Double Standards Mean No Standards At All

Double Standards Mean No Standards At All
Vol: 60 Issue: 30 Saturday, September 30, 2006

Double Standards Mean No Standards At All

Who is really winning the war in Iraq? It would seem to be a fairly simple question, with a fairly simple answer, if only we lived in fairly simple times. But we live in times that are so complex that sometimes one needs a sliderule and a legal pad just to figure it all out.

Today, we’ll look at just how complex things really are.

According to the Left, America has lost the war in Iraq already, but Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush are too stubborn to admit defeat. But according to Iraq’s chief operative in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, America is winning, and Abu Hamza al-Muhajer is not too stubborn to admit panic.

On the other hand, the administration is loathe to admit that America is fighting a war of religions, whereas Abu Hamza al-Muhajer is only too happy to admit that is EXACTLY what the conflict is all about. It is a war between fundamentalist Islam and Western Christianity.

“I call upon every free mujahedeen in the Land of the Two Rivers (Iraq) to do his best during this blessed month (of Ramadan), may Allah endow us with the capture of some of the Western Christian dogs, to free our sheikh out of imprisonment,” Abu Hamza al-Muhajer said.

Abu Hamza admitted to having lost upwards of 4,000 foreign ‘fighters’ — that is to say, al-Qaeda terrorists, which is distinct from the tens of thousands of Iraqi insurgents killed since the conflict began in March, 2003.

By contrast, as Hal Lindsey pointed out in a recent WorldNetDaily column, on September 11, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists killed 2,973 Americans in two hours. But it took five years for al-Qaeda, the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban combined, using all the force at their disposal, including Improvised Explosive Devices, ambushes, military assaults, mortar attacks, and whatever else they could dream up before they could equal that first success.

It wasn’t until September 26, 2006 that American battlefield losses equaled America’s losses in two hours on September 11. And it cost the enemy tens of thousands to do it.

Note that Abu Hamza identifies his enemy as ‘Western Christian dogs.” Note also that not a single member of the allegedly moderate Islamic world took exception to the characterization. Compare that to the overwhelming reaction by the allegedly moderate Islamic world to George Bush’s recent characterization of the enemy as ‘Islamofascists.’

One can justify the use of the compound word, ‘Islamofascist’ by examining it’s elements. ‘Fascist’ is a political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism and militarism.

‘Islam’ is the ideology of the fascists themselves.

So the objection raised by ‘moderate’ Islam is an objection to either; the goals of the enemy, (outlined and confirmed by the enemy himself, in print, on video, and in speeches at every opportunity); or, the Islamic ideology of self-proclaimed Islamic ‘true believers’. To accept the objections of ‘moderate’ Islam at face value, one has to redefine the English language on the fly.

But I notice that George Bush doesn’t use that phrase anymore. But ‘moderate’ Islam raises no outcry at the characterization of the West as ‘Christian dogs.’ Assuming the West is overwhelmingly ‘Christian’ is it not reasonable to conclude Christianity is what the Islamofascists are fighting?

But I also note that ‘dogs’ are generally small, furry pets with no ideology whatever, apart from being loyal companions capable of unconditional love (who are lousy shots.) Moderate Islam is not the only ideology that defines itself by the application of a double-standard.

Republican Mark Foley resigned from the House yesterday following the shocking revelation that he was exchanging torrid sexual emails with an underage male White House page. Foley resigned immediately upon this revelation, and House Speaker Denny Hastert accepted that resignation gratefully.

Does anybody remember the Barney Frank gay sex scandal in 1989? Frank’s gay live-in lover was recruiting boys from a local Washington school as male prostitutes. Frank apologized, received virtually unanimous support from his Democratic colleagues, and the whole sordid affair was quietly forgotten.

I am not suggesting Foley should be afforded the same treatment. Indeed, Frank should have received the same public repudiation that Foley is now being subjected to.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is demanding a ‘full investigation’ as other prominent Democrats seek to make it an election issue, as if all Republican Congressmen are closet homosexuals — evidently a much more reprehensible lifestyle when the target is a Republican.

When it was Barney Frank linked to homosexual conduct, White House page boys and similarly disgusting behavior, the Left didn’t just turn a blind eye to it, it embraced Frank as somehow being the victim of a smear campaign.

Mark Foley became a disgraced, EX-Congressman within hours of the story going public. Seventeen years after Frank’s pageboy scandal, Barney Frank remains an important and influential member of Congress.

Last week, Bill Clinton, in a livid, red-faced, bug-eyed rage, repeated poked his finger in Chris Wallace’s face and insisted that he did everything he could, (while saying it was a lot more than George Bush did) to ‘kill’ Osama bin Laden during his administration.

He repeatedly used the word ‘kill’ — a word that the Democrats jumped on in defense of Their Guy, noting, as Clinton intended they would, that Clinton’s objective wasn’t to ‘get’ Osama, but to KILL him.

Clinton made a point of saying, “I tried. I tried and failed, but at least I tried.” His words have been repeated over and over in admiring liberal news reports and by a fawning brigade of liberal bloggers.

Nobody, with the exception of Lt. Col. Oliver North has noted that, if Clinton’s defense of his administration is true, then it was a public admission that Bill Clinton broke existing laws prohibiting the United States government from assassination.

It is expressly against US law to attempt to assassinate anyone. Even Osama bin Laden.

Col North noted the following existing Executive Orders;

Executive Order 11905, signed Feb. 18, 1976, by President Gerald Ford in response to the Church Committee. Section 5(g) of that order states “no employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.”

Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036, signed by President Jimmy Carter on Jan. 24, 1978, broadens the prohibition from “political assassination” to “assassination” generally.

Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan on Dec. 4, 1981, specifies that assassination is against the law and contrary to U.S. policy. Section 2.11 of the order, which is labeled “Prohibition on Assassination,” says “no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” The next section (Section 2.12) states “no agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.”

No president, including George W Bush, has issued a contravening Executive Order, which means they still have the full force of law. So, if Bill Clinton was telling the truth to Chris Wallace that he ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden, he was in flagrant violation of the law.

That is not to say I have any personal objection to assassinating Osama bin Laden. I wish we had. The Democrats continue to slam George Bush for failing to kill bin Laden at Tora Bora, although, even in wartime, assassination remains a federal crime and a direct violation of existing law.

When Bush tried to kill Saddam Hussein at the outset of the Iraq War by bombing a cafe where he believed Saddam was holed up, the Democrats howled that, had Bush been successful, it would have been an impeachable offense. The point isn’t Osama bin Laden. It’s the double standard.

Noted Col. North; “So where is the “shock and awe” from human rights standard bearers who still complain about the so-called abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay? Do they not care that Mr. Clinton ordered an assassination?

Where are John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter and Colin Powell now? If we want the world to know our prisoners of war are accorded protection under the Geneva Conventions, don’t we also want the world to know we don’t engage in assassination?

And since presidential findings orders for the CIA to conduct covert operations are all highly classified, shouldn’t those who reveal them be held accountable?”

Well, shouldn’t they?


Of course, it is impossible, in the brave, new world of the 21st century, to advocate the application of any kind of consistent standard.

If one applied the existing consisting standard to gay Congressional sex scandals to Mark Foley, instead of accepting his resignation, Denny Hastert should have been all over the news programs accusing the Democrats of being homophobic bigots.

If one applied the existing standard to George Bush’s war speeches, Bush should have carte blanche to describe Islam using terms much harsher than any applied by the Pope.

If Islamic terrorists can call Christians ‘dogs’ without any backlash from Islamic moderates, then Bush should be free to at least obliquely suggest the Koran may play some role in inspiring and motivating the vicious and inhuman nature of the Islamic enemy in his argument that captured Islamic terrorists are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution.

(He ought at least be permitted to describe them as Islamic without fear of being called a bigot. They ARE Islamic, to the last man)

If Bill Clinton openly admits to ordering the assassination of anyone, including Osama bin Laden, then either he should be held accountable, or the law should be rewritten to include some rider allowing assassination if the target ‘really, really’ deserves it.

And if Democrats can argue that George Bush deserved impeachment if he had any hand in revealing Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA operative, should there not be the immediate empanelment of a grand jury to investigate Bill Clinton’s revelation of highly classified presidential findings on an international news broadcast?

Especially a presidential finding that sends a message to the world that US laws forbidding the assassination of a foreign enemy is really just a law that is meant to be broken?

