Can We Talk. . .?

Can We Talk. . .?
Vol: 21 Issue: 30 Monday, June 30, 2003

I continue to be bowled over by the facts presented in Ann Coulter s book, Treason and am even more impressed by the liberal backlash to its contents. Or rather, the absence of any credible backlash. While Coulter utterly skewers all things liberal and more or less asserts being a liberal is ideologically kin to being a traitor to the United States, the best rebuttal I ve seen offered so far was a hearty, Oh, yeah? but not much of substance.

THAT spoke volumes. Not the backlash, but the absence of one.

It is a favored tactic of the Left to attack the messenger when it can t deny the message. But this time, they are at least for the moment, mute on the subject.

At a website appropriately enough called a thread was begun about Coulter s book where Coulter was maligned, insulted, selected paragraphs were singled out for ridicule, particularly those parts about McCarthy. But nobody offered any research; they just kept repeating the same charges that have been rendered against the guy for the last fifty years.

Coulter listed each of the canards and allegations against the Senator, and acknowledged those which were true, but she asked a question none of her detractors either answered or cared to answer: Yes, but WERE there card carrying Communists working within the State Department?

And the Venona cables that were declassified in 1995 say yes not just identifying the handful that stood accused in the McCarthy hearings, but more than three hundred PAID SOVIET AGENTS!


Treason fascinated me because it took on one of my favorite subjects: The application of the Big Lie. But it fails to put it into a context. Treason explains the how part, and Coulter even breaks it down into its component parts to show that it is deliberate and calculated and not merely coincidental. But she doesn t explain the why part.

She tries, but it doesn t quite ring true. Not because Coulter is a liar, or because she didn t do her homework, it s just that she doesn t know.

To Coulter, it is the result of an epic battle between conservatives and liberals, who are, to Coulter, the embodiments of good and evil.

In point of fact, it is part of what is an ongoing battle between good and evil, but politics is only a tiny element of the overall conflict. The deception outlined by Coulter is the tip of the iceberg. The Bible speaks of a world-wide deception so massive that it was unimaginable even a generation ago.

It was particularly unimaginable to Americans who believe themselves to be the most well-informed, well-educated and most sophisticated population that ever graced the face of Planet Earth. It couldn t happen here is probably the most common argument against the Mark of the Beast prophecy, for example.

Coulter proves that the Big Lie not only COULD happen here, but it did happen here, it continues to happen here, and that Americans are no more immune to deception than anybody else.

In fact, with the preponderance of information sources available to Americans, it is probably easier to propagate the Big Lie in America than anywhere else. It is only our faith in the fact they couldn t say that if it wasn t true that separates truth from lies, not facts, since very few people ever actually get the facts.

And amazingly, if the facts are inconvenient or disturbing, most people would prefer to hold onto the lie they find more tolerable.

Coulter s book shows how easily the Big Lie can be propagated, but she doesn t go into why, either because she doesn t know the spiritual part of it, or chose not to marginalize herself outside the mainstream by explaining it.

For more than a year, I ve been sitting on an outline for a book about deception that does. Not just the liberal deception outlined in Treason although that is certainly part of it but also an exploration of the money trust that funds it, the worldview behind it, and the way it all fits together perfectly with the prophecies of the Bible for the last days.

For all its brilliance, Treason left out the most important part of explaining any conspiracy a genuinely credible motive.

Scripture says that in the multitude of counselors there is safety. Please pray for me as I reconsider the outline and what the Lord would have me to do with it.

Maybe it’s time to dust it off and fill in the blanks in that outline. But my schedule makes it all but impossible, so I ask you to join me in prayer that God will make Himself known on this issue.

Our God is the God of the impossible.

‘Peace, Peace, But There Is No Peace’

‘Peace, Peace, But There Is No Peace’
Vol: 21 Issue: 29 Sunday, June 29, 2003

The terrorists who evidently are in control of events on the ground at the moment in the Palestinian controlled areas are now being courted at the highest levels in both Washington and Jerusalem in the vain hope that the various terror factions will agree to a limited, three-month cease fire.

It isn’t coming easy, either, as a quick read of the morning headlines demonstrate. According to Newsday, the Palestinians are “Edging Towards Truce” whereas Reuters UK says “Palestinian Truce Declaration Put Off – Fatah”. Albawaba Middle East News reports “Palestinian Groups Delay Cease Fire Declaration to Monday” but the Edmonton Sun is reporting that “Militants Accept Ceasefire.”

Ananova UK reports that “Arafat Holds Up Palestinian Militia’s Truce Declaration” while the Palm Beach Post says the “Mideast Truce Plan Gets Final Touches”. Sky News is the most encouraging, shouting from its headline, “PEACE PLAN IS IMMINENT.”

All these reports were posted within the last hour on the Google news site, but no two are alike. About the only thing they have in common is that, according to the headlines, it isn’t terrorists, but “militants”, “militia”, or just “Palestinians” who object to a cease-fire as part of a peace process.

It is typical of the whole Middle East Road Map scheme. Is there a truce or no? Nobody is sure. The same can be said for Palestinian cooperation with the Road Map. Is there any, or no?

