“For the Facts Are Looking at You”

“For the Facts Are Looking at You”
Vol: 56 Issue: 31 Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Appeasement: “the making of concessions to an aggressor in order to avoid war.” The most celebrated case of appeasement in modern history was the Chamberlain/Deladrier compact with Adolph Hitler.

British PM Neville Chamberlain went with French leader Eduard Deladrier to meet with Adolph Hitler in Munich.

At that meeting, Hitler assured the British and French leaders that war could be avoided if they would sign off on Germany’s annexation of Czechoslovakia.

Undeterred by the fact that Czechoslovakia was an independent state that wasn’t theirs to give, they agreed to trade Czechoslovakia’s freedom for their own.

Returning from Munich, waving a worthless piece of paper bearing Hitler’s signature, Chamberlain breathlessly pronounced; “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. . . Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”

One year later, Britain’s nice quiet sleep was interrupted by the sound of Nazi jackboots marching into Poland . . .


The WWII troika of appeasers, Britain, France and Germany, have proved George Bernard Shaw’s observation that, ‘the one thing man learns from history is that man learns nothing from history.”

I have a friend in a 12-step program who is forever repeating one-liners he hears at meetings.

One always stuck with me: “the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, thinking this time, they will turn out differently.”

A variation I’ve heard since is comparing it to renting a movie over and over again, hoping this time it will have a happy ending.

Both sound about as nuts as the idea that, this time, appeasing a fascist dictator with a fanatical obsession for war will work better today that it did in 1938.

There is little doubt that the leaders of the so-called EU Three are as aware of the historical uselessness of appeasing a dictator as was Winston Churchill, who likened appeasment to ‘feeding a crocodile in the hope he will eat you last.’

The US State Department has signed on to the Appeasement Brigade, offering Iran a series of incentives to drop their quest for nuclear power.

This, despite the fact that Iranian officials have gleefully observed that they are indebted to the Europeans and their supporters for buying time for the regime in Tehran, allowing it to bring its so-called nuclear power program to fruition.

Appeasement has a long tradition among US liberals, but when it infects conservatives (as it has), the prognosis could be fatal.

Jimmy Carter’s diplomatic efforts including negotiating a peace deal between Egypt and Israel in 1977. To do so, he met all of Egypt’s demands, including forcing Israel to give back all the territory it captured from Egypt except the Gaza Strip.

Carter used the ‘carrot and stick’ method. To get Israel to give back the Sinai, Carter linked it to continued US foreign aid to Israel. To get Egypt to sign the peace treaty, he made Egypt the second largest recipient of US foreign aid in the world, after Israel.

Israel got nothing it didn’t already have but an essentially meaningless piece of paper. The Carter deal created a new foreign policy term, that of ‘cold’ peace’ to describe the subsequent state of Israeli-Egyptian relations. It was, and remains, a sham.

The Clinton administration launched the ‘land for peace’ initiative between Israel and the Palestinians with the signing of the 1993 Oslo Agreement. The ‘land for peace’ initiative was a textbook example of appeasement in action.

To appease the Palestinian uprising, Clinton convinced Israel to accept Yasser Arafat as a ‘peace partner’. As with Egypt, Israel got nothing it didn’t already have, Arafat got whatever he wanted. By 1998, the Clinton administration had brokered a deal whereby Israel would give up virtually all of the 1967 territory in exchange for peace with a Palestinian state.

By 2000, the deal collapsed into what Israel calls the ‘Oslo War’. Instead of liberating Palestinians, Oslo funded another decade of corruption and violence in the PA. Like Carter’s policy with Iran, Clinton’s policy just left a bigger mess for the next administration to clean up.

Clinton also sent Carter to negotiate with North Korea, offering a package of concessions that the North Koreans used to finance its nuclear program. Now Pyongyang has several nuclear weapons and is militarily untouchable.

For most of its first term, the Bush administration resisted calls from the left to appease the various threats facing the United States. The Left rushed to appease Saddam Hussein, the French, the Germans and the UN. They resisted any effort to deal with the threats, calling instead for more diplomacy, more appeasement, more negotiations.

It didn’t avoid war anymore than Chamberlain’s Munich Pact did. It only stalled it for awhile to allow Hitler to get stronger. In Iraq’s case, the delay gave Saddam time to recruit, equip and train his feyadeen insurgency movement. And instead of the war ending in April, 2003, it was only just beginning.

The ‘carrot and stick’ offer being made to Iran will go down in history (if there is anyone left to write it) as one of the most egregious appeasement efforts in modern history. The ‘carrot’ is nuclear power for a regime dedicated to a nuclear weapon. The ‘stick’ is no nuclear power for a regime that ALREADY HAS IT.

Winston Churchill was one of the most eminently quotable politicians in modern history. His comment about the crocodile is timeless. So was his admonition to the British Parliament in opposition to the parliamentary appeasers 70 years ago.

“You must look at the facts . . . for the facts are looking at you.”

“If You Are Reading This in English, Thank a Vet”

“If You Are Reading This in English, Thank a Vet”
Vol: 56 Issue: 30 Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Tiny Melton was a truck driver from Missouri. Tiny got his nickname in boot camp after his drill instructor took one look at his 6’4″ 220lb frame and said, “From now on, son, your name is Tiny.” The name stuck. Tiny looked like a body-builder, but it was just the way he looked, he didn’t work at it. And as big as he was, he was as gentle as a lamb.

Tiny always put me in mind of Clint Walker’s character, “Posey” in the 60’s war movie, “The Dirty Dozen.”

Lynwood Richardson was from Alabama. Lynn was black, his skin a deep, rich ebony color. He was rechristened by his drill instructor as ‘Snowball’.

Richardson was a great runner, but a lousy athlete. It was a dirty little secret then, but I suppose it’s safe to admit it now.

In those days, it was fairly common for the drill instructor to cheat a little in order to squeeze somebody by some parts of the physical fitness test.

The testor was a drill instructor from another platoon. Snowball couldn’t do the requisite number of pull ups — my DI had me wear his sweatshirt and do them for him. (Snowball did the 3 mile run wearing my sweatshirt while I wore Pvt. Brunson’s and did his situps)

Sherman Latchaw was a little bitty guy from Pennsylvania — he didn’t weigh 95 pounds dripping wet. He wore great big, oversized glasses that made him look like the little kid ‘Sherman’ from the Mr. Peabody cartoons. But, since his name was ALREADY Sherman, we called him ‘Poindexter.’ Poindexter looked like a stiff wind would knock him over. But he whipped every guy he was matched up with in hand-to-hand combat training.

Poindexter, the little guy with the big glasses, graduated at the top of his boot camp class.

Terry Severance was from Pennsylvania, as well. For some reason, he and I didn’t hit it off that well at first. One of the duties shared by each recruit in boot camp was ‘firewatch’ duty. Each recruit in turn pulled a one-hour patrol of the barracks at night, before waking up the next man.