If American law is really only a ‘suggestion’ applied on a sliding scale that is dependent on whether or not assassination is truly warranted, then Colin Powell would be right when he says that America has lost the moral authority to conduct the war against al-Qaeda.

Because if there is a double standard of conduct that depends on political party affiliation, then there is no standard at all.

An Important Note To All Omega Letter Subscribers:

Yesterday, the Omega Letter was blacklisted by SpamCop for violating Internet Spam Standards. Many of you remail the Omega Letter Daily Briefing to friends and family, and many of those recipients remail it on to folks they think need to read it. Including people who don’t want it.

Several people who got an unwanted remailing of the Omega Letter complained to anti-spam organizations who immediately blacklisted the Omega Letter email server, meaning there are lots of ISP’s who now refuse to deliver any email originating from the OL.

Including the Omega Letter briefing itself. An unauthorized remailing of the Omega Letter to non-subscribers puts the entire ministry at risk of being permanently blacklisted.

While you might think somebody needs to read some particularly relevant OL and your intention might be honorable, the result is that, at this moment, hundreds of Omega Letter subscribers are no longer getting theirs.

If a subscriber isn’t getting his Omega Letter, what is the point in continuing the subscription?

Several long-time subscribers have already canceled as a direct result of well-meaning, but unauthorized remailings that caused ISP’s to reject anything originating from the OL as ‘spam’.

The Omega Letter is, without question, controversial. It addresses issues that send certain groups ballistic. Atheists hate the Omega Letter and would love to see it go dark. Liberals hate the Omega Letter and would love to see it go dark. Certain Christian ministries, especially those who object to the OL’s pretribulational doctrinal position, hate the Omega Letter and would love to see it go dark.

Remailing the Omega Letter, even to friends and family, provides them with exactly the magic bullet they need to shut it down forever.

You might be certain that those to whom you are remailing the OL want to get it and won’t file a spam complaint. But if one of those who wouldn’t complain then remails it to someone who does, the net effect is the same.

The Omega Letter gets placed on a spam blacklist.

Our only defense against being blacklisted is that every person who gets the Omega Letter in their email box is also in the Omega Letter subscriber database.

If somebody remails it to an unbelieving friend in the hope it will help them to find the Lord, and that unbelieving friend complains about getting it to an antispam group, we have no database record with which to defend ourselves. And your act of kindness results in legitimate subscribers not getting their Omega Letter, either.

Since we can’t email them to explain why they aren’t getting it, they cancel their subscription. And, as noted earlier, even if they do know why, what is the point in subscribing to a service that cannot deliver what they subscribe to?

Not only is that unfair to those who DO subscribe, if enough subscribers cancel, it puts the entire ministry operation at risk of eventual destruction.

Please be fair. If you are remailing the OL to non-subscribers, you are doing so at the expense of those who do. Remailing the OL is ‘spamming’ under existing Internet conventions.

And you just might kill the entire Omega Letter’s ministry as a result.

UNIFIL-2 A Force of None

UNIFIL-2 A Force of None
Vol: 60 Issue: 29 Friday, September 29, 2006

The United Nations stepped in to stop the Israeli-Lebanon conflict by creating a new UN force to replace the totally ineffective UNIFIL force with the new and improved UNIFIL-2 force.

Kofi Annan had nothing but praise for the old UNIFIL operation, under whose watch Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah terrorists wearing UN uniforms while UN troops videotaped the whole thing for an episode of “Islam’s Funniest Home Videos”.

Of course, Israel had a less glowing assessment of the allegedly neutral peacekeeping force. When Israel learned of the videotape, the UN blocked Israel from viewing the tape for seven months — at first denying it even existed. But lying is ok if you are the UN.

After being forced to admit the existence of the tape, Kofi Annan refused to allow the Israelis to see it until after the perpetrator’s identities had been pixeled out. That was the old UNIFIL force.

What about the new and improved version? First, let’s consider their mission, as defined by UN Security Council resolution 1701.

Resolution 1701 calls for “full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state.”

Setting aside for a second the fact that Hezbollah is a legally elected part of the Lebanese state, rendering 1701 meaningless, Kofi Annan announced that the UNIFIL force had NO AUTHORITY to disarm Hezbollah. So, what did the resolution actually mean?

Well, it means that if Israel enters Lebanon with arms, they are in violation. Hezbollah has carte blanche to do whatever it wants, unless the Lebanese government, which is controlled by Hezbollah, objects.

According to UN mastermind Kofi Annan, The understanding was that it would be the Lebanese who would disarm [Hezbollah]. I think it is also generally accepted that the disarmament of Hezbollah cannot be done by force. It has to be a political agreement between the Lebanese; there has to be a Lebanese consensus and an agreement among them to disarm. In fact, before the war, this issue was part of a national dialogue going on in Lebanon; I hope they will return to it in earnest. Obviously, if at some stage they need advice or some help from the international community and they were to approach us, we would consider it, but the troops are not going in there to disarm.

UNIFIL2 isn’t there to implement UN resolutions. It is there to give Lebanon advice on how to implement UN resolutions against itself.

The force, formally known as the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon 2, The Sequel, now has 5,000 troops on the ground, including 1,000 from Italy. The force is larger and better equipped than an earlier UNIFIL contingent, which was weaker and smaller, but just as useless.

But that is like saying this inoperable car is larger and better equipped than the old inoperable car. And if you could start it, it might get better mileage.

But since you can’t start it, who cares? It looks nice in the driveway.

The UNIFIL forces say they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars, homes or businesses or detain suspects. If they see a truck transporting missiles, for example, they say they can not stop it.

So, what CAN they do? They can ask the Lebanese Army, who, as you’ll recall, take their orders from the Lebanese government, whom, as you’ll recall, is HEZBOLLAH!

When the resolution was approved, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of its principal architects, said the force s deployment would help protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area.

But the Lebanese people elected Hezbollah as their government. But that’s not important now. What is important is that there is a UN force without a mandate working indirectly for Hezbollah as part of a plan drawn up by Condi Rice to protect everybody from, well, Hezbollah.

Umm, are you confused yet? No? Well, stay with me. We can all follow the White Rabbit down the hole together. Maybe we aren’t too late for tea with the March Hare and the Mad Hatter.

The United Nations officials say their primary duty, and the one that carries the most long-term benefits for both sides, is to help strengthen the Lebanese Army so it can disarm Hezbollah.

If Hezbollah doesn’t mind, that is.

For now, officials say the first priority is to make sure that all of the Israeli Defense Forces withdraw from Lebanon. At the moment, the Israelis are too close for Hezbollah to fire rockets at them.

( Step back a bit. Farther . . farther. . . there! That’s perfect. Now smile and say, ‘Allah loves you.’ )

So, let’s recap before babbling on. The best thing for both sides is to strengthen the Lebanese Army which, as already noted, is answerable to Hezbollah, whom the UN resolutions demand be disarmed.

By whom? By the Lebanese Army that the UN is there to strengthen. But wait! Isn’t that the same as strengthening Hezbollah, who the UN is supposed to disarm?

Of course not! UNIFIL2 is there to help Israel. Aren’t you paying attention?


Evidently, strengthening the Lebanese Army which is governed by Hezbollah will enable the Lebanese to disarm Hezbollah, who is on record as refusing to lay down its arms.

And all of this is of benefit to Israel who, being thus benefited, are required to immediately withdraw from Lebanon, since the UN has handled the Hezbollah threat by turning control over to the Lebanese Army.

The process involves weekly meetings along the border to set up a schedule that allows Israel to withdraw and the United Nations forces to move in, followed by the Lebanese forces, who are actually Hezbollah, whom the Lebanese are there to disarm, so Israel can go home without worrying.

And just to make sure, UNIFIL is there with a mandate to ask the Lebanese Army what it is allowed to do before it does anything.

The UN calls this a ‘formula’ for ending the war started by Hezbollah when it violated every single international convention by invading Israeli territorial integrity to illegally take hostages in violation of existing UN regulations that call hostage taking a war crime.

Is it clear now? No? What are you? Dense? Let me try again. . .

The UN’s formula calls on the Lebanese Army, which is governed by Hezbollah, to disarm Hezbollah with the aid of 15,000 UN troops who are forbidden by Kofi Annan to disarm Hezbollah as required by existing UN resolutions.

So the UN sent 5,000 troops, instead. That way, they are too under-manned to disarm Hezbollah anyway.

Have you got it yet? No? Sheesh! Let’s keep trying.