In this case, the headlines are wrong, and the answer to both questions is “no”, although I wish I was wrong. The Palestinian commitment to peace is as sincere as the Palestinian effort to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure as demanded as a first step on the Palestinian side towards peace.

The Road Map DEMANDS the cessation of terror, the arrest of terrorists and the dismantling of the terrorist organizations themselves. According to the Road Map, this is a FIRST step that, having been accomplished, then obligates Israel to respond in kind by unfreezing PA money, dismantling settlements, pulling back its troops, etc., etc.

Nowhere in the Road Map is there any mention of a temporary cease-fire, a temporary truce, or any other such baloney. The Road Map calls for the destruction of the terrorist infrastructure by the Palestinians themselves, as a FIRST step — that cannot be emphasized strongly enough.

The idea of a ‘Hudna’ — a temporary truce — was not even entertained by the Quartet as an option. Today’s headlines all seem to suggest that not only is it an option, but somehow, it has acquired an air of legitimacy.


That’s the way things operate when you start to get close to Jerusalem. The closer you get, the more other-worldly things become. Let’s look at it in summary. The Israelis have met all the burdens imposed by the Road Map without waiting for the Palestinians to meet even the most obvious prerequisite for peace, which is the absence of war.

I am trying to think of a time in the history of the world when a country was forced to make peace with a non-country within its own borders while the non-country continues to press the attack. Maybe somebody can find an historical parallel that I can turn to? I keep drawing a blank.

President Bush declared a war against ‘terror and terrorists of international reach, where ever they may be found.’ The president was very specific, saying that any country that harbors terrorists is a terrorist state. Any country that sides with the terrorists is an enemy. And there will be no negotiation with terrorists.

But National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is currently in Israel attempting to negotiate a temporary cease-fire agreement from the TERRORISTS while simultaneously pressuring Israel to meet its remaining obligations under the Road Map, irrespective of whether or not the Palestinian terrorists meet theirs.

Meanwhile, the terrorists have a list of demands they expect to be met before they will agree to a temporary truce. First and foremost, they demand safe haven for terrorist leaders, demanding Israel stop its campaign of targeting terrorist leaders for assassination.

Hold on for just a minute! The United States is NEGOTIATING — at the highest levels — with TERRORISTS, with the end game being convincing Israel to meet TERRORIST DEMANDS for safe haven. THIS is the Bush Doctrine?

If there is a difference between negotiating with Hamas for a cease-fire in exchange for immunity and negotiating with Osama bin-Laden for a cease-fire in exchange for calling off the war with al-Qaeda, I can’t see it. Neither can the Israelis. But it makes sense to Washington.

The reason is simple. It is because the conflict is over Israel and Jerusalem. So it is no surprise it doesn’t make any sense in the natural. Because the conflict itself is supernatural.

The Bible is specific about the current conflict; the role it plays is preparing the world for the eventual revelation of the antichrist and the false peace that opens the Tribulation Period.

The time is not quite here, so neither is anything resembling peace. Or even, to this point, a false peace. Indeed, what Condi Rice is currently negotiating for IS a false peace.

This is a situation in which a false peace is the STARTING point, for crying out loud! If she is successful, Condi will have under her belt a TEMPORARY TRUCE, completely unknown to the Road Map outline, which will hamstring Israel while giving her enemies’ time to re-group, re-arm and re-engage Israel later.

THAT is what Rice is shooting for, and if she gets a ‘temporary’ truce, she will come away happy.

I’m not alleging that this is the false peace the Bible speaks of, or that Condi Rice is the antichrist — let me make that clear.

But it is equally clear that a precedent has been set for exactly that kind of eventuality when the real antichrist steps in.

Israel is proceeding as if there were already an agreement in place.

As if Abu Mazen were really calling the shots instead of Yasser Arafat.

As if Abu Mazen were really untainted by a terrorist past, as the Road Map demands.

As if the PA had recognized Israel’s right to exist, had already begun dismantling the terror network, arresting wanted terrorists and had begun cooperating with the Israeli authorities to end the intifada.

As if. . . but it is an illusion. The illusion of ‘peace’ is so confusing even the headlines contradict each other.

The theme of false peace is central to the last days. Let’s go down the list.

The Bible said there would have to be a place called Israel in the last days. (Ezekiel 38-39) Check.

It says further that Israel will be hated by the whole world and that the world would side with her enemies over ownership of Jerusalem. (Zech 12) Check.

It says that while the world attempts to force Israel to the peace table, peace will remain an illusion. Twice, Jeremiah repeats himself verbatim: “They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14, 8:11) Check.

The Apostle Paul warned, “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” (1 Thessalonians 5:3) Check.

And 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)


Special Report: Treason And the Big Lie

Special Report: Treason And the Big Lie
Vol: 21 Issue: 28 Saturday, June 28, 2003

I am indebted to my old friend David McDaniel of Las Vegas, Nevada for sending me a copy of Ann Coulter s newest book, Treason . I probably would not have bought it myself, because of the subtitle; Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terror.

Ordinarily, I am content to leave the past in the past unless it is relevant to the present, and another food fight between liberals and conservatives doesn t interest me. There is enough spin going on right now to keep me busy. And anyway, my mission is not to be an ideologue for either side, but rather to try and locate whatever is true and separate it from spin.

