The Strangest Dispute in History

The Strangest Dispute in History
Vol: 63 Issue: 19 Tuesday, December 19, 2006

In 1995, the United States Congress passed into law the ‘Jerusalem Embassy Act’ that required the United States to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel’s declared capital at Jerusalem.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 passed by a margin of 93-5 in the US Senate and had the overwhelming support of the American people.

Section two of the Act states that:

“(1) Each sovereign nation under international law and custom can designate its own capital;

(2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the state of Israel;

(3) The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s president, parliament, and Supreme Court, and the cite of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions;

(4) The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths;

(5) From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan;

(6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War;

(7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

Section three states:

“(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group is protected,

(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel.”

Up until this year, only two states had moved their embassies to Jerusalem — Costa Rica and El Salvador. This year both states acknowledged that as an ‘historical error’ that cost them the friendship of the Arab world, and moved their embassies back to Tel Aviv.

Despite the Act’s lack of ambiguity and the overwhelming margin by which it was passed, the Act has yet to be implemented. The legislation included a ‘wiggle clause’ that allows the President to postpone the move for six months, if he believes such a move would be harmful to national security.

So, every six months for the last eleven years, starting with Bill Clinton and with George Bush following the Clinton precedent, the Executive Branch has exercised its option to defer the move for another six months.

This week, George Bush put off the move for the 23rd time since the Act was passed.

Assessment:

Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem would be enormously significant to Israel’s claim of ownership of the Holy City, which is hotly disputed by the Palestinians.

The Palestinian position is that Jerusalem is really a Palestinian city known as ‘al Quds’ and that Israel has no legitimate historical claim to the city.

That is as historically accurate as claiming that Washington, D.C. is not really an American city, but evidently, it is a fiction the world is ready to accept, eyes wide open.

The City of Jerusalem was founded 3,000 years ago by King David, who purchased it from Ornan the Jebusite, for six hundred shekels of gold by weight. Ornan offered to give his threshingfloor, but David wanted to ensure his ownership claim was indisputable.

“And Ornan said unto David, Take it to thee, and let my lord the king do that which is good in his eyes: lo, I give thee the oxen also for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meat offering; I give it all.”

“And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings without cost.” (1st Chronicles 21:23-24)

Having purchased Ornan’s threshing-floor at above fair-market value, King David founded the city of Jerusalem. His son, Solomon, constructed the First Temple on the site of Ornan’s threshing-floor.

While the Palestinians deny Israel’s historical claim to the city, they do not dispute Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of the city in 586 BC. Neither can they deny the existence of the Western Wall of Solomon’s Temple, which stands in mute testimony to Israel’s historical claim.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of artifacts attesting to the Jewish possession of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, not to mention Israel’s historical presence in Judea and Samaria, claimed by the Palestinians as the ‘West Bank.’

Secular historical accounts reference Solomon’s Temple. That Cyrus sent Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple is confirmed by secular Persian royal records.

Flavius Josephus’ epic historical account of the ‘Wars of the Jews’ was published in the 1st century and is an eyewitness account of the Jewish history of the last half of the first century.

Josephus confirms the Jewishness of the West Bank, the Jewishness of Jerusalem, the existence and destruction of Herod’s Temple and the Roman deportation of the Jews into the Diaspora.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were indisputably written by Jews, and were indisputably buried by Jews in AD 70, and were found in 1947 in the West Bank, where they had indisputably remained undisturbed for almost 1,900 years.

The Dead Sea Scrolls included a vast library of documents attesting to Jewish ownership of the disputed territories. It is equally indisputable that not one of those documents was either forged or less than 1,900 years old.

Yet Jewish historical ownership and possession of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the West Bank is THE most hotly disputed territorial claim on the face of the earth.

Even though the Congress explicitly recognized Israel’s land claim in 1995, the Executive has deferred action BECAUSE of the ownership dispute.

When one sits back and takes a look at it objectively, it is nothing less than other-worldly. How could anybody credibly dispute the historical Jewish connection to Jerusalem? More than that, how could anybody give the disputed claim even a first hearing?

It is as historically absurd as arguing that the Europeans got to America before the Indians did. But 191 out of 191 countries take the official position that Israel’s claim of historical ownership is sufficiently vague as to justify withholding official recognition.

Including the United States of America, for the 23rd time in a row.

It is surreal.

Signs, Signs, Everywhere Are Signs

Signs, Signs, Everywhere Are Signs
Vol: 63 Issue: 18 Monday, December 18, 2006

Eight Episcopal churches in Northern Virginia voted to bolt from the denomination, widening the growing schism among America’s 2.2 Episcopalians.

First, a little background. The Episcopal Church is the American branch of the Church of England, or Anglican Church.

England had been Catholic for almost a thousand years until it separated from the Vatican in 1534. Henry the VIII applied to the Vatican for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

The sitting Pope, Clement VIII refused to grant one, so Henry VIII split with the Vatican and declared himself spiritual head of the Church of England. As the Anglican ‘pope’, Henry VIII could ensure his annulment request would be approved.

Henry gave himself lots of annulments. He granted himself four of them via his role as head of the church, and ‘divorced’ two others by chopping off their heads, via his role as head of state.

Following the Reformation, the Archbishop of Canterbury assumed the role of ‘spiritual head’ of the Church, but the sitting British monarch holds the title of “Supreme Governor of the Church of England.”

The Northern Virginia Episcopal diocese split wide open following the decision to ordain Gene Robinson as the denomination’s first openly homosexual bishop in 2003.

Following the decision, 24 parishes in the huge Virginia diocese partially or totally cut off funding to the diocese.

Bishop Peter Lee, the Episcopal Bishop of Virginia, made matters worse when he addressed some 500 leading Episcopalians on the matter a few months later.

Amazingly, he told the delegates, “If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy.”

And Lee wasn’t kidding when he said it. “For as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion,” Bishop Lee said, quoting Presbyterian scholar James McCord.

“As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time.”

Rev. Martyn Minns, director of the Virginia branch of the American Anglican Conference, responded that Lee’s heresy comment was “doubly condescending,” Mr. Minns said. “It made light of the true pain we are experiencing.”

