Osirek Revisited?

Osirek Revisited?
Vol: 24 Issue: 30 Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Iran s government seems determined to push the nuclear issue to the brink and beyond. It seems that Tehran and Pyongyang have decided to enter into a temporary strategic alliance in order to divide the West, specifically Israel and the United States.

North Korea and Iran may be planning to detonate nuclear tests simultaneously, hoping to blunt a coordinated US-Israeli response.

Iran’s air force chief Reza Pardis gave an interview to the London-based Arabic newspaper Al Hayat last week. In it, he threatened Israel with some ominous sounding retribution, should the Israelis attack any of their nuclear facilities.

According to Pardis, “Israel knows the Iranian air force has a plan of attack and therefore I believe that Israel will not dare to strike.” Folks, these are strong words, given the current state of tension in the region. But they aren’t the strongest by a long shot.

Ayatollah Ali Khameni told a closed meeting of top Iranian commanders that Muslims everywhere will soon wake up to a discovery.

“With God’s help and great power, we will carry out our mission to defend the homeland and the entire Muslim world,” he reportedly said. “I repeat my promise that very soon your eyes and those of the world will be opened.”

There is some indication that the twin tests may be timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. That’s next Monday, so we’ll know by this time next week. Israel has already made it abundantly clear that if the world doesn’t end Iran’s nuclear threat, it will have no choice to but do so unilaterally.

When the UN did nothing to prevent Saddam Hussein from constructing a nuclear reactor at Osirek, Israel waited until it was almost completed. Then Israel bombed it out of existence.

Should Israel target Iran’s nuclear program, it won’t play well in Moscow. Russia lost one cash cow when it lost its black market with Iraq. To make up the shortfall, it has turned all its attention to Iran. Iran serves a pipeline to Syria, and on to Hezbollah. Take Iran out the picture, and the Syria/Hezbollah black market dries up. It is the black market where the all the profits are. And the Russians need that money.


Twenty-five hundred years ago, a Hebrew prophet in exile during the Babylonian captivity was given a vision of what would befall Israel in the last days. Ezekiel foretold Israel s restoration in the last days and specifically identified Israel as both the geographic place and the name by which it would be known.

And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all. (Ezekiel 37:22)

Ezekiel tells of a coming war between the restored nation upon the mountains of Israel and a vast alliance, known collectively as Gog and Magog.

Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him. (38:2) Gog and Magog were grandsons of Noah who settled the regions of the Caucasus Mountains and beyond into the steppes of Russia. The word chief prince is translated from the Hebrew word, Rosh which is the etymological root for Russia while Meshech and Tubal correspond with Moscow and Tobolsk .

Ezekiel continues, naming, Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet . . together with Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee. (38:5-6).

Persia is Iran, Ethiopia and Libya pretty much cover the North African area now armpit-deep in Muslim fundamentalists.

Does anybody else see a pattern here?

Special Report: “Two Boats and a Helicopter. . .”

Special Report: “Two Boats and a Helicopter. . .”
Vol: 24 Issue: 29 Monday, September 29, 2003

It is a marvelous thing to take a few moments once in awhile, and just sit back and watch the Lord at work. We do that together all the time when we take a look at the Big Picture, but sometimes, when looking at the Big Picture, its easy to miss the snapshots.

My most recent ‘walkabout’ is one of those snapshots. Working from home is a two-edged sword. While it is convenient to stumble up the stairs to my attic office with a cup of coffee in my hand every morning, it is not unusual for me to stumble down the stairs (still in my pajamas) to discover its time to go to bed. My schedule means that I don’t get out much.

Grabbing my laptop and getting out of town ensures I will get a chance to interact with somebody besides my long-suffering Gayle, who has been my sounding board for so long that when she answers, it sounds like me.

Getting away from my office gives the Lord a chance to teach me things I can’t learn from a windowless room in my attic. It also gives me a chance to watch the Lord at work.

When I went up to visit with my old Marine buddy, Rick, the first thing he did was drive me around to meet several other OL members. He told me the OL was pretty popular in his corner of East Texas — he makes sure of it. Meeting some of you in person was an unexpected blessing — it made me wish I could meet each of you.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Wylie had been asking me questions about the OL, its membership and how it was going. When I told him how many paid subscribers we had, he told me that was unacceptable.

