Dhimmis United Against America

Dhimmis United Against America
Vol: 53 Issue: 28 Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Dhimmis United Against America

‘Dhimmitude’ is the status mandated for non-Muslims, primarily Christians and Jews who live under Islamic rule.

The word ‘dhimmi’ means ‘protected people’ who, under Islamic law, are free to practice their religion in an Islamic regime.

However, dhimmis are also subject to rules and regulations designed to ensure ‘they feel themselves subdued’ as mandated for dhimmis under the Koran.

For the West, it is a good news, bad news scenario. The bad news is that the jihadist goal is to make dhimmis of us all. The good news is that we are getting good at it.

Dhimmi communities have survived for centuries under Islamic rule, as Islamic apologists are fond of pointing out, with barely a peep of protest in all those years.

Of course they lived quietly — it was better than not living at all. For a dhimmi under Islamic rule to protest would be suicidal.

Dhimmitude has a curious effect on dhimmis, something similar that of the Stockhold Effect on hostages.

The phrase, ‘Stockholm Effect’ was coined following a bank hostage situation in Sweden. Researchers discovered the hostages had come to identify, even sympathize, with their captors. It was a kind of traumatic stress reaction.

Dhimmitude imposes a similar reaction.


Many of Saddam’s Useful Idiot Squad in the West, having suddenly been thrown out of work, have offered their services to Islamic jihadists in exchange for voluntary dhimmitude.

And, like victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, they’ve come to identify, and even sympathize, with the aims of their masters.

An anti-war group called “United for Peace and Justice” claims to represent 1,300 local and national anti-war groups across America. They are planning a massive demonstration against the White House, promising to ‘take it over’ until the Bush administration ‘leaves’.

According to their lengthy press release, America is a criminal organization victimizing Islam.

“It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people of the world from the U.S. dictators,” states the release. “Murder for occupation and theft of land is illegal. Murder of journalists is criminal. Remove the traitors who have stolen the U.S. budget and used it to commit international crimes against humanity.

“If we were being bombed and our journalists were being murdered here in the U.S. by a foreign country’s military, we would hope that the people of that country would stop what they are doing and go to their president’s office and demand that it was stopped. If we were the ones burying thousands and thousands of our family members and watching the destruction of the homes, schools, churches and offices that we had worked for decades to build, we would hope that someone, somewhere would care enough to do something for us. We must stop the criminals in our government NOW.”

America is a government of the people. The ‘criminals in our government’ were PUT there by the American people — ipso facto, if they are criminals, then we are criminals.

And America is a criminal organization worthy of the best efforts of the jihadist enemy.

Choosing Up Sides for Armageddon. . .

Choosing Up Sides for Armageddon. . .
Vol: 53 Issue: 27 Monday, February 27, 2006

Ismail Haniyeh the incoming Palestinian prime minister denied saying Hamas would consider peace with Israel under certain conditions.

Haniyeh was quoted by The Washington Post in its Sunday edition as saying Hamas would establish “peace in stages” if Israel would withdraw to its 1967 boundaries before it captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.

Haniyeh’s ‘offer’ included the so-called “right of return” – allowing millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their former homes in Israel.

Israeli analyst Dan Schueftan dismissed it out of hand as a recipe for national suicide, saying, “One has to be stupid to even seriously consider, if he is making a conciliatory statement.”

“What he is saying is that, after Israel is destroyed, namely after the right of return is instituted, and so on, then he will consider to have a long-term truce with Israel. I mean it is a ridiculous statement.”

When asked whether Hamas would abide by interim agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians, Haniyeh said: We will review all agreements and abide by those that are in the interest of the Palestinian people.

The ones that will guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders,” he added.

Hamas also said this week that it would agree to ‘unconditional negotiations’ with the United States (but not with Israel.)

Speaking to the London based daily paper Al-Hayat, Khaled Mashaal said that international authorities had, over the past few days, sent messages to Hamas saying that they would support projects carried out by the Palestinian Authority, even with a Hamas-controlled PA.


The united international front that was presented in the wake of Hamas’ landslide election as representatives of the Palestinian people began to crumble before the various foreign ministers had even resumed their seats after announcing it.

The EU talked tough about Hamas at the Quartet meetings, repeating the conditions under which it would engage a Hamas-led government. Hamas must renounce terrorism, recognize Israel and adhere to all previous agreements made under the rubric of the road map for Middle East peace.

But, since Hamas specifically refused to commit to any of those conditions, the EU sent foreign affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner to address the general assembly of the European Jewish Congress.

Given that Hamas refused to recognize Israel, denounce terror, or live up to existing agreements, she told the Jewish community, there is only one thing left to do. Blame Israel.

“Israel must do more to ensure the peaceful coexistence of two viable states, such as ending the new construction of settlements.”

Also, she used the occasion to urge Israel not to withhold tax revenues Israel agreed to share with the Palestinian Authority under the terms of Oslo.

(The fact that the Palestinian Authority has not lived up to a single provision of the 12 year-old Oslo Accord evidently doesn’t constitute a release from Israel’s agreement to supply the funds necessary to adequately arm a sworn enemy.)

The EU’s foreign minister continued to ‘reassure’ the Israelis, saying, “We hope we can continue to work with the Palestinian Authority to build up the infrastructure of democracy and work towards building a state,” she said.

“The ball is in Hamas’ court,” she added mindlessly, before going on to insist that the EU never said the European Union would not “talk to” Hamas, only that the European body would not “work with” Hamas if it did not adhere to the Quartet principles.

There, Ferrero-Waldner was doing a little damage control for another Quartet member while the EU figures out which side to take.

Russian President Putin, despite the alleged Quartet ‘conditions’ has already invited Hamas’ terrorist leaders to the Kremlin for a victory party, er, I mean, ‘talks’.

The Russians appear to be re-evaluating their relationship with the United States in the wake of September 11. The early military cooperation in Central Asia during the war with Afghanistan is giving way to rivalry over security space and energy resources.

The US invasion of Iraq exposed the Kremlin’s involvement with Saddam, and US opposition to Iran’s nuclear program could cost the Kremlin billions. The Kremlin no longer sees Russia-US cooperation in the region as primarily beneficial, and it is rebuilding ties to its former Middle East satellites, instead.

