The Death of a Thousand Cuts

The Death of a Thousand Cuts
Vol: 58 Issue: 6 Thursday, July 6, 2006

Moscow and Beijing are working hard behind the scenes to dilute any United Nations’ effort to rein in North Korean dictator Kim Jong il, taking the same position with North Korea that they have with both Iran and Sudan.

Russian Ambassador Vitali Churkin said that while his country shared fellow council members’ “serious concern” about the missile tests, it wanted the council to consider a presidential statement as the “proper format” for a response.

He warned against “whipping up emotions too much” and played down the idea that sanctions would be considered.

His Chinese counterpart, Wang Guangya, was publicly non-committal, telling reporters “if all council members feel that some appropriate action is needed by the council, we will see.”

In Beijing, the foreign ministry issued a statement hinting at its opposition to any actions against North Korea. It urged “all parties” involved in the issue to “refrain from doing things that will increase tensions and complicate the situation.”

The last time North Korea set off international alarms in 1998, China threatened to block any meaningful resolution — the best they could come up with was a letter of ‘regret’ issued by the Security Council two weeks later.

In 2002, it emerged that North Korea had been cheating on the 1994 extortion agreement hammered out by the Clinton administration.

That deal involved paying off North Korea with food and oil shipments and US help with civilian nuclear reactors, in exchange for a North Korean pledge to stand down on its nuclear ambitions.

When the deal collapsed, Kim Jong il, following the protocol established by the Nuclear Dictator Wannabe Handbook, expelled International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, restarted his nuclear facilities and withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The protocol was established by Saddam Hussein, but has been used effectively by both Kim Jong il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without any serious repercussions.

Saddam was deposed by the United States, OVER the objections of the United Nations. Had the US not intervened, Saddam’s Iraq would still be a charter member of the Axis of Evil.

Ahmadinejad and Kim are gambling that, having taken the pasting at the UN that it took in 2003, Washington will think twice before getting out ahead of the United Nations again.

And as long as the United Nations is tasked with overseeing their nuclear programs, they can move forward without significant risk to their regimes.

At the UN, they have Moscow’s and Beijing’s veto power to protect them.


One would assume that the Russians and Chinese should be far more worried about a nuclear North Korea or Iran than the US. America remains outside their reach, while Russian and Chinese cities are already in range of both countries.

But they aren’t. The Russians sold Iran both the reactors and the materials necessary to start up a nuclear weapons program. The Chinese provided Kim Jong il with his nuclear program.

It is a diplomatic fiction that their intention is anything less than a proxy nuclear war with the United States.

An Iranian nuclear attack against the United States would cripple the US, and eliminate the imbalance of power created by the existence of an unchallenged American superpower.

But any US retaliation would be directed at Iran, leaving Russia intact to exploit the opportunities crippling the United States would provide. Beijing shares the same strategy with North Korea and has the same ultimate end-game planned.

Why else would either nation risk creating a nuclear neighbor? Russia and Iran have no shared ideology. And Communist North Korea is the last Stalinist regime on earth, and as such, at ideological odds with Maoist Communism.

The only thing they share is hatred of the United States. If the United States weren’t their shared enemy, they would be at war with one another.

Iran is the principle exporter of the Islamic terrorism being deployed against Russian troops in Chechnya.

If Pyongyang weren’t a thorn in Washington’s side, it’s Stalinist government would have long since been deposed by the dominant Red Chinese Maoists.

And Kim Jong il would now be a Hollywood director instead of a megalomaniacal dictator with delusions of grandeur and four nuclear weapons.

In the past decade, while Washington slept, Moscow and Beijing have been quietly laying the groundwork for America’s destruction, a little at a time.

Rather than challenging Washington directly, they are supporting a policy of inflicting the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ on America — using other states and non-state actors as proxy warriors.

That is why both countries still had military technicians fleeing Baghdad as coalition forces entered the city.

It’s why both countries have been arming the Arab world to the teeth for the past decade, providing intelligence, weapons and training to any nation that opposes the United States enough to do it damage.

While the Russians and Chinese are both bedeviled by Islamic terrorism, they continue to arm and train the Islamic world, gambling on a war that will weaken or destroy both enemies while they sit on the sidelines and then pick up the pieces. Which is the precise scenario outlined in Bible prophecy for the last days.

