Special Report: And Curse Them That Curse Thee

Special Report: And Curse Them That Curse Thee
Vol: 63 Issue: 7 Thursday, December 7, 2006

The co-chairs of the Iraq Survey Group have been all over the morning news shows, stumping for public support for their recommendations to the President.

Several things jumped out at me. The first is that James Baker and Lee Hamilton are evidently ashamed of the report’s conclusions. Or so it would seem, since Baker continues to adamantly deny that the report recommended cutting and running from Iraq.

The commission listed 79 carrot-and-stick recommendations and stressed that “military priorities must change” by switching U.S. troops from combat to embedding with Iraqi forces and training them.

“Without suggesting a timetable for withdrawal, or putting a number on the troops that could come home,” says the mainstream media, “the report said that by shifting to training Iraqis “all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq” by early 2008.”

But here is the kicker, quoting from Mr Baker on “Good Morning America” if the Iraqis fail, the U.S. should withdraw its support. If the “Iraqis” fail. . .

So, what constitutes an ‘Iraqi’ failure? Ummm, let’s look one more time and make sure we are understanding the Iraq Survey Group’s position now, before the spin doctors have time to reinvent it to mean something else.

It appears that an Iraqi failure is synonymous with the US failing to achieve its objectives in Iraq, in which case, the US can withdraw its forces by 2008 and blame the Iraqis for it.

And Baker says that is different than a US retreat from Iraq in the face of defeat according to a timetable . . . how, again? I’m not sure. And I read it twice.

Here are the key findings and recommendations of the ISG outlining how America lost the war against terror in Iraq, and how handle our retreat with feigned dignity.

1. Remove nearly all combat troops by first quarter of 2008.

Q. Isn’t that the same as setting a timetable for retreat?

2. Leave behind support troops to help Iraqis and rapid reaction force to go after al Qaeda.

Q. If that would work, why did we ever need the forces that are there now? It makes no sense, because it isn’t supposed to. The retreat is already factored in as a strategic next-step. All the rest is just window-dressing to make it look like we are leaving because the Iraqis couldn’t cut it, rather than because we couldn’t.

3. The U.S. must make clear to Iraqis it is pulling its troops out, especially if Iraq is not making progress.

Q, How does one make it ‘clear to the Iraqis’ that it is ‘pulling out if Iraq is not making progress’ — without telling al-Qaeda and the insurgency that if they continue to put pressure on Iraq to keep it from making progress, they will win?

Having recommended that if IRAQ can’t defeat the terrorists, the US will retreat, the ISG turned its attention away from Iraq and took on the thorny problem of peace in the Middle East.

The ISG report flatly states that the United States cannot achieve its goals unless it deals first with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And, how, pray tell, does the ISG recommend solving that problem? The same way it ‘solved’ the Iraq problem. Withdraw support from our allies and embrace the enemy.

According to the ISG recommendations, the peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2. (Since this is a US effort, why name it after a Spanish city?)

The ISG recommends including Iran and Syria at the round table, ostensibly to discuss Iraq’s future while focusing on the Arab demands that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.

And just to make sure the conference will go smoothly, the ISG recommends that Israel NOT BE INVITED to discuss its own future.

As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure, an ISG official said. This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month.

Officials quoted by Insight Magazine said the Baker proposal to exclude Israel from a Middle East peace conference garnered support in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney’s visit to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 25.

They said Cheney spent most of his meetings listening to Saudi warnings that Israel, rather than Iran, is the leading cause of instability in the Middle East.

He [Cheney] didn’t even get the opportunity to seriously discuss the purpose of his visit that the Saudis help the Iraqi government and persuade the Sunnis to stop their attacks, another official familiar with Mr. Cheney s visit said. Instead, the Saudis kept saying that they wanted a U.S. initiative to stop the Israelis attack in Gaza and Cheney just agreed.

Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues.

Officials also said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.

Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis, the official said. The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians.

However, reported Insight, Defense Department officials have warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at Israel’s expense.

The regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, said the Center for Security Policy, regarded as being close to the Pentagon.

If the Baker regional strategy is adopted, we will prove to all the world that it is better to be America’s enemy than its friend. Jim Baker’s hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel’s foes in the region.

In a nutshell, the ISG recommendation is to sacrifice Israel to the Arabs as a way of getting them to help us with Iraq.

One of the earliest prophecies concerning Israel is found in Genesis 12-2-3 when God made His covenant with Abram.

In the first part, God promised; “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:”

Tiny as she is among the world’s nations, Israel is still one of the great nations of the world. Her economy is among the richest on earth. Her military is among the world’s most powerful.