Later that night, Wylie and I went to the store. Wylie asked the clerk if she had ever heard of the Omega Letter. I immediately tried to change the subject and finally fled the store. (I got embarrassed)

When I explained that I wasn’t very good at self-promotion, Wylie said, “That’s ok. That’s why God sent you to me. I’m going to help.” And just like that, Wylie dropped everything else and became our new marketing director.

That’s the way the Lord works. It’s His ministry, and He is assembling the team He wants, for His purposes. The Omega Letter has remained more or less stagnant for two years — we have just about the same number of members as we had when we started, and it is time to expand our reach.

As Wylie reminded me, there isn’t a lot of time left, but there are a lot of people out there that we have yet to reach. The Scripture says, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and THEN shall the end come. .” (Matthew 24:14)

I preach this verse a lot, but when it comes to expanding our reach into the ‘whole world’ I hit that stumbling-block.

The Lord said of Himself, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” (John 5:31) That principle is repeated from the perspective of the listener as well. “The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. ” (John 8:13)

I’ve always used the same model — I let the Holy Spirit handle our marketing, praying that He would handle our subscription drive and wondering why He gave me such a loyal core membership, but no expansion.

Wylie reminded me of an old joke about a man trapped on the roof of his house in a flood.

A man came by in a boat, and offered to rescue him. “No, thank you,” said the man. “I’m trusting the Lord to save me.” A while later, another boat came by. The man declined that offer for the same reason. Finally, a helicopter came to pluck him from danger, but he waved it off. At the end, the man drowned. When he stood before the Lord, the man complained, “You let me down. I was counting on You to save me.” The Lord said, “what are you talking about? I sent you two boats and a helicopter.”

I have been praying for the Lord to help us expand our reach and grow our Omega Letter family.

Only thing I am not sure of is whether Wylie is the boat or the helicopter. But I am certain of Who sent him. The same One who sent me out on this walkabout.

Because this is His ministry and He handles the personnel department.

Mistake of the Century

Mistake of the Century
Vol: 24 Issue: 28 Sunday, September 28, 2003

The Israeli decision to announce its intention to remove Yasser Arafat may well go down in history as a miscalculation on an order of magnitude equal to that of the Oslo Agreement. Not that the Oslo Agreement, as written, was such a bad idea. But the Oslo Agreement that bore the signatures of Prime Minister Rabin and Yasser Arafat bears no resemblance to the agreement that Yasser Arafat attempted to implement.

When the Oslo Agreement was signed, I went to visit Dror Zeigermann, the Israeli Consul General to Canada, to ask him what the agreement meant and what the Israelis hoped to get from it.

Dror Ziegermann was the right man to ask. He was born in Israel on May 14, 1948. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Dror Ziegermann crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt on the lead tank in a column commanded by Ariel Sharon.

I met with him on September 14, 1993, the day after the Rose Garden ceremony in which Yitzhak Rabin reluctantly shook the blood-stained hand of Yasser Arafat, barely concealing his revulsion as he did so.

I asked Dror exactly what the agreement meant, in practical terms, from the perspective of the Israeli side. First and foremost, Dror told me, it meant there was at least a prospect for peace, although he was a long way from being optimistic about its success. But, as he pointed out, Israel had tried everything else EXCEPT trying to buy peace from the Palestinians.

The Oslo Agreement was an oblique effort to negotiate with terrorists, something Israel had steadfastly refused to do since the day Dror Ziegermann drew his first breath on this earth.

Dror explained the agreement was divided into three parts, each to run consecutively. First, there was to be a three-year period in which the Palestinians were to be given limited autonomy. The agreement turned the city of Jericho in the West Bank over to Palestinian control. The Palestinian Authority was given the authority to administer municipal services, education, and to levy local taxes.

The Oslo Agreement specifically took Jerusalem off the table. It forbade Yasser Arafat from assuming the title of ‘president’ and made no provision for a Palestinian state.

The Oslo framework called for a two-year period to follow in which Israel was to evaluate Palestinian success at limited self-rule, at which time, the territory administered by the PA would be expanded to several other Palestinian cities.

