America’s Epitaph? Supremes To Decide

America’s Epitaph? Supremes To Decide
Vol: 30 Issue: 24 Wednesday, March 24, 2004

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments from a California atheist who has launched a one-man crusade to have the phrase “one nation, under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Dr. Michael Newdow, a physician who is also a lawyer, sued in a California court, alleging that his daughter was being ‘brainwashed’ by being forced to say the words ‘under God’.

Newdow does not have custody of his daughter. His ex-wife is a born-again Christian — and so is his daughter, who not only does NOT have an objection to pledging allegiance ‘under God’, but who accepts it as the truth.

The fact that the law required Newdow to obtain consent from the girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, in order to file on the girl’s behalf, and failed to get it, was completely ignored by the court.

Despite the obvious fact that Newdow’s entire suit is rooted in his personal domestic problems, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ignored that, gave him a legal standing — despite his non-custodial status — and, in the end, decided in his favor. That was it! (“God is fired, by order of the 9th Circuit Court. All rise!”)

The Supreme Court will hear the case without its most conservative member, Justice Antonin Scalia, who bowed out after Newdow requested he recuse himself, so the deck is somewhat ‘stacked’ against God. (Scalia had criticized the 9th Circuit Court ruling at a religious rally last year.)

Newdow is comparing his case to to the issue of segregation in schools, which the Supreme Court took up 50 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education.

However, if the Supreme Court decides the case based on Newdow’s argument, “Aren’t we a better nation because we got rid of that stuff?”, he stands a good chance of losing. Most of the Justices are old enough to remember America fifty years ago.


In any case, the Constitutional issue before the Supremes doesn’t seem that complicated; are the words ‘under God’ a case of a state-established religion? The relevant Amendment deals primarily with freedom of speech, but begins with a two-part statement intended to guarantee freedom of religion as well; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it says.

The phrase, ‘under God’, was not part of the original Pledge of Allegiance as written in 1892. It was inserted by Congress exactly fifty years ago, during the Cold War. At the time, America had just begun its fifty year face-off with the godless Communists of the USSR, and Congress felt inserting the phrase would impart God’s blessing on us.

(We eventually won that war without firing a shot. And a recent AP poll found that almost 9 out of 10 Americans want the Pledge left as it is.)

The Amendment that the Supremes will be re-interpreting was inserted by the Founding Fathers in an historical context. America was founded by Pilgrims seeking freedom from being forced to join the state-sponsored Church of England. They wanted the freedom to worship as they chose.

Hence, the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure no similar state-sponsored religion could take root in the New World — not to remove God, but to ensure His place couldn’t be usurped by a state church.

That is the reason for the second half of the sentence, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Does acknowledging God constitute the ‘establishment’ of a religion? Which religion would THAT be? Is there a religion WITHOUT a ‘god’? This is the crux of the case.

In deciding a 1961 case styled as, “Torcaso v. Watkins”, Justice Black wrote, “Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”

Existing case law says that there are ‘religions’ without a ‘god’, and there are religions WITH a ‘god’. Islam acknowleges a god. Christianity acknowledges a God. So does Judaism. So does native American cultures who worship a ‘Great Spirit’ whom they also revere as a ‘god’ Which of these ‘religions’ is being elevated over another to the level of state-sponsorship by the inclusion of ‘under God’ in the Pledge?

More than that, if the phrase is struck from the Pledge by the Supremes, it becomes a case of upholding one provision of the Amendment by breaking the other. If the religious rights of Secular Humanist Michael Newdow are ruled superior to the religious rights of 90% of Americans, (according to the polls) then the guarantee of freedom of religion is stolen by judicial fiat and replaced with the Secular Humanist religious worldview, which argues, not for freedom of religion, but for freedom only for religions without a ‘god’.

So much for the legal arguments, which seem pretty cut-and-dried, from the perspective of logic. What is at stake is enormous.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator, and it is BECAUSE of that acknowledgment that our Bill of Rights are guaranteed. America is unique in that respect, from all other nations. Since the Founding Documents acknowledge human rights as emanating from the Creator, and NOT from government, only the Creator can take them away. They are forever removed from government control. Newdow’s Secular Humanist religion denies the existence of a Creator God.