No nation has given more to the world and received less in return. Although only a quarter of one percent of the world’s population , Jewish contributions to medicine, science, economics, peace and the arts make her, per capita, one of the greatest nations the world has ever known.

Of the 660 Nobel prizes from 1901-1990, 160 have been won by Jews. Jews have won more Nobel prizes than any other ethnicity. Statistically by population, based on the Nobel awards, Jews have been forty times the blessing to the world as other nations.

Jews discovered the polio vaccine, invented vitamins, a cure for syphillis, and gave the world antibiotics. On ANY list of the five greatest ANYthing; scientist, doctor, lawyer, financier, philanthropist, entertainer, political figure, business leader, inventor, philosopher or writer, one will find at least one Jew.

They dominate every industry, not, as the result of some nefarious “Jewish conspiracy” but in fulfillment of God’s promise that, in Abram’s children will all the nations of the world be blessed.

The other part of God’s covenant with Abram promised either blessings or cursings on other nations according to the way they either blessed or cursed Israel.

“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

The fruits of that promise are witnessed by a stroll through the Graveyard of Empires. The former empires of Babylon and Persia never lost their emnity for the Jew. Neither did the Arab empires that followed.

From Nebuchadnezzar to Saladin to Sueliman’s Ottoman Empire, the war against the Jew never abated. Today, most of those nations still live in the sixth century. The richest of them live in a desert.

The Spanish initially welcomed the Jew and Spain grew to be the largest empire on earth. In 1492, during the Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish Jews were either expelled, forced to convert, or killed. Those who fled were welcomed by England.

In 1588, Elizabeth’s navy destroyed the Spanish Armada and the saying was born, “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” In 1923, the British double-crossed the Jews and re-wrote the Balfour Declaration. They occupied Palestine and restricted Jewish emigration.

By 1948, when the British, weary of years of fighting the Jewish insurgency, surrendered its mandate over Palestine, the British Empire was no more.

Since Israel’s re-birth in 1948, the United States has been her most loyal, (and in some cases, only) protector against the combined forces of the Arab world and the will of the openly anti-semitic United nations.

During that same period in history, the United States emerged from the Great Depression as the most powerful, most prosperous nation the world had ever seen.

Since 9/11, and particularly since the beginning of combat operations in the Middle East, the United States has quietly begun distancing itself from Israel in an effort to appease the Islamic world.

Although Israel hails him as a ‘great friend of the Israeli people’ George Bush has never set foot on Israeli soil in six years in office.

The Bush administration’s peace plans have grown increasingly favorable to the Arab side, to the point of endorsing the creation of an openly-terrorist Palestinian state on Israel’s shrinking and almost indefensible borders.

The further America moves away from Israel in its effort to appease the Islamic world, the more dangerous a world America finds herself in.

There are enemies on all sides and enemies within. The world’s undisputed and only superpower six years ago, the further we distance ourself from Israel, the weaker and more vulnerable we appear in the eyes of our enemies.

Every diplomatic move away from supporting Israel triggers a new Law of Unintended Consequences that makes our situation more precarious. And now we are entertaining ‘Madrid-2’ — a European-based plan to impose peace on Israel, whether Israel likes it or not.

Now, let’s review the Baker plan again:

We’ll invite Iran and Syria — but exclude Israel — to a conference to discuss ways to impose a peace plan on Israel that will win Arab support for America’s interests in Iraq. Iran and Syria are Israel’s two deadliest and most implacable enemies.

For that reason, Baker decided that excluding Israel represents, “a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure.”

(It reminds me of a wolf-pack justifying denying a vote on what’s for supper to the sheep.)

My objective here is not to advocate for a political solution. I am an observer. My mission is to observe and report and offer analysis of what it means for us as believers trying to understand the signs of the times.

And to demonstrate why what appears to be impending chaos to the world should be signs of hope for those who believe and love His soon appearing.

It is another evidence that we are not following “cunningly devised fables” but are instead eyewitnesses to the fulfillment of ancient prophecies that signal the impending return of Christ for His Church.

Prophecy: God promised He would bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel.

Observation: History bears out the fact that God keeps His promises.

“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I WILL COME AGAIN AND RECEIVE YOU UNTO MYSELF; THAT WHERE I AM, THERE YE MAY BE ALSO.” (John 14:1-3)

Analysis: Let not your heart be troubled. It means He will keep this promise, too.

The Eurabia Myth

The Eurabia Myth
Vol: 63 Issue: 6 Wednesday, December 6, 2006

One of the unique shared characteristics of all three major world religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is that all three agree there is but one way to eternal life. Where they differ is in the method and the Deity.

Judaism believes eternal life is found in keeping the Torah. Christianity believes eternal life is found in trusting in Jesus Christ to keep His promise to save even the lowliest sinner who cries out to Him.