I fit the category of political conservative because I believe the US is a Republic, not a pure democracy and is therefore under and answerable to the Creator God of the Bible.

I believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land as written, not as interpreted.

I believe that spin is another word for lie and that spin doctor means master liar . I believe that the United States is the finest country the world has ever known.

I believe that any American who betrays the United States is a traitor.

Not all conservatives are Republican and not all liberals are Democrats. But conservative and Democrat are never used in the same sentence, so I am often confused with being a Republican.

That is another reason I wouldn t have bought Coulter s book myself. I hold my opinions based on comparing what I see, hear and read to reality. Coulter is the darling of the Republican right, and I no more want to propagate Republican spin than I would Democratic spin.

Having said all that, I am very much indebted to David for sending me a copy, as I said at the outset. Coulter s book isn t just a good read; it is a stunningly accurate explanation of how it was possible that we found ourselves embroiled in a Congressional debate over whether the UN or the US was responsible for national security.

Coulter uses history, the Congressional Record and recently declassified US intelligence information to demonstrate how much of the thinking of the liberal left has its roots in Communist ideology.

For example, McCarthyism. To most Americans, even conservatives, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a right-wing demagogue who systematically destroyed the lives of innocent Americans in what revisionist history now calls a Communist witch hunt.

Coulter argues that, far from being a dirty word, McCarthy was an American hero. She makes that argument systematically, carefully, but effectively.

On 1 February 1943, the U.S. Army’s Signal Intelligence Service, a forerunner of the National Security Agency, began a small, very secret program, later codenamed Venona. The object of the Venona program was to examine and possibly exploit encrypted Soviet diplomatic communications. These messages had been accumulated by the Signal Intelligence Service (later renamed the U.S. Army Signal Security Agency and commonly called “Arlington Hall” after the Virginia location of its headquarters) since 1939 but had not been studied previously.

The accumulated message traffic comprised an unsorted collection of thousands of Soviet diplomatic telegrams that had been sent from Moscow to certain of its diplomatic missions and from those missions to Moscow.

Incredibly, Coulter says, Project Venona was kept from the administrations of both Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, because US intelligence ALREADY KNEW both administrations were heavily infiltrated with Soviet agents. Those accused by the McCarthy Committee were NOT railroaded.

The Soviet intercepts were declassified in 1995. They confirmed that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, executed in 1950 for passing atomic secrets to the Soviets, were guilty as charged. So was Alger Hiss, who was convicted of perjury in 1950 for DENYING he was a Soviet agent.

Hiss advised Roosevelt at Yalta, where the US agreed to let the Soviets have Eastern Europe. Hiss was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations. When he was convicted, Secretary of State Dean Acheson said he still supported Hiss. That would be the equivalent of Colin Powell endorsing a convicted senior al-Qaeda operative who had infiltrated the Bush White House.

The same can be said of the rest of those who claimed to be victims of McCarthyism. Coulter explodes the Principle of the Big Lie and how is was used by the liberals to create a boogey-man called McCarthyism to stifle criticism, even though most of the alleged McCarthyist witch hunts like the famous Hollywood blacklist were conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) years before McCarthy was even elected to the Senate.

And Coulter proves it succinctly, by pointing out what the H in HUAC stands for. McCarthy was a Senator. Unlike his revisionist portrait, McCarthy was reluctant to name suspects, and his committee was charged only with looking for suspected Communists in government service.

While HUAC was looking for traitors, McCarthy s committee only looked at federal employees to determine if they were security risks that needed to be reassigned or fired.

Does that sound anything like the history of Joe McCarthy you ve heard?

Coulter demonstrates how the McCarthy deception became fact by the simple expedient of repeating the Big Lie over and over again until it became true.

More than that, Coulter shows how the liberalism that allowed the Soviet Union to nearly defeat the United States from within is now a staple part of the Democratic Party.

Treason outlines, step by step, the application of propaganda in America, its chief propagandists, who trained them and where they are now. Coulter uses the New York Times own archives to prove the liberal cover-up of its endorsement of Communism.

A case in point: Had YOU ever heard of Project Venona? Did YOU know that sensitive classified information was denied Democratic presidents during the Cold War because they were untrustworthy?

Did YOU know that Soviet intercepts conclusively proved the guilt of Communists like Alger Hiss and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

Did YOU know that former Assistant Secretary Harry Dexter White, Roosevelt chief of staff Lauchlin Curry and Duncan Lee, chief of staff to the head of the OSS (CIA) were ALL Soviet agents?

Roosevelt was informed that Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White were Soviet agents. He laughed it off. Truman was also informed that they were Soviet agents. Truman also laughed it off, and then appointed Harry Dexter White to head the IMF.

And in case you think it is hyperbole, in 1950 President Eisenhower directed his Attorney General to announce that former President Truman appointed White to the IMF while KNOWING FULL WELL White was a Soviet agent. Truman tried to deny it, saying he had never seen the FBI report that claimed White was a spy.

So the FBI produced the report. Then Truman said he appointed White head of the IMF to get him out of Treasury. As a ‘security’ measure. At the time, the liberal media accepted Truman’s explanation. Because that is what they wanted to believe.

