leaves only one entity with sufficient credibility with both sides to step in and pick up the pieces. The Europeans, who have been trying to insinuate themselves into the process for a decade.

EU chief Javier Solana told reporters from Israel last year, “Europe will be part of the process whether Israel likes it or not.”

The prophet Daniel said exactly the same thing — only two thousand five hundred years earlier.

The West’s Achilles’ Heel

The West’s Achilles’ Heel
Vol: 50 Issue: 12 Saturday, November 12, 2005

On Friday, three hotels in Jordan were subjected to near simultaneous suicide attacks. The hotels were part of Western hotel chains, but the targets were carefully selected Muslim civilians.

One of the attackers sought out a Muslim wedding party, infiltrated as one of the guests, insinuated himself into the center of the group of 300 wedding guests, and detonated his payload.

The attacks bore all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda hit, particularly since the three attacks were coordinated as a simultaneous assault. The attacks occurred on November 9. The date, written in the British fashion used in Jordan, would therefore be 9/11. In addition, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaeda forces in Iraq, claimed responsibility for the attacks. Cut and dried, right?

Wrong. This is the Middle East.

“Who said it is them?” asked Ahmed al-Zawahrah, who was quoted in the New York Times commenting on al-Qaeda’s claim of responsibility. “It could be Israel.”

“People don’t blame Israel out of a vacuum,” said Rami Khoury, a Jordanian political commentator and writer based in Lebanon. “There is a very strong historical reason, because Israel has caused a lot of grief for Arab people one way or another.”

“Israel is the only country in the region that does not want Egypt to be stable,” said Muhammad al-Badrasheni, the member of Parliament. “It wants to cause sectarian strife that would result in international intervention like what is happening in Iraq now.”

According to Islamic clerics in Jordan, the proof that it had to be Israel and not Islamic jihadists is that no true Islamist would attack innocent fellow Muslims.


This is one of the most enduring myths of the Middle East. That Islam is primarily a victim, Israel is primarily the victimizer, and that the Islamic jihadists are the champions of ordinary Muslims downtrodden by non-Islamic powers.

It’s a popular myth, but it is a myth, notwithstanding. The key to understanding is found by looking beyond the prism of political correctness instead of including PC principles into the analysis.

To begin with, as hard as it seems to believe, the Islamic man-on-the-street really believes that Israel is responsible, and they are equally convinced that any Israeli action is done with the full support and blessing of Washington.

They believe that Jews and Christians have the same white-hot hatred of Islam that Islam espouses for Christianity and Judaism.

What they KNOW is Islam. And the Koran has no prohibitions about hate, so assigning the same religious characteristics to Judaism and Christianity as found in Islam sounds familiar enough to have a ring of truth.

However, there are more than one hundred verses in the Koran that exhort the faithful to wage jihad against unbelievers. “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed.” (Sura 9.73)

Notes Robert Spencer in his book, “A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam”, the phrase ‘strive hard’ in Arabic is ‘jihadi’, the verbal tense of the noun ‘jihad’.

Many Muslim apologists argue the West doesn’t understand that the true Islamic interpretation of ‘jihad’ is not physical war, but an internal war of conquest over individual failings and personal sin. They point to the translation of ‘jihadi’ as ‘strive hard’ as evidence. But jihad, the action tense for ‘striving hard’ is described in Sura 9.123 as follows:

“When you meet believers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.”

“Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan.” (Sura 4:76)

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs [in return] is the garden of Paradise, and slay and are slain, a promise binding on him [Allah] in truth.” Sura 9:111)

This is key. This guarantee of salvation is the only certain way to achieve Paradise, according to the Koran. As Christians are guaranteed salvation by grace through faith, Islamic believers are guaranteed salvation by martyrdom through jihad.

“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare them for each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay zakat (tithe) then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is merciful, forgiving.” (Sura 9:5)

Sura 9:5 amounts to a summary of al-Qaeda’s declaration of war against the West, and encapsulates al-Qaeda’s methods and objectives.

Analysts warn each fall of a ‘Ramadan Offensive’ following the month of Ramadan. Each Ramadan Offensive employs terror as a tactic (ambush) and will continue until, as numerous al-Qaeda pronouncements confirm, the Zionists are destroyed and America becomes an Islamic republic.