It has always been somewhat unclear to me why Russia would lead an Islamic alliance against Israel, as Ezekiel predicted would take place in the last days.

Israel has nothing Russia really wants or needs. Israel has no oil wealth. Putin knows whatever wealth Israel now possesses would die with its nation.

(Witness the multi-million dollar produce industry Israel left behind, intact, (except for its Jewish operators) when it pulled out of Gaza. As soon as the Jews pulled out, the industry collapsed.)

So why would Russia risk a global war to invade Israel?

Putin recognizes this is really a war between civilizations far more clearly than the West does. Putin understands Islam better than the West does.

And Russia’s population includes some 25 million or so Muslims, which is a powerful incentive for siding with Islam.

Russia has even made application to join the Organization of the Islamic Conference, further cementing its relationship with Islam.

The Kremlin completely understands what the EU is only beginning to realize and what has not yet fully dawned on the United States.

The global war is already engaged. There is no longer any risk to minimize. Only sides to take.

On one side is the United States and Israel. (The EU is still trying to figure out how to straddle the fence.)

On the other is 1.3 billion Muslims. So that is where Putin is placing his bets. Right where Ezekiel forecast that he would.

On Islam.

Special Report: The Third Pillar of Antichrist

Special Report: The Third Pillar of Antichrist
Vol: 53 Issue: 25 Saturday, February 25, 2006

I have always been leery of those Bible teachers who have a new ‘revelation’ — seeing something in Bible prophecy that they had never seen before.

I am also keenly aware of the dangers inherent in interpreting Bible prophecy in light of current events. It is a good attitude to have, I think, but it does tend to close one’s mind to alternative explanations.

In that regard, what should rightly be accepted as interpretational can subtly shift over from interpretation to doctrine. And interpretation and doctrine are two entirely different animals.

‘Doctrine’ is defined as “a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.”

‘Interpretation’ is defined as “a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style.”

Doctrine is iron-clad; a ballet teacher teaches the identical doctrine of classical ballet to two students in the same class, but how they INTERPRET that doctrine is what separates a Mikhail Barishnikov from a Rudolf Nureyev.

Doctrine is constant but interpretation changes with understanding.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” (Proverbs 9:10)

According to Bible prophecy, the reign of the antichrist rests on the existence of three central pillars; a global government, a global religion and a global economy.

The prophet Daniel identifies the antichrist as being of “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” (Daniel 9:26)

History tells us the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple took place in AD 70 under the command of Titus, later Emperor Titus of Rome.

Hence the interpretation that the antichrist comes to power through some form of a revived Roman Empire that serves as a de facto global government.

In this generation, the countries of the old Roman Empire united under the banner of the European Union, uniting Europe as a single empire for the first time since the fall of Rome.

The second pillar, that of a global economy, is necessary to fulfill John’s prophecy that he will have the ability to restrict persons from normal buying and selling at the individual level.

Such economic control was never possible prior to this generation. If you doubt it exists now, imagine if your Social Security number were deleted. You couldn’t work, open a bank account, get a loan, or make a major purchase.

Elimination of cash (a work already in progress) would completely exclude a person from any economic participation.

Of the third pillar, the global religious system, the Bible reveals the following:

1) It will claim authority over Christianity. “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb. . .”

The references to ‘the lamb’ are pretty much self-explanatory. It is a reference to something ‘like’ Christianity, but a counterfeit. . . . “he spake as a dragon.” (Revelation 13:11)

2) It will share political power with the first beast. “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him.”

3) Participation will be mandatory. “cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” (Revelation 13:15)

4) The method employed by the false prophet’s religious system as the penalty for refusing conversion is decapitation.

“and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast.” (Revelation 20:4)

For more than a thousand years, most interpreters saw the Church of Rome and the papacy as the third pillar of the antichrist’s platform.

The Vatican claims authority of Christianity and has always been as much political as religious. But that is where the similarities stop.

600 years ago, the papacy tried to enforce conversion and sometimes executed those who refused. The papacy also believed the world was flat 600 years ago.

It is safe to say when the Pope believes in a flat earth, the papacy will launch another Grand Inquisition.

There is in existence another religion that fits John’s description like a glove. Islam claims to be the third revelation from God.

It claims its existence from Abraham, acknowledges the Divine inspiration of the Bible, but claims that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were all Muslim prophets.

It is Islam’s claim to be the third and final revelation from God from which Islam derives its claim of authority over Christians and Jews.

Islam is not just a religion but is equally a political system carefully defined by Sharia law and fulfilling points 1 and 2 much more perfectly than does the modern Vatican.

Islam is the religion of the sword. The word itself means ‘submission’ and Islamic law authorizes the death penalty for unbelievers, fulfilling point 3 as a matter of existing religious doctrine — not a new doctrine forced upon an existing system by a mad pope.

And the penalty of choice for refusing to submit to Allah is decapitation, fulfilling point 4.

None of this has to be developed and imposed upon Western religionists as new religious doctrine by a new pope as previous interpretations required — it already exists. And it is already practiced by one-fifth of the human race.

As noted, Islam claims to be the well-spring of Judeo-Christianity, claiming Islam predates both. Islam claims Allah is the same God worshipped by Christians and Jews and that the Old and New Testaments were corrupted by scribes.

Christians and Jews scoff at this claim, since the Koran’s Allah bears no resemblance to the God revealed in Scripture.

God is love. Salvation is a gift of grace through faith. As a matter of accepted doctrine, it cannot be imposed by force.

Salvation through Allah comes through martyrdom in the jihad, after conversion to Islam either voluntarily — or by force.

Daniel provides another glimpse into the religion of antichrist. He says that he will be an atheist, but that he will pretend to be religious in public.

“Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.”

Then Daniel gives a letter-perfect description of Islam — as Islam describes ITSELF.

“But IN HIS ESTATE shall he honour the GOD OF FORCES: and a god WHOM HIS FATHERS KNEW NOT . . .” ‘A god of forces, and a god his fathers knew not’ cannot be applied to the Roman Catholic Church or the Papacy without the RCC formally renouncing Scripture, God and Jesus.