The liberal media doesn t talk about that much now, because for fifty years, they ve been defending all these Soviet agents and to publicize it would show they were complicit in treason.

These sound like wild charges. I am satisfied that they are not for several reasons.

The first is that this is a book written by an arch-conservative making blistering accusations against some of the most powerful people in the world, not to mention the American Democratic Party as an institution and liberalism as a worldview. Accusations of TREASON!

You can be certain that every word was carefully vetted; that the documentation will stand up the scrutiny of the liberal media, and that no stone was left unturned to ensure its accuracy. No publisher would publish this unless they were certain they could prove every word.

Ann Coulter has many powerful enemies who would like nothing better than to prove she is just another hysterical conservative.

The second reason is because it fits perfectly with the known facts of history. Truth is always harmonious with history by its nature; it needs no explanation because it IS the explanation. Truth doesn t need to be shaped to fit history. But revisionist history never quite seems to fit the frame without some creative explanation.

Like McCarthyism, for example. It always sounded flat to my ear, because it didn t fit with the facts. If McCarthy exposed the infiltration of Soviet agents into the highest reaches of government, why, oh why would his name become a dirty word? And history shows he did exactly that and probably bought America the extra thirty years necessary to defeat the Evil Empire without resorting to thermonuclear war.

We know that Stalin got his hands on the US plans for the atomic bomb, and that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg gave them to him. Why, oh why has there been such a systematic effort to portray the people who condemned the world to fifty years under the shadow of the mushroom cloud as victims of McCarthyism. Particularly since McCarthy hadn t even been elected to the Senate when the Rosenbergs were arrested?

Since Alger Hiss helped condemn Eastern Europe to four decades of Soviet domination, (confirmed by Venona) why would the liberals still be trying to rehabilitate him fifty years later?

The liberal myth doesn t explain any of that without a lot of fancy footwork and baloney about McCarthyism. The unvarnished truth explains all of that without any mental gymnastics because it is true. That s what the phrase ring of truth is all about.

Coulter s book PROVES a vast, LEFT-wing conspiracy to commit treason against the United States and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there were the tiniest provable inaccuracy, you can rest assured that it would make banner headlines at the New York Times. But no such headline has appeared.

Coulter shows how the liberals used McCarthyism as a shield against any serious inquiry into what they were up to, while systematically maintaining its own blacklist.

If one is not pro-homosexual or pro-abortion, one is blacklisted by anything controlled by the liberal establishment. Another self-evident truth.

The Coulter book is filled with self-evident truths which, taken together, systematically dismantle the Big Lie. And so far, none of the Big Liars have been able to do anything about it except call her names.

They can t assail the facts, so when Coulter dares to call it treason all the left can do is attempt to marginalize her as an ideologue and hope nobody will believe her.

I believe her.

And Little Tiny Handcuffs . . .

And Little Tiny Handcuffs . . .
Vol: 21 Issue: 27 Friday, June 27, 2003

And now for something completely different. The pro-gun lobby argues that the Constitution gives ordinary Americans the right to keep and bear arms. The anti-gun lobby argues that the Constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms applies only to state ‘militias’ which they in turn define as the National Guard.

In other words, according to this line of thinking, the Constitution gives the right to bear arms to the GOVERNMENT.

There’s the first problem, and also an object lesson in the way that the liberal left invents stuff as it goes along and proving that there are too many people out there who’ve repeated so many mindless mantras that they have became permanently mindless.

In this instance, the mantra is ‘Guns kill people.’ Repeat it long enough and it starts to make sense. Once it does, your mind has gone numb and you are ready for the next step.

It has been observed (by me) that a person could fall into a dumpster FULL of guns and not ONE of them will shoot you in retaliation. Guns don’t kill people — people kill people. Sometimes they use guns. Sometimes knives. An occasional beer bottle. A baseball bat. A pair of scissors. Yesterday, a woman was convicted of murdering a man after she hit him with her car. (The car was not charged)

I don’t want to get into the gun debate itself, since it is stupid and I get embarrassed trying to explain to grown people that inanimate objects can’t do anything by themselves. It is a bit like explaining that beer can make you drunk or that you won’t fall off the edge of the earth if you drive too far in a straight line.

What is significant isn’t the details of the debate, since there is nothing to debate. What is significant is that there IS a debate, or that there is anybody who openly takes the position that you fix a social problem by banning the symptoms.

While I agree that too many bad guys have guns, the only reason why it is a problem is because none of the good guys do. That certainly seems to be self-evident, but it is also historically provable.

The bad guys had guns in Arizona in the 1880’s, but then again, so did the good guys. Women were respected. Rape was unheard of, as were home invasions, burglaries and casual violence. An armed society was a polite society. And statistically, there were far fewer murders per capita, if one excludes self-defense related deaths.

But facts don’t stop liberals from advancing their agenda.


Thanks to the idiotic premise that guns are capable of self-determination, it is largely illegal in the United States to possess guns, except in certain circumstances. The liberals won the argument over whether the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms, or whether it refers to the government.