While the Bible clearly indicates a Pre tribulation Rapture of the Church, that is not the same thing as a guarantee that nothing bad will happen to America until after the Rapture.

The Rapture is not a ‘Great Escape’ but is rather a necessary element of the Big Picture for the last days.

Jesus promised the Comforter would remain with the Church until He comes. Paul says the Restrainer (the Holy Spirit, the Comforter) would be ‘taken out of the way’ BEFORE the ‘man of sin’ is revealed. (2nd Thessalonians 2:1-8)

Since the Holy Spirit indwells believers, He cannot be ‘taken out of the way’ without either leaving the Church comfortless or taking the Church with Him.

The Bible promises we will NOT be left comfortless. To argue otherwise means Jesus made a false promise. That is not supported by Scripture.

What IS supported by Scripture is that the Church leaves when the Restrainer is taken out of the way: “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1st Thessalonians 4:17)

So the Bible promises the Church will not be left comfortless AND it promises that the Church will be taken by the Lord. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots and see the Big Picture.

The Bible assigns a role in the last days drama for the Russians, and it assigns a role to the Chinese, it mentions Iran by name, provides for a global government and even puts Israel at the center of a global conflict.

It outlines a series of battles and conflicts that it says are part of a wider war that comes to its conclusion on the plains of Megiddo. All the major players on the current world scene are represented in Scripture.

Except the United States of America. We can hope that America’s absence is explained by the Rapture. But if the Lord tarries, there are plenty of other explanations to choose from.

None of them good.

Special Report: “The Time Shall Come. . .”

Special Report: “The Time Shall Come. . .”
Vol: 58 Issue: 5 Wednesday, July 5, 2006

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.” (Matthew 24:5-6)

The verses quoted above were part of Jesus’ response to the question, “What will be the sign of Thy coming and of the end of the world?” (Matthew 24:3)

The Lord’s reply to the question is known to Bible scholars as the “Olivet Discourse” because, 1) Jesus was standing ‘upon the Mount of Olives’ at the time, and; 2) His answer, which is contained in the three Synoptic Gospels, fills the entire chapter. It is one of the most lengthy teaching discourses in the New Testament.

The Olivet Discourse focuses its attention on events that take place DURING THE TRIBULATION, but begins by describing the events that conspire together to bring it about.

The period of wars and rumors of wars has been ongoing now since 1914 with the first truly global war in human history. It was followed by a second global war in 1939, whose conclusion brought about the ultimate ‘rumor of war’ between the West and the Soviet Empire.

There are two different entities under discussion, ‘nations’ and ‘kingdoms’. The word ‘nation’ is translated from the Greek word ‘ethnos’ and describes an ethnic state, like Israel or one of the ethnic states of the Arab world. Or North Korea.

The world translated ‘kingdom’ ‘basileia’ means “royal power, kingship, dominion, rule” and it describes a national entity bound together by economic/social interests, rather than ethnic relationships.

America would fit the Biblical understanding of a ‘kingdom’ in the sense Americans are not bound together by blood or ethnicity, but rather by common social and economic benefits. The same could be applied to the member/states of the EU. Individually, some European countries might be ethnic in origin, but the Common Market exists for economic reasons.

The collapse of the Soviet Union uncorked a new round of ethnic unrest and international conflict, but, as Jesus was careful to note, “the end is not yet.”


Ethnic or economic strife have been responsible for all the wars of modern times. The world wars were wars aimed at conquest for economic reasons. Hitler’s Nazis sought both ethnic purity and “liebensraum”(living space) for Germany.

Japan’s Imperial government set out to conquer Asia to ensure a steady supply of raw materials and to establish ethnic Japanese rule over Greater Asia.

Skeptics might argue that wars, ethnic unrest, even famines, earthquakes and pestilences, all have been part of the human condition since the Fall of Man at the Garden of Eden. (Or since the first amoeba turned into a person . . . for the skeptic who can’t bring himself to believe in God, but finds no conflict of faith in a frog turning into a prince).

Note that Jesus said “all these are the beginning of sorrows.” The word ‘sorrow’ first appears in Scripture in Genesis 3:16 when God tells Eve, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” “Sorrow” is translated from the Hebrew “itstsabown” and refers to labor pains.

The Greek word ‘odin’ translated as ‘sorrows’ in Matthew 24:8 also refers to labor pains.