After almost two years of debate, the pain had turned to resolve.

The eight churches reported the vote among their combined congregations was almost unanimous. The departing congregations make up roughly 10 percent of the diocese’s 90,000 members and about 17 percent of the 32,000 people in the pew on an average Sunday.

Assessment:

I looked up ‘heresy’ in my handy Thesaurus (a standard feature of Mac OS X, I might add) and found the following synonyms for heresy; unorthodoxy, apostasy, blasphemy, freethinking; agnosticism, atheism, nonbelief; idolatry, paganism.

In that light, the statement: “When it comes to a choice between schism and heresy, choose heresy every time” is as staggering as a punch in the stomach.

It also makes me wonder why only 10 percent of Viriginia’s Episcopalians voted to flee. What is wrong with the rest of them?

The Episcopal Church of America was once one of America’s most conservative denominations. It was also among the country’s most respected. Fully twenty-five percent of all US presidents were Episcopalian.

Consider Bishop Lee’s comments in their full context. He was addressing the discontent among church members at the ordination of an openly gay bishop.

In that context, he called it a ‘heresy’ — which eliminates any lingering doubt as to whether the denomination really believes such ordinations are Biblical. Having openly admitted it as ‘heresy’ he took it to the next level and said heresy is acceptable.

It is worth requoting his exact words again: “Choose heresy every time.”

America makes no appearance in Bible prophecy during the Tribulation, but her fingerprints are all over the New Testament Epistles.

In this last generation, it is pretty much an accepted political fact that America is the world’s representative Christian nation. Genuine Christians may disagree, but that’s how the world sees the US.

That’s how Israel sees us. That’s how Europe sees us. That’s how Russia sees us. And it is certainly how the Islamic world sees us.

And if one compares American Christianity to the predicted state of the Church Age in the last days, it is a mirror image picture.

Paul could have been commenting on this exact heresy when he wrote;

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:26-27)

Paul could have been responding directly to Bishop Lee’s defense of heresy when he followed with:

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” (Romans 1:28)

He could have been describing the overall state of the major Protestant denominations when he warned Timothy;

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (Timothy 4:3-4)

Lee’s comments — and their acceptance by the majority of his denomination, are also a perfect match for another of Paul’s Epistles — this one to the Church at Thessolonica.

Paul wrote them to directly address another heresy that had crept into their church. The Thessalonians were afraid they had missed; “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:1)

Note the following. First, the Thessalonians believed that the Lord was coming and expected to be ‘gathered together unto Him.’ Secondly, they thought they’d missed it.

“That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.” (v. 2:2)

If they believed they had missed it, but were still there, going about their daily lives, then what does that imply? It implies two very important things.

The first is that fully they expected to gathered unto Jesus BEFORE the Tribulation, and NOT at the 2nd Coming.

Jesus said that at the 2nd Coming, EVERY EYE will see Him. The Thessalonians hadn’t seen Him, so they couldn’t have believed they missed the 2nd Coming of Christ. Any other reading of it fails the logic test.

The second thing that it implies is the pre-trib Rapture is NOT some new doctrine invented by Margaret MacDonald in the 19th century, since Paul said he was the one who taught them of a secret gathering of the Church to the Lord in the first place.

“Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” (v. 2:5)

Paul also told them that day “shall not come, except there come a falling away first. . . ”

The word translated ‘falling away’ is ‘apostasia’ — from which we get our word ‘apostasy’ — which is a synonym for ‘heresy.’ Which is what Bishop Lee declared to be a good thing — while retaining 90% of his congregation — who evidently agree.

I headed today’s briefing, “Signs, Signs, Everywhere Are Signs” as a play on words from an old song title. Jesus was asked directly for signs from His disciples and He accommodated them.

“And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

The very first sign Jesus listed of His soon return was,

“Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in My Name, saying, I am Christ; AND SHALL DECEIVE MANY.” (Matthew 24:5b-6)

The signs all point to His soon return for His Church first — and soon! — so that “Wicked” can be revealed. (2nd Thessalonians 2:8)

Sometimes, even bad news can be good.

Leaving Gitmo

Leaving Gitmo
Vol: 63 Issue: 16 Saturday, December 16, 2006

Since 2002, the United States has released some 360 detainees from the US military POW camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Associated Press assigned a reporter to track what happened to them, and, in the process, make the case that the detainees were released by the US because they were innocent in the first place.

Some of the AP’s published findings included the information that, of the 245 detainees the AP claimed it was able to track after release, 205 of them were immediately released by their home countries as soon as they were repatriated.

The AP report suggested that the fact they were released a second time when they got home is really evidence that the majority of those incarcerated at Gitmo were innocent all along.

But, propaganda aside, the report painted a picture of just how alone the US finds itself in the allegedly ‘global’ war on terror.

For example, Afghanistan immediately released every single one of the 83 Afghan detainees repatriated by the US. But the AP dismissed a Pentagon claim that some twenty percent of those ‘innocent’ newly-released Afghani detainees were later recaptured or killed on the battlefield while in combat with US forces.

A number of those now being held at Gitmo are already on their ‘second tour’ at the facility.

Having been repatriated to their home countries, they went right back to their units, were recaptured on the battlefield, sent back to Gitmo, where they joined the rest of the ‘innocent’ detainees being ‘tortured’ by American service personnel.

Every detainee that has been repatriated to Britain, Spain, Germany, Russia, Australia, Turkey, Denmark, Bahrain and the Maldives was released within hours of repatriation.

They immediately held press conferences to protest their illegal detention. The press accepted without question their stories of the horrors they endured while in US captivity.

Clive Stafford Smith, a British-American attorney representing several detainees, said the AP’s findings indicate that innocent men were jailed and that the term “continued detention” is part of “a politically motivated farce.”

“The Bush Administration wants to be able to say that these are dangerous terrorists who are going to be confined upon their release … although there is no evidence against many of them,” he said.