I have often wondered why the government would feel the need to give ITSELF the right to bear arms by Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitution already charges the government with providing for the common defense. Is it possible that when the Founding Fathers decided that the government should defend the country, that they expected to do so using bows and arrows?

I am trying to picture Thomas Jefferson slapping himself on the forehead, and exclaiming, “Omigosh, we forgot to give the army permission to have guns . . we need to amend the Constitution, right now!”

Now comes a new law that proves the old adage that people only go into politics when they are too stupid to get a real job. In Maryland, there is an Annapolis lawmaker who is seeking to ban TOY guns.

Alderwoman Cynthia A. Carter, Democrat, said the law would ban all toy guns except for clear, brightly colored plastic guns. Mrs. Carter said the law also would give prosecutors more leverage against defendants who use toy guns to hold up banks or other establishments.

“If someone commits a felony with one, they will not only be charged with the crime but also with using a toy gun,” said Mrs. Carter, who has been a member on the Annapolis City Council since 1997. (A CAREER idiot!)

Lessee. A bad guy is ready to face a rap for felony robbery, but now, his toy gun is illegal. So he goes home and forgets about it?

Carter said she hopes her legislation, which she plans to introduce next month, will set a precedent for other cities to follow. Annapolis is blessed with a cadre of career idiots, four of whom have joined Carter in supporting the ban. Of the nine city councilmen, five support making toy guns illegal.

Mrs. Carter’s legislation is based on a similar New York City proposal, (home of the Career Idiot). New York bans anyone from selling or possessing a “toy or imitation firearm” that can be mistaken for a real weapon.

The ban excludes brightly colored or clear plastic guns. Police, however, could impose a $50 fine if the toy gun is altered to look like a real weapon. And if you happen to be smoking in a public place at the time, NYC police are authorized to SHOOT you. (Ok, I made that part up)

Perhaps there is some merit to this argument. It would keep the police busy preventing five year old boys from impersonating police officers, since that was one of my son’s favorite games. That way, we can cut down on the incidences of people being taken into custody by kindergarten cops.

(Johnny arrested me and many of my friends on a regular basis. We survived the experience, and we didn’t even end up with a record).

It will also prevent police from accidentally gunning down little kids carrying toy guns that police think are real guns. Banning toys is evidently more cost efficient than training police officers.

And it will be good for the business community.

Somebody will have to manufacture all those little tiny handcuffs.

Making Things Up as They Go

Making Things Up as They Go
Vol: 21 Issue: 26 Thursday, June 26, 2003

According to this morning’s press, Yasser Arafat said that he expects an official announcement almost any minute to the effect that Hamas has agreed to a ceasefire plan with Israel.

It is the top story on the half hour news roundups on all the cable news stations. “Cease-Fire Agreement Reached” says the headlines — but then there is this subheading. . .”Militants Deny Agreement”!

There are so many problems with this it’s hard to know where to begin, so let’s start with the most obvious problem. Reporting the existence of an agreement is NOT the same as HAVING one.

But the press is reporting — in one breath! — both the existence of an agreement and the fact that it doesn’t exist. The reasoning is simple; the Palestinians need SOMETHING on their scorecard, even if it has to be made up.

First, a quick (and probably unnecessary) historical review:

The road map for peace sets out a path that will ostensibly end with a ‘two-state solution’ to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That was what the Palestinians claimed they wanted when they entered into the Oslo Accords in 1993. They never achieved it, because whenever it appeared to be a genuine possibility, they sabotaged it themselves.

After Ehud Barak scared the moles off Yasser Arafat by offering him everything he claimed he wanted at Camp David, Arafat turned it down flat and orchestrated the current “intifada” or uprising, now in its 33rd month.

The road map to peace is the brainchild of the Bush administration, in consultation with the other three members of the so-called ‘Quartet’ — the EU, UN and Russia. It was supposed to kick off with both the Palestinians and the Israelis making certain concessions.

The first concession fell to the Palestinians. Before anything could begin, Arafat had to be completely out of the loop and a new leader, untainted by any terrorist background, had to be selected by the Palestinians.

Instead, Arafat, (not the Palestinian people) appointed (not elected) Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah official directly tied to the 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre. The road map called for the new leadership to immediately takes steps to dismantle the terror network (not negotiate a ceasefire), to outlaw terrorism (not done), to arrest wanted terror suspects (not one arrest since Abbas was appointed) and to take concrete steps to gain control of the territories (not one of which has been undertaken).

AFTER all that had been accomplished, Israel was obligated to; unfreeze Palestinian funds, begin dismantling settlements, begin withdrawing its troops from Palestinian areas, lift the closure of its borders to Palestinian workers and turn over security to the Palestinian Authority.


Although the Palestinian side has not taken a single step of any kind toward living up to any of its obligations (not a single one) Israel has either accomplished or is the process of accomplishing everything listed above.

So now the world is betting the farm on a ceasefire agreement that may or may not have been reached with some or all of the terrorists, possibly, but nobody is sure yet, since the terrorists are denying they’ve come to any kind of agreement at all.

But, at least it is something to REPORT as ‘movement’ from the Palestinian side. It doesn’t matter if it’s true — heck, this is the MIDDLE EAST!