For 1600 years, interpreters looked to the Vatican and for 1600 years, the argument seemed valid. Until the arrival of the generation to whom the prophecy was written.

“And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are CLOSED UP AND SEAL TILL THE TIME OF THE END. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; BUT THE WISE SHALL UNDERSTAND.” (Daniel 12:9-10)

How To Be a Dhimmi, Without Even Trying. . .

How To Be a Dhimmi, Without Even Trying. . .
Vol: 53 Issue: 24 Friday, February 24, 2006

How To Be a Dhimmi, Without Even Trying. . .

I had a most interesting conversation with my brother yesterday regarding the Danish cartoons and the global Islamic rioting that followed it.

My brother and I love to discuss the things that are going on in the world. Being brothers, we can be blunt with one another.

That’s what makes those conversations fun. We don’t get to have these conversations as often since I moved to North Carolina. It showed.

I was astonished to hear him mount an impassioned criticism of the Danish press for printing the cartoons and inflaming Islamic sentiments.

He waxed forth with rhetorical questions about how ‘we would feel’ if Danish newspapers posted blasphemous cartoons about Jesus, and so forth.

He went on to warn of the dire consequences that might ensue should we inflame the passions of the moderate Islamic world, and said that, even in a free country, the press should have suppressed the cartoons ‘out of respect for Islam’.

I was still picking my jaw up off the floor when I noticed his eyes seemed to be slightly out-of-focus and his voice had taken on a monotone quality. (Then I remembered his only sources of information are CNN and the CBC.)

Like I said, we are brothers, so I didn’t have to sugar-coat my response.

“Want me to play that back to you so you can hear how completely you’ve been brainwashed?”

“Have not!”

“Have so!”

“Oh, yeah?”

“So, in your view, then, you are saying that “out of respect for Islam” we should submit to Islamic censorship when it comes to what is insulting to Islam?”

“Well, I don’t like the way you put it, exactly, but yes.”

“Did you see the cartoons?”


“How did they offend Islam? I mean, specifically. What about them was offensive?”

“They made the moderate Muslims mad. They didn’t have to print them.”

“If YOU don’t know what made them mad, then how would you know if you did something to make them mad?”

“Ummm. . . I don’t know the whole Koran.”

“So, then, your argument expands to include the Western world gaining a rudimentary understanding of the Koran so as to avoid giving offense?”

“Well, it wouldn’t hurt.”

“So, your argument expands to exposing the West to Koranic teachings so that nobody inadvertently gives offense to a religion that the West owes respect. While we’re on the subject, didn’t Dad always teach us that respect is something that has to be earned in order to be genuine? What, exactly, has Islam done to earn your respect? Let’s be fair. What has Islam done to earn global respect? You know, like Christianity has earned global respect for say, its charity. America is the most philanthropic country in the world, for example.”

“Ummm, I don’t know. Let me think.”

“No, I mean, really. If the West owes Islam respect it doesn’t grant any other religion, including Christianity or Judaism, you must be able to articulate some reason why.”

“I hate it when you do that!”

“So, we should learn a religion that we respect for reasons we can’t define, so as to avoid giving offense to ‘moderates’ to prevent them from rising up and killing us? Those who do, like the cartoonists, should be punished? And if you offend Islam because you failed to learn the lessons of the Koran, should you be punished?”

“Wow! Did I say that?”

“Calling these cartoons “unacceptable,” and censoring ourselves “in respect” to Islam brings the west into compliance with a central statute of Islamic sharia law. That’s not respect. It’s submission.”


After our conversation, I started reading some of CBC’s archived coverage of the Danish cartoon uprising and it was easy to see where my brother got the ‘submission’ soap to wash his brain with.

Leading headlines like “Protests of Cartoons of the Prophet Escalate in Islamic World” and “Tens of Thousands of Palestinians Demonstrate Against Prophet Cartoons” covered stories that centered on the offense rendered Islam’s “Prophet” while each reference to Mohammed conformed to the proper Islamic title of “The Prophet Mohammed.”

Noted one story, “Islamic law, based on clerics’ interpretation of the Qur’an and the sayings of the Prophet, absolutely forbids depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, even positive images, in order to prevent idolatry.”

It is worthy of noting that the CBC story is incorrect. Islamic law does NOT ‘absolutely forbid depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. (That prohibition varies by sect within Islam.)

So, the CBC failed to study the Koran as carefully as it should have. If it makes another mistake, this time insulting Islam, should it be punished? Should editors start worrying about when they will get THEIR midnight knock on the door?

It is but one example of many to the submission of the Canadian press to Islamic restrictions. In each story, ‘Prophet’ was carefully capitalized.

Have you ever seen the secular press capitalize ‘he’ when referring to Jesus? Have you ever seen the secular press refer to Jesus as the “Messiah” the way Mohammed is referred to as ‘the Prophet’?

The cartoons themselves were described, but not shown. The descriptions were carefully crafted to convey the sense of insult without repeating the insult itself.

All the editorializing was reserved for those who inflamed the global rioting by their insensitivity to Islam, not on the fact that ‘moderate’ Islam was rioting over a cartoon!

It was so powerful that my brother, whom I love and deeply respect, was so taken in that his reaction to the propaganda blitz was an argument in favor of Western submission to Islamic law “out of respect” for Islam.

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way. And THEN shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (2nd Thessalonians 2:7-11)

When that strong delusion does come, it will come upon a world more than prepared to receive it.

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:15)

Until He comes.

‘Strange’ Doesn’t Quite Cover It

‘Strange’ Doesn’t Quite Cover It
Vol: 53 Issue: 23 Thursday, February 23, 2006

The Bible’s outline for the last days has always been considered a little strange to scholars. The Books of Daniel and the Revelation were so strange that great expositors like Calvin and Luther omitted them from their Bible commentaries.

The strangeness of the heads, horns and beasts, etc., convinced previous generations that the books were largely symbolic, and to be understood in the context of history, rather than future prophecy.

Everything about the outline of the last days is noteworthy for its strangeness; strange signs in the heavens, strange social attitudes, strange politics, strange climate changes, strange wars . . .