Islam believes the surest way to eternal life is to blow oneself up in the service of a ‘holy’ jihad as a ‘shehada’ or martyr.

I ran across an interesting column at, of all places, ‘About Atheism’ in which the author speculated about a coming ‘fourth’ religion that harmonizes the other three.

First, Michael Vlahos suggests in a column at Tech Station Central that, “a new religion could develop out of a syncretic combination of Islam and Christianity.”

Addressing that contention, ‘About Atheism opines:

“It may not be very likely, but there is also no one around with power and authority to ensure that it doesn t happen. I don t know if he is right, but his ideas suggest some interesting possibilities. The current options which people focus on are the only ones they have immediate experience with: assimilation, subjugation, and marginalization.”

What I found interesting about his contention is that he credits atheism with being responsible for the formation of this coming hybrid fourth way to God.

“In a secular state, Muslims can experience equal rights and dignity with Christians and Jews. In a secular state or society, Muslims aren t told that they are second-class citizens because of their beliefs. If this happens alongside political and social equality, then Muslims can be fully integrated in a larger, multi-cultural and multi-religious society and his, in turn, may allow them to contribute on a equal basis, making the society as much their own as it is anyone else s even if they are relatively recent immigrants.”


Of the three pillars upon which the Bible says the antichrist will build his government, two are in simultaneous development, while the third is struggling to be born.

There already exists a thriving global economy, albeit not yet centralized enough to be controlled by a single authority. The Bible says that authority will be concentrated in Europe.

And, as we’ve already discussed in previous Omega Letter briefings, there is a move afoot to transfer the holdings of the international oil exchange out of US dollars and into euros.

While Chavez and his allies intend this as a direct assault on the US economy, (which it is) there is also the issue of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Weakening the US dollar by adopting the euro will also concentrate economic power precisely where Bible prophecy predicted it would be concentrated in the last days. In the hands of the Revived Roman Empire.

The second pillar, that of global government, is also in development. There are two models in existence, and a third, the North American Union, in the planning stages. The UN model is an unmitigated failure.

The NAU is doomed to fail, I believe. There is too much public opposition in all three countries for it to come about. Not to mention the US Constitutional issues that would require amending the Constitution.

On the other hand, the European experiment is moving along nicely. It has become a real government with a real military power and a real integrated currency, despite the inter-state squabbles between Old and New Europe.

That is also precisely in line with Bible prophecy.

The third pillar, still struggling with its birth, is the predicted rise of a global religion.

The Apostle John wrote: “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.” (Revelation 13:11)

This second beast is the False Prophet. The ‘two horns like a lamb’ indicate his religion will be a form of Christianity, but its doctrine will be a Satanic counterfeit. (he spake as a dragon.)

It is clear that Europe intends to sit out as much of the US war on Islamic jihadists as it can. Brussels is doing all that is possible to appease Islam, oppose the US, and maintain the appearance of neutrality.

And when considers European history and compares it to John’s description of the antichrist’s coming hybrid economic/religious/political system, it is impossible to miss the parallels.

In a recent New York Post column, Col Ralph Peters argues against any Islamic takeover of Europe, despite how things look at the moment. Writes Peters;

“The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong. ”

Instead, Col Peters says, “The endangered species isn’t the “peace loving” European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent’s Muslims immigrants – and their multi-generation descendents – who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys.”

Drawing on Europe’s historical acquiescence to the Holocaust as an example, Peters makes a solid point when he says, “When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened – a few serious terrorist attacks could do it – Europe’s Muslims will be lucky just to be deported.”

Peter’s image of an enraged Europe rising up against its Muslim population as it did against the Jews in the 1930’s and ’40’s is not difficult to imagine, especially if there is little or no interference from a United Nations or United States to deal with.

Neither is the idea of a state-imposed, purely European religious system similar to the one described by the Apostle John as part of Europe’s overall ‘cleansing’ process.

Hitler imposed a similar religious system on his followers, with himself as the object of worship. Nazi schools opened with a prayer to the Fuehrer. Nazi families said grace before meals in the Fuehrer’s name.

Indeed, the Nazi devotion to the Fuehrer’s religious system is what made the Holocaust possible in the first place. It was a Nazi religious obligation to eradicate the Jews.

John says that the antichrist will demand, as a condition of citizenship and economic participation, that he be worshipped as Hitler was. And that any who refuse will be arrested, persecuted and killed, as was common under the Nazis.

In short, there are but two historical precedents that come close to the outline of the religiously genocidal government of the antichrist — the Old Roman Empire and Nazi Europe.