The Lebanese forces under Hezbollah command are nervous about the new UNIFIL2 forces because they are better equipped than the old UNIFIL contingent, so the Lebanese are afraid of the new UNIFIL2 forces who are under orders to do the Lebanese Army’s bidding.

So, instead, the Lebanese Army under Hezbollah’s command is having the UNIFIL2 forces fix the damage done by the Israelis who invaded Lebanon after Hezbollah invaded them first and kidnapped their soldiers.

In one village where the Italian contingent contributed $3,000 to buy material to fix a school damaged by Israeli raids, the local mayor noted, It was a very nice gesture by the Italians.

(“Say. . . , you guys are all right But you forgot the pizza and beers.”)

Here is how UNIFIL 2 operates, according to an account in the New York Times:

Not far away, on a busy road heading toward Beirut, Italian Colonel Cappellaro stood beside two armored personnel carriers and 11 of his soldiers as cars sped by. He said that they were conducting a static point, as opposed to a checkpoint.

If they saw anything suspicious they would notify the Lebanese Army, who would then report it to Lebanon’s Hezbollah government and wait for instructions to pass back down to Colonel Cappalero.

When you don t know each other s procedures, you can not overlap, the Colonel told the NY Times reporter before climbing into his jeep and driving off.

So THAT is what the UN’s military force is doing to keep the peace between Israel and Lebanon. Trying not to overlap.

Is it clear yet? Or do I have to explain it again?

For Thirty Pieces of Silver. . .

For Thirty Pieces of Silver. . .
Vol: 60 Issue: 28 Thursday, September 28, 2006

What would you do to attain political power? Would to slander your own nation? Betray the brave young troops defending you against an enemy sworn to your destruction? Take actions that might destroy the nation’s will to fight?

Would you (gasp!) LIE to achieve your political ambitions?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, would you then wrap yourself in the American flag, and claim with great indignation that you are a patriot?

If you would, then the odds are good that you also subscribe to the New York Times. And you probably hate Fox News, love Bill Clinton, believe George Bush was behind 9/11 and have a closetful of tinfoil hats.

The New York Times’ published yet another (formerly) secret National Intelligence estimate, then defending publishing the leak under the revealing headline, “Dispute on Intelligence Report Disrupts Republicans Game Plan.” (That should give some inkling of which party leaked it and to what purpose.)

After the leak was published, the Democrats in the Congress seized on only a few key points, proving once more that getting elected is more important that winning the war or protecting Americans from future attacks.

Does that sound partisan? It isn’t. It is factual. Let me explain. If I were a champion boxer getting ready for a big fight, it would give me a tremendous advantage to know that my opponent was favoring, say, an injured rib. Knowing that, I would hammer away at the weak spot.

That is the very LAST thing my opponent would want me to know. So he would do his best to keep it secret. Now suppose his trainer, hoping to get a job as MY trainer, leaked that information to me.

Now switch perspectives to that of my opponent.

Suppose my opponent, who desperately wanted to avoid granting me any advantage, discovered that his trainer, whom he trusted, had tipped me off, knowing that the information would not only cause him to lose the fight but would also cause him great pain in the process, found out what his trainer did.

What would be his reaction to the the trainer who, ummm, let’s see, what’s the word? — oh yeah, BETRAYED him?

Would he thank the trainer? Would he accept the trainer’s explanation that he was being loyal to the sport of boxing? That the trainer believed that the sport of boxing would be diminished if his guy lost the fight and the boxing world lost the trainer’s valuable services to the sport as a result?

That is the argument offered whenever the Democrats (unless you believe it was a Republican that leaked the NIE to the NYTimes) leak secret information ‘for the good of the country’ on the theory the country would be better off with the Democrats in charge.

The leaked NEI estimate in question has the Democrats screaming ‘aha!’ because it concluded (last April, before top Iraqi al-Qaeda leader Adnan Zarqawi was killed) the war in Iraq was responsible for increasing the number of potential recruits to the terrorist ranks.

(Where they are too busy fighting highly-trained and well-armed US Marines to bring the war to unsuspecting civilians going about their daily business in the US homeland, one might add. )

The Iraq conflict, it says, “has become the ’cause celebre’ ” for such militants, and “the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.”

If current trends continue, the report predicts “increasing attacks worldwide.” (As of six months ago, when Zarqawi was still alive.)

Does it not follow that, if the terrorists believe they can win the war in Iraq, they will step up the pressure? (“Shhhs, that’s not important now. What IS important is that the Islamic militants are mad at us for fighting them”)

When the Nazis thought THEY were winning, they had a lot less trouble recruiting new Wehrmacht troops than they did when it became apparent that they were not. To quote John Kerry, “Who wants to be the last man to die for a losing cause?” Does that logic not ALSO apply to terrorists?

Now, let’s look at it a different way. If the goal of the “American people” the Democrats are so fond of ‘representing’ is to win the war, what benefit is derived from highlighting secret information that suggests America is losing?

What ‘fuels more terror’ in your estimation? Going to war against a determined enemy that will never give in? Or going to war against a half-hearted enemy who will eventually cut and run once the pressure gets too intense? What does logic (not partisanship) tell you?

What do you think the enemy would conclude about his chances if all the news he heard was that he was losing at every turn? Let’s look at it historically.

In the 1930’s and early 1940’s, Germans flocked to Nazi recruiting stations. After 1944, Nazi soldiers started surrendering in whole divisions. In 1945, Hitler ordered deserters to be hanged on the spot to stem the flood.

What caused them to desert? The fear of victory? Or the fear of dying for a lost cause?

While the NIE (which is supposed to be secret so that it can offer an honest assessment for strategic purposes) said the current situation (as of last April) was responsible for an uptick in terrorist recruitment, it ALSO concluded (as of last April) that a victory in Iraq would harm both the terrorists moral AND their recruitment ability.

(And AFTER that report was compiled, we killed the jihadists’ most effective leader, who has yet to be replaced by anyone of equal prominence. Who is in charge of the Iraqi insurgency today? Do YOU know?)

Let’s put both halves of the report together and see if it sounds as logical today as it did when Zarqawi was still running the enemy camp.

“Since we are barely holding our own against the Iraqi insurgents, they think they can win. So it is a source of improved morale and a boost in recruitment for the jihadists. But if we win in Iraq, it will cut into the morale of the fighters and cut into their ability to recruit new jihadists.”

So, what is the bad news here? Am I reading it wrong?


The ‘bad news’ is that the report is being used as a political tool to unseat the current Congressional and Senate majorities at the expense of improving the jihadists morale and the increase in its ability to recruit.

And it is being selectively quoted so that the only side that suffers militarily is America. The Democrats have long advocated a ‘new direction’ (code words for withdrawal in the face of a determined enemy) — which tells that determined enemy that if it hangs on long enough, they will win.

If the German population knew how badly their war effort was going in 1944, they would have quit fighting and the war would have ended a year earlier.

How many people on both sides died between 1944 and 1945 because that information was kept secret from the German population? The answer is unknowable. But logic dictates that even one unnecessary death was too many.

But that situation is only analogous to this one in a limited respect. In the case of Nazi Germany, they had no hope of victory. They were already defeated, but they didn’t know it.

We aren’t talking about Nazi Germany on its last legs, with no ability to rearm, resupply and recruit. We are talking about the United States of America at the peak of its military power with unlimited resources.

America ISN’T defeated on the battlefield. But, thanks to the New York Times and the partisans who put party ahead of country, most Americans don’t know it. That is what is kept a closely guarded secret from the American people. That we are winning. How could we possibly lose militarily?

The ONLY way the jihadists can attain victory is politically. They could NEVER win if the US pulled out all the stops and fought a total war against them. They could NEVER hope to win a war of attrition against the United States of America.

As long as the jihadists believe there is a chance at victory, they will keep fighting and they will keep recruiting new jihadists.

And that means Americans will keep dying on the battlefield until one of two things happen:

Until the jihadists are unable to find new recruits willing to die for a lost cause.

Or until America withdraws its forces because it believes it is fighting a lost cause. So what is the ’cause’ we are fighting for?

To break the jihadists’ will to fight to prevent further sneak attacks by jihadists aimed at breaking OUR will to fight. September 11th wasn’t aimed at defeating America militarily. It was aimed at breaking American morale to resist the jihadists’ goal of imposing Islamic values on America.

What is the aim of the jihadist enemy? Oh, yeah, ‘convert or die.’