If the Supreme Court rules that acknowledging a Creator is an unconstitutional establishment of religion, then those ‘inalienable rights’ are granted by nobody, and therefore are as sacred as the grantor of them.

According to the Declaration, Michael Newdow’s right NOT to believe in God is sacred only because God gave him that right and forbade the state from interfering with it. Ironically, if Newdow wins, he will have destroyed the foundation for his own freedom, along with that of every other American.

In the last days, the Bible says that the antichrist will control a global religious system that has ‘two horns like a lamb, but spake as a dragon’ (Rev 13:11); one Paul describes as ‘having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof” (2nd Timothy 3:5)

It also makes no mention of America in prophecy. The Congress inserted the phrase ‘under God’ to ask His protection during the Cold War. We are now at war with what is arguably a more dangerous enemy, since there is no restraining threat of mutually assured destruction, and at the same time, debating whether or not to continue to seek His protection.

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:10-12)

When the Supreme Court writes its decision on the Newdow case this summer, it may also be writing America’s epitaph.

Analysis: After Yassin . . .

Analysis: After Yassin . . .
Vol: 30 Issue: 23 Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Analysis: After Yassin . . .

In a ridiculous sort of way, Yasser Arafat feels that he has been upstaged by Sheik Ahmed Yassin, whose killing by the Israelis sparked protests in the Arab world by millions of demonstrators.

It underscored to Arafat just how weak his Palestinian Authority has become, compared to Hamas. And all that popular outpouring of grief made him a wee bit jealous.

After Yassin’s killing, Arafat’s aides were all over the airwaves — not so much to condemn Yassin’s killing as to get Arafat a little sympathetic press coverage by speculating that he might be next.

“Arafat feels he is threatened, and we feel he’s threatened because when they target Sheik Yassin, they are not far from Arafat,” said Palestinian Communications Minister Azzam Ahmed.

The PA certainly condemned the killing of Yassin — they’d condemn the killing of a Palestinian goat if the Israelis did it. But the condemnation statements from the PA sounded more perfunctory than heartfelt — in point of fact, the PA was worried that Hamas is planning a coup against it and, if anything, Yassin s death strengthens the PA’s hand.

The IDF didn’t just eliminate a threat to the Jewish State; it also eliminated a threat to the efficacy of Arafat’s non-state administration. And if he plays his cards right, Arafat can get almost as much sympathy as if Israel really did hit him, too, only without being blown to smithereens in the process.

In a sense, the killing of Yassin was a victory for the terrorists, particularly in Europe. The editorial pages across Europe condemned Ariel Sharon across-the-board as the REAL terrorist, as if Sheik Yassin was really a humanitarian sort of guy invariably described as a ‘paraplegic cleric’ instead of the murderous mastermind at whose direction hundreds have been murdered and thousands maimed.

The French daily, ‘Le Figaro’, accused Sharon of “having acted solely in accordance with military logic in ordering the extra-judicial killing” of Yassin. The paper also criticized the United States for its guarded response to the death of the man it referred to as ‘the cleric’.

In Luxembourg, the ‘Wort’ wrote that “Yassin s killing is further proof of how the peace plan envisaged by the US, EU and Russia has been rubbished by Sharon who has tried at every opportunity to sabotage it, thereby making it impossible for the creation of a Palestinian state.”

The paper said that Yassin s death had opened up a Pandora s Box from which ‘all conceivable evils’ will escape.

The Italian paper, ‘Il Messagero’, said it fears the conflict could spread to other countries identified as Israel s allies, in particular the United States. The paper wrote that the Intifada was limited to within Israel and that Yassin had many times stipulated that Hamas s goal was to free Palestinians and not to embark on a world wide campaign of terror.

With the death of Yassin, Il Messagero expressed concerns that Palestinian militants could now join up with Osama bin Laden s Al Qaeda terrorist network and take the fight ‘overseas’.

Capitalizing on European fears, Al Jazeera ran a web poll asking readers the question, “Do you support that Palestinians transfer their [reprisal] operations outside Palestine [against Israeli interests and targets abroad]?”

So far, those who were in favor of transferring the “vengeance operations” constituted 61% of the voters, against 39% who believed reprisals should be kept inside Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The number of people who participated in this opinion poll, which will last till March 25, has reached 48,112 voters so far.