Terry fell asleep and when he woke me, it was halfway through my turn. Somehow, we ended up having a fight in the shower room — me barefoot in my skivvies, he in full dungaree uniform and combat boots.

I don’t remember who won, but I remember we were friends from them on.

Mike Tuscan was a decent guy, quiet, steady, and somebody you knew you could count on when the chips were down. He was a pretty nondescript looking guy, you’d pass him on the street without a second glance. The last time I saw him, he had made it to S/Sgt in less than three years — quite an accomplishment for a Marine so bland that HIS nickname was ‘Mike’.

My drill instructor was a guy named S/Sgt. J. R. James. When he found out I was Canadian, he nicknamed me ‘Wacky Jack’ — whenever another DI stopped by, Sgt. James would invite him to inspect ‘his pet Canadian’ whereupon I would race to the center of the squadbay to be ‘inspected.’

They’d look me over and say things like, “No wonder the Canadians sent him down here.” and, “they don’t grow ’em too sturdy up there, do they?” and other kind words of encouragement. (I kept part of the nickname — I dropped the ‘Wacky’ part and only had to put up with it when I ran into somebody from my old platoon)


The Lord Jesus said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13)

Memorial Day began as “Decoration Day” shortly after the end of the Civil War. Prior to that war, veterans and their war service were most frequently honored as part of the annual Independence Day celebrations.

In the aftermath of the Civil War many cities and communities began a tradition of marking the graves of their war dead. Eventually, the observance became a national phenomenon and began to be observed nationwide on May 30.

With time, the observances came to include the dead of other wars. In 1967 the observance was officially recognized as a federal holiday — Memorial Day.

This past Memorial Day was marked with controversy as some school districts have taken Memorial Day off their school holiday calendar. In North Carolina alone, there were twenty school district that held classes on this Memorial Day.

Explained Charlie Wyant, Catawba County Schools Board of Education chairman;

The legislators have put us in a bind, Wyant said. We have only so many days to get 180 instruction days in, plus teacher workdays, plus holidays. People want their Easter vacation and Christmas break, so when we did the calendar for this year, we chose to keep those and take away Memorial Day.

The two holidays being reconsidered as ordinary school days are Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day. Why not Martin Luther King Day? Why not President’s day, (since it no longer honors any particular president?)

Martin Luther King Day celebrates the murder of a great social leader. President’s Day honors the presidents who led the nation in times of war.

Memorial Day honors those ordinary men and women who volunteered to stand in harm’s way so that the rest of us wouldn’t have to. They paid the price for freedom with their blood, their sweat, their tears, and, too often, with their lives.

They did so while living on salaries below the federal poverty line, leaving their families to the tender mercies of their self-absorbed countrymen, many of whom were subjected to verbal abuse and insults as a reward for their sacrifices.

Memorial Day is arguably one of America’s most important holidays, since it celebrates the ongoing willingness of young Americans to sacrifice themselves in the name of freedom, on behalf of an increasingly ungrateful nation.

I took this Memorial Day off. I spent the day remembering.

I remembered Tiny Melton, Lynn Richardson, Terry Severence, Sherman Latchaw and all the rest. To the many veterans among our membership, I apologize on behalf of the ignorant among us. And to all the millions before and since, I add my heartfelt thanks.

I saw a bumper sticker in my travels that sums it all up nicely;

“If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a vet.”

The Gospel According to Gore

The Gospel According to Gore
Vol: 56 Issue: 27 Saturday, May 27, 2006

In 1992, candidates Bill Clinton and Al Gore attempted to enlist God in their campaign by invoking what sounded like Scripture.

In his turn, Bill Clinton rewrote 2nd Corinthians 2:9: “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.”

In the Clinton version, God is a liberal construction foreman: “As it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, the THINGS THAT WE CAN BUILD.”

When it was Al Gore’s turn, he also quoted something that sounded like Scripture: “In the words of the Bible, “Do not lose heart, this nation will be renewed.”

At least in Clinton’s case, one could tell which Scripture was being mangled. Gore made his up out of whole cloth.

I found it fascinating then, (and still do today), that not one single member of the audience or member of the press noticed that the Clinton-Gore team was rewriting Scripture in order to co-opt God into their political campaign.

Nobody noticed that God didn’t really say anything about what ‘we can build’ or that the ‘words of the Bible’ quoted by Al Gore were made up by Al Gore.

Back in ’92, Al was still racking up the sales of his eminently unreadable ‘Earth in the Balance’ in which Gore declared himself to be a fundamentalist Christian before going on to advance some of the craziest Eastern mystic and pagan-environmentalist claptrap ever committed to paper.

(Gore devoted an entire chapter to explaining the ‘Gaia complex’ — pagan earth worship in which Gaia is the ‘earth mother’ of mankind.

After declaring himself a Bible-believing fundamentalist, Gore went on to reject creationism and advance Darwinism. Gore asks rhetorically, “Is it a coincidence that human beings have the same chemical composition as the earth?” — before explaining it was because we all evolved from sea creatures, rather than the fact God formed man from ‘the dust of the earth’ as the Scriptures teach.

To Al Gore, God was a liberal then, and He’s moved quite a bit to the Left since.


Nearly two decades later, Gore is still crusading to protect the Earth Mother from the ravages of human civilization, invoking God and Scripture when convenient, while rewriting inconvenient Scripture passages as necessary.

I found it particularly ironic in light of the theme of his speech, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

“Every faith tradition has teachings that are directly on point [to climate change],” Gore told the packed audience of liberal environmentalists. To prove it, Gore invented another ‘convenient truth’ — this time, rewriting Genesis and Revelation to prove that God is on Gore’s side.

“The Book of Revelation [says] God will destroy those who destroy his creation,” Gore told the crowd.

Of course, the Book of the Revelation says nothing of the kind. The Book of the Revelation outlines God’s judgement poured out against the earth and its inhabitants for unrepentant sin and for rejecting His gift of pardon.

In Gore’s version, God’s judgement is poured out against polluters. But his audience not only never noticed, they roared with laughter when Gore added, “Whatever works.”

In the Gospel According to Al Gore, “Noah was commanded to preserve biodiversity” before noting that man — and not God — “is the most powerful force in nature, now.”

“We are literally changing the relationship between the Earth and the Sun,” he said. “It has the capacity to bring civilization itself to a dead halt.”

Lawrence Bender, the director of Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth” said during a two-hour panel discussion that, thanks to Gore’s religious instruction, “I have become evangelical basically.”

It is worth noting that the members of the discussion panel did not include any scientists that are skeptical about global warming — they were true believers all.

(It is also worth noting that the event was sponsored by a $250,000.00 grant from Teresa Heinz-Kerry.)

Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” was aptly named — whenever the truth was inconvenient, it was rewritten and reworked until it was.