To a Christian fundamentalist, the Bible is the ultimate authority on all matters of faith, personal morality and conduct and what God expects of us, and what we can expect from Him. Even mainstream Christianity, something one might term ‘moderate’ Christianity, still looks to the Bible for guidance and understanding.

To the Jewish fundamentalist, the Old Testament is the ultimate authority on matters of law, religious expression, personal conduct and morality and even Jewish history. Less orthodox Jews are less rigid, but still base their understandings of their religious duties on their fundamental texts.

Political correctness says that the Islamic enemy at war with the West are Islamic fundamentalists. And that there is such a thing as ‘moderate majority’ within Islam that represents no threat to the West. The myth endures in spite of the relative invisibility of so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims.

If there is an example of nation of ‘moderate Muslims’ it would be Jordan. Jordan has one of the best behind-the-scenes working relationships with Israel in the Middle East.

Washington considers King Abdullah’s regime to be among the most pro-American in the region and considers Jordan one of America’s ‘most important allies’ in the war on terror.

But Islam is the overwhelming religion of Jordan. Therefore, when a group of Iraqi terrorists strap on explosives and kill innocent Jordanians, followed by a declaration of responsibility by al-Qaeda as a jihadi attack, and confirmed as an al-Qaeda hit by the Jordanian government, Jordanian Islamic ‘moderates’ blame Israel and America.

According to several Middle East analysts, the jihad strike against Jordan is part of an offensive that they predict will reach America’s shores before the end of 2005. These analyses aren’t based on a politically correct understanding of Islam, however, and are therefore subordinated as the minority view.

What is completely missing from most assessments of the war on terror is any consideration of the spiritual element. And that oversight may well be the West’s Achilles’ Heel.

From the perspective of the enemy, this is a spiritual war between the forces of Islam and the ‘People of the Book’ based on the fundamental authority of Islamic ideology — the Koran. It isn’t a military war in any traditional sense, since the battle is less about material conquest than it is about spiritual conquest. (The jihad’s goal is the conquest of the West by conversion to Islam.)

Failing to understand that a devout Muslim’s only sure hope of Paradise is death by jihad is why there have been so many spectacular intelligence failures so far in the war on terror. It would be akin to trying to recruit fundamentalist Christians to in an effort to negotiate away their salvation in exchange for some political consideration.

Or putting faith in a belief that Jewish fundamentalists could genuinely agree to negotiate away the Temple Mount — and give up forever any hope of national reconciliation between God and the Jewish people through the resumption of Temple sacrifices and worship.

US intelligence services are regularly blind-sided by the revelation that some trusted Arabic translator or Muslim serving with US combat forces had been secretly working as an agent for the jihadist side.

They don’t understand what a Muslim must trade off in order to work with the infidels against the jihad. For a Muslim, that is tantamount to paradise lost.

Western intelligence is aware of the fact the ‘moderate’ Muslim countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have as many people within their populations and officialdom working with the jihad as there are working against it. But the myth of the Muslim ‘moderate’ endures.

After five years of trying, the concerted efforts of the world’s best and richest intelligence agencies have been unable to penetrate the wall of secrecy that has shielded Osama bin-Laden from capture.

The West can’t figure out why because they are blinded by the politically correct myth that there exists within Islam a vast ‘moderate’ majority that don’t actually take the Koran at face value.

That is because it is politically incorrect to take the Bible at face value. Millions of Christians are willing to compromise on Christian fundamental values, so, the thinking goes, why wouldn’t millions of Muslims?

That’s why Washington keeps getting it wrong. The war on terror is a spiritual war more than it is material and the enemy tactics are based on spiritual values rather than military objectives.

Jesus Christ pinpointed the single intelligence failure blinding the West to the true scope and nature of the threat posed by the enemy to the People of the Book.

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. . . .Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:15-18,20)

Special Report: Understanding the “Last Days”

Special Report: Understanding the “Last Days”
Vol: 50 Issue: 11 Friday, November 11, 2005

Special Report: Understanding the “Last Days”

We’ve been discussing events, manmade, natural and political, that conspire together to bring about the precise conditions the Bible forecast would exist in the “last days.”