Col Peters wrote, correctly, I believe, in his conclusion about the “Myth of Eurabia;”

“All the copy-cat predictions of a Muslim takeover of Europe not only ignore history and Europe’s ineradicable viciousness, but do a serious disservice by exacerbating fear and hatred. And when it comes to hatred, trust me: The Europeans don’t need our help.”

That’s what Bible prophecy says, too.

The Irony is, Well, Just Ironic!

The Irony is, Well, Just Ironic!
Vol: 63 Issue: 5 Tuesday, December 5, 2006

A short news report by the United Press International grabbed my attention this morning, mainly because it was reported without so much of a hint of irony.

The story detailed a report issued by the “Arab Association for Human Rights and the Center for the Struggle Against Racism.”

The group’s title was an instant attention-grabber. An “Arab Association for Human Rights?”

It has the same ring of authenticity to it as, say, “The Jewish Pork Producers Association,” or maybe the “Heinrich Himmler Jewish Scholarship Fund”.

The center and wellspring of Arab culture and birthplace of Islam is Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, Jews enjoy such human rights as being forbidden to set foot on Saudi soil.

Men are legally allowed to beat their wives. Women are neither allowed to be educated nor allowed to drive. It takes but one witness to charge a woman with adultery, but once so charged, it takes no less than three witnesses to clear her. And if convicted, she faces death by stoning.

Christians are forbidden to practice their religion under any circumstances. And conversion from Islam to Christianity is a capital offense.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, dissidents are routinely tortured and imprisoned for the political beliefs.

The Organization for the Reform of Criminal Law issued a report on the treatment of prisoners in Arab countries in March, and subsequently was published in the Arab Al-Watan newspaper on March 11.

Said Al Watan, “The report highlights the fact that the Arab World has become a place of expertise in the various means of torture.”

“Here are some of the methods used to torture prisoners: beating them with canes or cables in various areas of the body; placing a prisoner inside a rubber tire so that he becomes unable to move while he is being tortured.”

“Not to forget the use of electric shocks, and the so-called German chair for torture. In this horrible method a prisoner is placed on a moving iron chair that causes unbearable pressure on his back-bone, resulting in partial and temporary paralysis, and sometimes permanent. One should not forget to mention the resort to burning prisoners with cigarettes, and torturing them in water!”

The Palestinians are demanding the total ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza of Jews from its territory as part of its over all demand package, in exchange for which, they promise to stop targeting Israeli civilians.

Sudanese Arabs have been perpetrating genocide on their Christian and animist neighbors in Southern Sudan, murdering hundreds of thousands and displacing millions of refugees into the desert.

Slavery is not only routinely practiced, it is condoned by many Arab governments, provided the slaves are non-Muslims.

So, what is the “Arab Association of Human Rights” so upset about that it found it necessary to issue a ‘report’? Was it the wanton slaughter of Christians? The ethnic cleansing of Jews? The torture of prisoners in Arab jails? Equal rights for women?

To the “Arab Association for Human Rights”, the most pressing issue of the day is that Israeli-Arabs are subjected to greater scrutiny at Israeli airports than Israeli-Jews.

As an example of the human rights violations in question was the story of Fairouz Nasrallah, highlighted by the UPI. She complained she was apparently singled out because she has the same last name as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah!

(What do you suppose would happen if somebody named ‘Sami’ bin-Laden tried to board a US Airways flight from Boston to LA? Is this different?)

And, Nasrallah fumed, she was subjected to electronic scanning without her consent when she refused to undress for female security guards!

(Try refusing ‘secondary screening’ at La Guardia. They’ll evacuate the airport and call in SWAT)

“We are not against the security check, but against discriminatory principles,” said Mohammed Zidan, chairman of the Arab Association for Human Rights. “We are against security checks with two parameters — one for Jews and another for Arabs,” he said.

This is a good place to stop and reflect on the irony of this story so far, before moving on. The complaint is that Israel is discriminatory against Israeli-Arabs. The fact is, there ARE Israeli-Arabs in Israel. Jews living in the West Bank were ethnically-cleansed at Arab gunpoint.


The rest of the group’s official name is equally ironic; “The Center for the Struggle Against Racism.” As Michael Melchior poignantly observed to the delegates of the Durban Conference on Racism;

“Israelis are a people of a particular birth, irrespective of religion, and people of a particular religion, irrespective of birth.” That is to say, an Arab born in Israel can be an Israeli by reason of birth, or an Israeli Jew can be an Israeli citizen by reason of religion.

To view democratic, multi-ethnic Israel, [Melchior noted Israel is a land in which one can hear 86 different languages spoken] as ‘racist’ is to turn logic upside down.

On the other hand, to the Arabs, race is everything. There are few non-Arabs living in Arab lands, all of whom live as ‘dhimmis’ whose human rights are seriously restricted.