The Gospel according to Al Gore says that the earth is warming because of man’s ecological insensitivity.

The Gospel according to Luke forecasts something similar, but it isn’t because of man’s insensitivity to the ecology. It’s because of mankind’s insensitivity to sin. It is also a warning of the soon return of Jesus Christ.

Man can’t stop it, because, despite the Gospel according to Gore, man is not the ‘most powerful force in nature’.

But Al Gore’s speech, despite his mangling of Scripture and blending of New Age theology to create a new kind of evangelicalism, is another confirmation of the signs of the times.

In the Gospel according to Luke, no less an authority than Jesus Christ warned that, just before His return;

“. . . 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; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.”

According to the Gore Gospel, all that is true, but man caused it, and man can fix it.

According to Luke’s Gospel, “when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:26-28)

Jesus’ explanation makes more sense. But then He isn’t running for office.

Scandals Enough To Go Around. . .

Scandals Enough To Go Around. . .
Vol: 56 Issue: 26 Friday, May 26, 2006

Earlier this year, it appeared that the GOP and Jack Abramoff had handed the Democrats an election-year gift — a bribery scandal that handed Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi a new mantra; the “Republican culture of corruption.”

When Representative Duke Cunningham was convicted of accepting almost $3 million in illegal gifts and graft, the Dems could scarcely conceal their glee.

For the entire length of the Clinton administration, ‘scandal-ridden’ was the most common modifier used to describe the Democratic Party. Many blamed the litany of scandals for the Dems losing control of both Houses, as well as giving the GOP the White House.

When Bush was elected in 2000, the Democrats swore to make his presidency the least successful in history. The phrase ‘not my president’ graced (still graces) T-shirts, bumper stickers, coffee mugs, etc.

(Before I go on, allow me to reiterate that every single recount in Florida in 2000 –including the post election recounts conducted by some of the most liberal newspapers in the country — concluded that Bush won the election fair and square. From time to time, that needs to be repeated for the benefit of historical revisionists.)

Since Election 2000, the Democrats have turned over every rock, looked in every nook and cranny, trying to find some scandalous personal episode in Bush’s life to use against him politically. Failing in that effort, they turned their attention on his staff, and ultimately, on anyone or anything remotely connected with the GOP that had even a whiff of scandal.

They hit paydirt with Randy Cunningham. It began to look like they struck the motherlode with Jack Abramoff. Abramoff’s client list included a majority of the GOP’s top politicians, and Randy Cunningham was more than willing to name names in exchange for leniency at his sentencing.

Noted the Baltimore Sun; “The Democrats have been using as election-year fodder the ethics storms swirling around the opposition party: Cunningham, now serving eight years for bribery and tax evasion, and the once powerful and well-connected GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to defrauding clients and conspiring to bribe lawmakers.”


Using ‘ethics storms’ as election year fodder is a risky business — it calls to mind the old adage, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” (For example, among those who got the most money from the Abramoff influence-peddling ring was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, [D-Nev].)

While the Baltimore Sun cited Cunningham and Abramoff as evidence of the GOP’s moral bankruptcy, it was forced to mention in passing;

Rep. William Jefferson, [D-La] caught on tape accepting $100,000 in bribes, $90,000 of which was discovered stashed in his freezer;

Rep. Allan B Mollohan, [D-WV] who resigned from the House Ethics Committee when the FBI began looking into his personal finances;

Rep. Patrick Kennedy, [D-RI] (Teddy’s boy) who invoked the ‘Separation of Powers’ to evade arrest for drunk driving at 2 am in downtown Washington;

Cynthia McKinney, {D-Ga] who assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer for failing to recognize her by sight. (And those are just in the last month or so)

In Jefferson’s case, an 83-page FBI affidavit released Sunday alleges that Jefferson offered to help a Northern Virginia businesswoman win contracts to install telephone and Internet contracts in Nigeria and Ghana in exchange for a 30 percent kickback.

The Jefferson case resulted in one of the only truly bi-partisan Congressional responses since the Democrats swore an oath to destroy the Bush presidency.

House Speaker Denny Hastert (R-Ill) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) cosigned a letter of protest, complaining that the FBI had no legal right to execute a search warrant on Congressman Jefferson’s offices.

The Congress as a whole is outraged; complaining that the raid violated the separation of powers between the Executive Branch and the Congress.

The FBI executed a SEARCH WARRANT. The FBI is under the Justice Department, which makes it an extension of the Executive Branch, but the search warrant was signed by a member of the judiciary — the third branch of Constitutional power.

“Separation of Powers” was designed to prevent the Executive from using its law enforcement power to interfere with Congressional votes it opposes. That is why the third branch of government, the judiciary, is ALSO independent from the Executive Branch.

So that legislators can’t place themselves above the law, which is clearly what Hastert and Pelosi are trying to do with their protest letter.

The simple fact is, there are plenty of scandals to go around. Scandals (and Congressional outrage over their revelation) are about the only bi-partisan activities to take place in Washington for the past five years.

This, despite the fact America is fighting a global war on terror with troops in harm’s way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and with US civilians in harm’s way right here in America.

The Apostle Paul warned of “perilous times” in the last days, citing a litany of moral failures that pretty much sum up the American political climate of the 21st century.

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

While lawmakers debate such things as abortion on demand, gay rights, indoctrination instead of education in the nation’s school system, the definition of marriage, and the relative merits of Islam’s ‘peaceful’ majority, Christian ideals, values and principles, when not being openly mocked, are given lip service whenever it is politically convenient.

The rest of the time, being a Christian in America makes one feel like a second-class citizen under constant scrutiny.

“Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2nd Timothy 3:12-13)

I’ve never been a fan of adding to the Scriptures, but if I were, it would read; “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived . . and subsequently getting re-elected.”

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Arab World: “Hamas is Bad, But Better Than Israel”

Arab World: “Hamas is Bad, But Better Than Israel”
Vol: 56 Issue: 25 Thursday, May 25, 2006

When the Palestinians held an election in which some 70% of them voted for Hamas, Arab apologists explained that the voters didn’t really vote FOR Hamas, but rather, were registering a protest vote against the corrupt ruling Fatah party.

After polls closed, officials and observers called the vote “peaceful”; Edward McMillan-Scott, the British Conservative head of the European Parliament’s monitoring team described the polls as “extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence”. His colleague, Italian Communist MEP Luisa Morgantini said there was “a very professional attitude, competence and respect for the rules.”

And Hamas won a whopping 70 seats in the new Palestinian Parliament, as compared to Fatah’s 40 seats.

The Palestinians might be reluctant to admit that the first chance they got, they elected a terrorist group to rule them, but it wasn’t lost on neighboring Jordan and Egypt.

Jordanian security forces arrested 20 Hamas members last month. Amman accuses Hamas of smuggling detonators, rocket launchers and explosives into the country from Syria, and of attempting to recruit Jordanians to send to Iran and Syria for “military training.”