It was too strange for previous generations to picture. That is one reason that the traditional view of Bible prophecy was that the events depicted in Daniel and Revelation were all fulfilled in AD 70 with the Destruction of the Temple.

This is called the ‘preterist’ view, whereas viewing Revelation and Daniel as Bible prophecy for the last days is called the ‘futurist’ view. Preterism was the dominant view of the historical Catholic Church, and was among the doctrines retained by mainstream Protestantism following the Reformation.

Indeed, that is the first charge leveled against futurism — it is a ‘new’ doctrine not known to the Reformers.

It made sense enough, especially in a world in which the latest technological breakthrough was the printing press. As literal, future events, especially as depicted by Revelation and Daniel, they were just too strange. Large portions of Ezekiel were also viewed as either allegorical or historical.

For almost the entire life the Church, the concept of Israel being restored to her ancestral land was too strange to contemplate. The Catholic Church taught replacement theology — that God’s covenant with the Jews was transferred to the Church when the Jews rejected Jesus. It was retained by the Reformers as part of mainstream Protestant theology.

It is replacement theology that gives the imprimatur to Christian anti-Semitism.

It was difficult for previous generations to grasp some of the events outlined by the Lord as well; signs in the sun, moon and stars, mass communications, the whole concept of globalism, sudden, simultaneous increases in global earthquake activity, famines, floods, pestilences, rumors of wars; this stuff was too strange. Especially given the time frame specified — a single generation.

In previous generations, change came slowly — my great-grandfather’s world had not changed significantly in 300 years. (My grandfather, on the other hand, was in his teens when the Wright brothers flew the first airplane. He lived to see Neal Armstrong walk on the moon.)

So, to previous generations, it was too strange to be future, so it must have been referring to past events.


To this generation, ‘strange’ is the new normal. The Bible outlines a series of strange wars that, viewed from the perspective of history, make no sense at all.

The Gog-Magog War has no logical objective in the historical sense. Israel is plundered by a vast Arab alliance, led by Russia and Iran — ostensibly for her wealth. But it is the Arabs that have all the wealth. And Israel is 0.6% of the Arab world. Why risk global war? Too strange.

But Israel is at this moment facing the prospect of exactly that kind of war, against exactly that alliance. Even the ostensible reason is strange. Iran — awash in oil — argues it needs nuclear power to supply its energy needs.

While denying it wants nuclear weapons, it argues Israel’s wealth of nuclear weapons justifies Iran developing an arsenal of its own. And if denied permission to build nuclear weapons it denies wanting, it has threatened to use those nuclear weapons it denies wanting against Israel. Too strange.

But Iran has enough support for its position from Russia and the Islamic world to prevent the UN from taking any meaningful action against Iran. Instead, the UN is proposing disarming ISRAEL and putting Tehran on the honor system. How strange is that?

While all that is going on, the West is engaged in what is euphemistically called a ‘war on terror’. It is the strangest war in history. On one side is the entire non-Islamic world. On the other side are significant minorities of the entire Islamic world.

The rest of the non-Islamic world is rumored to be ‘moderate’ — except that they share the identical ideology with the terrorists. And all the polls show the majority of the ‘moderate’ Islamic world is in sympathy with their aims, objecting only to their methods. (And not very loudly)

The heavily Islamist United Arab Emirates was one of only two nations on earth to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government. (The other is our other ally, Pakistan) Money from the UAE funds and supports terrorist operations. Many terrorists were given safe haven in the UAE.

But the United States, the principle target of the Islamic jihad, is fighting tooth and nail to hand US port security to the UAE, claiming there is nothing to worry about. How strange is that?

It was this kind of other-worldly, inexplicable ‘strangeness’ that made end-times prophecy such a mystery to previous generations. Things taking place on a global basis that don’t make any sense in the natural.

It is as if history itself is being dragged, kicking and screaming, toward an appointed destiny, almost, (as Ezekiel put it), as if it had a hook in its jaw.

Nobody is quite sure why Israel is to blame for all the world’s ills, but that is the way the Bible outlined it, and that is the way things are. Logic needn’t apply.

Why in the world would Russia help create a nuclear Islamic republic on its border? It is fighting against the creation of a similar Islamic republic in Chechnya. It makes no sense. But that is how Bible prophecy outlined it. And that’s how it is.

Why, oh why, would the United States put its security in Islamic hands, even as the reality of a global clash of civilizations looms large on the horizon? The Bible makes no mention of America as part of the overall last days’ scenario.

That’s how prophecy outlines it. . .

Why Study Prophecy?

Why Study Prophecy?
Vol: 53 Issue: 22 Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Using the broad stroke definition of Christianity as a ‘religion’ as compared to, say, Buddhism, Islam or Hinduism, Christianity is unique among the religions of the world in that it is the only one that can prove itself.

(I leave Judaism to one side for the purposes of this examination, since, if one proves the branch, the existence of the root is beyond dispute. Christians accept the whole Bible, Old and New Testament, and it is that Bible that provides the evidence)

The study and presentation of the evidence that proves Christianity is called ‘apologetics’ — a word derived from the Greek ‘apologia’ meaning, ‘to defend’.

Apologetics, therefore, would most accurately described as an informed defense of the faith. I say ‘informed’ because an uninformed defense is no defense at all.

Worse, it gives the advantage to the enemy. Just because you can tell somebody else doesn’t know what they are talking about does not automatically mean that you do.

In this context, I use the term ‘enemy’ specifically to describe the spirit behind those who attack the Scriptures, not the actual person being used to do it. The lost are enemies to the Gospel, but they are not my personal enemies. They are my potential brothers and sisters in Christ.

I approach from the perspective they are not ‘wrong’ in classic sense, they are simply forming conclusions on inaccurate information. They believe they are right, but their conclusions are formed based on the absence of evidence for the existence of God. And, as Donald Rumsfeld classically observed, “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.”

To take on the challenge of ‘proving’ there is no God, the unbeliever takes to himself the logically impossible task of proving a negative. Because one cannot see God does not mean He does not exist. One can’t see air, but it exists. One can’t see gravity, but it exists.