The one unifying factor that brings all Arabs together under a single banner is the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Arab state free of Jews.

The irony of the existence of something called “The Arab Association for Human Rights and the Center for the Struggle Against Racism” is lost on the mainstream media.

So is the fact that allegedly “discriminatory” Israeli airport security measures are being framed as greater human rights violations than genocide or ethnic cleansing is against non-Arabs.

Noted the sympathetic UPI report; “Nasrallah also described a male security guard picking up a musical toy from her luggage and making fun of it. When she got home, she found out the toy was broken.”

Heck, my bags were searched on a recent Raleigh to Houston flight and the battery was removed from my digital alarm clock. (I don’t know if they made fun of it).

In any case, when I got home, I found my clock was broken. Should I lodge a human rights complaint? Or complain of racism?

I wonder if my story will make the United Press International feeds?

“Tomorrow Never Comes”

“Tomorrow Never Comes”
Vol: 63 Issue: 4 Monday, December 4, 2006

The word ‘procrastinate’ is an intransigent verb meaning “to delay or postpone action” or, “to put off doing something.”

It draws its origins from two Latin words’ “pro” and ‘crastinus” that translated literally mean, “belonging to tomorrow.”

Sometimes procrastination can be strategic. Lawyers put off hearings as far into the future as possible, seeking ways to delay proceedings once begun, playing for time and waiting for the right opportunities to make their case.

Governments do the same; the UN procrastinated over Iraq for twelve years. The Bush administration is procrastinating over the nuclear Iran issue, deferring action and playing for time while it attempts to build domestic support for action.

Iran is doing the same thing; delaying for time, stalling the IAEA, temporizing with the UN and deferring demands for action, hoping they can buy enough time to get their nuclear program in place.

But what works in law or government seldom works for individuals. I am the world’s worst procrastinator. Just about anything that can be done today gets put off until tomorrow. The reason? Because of the stuff I’m doing today that I should have done yesterday.

In my work, it is easy to justify procrastinating. Commenting on the news means waiting until the last minute in order to make sure one has as many details as possible.

I mean, I could write the Omega Letter the day before, but I prefer to wait until first thing in the morning so the material is a fresh as possible. (At least, that’s what I tell myself.)

I put off advance preparations for the 06 Road Tour because I realized there wasn’t enough time to plan it all out in advance, which justified putting it off until I knew all the details.

And since nobody can know ALL the details, I eventually set out without ANY of them. Next year, I promised myself, I’d be better organized.

But that’s the thing about ‘getting’ organized. You can always do that tomorrow.

Gayle is forever organizing my office into some kind of coherent pattern; drawers for pens, shelves for books and CDs, files for important papers. And I intend to put back that pen, after I finish putting back this book, right after I file these notes.

Soon, I can’t find a pen because it is under all the books and papers on my desk that I was going to put back shortly. Ummm. . . . “Gayle? Help!!!”


The thing about procrastination is that it is so easy. There are things to do right now that can’t wait, and there are things that I should do right now that can.

But once I turn my attention to the task at hand, all that other stuff that can wait fades into the background — cause there’s always something else that needs to be done right now.

As soon as I finish this morning’s OL, I have to switch gears and get started collaborating with Hal Lindsey about this week’s TV script. So I am putting off getting organized until tomorrow. I have too much to do.

I tell myself the same thing every Monday. Knowing that when I get to the end of the week, I still have the same stuff in front of me waiting to get done as I did at the beginning of the week.

Procrastination is subtle; its like running up a credit card until its maxed out and wondering how the heck THAT happened. A little pile on Monday becomes a mountain by Saturday, and the first two days of the next week are spent whittling the mountain back down to a pile so it can grow back to a mountain again.

And so it goes. One thinks big ideas and then gets lost in the details until the big idea seems too big to handle — until tomorrow. It’s seems demonic. There’s a reason for that. It’s because it is.

Procrastination is a ticket to chaos in this life. But it is a ticket to hell in the next. For the lost, there will always be time to repent tomorrow.

“I’m too involved in the cares and trials and tribulations of today to worry about eternity,” they think. “Tomorrow must be the day of my salvation. I’m too busy right now.”

For we who are saved, there will always be tomorrow to reach out to that lost loved one. There’s no time today, for some compelling reason. “Tomorrow will be the day of their salvation,” we agree. “I’m too busy right now.”

As the song lyrics say, “Tomorrow, tomorrow, there’s always tomorrow; it’s only a day away.” But the dedicated procrastinator’s mantra is ‘tomorrow never comes.’

A couple of weeks ago, James Scheuey was at his hunting cabin in Adrian, Pennsylvania with his son and three of his son’s friends.