Note at the outset of today’s Digest who it was the announced the expected ceasefire with Hamas. Not Mahmoud Abbas — Yasser Arafat!

And Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian terror machine got promoted again — now that they are talking about a ceasefire, they are back to being ‘militants’.

Now, to the heart of it. Miles of text are being cranked out around the world right now about the ray of hope contained in the Ceasefire That Hasn’t Happened, but nobody is making the salient point here. At least, I’ve not been able to find anybody who was.

The point is this. There is nothing in the roadmap about a temporary ‘truce’ or a ‘ceasefire’. The roadmap makes no concession for terrorists to bargain for the right to continue to exist unhindered.

The roadmap calls for the dismantling of the terrorist organizations and its replacement by a real Palestinian government.

A ceasefire serves only one purpose and that is to take the pressure off the terrorists to allow them to rearm, regroup and resume their war with Israel.

Only an idiot would believe that a ceasefire with terrorists is the equivalent of dismantling the terrorist infrastructure. But there is evidently no shortage of idiots out there, because that is what the papers are saying, at least subliminally.

If you want to know who is running the PA, don’t take my word for it. Cruise the headlines and see for yourself.

MSNBC: “Arafat Expects Truce Announcement” BBC: “Arafat Expects Mid-East Truce” — even the Jerusalem Post’s headline said, “Arafat Expects Truce Announcement Soon”; but I found not one SINGLE headline that said anything about the guy who is ostensibly in charge, Mahmoud Abbas.

In this generation, we’ve seen the Big Lie go from something “the Nazis did in World War Two” to an art form so sophisticated that for the first time, history is being revised while the people who lived it are still here.

Here is an example from MSNBC’s background of the Arab-Israeli conflict: “The establishment of the state of Israel over 50 years ago starts one of the largest population displacements in history. 700,000 Arabs leave or are driven out of the budding Jewish state in 1948 and 1949. Languishing in crude camps, their sense of displacement spawns the Palestine Liberation Organization and violent attacks, beginning in the 1960s. Today the number of Palestinians in occupied territories and surrounding Arab states passes 3.6 million.”

My goodness! The largest population displacements in history? And only three years after Hitler exterminated 12 million people in death camps. How Big a Lie is necessary?

We’ll go on to the ‘crude camps’ these Arabs ‘languished’ in. They were Arab camps, built by Arabs and used by Arabs to concentrate the Palestinian Arabs so they couldn’t be absorbed into the greater Arab world.

The attacks against Israel are blamed on this ‘displacement’ which was carried out, not by Israel, but the Arabs themselves. Not in 1948, but in 1967 when the Jordanians and Egyptians refused to take responsibility for what had been, a week before, their own citizens.

And MSNBC claims the number of ‘Palestinians’ in ‘occupied’ territories and IN THE ARAB WORLD passes 3.6 million. How was that figure arrived at? Since prior to 1967, the ‘Palestinians’ of the West Bank were Jordanians, while those of Gaza were Egyptians, how could one number as ‘Palestinians’ anyone born before June 6. 1967? And from there extrapolate ‘3.6 million Palestinians in the Arab world’?

Until the 1923 San Remo Conference, the entire Middle East was a single province of the Ottoman Empire called Southern Syria. Winston Churchill, on behalf of the victorious British government, drew the borders of every single modern Arab state. Every one. As well as borders for a Jewish state in what is today Israel.

If being an Iraqi or a Syrian or a Jordanian or a Saudi national can only be traced back 90 years, how in the world could you separate Palestinians out of an Arab world whose own borders are so new that 100 years ago, they were all the same people, without any national distinction?

The Big Lie is almost completely accepted now. Most people believe Israel is a usurper, a Johnny-come-lately who stole the land from the indigenous Palestinian people. All anybody would have to do is ask their grandparents, or dig up a history book published before the mid 1960’s to discover the Big Lie.

But people will believe what they want to believe, especially if it is about Israel, the most hated nation on the face of the earth. Exactly as Scripture foretold.

“And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.” (Jeremiah 29:18)

“And I will persecute them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them:” (Jeremiah 29:18)

Israel’s reproach continues to this day. For two thousand years, every Jew has slept with his bags packed — just in case — until 1948. Since 1948, he has slept with a gun under his pillow, expecting at any time to be murdered in his bed.

The Big Lie says that Israel is not a Jewish homeland, but a Palestinian homeland stolen from a Palestinian people — who did not exist a generation ago — by the Jews who founded Jerusalem 3000 years ago, many of whom can trace their own ancestry back to the time of Herod’s Temple.

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

Incursion Into Syria — Portent of Things To Come?

Incursion Into Syria — Portent of Things To Come?
Vol: 21 Issue: 25 Wednesday, June 25, 2003

As the details emerge from last week’s attack on a convoy near the Syrian border, it appears that the attack may have taken place on the Syrian side. At least three Syrian border guards were wounded and there are at least five Syrian soldiers in US custody.

This is fog-of-war stuff, but it does appear that US forces on the ground crossed the Syrian frontier in pursuit of the convoy and that a firefight took place between US and Syrian troops.