Why would the US do that? What IS the ‘political motivation’ behind this ‘farce’? What benefit does either the Pentagon or the Bush administration obtain by maintaining a military prison at Gitmo? The AP didn’t say.

And a Washington Post story recently published under the headline, “Blocking Justice” castigated the US Congress for passing “The Military Commissions Act” that they claim puts the Gitmo detainees outside the US legal system.

Where does ‘justice’ come into the equation? The Washington Post didn’t explain.

The focus of the Post’s story was one Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose case was argued by the Post without ever mentioning why Hamdan was at Gitmo in the first place. Allow me to fill in the blanks on this one.

Hamdan was captured during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, during which time, he was Osama bin Laden’s personal bodyguard and chauffeur, a fact he admitted before a military tribunal.

According to both the Washington Post and the Associated Press, the Gitmo detainees, including Osama’s closest aide, were deprived of both Constitutionally mandated legal guarantees and the rights and privileges provided for by the Geneva Conventions.

Assessment:

During the 1990’s organized militant terrorism was treated as a law enforcement problem, rather than a military one. In defense of the Clinton administration, the reason for that was because there are internationally accepted rules of war.

Those rules of war are governed by the Geneva Conventions. To be covered by the Geneva Conventions, combatants must meet certain standards as combatants.

They must wear distinctive uniforms distinguishable at a distance, openly carry weapons, and are obliged to make every effort to avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian property.

Under the Geneva Conventions, combatants are forbidden to use non-combatant civilians and civilian property as shields or camouflage.

The Islamic terrorist enemy uses mosques and schools as weapons depots. They use civilians as human shields. They wear no uniforms. They prefer hidden weapons, like IEDs or suicide belts.

They use ambulances to transport weapons and fighters. And when they take prisoners, they are either used as hostages or tortured and executed before a video camera.

There are, to the best of anybody’s knowledge, NO living prisoners of war in enemy hands.

Finally, the Geneva Conventions only apply to combatants whose countries are signatories to the Conventions. What country does al-Qaeda fight for?

So, under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, terrorists are NOT combatants, but criminal murderers.

But treating it as a law enforcement problem has jurisdictional limits, which is why the US issued a formal declaration that America is engaged in a war on ‘terror’.

But terror is a tactic, not an enemy. That’s what makes this war so confusing. NONE of the rules of war apply. Neither does criminal law, since many of the crimes committed against the United States take place outside US jurisdiction.

There is no applicable law governing the detention and treatment of unlawful enemy combatants. That isn’t the US administration’s ‘position’ so much as it is a matter of fact.

Since the majority of the enemy are abroad and aren’t bound by US law, they aren’t legally criminals. Since the Geneva Conventions do not apply, they aren’t legally prisoners of war.

They don’t even qualify as ‘political prisoners’ since they aren’t fighting against their own governments. Since there is no right answer, one answer is as good as another.

The ‘right’ answer is therefore whatever answer favors your preferred side.

So whose side is the Washington Post on? Whose side is the Associated Press on? Whose side are the anti-war Congressional Democrats on?

These are fair questions.

They defend the ‘rights’ of the terrorists’ and attack the United States’ conduct in both its military operations and its treatment of the enemy.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln, quoting the Bible, observed in a speech that “a house divided cannot stand.”

America is under attack from without, from within, and from on all sides. The terrorists can do no wrong, and America can do no right.

The enemy tortures and kills its prisoners, hides among civilian populations, and makes no distinction between military and civilian targets.

We wear latex gloves when handing out Korans to Gitmo prisoners so that they aren’t defiled by the infidel’s touch.

We serve them culturally sensitive gourmet meals, provide them with better medical care than most American citizens can afford for themselves, and ensure each cell has a arrow painted on the floor pointing toward Mecca.

Justice denied? Gitmo detainees are really innocent victims of a ‘politically motivated farce’? That is what our OWN media is reporting.

Judging by the conduct of the mainstream media, we owe Axis Sally, Tokyo Rose and Hanoi Hannah an apology. Josef Goebbels would have been proud.

It is worth noting that the loudest voices of opposition are also the most vitriolic opponents of what they call ‘Christian neo-conservatism’ — or, in simpler times, what used to be simply called “fundamental Christianity.”

It isn’t America that is the target of the mainstream Left. It is ‘Christian’ America. Given the choice between defending fundamental Christianity and fundamental Islam, they choose Islam every time.

Why? Because Jesus said they would:

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. ” (Matthew 10:34-36)

The Apostle Paul addressed the last days of the Church Age in his 2nd Letter to Timothy. He wrote, “This know also, in the last days, perilous times shall come.” (2nd Timothy 3:1)

It is hard to imagine times more perilous than these.

Sit-Rep 07

Sit-Rep 07
Vol: 63 Issue: 15 Friday, December 15, 2006

I am overdue in posting a situation report on what is going on behind the scenes at the OL, what’s been occupying my time, and what our plans are for next year.

First off, some of you have noticed that Hal’s website is behaving somewhat strangely. Many of the links from Oracle to other websites, (including the OL) are not working.

Hal has hired a new webmaster to work with him locally on a new web project that will focus its attention more on video streaming than written commentary. While the new webmaster, Heath, is developing the new project, the current website is acting as a ‘place-marker’ until the new website is developed.

Mike is no longer working with Oracle, devoting himself full-time to redesigning the Omega Letter. It is a win-win situation for all concerned.

Hal is able to work locally with his new webmaster, which is a lot less time-consuming than trying to communicate new ideas via email and telephone conferences. I don’t have to wear two hats as editor of two different websites.

And Mike is free to redesign and develop your new Omega Letter. This is a very exciting project that I have high hopes for. The new web design will be much cleaner, with many new features we’ve never had before.

In the meantime, the existing website will continue operate as it always has.

I have been working very hard on a new book with Steve Spillman of True Potential Publishing. Right now, it has the working title of “Ten Signs We Are Living in the Last Days” — but that is more a description of the content than the final title.

Steve hopes to have it printed by April 1st and in time for the 2007 OL Road Tour. We are hoping that book sales will help with the financing of the tour — which, as we learned in 06, is a lot more expensive than we had anticipated.