Before we go on, we should revist the term, “last days” since my email indicates there is a bit of confusion about what the term means. After all, many argue, the Apostle Paul thought he was living in the last days, and here we are two thousand years later. . .

This line of reasoning adds credibility, at least on the surface, the scoffer’s argument “People have been forecasting the return of Christ in every generation, etc.”

That line of reasoning is itself a fulfillment of Bible prophecy for the last days. Writes the Apostle Peter;

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2nd Peter 3:2-3)

Again, there is that reference to the ‘last days’ again. The term ‘last days’ has two meanings. In the first and broadest sense, it refers to the entire period of the Church Age, since it is the final Dispensation of human government before it is reclaimed by Jesus Christ at the beginning of the Kingdom Age to come.

In the second and more specific sense, it refers to the period of time between the restoration of national Israel and the onset of the 70th Week of Daniel — the generation of whom Jesus said, “This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:34)

The meaning is derived from the context. The Prophet Joel prophesied, “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.” (Joel 2:28)

The Church Age began with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all believers, starting with the Apostles at Pentecost. Of Pentecost, Peter explained;

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”

The context makes it clear that in this instance, the reference is to the Church Age as the “last days.” On the other hand, the Apostle Paul warned of ‘perilous times’ (2nd Timothy 3:1-5) in the ‘last days’.

But the context indicates he is referring to the ‘last days’ in the sense of the last generation of the Church Age — since Paul’s prophecy of social conditions echoes the description of the Laodicean Church Age of Revelation 3:14.

The same can be said of Paul’s warning to Timothy (1st Timothy 4:1-3);

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”

The meaning of the term, ‘the latter times’ taken in context in this description could apply to most any point in the Church Age from the 4th century forward, but it is to this generation, uniquely, that the phrase ‘Christian fundamentalist’ means the same thing as ‘radical extremist.’

Paul warned of a ‘departure from the faith’ — what is ‘fundamentalism’ if it isn’t following the fundamentals — unchanging doctrinal truths?

But Paul said that the doctrines of demons and seducing spirits would supplant the doctrines of Christianity.

Christian ‘fundamentalists’ believe that only those who put their trust in Christ will be saved. The world calls that “too exclusionary” and envisions a form of religion that embraces all faiths as equal in the eyes of God.

That non-exclusionary version of Christianity is championed by the foundational documents of the World Council of Churches, founded in Amsterdam in 1948. And is central to the principles of the UN’s Global Religious Forum.

It fits precisely with John’s description of the global religion of antichrist, which he described as having ‘two horns like a lamb (Christianity) but spake as a dragon (Satan)” (Revelation 13:11)

In this generation, the TRUE Christians are the tolerant ones who recognize all faiths as equally valid. (It seems to escape their attention that it also renders all faiths are equally invalid).

In any case, those who hold to a literal understanding of John 14:16; (Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me”) are intolerant at best, fundamentalist or extremist at worst.

“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 4:3)

If all faiths are equally valid, then Jesus is One Voice among many — hardly the same as an acknowledgment He is God come in the flesh. The ‘doctrine of demons’.

Ezekiel places the Gog Magog War in the “latter times” but in context, it is clear it is referring to the last generation, rather than the broader sense of the Church Age.

For Ezekiel’s prophecy of a Russian-led, Islamic invasion of Israel to take place, Israel must first exist. “Israel” was conquered, assimilated and thereby lost to history before Ezekiel was born.

From that day until May 14, 1948, no sovereign nation called “Israel” existed anywhere on the planet. The context puts Ezekiel’s war in the last days of the last generation, at a time when Israel is a ‘land of unwalled villages, dwelling ‘safely’ during a temporary period of false peace.

Israel has existed under a series of periods of false peace, but it has yet to dwell ‘safely’ during any of them. And, at this point, Israel is building the wall Ezekiel says has to come down. It is the number one sticking point in Arab-Israeli negotiations. Any successful outcome will have to include the dismantling of the hated ‘Apartheid Wall’, as the Palestinians dubbed it.

The scoffers will argue that the “last days” is a generic term with no specific meaning as part of a general argument that there is nothing unique about this generation that points to the soon return of Christ. “Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue. . .” etc.

That is why there is such a division within the professing Church about the timing of the Rapture, the relevance of Bible prophecy, the Tribulation, Millennial Kingdom and so on.