The Europeans are terrified. So terrified that they are distancing themselves from any appearance of solidarity with either Israel or the United States. Since that is the goal of terror, the terrorists are winning.

Despite Yassin’s long and bloody career, his open admission that his goal to was destroy the Jewish State and kill every Jew on what he claimed as ‘Palestinian land’, his publicly issued fatwas calling for every observant Muslim to kill an American, and his huge body count (more than any other Palestinian terror group), virtually every state on earth condemned Israel.

Most Western newspapers feted Yassin as if he had been the Pope. An editorial-obituary in the Houston Chronicle subtitled its story, “Hamas Leader Known for Compassion, Violence”. I read the piece carefully looking for the part where Yassin’s ‘compassionate’ side deserved top billing over violence.

In the entire piece, what its author termed ‘compassion’ was found in a single sentence, saying, “At the same time, Yassin built a network of health, education and welfare services funded privately from donations collected worldwide that helped thousands of Palestinians.”

The reason Yassin built that network wasn’t to help the Palestinians, it was to gain their support. And to use that support (financial and moral) to further his violent campaign against Israel. But Yassin’s ‘compassion’ got top billing when examining his life.

If Israel were to finally take out Yasser Arafat, you can bet that his obit headline will read something like, Israel Assassinates Nobel Peace Prize Winner” instead of “Israel Kills Terrorist Leader”.

But it seems unlikely that the Israelis will take any action against Yasser Arafat. Why should they? He’s safely tucked away in his Ramallah compound; too afraid to step outside his front door for fear an Israeli Predator might target him, too.

It is interesting that for much of the past thirty years, Arafat has been a merchant of violent death, sending thousands to their deaths, both attackers and victims. With all his babble about becoming a ‘martyr for the cause of Palestine’ he refused to even step out the front door of his compound to rouse the rabble gathered at his doorstep.

Israel would be foolish to waste a missile on the pathetic shell of the old terrorist. It is better for Israel to ignore a live coward than create a dead martyr.

Not a single country, including the United States, missed a chance to condemn Israel. The mildest condemnation came from the US State Department, who termed the killing of Yassin ‘very troubling’.

Although virtually the entire civilized world recognized Hamas as a deadly terrorist group, and Sheik Yassin as its leader, to them, Israel is worse, and Sharon is worse.

They fear that calling a spade a spade will bring the wrath of Hamas or al-Qaeda down on them. So instead, they curse Israel and fete the terrorists.

Appeasing the terrorists by cursing Israel won’t grant them immunity from terrorist attacks. The promise of Scripture says exactly the opposite.

The Bible recorded God’s promise to Abraham, given some four thousand years ago.

That promise has never been repealed, something that Washington would do well to remember in the days ahead.

“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.” (Genesis 12:3)

Blood, Terror, and Lies

Blood, Terror, and Lies
Vol: 30 Issue: 22 Monday, March 22, 2004

While a disgruntled former administration anti-terrorism official was on CBS concocting whoppers that would make Burger King jealous, on the other side of the world, Hamas now has an opening for a new spiritual leader.

The two incidents stand in stark contrast. The Israeli decision to take out Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas often referred to as Israel’s Osama bin-Laden, was made despite the fact it guarantees a massive counter-strike by Hamas against it.

Knowing this, and understanding what is at stake, the strike had the full support of both the government and the population upon which any counter-strike will be visited.

On our side of the world, the man who headed America’s counterterrorism effort for eight years turned on his own government in a shameless effort to politicize terror to advance his own personal agenda.

Knowing this, and understanding what is at stake, Richard Clarke has the full support of the media and that segment of the population who couldn’t care less what it means to America in general provided it means defeating George Bush in November.

Both these stories are important, and both have long-range implications for America, and so I am going to try and cover both in today’s briefing.

The first is the death of Sheik Yassin. Yassin formed Hamas in 1987 for the purpose of inflicting terror on Israel during the first intifada. In 1987, Yassin was sentenced to life in prison for the kidnapping and murder of two Israeli soldiers. Israel released him in 1997 in a futile effort to keep the Oslo Agreement from collapsing.