And speaking of the Road Tour ’07 — as I mentioned briefly in an earlier OL, Nicole Boedecker has agreed to serve as our Road Tour Coordinator.

Nicole will take on the responsibility for planning and coordinating our tour, arranging OL gatherings across the country, together with speaking engagements at churches, prophecy conferences and the like.

It is my prayer that we will be blessed with another opportunity to celebrate believers baptism along the way, like we did last year at Gage’s Lake, Illinois. (That was such a spiritual charge — it is still paying spiritual dividends to me personally.)

We’ve set some rather ambitious goals for ’07 — should the Lord tarry — and if the Lord blesses it and we don’t drop the ball, next year will be very exciting.

We have a lot of irons in the fire just now. There is the new book, the new website, the Road Tour — right now it feels like I am trying to move a mountain with a spoon, but if we are moving in the direction the Lord wants us to, I am confident that it will all come together.

Tentatively, we hope to hit the road again in early April, kicking off with an OL gathering in South Texas, then heading north through Oklahoma, Missouri and Illinois by midsummer, then working our way across the north east and back south down the East coast as winter approaches.

But, as I said, that is tentative. we’ll be working out a firmer schedule with Nicole sometime after the Christmas/New Year holiday season is behind us.

Right now, Gayle’s mom is still staying with us until the middle of January. The Scriptures say, “Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.” (Ephesians 6:2-3)

Evelyn is 85, but she seems to have gotten younger while she’s been here. It’s been years since I’ve seen her so spry and involved. (I promised Gayle she could take time off while her Mom is here, so I am flying on one wing for now)

In summary, here is the overview of our plans for next year. We will being firming plans for the Road Tour after Ev goes home. We hope to arrange as many OL gatherings as possible. We will soon be offering a brand-new version of your Omega Letter. And I should have a book out by early spring.

A lot has happened over the past year. And, should the Lord tarry another year, 2007 promises to be even more exciting. Keep an eye on the Road Tour forums for updates as they develop.

Email Nic at roadtour@omegaletter.com if you’d like to schedule a speaking engagement, set up a local OL gathering, or a believer’s baptism. (And of course, we’ll resume the Road Tour Journal once we are back on the road and have something to journal about)

Finally, please, please, pray with us that the Lord will use the Omega Letter in a mighty way for the Kingdom in the coming year.

“Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4:6-7)

Without prayer, we can do nothing — but with your prayers, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” (Philippians 4:13)

In 2007, I look forward to seeing you; here, there — or in the air!

Maranatha! (“Our Lord Cometh”)

Amero Plan Starts To Make Sense

Amero Plan Starts To Make Sense
Vol: 63 Issue: 14 Thursday, December 14, 2006

Some months back, a friend in a position to know these things advised me to get rid of any US-denominated currency holdings and convert dollars to euros in advance of a coming collapse of the US dollar.

And, based on what I’ve learned since, if I actually had surplus US-denominated currency holdings, I would take his advice.

I’ve had to sit on some of this information for some time to protect my source, but what was once a secret known only to a handful is now headline news. So, without sharing the specific details I am still sworn to keep to myself, I’d like to revisit the topic of the rumored “North American Union” project under discussion between Canada, the US and Mexico.

I’d like to amend a statement I made in OL Volume 61, Issue 6, (“Just Crazy Enough to be True”) in which I wrote: “The “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” has no downside for the Mexicans. But it has no up side for either the United States or Canada. At least, not the plan as it is being bandied about by its critics.”

While the proposed NAU has no upside for the US or Canada AT THE MOMENT, within the very near future, it may be America’s only defense against an economic collapse imposed by our enemies.

When the Non-Aligned Nations Movement summit in Cuba concluded in September, they issued a joint declaration, signed by 118 countries representing more than half the membership of the United Nations and fifty-one percent of the world’s population.

The summit was attended by alleged US ‘allies’ like Singapore, Pakistan and India, together with America’s growing roster of enemies, like Venezuela, Iran, Syria and North Korea.

The summit was an America-bashing free-for-all that concluded with a unanimous declaration to “change and transform the present unjust international order” imposed by the United States.

To accomplish that goal, they agreed “to coordinate, support, represent and defend the interests and priorities of its members. To do so, they agreed to strengthen concerted action, unity and solidarity between all its members.”

(I am quoting directly from the 14th Summit’s document; “Declaration on the Principles and the Role of the Non-Aligned Movement in the Present International Juncture.”)

When the summit concluded, Cuba and Venezuela hosted delegations from NAM, OPEC, Russia, China and North Korea to discuss ways to implement their fight against the ‘unjust international order.”

Assessment:

Major OPEC countries, Russia, China and members of NAM have already been divesting themselves of US dollar-denominated holdings. Oil-producing countries are demanding payment for oil in euros, yen or British pound sterling instead of US dollars.

The move away from US dollars has already begun to bear fruit. Since the NAM meeting, Russia and OPEC have transferred two percent of their total US dollar reserves into euros.

Two percent doesn’t sound like a lot, until you consider the fact that two percent caused the dollar to fall to a twenty-month low against the euro. Since the NAM meeting, Iran converted $4 billion from US dollars to euros; Qatar converted $3 billion.

In early 2003, as a test, OPEC cut their US dollar holdings by just $2.4 billion – at a time when international dollar reserves were above 70 percent. The dollar plunged to its lowest point ever against the euro as a result. OPEC’s successful manipulation of the US economy was noted carefully by the NAM summit.

Today, international dollar holdings are less than 65 percent and the dollar-dumping conversion to euros is double the 2003 figure. Why is that significant?

Think of a US dollar as an IOU. IOU’s are only as valuable as their guarantors. An IOU for a specific number of shares of Microsoft stock is a lot more valuable than an IOU for an equal number of shares of stock in Enron, for example.

If nobody buys dollars, whoever is holding them can’t sell them, either. They become as worthless as Enron stock. There is no way for the US to defend itself from this economic attack.

Washington can’t make other countries buy the US dollar. And if other countries won’t accept US dollars as payment for international debt, American companies can either convert their US dollars to an acceptable currency or go out of business.