Authorities also said they believe that Hamas was planning attacks against unspecified targets in Jordan. “The foiled plots by Hamas elements against officials and installations in Jordan were in the final stages of execution,” Jordanian government spokesman Nasser Joudeh said.

“Interrogations of suspects proved that they received instructions from a Hamas leader…who is now in Syria.”

Egypt’s Interior Ministry said that the three suicide bombers who attacked Dahab last month had been sent by an Egyptian jihadist to Gaza for training in bomb-making techniques, and that police had detained a number of Egyptians who trained in Gaza, one of whom admitted receiving a congratulatory message from “Palestinian elements” after the bombings were carried out.

Egypt has yet to say officially which Palestinian organization in Gaza was to blame for the Dahab attacks, but officials speaking on background have accused Hamas and a Hamas-linked group called the Popular Resistance Committees of providing shelter for one of the planners.

Hamas the past few months has claimed many times its “military wing” functions separately from the group’s political leadership.

Since Hamas was elected to Palestinian parliament in January, the terror group has refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Hamas leaders, including Hamas’ Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar and the group’s overall leader Khaled Meshaal, regularly declare they will not give up the right to “resistance.”

In Middle East jargon, ‘resistance’ is a synonym for ‘terrorism.’


Here again, we find a situation that fits into the ‘looking glass’ category that has become a benchmark for these last days. Whenever a situation has anything to do with Israel, Jerusalem or the war on terror, logic need not apply.

It is almost like a ‘calling card’ that says, “Bulletin: Last Day’s Event! Check Bible prophecy for details.”

Consider the following with me. Israel is the only truly Western-style, legitimate representative democracy in the Middle East. It is surrounded on all sides by Arab/Islamic dictatorships. The West has embarked upon a policy of democratization of the Middle East. First it was Afghanistan’s free elections, which brought into power a government prepared to execute a guy for converting to Christianity.

Then it was Iraq’s turn at democracy. Terrorists roam the countryside at will, killing Americans and any Iraqi government official, soldier or police officer that presents himself as a target. The ordinary Iraqi on the street claims to oppose the insurgency, but somehow, the insurgents are able to hide among them without fear of being turned in.

The Palestinian Authority has tantalized the West with promises of democratic reform for almost a decade, but when they finally held a truly representative election, including secret balloting, they chose an anti-democracy terrorist group to lead them.

Meanwhile, Israel, the ONLY democracy in the region, is globally castigated as a brutal occupier of “Palestinian lands” that, until 1967, belonged to Jordan. “Palestine” did not exist, except as a nickname for the region of Southern Syria during the Ottoman Empire, said nickname being officially imposed by the British when they captured it from the Ottomans in 1917.

But Israel, whose capital, Jerusalem, was founded by Israel’s King David three thousand years ago, is the usurper, and the Palestinians, who did not exist until 1967, are globally recognized as Israel’s ‘rightful’ owners.

Although there is no Palestinian language, culture, or a unique Palestinian ‘people’ (other than Jews) and despite Israel’s unique three thousand year old customs, dietary laws, language and genealogy, it is Israel that is the alleged usurper and the non-existent Palestinian people who are the rightful owners of the land founded by King David.

The world refuses to acknowledge Israel’s religious connection with Jerusalem, despite the fact Jews still pray at the Western Wall of Solomon’s Temple, erected on that spot by the son of King David. The Wall is there, archeology and history tell us who built it and why, but somehow, that is irrelevant to the question of who is the occupier and who is the usurper.

Even when the whole world is aware of Hamas’ dedication to terrorism, the world insists on ‘respect for the democratic process’ even when those alleged ‘democrats’ themselves despise it, except as a potential terrorist tool. Indeed, even Arab governments recognize Hamas as a terrorist group, but prefer it over Israel.

It doesn’t just not make sense, it is the mirror-image of what WOULD make sense. But there it is, nonetheless.

Just in time to fulfill Bible prophecy in the last days.


Just one more week to the Branson OL gathering. Gayle and I packed up our motor home and hit the road Tuesday morning. There will still be a few bumps and lurches in the short-term — we spent Tuesday night at campsite in the mountains of Pennsylvania, where there was neither cable TV nor internet access.

I have a Cingular air-card for such emergencies, (but it didn’t work it the mountains, either.) I had to wait until we got on the road before I could send out the OL, which is why it was so late yesterday.

This morning, we awoke at our campsite outside Fredericksburg, Va. This campsite has wireless internet access, but my signal is very weak.

We will be installing satellite internet in our new motorhome while we are in Branson, which will eliminate the need to rely on cell phone service to connect to the ‘net.

We’ll have all the bugs worked out shortly. In the meantime, I beg your indulgence if your OL is later than usual on those rare occasions where we can’t get online until after breaking camp. We look forward to meeting as many of you as possible in the time remaining.

Until He comes,

Jack and Gayle

How Long IS a Generation?

How Long IS a Generation?
Vol: 56 Issue: 24 Wednesday, May 24, 2006

How Long IS a Generation?

In Matthew 24:34 Jesus tells his disciples; “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”

I received an email from an Omega Letter member asking, “How long is a generation, anyway?” The member specifically asked me to address calculations advanced by Jack Van Impe some time back when he concluded that a generation is exactly 51.4 years.

First, a look at Van Impe’s figures. In the geneology verses in Matthew 1, counting forward from Adam, he concludes that there were 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus.

Van Impe places Abraham’s birth at 2160 years before Christ. 42 divided into 2160 comes to 51.4, so that is exactly how long he calculates that a generation is — 51.4 years.

My correspondent points out: “Adding 51.4 years to 1948 brings us to 1999.4 years which has come and gone. So if 51.4 years is in fact a generation then 1948 was not the pivitol year. Adding 51.4 years to 1967 brings us to 2018.4 which could still fit.I realize that I am not to set dates for the return of Jesus and I don’t really care to. I am however, curious as to how long is the generation He spoke of. What do you think and what do you think of Dr. Van Impe’s calculations. Perhaps you can address this question in the Omega Letter sometime.”

It all sounds pretty impressive, but to accept Van Impe’s calculations, you have to ignore what the Bible says out loud, in favor of something it doesn’t say even in a whisper.

Lots of televangelists have wasted lots of time trying to calculate the exact time of the Lord’s return. I remember a book called 1994 by Harold Camping that concluded via mathematical gymnastics that the Lord would return in that year. Incredibly, Harold Camping continues to have a following.

There is a popular myth that Hal Lindsey concluded in “The Late, Great Planet Earth” that the Rapture would happen in 1988. I’ve never understood how that myth ever got legs. LGPE was translated into fifty languages and sold more than 40 million copies.

You’d think somebody would quote this alleged statement so I could find it. I can’t.