When they retired for the night, the four younger men bunked on the floor and 42 year-old Scheuey climbed the ladder into the small loft bedroom over the kitchen. They had big plans for tomorrow.

No doubt Scheuey was dreaming of their hunting excursion tomorrow when he rolled over. He fell out of bed and landed in the kitchen below, impaling himself on a kitchen chair. There would be no more tomorrows for Mr. Scheuey.

Nobody plans to impale themselves on a chair leg in their sleep.

Today is the day of salvation. Tomorrow never comes.

Pass it on.

More To Worry About Than Just a Few Terrorists

More To Worry About Than Just a Few Terrorists
Vol: 63 Issue: 2 Saturday, December 2, 2006

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez proudly took delivery of the first two of 24 Russian-made Sukoi fighter jets as part of a $3 billion arms deal he made with Moscow over the objections of the United States. The deal also includes some fifty-four advanced Russian-made combat helicopters.

As part of the overall deal, Russia will also send technicians and advisors to Venezuela to train Chavez pilots to fly them. Russian state consortium Rosoboronexport plans build the biggest training center for helicopter pilots in Latin America, consisting of five facilities scattered across the country.

Russian experts will train Venezuelan AND foreign pilots in troop-landing Mi-17, military Mi-35 and heavy duty Mi-26, according to a report carried in the Caracas daily, El Universal . The construction will start in February 2007 and is expected to be completed sometime in 2010.

Back in 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez held a summit meeting during which they hammered out yet another version of yet another New World Order by working to fix global oil prices. Venezuela and Russia are two of the world s largest oil producers.

The Voice of Russia World Service, the official broadcasting service of the Russian government, reported at the time that the two nations, “have found common ground in their approach to the establishment of a New World Order,” and “coordination of Russian and Venezuelan energy policy.”

Moscow described the summit as a “significant event,” and emphasized the importance of oil-price fixing discussed by the two leaders. According to Moscow, the regulation of world oil prices “predetermined the development of the talks.”

“Coordination of Russian and Venezuelan energy policy is of paramount importance, and the two sides have reached an understanding on that score,” Russia stated.

Responding to Chavez’s offer to form a wider energy cartel, Putin declared, “We take an interest in your proposal to participate in the work of the group seeking approaches to fixing a price for oil.”

Both Putin and Chavez agreed upon the central role of the U.N. in the “New World Order,” declaring the “necessity to strengthen the United Nations as a universal mechanism to maintain security in the world.”

In a statement immediately prior to his Moscow visit on May 15 and 16, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan similarly praised Russia as playing, “a prominent role in international affairs, especially in the maintenance of peace and security of the planet.”

If the thought of Russian military training installations in America s backyard isn t scary enough, how about Chavez strategic partnership deal, inked between Venezuela and China the month before Russia s summit?

Chavez referred to Jiang’s visit as having “historic significance,” and he thanked the PRC for the “important support” it has given to Venezuela. “Venezuela is keen to further its cooperation with China,” Chavez stated.

Cooperation with China, according to Chavez, would “ensure more balanced social and economic development for the benefit of the Venezuelan people.”

More recently, Iran s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also paid Chavez a visit, after Hugo Chavez pledged to spill Venezuelan blood in Iran s defense at the Non-Aligned Nations Movement summit in Cuba earlier this year.

Chavez was particularly busy that week, between hammering out deals with Ahmadinejad over brunch before meetings to discuss global strategies with his other visitors — from North Korea.

We ve a lot more to worry about than Osama bin Laden or the Iraqi insurgency, but nobody seems to be paying much attention.

We ve got a lot more to worry about than just a few terrorists.


Have you noticed the headlines lately about the falling American dollar? It seems a bit out of synch with the booming US economy, where the stock market continues to set record levels and there are more jobs than there are Americans to fill them.

Since October, the dollar has fallen 4% against both the euro and the Japanese yen. And this week, the dollar hit the lowest it’s been against the euro since March 2005.

For years, North Korea s Kim Jong il has been flooding the global economy with so-called supernotes counterfeit US $100 bills so good even Secret Service agents can t tell the difference without conducted sophisticated tests.

The 2005 arrests of major Asian crime figures in several US cities led investigators straight to Pyongyang, and from there, to Beijing. It is estimated that a significant percentage of US $100 bills now in circulation are counterfeit.

But the idea isn t to undermine confidence in the genuine article, it is to flood the market to deflate its value. And it is only a small part of a larger plan.

Another reason the falling dollar seems out of synch with the overall economic picture is because it is also being manipulated by Hugo Chavez and all his new friends via a plan to demand payment for oil shipments be paid in euros instead of dollars.

Chavez is also planning the creation of a South American central bank designed to hold all foreign exchange holdings of participating countries in euros instead of dollars.