Sheik Yassin was a very bad guy. Although himself a wheel-chair bound quadraplegic, he was the inspiration for Hamas as well as its founder, and was also Hamas’ banker. Yassin was the boss of Hamas in the same sense bin-Laden is the boss of al-Qaeda.

In 2003, in an interview with Fox News, Yassin issued a Fatwa on American television in which he ordered all Muslims to kill Americans wherever they are found, if America sets one foot on Iraqi soil. (Osama bin-Laden issued a similar Fatwa against the United States two months after 9/11)

In response to the killing of Yassin, Hamas issued a communique in which it said Israel could not have killed Yassin with America’s permission and hinted that Hamas would expand its target environment to include the United States.

This is not idle talk, saber-rattling rhetoric. This is a serious threat to every individual American citizen. This is a threat every bit as real as that posed by a terrorist strolling down Broadway in New York City with explosives strapped to his middle.

A Fatwa, once issued, becomes part of Sharia Law. Sharia is analogous to codified law in Western society. It consists of the Koran, the Sunnah, and a constantly evolving collection of Fatwas or rulings that deal with every aspect of Islamic life from ideology to practical daily matters. Throughout Islamic history, Imams and Mullahs have issued Fatwas, which have the force of law among Muslims, similar to a ruling by a Western court.

As in the West, these rulings can be confirmed or overturned by a higher authority, by issuing a Fiqh.

That is why the Osama bin Laden tape that was released to the world on Dec. 21, 2001, remains so important. The tape contained several significant Fatwas, and made reference to several well-established Fiqhs, in effect linking them to the Fatwas. Because these Fatwas have gone unchallenged by higher Islamic authority, they are now part of Islamic law, and must be observed by all Muslims.

Another element that determines the “strength” or ultimate authority of a Fatwa, is who issues it. bin-Laden has serious credibility in the Muslim world.

So did Sheik Ahmed Yassin, as can be seen by the reaction of the Muslim world to his killing. It is important to note that not one Muslim cleric has issued a Fiqh cancelling the Fatwas of death against America. There are thousands who could — not one, to my knowledge, that has.

That means the Fatwas ordering our deaths stand with the full force of Sharia law and it is the legal duty of every observant Muslim to obey them.

Yet to read the coverage of Yassin’s killing in the Western press, Yassin was a victim of the Israelis, a poor, crippled sheik whose shattered, bloodstained wheelchair is on the front page of most American newspapers.

Virtually all American press refer to the incident as an ‘assassination’ as if Yassin were some respected head of state instead of Osama bin-Laden’s Palestinian counterpart. (Should the US finally kill Osama, will the New York Times call it an ‘assassination’? If it turns out that the body being tested for DNA is Ayman al Zawahri, killed by Force 121 along the Afghan-Pak border, did we ‘assassinate’ him?)

The United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, formally condemned the killing of Yassin. Soon after, the European Union issued a condemnation, saying Israel’s killing of the leader of Hamas ‘violates international law and undermines the search for peace’ in the Middle East. Hmmm. Leaving Israel’s Osama bin-Laden in place to order more terror attacks ‘undermines the search for peace’? Are they kidding?

The Poles say the any retaliation by Hamas could inflame the Middle East and then spread to Europe. In Europe, the terrorists are winning the war.

Arab League spokesman Hossam Zaki, who is in Tunis preparing for the Arab League summit, which begins later this week, called it a ‘personification of terrorism’ by the Israeli government.

The leader of Egypt’s banned radical Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, also issued a warning, saying, “There can be no life for the Americans and Zionists in the region” and “We will not rest until [Israelis] are expelled.


So much for the ‘blood and terror’ portion of today’s briefing. Now we move to the ‘lies’ part.

Richard Clarke went on CBS Sixty Minutes in what was the most shameless and transparent betrayal since former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. During the Clinton administration and for part of the Bush administration, Clarke served as America’s anti-terrorism czar.

After 9/11, when Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, he took a look at Clarke’s track record and appointed Tom Ridge to head it. Clarke politicked to get appointed Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, but was instead ‘promoted’ to Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security on October 9th. He ‘retired’ a month later and decided to write a ‘tell-all’ book about what a terrible job Bush has done in prosecuting the war on terror.