If that was successful, the final stage of Oslo set a time frame of two years during which time, the Palestinians and Israelis (ostensibly now having been at peace for five years) would discuss the final status of Jerusalem.

It was all supposed to be concluded by September 13, 2000, a period of exactly seven years.


Within hours of the signing, Yasser Arafat stood on the Jericho-Jerusalem road and claimed it as part of a new Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

Oslo forbade any official Palestinian presence in Jerusalem. Arafat immediately set up his headquarters at Orient House in Jerusalem. Arafat set up the curriculuum for Palestinian schools, teaching that Israel stole the land from the Palestinians, produced maps of ‘Palestine’ that made no provision for Israel and taught a generation that the only way to achieve their goal of statehood was to kill as many Israelis as possible.

Like the current road map for peace, the only thing Oslo did was hamstring Israel.

Arafat ignored any obligations that Oslo placed on him, rewrote the terms of Oslo in thin air, and found, to Israel’s astonishment, that the world was more than willing to believe Arafat’s interpretation of the agreement, despite the fact the agreement itself still existed, and still bore Arafat’s signature.

As a consequence, by the time Oslo was due to expire in September 2000, Oslo was meaningless, and Arafat’s 1993 pronouncement on the Jericho road was given legitimacy by Ehud Barak, who offered Arafat all of the West Bank, all of the Gaza Strip and half of Jerusalem in exchange for peace.

Arafat turned it down cold and, in September 2000, he resumed the intifada that had initially brought Israel to the peace table in the first place. Arafat never wanted peace, and his rejection of the Camp David offer proved it to the Americans, the Israelis and even the Europeans.

Having tried for ten years to implement the seven year Oslo Agreement, Israel was in worse condition than it had been before it began. Arafat was in de facto possession of the entire West Bank. The Quartet’s road map for peace ran into a dead end.

Israel, having had enough, announced that it would ‘remove’ Arafat at a time and manner of its choosing. That was a miscalculation, as I said, on a similar order of magnitude to Oslo. To Yasser Arafat, who seemed to have pretty much run out his string, even with his own people, it was a gift.

It caused Palestinians to rally around him just when they should have been asking themselves why they continue to follow him ever deeper into a valley of poverty, degradation and death.

But Israel’s promise to remove Arafat prompted Arab dictators and even some European leaders (notably the French) to reflexively reaffirm their solidarity with Arafat.

And it isn’t that they don’t understand there can be no progress toward peace so long as Arafat wields power. It’s not that they don’t realize Arafat orders the murder of children riding school buses. They just don’t strenuously object to terrorism that is not directed at them and their fellow countrymen.

This mind-set was vividly illustrated when the U.N. General Assembly “strongly condemned” the Aug. 29 bombing that killed more than a dozen U.N. civil servants in Baghdad. The General Assembly has never ‘strongly condemned’ bombings against Israelis rather, it routinely condemns Israel’s attempts to defend itself against such acts of terrorism.

Some people will argue as do several elite news organizations that there is a huge difference between suicide terrorists murdering U.N. employees and suicide terrorists murdering Israeli women and children.

When it comes to Israel, its a case of “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” It doesn’t matter that it is an equivalent absurdity to saying, “One man’s ax murderer is another’s man’s heart surgeon.”

Because this is Israel — and world hates Israel with a white-hot hatred than it can neither explain or overcome.

The world hates Israel because of the Jewish claim to be God’s Chosen People and it doesn’t matter that the world doesn’t believe in God.

Israel IS God’s Chosen People, but the world doesn’t understand what Israel was chosen FOR.

Israel was chosen to be an ‘ensign’ to the nations, the Scripture says. “And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth” (Isaiah 5:26)

Israel was chosen to be hated for our sakes. No nation on the face of the earth has been so afflicted.

“And they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall scatter them among the nations, and disperse them in the countries.But I will leave a few men of them from the sword, from the famine, and from the pestilence; that they may declare all their abominations among the heathen whither they come; and they shall know that I am the LORD.” (Ezekiel 12:15-16)

The world hates Israel for claiming to be God’s Chosen People, in spite of the fact the Jews would be quite happy for God to choose someone else.

Israel’s Bloody New Year

Israel’s Bloody New Year
Vol: 24 Issue: 27 Saturday, September 27, 2003

Friday is the beginning of the celebration of Rosh Hoshanah, the Jewish New Year celebration that ends on Sunday.