However, I do remember watching Jack Van Impe, in another one of his ‘calculations’ (as Greece became the 10th member of the EU in 1981) saying that the Lord would definitively return in 1988. Maybe Hal is being confused with JVI? (The Late, Great Planet Earth was published in 1969 when the EU had only seven members)

2 Peter 3:3 says that in the last days there will be 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.

Some of these scoffers are in the Church. They ve heard the Lord was coming back in 1988, 1994, 1999, and even Jack Van Impe s newly revised 2018. The only ones NOT disappointed are Jack s new viewers who have only heard his latest calculation and have to wait another 15 years to be disappointed unless the Lord comes back according to His Own schedule before that.

Jesus said, But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matthew 24:36). Since the Lord Himself has drawn a veil over that bit of information, it is spiritual insanity to try and peek behind the curtain.

But it is sensational and it sells books, draws audiences and garners donations. I could present some carefully calculated and long, drawn out argument in favor of the Lord coming back on this day, or on another, and I could get the OL out of the red in about fifteen minutes.

I d lose most of you, but I d triple subscriptions, if my only interest was in making money. Enquiring minds want to know and they will PAY to hear what they want to hear.

The date-setters prove that all the time by the size of their audiences, but it is also a principle of Scripture: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (2 Timothy 4:3)

The Omega Letter is dedicated to the simple truth of Scripture, and so you won t find us giving heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith (1 Timothy 1:4).

If we ever do, I recommend you cancel your subscription immediately.

Now, to finish answering the question, how long is a generation? Let s skip the calculations and genealogies and just look to the plain teaching of Scripture.

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (Genesis 6:3)

And the LORD’s anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the LORD, was consumed. (Numbers 32:13)

The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. (Psalms 90:10)

A generation , we are told by God Himself, cannot be calculated precisely, no matter what feats of mathematical prestidigitation are employed to try.

A generation is the length of time between a father and son. When my son and grandson visit, there are three generations of Kinsellas present in my home, for example.

The outside limits of a generation, according to Genesis is 120 years. A man s normal lifespan, according to Psalms, is seventy years, except for the strong few who live to be eighty. The children of Israel wandered in the wilderness for forty years, until all that generation had been consumed.

Jesus said it was impossible to calculate the day or hour, but that we would know when it was near, even at the door. Given the fact this generation has been anticipated for two thousand years, 120 years would qualify as near, even at the door as would 20, 40, 70 or 80 years.

Instead, what Jesus commanded the Church is to recognize the general time of the end and to conduct ourselves accordingly.

( Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Matthew 24:44)

The Omega Letter s mission is to equip the real Church with factual information, unspun and devoid of any agenda apart from obeying the Great Commission.

Each of us is an evangelist in our own right, and nobody is more effective than you are, since each of you is gifted by God to the degree He requires for His plan for your life. We exist to help you in the exercise of your gifting, which is, in turn, OUR calling.

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (Romans 11:29)

God knows what He is doing.

Sensationalism has no place in the true Church. The truth is sensational enough all by itself. And truth never requires an apology later.

Censoring the Net

Censoring the Net
Vol: 56 Issue: 23 Tuesday, May 23, 2006

My favorite internet search engine is Google. I’ve been impressed with the company’s product ever since it came online. Indeed, it is just about the only search engine I use . . . or at the very least, it is the first one that I query.

I was pretty excited when Google accepted the Omega Letter for inclusion in the Google news crawler, as well. Google is the internet’s single largest search engine.

Then Google’s executives abandoned the company’s motto of ‘do no evil’ (which, by the way, is also a Satanist slogan) and began using its monopoly to advance their own private agenda.

Google began by censoring Christian advertising. Stand to Reason, a nonprofit apologetics organization, had its “AdWord” advertisement on Google pulled, after Google executives deemed the organization promoted ‘hate’ because of its negative position on homosexuality.

In an emailed reply to a query by ‘Stand to Reason’s’ owner, Google explained it had determined the ad was hate speech based on its own criteria, before denying its action constituted ‘censorship’.

“Google believes strongly in freedom of expression. We therefore offer broad access to content across the Web without censoring results. Please note that the decisions we make concerning advertising in no way affect the search results we deliver.”

However, if you website has content that Google’s overseers don’t like, Google removes the website from its search engine. Arguing that isn’t censorship is like arguing a guest worker program isn’t amnesty — it only works if you redefine the word to mean something else.

An article on Google censorship in Worldnetdaily pointed out that while Google censors anti-homosexual web content as ‘hate speech’ it has zero problems with promoting internet porn. If one types the word ‘Jew’ into Google’s search engine, the second return (I tried it) to come up is for an incredibly anti-semitic website entitled, “Jew Watch”.

The website bears the following disclaimer on its home page: “This is NOT a hate site. This is a scholarly research archive of articles. We Achieved 5 Million Hits Last Year.”

A couple of sample headlines? “Vicious Israeli Soldiers Kill Innocent Palestinian Woman;” “The Incredible Shrinking Palestine;” and, “Jewish Communists Caused Many Troubles in Germany, Including the Rise of Hitler As A Reaction to Their Anti-German Politics.”

Google doesn’t think that ‘Jew Watch’ is a hate site. It thinks Christian websites are, however. And while it decries censorship officially, it made big headlines earlier this year when it cut a deal with the Communist Chinese government to censor content. And once again, it denied charges of censorship, leading one to wonder what they use for dictionaries in Silicon Valley.

Google admits to omitting some news sources within China, but the firm says this is meant to improve the quality of the service.

“In order to create the best possible news search experience for our users, we sometimes decide not to include some sites, for a variety of reasons,” says a statement issued by the company. “These sources were not included because their sites are inaccessible.”

Google rejected a conservative group, “RightMarch.com” from running an anti-Nancy Pelosi ad, saying Google “does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group or organization.”

In point of fact, “RightMarch” ran the ad as a test. It took an ad on Google slamming Tom Delay, took out Delay’s name and inserted Nancy Pelosi’s. That was the only change they made.

Google blocked an advertisement for a book called, “Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine.” The ads were rejected, without further explanation, due to “unacceptable content.”

Worldnetdaily conducted an investigation and concluded that 98% of all political donations made by Google employees went to support Democrats.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.

In another example, “ChristianExodus.org, a group looking to have like-minded people move ‘to one state to help restore godly values to government, says it’s been rejected from placing ads on Google AdSense.

Google explained the rejection in an email;

“After reviewing your application, our program specialists have found that it does not comply with our policies,” the Google AdSense Team wrote. “We have reviewed your site and found that many of the ads that would appear on your site would not be relevant to your site’s content. As the ads would not provide a valuable experience for your site’s users or our advertisers, we feel that your site isn’t a good fit for the AdSense program at this time.”


The internet has never been particularly friendly toward Christians, but so far, Christians have managed to carve out a presence, despite the obstacles.