That he was grossly incompetent to the job is obvious, as I said, from his record. Clarke was America’s terrorism czar for eight years, and Bush kept him on when he assumed the presidency. The first terrorist attack against the US on Bush’s watch took place on September 11. Bush had been in office eight months.

But it was during the 8 years of Bill Clinton that al-Qaeda prospered and grew by repeatedly attacking American interests with impunity.

*1993: Shot down US helicopters and killed US servicemen in Somalia

*1994: Plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila

*1995: Plotted to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines

*1995: Plot to to bomb simultaneously, in midair, a dozen US trans-Pacific flights was discovered and thwarted at the last moment

*1998: Conducted the bombings of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 individuals and injured more than 5,000 others

*1999: Attempt to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations was discovered just in time by Jordanian authorities

*1999: In another millenium plot, bomber was caught en route to Los Angeles International Airport *2000: Bombed the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 US Navy members, and injuring another 39

Clarke proposed the following responses to al-Qaeda during his eight year tenure. The bombing of an aspirin factory in the Sudan that was later proved unconnected to al-Qaeda in 1998, followed up by the use of 22 million-dollar cruise missiles to destroy an empty $12 tent in Afghanistan.

On several occasions, the Clinton administration had opportunities to kill bin-Laden, but were advised against it by White House lawyers. When the Sudan offered to turn bin-Laden over for arrest in 1996, the offer was turned down because the adminstration didn’t have ‘enough evidence’ for a conviction.

To criticize the Bush administration’s efforts to protect Americans against terrorism, long after their own ineptitute had allowed al Qaeda to grow bold and powerful, is contemptible. The book that he was plugging on CBS was neatly timed for release just before the upcoming election. Clarke is hoping to be Homeland Security Secretary in a Kerry administration — the politics are transparent.

And even Democrat Joe Liebermann says he is lying about the Bush administration planning to attack Iraq in response to 9/11. As Liebermann said, and almost NOBODY reported, “I was there. The Bush administration’s focus was on al-Qaeda from the beginning.”

We have discussed the international black eye America gets every time a ‘whistle-blower’ like Clarke, or a politician greedy for power, puts a private agenda ahead of the public good. It is patently obvious that is what is going on here, yet CBS chose to air Clarke’s concoction of lies and innuendo unchallenged, as if each word were gospel truth.

Here’s what Sixty Minutes forgot to mention. CBS is owned by Viacom, who also owns the publisher of Clarke’s book. Cozy.

For CBS it was a ‘win-win’ situation; a change to slam Bush, plug Kerry and make millions for its sibling company, all at the same time. Unlike a paid campaign commercial, this message was brought to you by CBS’s commerical sponsors. Does that bug you as much as it does me?

“He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; but he that hateth gifts shall live,” Proverbs 15:27 tells us.

Now, to connect the dots between the death of Ahmed Yassin and Richard Clarke. Sheik Ahmed Yassin, like Osama bin-Laden, issued a legal ruling requiring observant Muslims to kill Americans. His death at the hands of the Israelis elevated his status to that of a martyr and consequently, elevated the authoritative status of his religious edict to kill Americans.

Richard Clarke’s assessment of the American administration is that it is corrupt and dishonest and cowardly and incompetent. And therefore, to the observant Muslim being recruited by al-Qaeda, deserving of the death sentence imposed on it and its people.

Blood, terror, and lies. A potent cocktail. Where is America in prophecy?

When Solomon was composing the Book of Proverbs, he warned that, “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.” (Proverbs 11:29)

“And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:36)

Time is Too Short . . .

Time is Too Short . . .
Vol: 30 Issue: 21 Sunday, March 21, 2004

This morning, I received an encouraging email from one of our members praising our work here at the Omega Letter and encouraging me to ‘stand down’ (Joe is retired military) and take ‘at least a three-day weekend liberty.’ The Major makes a good point in saying “your long-suffering lady will say “Amen, brother!” to all of the above.”

Indeed, Gayle and I discussed it, and as the Major predicted, she wasn’t against the idea. She almost had me talked into it. We prayed about it. We looked at the whole ‘day of rest’ thing in Scripture.

Then I turned on the news and the dots connected. (Sigh) See if they connect up the same way to you.