Both, although invisible, exist, and that existence can be proved using empirical evidence. The same applies to both the existence of God and His intimate involvement in the affairs of men.

Bible prophecy is a particularly powerful evidence of the existence of God, especially to this generation. To the degree that Bible prophecy can be measured, it has proved itself 100% accurate, 100% of the time.

There are skeptics that will search out some reference that they assign a value of being ‘prophecies’ and then attempt to prove they were unfulfilled. Once again, they’ve taken on the impossible task of proving a negative. If it IS a prophecy, then, until the world ends, how can one say it hasn’t been fulfilled?

This is a clue as to whether one is defending the faith or flailing in the wind. The determined unbeliever will abandon logic in his efforts to win an argument.

There is no more to be gained in continuing that debate than there is in debating the circumference of the earth with a member of the Flat Earth Society. There is no foundation of logic upon which to continue the debate.

There is no possible way for anyone to know the future in the manner in which the Bible outlines it. I’ve heard pretty much all the arguments . . . “What if some future society developed time travel and went back to the past? . . . seemingly turning things around and asking that YOU prove a negative.

Bible prophecy is not simply predictions of future events, it is a detailed outline of how the endless variables come together to make those events come to be. It is beyond the capacity of any human being, or group of human beings.

It is history, written in reverse, a unfolding series of events that come together in the exact pattern necessary to bring about a particular outcome. It deals, not just with the history of nations, but with obscure individual lives.

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,” is how God describes it. (Isaiah 46:10)

The human writers of Scripture were kings, shepherds, drifters, slaves and sinners. They came from different parts of the world at different times, in an era when libraries were few and far between. Yet each book fits cohesively into the next, cross referencing one another as if written by a single individual.

Prophecies uttered by one prophet were confirmed by another, in some cases, without one knowing what the other had written.

In every generation since the Bible was completed, there have been students, thinkers and philosophers as dedicated to the truth as any alive in this generation. For two thousand years, the debate has raged over the truth of the Bible.

In all those generations, among all those skeptics, in all those debates, with all those scholars, not one single point in Scripture has ever been disproved.

If there were some thinker or philosopher of history who had conclusively disproved a single point in Scripture, he would have been the most famous thinker of all time. He would have been the one who proved God does not exist, since everything we know of God comes from the Bible and the Bible says of itself that its seal of authenticity is its accuracy.

“Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.” (Proverbs 30:5)

Bible prophecy is God’s signature. It is empirical evidence that God is real, and that He keeps His promises.

“I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” (Isaiah 45:19)

Then God issues the following challenge; “Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me.” (45:20-21)

Bible prophecy is given to us as a tool of apologetics — evidence directly from God for use in the practice of the defense of the faith. Too often, it becomes a kind of Christian ‘parlor trick’ — and I don’t mean that unkindly.

It is easy to get caught up in the wonder of witnessing the fulfillment of Bible prophecy before our eyes — the ‘gee whiz’ factor is exciting stuff. But the purpose of Bible prophecy isn’t to amaze or entertain believers. It is to convict the lost of the certainty of accountability before a Living God and lead them to the Throne of Grace.

Since it is impossible to prove a negative, God has provided us with positive evidence specifically designed for use by this generation. “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:34)

“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. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, BY THE SAME WORD are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” (2nd Peter 3:3-7)

The same Word of prophecy that predicted the Flood and saved Noah and his family will be fulfilled as literally in this generation as it was in Noah’s.

The evidence that we are on the brink of catastrophe is not lost on the world. Bible prophecy was given the Church as evidence this is a controlled catastrophe, so we might introduce the lost to the Controller — while there is still time.


Gayle and I are travelling today. Please accept this reprint of a previously published briefing. Thank you for your indulgence and your prayers.

Marx, Hegel and an Overheating Sun

Marx, Hegel and an Overheating Sun
Vol: 53 Issue: 21 Tuesday, February 21, 2006

According to NASA, the sun may be getting brighter and hotter. Whether the trend is real has been hotly debated and the controversial finding will be discussed today at the UK/Ireland National Astronomy and Solar Physics meetings in Dublin.

The scientists who have reported the find do not believe that changes in solar radiation are responsible for all climate change but may account for a significant fraction of warming currently attributed to greenhouse gas emissions since 1980.

During that time, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly 0.05 per cent a decade, according to research published in Geophysical Research Letters.

“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said lead author Dr Richard Willson of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Earth Institute, New York.

“Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years,” he said.

To detect the upward trend, he stitched together measurements made by six different satellites since 1978. However, the cause of the trend was not understood, he said.

Dr Judith Lean, of the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, is critical of the way the finding relies on splicing together data from different instruments flown on various spacecraft. The trend may reflect differences in calibration and shifts in instrument sensitivities, rather than changes in the Sun.

An earlier study that combined the various solar brightness data in a different way did not find a significant general brightening of the Sun during the past two decades.

“To really resolve the controversies, we need longer and more precise monitoring of the solar brightness to determine whether or not there are long-term trends,” concludes Dr Lean.


Environmentalist groups — and environmental scientists –have spent much of the last decade scaring the pants off the unscientific public.

For example, we covered the World Wildlife Federation’s study that the London Observer that, (the way it was presented) said that within fifty years we’re gonna have to find two inhabitable planets, figure out a way to get there [in less time that it would take to escape our star system, let alone get to a new one], and send 2/3’s of mankind there. Or we are doomed.

(For more, see 2050 Party Over – Out of Time .)

Here we see where a worldview, a sympathetic media and a Cause come together in a perfect balance. The result is textbook mind control through propaganda.

The technique is the application of the Hegelian Dialectic and the method is the dissemination of propaganda by the use of semantics. In brief, it is called ‘Management by Crisis’.

The Hegelian Dialectic or “Consensus Process” is a 200 year-old, three-step process of “thesis, antithesis and synthesis”, developed in the late 1700’s by a German named Georg William Friedreich Hegel that results in what we now know as “group-think”.

Under the Hegelian Dialectic, there is the thesis: an idea, opinion, position; antithesis: the opposite idea, opinion or position; and synthesis: the bringing together of thesis and antithesis to bring about the wanted change.