The only alternative is to come up with a different currency less vulnerable to international manipulation. Enter the Amero.

Its beginning to make some sense to me, now.

Israel’s Preemption Option

Israel’s Preemption Option
Vol: 63 Issue: 13 Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter obligates all UN member states to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

What does that mean, exactly? It means that, insofar as the UN Charter is concerned, the THREAT of using force ‘against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ is the same as the ACTUAL use of force.

At the time the Charter was being drawn up, the world had just emerged from a second, devastating world war and UN planners realized that it could have been averted if the world had taken action as soon as the threat was perceived.

Adolph Hitler had systematically laid out his plans for global conquest and the extermination of the Jewish race in his book, “Mein Kampf” which means, in English, “My Struggle”.

(Interestingly, were one to translate “Mein Kampf” into Arabic, the book title would be “Jihad” — since ‘jihad’ also means ‘my struggle’).

So the UN architects of the post-war world wanted to ensure there would be a provision the UN could invoke to take action in response to a threat, instead of having to wait until the threat became a reality.

The thinking was that, had there been a UN in the 1930’s, it could have shut down Hitler’s Third Reich before it reached the pinnacle of its power.

In 1996, the International Court of Justice ruled that use-of-force threats that violated Article 2.4 of the Charter also posed a threat to international peace and security under Article 51.

Article 51 is the self-defense clause that authorizes the use of pre-emptive force in the event a nation believed its security was being threatened.

So, what does this mean in context? In 2002, the United States invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban. The Taliban didn’t attack the US, but it supported those who did. And as such, it posed a threat to the United States under Article 2.4 and the US was justified, under Article 51, to launch a pre-emptive invasion.

It is worth noting that even the Bush administration’s harshest critics, both international and domestic, agreed that the Afghanistan invasion was justified under the terms of the UN Charter.

Assessment:

Mahmoud Ahamdinejad wrapped up Iran’s ‘Holocaust Conference’ aimed at denying it ever took place by promising, “The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom.”

The Israelis, unsurprisingly, see Ahmadinejad’s comments as just the latest in a long line of existential threats against their nation. In other speeches, Ahmadinejad is quoted saying things like:

“The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless.”

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

“Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”

“The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”

“If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d’ tre, Israel will be annihilated.”

“Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed.”

“Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”

In addition to the Holocaust denial conference, Tehran has hosted conferences with such titles as, “A World Without Zionism” and even held an international contest for the best anti-semitic editorial cartoons.

Tehran openly supports, trains and equips Hezbollah, which claims Israel’s destruction as its reason for being.

And, judging from incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ comments during his confirmation hearing, no one can promise that Iran will not use nuclear weapons against Israel.

Israeli officials are taking Gates’ comments to mean that Washington is washing its hands of responsibility for stopping Iran from using nuclear weapons against Israel. Should it come to a nuclear confrontation, Israel believes that America will stand aside.

That is believed to be one of the reasons that Ehud Olmert broke Israel’s decades-old policy of nuclear ambiguity. Israel’s policy has always been to never confirm or deny the existence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal.

By not confirming it, it avoids interference from the IAEA. By not denying it, Israel maintains a strategic nuclear deterrent.

Olmert created an international and domestic uproar when he also admitted in a recent speech that Israel is a nuclear power. It was intended as a warning that Israel can and will respond in kind to the threat of nuclear attack, as allowed under the UN Charter.

Ezekiel predicts that the Gog-Magog alliance, headed by Russia but instigated by Persia (Iran) will launch a surprise invasion of the Jewish State “in the latter years”.

The invasion, Ezekiel says, will end on the mountains of Israel in a conflagration of “pestilence and blood” emanating from “an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone,” — the exact description of what takes place at Ground Zero in a nuclear explosion. (Ezekiel 38:22)

Why do I say ‘headed by Russia but instigated by Persia”? Ezekiel predicts that Russia will be drawn, somewhat reluctantly, into the conflict, as if it had ‘hooks in its jaws.’

Russia’s military/economic/nuclear relationship with Iran ties Moscow’s destiny to Tehran’s. Any attack against Iran would force Moscow into the conflict on Tehran’s side.

Israel, under the terms of the UN Charter, is legally justified in launching a preemptive attack against Iran. And without assurances of support from Washington, Israel has but two viable choices remaining.

It can attack before Tehran goes nuclear. Or it can wait until Iran uses its nuclear weapons to make good on Ahmadinejad’s serial threats to annihilate the Jewish State.

The only third option would be to wait passively for nuclear destruction. (It would only take one bomb).

Should Israel launch a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will almost certainly be a conventional attack. Israel cannot afford to be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East conflict.

A conventional attack against Iran’s nukes would be met by a conventional Iranian response. That would force Russia, almost against its will, into the conflict on the Iranian side.

Ezekiel and Joel both say the invasion will make it as far as the mountains of Israel (the West Bank) before five-sixths of the invading army are destroyed by ‘blood, fire and pillars of smoke’. (Joel 2:20)

“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)

‘These things’ are well past the ‘beginning’. The signs of the times are undeniable. This IS the time spoken of by the prophets.

“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” (Romans 13:11)

Make yourself ready. The Lord IS coming back for His Church. And He is coming soon.

Christians “Threaten National Security”

Christians “Threaten National Security”
Vol: 63 Issue: 12 Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Another fascinating development in the never-ending effort to disguise the global war on terror as a secular, rather than religious war was in the news this morning.

According to Cybercast News, “Christian military officers who share their faith at work in the Pentagon pose a threat to national security.”

You are probably wondering how. By the time I finished the first paragraph, I was wondering, too. I didn’t have to wait long — the second paragraph explained:

“Public displays of faith by high-ranking military officers project an image of a Christian nation waging war on non-Christians, both inside and outside the United States.”

Odd. The terrorists think this is a religious war. Osama bin Laden declared war on the Christian ‘Crusaders’ and the Jews. Not all Americans are Christians, but all of our enemies are Islamic — and they cite Islam as the reason for war.