The lead story said that a Pakistani journalist who wrote an authorized biography of Osama bin-Laden was told by Ayman al Zawahri that al-Qaeda was indeed in possession of at least several of the 100+ nuclear ‘suitcases’ unaccounted for by the Russians after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Later, the media analysis program, ‘Fox News Media Watch’, discussed the CBS News decision not to report the results of a poll CBS itself had commissioned, because it showed George Bush with a lead over John Kerry.

On two previous occasions, CBS News had also commissioned polls that showed Kerry in the lead and even the liberals on the panel concluded it was undeniable evidence of the liberal bias inherent in CBS news reporting.

Hundreds of thousands of people world-wide banded together to demonstrate against the war in Iraq. The largest demonstration was the one held in Rome. In the United States, there were roughly two hundred and fifty different protests marches around the country.

Professional rabble-rouser Jesse Jackson was on hand to encourage the marchers, telling them that it’s “time to fight back” against his own government while in San Fransisco, marchers chanted “End the Occupation” and “Impeach Bush.”

I found it interesting that one Canadian newspaper chose to quote an Atlanta high-schooler explaining, “I think in a Democratic society, any dialogue like this is one of the things that allows us to have the rights we have.”

The reporter didn’t let the fact that the observation made no sense get in the way of the quote — it sounded good.

Marching in a protest is a DEMONSTRATION of the rights we have. Thomas Jefferson’s explanation of how we GOT those rights is still accurate two centuries later.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”

What allows that demonstrator in Atlanta (and the rest) the right to be a useful idiot for al-Qaeda is NOT the exercise of his right to demonstrate, but the very activity they are demonstrating. The shedding of the blood of tyrants (like Saddam or Osama) and that of the patriots who risk all their tomorrows to secure our freedom today.

With much gratitude and affection for the Major and other members who’ve made similar suggestions about a weekly day off — there simply isn’t time.


There is so much to do and so little time to do it. The Omega Letter is a still, small, voice, competing for the attention of a tiny group of Christians who face a daily barrage of anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-democratic propaganda masquerading as ‘news.’

Jesus told a parable about a ‘certain nobleman’ and ten chosen servants.

“A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.” (Luke 19:12-13)

The story should be familiar to us all. . .

“And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. ” (Luke 19:15-19)

The third servant, of course, hid his pound in a napkin and had no increase to show the nobleman. He explained that he was doing what he thought his lord would expect — “For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.” (v.21)

The nobleman in the parable ordered that servant’s pound taken from him and given to the servant who had presented his lord with the ten pounds earned by the gift of one pound.

The ‘nobleman’ in the parable is Jesus, and the gift of the first ‘pound’ is eternal life. The increase expected by the ‘nobleman’ is not cash money, but saved souls. The pound given the most profitable servant signifies the loss of rewards (crowns) at the Bema Seat.

In the parable, Jesus said, “And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:” (v.22)

Here is where the dots connect. I agree with the Major and others that the Bible allows for a day of rest. But what the nobleman told the unprofitable servant was, “You know what I expected, you said so yourself. Now you are making doing what I expected an excuse for NOT doing what I expected.”

The Bible allows for a day of rest, but one day, I expect to stand before the Judge at the Bema Seat and I also expect Him to ask for His increase from the Investment He made in me at the Cross.

Our mission at the Omega Letter is not necessarily to seek out the lost and give them the Gospel (although I love it when that happens). There are already thousands of websites that do that — and most of their traffic is to Christians anyway, so they are simply preaching to the choir.

Instead, our mission is to equip and train an army of one-on-one evangelists, equipped with factual information to rebut the arguments from the skeptics, together with the evidence provided by fulfilled prophecy, so that THEY can invest their ‘pound’ and present their increase before the Lord at His Throne.

Every single Omega Letter has its targeted audience. The reader comments in the forum prove that time after time. I can’t tell you how many Omega Letters I’ve written that I thought were less than my best effort, only to have someone comment that it was precisely what they needed to hear at that moment.

Conversely, I’ve sent out Omega Letters that I was pretty proud of, and not a peep in response. I don’t know what message is going to be relevant to what reader, or on which day. But Jesus does.