While touted as a decision making process, the purpose of the process is really to facilitate people into believing the outcome is theirs such that people will climb on board, support and defend the predetermined outcome; and remove accountability for the predetermined outcome from the agency responsible and place it on a group of non-elected individuals who really had nothing to do with the making of the decision (predetermined outcome) and cannot be held responsible by the people it isn’t our fault, this represents what the people want, ie, the people made this decision; or this is supported by the community, ie, this non-elected group of people (representing the community) is responsible, not us.

This process is often used by groups to foment change, and is core principle of Marxist thinking. We see it applied by gay rights groups, pro-abortion groups, secular humanists, and most ‘anti’ groups, from anti-war to anti-guns.

The Hegelian Dialectic is part of the propagandists’ basic toolbox, together with the application of semantics.

‘Semantics’ is the science of using words to evoke a particular emotion, usually one contrary to what would ordinarily be expected.

With the application of semantics, something tantalizing can sound disgusting.

For example, which would you prefer? A piece of muscle tissue sliced from the corpse of an immature, castrated bull? Or a nice, thick, juicy steak?

The environmental agenda is partly scientific, partly religious (mostly New Age, with a smattering of paganist and Buddhist influence) and partly political (Marxism). It seeks to impose a humanist New World Order, using the principles of Marxism to eventually redistribute the world’s wealth until a balance of consumption is achieved. America –3% of the world’s population — consumes 50% of the world’s resources. To the environmentalist, this is an imbalance that needs correcting.

The best way to do that is to apply the Hegelian Dialectic to scare the pants off us — unless you think there really IS evidence that we need to build Battlestar Galactica by 2050 before we are forced to eat each other.

In generations past, there were asteroids, but nobody was building shelters in case one hit us. The environmentalists have people convinced now that it is just a ‘matter of time’ before the next earth-killer hits — the last one having struck 85 million years ago, so . . .

In fact, NASA has a committee with a seven figure budget that is charged with providing early warning against a collision with an NEO or Near Earth Object. (Doesn’t it strike you as odd that there is an official NAME for an event whose last previous occurrence was allegedly 85 million years ago?).

That isn’t to say that there are NOT things we are learning about the universe that we never dreamed of in previous generations. We live in a generation in which, according to Moore’s Law, our capacity for knowledge now doubles every eighteen months.

My grandmother was born before Marconi sent the first trans-Atlantic telegram. My parents marveled at the introduction of the television set. I was amazed when I saw the invention of the VCR turn a television into either a movie theatre or a classroom.

Today I can watch TV on my computer while I communicate with you instantly, in real time, no matter where you happen to be in the world at the moment, without getting out of my chair.

(And in eighteen months or so, the computer I am currently working on will be virtually obsolete).

When Daniel was given a vision of the world as it would be in the last days, he was stunned. Daniel asked the revealing angel to explain to him what he had witnessed. The angel told him, “thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and KNOWLEDGE SHALL BE INCREASED.” (Daniel 12:4)

We are certainly living in the days of ever increasing knowledge.

When asked what would be the signs of His coming and of the end of the Church Age, the FIRST thing Jesus said was, “Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matthew 24:4)

It is pretty clear — to me, at least — that there is a global effort to manipulate public opinion by the various special interest groups and the media, using the principles of Hegel and Marx to scare the pants off the public in order to effect political change.

Luke records another sign for the last days;

“And there shall be signs in the SUN and in the MOON, and in the STARS; and upon the earth DISTRESS OF NATIONS, with PERPLEXITY; the sea and the waves roaring; (Luke 21:25).

Weigh THAT warning against the fears of global warming, depleting the earth’s resources, catastrophic collisions with NEO’s and the sun that is about to overheat.

Added together, it suggests that this generation is the one to whom these warnings were intended. Even the skeptic can see that some Bible prophecies seem to be coming to pass — just go to the movies and see how many movie plots revolve around the end of the world.

Tied all together and given an honest hearing, the conclusion is inescapable.

“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)

Dueling Veeps

Dueling Veeps
Vol: 53 Issue: 20 Monday, February 20, 2006

This week’s top news, amazingly enough, was still Dick Cheney’s accidental shooting of lawyer Harry Whittington.

Whittington was so embarrassed by the lambasting Cheney was taking in the press that he actually issued a public apology to Cheney for putting his face in Cheney’s line of fire!

One would think that there wouldn’t be much left to talk about, given Cheney’s pretty frank acknowledgement that there was nobody else to blame. “I’m the one who shot my friend in the face,” Cheney told Britt Hume in an interview discussing the shooting last week.

But the media frenzy went into high gear, with Cheney gracing the covers of both TIME and Newsweek. Newsweek, in particular, managed to devote half its coverage to Cheney, under its cover story, “The Shot Heard Round the World.”

In Cheney’s unwillingness to notify the mainstream press corps until after Whittington was treated and his family notified, Newsweek found evidence of Cheney’s ‘dark, secretive mindset.’

Another Newsweek story examined what it calls the ‘Cheney Effect’ arguing that hunters should be mad at Cheney for exposing them to increased criticism from gun control advocates.

That particular headline was a quote from a hunter (who wasn’t at the hunt) who opined that in the heat of the hunt, “He Lost Control of His Emotions”. (Not that Newsweek has an agenda)

Newsweek made much of the fact that Cheney had a beer at lunch, although it admitted the hunt took place hours later, no impairment was alleged, and the only one to mention the beer was Cheney himself.

Newsweek also noted that “some hunters also complained that Cheney got off with a warning for hunting without a required $7 quail stamp.” Good grief!

TIME’s cover used as lame a metaphor in its title as did Newsweek, with a picture of Cheney and Bush above the headline, “Sticking to His Guns.”

TIME painted a picture of a sissified, gentry hunting party, noting the ranch where the hunt took place was also a place where a “South Texas rancher named Tobin Armstrong testified before Congress that he sometimes found illegal immigrants dead of dehydration in the unforgiving brush of his 49,300-acre ranch.”

TIME went on to observe that “gentility and blood sport are old friends,” taking time to note that Katherine Armstrong’s intitial report of the accident didn’t mention that Cheney had a beer with lunch and that Cheney’s .28 gauge shotgun was both Italian-made and ‘elegant’.