One can take a Scripture and use it to validate almost any theological argument, unless it is taken in context. Then the Bible interprets itself. It is up to us to study the Word, rather than accepting logical-sounding arguments out of context at face value.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth. . . But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.” (2nd Timothy 2:15,23)

The Word, rightly divided, says that we are the last generation before the Return of Christ. That means that many of those reading these lines will be among those who will never, ever, die! It is to us — this generation — that the Apostle Paul was speaking when he promised;

“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.” (1st Thessalonians 4:16-17)

These ARE the last days! Get excited! And tell your friends.

We’re almost outta here.

NY Times Reporter Falls on Sword

NY Times Reporter Falls on Sword
Vol: 50 Issue: 10 Thursday, November 10, 2005

Judith Miller resigned as a reporter for the New York Times, following a twenty-eight year Pulitzer Prize winning career as a Times’ reporter. Although the Times began to distance themselves from her when they discovered the source she was protecting might be a Republican, it was her prewar reporting that eventually claimed her job.

Miller was one of the few reporters who championed the administration’s case that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to US security.

The Times’ carried Miller’s farewell letter to her readers in the ‘Letters to the Editor’ section. In it, Miller wrote,

“Even before I went to jail, I had become a lightning rod for public fury over the intelligence failures that helped lead our country to war. Several articles I wrote or co-wrote were based on this faulty intelligence, and in May 2004, The Times concluded in an editors’ note that its coverage should have reflected greater editorial and reportorial skepticism.”

Miller noted that the difference between her position and the position of the Times’ editors was that she believed that the real story was whether the intelligence was merely wrong, or whether it had been falsified.

The Times disagreed. The REAL story, evidently, was that Bush lied, unless Bush could prove otherwise.

In her farewell, Miller noted; “I regret that I was not permitted to pursue answers to the questions I raised. . . Their lack of answers continues to erode confidence in both the press and the government.”

Miller’s question is legitimate, as was her conclusion. And the Times’ refusal to allow her to pursuit it was typical. The editorial board at the New York Times decided that Bush lied and that its journalistic duty was to find evidence to support the conclusion it had already reached.

Miller’s approach would have been to investigate the evidence and see where it led.

What is fascinating about all this is that the conventional wisdom says Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. And Miller’s resignation based on her reliance on ‘faulty intelligence’ seems to suggest that no WMDs were ever found.

If the documented facts have any bearing on reality, then the ‘No WMDs found in Iraq’ claim is an urban legend for which Judith Miller is falling on her sword. It’s a myth, if, as I noted, the document facts have any bearing on reality. But, as we’ve observed in the past, to this generation, ‘truth’ is not what is actually true.

‘Truth’ is what people want to believe is true, facts notwithstanding.


Oh no! Not another (*&_(^%$##@ about Iraq! Sorry. I am as burned out on it as you are. It seems to me sometimes like I am just finding new ways to say the same thing. But it is necessary in the effort to piece the puzzle together and see the Big Picture as it emerges.

It is one thing to criticize the sitting government. It is both our national right and our obligation as citizens. It is another thing altogether to form opinions based on propaganda. That serves to make the opinion — and its holder — as credible as the propaganda that opinion is based on.

Conventional wisdom regarding the Iraq war consists of two ‘truths’. The first is that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

The second ‘truth’ depends on the accuracy of the first. Since there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, the Bush administration lied to involve us in an illegal war of aggression.

If true, the inevitable conclusion can only be that the Iraqi insurgency is justified and our forces are wasting their lives dying for a lost cause. But IS it true? It depends on whether the facts are relevant to the conclusion.

On June 23rd, 2004, US forces discovered and seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium from a nuclear facility in Iraq. The seizure was documented by no-less an administration critic than the BBC. 1,000 barrels of powdered radioactive material was also seized by US Department of Energy experts at the site.

Granted, 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium is not a ‘stockpile’ in the classic sense. And that 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium had not yet been packed into a nuclear bomb. But that isn’t the same as portraying Saddam as not possessing WMD materials.

That 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium in the hands of al-Qaeda would soon become a weapon of mass destruction. It just wouldn’t be Saddam’s.