The Omega Letter isn’t a job — it is a commission in God’s army. Soldiers in combat don’t get to goof off because of what day of the week it is — they take their leisure in between battles.

Every day there is a new lie, a new bit of evidence pointing to the fulfillment of end time’s prophecy, some example of the developing global government or economy, or some bit of intelligence information relevant to Christians that’s either been spiked or spun by the world system. Even on Sundays.

That lie might catch somebody off-guard, maybe even spoil their witnessing effort, if they don’t know what the true state of affairs actually are. Some event we report might be exactly what somebody needs to see the lights come on, so to speak.

The Bible says of the watchman on the wall;

“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” (Ezekiel 33:6)

We take our commission seriously. Mike puts in twice the time I do, and never complains. In terms of labor intensivity, Mike has a much harder job.

I began work this morning at 4 am. That sounds real hard, but when you consider I go to bed by 8 pm, it isn’t.

This morning, I noticed a problem with the website and I buzzed Mike via Instant Messenger. (This is four am, remember.) He was there.

But unlike me, Mike wasn’t up early, he was up late, monitoring the website as he’s been doing every night for a week since we moved to our new servers. And he worked those hours for almost a month preparing for the move.

To us, this isn’t a job. Nobody would work the hours we do for a mere salary — especially one as meager as the Omega Letter can afford. (We both work other full-time jobs to offset the shortfall.)

Instead, Mike and I like to joke that, “We’re on a mission from God,” — although, in a sense, we aren’t joking at all.

“For thus hath the LORD said unto me, Go, set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth.” (Isaiah 21:6)

I’d like to take a day off, and I am honored at the expression of love and concern that suggests it. But there isn’t time. The battle still rages.

Instead, please pray for us. Support us where you can as the Lord gives you the increase. Help us to get the message out. Post an occasional Omega Letter you find particularly useful in some of the mainstream online forums, like Free Republic or some other mainstream forum sites you might belong to.

Get a dialogue going. Let people see what we are seeing — that the stage is set for the coming of the Lord.

Help us to attact attention to the Omega Letter and what its mission is. And what it means.

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

Special Report: The Politicization of September 11 and the Unknowable Truth

Special Report: The Politicization of September 11 and the Unknowable Truth
Vol: 30 Issue: 20 Saturday, March 20, 2004

“Clinton Transition Team Warned Bush of al-Qaeda Threat” — that pretty much sums up the headlines in the newest non-story to be resurrected by the media in the partisan war. An article in the New York Times (where else?) notes that former senior Clinton officials are due to testify before the September 11 Commission.

It seems that the New York Times is shocked to learn that the outgoing administration told the incoming administration that al-Qaeda was the ‘worst security threat facing the nation’ and that the incoming Bush administration didn’t immediately lock down the country — or something.

Here’s how the Times explains it;

“Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation and how the new administration was slow to act.

They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush’s national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice’s deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.

One official scheduled to testify, Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led.”

“It was very explicit,” Clarke said of the warning given to the Bush administration officials. “Rice was briefed, and Hadley was briefed, and Zelikow sat in.”

Clarke ALSO served as Bush’s counterterrorism chief in the early months of the administration, but after Sept. 11 was given a more limited portfolio as the president’s cyberterrorism adviser.

Clarke is now making the rounds of the talk shows telling the story of how Donald Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks.

Next week, he intends to lay out the story to the 9/11 Commission, together with Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Clinton Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and Clinton advisor Samuel R. Berger.

Oh, by the way, Clarke has a new tell-all book out called “Against All Enemies” — does that seem a bit too convenient? It is interesting to note that in the entire Bible, there are two words that only occur once in the entire Scripture.

Those words are ‘traitors’ and ‘trucebreakers’ — which taken together, describe the typical government ‘whistleblower’. You know, the kind of person who will reveal information he obtained by trust in order to make money even if it damages the country in the process?

You find the words ‘traitors’ and ‘trucebreakers’ in 2nd Timothy 3:3 as part of a narrative that begins, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.”


I began today’s discussion by describing the story about the Clinton officials’ warning as a non-story. The real story is the partisan war tearing at the fabric of America. I am trying very hard not to sound like I am supporting the Bush administration all the time, and in working on this column, I find myself sounding like I am doing it again.