Let’s tally the score so far, shall we?

Dick Cheney drank beer, (drunk) gave hunting a bad name, (drunk and careless) used his influence as Veep to get a warning for not buying a $7 quail stamp (corrupt cheapskate) a bit of a sissy, doesn’t buy American, but bloodthirsty enough in a rich, white, elegant way.

TIME managed to find ‘plenty of unanswered questions’ in what has to be the most investigated and thoroughly witnessed hunting accident in history:

Why hasn’t the Secret Service issued its report? Why hasn’t the sheriff issued his? TIME suggested, darkly, “there is also a small and geeky but persistent debate over whether Cheney might have been closer to Whittington than 30 yds.,” — hinting the sheriff might be part of a coverup.

The rest of the mainstream media was content to repeat off-the-wall quotes from idiots like Alec Baldwin (“Dick Cheney is a terrorist”) and Richard Dreyfuss, who called for Cheney’s impeachment for the accident.

But it didn’t much matter who said what or how nuts it sounded. As long as it made Dick Cheney look bad.


While the mainstream media was discovering a “darker, more secretive” Dick Cheney and exploring the “forces that made him that way” it evidently missed what’s been up with Cheney’s predecessor.

Al Gore went to Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of radical Islam and the principle source for the September 11 attacks, to remind radical Islam why they are fighting.

He told his mostly-Islamist audience that the U.S. had committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs after 9/11.

Addressing the Jeddah Economic Forum, Gore said last week that after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Arabs in America had been “indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable.”

Demonstrating his awareness that his comments would inflame anti-American sentiment, instead of just anti-Bush sentiment, Gore was quick to add; “I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country.”

“The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake,” Gore told his Saudi hosts. “The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States.”

In other words, “hate Bush. But most Americans are with you, my Islamist brothers.”

Note the setting carefully. In addition to the fact Saudi Arabia both inspired and supported the 9/11 attacks, Gore’s attack against US policy was made in a place where democracy is unheard of, religious freedom is non-existent, and where even female speakers at the forum were segregated from men.

It is also worth noting that Gore’s presence at the Jeddah Forum was paid for by the Saudi Binladen Group — the Jeddah-based construction firm owned by Osama bin Laden’s family.

The Binladen Group was listed among the key sponsors of the Jeddah Forum, as it was in the 2004 and 2002 meetings.

Irish President Mary McAleese and Cherie Blair, wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, both also addressed the forum, speaking in a venue in which men and women were physically separated from each other.

Newsweek didn’t find Al Gore’s treasonous comments at the birthplace of radical Islam sponsored by Osama bin-Laden’s family to be newsworthy enough for it to mention. Couldn’t find any mention of that in TIME, either.

Indeed, a search of Google using the keywords “al gore jeddah” turned up only 33 –a relative handful of stories, when compared to the 7,610 hits culled with the keywords, “Dick Cheney accident”.

When I refined the search on the Al Gore story to omit the repeated stories, I ended up with 17. No such option was available for the Cheney story.

So the final score was ‘Al Gore Jeddah’ – 17 ‘Dick Cheney Accident’ – 7,610. Am I being partisan to observe a bit of inequity in the coverage here?

A former Vice President of the United States outlined ‘terrible abuses’ committed by the United States against Arabs, inflaming anti-American sentiment and disseminating anti-American propaganda from the heart of enemy territory. At a conference sponsored by the family of the world’s most vicious Islamic terrorist! Nary a media peep.

A sitting Vice President had a minor hunting accident from which the victim is almost fully recovered. Prepare for Week Two of wall-to-wall coverage.

It is hard to say which is the greatest risk now facing America.

Al Jazeera, al-Qaeda or Al Gore.

Hiring the Fox to Guard the Henhouse

Hiring the Fox to Guard the Henhouse
Vol: 53 Issue: 18 Saturday, February 18, 2006

Imagine you know a guy that just hates you for no reason you can understand. He attacks you all the time verbally, and physically whenever he thinks he can get away with it.

He has a big family that thinks he’s just great, doesn’t like you either, but, while just as abusive verbally, none of them have actually taken a swing at you yet. So, what do you do?

Well, if you are the federal government, here’s one solution. Hire the guy’s family to protect you from him.

It seems that people responsible for securing America’s ports, (six of them, at least) aren’t American. They’re British. That was the first surprise, given the circumstances.

Of all America’s potential vulnerabilities, shipping is its biggest Achilles’ Heel. Aircraft passengers are carefully screened, as are those entering the country at border crossings from Mexico or Canada.

Every person entering the country legally goes through some kind of individual scrutiny before admission. But 99.4% of shipping containers enter the country without inspection of any kind.

A person trying to enter the US by car with a joint in his glove compartment has a better chance of getting caught than a guy who sends himself a nuclear weapon in a shipping container.

So, particularly since the attacks on September 11, why in the world is US port security entrusted to the British? Aren’t there any Americans that can be entrusted with the task?

We aren’t talking about the port of Beaufort, North Carolina (although that would be serious enough). The British are in charge of security at New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans.

And, since the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. is privately-owned, what if its British owners decided to sell it to a less reliable US ally, say, the United Arab Emirates?

Which is precisely what happened. The UAE’s state-owned Dubai Port World bought Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation — and security for America’s six largest ports is now safely in Islamic hands.

The same UAE that served as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against New York and Washington.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviewed the transaction and did not object. The committee, run by the Treasury Department, also includes officials from the departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

“And the bottom line finding was that there was no national security basis on which to block the sale going forward,” explained State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.


Eighty-seven percent of the shipping along US trade routes takes place under foreign flags.

“Thousands of foreign-controlled ships manned by many tens of thousands of foreign personnel visit our many ports and navigable waterways — many of which are registered under “flags of convenience” with owners, operators, and multinational crews that have no national relationship to the country where the ship is registered,” stated Captain Dan Fuller, U.S. Merchant Marine Shipmaster and respected maritime consultant.

“More American ships carrying a larger proportion of our foreign trade give the U.S. greater control over our trade, as well as significantly increased security for our ports, waterways, and adjacent communities.”