Approximately 70% of all foreign-exchange currency is currently held in US dollars. The US then sells Treasury debt into that foreign exchange market. Should Chavez and Co. succeed in their plan to create a world-wide shift of foreign exchange currencies from the dollar to the euro, it could conceivably destroy the value of the US dollar altogether.

Dwindling foreign-exhange dollar holdings would force the Treasury to sell US debt into a smaller international pool of US dollars, increasing both America s trade deficit and its budget deficit.

The plan is to open up a new front against America by destroying the value of American currency via economic warfare.

And it appears to be working.

In 2004, the Switzerland-based Bank for International Settlement reported that the U.S. dollar-denominated deposits of OPEC countries fell from 75 percent of their total deposits in the third quarter of 2001 to 61.5 percent by the end of 2003.

In the same period, the share of euro-denominated deposits of OPEC countries rose from 12 percent to 20 percent. OPEC member euro-denominated deposits reached 44 billion in June 2004, nearly double the 23.4 billion euros these countries held in the third quarter of 2001.

In the same period of time, the dollar holdings of the OPEC member countries decreased from $145.3 billion to $132.1 billion. In 2005, China negotiated major oil and natural-gas rights from Iran.

In January 2006, China announced an intention to reduce 75 percent of its foreign-exchange reserves currently held in the dollar.

China is the world s second-largest holder of US dollar-denominated foreign-exchange reserves.

The judgments enumerated in the Book of the Revelation for the last days are separated into four different categories symbolized by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse of Revelation 6:2-8.

The rider on the white horse represents conquest. The rider on the red horse represents war. The rider on the black horse represents economic collapse. The fourth and final rider, the rider on the pale horse, represents death.

This isn t the Tribulation, yet. America remains prosperous and relatively free. The Four Horsemen haven t yet begun their ride.

But they are clearly saddling up their horses.

The Burden of Babylon

The Burden of Babylon
Vol: 63 Issue: 1 Friday, December 1, 2006

It gets more and more difficult to defend American involvement in Iraq as time goes by. Not because the war itself was wrong. If ever Americans soldiers were engaged in a ‘just’ war, Iraq was it.

Saddam Hussein’s government was, as of 2003, recognized as one of the most evil and repressive on the planet. Saddam and his henchmen, over the course of three decades, were responsible for the deaths of literally millions of Muslims.

An entire generation of Muslim youth was wiped out on both sides during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. Another half-million or so were murdered by Saddam’s regime in the years since.

And only someone wearing leftist political blinders would attempt to argue that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed no threat to the United States in the post-9/11 world.

Despite all the political lies and the liars that are telling them, the war against Saddam Hussein was not solely based on Iraqi WMD, or at the behest of the oil companies or any of the other ‘hot-button’ issues raised by Democrats looking to score a political victory.

The invasion of Iraq was authorized by the US Congress based on 23 separate charges, beginning with Saddam’s violations of the 1991 armistice agreement to Iraq’s material and financial support of terrorists.

A number of wanted terrorists found sanctuary in Iraq. And Saddam Hussein openly paid a bounty of $25,000 to any Arab family who had a family member killed during terrorist operations against Israel.

None of the 23 counts of indictment against Saddam Hussein considered by the US Congress was ‘a lie’. Saddam really did violate seventeen separate UN Resolutions, all of which were backed up by the threat of an international military response.

He really DID support terror and terrorism. He really WAS pursuing a WMD program. His regime really WAS a threat to the region that forced the US to maintain a military presence in Saudi Arabia, which in turn, predicated Osama bin Laden’s war against the United States.

And America really DID win the war WITH Iraq — and it did so in less than three weeks. The current war is not with Iraq, but with Islamic insurgents, al-Qaeda and other assorted terrorist groups who share the goal of defeating US efforts to impose a stable democracy in place of the Ba’athist regime.

All that is true. But the facts notwithstanding, it grows, as I said at the outset, increasingly difficult to defend America’s continued involvement in Iraq post-Saddam.

Not because of what America did right, but rather, because of what the Right did wrong.


In the first place, President Bush underestimated the breadth and depth of the anger on the left. Secondly, he underestimated the willingness of the left to sabotage the war effort if that is what it would take to bring down his presidency. Third, and more importantly, he underestimated the gullibility of the American people.

Those three mistakes were compounded by US missteps following the removal of Saddam’s government. In an effort to placate his enemies on the left, President Bush failed to secure Iraq after Saddam’s defeat. Looters systematically stole, burned or destroyed much of Iraq’s infrastructure in the days following the war while US forces looked on.