In May, 2004, US commanders confirmed they discovered an Improvised Explosive Device rigged to a 155mm artillery shell with a chemical warhead containing sarin. Another warhead containing mustard gas was rigged to an IED. In both cases, the warheads had been improperly stored by the terrorists and were ‘largely ineffective’.

The BBC also reported that Polish military intelligence purchased 17 Iraqi chemical weapons warheads from Iraqis for $5,000 each in order to keep them out of the hands of the insurgency.

Some of those warheads, (which were supposed to have been destroyed during the 90’s under UN inspection) contained cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas.

In August of this year, US forces raided a warehouse in Mosul and seized 1,500 gallons of chemical agents in what turned out to be the largest chemical weapons lab in Iraq.

The politicians and partisans that champion the ‘no WMD found in Iraq’ myth say these finds are ‘irrelevant’. The uranium wasn’t made into nuclear bombs, the radioactive powder hadn’t been packed into ‘dirty bombs’.

The sarin and mustard gas warheads were ‘ineffective’ and the chemical weapons plant in Mosul could have been built after the war by the insurgents.

I continue to get hammered as a blind defender of the Bush administration, but nobody is disputing the facts. Not even the most dedicated partisan can deny the existence of the documented evidence, so the dispute centers around the meaning of of the term, ‘WMD’. (Sound familiar?)

People can draw whatever conclusion they like from the truth, but at the least, they should be permitted to take the truth into consideration when doing so.

The truth is what the truth is.

Saddam had enough enriched uranium for several nukes. He had enough powdered radioactive material for at least a thousand dirty bombs.

He still had chemical weapons warheads in storage and there was still a chemical weapons factory operating in Mosul until the US raided it two years after the fall of Saddam’s government.

I’m not making any of this up, and there is plenty of documentation to back up every word.

Its kind of like the myth that there was no evidence of Saddam’s involvement with 9/11. Memos of cooperation between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay dated in the late 1990’s were discovered in Saddam’s security service files.

(They exist, and they have been authenticated. They’ve just been buried by the mainstream media.)

Ok, so nobody found a memo from Saddam showing he personally helped plan 9/11. That isn’t the same as saying that there was no involvement between Saddam and 9/11. Just that nobody found Saddam’s fingerprints on that one particular operation.

Does anybody seriously doubt that Saddam would have participated if he thought he could get away with it? If a guy would murder 200,000 of his own people, does anybody think he’d have hesitated for a second to off that many Americans?

Think of it for a second! Look how transparent a myth this actually is. Imagine, for a second, that the mainstream media chose to highlight these discoveries without editorializing them away as irrelevant to the stated claim that Saddam represented a threat.

If the press hammered away at these same discoveries as evidence America was right all along, what would the public perception be? Imagine if they had been reported, unvarnished?

Picture the New York Times headline: “US Forces Find WMD in Iraq” over the story of the discovery of chemical warheads, nearly 2 tons of enriched uranium, powered nuclear material tailored for use in a dirty bomb, or memos linking Osama bin Laden to Saddam’s government.

That’s how Judith Miller reported them. Now she doesn’t work there anymore.

People want to believe their own version of truth so badly that evidence is irrelevant unless is fits their preconceived conclusions and nothing illustrates that fact more clearly than the ‘Bush lied’ story.

The Bible says that is exactly the prevailing worldview that will serve as the antichrist’s springboard to power.

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the LOVE OF THE TRUTH, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who BELIEVED NOT THE TRUTH, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:10-11)

Truth is what people want to believe is true. Facts are irrelevant.

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

And Little Tinfoil Hats . . .

And Little Tinfoil Hats . . .
Vol: 50 Issue: 9 Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Not much I’ve written in the past year has gotten the attention of my recent column, “They ‘Get It’ All Too Clearly” that looked at the incredible hypocrisy from the liberal left as they rediscovered what a terrible crime perjury is.

I must have tapped into some of the liberal disappointment that Scooter Libby was the best the prosecutor could come up with as evidence of corruption within the Bush administration.

Yesterday, we discussed the alternate universe theory and how I must be living in a different one than many of my correspondents. But I have the distinct impression that in their universe, high fashion includes wearing little tinfoil hats to protect against conservative propaganda rays.