Is there any debate here?

Now, we return to our earlier question. Who is best served by selectively leaking parts of the National Intelligence Estimate that says that the perception a US defeat boosts the jihadists’ morale and recruitment ability — and withholding the other half of the report that says an American victory will break the enemy’s will to fight?

The answer to that question comes in two logical parts. It serves to help the Democrats unseat the Republican majority of both Houses at the expense of prolonging the war by encouraging the enemy. And it serves to increase the risk posed to US forces in the field by giving the jihadist forces some hope of a possible victory.

It serves one particular political party’s chances to attain power by helping the enemy and damaging the government’s war-fighting ability. And the rationale for it is identical to that of the boxing trainer that betrayed his own fighter for the ‘good of the sport’.

The betrayal of America’s fighting forces is ‘for the good of the country’ because it will bring the Democrat’s to power, so the argument goes. Re-read the NY Times headline under which it broadcast the National Intelligence Estimate (just the bad parts) to the enemy. “Dispute on Intelligence Report Disrupts Republicans Game Plan.”

What was the purpose of the leak? To help American forces on the battlefield? To increase the chances for an American victory? To help the war effort by damaging enemy morale? Or to disrupt the Republican “game plan?”

To the forces that are dying at the hands of an encouraged and renewed enemy, it is ANYTHING but ‘a game.’ And let’s not forget the unmentioned part of the NIE report which says, “perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere,” while defeat would mean that “fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.”

There are idiots who will immediately assume that I am simply supporting the Republicans for partisan political purposes.

If you take off your tin-foil hats for a second, you will realize that American blood shed on the battlefield to gain an political advantate isn’t Democratic or Republican blood — it is American blood.

And it is shed to purchase victory now — not wasted to purchase a political victory for one side so that they can be withdrawn from battle today — at the expense of the next crop of soldiers who will have to fight the same war again later.

The jihadists won’t go home if we do. No matter what messages your tinfoil hat is sending you. They will be emboldened to keep up the pressure until they achieve their goal.

“Convert or die.” That is too high a price to pay for a temporary domestic political victory for EITHER party.

When Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ, he told himself that he was doing it for the greater good of the Jewish people to prevent a Jewish uprising by the followers of Jesus and the inevitable Roman backlash.

And for thirty pieces of silver.

Free Speech for Some. . .

Free Speech for Some. . .
Vol: 60 Issue: 27 Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Free Speech for Some. . .

Recently, Bill Maher told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC that Christians have a neurological disorder that “stops people from thinking.”

“We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. If you look at it logically, it’s something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. It certainly was drilled into mine at that age. And you really can’t be responsible when you are a kid for what adults put into your head.”

Said Maher: “When you look at beliefs in such things as, do you go to heaven, is there a devil, we have more in common with Turkey and Iran and Syria than we do with European nations and Canada and nations that, yes, I would consider more enlightened than us.”

Said Maher: “When people say to me, ‘You hate America,’ I don’t hate America. I love America. I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality. It is the 21st century. And I will tell you, my friend. The future does not belong to the evangelicals. The future does not belong to religion.”

In the past, Maher has called Christian conservatives the ‘party of paranoia’.

On the O’Reilly Factor last night, comedian Bill Maher went on another rant about Christianity, calling it, among other things, a ‘form of psychosis’. It was a quite a sight to behold.

At one point Maher asked, (I’m not kidding) a ‘What Would Jesus Do’ question about a person with bone cancer. “Would Jesus snatch the joint from the mouth of a cancer patient using medical marijuana?” (or words to that effect.)

Maher has made quite a career out of slamming Jesus Christ and His followers, and until last night, he was able to wrap himself in the transparent mantle of ‘progressive liberalism.’

Until O’Reilly interrupted him to say, “Bill, you’re coming off as a bigot.” Maher actually went white on camera.

“I’m not a bigot,” he protested weakly, but his reaction made it clear that ‘bigot’ was exactly the right label.

It so obviously shook Maher that O’Reilly followed up with something of an apology for him, saying, “I know you aren’t a bigot, but you are starting to sound like one.”

Baloney. A bigot is a bigot. You can’t ‘sound’ like a bigot by being bigoted.

Bigots like Bill Maher are a protected species in America. When they rant about Christians, they are just exercising their “right to free speech.”

O’Reilly had a rebuttal guest on following Maher, conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham.

Ingraham was pretty incensed about the whole Maher rant, until O’Reilly ‘calmed her down’ by reminding her, “That’s what so great about America. Maher has the right to say or think whatever he wants.”

Ever notice that whenever somebody like Maher or Rosie O’Donnel target Christians, they are exercising their right to free speech? But anyone who objects is stifled by the same phrase?

When Bill Maher says that Christians are part of a dress-up cult that hates sex and worships magic, as he did recently on his HBO special, it is ‘free speech’.

When a Christian speaks of his faith, he is a ‘demagogue.’

Don’t take my word for it. Take Bill Maher’s.

“And the worst part is the people bitching loudest about being persecuted for their Christianity aren t Christians at all. They re demagogues and con-men and scolds, and the only thing they worship is power.


I was called an ‘American Taliban’ recently for suggesting the Democrats were cynically exploiting Christianity by claiming ‘Jesus was a Democrat’.

One emailer sent a long, Maher-like rant cloaking himself in the Constitution before suggesting that I be deported to Afghanistan.

Why? Apparently for usurping a ‘right’ to free speech that evidently is reserved exclusively for ‘liberal progressives.’

But it isn’t about me. Or about progressive liberalism. Or even about hypocrisy. It is about what is ‘protected’ speech in America — and why.

As already noted, while O’Reilly accurately termed Maher’s rant on his program ‘bigotry’ it was immediately excused as being what ‘makes America great.’

If one wants to discover the limitations on free speech, all one has to do is say out loud that what makes America great is that it was founded on the principles of Christianity.

One of the principles of Christianity is that each of us is free to accept or reject the salvation purchased for us at the Cross. Another is to avoid giving offense;

“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” (Romans 14:21)

To say that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven is ‘hate speech’ and therefore not protected by either convention or law. That is the central objection lodged by the ACLU to public expressions of faith in the Bible.

Because if Jesus is the only way, then not believing in Jesus is an automatic condemnation to hell.

If one doesn’t believe in hell, then how can one be offended at the suggestion they will go there? If one doesn’t believe in heaven, then how can being excluded from it be offensive?

The reason is obvious. It’s because they don’t want to believe in heaven or hell, but they do. They don’t want to believe that Jesus Christ is alive, but they can’t help themselves.

The most powerful evidence for the truth of Scripture and the existence of Jesus Christ is the singular, blind and unreasoning hatred for both. Bigots like Bill Maher or Rosie O’Donnell would scoff at the notion. But have you ever heard either go on a similar rant against Buddha? Ever wonder why?

It’s because Buddha is dead. Jesus is alive.

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

Bill Maher knows that. So does Rosie O’Donnell. So does the ACLU. So does the devil himself. So proclaiming that truth is ‘demagoguery’. Denying that truth is ‘free speech.’ And anybody who doesn’t like it can just, ummm, well, shut up.

Or move to Afghanistan.

Special Member’s Report: Road Tour ’06

Special Member’s Report: Road Tour ’06
Vol: 60 Issue: 26 Tuesday, September 26, 2006

It’s been awhile since I’ve briefed the general OL membership on the progress of our road tour across the country. It has been somewhat different that I expected it to be, but learning experiences generally are. And this has been quite the learning experience.

The very first thing I’ve learned is that I was right in thinking I didn’t know very much about how to organize one very effectively. But there is no substitute for experience — we’ve learned quite a bit along the way.

For new members, a bit of background. We’ve been publishing the Omega Letter for almost five years, now. The Omega Letter’s mission is somewhat unique in that it isn’t aimed at presenting the Gospel to the lost. At least, not directly.

Most Christian websites work under the operational principle that a lost person will stumble upon their URL, read an inspirational message and respond to the altar call at the end. This is a good and noble goal, but, to my mind, not the most effective one.

Most Christian websites attract Christians, and then preach to the choir, so to speak. The most effective form of evangelism takes place one-on-one, in unplanned circumstances, between a Christian and somebody that they come in contact with in day-to-day living.

Every Christian is an evangelist, whether he knows it or not. The Great Commission was given to us all. So the Omega Letter is dedicated to providing Christians with the tools and information useful to those one-on-one daily encounters.