Instead of capturing and screening enemy POW’s, Iraqi soldiers were allowed to just leave the battlefield and go home, often with their weapons. Instead of rebuilding Iraq’s military, the US simply disbanded it and banned all its former commanders from serving in the new Iraqi military. Instead of rebuilding Iraq’s government, it banned former government officials from participating in the new Iraqi government.

In an effort to avoid criticism by the opposition, the Bush administration failed to deal with potential enemies, like Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army, until it was too late. In mid-2003, the Bush administration was so distracted by the upcoming 2004 presidential race that it conducted post-war operations as a political, rather than as a military operation.

In short, the right lost in Iraq because it was too focused on winning the elections back home. As a result, Iraqi security problems began to snowball until it was too late to bring things back under control.

The administration disregarded the opposition from the left who systematically undermined both American unity and resolve and thus perpetuated the image of America as a paper tiger unwilling to pay the price in blood required to achieve victory.

In so doing, it allowed the left to turn Iraq into ‘another Vietnam’.

Those who remember how a Democratic Congress paved the way for a disastrous American withdrawal from Vietnam understand the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq and what it will mean for U.S. national security.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Brit Hume of Fox News that it is inappropriate to speak of a ‘victory’ in Iraq and that it is ‘a problem to be solved’ rather than a war to be won.

And THAT is where Bush ‘misunderestimated’ the left the most. He refused to believe that the left hated him more than it hated Saddam Hussein. Or that the left would sabotage deliberately sabotage the war effort to make domestic political points.

I wrote the following back in August, 2002.

“Isaiah writes, “Behold the land of the Chaldeans; this people was not, till the Assyrian founded it for them that dwell in the wilderness: they set up the towers thereof, they raised up the palaces thereof; and he brought it to ruin.” Isaiah 23:13

The Chaldeans at first were not a people, not formed into any commonwealth or kingdom until they were united under Nimrod. Nimrod founded the Assyrian monarchy and built the city of Babel, which he anointed as the seat of the Chaldean monarchy.

The Chaldeans became the Babylonians, and under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC, conquered the Jews, destroyed Jerusalem and carried the treasures of the Temple into captivity along with the majority of the Jewish population.

There remains a debt unpaid the Chaldeans by God on behalf of the Israelis. Jeremiah promised that “The violence done to Me and to My flesh be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitant of Zion say; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say.”[Jeremiah 51:35]

The destruction of Babylon the city in part took place when Belshezzar’s party was crashed by Darius the Mede. [Daniel 5]. The power of the Babylonian kings was broken. And Babylon, although continuously inhabited through the centuries, was never again anything like the great city of Daniel’s day.

But note that Babylon, the land of the Chaldeans, was much more than the city of Babylon [which still exists as an inhabited city about an hour southwest of Baghdad].

Babylon was [and is] a literal city, it was a historical political empire, and it was [and is] a religious system that is used symbolically of the world religious system in the same sense that Egypt is used as a metaphor for the world political system.

“A sound of a cry comes from Babylon, and great ruin from the land of the Chaldeans,” writes Jeremiah. This is not Babylon the system, or Babylon the symbol, that Jeremiah is addressing. It is Babylon, the literal land of the Chaldeans.

According to Jeremiah, the destruction of Babylon, the land of the Chaldeans, would be complete, utter and eternal. “And Babylon shall become heaps, a home for jackals, a horror and a hissing, without an inhabitant.” [Jeremiah 51:37]”

-The Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume 11, Issue 10]

At that time, Saddam was still in power and war almost a year away. During that period, I wrote extensively on two topics; the destruction of the Chaldeans and the mysterious absence of the United States as a major player in Bible prophecy.

Four years later, I can look back over the body of my work and see where I guessed wrong on a lot of the details. But I am not a prophet and never claimed to be one. I can only make an educated guess regarding the details of how God’s plan will unfold.

The salient fact here is that the Plan itself remains on course.

I am no more sure of all the details now than I was in 2002. But the Big Picture continues to follow the Bible’s outline:

Iraq continues merrily down the path to destruction, dragging the United States with it. Meanwhile, Gog-Magog and Persia are increasing in both strength and belligerence. Persia has openly threatened the destruction of Israel. Gog is knowingly supplying Persia with both the means and the technical support necessary to do so.

To the east is the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, together with its patrons and protectors in Beijing. America’s enemies are emboldened by the successes of the Iraqi insurgency. Israel’s enemies are emboldened by the successes of Hezbollah in the recent Lebanon war.

And America’s power and influence on the world scene is in free-fall at exactly the worst time in history.

HOW the Big Picture comes together is an issue of interpretive guesswork. That it IS coming together along the general outline of Bible prophecy is obvious to all but the wilfully ignorant.

Jesus said “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)

Can it get any clearer than that?