I often fear in these discussions that many of you miss the larger picture when we examine the political madness that is tearing at the fabric of society. Part of the reason is my incompetence in articulating it. Sometimes, providing evidence of the madness itself comes across as a partisan defense of individual issues. That is unfortunate.

For example, when the Bush administration is charged with lying about the reasons for war with Saddam, examining the evidence offered to see if it supports the conclusion given is not a partisan defense of the Bush administration. But sometimes, the conclusion comes first, and the evidence doesn’t surface until after the conclusion has become ‘conventional wisdom’.

Conclusion: “Bush lied about the reasons for war.” Any challenge to that conclusion is immediately dismissed as ‘a partisan defense of Bush’ and the debate subtly shifts.

Soon the debate is about ‘blindness’ and the role Bush’s Christianity plays in blinding Christians, which requires a new debate about whether Christians blindly vote for somebody based on their expression of faith, etc., etc.

So anyone who dares to question the conventional wisdom is immediately marginalized as a ‘partisan flack.’ Every subsequent discussion begins from one of only two positions; George Bush, Totally Evil, and George Bush, Totally Good.

Finding a middle ground is like trying to climb a mud hill — no matter how hard you try, eventually, it all slides back to Evil Bush vs Good Bush.

In the process, the conventional wisdom that ‘Bush lied’ only grows more conventional.


The hardest point to get across is the one I’ve been unsuccessfully trying to make — that the real point isn’t George Bush at all. It’s about the people in the tin foil hats — like the guy who wrote me yesterday.

He emailed me again today and proudly proclaimed where he got HIS tinfoil hat from. The CBC.

“In Canada, we have the benefit of some excellent, professional media coverage, the CBC. I don’t know if you can access it, but we access both yours and ours. There is a world of difference, it is easy to recognize propoganda when you see it for what it is, when it is exposed. The force-feeding of the American public with propaganda was very sucessful. Having travelled extensively, I’ve come across many places where U.S. propaganda has been sucessful. It’s unfortunate but very true, your public is not made aware of cultural or historic information outside of your own country.”

(The CBC is Canada’s state-owned news organization accountable only to the Canadian federal government).

Contrary to my correspondent’s contention, he can’t access ALL of America’s media — only America’s liberal media.

Fox News was forbidden permission to broadcast in Canada by that nation’s regulatory agency for almost a decade, only being granted permission last November.

(Few Canadian cable companies carry it, anyway. In my hometown, you have to buy a satellite dish to get it.)

The closest most Canadians have to a US news perspective is CNN, and CNN owns America’s tin-foil hat franchise.

So the point I’ve been trying to make keeps getting lost in the minutiae. But Michelle Malkin has devoted an entire book to that exact point, called, “Unhinged — Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.”

Malkin, an American of Filipino descent, is a syndicated conservative columnist who uses the book to share some of her observations about tinfoil-hatted liberals she hears from.

Indeed, she prints selected excerpts of emails she’s received on the book’s back jacket under the heading, “Unhinged Liberal Praise for Michelle Malkin”:

“Ought to shot between those Viet Cong eyes” . . “Some gook out there pandering to the right” . . . “This is what happens when you send a yellow woman to do a white man’s job.”

Malkin makes the point that I’ve failed to impress — the mainstreaming of hypocrisy. These same liberals are the self-proclaimed champions of tolerance who authored the cariacature of all conservatives as wild-eyed, angry, intolerant Christians.

When somebody makes an accusation like George Bush lied, then either Bush lied or the accuser is bearing false witness. There is no evidence that Bush knew what nobody else on earth knew, including his accusers.

The folks in the tinfoil hats see it all in reverse. Bush is a thief who stole the election. Even though not a single recount, even those conducted by liberal newspapers post election, gave Gore a winning margin (not once) Bush remains a usurper who stole the Oval Office and therefore everything he does is, by default, dishonest.

How can this be? Even Bill Clinton’s administration had some good points. But EVERYTHING the Bush administration has done is, by default, self-serving and without redeeming merit.

It has become Conventional Wisdom.

As my Canadian tinfoil hat correspondent pointed out, it is the Bush administration that “leaves many people with a bad taste and distrust (hatred?) of U.S. policies. The utter greed, and disdain you have for other cultures. I’ll tell you, if your troops had destroyed our cities, killed thousands of our citizens, and occupied our lands, you would be able to count Canadians in the long list of peoples with hatred towards you too.”