No one within the US administration has answered the burning question of why it is ok with handing port security over to a hotbed of Islamic radicalism.

It doesn’t much matter whether the Dubai Port World is friendly to the United States or not. It is a safe bet that an Arabic company would be easier for an Islamic radical to infiltrate than an American company, or even a British one.

Dubai Port World wouldn’t even have to be complicit. And if there were a terrorist attack through America’s port system, what would we do then? Blow up the UAE? Take over our own security? Give them another chance to get it right? Has anybody considered these possibilities?

Evidently not.

The American Nazis

The American Nazis
Vol: 53 Issue: 17 Friday, February 17, 2006

The United Nations released a scathing ‘report’ about conditions at the US detainee camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A UN-appointed panel found that Gitmo is “effectively a torture camp where prisoners have no access to justice.”

Said Manfred Nowak, one of the UN’s panelists, told the AP in an interview that the report concludes the United States should allow “a full and independent investigation” at Guantanamo — and also give the United Nations access to other detention centers, including secret ones, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

“We want to have all information about secret places of detention because whenever there is a secret place of detention, there is also a higher risk that people are subjected to torture,” he said.

Following the release of the report, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the US to ‘close the camp’ telling reporters; “I think sooner or later there will be a need to close the Guantanamo (camp), and I think it will be up to the government to decide, and hopefully to do it as soon as is possible.”

The fifty-four page report was the executive summary of an investigation conducted by five UN ‘experts’. In fact, they were so expert that they conducted their investigation without ever visiting the facility themselves. They were invited to visit by the US government, but refused the invitation after being refused permission to interview the detainees.

Among the US abuses, according to the report, is the force-feeding of hunger strikers. The US says the practice is administered by medical professionals in “a humane and compassionate manner” and only when necessary.

One recently released detainee complained that hunger strikers were warned that they would no longer receive throat lozenges to ease the pain of the feeding tubes and they would have their shoes, blankets and towels taken from them and confined to a room that was deliberately kept colder than normal if they refused food.

“I’m brave, but I’m not stupid,” former Gitmo detainee Fawzi al-Odah is quoted as saying to explain his decision to quit the hunger strike. “On the chair, I’ll be restrained and unable to resist. They are determined to torture me.”


The detainee ‘question’ at Gitmo Bay is destined to become the Next Big Thing with which to attack the US administration in the global propaganda war against the United States.

One can be sure it will get a major boost from the US Left along the way. Amnesty International is making Gitmo its cause celebre, as are many of America’s homegrown Useful Idiot Squads in Hollywood, the media, and the Congress.

The perception of the United States government as corrupt and dishonest’ was created by domestic politicians hoping to use it as a political weapon, but in so doing, handed that weapon to the world at large for use at their convenience.

The Gitmo ‘report’ is a perfect example. Here we have a report issued by a panel of ‘experts’ who have seen as much of Gitmo as I have. The information was obtained from ‘eyewitness’ accounts culled from former detainees.

Let’s stop and consider that fact, first. They are detainees because they are part of an effort to destroy the United States by whatever means necessary.

Do they have the will to lie? The Koran permits lying to hurt an enemy, and since they would be willing to die for their cause, it isn’t too difficult to imagine they would will willing to lie for it.

Does it seem reasonable to therefore suspect their accounts might not be true? Evidently not.

Does it seem reasonable that the United States would routinely torture prisoners? These alleged torturers are members of the US armed forces. The US and its military forces deny the claims.

They are immediately dismissed as liars. (Thanks in part to the perception of America as a lying, corrupt institution composed of “Nazis”, to quote Senator Dick Durbin’s famous Senate speech.)

An example of the kind of ‘torture’ cited is force-feeding prisoners to keep them from starving themselves to death! An interesting twist on the old-fashioned Nazi practice of torturing prisoners by withholding food.

Evidently, the ‘torture’ part comes from not giving them throat lozenges. Or something. al-Odah’s lawyer, Tom Wilner, also represents six Kuwaiti ex-detainees.

He says the ‘harsh methods’ are the reason the number of strikers has dropped to four from several dozen at the end of 2005. (But to Wilner, its a bad thing.)

“That’s what stopped the hunger strike,” said Wilner. “They purposely force-fed these people to end the strike.”

Well. . . . yeah, but, ummm, they’d be dead if we didn’t.

If there is a logical difference between accepting the truthfulness of released al-Qaeda terrorists and taking Osama bin Laden at his word, it escapes me.

But there it is, in black and white. A report issued by experts who relied exclusively on the accounts of terrorists being the basis for global acceptance of a report that claims Gitmo is “effectively a torture camp where prisoners have no access to justice.”

US denials are given less credibility than the claims of detainees whose only claim to credibility is that they were terrorists captured in battle, thanks to the blind partisanship of the media and American political left.

We noted yesterday that Islam equates the Mahdi with the rider on the white horse in Revelation 6. In “Al Mahdi and the End of Time”, the authors note, “It is clear that this man is the Mahdi who will ride the white horse and judge by the Qur an (with justice) and with whom will be men with marks of prostration on their foreheads.”

With ‘marks of prostration on their foreheads’ . . . “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.” (Revelation 13:16)

As the last days progress, and the various pieces of the prophetic puzzle fall into place, the Big Picture is growing somewhat clearer. So is the role Islam plays in that Big Picture.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: The same Author that inspired those prophecies we now see in the process of fulfillment promised that He would never leave or forsake His Church and that we are to occupy until He comes for us. As we watch events unfold before our eyes, our time of occupation grows short.

Each of us has an eternal destiny. Either we will spend eternity in unspeakable joy and fulfillment in the presence of the Savior, or we will spend eternity alone, nameless, cast from God’s presence, with nothing but our memories to add to our eternal torment.

Each of us has a responsibility before God to tell people of the choice before them, and to offer them the good news of the Gospel, before it is too late.

That is the mission of the Omega Letter; to equip and train an army of evangelists and watchmen, armed with the indisputable evidence that God’s Plan for the Ages is underway.

Pray that the Lord will grant us all victory in our shared mission. Until He comes.