Every parent who has ever lived could instantly grasp the meaning of this metaphor — that is why Jesus chose it. As the birth of a child approaches, the mother begins to experience labor pains, which, having once begun, continue to increase in both frequency and intensity as the moment of birth approaches.

Prospective parents in Jesus’ day did exactly what I did with each of my kids — timed the interval between the contractions. It was a carefully chosen metaphor designed to resonate with all people, of all cultures, in all generations. But, to the generation to whom those signs were addressed, the meaning would be unmistakable.

When one compares the accuracy of the Bible’s account of the unknowable future to the ever-changing scientific ‘explanations’ for the distant past, doubts melt away. The skeptic has multiple explanations for static events that have already happened.

The Bible gives a single explanation for a fluid, changeable series of events predicted to happen thousands of years in the future — the events that define our present day. Which is more convincing?

Bible prophecy proves Jesus was the Son of God, regardless of the latest scientific, archeological or historical discovery. No matter what else might be offered as ‘evidence’ to the contrary, there is no other explanation for Bible prophecy. It is our generation’s unique miracle.

It proves that He remains in charge of the affairs of men. Scripture records His Promise in all three Gospel accounts, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35. Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33)

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:” (2 Peter 1:19)

Bible prophecy is proof positive that God remains on the Throne, that His Word will NOT return to Him void, and that all the chaos and terror of the world notwithstanding, all continues to go according to His plan.

Given the unbeliever’s explanation of uncontrolled chaos, Bible prophecy isn’t all that depressing, after all. What WOULD be depressing would be to be among the lost, not knowing what this world is coming to, and believing the world is in a state of uncontrolled chaos.

For the believer, Bible prophecy can be pretty encouraging, which is what the Lord intended for the last days’ Church all along:

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

Freedom Isn’t Free

Freedom Isn’t Free
Vol: 58 Issue: 4 Tuesday, July 4, 2006

This Independence Day, we remember the more than 2500 Americans that have given all they had to give in defense of freedom in Iraq, and we thank God for them, and for their families.

We thank God for all the American families who gave their sons and daughters, thousands more who gave up a limb, not for oil, not for gain, but to give the greatest gift of all: Freedom.

America sent its sons and daughters to Vietnam because the Communist North threatened to impose itself on the South. The politicians and the media each had their own agendas, but the cause for which America sacrificed fifty-six thousand young men and women was freedom.

Fifty-two thousand men went to the other side of the world where they gave their lives fighting to protect the freedom of the South Korean peninsula.

America sent millions of its young men to Europe in 1942 to restore freedom to the countries occupied by the Nazi horde . . . 408,000 never came home. Another 600,000 were wounded.

In one blood-soaked year, 116,000 Americans gave their lives to save the French during World War I. Not one of these conflicts were fought for conquest. Americans asked for no more land than was necessary to bury their dead.

America was founded by men who valued freedom so deeply that the Declaration of Independence, signed 230 years ago today, concluded with the solemn oath, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration, nine gave their lives in battle; five were captured by the British. Eighteen were utterly ruined for their devotion to the cause.

Lewis Morris of New York had his estate destroyed by the British, his cattle butchered, and his family sent fleeing for their lives.

William Floyd and his family became refugees for seven years. Floyd’s wife didn’t survive the war.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, an aristocratic planter who had invested heavily in shipping, saw most of his vessels captured by the British navy. His estates were largely ruined, and by the end of his life he was a pauper.

Thomas Nelson Jr. of Virginia raised $2 million for the patriots’ cause on his own personal credit. The government never reimbursed him, and repaying the loans wiped out his entire estate. During the battle of Yorktown, his house, which had been seized by the British, was occupied by General Cornwallis.

Nelson quietly urged the gunners to fire on his own home. They did so, destroying it. He was never again a man of wealth. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.

John Hart of New Jersey was forced to flee in the winter of 1776, at the age of 65, from his dying wife’s bedside. While he hid in forests and caves, his home was demolished, his fields and mill laid waste, and his 13 children put to flight.

When it was finally safe for him to return, he found his wife dead, his children missing, and his property decimated. He never saw any of his family again and died, a shattered man, in 1779.

These men were all men of great wealth and influence in the Colonies, but they gave all they had to give their countrymen freedom. Freedom is never free.

This July 4th, remember to pray for the American forces who remain on the battlefield, earning in blood the freedom that so many of us take for granted.