Very few Christian websites are even able to generate enough revenue to cover expenses, let alone generate a profit. But internet porn is a multi-billion dollar industry. Porn sites are the most profitable sites on the net — which is why there are so many of them.

It is also why Google is so fearless when denying conservative or Christian sites, while porn sites, anti-semitic sites or anti-Christian sites can pretty much dictate their own terms to Google.

So far, the Omega Letter has escaped Google’s censors, mainly because part of our content is behind our subscriber firewall. But it is only a matter of time before somebody calls us to Google’s attention.

What I find interesting about it is the fact that, even on the allegedly ‘wide-open, free-wheeling’ internet, nobody seems to care about censorship, provided they share the censor’s point of view. Internet censorship seems to fall into the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) category.

One cannot advertise a Christian site that opposes homosexuality, but it is perfectly acceptable to advertise gay porn sites. Anti-Islamic websites are ‘hate speech’ but anti-semitic sites like ‘Jew Watch’ get top placement on Google’s return page.

And “evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” (2nd Timothy 3:13)

Euro-Med’s Dhimmitude-Submission Conference Opens

Euro-Med’s Dhimmitude-Submission Conference Opens
Vol: 56 Issue: 22 Monday, May 22, 2006

Israel has announced its boycott of today’s Euro-Med Conference, which was organized by Austria under the title, “Racism, Xenophobia and the Media”. It is the first Israeli boycott of a Euro-Med Conference since 1995.

“Euro-Med” is shorthand for the European-Mediterranean Partner ship, composed of thirty-five members; twenty-five EU member states and ten Mediterranean States; Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey.

The delegates are meeting to decry and bemoan racism on the Continent. Benita Ferrero-Waldner opened the conference by equating European anti-Semitism with European racism against Muslims. Ferrero-Waldner set the tone by noting the necessity for Europe to “fight a rising tide of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.”

Since Europe practically INVENTED anti-Semitism, and European anti-Semitism resulted in the attempted genocide of the Jewish race only a generation ago, it is pretty clear that it was the ‘rising tide’ of ‘Islamophobia’ that the conference was there to address.

Let’s get the terminology straight first. ‘Anti-Semitism’ is defined as hostility or prejudice towards Jews, both ethnically and religiously. To an antisemite, there is no difference between an American Hasidic rabbi from New York and an Israeli atheist from Tel Aviv. A Jew is a Jew. There is no distinction between man, woman or child.

In one ultimate display of antisemitism, Hitler’s minions ripped babies from their mother’s arms and brutally killed them in front of them — before consigning the mother’s themselves to the showers/gas chambers.

Then, there is the acceptable kind of antisemitism, repackaged as the ‘Arab-Israeli Conflict’, in which Islamist terrorists murder Israeli children every day because they are Jews.

When 16 year-old American Daniel Hurtz died a month after being wounded in a terror attack in Tel Aviv, Abu Nasser, a leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, called his death a “gift from Allah” and revenge against American Jewish support for Israel.

This ordinary American kid from Florida was essentially executed by Islamic terrorists during a dream visit to Tel Aviv — for the crime of being an American of Jewish faith.

That is what the word ‘antisemitism’ was coined to describe — the killing of Jews for the crime of being Jewish.

Now, let’s turn to “Islamophobia”. The word means, “an irrational fear or prejudice towards Islam and Muslims,” according to the Islamic website, Islamophobia.com.

I like to think of myself as a pretty knowledgeable guy; I keep up with all the latest news from the Islamic world, and I’ve been writing about the Arab-Israeli conflict since before the Oslo Accords were signed.

In 1993, I wrote a ninety-minute documentary for the “This Week in Bible Prophecy” television program. The documentary was called, “Peace in Our Time” and in it, we outlined, in advance, the breakdown of the Oslo Accords before the end of the decade — while the ink was still dry on the Rose Garden documents.

And in the years since, I’ve followed, analyzed and reported Arafat’s use and export of terrorism throughout the Islamic world. Between 1993 and 2000, I’ve written or published literally hundreds of articles, columns, TV reports and video documentaries on the threat of Islamic terrorism.

And, as a writer, I pay particular attention to words themselves, how they came into being, and what they mean.

I say all that to say this: Having focused far more attention on the Middle East during the past fifteen years than your average guy, until September 11, I never, ever heard of the word ‘Islamophobia.’

Since 9/11, a word I never heard of before has been elevated to an historical status of racial prejudice equal to that of antisemitism.


In her opening remarks, Ferrero-Waldner lumped anti-Semitism in with “other forms of religious or ethnic bias” before revealing the REAL reason that Brussels organized the EuroMed Conference on Xenophobia and the Media.

It was to announce Europe’s submission to Islam in exchange for peace as an Islamic dhimmitude zone:

“[T]he furor around the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammed revealed the depth of ignorance in much of Europe about what others might find offensive. It also revealed the depth of ignorance about what Europeans of whatever religion or creed find acceptable.”

Let’s take a look at another word, one embedded in the conference title, ‘Xenophobia’. It means, “an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers.”

Now, before moving on, there is one more word I want you to note. You find that word in the definitions of both Islamophobia and xenophobia — but NOT in the definition of antiSemitism. That word is ‘irrational.”

“Irrational” — “not consistent with or using reason.” Stay with me, here.

In the global view of things, anti-Semtism is a bad thing, kinda . . . “but at the same time, look at how those Jews are as bad as the Nazis . . . and besides, they’ve been plotting to take over the world for years. Look how many Jews are bankers, lawyers, own big businesses. . .”

You still with me, now? Antisemitism has been rationalized by every generation of antisemites since Titus dispersed them from Jerusalem in AD 70.

On the other hand, nobody would DARE ‘rationalize’ a fear of Islam or Islamists by pointing out that, until September 11, few in the West feared Islam as a religion.

Until the attacks of September 11 (and the images of world-wide Islamic joy at the news) most Americans viewed Islam as George Bush did, as a mainly peaceful religion hijacked by a few terrorist nutbars.

The September 11 attacks, and the escalating Islamic-inspired violence since, have certainly engendered a sense of fear, maybe even prejudice, against Islam and Muslims. But there is absolutely no way that one can honestly argue that fear is ‘irrational’ — ie., there is no reason for Western civilization to fear Islam.

The Conference was called to assure the Islamic world, that “Freedom of expression is not the freedom to insult or offend”.

(To that end, let me recall your attention to Ferraro-Waldner’s acknowledgment of Islam’s founder as the ‘prophet’ Mohammed. Can you imagine her acknowledging Jesus as ‘the Savior’? in an official speech? Me, neither.)

The conference is a disguised response to the European publication of a handful of cartoons that depicted Mohammed as a terrorist, including one in which Mohammed runs out on a cloud to tell jihadi martyrs seeking admission to Paradise that he had ‘run out of martyrs’.

The cartoonists were put under an Islamic death fatwa, as were the Danish editors that published them. The Islamic world called for a boycott of Denmark, and the subsequent month long rioting cost billions in damage, together with a significant number of injuries and deaths.