The president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Mikey Weinstein, told a Washington press conference;

“The jihadists, the insurrectionists, everybody from the head of Hamas, Hizballah, the Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, they see us as invading American imperialists and crusaders.”

One wonders that has to do with having Christians among the military. Or ‘religious freedom’, for that matter.

Does Weinstein really believe that al-Qaeda’s beef is with Christians for being Christians? al-Qaeda’s problem is with non-Muslims. They would just as cheerfully decapitate a Hindu, a Jew or an atheist.

In addition to creating a national security threat, Weinstein said, evangelistic efforts by Christian officers directed toward their colleagues or subordinates amounted to “coercion” and “fanatical unconstitutional religious persecution.”

One would think that a military being subjected to ‘coercive’ and ‘fanatical unconstitutional religious persecution’ would suffer widespread morale problems. But the only guy complaining is Mikey Weinstein.

Professions of faith by military officers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting the establishment of religion,” he argued.

This argument is beyond specious. The 1st Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, OR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.”

Congress didn’t establish Christianity in the military. Since Weinstein’s goal is to prohibit Christian officers from the free exercise of their own religion, if anybody is on the wrong side of the Constitution, its Weinstein and his group.

Assessment:

It never ceases to amaze me that the 1st Amendment can be interpreted as prohibitive of Christianity. For example, Weinstein didn’t complain about the military’s Jewish chaplain corps, or the military’s corps of Islamic chaplain.

The 1st Amendment cites ‘religion’ — not Christianity.

But the 1st Amendment argument has been used almost exclusively against Christianity. I know of not a single case in which another religion has drifted into the gunsights of 1st Amendment separationists.

US courts have ruled that mandatory immersion in Islamic courses of study do not violate the ‘separation’ clause. The California lawsuits that brought the case to court weren’t arguing to prohibit Islamic studies. Instead, they questioned why similar courses in Christianity were illegal when Islamic courses were not.

Atheists don’t make it to the Supreme Court with complaints about other religions — other religions never get past the 8th Circuit, if they get that far.

I know of very few instances of ‘Christian’ inspired terrorism — and those few I do know of were directed against abortion clinics aimed at closing down abortion mills. On the other hand, Islamic terror is directed against the United States aimed at bringing down the government.

But it is Christianity being cited as a threat to national security. Does this make any sense?

What is there about Christianity that inspires such white-hot hatred? Mohammed is dead. So is Buddha. But Jesus Christ 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)

The Christ-haters don’t believe that, but Satan does. And since he is the spiritual force behind world religion, (“the god of this world” – 2nd Corinthians 4:4) he has no problem with world religions. He invented them. His problem is with the one religion that doesn’t lead directly to him.

Logically, the mere fact that Christianity is the only religion under constant attack from the secularists should serve to set it apart as worthy of further examination. If Christianity is a myth, then why work so hard to bring it down? And why ONLY Christianity?

Because, as Paul explained, “the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”

Logically speaking, if there were no more truth to Christianity than there is to Islam, then mandatory Christian studies in public schools would be no more unconstitutional than is California’s court-approved mandatory Islamic immersion curriculum.

And Christians in the military would be no greater threat to national security than the US Islamic Chaplain Corps.

But Satan knows the difference. That’s why he hates it so much.

The Most Ethical Congress in History

The Most Ethical Congress in History
Vol: 63 Issue: 11 Monday, December 11, 2006

New Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made ethics a cornerstone of the Democratic national campaign. She promised that, as Speaker, she would preside over the most ethical Congress in history.

The GOP has had its share of scandals since assuming the majority in 1994. Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham left the Congress when he was indicted (and later convicted) of bribery. The Jack Abramoff bribery scandal cost Ohio Republican Bob Ney his seat. When the Abramoff connections pointed in the direction of Tom DeLay, he promptly resigned his seat.

Abramoff’s bribery and corruption ring began to unravel when one of his largest lobbying clients, the Mississippi Choctaw Indian tribe, accused Abramoff of padding his fees to the tune of $15 million dollars.

The investigation revealed Abramoff diverted money meant for ‘inner-city’ kids to Jewish settlers living in the West Bank to help them fight off the Palestinian intifada.

According to the Abramoff entry at Wikipedia, ” Tribal donors were outraged by Abramoff’s diversion of funds to Israeli settlers. “‘This is almost like outer-limits bizarre,’ says Henry Buffalo, a lawyer for the Saginaw Chippewa Indians who contributed $25,000 to the Capital Athletic Foundation at Abramoff’s urging. ‘The tribe would never have given money for this.'”

As it turned out, some of the money diverted was used for the “purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as ‘security’ equipment” destined for Israel.

Since Abramoff was a Republican, so were the majority of the names in his Congressional ‘favors’ list. When the scandal first broke, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid coined the phrase, “Republican culture of corruption”.

It was clear that Abramoff would figure prominently in the upcoming Democratic electoral strategy.

Until Abramoff’s trail led to Harry Reid’s doorstep. Reid had ‘requested’ a $30,000 ‘contribution’ from Abramoff in return for helping Abramoff’s clients with a little matter involving Indian casinos.

The plan to unseat the GOP on the weight of the Abramoff scandal was quietly shelved. But then along came Mark Foley.

The Foley Scandal was like a gift from heaven to the Democrats — it gave them an honest-to-goodness scandal with another Republican at its center. ABC News reported that Foley had sent sexually explicit email messages from his personal AOL account to a male former Congressional page.

After being confronted with the email messages, Foley resigned from Congress. Within hours, rumors that the page was underage turned the story from a homosexual sex scandal to a homosexual pedophile story.

By the time the page was identified and it was determined that he was 18 at the time of the email exchange, the damage was done. ABC News never retracted the ‘underage page’ story.

The Democrats had their uniquely Republican scandal. A gay Republican making out with a Congressional page. It couldn’t blow back in the Democrats’ face, either. The Democrats were immunized by the Barney Frank page scandal, during which, a gay Democrat ran a male prostitution service employing under-age Congressional pages — out of his Congressional apartment.