At around 9 p.m. Friday, a Palestinian armed with an M-16 assault rifle slipped into Negahot, where about 30 religious families live in houses and trailer homes on two barren hilltops. The attacker knocked on the door of a trailer home on the unfenced hilltop and shot a 30-year-old guest who answered and the 7-month-old girl.

No group claimed responsibility, but Israel is blaming Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. Several attacks have been carried out during Jewish holidays in the past three years, most notably the March 27, 2002, suicide bombing at the Park Hotel in the northern coastal town of Netanya, which killed 29 people as they participated in the ritual Passover meal.

Ariel Sharon repeated his promise to remove Arafat, and refused to guarantee his safety, should it come to that.

Minister Ariel Sharon said he was determined to “remove” Arafat one day, even at the risk of harming him.

“You have to keep in mind that it is very difficult to ensure that he (Arafat) won’t be harmed if we seize him,” Sharon told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot. It is worthy of note that the shooting attack in Negahot was the first terror attack against an Israeli target since the Israelis threatened Arafat directly.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Sharon’s comments proved Israel was trying to kill Arafat and was not committed to implementing the U.S.-backed “road map” peace plan, which envisions the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005.

“It’s no longer a matter of whether they will kill President Arafat, it’s a matter of when,” he said.

What is interesting is the fact the mainstream press drank in every word without it ever occurring to them that, if Israel WAS trying to kill Arafat, he would be dead.


It grows increasingly obvious that there will be no peace as long as Yasser Arafat is consuming oxygen. But there is a faction in the Israeli far left that can best be described as having a philosophy of ‘love thy enemy and hate thy brother’.

After recently going to meet Yasser Arafat at his Ramallah compound to show solidarity with him and act as “human shields” to protect him from any Israeli action; the Israeli far-Left has begun what they call the opening of a “street campaign” in the coming months.

A group called Peace Now and a few thousand protestors gathered on a Saturday night at “ground-zero –” Rabin Square in Tel-Aviv — to call for Israel to uproot the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza (Biblical Judea and Samaria) and an end to the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The Peace Now demonstrators also denounced the Sharon government’s policy of killing the leaders of Hamas and the other terrorist groups, saying the policy creates an endless ‘cycle of violence’.

I despise the term, ‘cycle of violence’ because it implies that Israel is somehow escalating the conflict by retaliating. If retaliating against terror feeds a cycle of violence, then that would be what America is doing with al-Qaeda, except for one thing. Since Washington is effectively killing the bad guys faster than they can mount attacks against the US, there is no ‘cycle of violence’. Just an absence of dead Americans on American soil.

All blood is red, and I guess Israel’s lemmings can’t tell the difference between the blood of innocent Israelis cut-down in the “act” of living their lives, and the blood of sociopathic murderers, whom Israel targets in self-defense before they can kill innocent Israelis again.

The mainstream press highlights the innocent Palestinian civilians that are wounded or killed as collateral damage in the attacks against the terrorists.

But the keyword here is ‘targeted’. When Israel fires a missile into a carload of Hamas terrorists, sometimes bystanders get killed. But the target is the terrorists.

On the other hand, when the Palestinians attack Israel, the mainstream press gets myopic. They just can’t seem to get around the idea that the innocent bystanders are the targets. In other words, in Israel, there are NO innocent bystanders, whereas all the Palestinians, including the terrorists themselves are ‘innocent bystanders’ unless they are killed in the process of killing Israeli civilians.

The terrorist who knocked on the door and murdered a baby girl died at the scene. He was NOT an innocent bystander. However, had Israel identified him the next day and killed him, Israel would be contributing to the ‘cycle of violence’ — not ensuring that particular terrorist won’t be killing any more babies.

The ‘cycle of violence’ lie is a prime example of how to apply the science of semantics to the art of propaganda. It is abundantly clear that the only way Israel can end the ‘cycle’ of violence is to let the Palestinians attack them until they are all dead or have all moved away.

The current peace process is a sham, but the world can’t see it. As obvious as it is, they just can’t.

“They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14)

What Is This World Coming To?