Up is down, black is white. Canadians live under the protective defensive umbrella of the United States, which is why they can afford expensive social programs like universal health care that America can not.

Canada’s economy is totally dependent on American goods and services. Remove cross-border trade, and Canada’s economy would rival Mexico’s.

But if you wear a tinfoil hat, then the most coveted ‘in’ list to be on is the one that hates America for its ‘utter greed and disdain for other cultures’. It doesn’t matter if you have a clue what you are talking about — provided it ends in some form of the expression, ‘Death to America’. (The American variant for domestic use is ‘Death to Conservatives’.)

I note three common traits shared among Bush-bashers that are dead giveaways that their tinfoil hats are on too tight.

1) They all frame it in terms of Bush’s Christianity, as if Jesus Christ were a magic spell Bush casts over American conservatives.

2) Because Bush is a Christian, he must be either a liar or a hypocrite.

3) Anyone who questions either (1) or (2) must be a Christian and is therefore marginalized.

To the tinfoil hat people, Bush is utterly depraved. Anybody who doubts it blinded. There is no middle ground — one is either totally anti-Bush or totally pro-Bush.

And the Big Picture is thusly obscured.

Something is happening on a spiritual level that defies conventional description.

I guess that is why it is so difficult to articulate without getting sidetracked into debating some ‘tinfoil hat’ issue.

Forecasting conditions during the last days of the Church Age, the Apostle Paul outlined a detailed description of the mainstream worldview as it will exist at that time, as seen from the spiritual perspective:

“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.” (2nd Timothy 3:2-5)

In such a mainstream worldview, it is perfectly acceptable to assume that someone as evil as George Bush would be propped up by the mindless Christian Right who will overlook any evil if it suits their nefarious purposes.

“Now the Spirit SPEAKETH EXPRESSLY, that in the LATTER TIMES some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1st Timothy 4:1-3)

What are the things embraced by the mainstream liberal worldview? The destruction of the concept of marriage, the repression of public Christian expression, the social advancement of other religions as an exhibition of ‘tolerance,’ the politics of personal destruction, the advancement of animal rights, etc., etc.

Right on schedule and exactly as forecast. And THAT is the point that gets lost in the din about the details. It isn’t about Bush. It’s about Bush’s alleged Christianity and how it is his biggest liability — in the eyes of both the left AND the right. He’s too Christian for one, not Christian enough for the other.

Its about lies, false accusations, the marginalization of traditional values and the expression of ‘tolerance’ being reserved only for selected segments of the population. Its about what constitutes ‘mainstream thinking.’

And the little tinfoil hats that make it possible.

View from a Parallel Universe. . .

View from a Parallel Universe. . .
Vol: 50 Issue: 8 Tuesday, November 8, 2005

I remember a television program from a few years ago whose plot centered around a group of people who would make a weekly jump from parallel universe to parallel universe.

Each jump would put them in a new universe where everybody’s destiny was different than that of last week’s universe.

Because everybody had a different individual destiny, each parallel world was different; sometimes America was a totalitarian dictatorship, sometimes a benevolent democracy, sometimes a kingdom, and sometimes, it didn’t exist at all.

Sometimes, I feel like I am living in one universe, and a significant portion of my countrymen are in another. Yesterday, a cruise ship on the high seas was attacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia.

It is fair to assume that the pirates were Somali. It is equally fair to assume they were Muslims, given that the CIA Factbook lists Sunni Muslim as the only religion of the Somali people.

In Australia, eighteen suspected terrorists were rounded up in Melbourne. During the raid, police seized bomb-making chemicals, computers and weapons. One suspect fired on police during the raid and was shot and wounded.

The group is suspected of planning attacks against targets in Sydney, including the Sydney Opera House.

The mastermind of the attacks was identified as a radical Muslim cleric known for praising Osama bin-Laden and for his outspoken support of al-Qaeda and jihad against the West.

An Arabic translator working for the US Army in Iraq was arrested on charges he falsified his identity when he came to America as a political refugee somewhere between 1978 and 1989. To date, even though the guy’s been in custody for a month, they still don’t know who the guy is.