Foley was a closeted gay who was an outspoken opponent of gay rights issues and therefore typical of Republican hypocrisy.

Frank remains both a senior member of Congress and a national spokesman for gay rights issues. He was therefore untouchable.

The “Republican Culture of Corruption” mantra was taken down of the shelf and reintroduced in every Democratic speech, just in time for the election.

Flushed from victory, Nancy Pelosi promised make ethics in government “the absolute, number one issue” of a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Assessment:

Speaker Pelosi’s first act as Speaker-elect of the most ethical Congress in history was to nominate Pennsylvania Congressman John (Jack) Murtha as Congressional Majority Leader.

Jack Murtha came to national prominence in recent years as the Democrat’s chief critic of the Iraq War, mainly because Murtha was a retired Marine colonel.

Since Murtha’s Nov. 17, 2005, call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, one CNN anchor has called him “one of the most highly respected members of Congress,” the Associated Press has referred to Murtha as “one of Congress’ most hawkish Democrats,” and ABC News has noted that he is “a decorated marine who served in Vietnam.”

But Murtha achieved national prominence once before. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “Murtha was one of eight members of Congress lured to a Washington, D.C., townhouse by a team of FBI agents posing as representatives of a fictitious Arab sheik. They handed out briefcases filled with $50,000 in return for helping the sheik gain residency in the United States.”

The Washington Post referred to the incident as “an ethical scrape” in which Murtha was “named as an unindicted co-conspirator and testified against two House colleagues.”

Murtha managed his unindicted co-conspirator status because he didn’t take the money. Instead, he told the FBI informant offering him the bribe; “You know, we do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested, maybe I won’t,” Murtha said on the FBI videotape.

Despite not just Pelosi’s endorsement, but her active campaign in his support, Murtha was rejected by his fellow Democrats in favor of Stenny Hoyer.

Pelosi then championed the elevation of Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings as the head of the powerful House Intelligence Committee, once of the most sensitive jobs in the Congress.

Hastings is also a member of the powerful House Rules Committee and is a senior Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). On the HPSCI, Hastings is the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Alcee Hastings is also but one of six federal judges in US history ever to be removed from the bench by impeachment. Hastings was impeached by a Congressional vote of 413-3 and subsequently removed from the bench.

Among those Congressional Democrats who heard the evidence against Hastings and voted for his impeachment were Steny Hoyer, Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, and (gasp!) Nancy Pelosi. Hastings later ran for Congress and was elected in 1992.

While Pelosi’s memory may have faded, the rest of the Congressmen who voted to impeach Hastings in 1989 refused to support him to head the Intelligence Committee based on his ethical record.

This week, Nancy Pelosi is championing the elevation of Representative Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee for Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies, as chairman. Mollohan is the only Democrat seeking that chair, which, among other things, oversees the Department of Justice, including the FBI.

It turns out that Mollohan is also being investigated by the FBI on charges that he funneled taxpayer money into nonprofit organizations he helped to set up and which support him with campaign contributions.

According to documents obtained by the NLPC, Mollohan and his wife, Barbara, reported under $550,000 in assets in 2000. In 2006, he was worth $8 million.

On April 10, a Congressional watchdog group accused the West Virginia Democrat of violating more than 250 House ethics rules.

Eleven days later, Pelosi announced that Mollohan would step down from the ethics committee while defending himself against the allegations. Now she wants him to chair the committee overseeing the FBI’s budget?

The GOP has had its share of scandals, as I’ve already noted. Trent Lott lost his seat as Senate Majority leader for making a politically incorrect statement honoring Strom Thurmond.

Tom DeLay resigned over allegations of corruption that have never gone to court.

Mark Foley became the Democrat’s poster boy for Republican corruption because he was gay, even though Foley immediately resigned.

Nancy Pelosi’s most ethical Congress in history includes Barney Frank, Jack Murtha, Alcee Hastings, and Alan Mollohan. Not only were they NOT forced to resign by the Democrats, but they all hold senior Congressional positions.

Pelosi’s first official acts included elevating them to even more senior positions — as part of her plan to introduce the “most ethical Congress in history.”

It would be ironic if it weren’t so sad.

Death And Taxes

Death And Taxes
Vol: 63 Issue: 9 Saturday, December 9, 2006

Actor Wesley Snipes just posted a $1 million bond after pleading not guilty to income tax evasion. The actor surrendered to federal officials after having spent two months out of the IRS’ reach while filming a movie in Florida.

Snipes, whose annual income is in the tens of millions, started taking tax advice from tax-protestor Eddie Ray Kahn. Kahn is a member of a group that questions the authority of the IRS to collect income taxes from US citizens.

Snipes was indicted for illegally seeking some twelve million dollars in fraudulent income returns, according to news reports. From 1999 to 2004, Snipes failed to file any income tax returns with the IRS whatever.

And icing the cake, Snipes allegedly sent the IRS some $14 million in bogus checks to settle his tax debt. One would think that Snipes is in a ‘heap o’ trouble’. But maybe not.

There are credible rumors of a plea deal in which Snipes agrees to pay off his tax debt in installments. In return, the IRS will not seek jail time and will allow Snipes to continue to work and travel abroad.

Supporting the rumors are the facts that Snipes was NOT required to surrender his passport when he posted his $1 million bond and was given permission to return to Africa to finish working on his film.

This would seem to be the kind of case that prosecutors salivate over.

A high-profile multi-millionaire movie star like Wesley Snipes, so abundantly blessed by America, trying to defraud America of its fair share?

While the rest of us poor slobs put off buying a new fridge until next year so we can pay ours?

Snipes could get what amounts to life in a federal lockup and the IRS could legally confiscate his bank account, assets and assorted properties.

The legal system could have done what it was designed to do. Send a message to scofflaws that the law applies to everyone equally.

I mean, if ever there were an open and shut case of tax fraud, Wesley Snipes is it.

But the IRS is contenting itself with collecting back taxes — in installments! — and letting bygones be bygones.

A lot of the bloggers and some editorial commentaries are protesting the special treatment being afforded the action star. They are complaining that there is one law for ordinary people and another law for the rich and famous.