We believe this generation is unique in that it is this generation to whom Bible prophecy for the last days is directed. What was to previous generations a hodge-podge of heads and horns and beasts is to this generation as clear as the nightly news. Because it was to this generation that it was addressed.

The prophet Daniel understood nothing of the vision he was given, and said as much to the angel that revealed the vision to him.

“And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” (Daniel 12:8-9)

Those words are no longer sealed. Our mission is to connect the dots, comparing the events predicted to befall the last generation to the news of the day, together with tackling some of the harder questions that come up and answering them through the Scriptures.

We’ve worked at that, daily, for almost five years now. Earlier this year, I was impressed by the Lord that it wasn’t enough to write about these things from the comfort of my attic office, but to go out and get in the trenches with everybody else.

This spring, we sold our home and possessions, bought a used RV, and have been doing that as the Lord gave us the opportunity. We’ve covered the country from New York to California so far, and are halfway back across the country on the trip back.

We met with OL members at a gathering in Branson, baptized believers in Illinois, preached in Arizona and California, and so far, have met with individual OL members in New York, Illinois, Missouri, Texas, Arizona and California.

(I even put in an appearance opposite Hal on the Hal Lindsey Report while we were staying out there.) We’ve endured electric shocks, two trips to the hospital, a minor traffic accident, a couple of falls, glitches too numerous to mention, and I am happy to report that the Lord has seen us through it all.

I’ve been chronicling our journey as it happened, sending out periodic Road Tour Journal entries to those who’ve helped us along the way as the Spirit moved them. And through it all, I’ve been able to get out your Omega Letter every day, with very few exceptions.

You’ve all been great, enduring the occasional interuptions as they came without complaint. And I am so grateful.

This week, we are in New Braunfels, Texas, where we will attend another gathering of OL members, before continuing the circuit back to the East Coast.

Our eventual destination is North Carolina, where we will ‘hole up’ for the winter months in a rented apartment and I will spend some time with my publisher, Steve Spillman, and try and get out a couple of books I’ve been promising him for the last six months. (God bless him, Steve has been very patient with me.)

As I noted, this trip has been a learning experience for me. I’ve learned I am not very organized. By the time we resume the tour next spring, I will be. In the meanwhile, we’ll stay in the trenches, teaching and preaching in the Carolinas, and apply what we’ve learned to organizing for the resumption of our road tour next spring.

The road tour isn’t over yet. We’ve still some 1600 miles to go and many new opportunities to spread the Message along the way. We’ll be in the New Braunfels area for the rest of this week.

(There is information on the Omega Letter Member’s gathering this weekend posted in both the Member’s forum and the Road Tour Forum.)

From there, we’ll keep heading east along the I-40 corridor, planning to arrive on the North Carolina coast sometime in mid-October.

This is only the beginning. But it has been a good beginning. And we’ll keep on keepin’ on, for as long as the Lord wills and there are still people out there to meet. And of course, we’ll keep on publishing your Omega Letter every morning.

Until He comes.

The Politics of the Last Days

The Politics of the Last Days
Vol: 60 Issue: 25 Monday, September 25, 2006

The Omega Letter pays close attention to politics because one cannot separate politics from Bible prophecy and still be able to rightly divide the Word as it pertains to the last days. Bible prophecy not only details the coming of Christ for His Church and His eventual return at the end of the Tribulation Period, but also outlines how it all comes about.

Bible prophecy for the last days looks at it from both the earthly and the heavenly perspectives. The coming government of the anti-christ rests on three ‘pillars’ his eventual control of the political, economic and religious aspects of human society.

Those are the ‘signs of the times’ given us so we could know when ‘it is near, even at the doors’, according to the Word.

There are other signs — Jesus also said; And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 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. (Luke 21:26-27)

But these signs deal mostly with the Tribulation itself and are given for the Jews (and those who are saved during the Tribulation Period) that will experience the full force of them as they unfold. They apply to the Age of Grace only in that they begin to come to pass during the Church Age:

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

But when asked what would be the sign of His coming, the FIRST thing Jesus said was, Take heed that no man deceive you. Deception and politics go together like peanut butter and jelly.

There is a story about a Senator who dies and finds himself standing before the Pearly Gates. St Peter gives him a choice between heaven and hell. The Senator looks around at Heaven, which is kind of bland, angels sitting on clouds playing harps, etc. Then he looks around in Hell, where he finds gambling, parties, country clubs and the like, with everybody having a great time.

Returning to the Pearly Gates, he tells St Peter that he chooses Hell. So be it, intones St Peter and the Senator is whisked back to Hell. Only this time, it is the REAL Hell, with demons, fire and brimstone and eternal agony. The Senator looks up Satan and says, What gives? I was here yesterday and it was an eternal party.

The Devil smiles and says to the Senator, Yesterday, we were just campaigning. Today you voted.


While the Olivet Discourse deals primarily with the Tribulation Period itself, the Apostle Paul focuses much of his attention on the last days of the Church Age. Paul said that ‘in the last days, perilous times shall COME.’ He wasn’t speaking of his own age, but the ‘last days’ which ‘shall come’.

He described the social conditions of an age characterized by the fact that 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. (2 Timothy 3:2-5)

It is an uncomfortably accurate description of American politics and in particular, the politics of the American Left, and more particularly, the politics of the American Left in recent years. It makes the Left go ballistic when somebody says it out loud, but the best they can do to refute it is to say the Right exhibits many of the same characteristics.

And to be fair, they are correct. The Right does share many of the same characteristics but they vie for the same votes. That doesn’t change the fact the Left not only displays them ALL, they campaign on them.

It is the Left that campaigns on truce-breaking, ‘alternative’ families, opposing public expressions of Christianity, liberal social ‘reforms’ abortion on demand, legalized euthanasia, self-love, etc., mainly by accusing the Right of being too rigid, while claiming for themselves the high moral ground, even going so far as to co-opt Jesus into their campaign strategy.

Read Paul’s description. Take them one at a time. Which of those characteristics can you honestly say does not fit into the Left’s platform? Forget about Republican-Democrat labels. Look at the world view Paul describes and apply it where it fits the best.

The Democrats claim the Repubicans aren’t much better. And that is their defense. I agree with them. It isn’t that one side is not much better. It is that both sides are so close that the argument can be made in the first place. But not identical. When it comes to hitting ALL the points, the Left wins, hands down.

Watching Bill Clinton go ballistic on Chris Wallace during a Fox News interview, Paul’s outline kept reverberating in my head. Particularly 2nd Timothy 3:6-7: For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The former president accused Wallace of ‘sandbagging’ him by asking, several minutes into the interview, if he [Clinton] felt he had ‘done enough’ to get Osama bin Laden. But that question came in a context. The interview was ostensibly to be about the good Clinton has done since leaving office.

Wallace asked Clinton: In a recent issue of the New Yorker you say you re sixty years old and you re worried about how many lives you can save Is that what drives you in your effort to help?

It seemed a fair and respectful question, followed up by, Someone asked you he asked you if you could do more good as a former president than as a president and you said only if I live a long time.

Clinton said in reply, Yes, that’s true, from which Wallace followed up with, how do you compare the powers of being in office and what you can do out of office?

In his answer, Clinton compared some of his policies to those of George Bush, in the process bringing up the 9/11 attacks. Once that came up, Wallace then asked asked the next logical one;

When we announced that you were going to be on FoxNews Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President?

Clinton’s face turned red. He began hurling accusations. He accused ABC of being part of a ‘right wing conservative’ conspiracy. He accused Fox of being part of the same conspiracy. He attacked Chris Wallace specifically, claiming Wallace did FOX s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. . . . And you ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you re so clever

Wallace, clearly taken aback, tried to change the subject away from Clinton and bin Laden and BACK to the original topic, the Clinton Global Initiative.

Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative? Wallace asked him on THREE separate occasions.

But Clinton would have none of it. He kept steering back to how he had been the subject of a right wing conservative smear job, blaming the media, the 9/11 Commission, the ‘neo-cons’ and pretty much anybody who wondered why he didn’t do in eight years what he blamed Bush for not doing in eight months.

His angry performance, right down to pointing his finger in Wallace’s face, brought to mind ANOTHER eerily identical performance in January 1998, when, red-faced and angry, he pointed his finger at reporters and said, I did not have sex with ‘that woman’, Monica Lewinksy . . .