May God continue to bless them and keep them and grant them victory.

And may God bless us all.

Celebrating A State Without Statesmen

Celebrating A State Without Statesmen
Vol: 58 Issue: 3 Monday, July 3, 2006

Tomorrow is America’s 230th birthday. In America, we take stock of ourselves as a nation on an almost-daily basis, and America has few critics abroad more vociferous in their criticism than it does among its own citizens.

So the Fourth of July in America is not a day set aside to take stock of America’s shortcomings, or for deep national introspection. We do that all the time. The Fourth of July is set aside for celebration, not for wallowing in our national angst.

All year long, domestic America-bashers dominate the news, but on the Fourth of July, Americans come together to celebrate the American miracle. And interestingly, even the most secular of American patriots see it for the miracle that it truly is.

The same spittle-spewing atheists whose veins stand out in their foreheads at the very mention of the possibility the Founding Fathers were Christians who intended America to be a Christian nation will reverently remove their hats to proclaim the emergence of such a body of gifted men gathered together in single place at a single time a ‘miracle of history’ even as they deny the existence of the Miracle Worker.

There are entire websites devoted to proving the Founding Fathers were NOT Christians, seeking out quotes from their collective writings that seem to lend themselves to that contention.

I always found it a source of endless fascination to listen to someone wax eloquently in such a presentation. They lift a single sentence from a lifetime of recorded works, say, from Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine.

Then they build the case that the single sentence is more indicative of his actual worldview than the sum total of the rest of his public pronouncements.

Patrick Henry’s frequent references to Jesus Christ help make him a darling of Christian conservatives. Secularists prefer Thomas Paine, whose “Age of Reason” treatise mocking Christianity earned him a badge of scorn in his day.

Each of us knows ourselves intimately. Each of us knows whether or not we are Christians or not.

More than a few of us are past the summer of our lives, and have witnessed the changes that come with the passing seasons of our lives. Now, suppose your faith in Christ was judged against the least Christian thing you ever said in public over the course of your entire lifetime. Let’s try a little exercise right now.

Take a little walk down memory lane to those places you seldom visit. Now, judge your life-long devotion to Christ and your faith in Christianity — based entirely on the least Christian thing you ever did or said.

It is argued that Ben Franklin wasn’t really a Christian because he once expressed doubts about the Deity of Christ. Did you, in your entire life, ever express a similar doubt?

It is argued that the Founding Fathers weren’t really Christians because they opposed a state religion. For the record, I oppose a state religion, even if that state religion were Christianity. I don’t want to be governed according to somebody else’s interpretation of Scripture. I oppose a state religion for the simple reason that it might not be mine.

Genuine Christians would argue in favor of freedom OF religion, rather than freedom FROM religion. There is no conflict between Christianity and the freedom to accept or reject Christ.

Washington’s support for religious expression, including Catholics and Jews, reflected his Christian commitment to individual choice, often misrepresented as Christian ‘tolerance toward other faiths’.

But even as they deny the faith of their fathers, the secularists have no problem in detecting the miracle that brought them together at that particular point in history.

There are at least nine new books this year questioning the faith of the Founding Fathers bearing such titles as “Washington’s God,” “Moral Minority,” and “American Gospel”. Some raise questions about Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Were they Christians who found salvation in a personal God? Or were they deists?

What is a deist? Simply put, deists are devotees of reason who acknowledge the existence of God while denying any personal relationship. One who believes in God, but who worships reason.

James described deism this way: “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19)

Satan believes in God, but rejected a relationship with Him. Satan is an historical example of a deist.

So were our Founding Fathers, according to revisionist historians.


In the debate over whether America is a Christian miracle or just a miracle of the random chance sort, the miraculous nature of America’s birth and her unprecedented blessings since are beyond dispute.

The Declaration of Independence was signed by men who pledged “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” to the creation of the United States of America.

That wasn’t merely political rhetoric. Many of them were called upon to give up the former, and the only one to give up the latter, Benedict Arnold, earned him a singular place of contempt in the annals of American history.

The Founding of America brought together a pantheon of spiritual and intellectual giants the likes of which are unequalled in the annals of history. They stood against the greatest military power on earth at that time, trusting in God to deliver a new nation dedicated to the principle that freedom is the God-given right of all men.