I think there is more to it than that.

Assessment:

Snipes’ defense is that there is no law for collecting income taxes at all. That is an even greater threat to the law than letting people get away with breaking it. The purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not a law was broken.

A necessary element of that burden is examining the legitimacy of the law in question. The IRS is often seen as the great equalizer.

When the feds couldn’t nail Al Capone for bootlegging, racketeering and murder, they went after him for tax evasion.

But Wesley Snipes defended his refusal to pay taxes on his contention the IRS didn’t have the authority to collect them. To prosecute Snipes means putting the IRS itself on trial.

Most tax court cases take place under the radar. Trying somebody like Wesley Snipes would put the trial, and the tax code, under a public microscope.

The reason is because the IRS is reluctant to prosecute tax protesters. A couple of years back, a tax protester group staged a hunger strike in front of the IRS, demanding a public debate over the legality of the federal income tax laws.

On April 15, they ringed the IRS building in DC with 1044 tax protesters, repeating their demands for a public debate on federal income tax laws and the legality of the 16th Amendment.

According to the tax protester movement, the federal income tax is unconstitutional because direct taxation is prohibited. The 10th Amendment protects a fundamental right to work and a fundamental right is not subject to federal tax.

The 16th Amendment giving the government the right to impose income taxes was never properly ratified. It doesn’t by its wording, give the Congress new power to impose taxes. It fails to define what constitutes ‘income’ subject to taxation. The list goes on.

So why doesn’t the IRS put all the controversy to rest? Why wouldn’t the IRS agree to an open debate over the tax codes. Why didn’t they arrest and try all those protesters?

“We The People” founder Bob Schulz filed a lawsuit against the IRS in which the court found the IRS ‘routinely’ violated due process and nullified much of the IRS power to compel compliance with IRS administrative demands for personal and private property.

In 2002, Schulz publicly declared his intent to stop paying income taxes and filing income tax returns. Schulz didn’t just say it in public, he sent a registered letter to the IRS Commissioner to that effect.

Indeed, Schulz has turned it into a business. If you want to read his letter to the IRS, you can buy it at his website for $39.95 (tax-free).

Despite his high-profile war against the IRS, Bob Schulz still doesn’t pay income taxes and the IRS looks the other way.

These are good questions — for which the IRS has yet to offer any definitive answers.

Raising yet one more question: Why is that?

The ISG’s “Munich Solution”

The ISG’s “Munich Solution”
Vol: 63 Issue: 8 Friday, December 8, 2006

In the fall of 1938, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, traveled to Berchtesgaden to meet with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler.

Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia unless Britain and France stood aside and allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland.

Italy’s Benito Mussolini suggested a four-power conference between Britain, France, Germany and Italy to resolve the issue. Czechoslovakia’s Eduard Benes was excluded from the meeting that would decide the future of his country.

Chamberlain, and France’s Edouard Daladier traveled to Munich in late September.

Desperate to avoid war, Chamberlain and Daladier agreed that Germany could have the Sudetenland. In return, Hitler promised to drop any further territorial demands in Europe.

On September 29, 1939, Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement which transferred the Sudetenland to Germany.

When Czechoslovakia’s Eduard Benes protested at this decision, Neville Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland.

The Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain because it appeared to have prevented a war with Germany. However, some politicians, including Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, attacked the agreement.

These critics pointed out that no only had the British government behaved dishonorably, but it had lost the support of Czech Army, one of the best in Europe.

Neville Chamberlain came home to cheering crowds, waving the Munich Agreement and optimistically announcing it represented “Peace in out time.”

Less than a year later, the Wehrmacht invaded Poland, beginning the Second World War.

Assessment:

The Iraq Survey Group was tasked with re-evaluating the war in Iraq and to come up with recommendations leading to its conclusion under favorable conditions to the United States.

The ISG fumbled and hemmed and hawed over the Iraq issue, in the end suggesting a plan where the US could pull out and blame the Iraqis for not being ready.

The ISG is headed by James Baker, who during Bush 41’s administration, famously snapped, “F*** the Jews! They don’t vote for us anyway!” Baker was widely seen by the Israeli establishment as one of the least Israel-friendly — if not downright anti-Semitic — member of the first Bush cabinet during the first Gulf War.

The spirit of the ISG final report’s conclusions could be summed up using the exact words of Baker’s 1991 outburst. It’s recommendation could be called the “Neville Chamberlain Model for Bringing Peace in Our Time” and it proposes using the same outline.

Only this time, Israel is being cast in the role of Czechoslovakia.

Baker’s group proposes a four-power conference to discuss handing over more of the West Bank and the Golan Heights (Israel’s Sudentenland) — with Iran standing in for Germany and Syria standing in for Mussolini’s Italy.

In return, Iran and Syria will promise to help ‘stabilize’ Iraq. The ISG report is popular with the US left because they believe it might avoid a war with Iran and Syria.

And the report’s critics, including Senator John McCain, are echoing Chamberlain’s critics, calling it dishonorable and warning of the consequences of losing Israel as our most important ally in the Middle East.

Of course, Israel will be excluded from the conference, as was Czechoslovakia in 1939. And for the same reason.

Once you’ve already made up your mind to betray somebody, there is little point in giving him a dissenting voice.

That’s why Benes wasn’t invited to Munich. And why the ISG recommends that Israel be excluded from discussions aimed at its dissolution.

In his vision of the last days, the prophet Zechariah predicted that “ALL the people of the earth” will “be gathered together against” Jerusalem. (Zechariah 12:3)

The prophet Ezekiel predicted that when the Russian/Persian Gog Magog Alliance makes its move against the mountains of Israel in Ezekiel 38-39, the rest of the world reacts by launching a weak diplomatic protest:

“Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?” (Ezekiel 38:13)

According to Scripture, in the last days, Israel stands alone, without an ally in the world. God Himself comes to Israel’s rescue.

“And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.” (Ezekiel 38:22)

Interestingly, that is exactly what Iran and Syria are promising to do to Israel.

My money is on Israel.