It was Clinton who sandbagged Wallace, and he did a pretty good job. Clinton never did go back to the original topic of the interview, his post-presidential accomplishments, despite three attempts on Wallace’s part to do so.

He never intended to.

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.

And it is working. Just like it did in 1998. This morning, the liberal Left took up his banner. It’s all a right-wing conspiracy.

Perilous times, indeed.

Thy Word IS Truth

Thy Word IS Truth
Vol: 60 Issue: 23 Saturday, September 23, 2006

As we progress through what can only be understood as the West’s post-Christian era, it becomes increasingly hard to accept the clear teaching of Scripture on faith.

The Scriptures tell us that salvation is a gift of grace through faith, so if there are parts of the Bible that may not be true, then how can anyone be sure that the parts dealing with salvation are not reliable?

Put another way, how many errors does a book have to make before it is unreliable? In the case of the Bible, one would have to answer, ‘only one.’

That is a pretty high standard to maintain, but it is the standard the Bible sets for itself.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2nd Timothy 3:16-17)

Similarly, the Bible imposes a demand of 100% accuracy, 100% of the time, on any who presume to prophesy in the Name of the Lord.

“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.’ (Deuteronomy 18:22)

This particular verse gets allegorized and spiritualized away whenever some TV evangelist offers a ‘word from the Lord’ on TBN that is later disproved. But the standard has not been dumbed down since it was given by God Himself to Moses.

It is often said by skeptics that to be a Christian, one has to leave his brains at the door of the church before going in. The implication is, of course, that nobody with any intelligence would believe in God or believe the Bible is His inspired work.

One of history’s greatest scientists was Nicholas Copernicus.

Copernicus was the astronomer who mathematically proved that the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun, and not the other way around. Copernicus believed in God, and often cited God in his works.

Sir Francis Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. Many atheists actually cite Sir Francis Bacon as having advanced atheism as a logical philosophy.

Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating;

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”

“…for as God uses the help of our reason to illuminate us, so should we likewise turn it every way, that we may be more capable of understanding His mysteries; provided only that the mind be enlarged, according to its capacity, to the grandeur of the mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the mind.”

Galileo, who was persecuted by the Catholic Church for his theories that the solar system was centered on the sun, expressly argued that the Bible cannot be in error, arguing instead that his theory was simply an alternate (and ultimately proved correct) interpretation of Biblical texts.

Rene Descartes was a mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. It was Descartes who formulated the ‘system of thought’ by asking what could be known if all else were doubted – suggesting the famous “I think therefore I am”.

Descartes is another famous thinker often cited to support the concept of atheism. However, Descartes conclusions actually established the near certainty of the existence of God – for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences – can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy.

Isaac Newton was an historical figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space.

Far from finding atheism in science, Newton found the evidence of God’s existence in the perfect harmony of predicted and fulfilled Bible prophecy. In fact, he indulged in a little prophecy himself:

“About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamour and opposition.”

Albert Einstein is another scientist often quoted by atheists as having proved the validity of atheism as a logical philosophy. There is no evidence that Einstein was a Christian, but there are his own words to disprove any argument that he believed in atheism.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.”

This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”


Putting one’s faith in Christ is not in harmony with the concept one has to ‘check his brains at the door’ of a church. The greatest scientific minds in all history found no contradictions between science and the Bible. If anything, the more they discovered about science, the more they saw the harmony that exists between science and Scripture.

Every generation in history has had its share of great thinkers, philosophers, scientists and debaters. Since the Bible claims 100% accuracy, 100% of the time, the Bible has always been the most tempting target to attack.

If one single fact in Scripture were conclusively disprovable; historical, scientific, geographic, or even biological, then the Bible’s central claim of authority — that is, its Authorship — would crumble, together with the foundations upon which both Judaism and Christianity are built.

The philosopher, debater or scientist who accomplished such a feat would be the most famous who ever lived. Keeping in mind all the generations, in all the countries in all the centuries since the Bible was assembled, who was that single, brilliant individual?

Nobody has ever claimed the title.

There have been usurpers who have attempted to disprove the Bible by using the various translations of the Bible, but the best they can actually do is cast doubts on the abilities of the translators. The translators didn’t pen the Scriptures, nor did they inspire them.

The Bible was written using the two most specific languages civilization has ever devised, and not a single word of the Hebrew or Greek texts has ever been conclusively disproved.

The Book of Job is believed to be the oldest book, chronologically speaking, written before Moses wrote the first five Books dealing with Creation and the Law.

Job lived sometime before Moses, somewhere in the Middle East. Yet Job records; “He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing (Job 26:7)

Who told Job that? Especially since it wasn’t until 1981 that astronomers discovered a huge, unexplained ‘hole’ in space in the direction of the northern hemisphere?

Before the time of Moses, Job explained the earth’s hydrological cycle, writing; “For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man.”(Job 36:27-28)

How did Job know?

The complex nature of how water is supported in clouds despite being heavier than air is clearly implied when God declared to Job “Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge.” (Job 37:16).

God asked Job; Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion? (Job 38:31). In the last century astrophysicists have discovered that the stars of Pleiades move in unison with each other, and are thus gravitationally bound.

What else did Job know?

“For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” (Job 19:25-27)

Then, we have Isaiah’s profession that the earth is round, 2000 years before Columbus proved it. (“It is He who sits above the circle of the earth . . .” (Isaiah 40:22)

Einstein regarded the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as the most immutable law of the physical universe. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all systems degenerate from order to disorder.

Hebrews 1:10-11; “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment. . .” confirms the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics two thousand years before Einstein proved it.

To accept the theory of evolution, which is the foundation of the atheist argument that there is no God, one has to throw Einstein out the window and argue the exact opposite.

Who checked whose brains at the door?

Preventing Another 9/11

Preventing Another 9/11
Vol: 60 Issue: 22 Friday, September 22, 2006

What would you expect the US government to do in order to prevent another catastrophic terror attack like the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001?

Let’s ask the question another way. If you knew what was going to happen on September 11, and you had a chance to stop it, what WOULDN’T you do? Suppose, for the sake of argument, you knew who the 19 guys were and what they had planned.

You are all riding on the same bus high in the mountains with a sheer drop over a cliff. There are a half-dozen innocents aboard, as well. Would you grab the steering wheel from the driver and plunge the bus over the cliff?

Even if it meant you, the bus driver and the half-dozen innocents aboard would all perish as well. If you KNEW what would happen on September 11 if you didn’t?

In one sense, it is a really hard question. In another sense, its a no-brainer.

If you could step into the WayBack Machine to 1911 Vienna and meet an obscure painter named Adolf Hitler, would you have any compunction against pushing him in front of a street car if you knew in so doing that you would prevent both the Holocaust and World War Two?

I confess that I would cheerfully shoot that then-innocent Bavarian painter in the head without hesitation. I probably would be less cheerful about grabbing the steering wheel of the bus, but I’d like to think I’d still do it.

Before you start criticizing me and quoting the 6th Commandment to me, think, for a second, about the passengers on Flight 92. Think about Jeremy Glick, Todd Beamer, and the handful of passengers who rushed the terrorists and forced their flight to crash into that field in Shanksville, Pa.

Were they murderers? Of course not. They were heroes whose names will be spoken in the same breath with the greatest American heroes in history.

My hypothetical scenario is, of course, hypothetical. Nobody could know in 1911 what Hitler would unleash. Nobody could know what carnage those 19 hijackers would impose on America on September 11. Except Jeremy Glick, Todd Beamer, et al. And look how they responded. We celebrate their heroism as much as we mourn their loss.

They had certain knowledge, and they took the extreme action their knowledge demanded. It raises all kinds of issues. They knew they were going to die, but that is not the same as taking action that would cause their deaths.

They knew the terrorists were going to kill them. To prevent it, they killed themselves and their would-be killers. Morally, was it the right thing to do?


Now let’s return to the original question. What would you expect the government to do to prevent another 9/11? Is killing a terrorist before he commits an act of terrorism over the line?

Is it wrong to kill an enemy soldier in combat? If you don’t, he will probably kill you. But if you kill him, by definition, you have killed him BEFORE he did anything to you. So are you wrong? Clearly not. The issues are starkly black and white.

This is the same question facing the government, only greatly expanded to include the inevitable shades of gray, since the enemy in this case goes out of his way to make it so. Our enemy hides in the shadows, disguises himself as an innocent, hiding to wait for the opportunity to strike.

When the government captures a terrorist who has knowledge of an impending attack, where should the government draw the line in trying to obtain knowledge to prevent the attack?