Ferraro-Waldner chastised the media for offending Islam, demanding it show “respect for the integrity of all religious convictions and all ways in which they are exercised,” — evidently including the Muslim religious convictions that authorize the exercise of jihad against infidels.

She went on, “The one thing we learnt from the accusations and counter-accusations was that no country can lay claim to the moral high ground. Around the world minority groups face persecution on religious, ethnic or racial grounds. There is no hierarchy of hatreds, each is equally repugnant.”

So, explains the EU’s Minister of Tolerance, European ‘Islamophobia’ is part of a wider global Islamophobia, equally as repugnant as antisemitism, and puts Islam’s one-sixth of humanity in the same ‘persecuted religious minority’ status as the world’s 12 million Jews.

The framing of Islam as a ‘persecuted minority’ is laughable, (there are 57 member countries in the Organization of the Islamic Conference) but it gives the Europeans a form of plausible deniability — a kind of self-delusion that they are not consenting to Islamic dhimmitude, but rather, they are seeking the more enlightened path of tolerance and interfaith dialogue.

In the end, the result is the same. Jews will continued to be caricatured as grasping, greedy bankers plotting to seize the globe, Christians will continued to be caricatured as Zionist conspirators ‘crusading’ against the Islamic world, America will continue to be hated because it is America . . . but blasphemy against Islam will not be tolerated.

Liberals, whether American or European, prefer to seem themselves as ‘tolerant’ than to openly acknowledge submission to voluntary dhimmitude.

But it is a distinction without a difference.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie . . .” (2nd Thessalonians 2:11)

Special Report: SitRep . . . When a Plan Comes Together

Special Report: SitRep . . . When a Plan Comes Together
Vol: 56 Issue: 20 Saturday, May 20, 2006

I’ve been watching with some interest, the way that our meeting in Branson June 1-4 is coming together. What struck me initially were three things, the timing, the fact I’ve played no role in either it’s conception or execution, and the timing. (Ok, so the timing struck me twice. )

I try and keep up with all the forum posts in all the forums, but with my schedule being the way it is, sometimes things slip by me, which was the case when Nicole first proposed the idea in the member’s forum. By the time I became aware of it, it had already taken on a life of its own.

I mentioned the timing. . . I had already been wrestling back and forth with an increasing spiritual nagging to get out from behind my computer and spend some time among God’s people. I discussed it with you in a briefing under the title, “Calling All Counselors” (Omega Letter Volume 52, Issue 18 http://www.omegaletter.com/briefings.asp?BID=1475)

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’ve found that I am quite an adept at mimicking God’s Voice. (If I listen hard enough, I can hear God agreeing with everything I said) The problem is, I don’t know exactly what God’s Voice sounds like. Worse, I don’t know what Satan’s voice sounds like. (To me, they both sound just like me)

Compounding the problem, I have the Scriptures warning me, “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (2nd Corinthians 11:14)

So, on the authority of the written Word of God, I can assume that when I hear God’s Voice, I have no way of knowing for certain on my own that it isn’t Satan’s voice mimicking God’s Voice. And on top of that, both voices sound just like mine. (And it isn’t like I’m exactly neutral in this whole conversation.)

That is why I use adjectives like ‘wrestling’ and ‘nagging’ to describe what is, to me, a ‘struggle’. I want to do what God wants me to do, but it is almost never what I would choose, meanwhile the other two identical voices are pushing their own agendas.

Great. Now I’m putting down on paper that I hear ‘voices’. (Conjures up mental images of my neighbors saying telling TV reporters; “He was such a nice guy before. . . .” — let’s try this again.)

I don’t ‘hear’ what really qualify as ‘voices’ — and if I started to, I’d be the first one to suggest having my medication adjusted.

But I don’t have a better way of explaining it, either.

“There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.” (Proverbs 19:21)

Life is a steady stream of conflicting choices, and the Lord has a way of placing several conflicting choices before each of us at any given time. It is in the search for the correct path that one can seek (and hear) the Lord’s counsel.

“Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” (Proverbs 11:14)

“Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established.” (Proverbs 15:22)

“For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counselors there is safety.” (Proverbs 24:6)

I am blessed beyond measure with such a multitude of counselors, and it is by your counsel that I navigate the paths laid before me.

The Lord offers ‘counsel’ in many forms. The first, and most definitive, in my view, is a spiritual confirmation delivered by way of godly counsel.

Psalms 1:1 tells me that, “blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly . . .” because, the progression from there is to ‘standeth in the way of sinners’ and ultimately to ‘sit in the seat of the scornful’.

The second way is by independent confirmation. The Branson gathering, organized as it was, independently, but for precisely the same time that the Lord had set for my own mission, was not just a confirmation, but it was the perfect time for a kick-off to the expanded, but as yet-undefined “mission from God” (for want of a better term) I’d been wrestling with.

(Great. “Hi. I’m on a mission from God.” Boy, it is difficult to keep this from sounding like I am two sentences from being measured for a straitjacket.)

I brought the issue before you, my co-laborers in Christ, and your counsel was to step forward in blind faith. Your reaction was to spontaneously create the event that would kick it off.

In blind faith, Gayle and I bought a camper and began preparing for what was before us, without having a clue what it would be.

The lessons we learned weren’t apparent at the time. I was fretting over the fact my pickup wouldn’t pull my camper, missing the point of the lesson altogether.

The lesson wasn’t that the truck couldn’t pull the camper, but that the camper couldn’t handle the requirements of the mission. I couldn’t have learned that any other way, even if I had known at the time what the mission was.

The third confirmation that I was following the Lord’s leading came when my house sold within a month of its first listing, on exactly the same day that we closed a deal to buy a used RV suited to full-time living.

Until now, the mission itself has been fuzzy around the edges. Where do I go? What do I do when I get there? Who is it that I am to interact with that is so important? What is the mission?

(I must confess, as I re-read this, I understand why my friends and family categorize me somewhere between ‘eccentric’ (my friend’s evaluation) and ‘completely nuts’ (my family’s less-charitable, but oftentimes more accurate evaluation)

I don’t know anything about organizing an evangelistic tour, but from what I’ve learned, most of it is geared around how much money can be raised in a particular market, and then the locations are then planned around that.

That won’t do. If the Lord is behind this endeavor, He’ll provide the resources. If not, then I’ll know that pretty quickly.

Our mission is to go where God’s people are, instead of where there is a big market, and speak wherever the Spirit directs, whether it is a country church with ten people or a city church of a thousand. No minimum honorarium. No minimum offering.

The spontaneous development of the Branson gathering is a natural starting place. From there, we will go from state-to-state, meeting with as many Omega Letter members as possible in the process. You are my counselors. I will seek your counsel face to face as we work together to spread the warning.