The White House and the Pentagon provided public confirmation for the first time on Monday of the bare outlines of the raid on Wednesday. But Rumsfeld refused to confirm or deny reports that US troops crossed into Syrian territory. And a refusal to deny is generally a tacit confirmation. But here is what HAS been confirmed.

Working partly on information from the most senior Iraqi captured so far – Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti – special operations soldiers attacked a convoy of several vehicles in an attempt to stop what they believed were high-level fugitives linked to the fallen Iraqi government.

The special Task Force 20 commando team was joined in the operation by an AC-130 gunship and other air support which attacked the vehicles along a known escape and smuggling route near the western city of Qaim.

Qaim is a border town in Iraq’s western desert.

This was the convoy that the rumormill says is being tested for the presence of Saddam’s DNA.

US officials refused to discuss the implications of the incursion into Syrian territory, and would give no details about how far troops thrust into Syria, how long they stayed there, or how they got into the firefight.

The Pentagon may not be willing to discuss the implications of the incursion into Syria in public, but it is an ironclad certainty that they were discussed in private. The fact that the incursion took place at all is a message to Syria, the surrounding nations of the Middle East and to the American people.

The administration meant what it said when enunicating the Bush Doctrine. Remember? “If you aren’t with us, you are with the terrorists. . . If you give aid and comfort to terrorists, you are a terrorist. . . this is war.”

Following the attack on the convoy, US forces attacked a tiny village five miles from the Syrian frontier on the Iraqi side and fifty miles south of the main border crossing point. The village of Qaim was created by Saddam and populated by the Shamar tribe, known for its loyalty to Saddam. The village survives by operating a thriving smuggling trade. The village itself is known locally as the ‘Wolf’s Den’.

Ace of Diamonds Abid Hamid Mahmoud al-Tikriti, Saddam’s closest confidante and longtime personal secretary was captured June 16. He had several million dollars with him and a cache of blank Belarussian passports. He had just returned from Syria when he was captured. It was shortly after that capture that the convoy was hit and Qaim became a military target.


The New York Times says that the coalition forces evicted the villagers from Qaim and that the presence of US bulldozers indicates the US is planning to set up a forward military base there. It seems likely — but remember the report came from the New York Times.

But if true, it would explain why Damascus has thus far remained relatively silent about the incursion into it’s territory and the firefight with Syrian troops. By any possible interpretation, it was an act of war committed against Syria by the United States. Syria’s silence adds further credence to the intelligence gathered so far that indicates Damascus is actively aiding fleeing members of the Ba’ath regime.

Taken together, Syria, Saddam’s Iraq and the Islamic regime in Iran represent the operational arm of the Jihadist Islam propagated by Saudi Arabia. The Saudis preach and fund the jihad. But it is Syria and Iran that supply the terrorists, arm them and train them, together with Saddam’s Iraq.

Although the Ba’athists are secular, and Iran’s mullahs have no love for them, they are all united by a common religious goal — the destruction of Israel.

Damascus is a veritable terrorist capital, where Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP and other Palestinian terror goups maintain offices. Offices! With fax numbers, and secretaries and the whole nine yards. For terrorists!

Damascus controls Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, where Iranian backed and trained Hezbollah terrorists work with other Islamic terror groups to coordinate strikes against Israel and Israeli interests.

Meanwhile, the other member of the ‘Axis of Evil’ and, presumably, the REAL threat to US interests and security, is being largely ignored.

Why is that? Because North Korea doesn’t threaten Israel. The White House is not focusing its attention on Israel’s enemies out of religious conviction, or even, I believe, out of love for Israel. Instead, this White House seems to be slowly coming to the pragmatic realization that there are only two remedies for terror.

The first is to give in to the terrorists, like the French have, and hope they successfully wipe Israel off the map. In this scenario, once the terrorists have destroyed Israel, they will beat their swords into plowshares and begin peacefully farming in what used to be Tel Aviv.

The second scenario is the Bush Doctrine. That says the only remedy for terror is to destroy the terrorists and overthrow the governments that sponsor, train, equip and support them. And that task begins with Syria and Iran. And ultimately, Saudi Arabia, but first things first.

And that means the countries that threaten Israel directly.

Twenty-five hundred years ago, the prophet Zechariah outlined the Bush Doctrine’s real intent. Tens of centuries before there was a George Bush, or even an Israel.

“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” (Zechariah 12:2-3)

The US hasn’t been able to find Saddam’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, although it is a certainty that he did possess them, and there is absolutely no evidence to explain where they went. But most intelligence services believe that if they aren’t in Iraq, then they are in Syria.

Now we return to Zechariah for a moment and take a look at the battlefield tactics he foretold twenty-five centuries before it was possible.

“And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.” (Zechariah 14:12)

We are living witnesses to the unfolding of God’s Plan for the Ages.

There is a reason for that. So we can testify to the world that the King is coming and that time is running out. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating.

The fields are white with the harvest, but the laborers are few. But that’s who we assemble your Omega Letter for — the few. You.

You are the ones that people are going to ask, ‘what does this mean?’

Every month you put your money where your heart is, which makes my job enormously easier because I know I am addressing dedicated fellow one-on-one evangelists. Not lurkers in the shadows.