No other time in American history were there fewer politicians and more statesmen than at its conception. A statesman keeps his pledge to put his life, fortune and honor to the service of his nation.

A politician makes the same pledge but spends his public life selling his honor to the highest bidder in order to increase his fortune.

To a politician, America is a life support system for a political party in which the political party’s survival is paramount. To a politician, what is best for the nation is his political survival.

Bill Clinton is a perfect example of a politician. In 1998, he wagged his finger, swore he never, (well, you know) and then successfully built his ‘defense’ around the ‘GOP witch hunt’ that ‘tore the nation apart’ and ‘wasted millions of dollars.’

During the entire time of national trauma and wasted effort, Bill Clinton knew the truth about whether or not he had (well, you know). But he allowed America to be dragged through the mud for two years anyway. Just to ensure his personal political survival — and that of his party.

George Bush came to office with the potential of being a statesman. The September 11 attacks thrust the potential for statesmanship of historical proportions into his lap.

But, as the saying goes, it is hard to soar with the eagles when one is surrounded by turkeys, and Bush has so far proved himself to be just another politician.

The last time the United States faced a truly existential threat, it was overflowing with statesmen and patriots. On this July 4th, the nation is divided over the question of whether or not treason is one of those American rights granted by the Founding Fathers.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is such a widespread phenomenon in America that it now has its own uniquely American acronym; “ACE.”

The New York Times has declared itself an enemy espionage agent, while members of the United States Congress and the liberal mainstream media debate whether or not treason is a Constitutional right.

As America enters its 230th year of existence, its 231st year is much in doubt. A democratic republic without statesmen is little more than mob rule by the biggest mob.

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Revelation 3:14-17)

Jesus addressed these words to the Church as it will exist in the period leading into the Tribulation Period. It is a letter-perfect description of the state of American Christianity on America’s 230th birthday.

To the Laodicean Church Age, Jesus writes, “I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.” (Revelation 3:19-20)

The word ‘Laodicea’ is formed from two Greek words, ‘Lao’ means ‘people’ and ‘dicea’ which means, ‘[self-evident] rights.’

Man Bites Dog . . .

Man Bites Dog . . .
Vol: 58 Issue: 1 Saturday, July 1, 2006

Man Bites Dog . . .

Saying that this world has gone crazy is an understatement of such monumental proportions that it is no longer newsworthy enough to rate mention. Indeed, things are so topsy-turvy that it is official acts of sanity that make headlines.

Reporting craziness has become the equivalent of the ‘dog bites man’ newsroom illustration; “When a dog bites a man, that’s not news. When a man bites a dog, now, THAT’S news!”

Close to a million Americans have rotated in and out of Iraq since 2003. All but a couple of dozen or so have done their duty with honor and high professionalism. The million honorable American volunteers who put themselves between us and the evil-doers are not news.

What is NEWS is when a handful of misfits run amok as they did at Abu Ghraib, or when a small handful go berserk with grief and conduct a revenge killing, or some other criminal behavior.

The fact that nearly a million young Americans stood up under the greatest challenge any human can undertake, armed combat, and acquitted themselves honorably is inconsequential.

There are still the occasional human interest stories about our troops doing something good for Iraqis thrown in for ‘balance’ but such stories are so rare, and they are presented with such fanfare, that the general impression is that this is something special, rather than the more routine, “US Forces Accused in Orphanage Massacre” type stories.

If an American robs a bank, that doesn’t mean all Americans are bankrobbers. For every bank robber, there are millions of honest Americans who would never dream of such a thing.

But if a young American soldier overseas, under stresses the general public can’t even imagine, commits a crime, the general sense from the media is that criminal behavior by US forces is the standard model, not the aberration.

Two Americans were recently kidnapped by al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. The mainstream media dutifully reported the story, then reported that the soldier’s bodies were found dumped in Baghdad. Some mentioned they had been ‘brutalized’ but once it was reported, it was over. A blip on the newsman’s radar.

But American ‘torture’ of detainees at Guantanamo Bay is a recurring headline.

America stands accused of incarcerating enemy combatants taken in combat on the battlefield, whisking them away to a tropical island, where they are provided with prayer mats, Korans, religiously sensitive gourmet meals, the finest medical care America has at its disposal, and even prayer calls five times a day and arrows on the floors pointing the way to Mecca.

And, occasionally, they are interrogated using non-violent coercion in the hopes of preventing another mass murder of Americans.