What Is This World Coming To?
Vol: 24 Issue: 26 Friday, September 26, 2003

A high-school coach in Cold Spring, Minnesota is being hailed a ‘hero’ for his part in stopping a fifteen year-old boy from continuing a high school shooting spree. Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner said the suspect and one of the wounded boys are in 9th grade – about 13 or 14 years old.

The coach walked up to the boy who then pointed the gun at him. Fortunately for the coach, when he ordered the shooter to put down the gun, he did.

But the tragedy wasn’t over yet. Two teens were shot before the coach stopped the shooting.

The first emergency medical technician on the scene discovered the most seriously wounded student, who died at the scene, was his 17-year-old son.


‘What is this world coming to?’ is a question that gets asked thousands of times a day, in the thousands of places whenever something like this hits the news.

This particular story went around the world, having been reported in newspapers from Singapore to Australia. And everywhere where it was reported, the same question comes up — ‘what IS this world coming to?’

Of course, WE know what this world is coming to.

The Bible explains that, “. . . in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God . . .” (2 Timothy 1-4)

The study of Bible prophecy is, to most people, ‘gloom and doom’ that they just aren’t interested in hearing. They miss the point. The chaos of this generation is actually cause for celebration.

What terrifies the world comforts the Christian who understands that Scripture is unfolding before their eyes in this generation. To the Christian, it is evidence that God remains on the Throne, and that His Word will not return to Him void.

School shootings are unique to this generation, and as this generation begins to wind down, they grow almost as common as schoolyard fights.

We know what this world is coming to, and it is our responsibility before God to answer that question.

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and 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)

Besides, the real question isn’t, ‘what is this world coming to?’ but rather, ‘Who is coming to this world?’ That is the reason for the hope that is in you, as it is the reason for the hope that is in me.

Jesus is coming. The signs are all around us.

Tell somebody.


The Lord continues to bless me on this latest ‘walkabout.’ Yesterday, I got a phone call from somebody who read in the OL that we were in Texas visiting my old police partner. Before I was a police officer, I was in the US Marine Corps. On the other end of the phone was a Marine buddy I served with for several years. We were so close when we were in service that Rick is the namesake for my youngest son. He lives thirty miles away. We’ll be having dinner together tonight.

What an awesome God we serve!

Special Report: The Wailing Wall

Special Report: The Wailing Wall
Vol: 24 Issue: 25 Thursday, September 25, 2003

What had been a minor bulge in the southern wall near the Islamic Museum on the Temple Mount gave way and collapsed, after the Muslim Waqf that administers the area failed to bring Jordanian engineers to shore it up. The Islamic Waqf is blaming Israel. Adnan al-Husseini of the Waqf said the failure was the result of “the Israeli intervention in our work and preventing us from maintaining it after we stated it was in urgent need for a rapid action to prevent its collapse.

The Temple Mount is the foundation of the Jewish Temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans. Because it is the only remnant of the foundation, it is considered the holiest site for observant Jews.

Muslims claim it is the third holiest in their faith because two mosques were constructed on the site hundreds of years later.

The Moslem “claim” to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the “Furthest Mosque”: “Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque.”

The Islamic version of how the Temple Mount became the al Aqsa Mosque says the Temple Mount was the launchpad from which Mohammed climbed aboard a winged steed and rode off to heaven.

According to Islam, in the ninth year of the Prophet’s mission, about 620 AD, Muhammad rose in the middle of the night to visit the Sacred Mosque in Makkah. After a time of worship he fell asleep near the Ka’aba.

The angel Gabriel came to him and woke him from his slumber. He led the Prophet, to the edge of the sacred Makkan mosque. Awaiting them was al-Buraq, a white winged beast “whose each stride stretched as far as the eye could see.” Muhammad mounted al-Buraq and sped northwards with Gabriel to Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Furthest Mosque.

But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this “Furthest Mosque” (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.

During Mohammed’s lifetime, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem wasn’t captured by Khalif Omar until 638, six years after Mohammed’s death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style.

The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name “Omar Mosque” is therefore false. In or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik’s son, Abd El-Wahd – who ruled from 705-715 – reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine “basilica” structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular “ship” in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.