God has a plan for the Middle East, events are NOT spiralling out of control. God has a plan for our government, He has a plan for Iran and Syria, He even has a plan for this war.

And He has a plan for somebody who sees all this begin to come to pass and wants to know that he too can look up and know his redemption draweth nigh.

And all that is needed to advance God’s plan for that person is you.

To “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” (1 Peter 3:15)

In short, to be equipped for our own battle in our own spiritual war. “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.” (Psalms 2:1-4)

Please help us to keep getting the word out, and let us know how we can help YOU get the word out in your own way.

Each one tell one. The King is coming!

Sarah’s Saga

Sarah’s Saga
Vol: 21 Issue: 24 Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Where does an American citizen go for help when outside the United States? One would assume that the US Embassy would provide safe haven, since that is the purpose of having embassies in the first place. To protect the rights of American citizens abroad.

Under international law, American embassies are American soil, regardless of the country they are located in. Inside a US embassy, American law applies.

Remember the thrillers from the Cold War era, when Americans would be forced to run a gauntlet of evil Soviets in order to make their way inside the embassy gates? The Americans would run the last few yards breathlessly, with the KGB just a step behind.

The embassy door would open, the American would run through, and the Soviets would walk away in disgust, as the embassy gate swung shut to reveal the emblem of the United States. It was thrilling stuff.

But being an American seeking the safety of the US embassy isn’t what it used to be. At least, not if the foreign government you are seeking refuge from is Saudi Arabia.

Sarah Saga, 23, is an American-born citizen who was kidnapped at age five by her Saudi-born biological father. Sarah was held incommunicado and married off to a Saudi friend of her father’s — against her will, as in most Saudi arranged marriages.

Saga wants to come home to America. Under Saudi law, a woman cannot travel without her husband’s permission. So she fled, with her two children, to the US embassy.

Saga is an American citizen who was kidnapped as a child in violation of the US court’s custodial orders. Her two children are also, under US law, American citizens.

So she should be home free, right? Wrong. The State Department is furious with Saga for bringing her problems to them.


Saga says that she at first phoned the Embassy and asked for help making her way there. She was told the embassy didn’t ‘operate a taxi service.’ Once there, she asked for food and was told the embassy wasn’t running a restaurant. Whether or not that is true depends on whether or not you believe Saga.

But there is no question that Saga is being held prisoner by the United States government within the walls of a US Embassy FOR the Saudi government.

The State Department says that it doesn’t want to get involved because this is just a couple ‘having marital problems’. Duh! How many women do you know that would consider being forced into an arranged marriage to be a ‘marital problem?’

Saga is an American citizen who stands accused of no crime. So are her children. Saga’s American mother has not seen her daughter for seventeen years, and has never seen her grandchildren.

Although Sarah was born in Hayward, Calf., the Saudi government does not recognize her American citizenship. And as a Saudi woman, she has no civil rights. She has lived as a slave, totally controlled first by her Saudi father and then by the man that he chose for her to marry. Sarah is now a mother herself and has two little children. How could she get out of Saudi Arabia and what would happen to her children?

When a Saudi man decides to divorce his wife which he can readily do by merely saying to her, “I divorce you” three times no lawyers are required. He can take the children and the mother will probably rarely see them again. The ownership of women and children is for the taking by the Saudi man. No debate.

So Sarah sought safety and protection under the shadow of Old Glory, only to discover that the United States would much prefer to sacrifice her future — and that of her children — and force them back into Saudi slavery in order to keep the SAUDIS happy.

Officials of the Saudi government were allowed into the embassy to coerce the 23-year-old to sign a release that would allow them to take her back to her husband.

Failing in that attempt, the Saudis said that they would let her go, but her children had to remain in Saudi Arabia. Saga refused, and so now the State Department is forcing her into a direct confrontation with the Saudi Foreign Minister and the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

Think of it! Saga and her children must leave the safety of the embassy and go directly into the Saudi seat of power, flanked only by two embassy underlings for diplomatic protection.

If the Saudis elect to simply seize Saga and her children from the custody of the two embassy employees, what’s to stop them? Respect for US sovereignty?

The White House has done nothing to protest, reflecting the Bush administration’s strange love affair with Riyadh. The Saudis represent everything that America is at war with. In fact, I would be unable to explain why we are not at war with the Saudis directly at this moment.

The Saudis are unabashed supporters of terrorism, from al-Qaeda to Hamas. Most of our al-Qaeda enemies are Saudis, those who aren’t are supported by the Saudis. Saudi money financed the WTC attacks, and Saudi telethons raise millions for ‘charities’ like Hamas.

Why are the Saudis our allies where other governments, like that of Iran or Syria, are not? Saudi Arabia is equally repressive, is equally hostile to the West and is even less trustworthy, since Iran and Syria at least admit their hostility. Riyadh offers great, swelling words of friendship, but its deeds mirror those of Damascus or Tehran, but without the consequences.

The Saga story is just one more example of the REAL Saudi Arabia and its strange relationship with the Bush administration.

Please pray for Sara Saga and her children, that they might be delivered from her Islamic ‘paradise’ and that she and her children can taste freedom.

And pray for America. There are dark days ahead.