That is the actual state of affairs for detainees at Gitmo. There are NO credible allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay.

For a definition of ‘torture’, allow me to refer you to the largely-unreported state of affairs facing Americans captured by the enemy. It is graphic, but no matter how awful it is for us to contemplate, it was worse for Pfc. Kristian Menchaca of Houston and Pfc. Thomas Tucker of Madras, Oregon.

After being captured, they were tortured unmercifully. Their eyes were gouged out. Their genitals were cut off and stuffed in their mouths, presumably with the same blade used to cut off their heads.

Their bodies were so mutilated they were identifiable only through DNA, and they were booby-trapped before being dumped in the hopes of killing whoever found them.

But media outrage was focused on the US military for not preventing the capture, on the Bush administration for sending them to Iraq in the first place, and only peripherally and momentarily on the terrorists themselves.

Before shifting their attention back to the push to close down Guantanamo Bay and for the release its occupants back to the fight.

Because the detainees are being ‘tortured’ by the United States.


The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Bush administration exceeded its authority in ordering military tribunals was a legal technicality. If Congress authorized it, it would be legal. So Congress is preparing authorization.

It wasn’t a ‘repudiation’ of the Bush administration’s policies. If anything, it was a reminder to the Congress to get off its partisan platform and start doing its Constitutionally-mandated job of providing for the common defense.

But not to the same mainstream media that is more obsessed with closing Guantanamo Bay than it is outraged by the torture and mutilation of two young Marines. It rejoiced at the possibility that the US might be forced to release more terrorists into the fight.

The Supreme Court tacked on a finding that requires the government to afford Constitutional protections for Gitmo terrorists who stand trial. Further, it requires the government to provide classified information to the defense.

The government is unlikely to compromise its war effort to obtain a single conviction, meaning that few, if any, will ever see the inside of a courtroom. And while the government CAN hold them for the duration of the war, if it is forced to close Guantanamo Bay, where will they hold them?

THIS is what is causing champagne corks to pop in liberal newsrooms and Democratic Party headquarters across America. A defeat for the US government, and a victory for the terrorist side. Do you doubt me? Here is how the New York Times characterized it:

“The decision was such a sweeping and categorical defeat for the administration that it left human rights lawyers who have pressed this and other cases on behalf of Guant namo detainees almost speechless with surprise and delight, using words like “fantastic,” “amazing” and “remarkable.” . . .

“The courtroom was, surprisingly, not full, but among those in attendance there was no doubt they were witnessing a historic event, a defining moment in the ever-shifting balance of power among branches of government that ranked with the court’s order to President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 to turn over the Watergate tapes. . . .”

“In the courtroom on Thursday, the chief justice sat silently in his center chair as Justice Stevens, sitting to his immediate right as the senior associate justice, read from the majority opinion. It made for a striking tableau on the final day of the first term of the Roberts court: the young chief justice, observing his work of just a year earlier taken apart point by point by the tenacious 86-year-old Justice Stevens, winner of a Bronze Star for his service as a Navy officer in World War II.”

THAT IS how the New York Times characterizes one of the most crushing blows to the successful prosecution of the war against Islamofascism handed the US government since its publication of the now-worthless SWIFT financial-records operation.

I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. When it comes to the war, the Bush administration is indistinguishable from the US government, since it IS the US government.

Whether one likes Bush, is ambivalent towards him, or hates him passionately, the indisputable fact is that what hurts the administration’s war effort, hurts the country just as badly.

Having the Supreme Court rule against the government is not a victory for the ‘rule of law’, but, as the New York Times gleefully pointed out, it is a devastating blow to the government’s ability to fight the war.

This is no longer politics. It is an issue of national survival.

Where is America in Bible prophecy? How is it that the Bible can accurately forecast the emergence of the four spheres of world power in the last days, precisely as they have emerged IN THIS GENERATION, and failed to mention the greatest global super-power the world has ever known?

There are but two possible answers. The first, and most hopeful, is that the Rapture of the Church will so decimate and demoralize the nation that it will cease to play any meaningful role on the international stage during the Tribulation Period.

The second is that America loses the war and ceases to play any meaningful role on the international stage before the Rapture even happens. Which is apparently the preferred outcome by the American liberal left, provided George Bush goes down with the ship.

It is craziness squared.