What they do know is that he has been stealing classified Army documents related to intelligence about the Iraqi insurgency, and that he has been in contact with Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Using the name Almaliki Nour, the man became a U.S. citizen in 2000 and three years later went to work for a defense contractor as a translator and interpreter for an intelligence unit of the 82nd Airborne Division. Investigators discovered that Nour had extensive ties to people linked to the Iraqi insurgency.

He had the cell numbers of known insurgents in his speed dial on his cellphone! Noor had more than 100 conversations with people directly involved with the insurgency. Investigators also said he took classified documents, including one marked “current threat” home to his apartment in Brooklyn.

Columnist Mark Steyn noted that in Sweden, ambulance drivers won’t venture out without a police escort.

In Europe, Islamic immigrants have begun an uprising to reclaim Eurabia from the Europeans they believe stole it from them in the 7th century when Charles Martell stopped the conquering Muslim army at Tours, France.

In Europe, police officers are advised to keep a low profile to keep from attracting the attention of groups of disaffected Islamic youths. In Denmark, Islamic rioters chanted “This is our land” as they burned cars and buildings and dared police to stop them.

He also correctly notes that “for a half-decade, French Arabs have carried on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent these attacks from spreading to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have failed. Unlike America’s Europhiles, France’s Arab street correctly identified Jacques Chirac’s opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.”


This morning I received a typically angry email in which I was roundly dressed-down for my comments on the Valeria Plame non-affair. I might also add, he seemed exceedingly angry.

(I thought it was conservatives who are the angry, wild-eyed fanatics?)

“I’m dismayed,” he wrote, “but not surprised by what appears to be a closed minded approach to the Bush government. It also dismays me that supposed Christian people are brainwashed into believing that this government. is somehow Christian in its leanings.

He went on, “The Bush government thrives on lies, intimidation, torture, war, all very Christian to be sure???? I feel bad that they have been betrayed by the Bush government, and are laying down their lives so Mr. Cheney and Halliburton etc. can become exceedingly rich. To utterly destroy another person’s country is an abysmal reason for fighting “terrorists”.

If it weren’t so tragic, it would be laughable. Instead, it is a peek into a parallel universe.

In this universe, Christians are ‘brainwashed’ and those who support the US administration do so because they think it is ‘Christian’ in its leanings. Not Americans who support the administration because it is the legal government of the United States and that America is the middle of fighting a war of existential proportions.

In this universe, the administration ‘thrives’ on lies, intimidation, torture and war? I wouldn’t know where to begin to critique this idiocy.

The war started on September 11, and the administration is so hamstrung by useful idiots trying to use it bring it down from within that it caused me to look up ‘thrive’ in the dictionary to make sure I hadn’t forgotten what it meant.

The intimidation, I assume refers to the killers we have locked up in Cuba. The ‘torture’ — well, it all depends on how one defines ‘torture’. Compared to a US prison, maybe ‘torture’ might apply. Compared to a prison in Saddam’s Iraq, Gitmo is a country club.

In this universe, we invaded Iraq so ‘that Mr. Cheney and Halliburton can become exceedingly rich.’ Ummm, Mr Cheney was already exceedingly rich a long time ago. And Halliburton has been the world’s largest defense contractor since Vietnam.

But in this universe, we didn’t invade because of the ten year no-fly war, the intelligence that suggested a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda (since proved) 17 UN resolutions authorizing force, or even to free Iraqis from torture and indiscriminate murder.

Saddam was just another dictator, and post 9/11 was just another day.

In my universe, terrorists have infiltrated every Western country. Some, like the Army interpreter, have been sleeper agents for decades. Some, as in Western Europe, were born in host countries to Islamic immigrant parents and trained from birth for the recapture of Eurabia.

Islamic pirates attack international cruise ships with impunity, while Islamic demonstrators dare police to try and stop their rampages.

Pat Buchanan wrote a column entitled, “How Empires End.” It began, “The Romans conquered the barbarians and the barbarians conquered Rome. So it goes with empires.”

The view from the parallel universe is that America is an evil, lying, empire betrayed by a cadre of conspirators intent on raping Iraq and plundering the spoils.

The view from my universe, as reflected by the day’s news reports, is that the barbarians are at the gate.

And wishing them away hasn’t proved very effective so far.