So it is abundantly clear that Mohammed could never have had the Temple Mount area in mind when he was compiling the Koran. It did not exist as a mosque until some three generations after Mohammed’s death.

Mohammed intended the mosque in Mecca as the “Sacred Mosque,” and the mosque in Medina as the “Furthest Mosque.” So much for the Moslem claim based on the Aksa Mosque.

In fact, Mohammed issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer. That practice had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Mohammed put an abrupt stop to it on February 12, 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the Moslems themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.


During the Six Days’ War in 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, including East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. General Moshe Dayan, hoping to blunt global demands for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the captured territory, agreed instead to let the Muslim Waqf administer the Temple Mount as an Islamic holy place.

It was a grave mistake; in so doing, Dayan gave ‘legs’ to the myth. Surrendering control to Islam was seen as a tacit admission that Islam had the superior claim.

As we’ve already seen, Islam’s claim is only valid if one deletes three decades in the 5th century from the historical record. None of this information is a secret — anybody with access to a history book can resolve in a matter of seconds the validity of Islam’s claim to the Temple Mount and to Jerusalem.

Anybody except the enlightened and highly educated diplomates at the UN, not to mention the 134 countries who consistently side against Israel.

It would appear that only in America, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia have history books. Does this make sense? Of course not. This is Jerusalem, and we are living in the last days.

And in the last days, says the prophet, Jerusalem will become a ‘burdensome stone’ to all the peoples of the world, and all that burden themselves with details like historical facts that indicate the Islamic claim is false will be ‘cut in pieces’. (Zechariah 12)

If this were any other piece of real estate on the face of the planet — except Jerusalem — the dispute would have been settled based on fact and not emotion.

But it isn’t. It is Jerusalem, and it is in Jewish hands. That triggers the emotion that the Bible said would follow the Jews until the end of days — hatred. Islam’s claim to Jerusalem is based entirely on hatred of the Jews. Global support for Islam’s claim to the Land of Promise is based on the universal hatred of the Jews.

The UN’s unfailing condemnation of all things Israeli is rooted in a hatred so deep that most can’t even explain it. The best they can come up with is the canard, ‘Christ killers’ — a view that is expressed even by those who don’t believe in Christ in the first place.

The world claims Jerusalem, either for Islam, or for mainstream Christianity. But the Bible says that, in the last days, God will eventually reclaim Israel — and Jerusalem — for Himself.

“And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” (Zechariah 12:10)


Our walkabout continues . . . I am so grateful to God for this opportunity. Wylie and I stayed up late into the night(again) catching up on eighteen years. Eighteen years is a long time — longer than I had realized. Wylie took me to town — a town that I had once known like the back of my hand. The only place I recognized was the hospital where my youngest son was born. Couldn’t even find the police station. LOL.

Sorry this morning’s OL is late again. Please accept my apologies. To our members who claim the Lone Star State as home — thanks for the hospitality. You are truly blessed. Legend has it that, on his deathbed, Sam Houston’s last words were, “Texas . . .Margaret. . . Texas”.

I can understand why.

Bush Strikes out at UN

Bush Strikes out at UN
Vol: 24 Issue: 24 Wednesday, September 24, 2003

President Bush laid out the US case for increasing global involvement in pacifying Iraq and restoring security to the region. Noting that “the deadly combination of outlaw regimes, terror networks and weapons of mass destruction is a peril that cannot be ignored or wished away,” he challenged the Security Council to adopt a resolution that would criminalize the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The president also pointed out that the fall of Saddam Hussein creates a new opportunity to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Instituting democracy in Iraq, the president told the UN, will set an example which the Palestinians would do well to follow. Along those lines, the president was blistering in his criticism of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and his continuing support for terrorism: “The Palestinian cause is betrayed by leaders who cling to power by feeding old hatreds, and destroying the good work of others.”

The president s rejection of a speedy transfer of power to Iraqis drew criticism at home and abroad, with world leaders and nearly all his Democratic presidential rivals accusing Bush of being responsible for the postwar difficulties in bypassing the United Nations to launch the war that ousted Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately, what is good for the Iraqi people, and ESPECIALLY what is good for the United States, is not high on the UN’s agenda. Instead, Iraq is little more than a convenient excuse for the global superpower wannabes to stick a thumb in Uncle Sam’s eye.