Mike is currently developing a special section on the Omega Letter website where I can post our current whereabouts and where we plan to be next. He is also posting a contact sheet you can fill out if you want us to give you a call when we are in your neck of the woods. I’ll let you know as soon as it goes live.

I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible in Branson next month. And, if the Lord tarries, with as many more of you as possible in the time that remains to us.

Until He comes.

Frankenstein Killed His Creator, Too

Frankenstein Killed His Creator, Too
Vol: 56 Issue: 19 Friday, May 19, 2006

After two decades of recruiting, training, equipping and deploying legions of terrorists throughout the world to hijack planes and cruise ships, blow up airports and transportation centers, taking hostages and murdering captives, Yasser Arafat’s dream has at last been realized, albeit too late for him to enjoy the sweet taste of victory.

His Palestinian Authority has morphed from the murderous PLO into the elected leadership of a de-facto Palestinian State. Following years of political machinations and manipulation, punctuated by terror strikes to underscore its escalating demands, the Palestinian Authority has Israel on the run and rocked back on its heels after almost six years of unrelenting warfare on its own streets.

The Palestinian Authority has won the right to govern itself without fear of Israeli interference in either self-rule or Palestinian domestic security.

In 1816, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley published her classic morality tale, “Frankenstein” subtitled, “A Modern Prometheus”. It is the story of a man who created a monster out of spare parts. At first, it seemed like a good idea, but once it was animated, he was horrified at what he had created. His rejection of the monster, together with his rejection by the rest of society, turned the monster into a revenge-filled murderer.

It turns on its creator, ultimately hounding him to his death for the crime of bringing him into his miserable existence in the first place. He asks his friend, if he is unable, to kill the monster for him. In the end, the creator dies, and the monster decides to join in him death by immolating himself on a funeral pyre.

Shelly’s classic is an intimate portrait of Yasser Arafat’s monster, known euphemistically as “Palestinian militant groups” but rejected by their creator as “illegal” militias. Like Frankenstein’s monster, when the creator died, the terrorism he spawned raged independently and out of control until it fell to his successor, PLO co-founder Mahmoud Abbas, to kill the monster for him.

And like the monster, the terrorists have chosen self-immolation, instead.


Noted Lebanon’s Dar al-Hayat in an editorial; “The recent armed clashes between Fatah and Hamas have given rise to an ever-pressing and painful question: is civil war likely in Palestine?”

Likely? On November 4, 2004, discussing Arafat’s impending death, the Omega Letter asked the same question:

“But for the rest of the world, life will go on without Arafat. What then? In the secular sense, it is impossible to say.”

“The Palestinian factions could turn on each other in a power struggle and spark a Palestinian civil war. The United Nations could step into the vacuum, sending peacekeepers to the region, using a Palestinian civil war as an excuse to occupy and surround Israel. . . ” (The Omega Letter, Vol 38, Issue 4)

In its May 9th issue, TIME Magazine also headlined its story with a question; “Is A Palestinian Civil War Breaking Out” which it then answered affirmatively in the column’s body, linked to another “Q&A” column in the same issue under the headline, “Is the Hard Line Against Hamas Working?’ TIME’s columnist answered THAT question in the negative.

In both columns, TIME assigned the United States and Israel, respectively, responsibility for the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, conveniently ignoring the landslide election of Hamas by a majority of the Palestinian people, as if that were somehow also the fault of some joint Washington-Jerusalem axis.

Noted TIME; “While the financial blockade is clearly an effective weapon against a government led by what the U.S. and E.U. deem a terrorist organization, the decision to use it appears to be premised on a fanciful notion of what will follow if it succeeds.”

Aha! The US and EU merely ‘deem’ Hamas to be a ‘terrorist organization’ — while in the next paragraph, TIME notes in an offhand way that another, somewhat less-important obstacle to peace is the US’s ‘fanciful’ alignment with a “drive to bring down the Palestinian Authority unless Hamas agrees to formally renounce violence, recognize Israel and abide by previous peace agreements.”

It appears that, from TIME’s analysis, that expecting the Islamic-inspired terror group to disarm and recognize Israel’s right to exist is an ‘unreasonable’ Crusader-Zionist demand, obviously doomed to failure.

What, then, would constitute a ‘reasonable’ demand? TIME doesn’t say. . .

What I find fascinating about all the secular analyses is the universal effort to blame the Bush administration and the Israeli government for any impending civil war, studiously avoiding any serious consideration of the role Islam plays in the impending self-immolation of the Palestinian terrorist government.

The Palestinian Authority practiced a kind of ‘pragmatic’ terrorism. Arafat and his cronies were about as religiously Islamic as Bill Clinton was religiously Baptist.

Their religiosity was confined to photo-ops of them leaving the mosque carrying big, black Korans under one arm. But they saw a way to use Islam to recruit an endless supply of cannon fodder in the form of ‘Islamic martyrs’.

The Islamic monster they created became politically inconvenient once Sharon launched his unilateral disengagement policy, and the PA tried to rein it in.

Stung, Hamas vowed revenge on its creators, in the name of Islam, and . . well, I could go on endlessly with the Frankenstein analogy, but you get the idea.

You have to hand it to Sharon. He was born in the Middle East, steeped in Islamic history and traditions, fought in every single war against the Arabs from the War of Independence to the current ‘Oslo War’ — that didn’t start to fizzle until Israel handed control of Gaza over to the Islamic factions to fight over.

Sharon understood the ‘heart’ of Islam far more clearly than his Western counterparts — he was never fooled by the ‘Islam is really a religion of peace and love’ crowd. Sharon knew from a lifetime of experience that Islam is a warrior religion that spawned a warrior culture that has no concept of peace. If they aren’t fighting the infidels and the Jews, they are fighting each other.

By unilaterally pulling out of the contested areas, Sharon gave the Palestinians the opportunity to choose their own destiny. The fact he KNEW they would choose civil war is why everybody is blaming Israel and the US for ‘allowing’ it to happen.

The circular logic necessary to get to there from here makes my head hurt. To take it all in, one has to accept the following as ‘facts’. Islam is really a religion of peace and love that has been hijacked by a handful of ‘fundamentalists’.

One must also accept that the MAJORITY of Palestinians must constitute ‘a handful’, since the majority of them in every poll indicate support for Hamas’ goal of the destruction of Israel as a matter of religious obligation.

Having accepted that Islam is a religion of peace and love perverted by a handful, one must spin around mid-sentence and take the OTHER side in order to argue that Sharon KNEW the religion of peace and love would turn on itself like a rabid dog — and that, knowing that, he allowed it to happen anyway.

Boiled down, it seems that the enemies of the ‘religion of peace and love’ are responsible for it acting like a religion dedicated to war and destruction by not anticipating that they would NOT act like a religion of peace and love if they didn’t have an enemy nearby to kill instead of each other. Or something. I think.

Like I said, it makes my head hurt.