But, you argue, the terrorist hasn’t actually done anything yet. If that is the standard, combat soldiers would have to wait until the enemy killed them before they killed them back.

So, if killing a terrorist to prevent an attack is acceptable, why is it unacceptable to make him uncomfortable in order to get information that will prevent an attack?

The administration has agreed to abide by the nebulous and subjective terms of the Geneva Conventions when it comes to the treatment of captured terrorists. That includes promising not to subject enemy prisoners to ‘degrading or humiliating’ treatment in order to obtain information that might prevent another 9/11 attack. Congress has demanded that the definition be expanded to include ‘outrages upon personal dignity’.

What is ‘degrading and humiliating’ treatment? What constitutes an ‘outrage upon personal dignity?’ It depends on who you ask.

If you ask a Muslim, being interrogated by a woman is ‘degrading and humiliating’. If you ask a Congressman, being subjected to extremes of heat and cold are an ‘outrage upon human dignity.’

So, under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, these are now ‘torture’. Let’s see. You can kill a terrorist to prevent a terrorist attack, but you can’t torture him. Why?

Because, according to Senator John McCain, among others, if we don’t afford the terrorists the protections of the Geneva Conventions, they won’t grant those same protections to our prisoners.

If this weren’t so insane, it would be laughable. I know Marines who have fought against the enemy. They save their last bullet for themselves. Being captured means to be hideously tortured to death and decapitated.

The war has been going on for five years. There is not a single living American captive in enemy hands. The moment they capture one of our guys, they start cutting parts off him until he is tortured to death. Then his body is dumped somewhere in the street.

The moment we capture one of their guys, he gets three religiously sensitive meals per day, a warm, comfortable bunk, a prayer mat, a sign pointing toward Mecca, and a copy of the Koran, carefully handled to preserve their religious sensitivities.

We cannot subject him to ‘outrages on his dignity’ even though he would subject us to death without discrimination. It is more than obvious that, since he is dedicated to our destruction, he is not going to volunteer life-saving information about his compatriots because we ask him to.

And without that information, no action can be taken to prevent an impending attack. You can’t stop what you don’t know is going to happen. You can only retaliate afterwards. That is no consolation to the victims of September 11.

It doesn’t return fathers to their children, husbands to their wives, mothers to their families. At best, it just replicates the situation on the other side.

It doesn’t dissuade future attacks. It provides the motivation for them.

America is a good place. It is a place where human dignity is respected. Americans are good people. But America’s enemies are none of these things.

And the penalty for being a good people in this scenario is death.

That is the price demanded by the politically correct, although it is massaged and tweaked until it sounds like we are doing the right thing.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12, 16:25)

In reality, it is no different than a soldier in combat not killing the enemy until AFTER the enemy has done something to them.

It is a hard truth, but that doesn’t make it any less true. It doesn’t matter how good you WERE, after you are dead. You can’t do good things anymore.

I don’t know where America is during the Tribulation Period. The Bible makes no mention of it, so I only know where it isn’t.

And we may now be getting some inkling of why.

“I Can Still Smell the Sulfur”

“I Can Still Smell the Sulfur”
Vol: 60 Issue: 21 Thursday, September 21, 2006

I’m not certain, but I don’t think that Hugo Chavez is likely to get a Christmas card from the White House this year. (Or a ‘holiday’ greeting card, or whatever it is that the White House will send as it pays homage to the politically correct.)

When ol’ Hugo took his turn at the UN podium, he began by saying, “The devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.”

As Chavez made the sign of the cross and clasped his hands in a gesture of prayer, the UN delegates assembled broke into a round of sustained applause.

As Chavez ranted and raved against the United States, his audience, (seated in New York, New York, USA) alternatively chuckled and applauded. But they didn’t walk out. They kept to their seats, spellbound by an anti-American tirade that would have made Castro blush.

Chavez accused the U.S. of planning and financing a failed 2002 coup against him. If the US didn’t, it certainly should have.

Among the highlights of his address before his approving audience of UN delegates was his charge that America tries to impose its vision of democracy militarily in countries such as Iran and Iraq.

He called U.S. consumerism “madness” at a marathon news conference, saying Americans have wasteful habits in using oil and energy.

Really? The other day, I watched a thirty-second Citgo commercial extolling the “mad US consumers” to spend their money at Citgo stations buying Venezuelan gas and various sundries so that Chavez could buy the expensive suit he’ll have to replace after it was sullied by the sulfur smell at the UN podium.

I’d have to concur with Chavez on one point. Any American that does buy their gas from Citgo just might be a mad American consumer. Citgo is a wholly-owned Venezuelan state oil company. All of Citgo’s profits go straight to Hugo Chavez.

After his speech, instead of being arrested as an enemy alien, Chavez spoke to a standing-room only audience of AMERICANS at New York’s Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. Harry Belafonte introduced Chavez at the event, while former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark also attended, standing proudly among Chavez’ American supporters as they waved Venezuelan flags and chanted Chavez’s name.

Chavez told the standing room audience of AMERICANS that; “The president of the United States should go before an international tribunal.”

Chavez received a standing ovation from his AMERICAN audience when he said Bush committed genocide during the war in Iraq.

The Venezuelan leader signed autographs as a crowd rushed to him after the speech.

(Gee, I wonder which US political party was most represented at the Cooper Union when Chavez spoke?)

Among other highlights, Chavez warned of what might happen to the US economy if Citgo shut down its gas stations.

“Believe me, if I were to decide tomorrow to stop sending oil to the United States … the price would go up to $150, $200 a barrel.”

I don’t know if Chavez is right or not. If nobody bought Citgo gas, we’d find out.

So would Chavez.


Hugo Chavez is a clown. But he is a dangerous clown. But what makes him dangerous are the American leftist traitors like Harry Belefonte, Ramsey Clarke and those idiots who packed Cooper Hall to wave Venezuelan flags and clamor after Chavez’ autograph.

It is worth noting, at this point, that while Chavez called the President of the United States a ‘devil’, in an interview later with Fox News, he singled out Jesse Jackson for whom he expressed his admiration and appreciation.

It is these same quislings that exhort America to vote for their candidates in November, because they want to ‘restore sanity’ to the American government.

Hugo Chavez’ brand of sanity. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s brand of sanity. (Birds of a feather, as the old saying goes.)

It is also worth noting that if a Venezuelan politician were to express sentiments about Chavez similar to those expressed by Chavez about the President of the United States, he would be shot down like a dog. (And I don’t mean figuratively. I mean literally, as in shot down by a hail of bullets.)

And what is more dangerous than Chavez, or Harry Belefonte, or Jesse Jackson, are the assembled UN delegates who chuckled and applauded as Chavez ranted from the podium about the evil empire of the United States of America.

While Chavez was merely offensive, the spectacle of the assembled delegates of the United Nations applauding the characterization of the President of the United States as the devil is a portent of things to come. And they aren’t good things.

It is important to remember that it isn’t George Bush that the world’s assembled delegates hate. That is what the Blue State quislings like Belefonte or Jackson would like us to believe. But George Bush is just the symbol of America. Chavez would have made the same rant, and the delegates would have applauded just as long if it were Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry.

It isn’t America’s policies that they hate. It is America. It doesn’t matter that they would line up tomorrow to get visas to move to America if they could. They would still hate America, just like Jeanine Garafalo, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, Sean Penn, etc., etc. ad nauseum hate America. It isn’t natural. It is spiritual.

They hate America because America has been so supremely blessed by God. When Hugo Chavez wasn’t railing against America, he was railing against Israel. As were the rest of the delegates to the UN, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

America derives its system of government, including its guarantee of individual rights and freedoms that permits America haters to express their hatred for America from an American city at an American podium in an American building from the Creator God.

They hate Israel because Israel’s existence is an in-their-face reminder that the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph, the God Who took on the form of Jesus Christ and paid the penalty for the sins of the world, is still alive and still active in the world.

The REAL devil (not the US president) knows his time is running short. And as long as there is an America or an Israel, God still has a visible presence among the nations of the world. He can’t stand it.

His goal is to use the nations he controls to eradicate any visible reminder that he is not the ruler of this world, but is instead only a usurper whose kingdom is only temporary. That is why his hatred, as expressed by his minions, is so vociferous, so vicious and so unreasoning.