French president Jacques Chirac took his turn on the podium to continue advancing the fiction that the US invasion of Iraq was a ‘unilateral’ action, ignoring the other forty countries that were part of the coalition. Chirac continued to advance his case that the US occupation of Iraq end virtually immediately, turning authority over to Iraqis, who the French can then move in and ‘assist’ — giving France control of how the reconstruction contracts and oil leases are apportioned.

“The war launched without Security Council authorization shook the multilateral system. … No one can act alone in the name of all, and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules.”

What ‘shook the mulilateral system’ wasn’t the US invasion of Iraq, it was the UN’s refusal to honor its own threats for twelve years, exacerbated by French and German oppostition in the Security Council. Both France and Germany were reaping huge profits from back-channel deals with Saddam Hussein that they didn’t want to see go away with Saddam.

The reason they feared losing their contracts under a new Iraqi government is because the deals were so heavily slanted in favor of them and against the Iraqis. No longer under the restrictions imposed on the Saddam regime by UN sancions, the Iraqis would be free to pursue honest deals — something Paris and Berlin were determined to prevent.

Thanks to the US liberation of Iraq, the UN’s unaudited control of the Iraqi Oil for Food program vanished with the French/German deals. Kofi Annan lost access to a slush fund of more than $13 billion, out of which, the UN retained a substantial percentage in ‘handling fees.’

In opening Tuesday s General Assembly meeting, Annan warned that the U.S. doctrine of pre-emptive military intervention posed a fundamental challenge to the organization and could lead to a global free-for-all.

(Unlike the stability that the UN brought to the Koreas, to Somalia, Rwanda, and the Baltic States, together with body counts that even Saddam couldn’t surpass.)

He said the U.N. Charter allowed military action for the purpose of self-defense, but until now, it has been understood that when states go beyond that and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

France regularly sends its forces into former colonial holdings in Africa — complete with guns — and doesn’t bother the UN with the details. And the UN doesn’t ask. When did the French seek authorization to intervene in Sierra Leone?


Despite the optimistic pronouncements from the administration in the days leading up to the UN speech, it was obvious that it was falling on deaf ears before he had even taken his seat.

There was an atmosphere of ‘don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up’ and nothing Bush could say would have changed it.

Chirac, in his speech, told the Assembly, “The war launched without Security Council authorization shook the multilateral system. … No one can act alone in the name of all, and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules.”

Chirac is correct. America acted in the name of ‘freedom loving nations’ and the UN is the epitome of a society without rules. And the war in Iraq has exposed an unaccepable level of anarchy within the United Nations itself. Remember this is a group currently headed by Syria who just offered a resolution demanding the UN extend an umbrella of global protection over Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism, while accusing Israel of being a terrorist state — and only four countries disagreed!

The UN cannot act alone (or in concert with anyone else, other than the French) in the name of all.

It can’t act at all.


First, forgive me for being late with this morning’s Omega Letter. (The time zone change threw me, I’ll be ok tomorrow)

We arrived in Texas in the early afternoon. Wylie and I talked well past my normal bedtime (well past his) and have barely begun to scratch the surface. I pray that each of you, at some time, get the chance the Lord afforded me. There are few friendships that can survive the test of time. And there is no joy like a reunion.

The Bible says that Jesus is a ‘Friend that sticketh closer than a brother’ and Paul promises us a joyful reunion with the one friendship that exists outside of time and space.

The day is coming — maybe soon — when another reunion will take place, between our Lord and His bride.

As I was reading over the various speeches from the UN, it grows painfully obvious that the United Nations, as we know it, has a terminal disease. It will die, and something will replace it.

The Bible says that it is the same European superstate that has empowered Jacques Chirac to finish driving the final nails into its coffin.

My reunion with my old partner was joyous. The anticipation grew as each mile marker flew by, but the actual reuion exceeded my anticipation.

As I was driving along, watching the mile markers, I couldn’t help but equate them to the spiritual mile markers that anticipate the reunion between Christ and His Bride.

As I crossed the Arkansas border, I knew that soon, I would arrive at my destination, and the reunion I had been anticipating for twelve hundred miles.

Watching the UN’s continuing effort to unravel itself gives me that same feeling of anticipation.