War is coming. A real, hot and bloody global war of which the war on terror is just the opening volley. The Bible calls it the War of Armageddon. It has already started. But the devil can read the Bible as well as we can, and he knows Who wins in the end.

Which is why he is so desperate to discredit it, corrupt it or banish it altogether. To keep it from falling into the hands of his troops.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

The Courage of No Convictions

The Courage of No Convictions
Vol: 60 Issue: 20 Wednesday, September 20, 2006

The United Nations hosted speeches by two of the most controversial leaders in the world today. The first was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a world leader seeking nuclear power that has dedicated himself and his nation to the destruction of Israel.

Ahmadinejad has a wide following; all 118 members of the Non Aligned Nations Movement met in Cuba to unanimously support Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons and to marginalize the United States at the UN by calling for the Security Council to strip Washington of its veto power.

In addition to Ahamdinejad’s following among the Non Aligned Nations was the head of the United Nations; Kofi Annan, who also attended as a guest speaker and who endorsed much of the NAM’s 92-page resolution.

The second was President George W. Bush of the United States of America. The fact that one could lump the leader of the United States into a sub-category of “most-controversial leaders” gives some measure of just how much the US has fallen in they eyes of the world community since the outset of the 21st century.

Each made their pitch before the assembled nations of the world. Ahmadinejad argued that his nation should be allowed to pursue nuclear technology for ‘peaceful energy purposes’.

He received ‘huzzahs’ from most of the delegates, who seemingly are unconcerned about some of the somewhat fuzzy details.

Ahmadinejad claimed in his UN speech that Iran’s nuclear activities are both “peaceful” and “transparent”.

Nobody questioned why Iran, a nation so awash with oil that it exports what it cannot use itself, would need an alternative energy source like nuclear power exclusively for peaceful purposes?

It may be a cheaper alternative in the long run, but it will take many decades before the savings realized from cheaper nuclear energy will reach a ‘break-even’ point from the billions and billions invested in getting there.

It would be lots cheaper to build more oil refineries.

Then to the second burning question, that of Iranian ‘transparency’. Why did Iran conceal its nuclear enrichment program for more than a decade if it had no designs on weapons-grade nuclear material? There is no dispute on the fact Iran deliberately lied about its nuclear program, or that it deliberately concealed it until it got caught by the IAEA. So how does follow that Iran’s nuke program is transparent?

Evidently, that is not important now. What IS important is that the United States is really the evil empire, says Ahmadinejad.

In his pointed attack on the United States, Ahmadinejad argued, “There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability.”

(Let me interject here that it was the only thing Ahmadinejad said that was arguably true. The United States does NOT have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability. We’ll get back to THAT later.)

Having made his only accurate statement, Ahmadinejad then negated it with his next sentence. “It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.”

There is no discernible reason why the US would want to either occupy or remain in Iraq, apart from US security.

Correct me where I am wrong here.

1) It is costing the US billions of dollars.

2) It is costing the US in international prestige.

3) It is costing the current administration virtually all of its political support at home.

4) The price of oil on the international market went up as a result of the US invasion, not down.

5) The only beneficiaries of the removal of Saddam Hussein’s government were the millions of Iraqis no longer being shot and buried in mass graves.

So what is the benefit to US security? Iraq has become a magnet for international Islamic terrorists hungry for a chance to strike at US interests.

If they weren’t in Iraq fighting armed US Marines, where would they be? America wasn’t in Iraq on September 11, but Islamic terrorists had been attacking the US for more than a decade.

Ok. Which of these points are demonstrably untrue?

Now, let’s go to the next inevitable point. I am just saying that because I am a mindless shill for the Bush administration. Try and see past the partisanship and look at the situation and how it affects ALL of America.

Would that be the same Bush administration that I criticize almost daily for its willful ignorance of the dangers posed by the Islamic threat?

The same administration that idiotically proclaims Islam a religion of peace and love hijacked by a few fundamentalists? The same George Bush who on one hand, claims to know Christ, but on the other, claims Allah is just another name for Him?

The same George Bush that allows the United Nations to walk all over US sovereignty and then shows up, hat in hand, to beg the indulgence of an organization that America both supports financially and hosts within its own borders?

Is THAT the administration that I can find no fault with?


I promised we’d get back to Ahmadinejad’s only factual statement. The United States does NOT have the necessary political will to eliminate the forces of instability in Iraq. Now we come to the question of ‘why’. The answer is that George W. Bush is one of the two most controversial world leaders alive today.

What makes Bush so controversial? Let me pose some more questions and see if the answer emerges. What would have been the consequences had Bill Clinton invaded Iraq in 1998 and toppled Saddam instead of merely lobbing a few bombs at Baghdad?

Well, what were the consequences when Clinton defied the UN and toppled Slobodon Milosevic in Serbia?

Slobo was tried for war crimes at the Hague and died in prison. Kosovo gained autonomy. The sectarian slaughter was contained. Why? Because the Serb separatists had absolutely no hope of defeating the united and committed Western powers.

What was the difference? Think about it. While the opposition party had plenty of criticism for the Clinton administration, their criticism was of the man, not the United States government. Politics stopped at the water’s edge.

Clinton may not have been the opposition’s choice, but he was America’s choice. Bill Clinton didn’t topple Saddam because he didn’t have the courage of his country’s convictions. That isn’t a partisan assessment. It is an historical one.

Think about it. The nation wasn’t united behind Bill Clinton, but it was united behind the flag. Is that a partisan assessment? Or an historical one?

George Bush DID topple Saddam, but his election divided the country along party lines. The flag was torn asunder.

The election, which by EVERY SINGLE recount, was won by George Bush, was sullied by the losers, who, to this day, continue to claim George Bush stole the election and therefore, was not America’s legitimate choice.

George Bush is one of the two most controversial leaders in the world today because America divided itself in 2000 into two separate nations, Red State America and Blue State America. Whatever Red State America favors, Blue State America opposes.

During the 2002 mid-term elections,the majority of Americans favored removing Saddam. In order to get re-elected, so did the majority of Blue State politicians. When the partisan political will shifted, Blue State politicians shifted their views, saying they didn’t really mean what they said about Saddam when they were trying to get elected the last time around.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world, who are as ignorant of internal US politics as Americans are of the internal politics of other countries, listened to the loudest voices. It is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, remember.

When Bush was re-elected in 2004, one British headline, commenting on Bush’s clear victory, lamented, “How Could Fifty-Five Million Americans Be So Dumb?”

It is perhaps illustrative of the point I am making that how what I am saying is perceived will be absorbed along partisan, rather than American lines. Ask yourself two questions. Is it better for America that we win in Iraq? Or is it better for America that we lose?

Ok. Time’s up. Let’s go to two more questions.

Is it better for Blue State America’s political fortunes if we win in Iraq? Or is it better for Blue State America’s political fortunes if we lose?

(Since it is better for Red State America both as Americans AND for their political fortunes, there is no real point in asking THEM. Their answer would be the same in both cases.)

So, let’s go back to situation at hand. Why aren’t we winning in Iraq? Let’s try and simplify it with an analogy. If Mohammed Ali fought Joe Frazier with one hand tied behind his back, who would have gone down in history as ‘the Greatest’? Ali? Or Frazier? Would it matter which fighter you liked best?

If the answer isn’t obvious, you aren’t being honest with yourself.

It is obvious to the terrorists. As long as America fights with one hand tied behind its back, they have a chance to win. So they keep fighting. Both sides will keep dying. The terrorists have an ace in the hole. They don’t care how many die, as long as they eventually emerge victorious. So they keep killing Americans, no matter what the cost. They have the courage of their convictions.

To Blue State America, the only victory that counts is the one over George Bush. So the terrorists have the added courage of Blue State America’s convictions that winning at the polls is the supreme goal. America therefore suffers from Red State America’s convictions that the supreme goal is America’s military victory.

Maybe it is just clearer to me because I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I just love America, period. (For those who’ve forgotten, or don’t know, I was born in Canada. I didn’t grow up under either political banner. I see America as one country, no matter which party is in control. To me, it is like watching a couple going through a divorce when I like them both.)

Ahmadinejad gets it better than they do. It isn’t about favoring a Republican over a Democrat, or vice versa. Ahamdinejad couldn’t care less. He wants to see America defeated, regardless of who is in charge.

The simple fact is this. A divided America can be defeated. The proof is in the pudding. Just read this morning’s headline in the UK’s Guardian newspaper. It reads, “Ahmadinejad Has a Point.”

How did THAT happen?