But what I am trying to do is separate fact from fiction, and the facts, once again, fall in favor of the Bush administration. It is unfortunate, because I’d like to sound more balanced. But facts are facts and things that are different are not the same. Somewhere between the left and the right is the center.

Viewed from the center, Bush, together with the rest of his administration, would have to have come to the Oval Office by way of the Planet Pluto not to have already known, (even without with an official briefing), that al-Qaeda was the ‘worst security threat facing the nation’.

For most of the 1990’s, al-Qaeda had been attacking American targets with relative impunity. The attack on the USS Cole took place in the middle of the Republican nomination process, so it seems unlikely that Bush was unaware of the threat.

The only ones who seemed to be unaware of the threat at the time were the very Clinton officials who are about to testify before the Commission. Or so one would assume, given the previous administration’s record to that point.

Interestingly, the New York Times piece inadvertently blurted out the real agenda behind resurrecting this non-story, which had already fizzled once when TIME ran it two years ago.

At the risk of becoming repetitive, an alternative headline to the NYTimes’ “Clinton Transition Team Warned Bush of al-Qaeda Threat” story could have been, “Bush Aware of al-Qaeda Threat Before Taking Office”. But, since so was everybody else not living on Venus, it is as startling a headline as “Beer Makes You Drunk.”

In any case, the Times wanted to make sure it got the most anti-Bush mileage it could, noting gleefully; “a new public review of how they warned Mr. Bush’s aides about the need to deal quickly with the al Qaeda threat could prove awkward to the White House, especially in the midst of a presidential campaign.” Motive established.

Now, does anybody remember the Election 2000 transition? After Gore retracted his concession to Bush and launched his legal battle to overturn the election, the Clinton White House locked the presidential transition office and withheld the $5.3 million earmarked by Congress to fund the initial stages of the changeover from one administration to the next until after the Electoral College vote on December 18.

Traditionally, a president-elect has 73 days to prepare to take office. That is why the election falls in early November and the Inauguration in mid January. The transition is hard enough in 73 days — the Bush administration had 32.

The hubris of the Clinton administration loyalists in attempting to use the transition as the platform from which to say Bush was ill-prepared for 9/11 is breath-taking. So is their confidence in the gullibility of the public and its willingness to believe anything if it is repeated often enough.

The outgoing administration did everything possible to sabotage the transition process in deliberate effort to make SURE his administration was as unprepared as possible. That isn’t a partisan observation, it is a well-documented historical fact.

The first day of the Bush administration was not spent getting settled, doing the business of government, studying intelligence reports and preparing contingency plans. Everybody was out buying new keyboards, unscrambling the telephone system, scrubbing graffitti off the walls, clearing obscenities out of the copy machines and fixing all the locks that had been Superglued shut.

The Bush administration spent the next couple of days repealing last-minute Executive Orders issued by Clinton to hamstring the transition to power even further. Then a couple of months untangling the mess of red tape deliberately dumped in their laps. Is that fact? Or is that fiction? It WAS only four years ago. Doesn’t ANYBODY remember?

Was Bush as prepared as he should have been for 9/11? Clearly not. It happened, didn’t it? Is that the same as saying the Bush administration was ‘asleep at the switch’? No more so than Clinton before him. Or any administration before Clinton, with the possible exception of the Roosevelt administration during the Second World War.

Suppose that al-Qaeda had decided to launch 9/11 a year earlier when Clinton was still in office? Is it reasonable to assume they would have been less successful under his watchful eye?

The first World Trade Center bombing failed only in the sense that it left the building standing, and not because it was prevented by the pro-active presidency of Bill Clinton. That is another historical fact and not a partisan observation.

Clinton, like the rest of the world leaders of the 1990’s, were ‘feeding the alligator’ in the vain hope it would eat them last, to quote Donald Rumsfeld. Any honest evaluation of the historical record proves only that George Bush got stuck with the empty can of food.

So why is this non-story a story? Partisan politics. Nothing more. The Democrats will use the 9/11 Commission to attack the Bush administration. The Bush administration will respond in kind. The September 11 Commission will become a partisan battlefield. No conclusion it reaches will be trusted by the American public — or by the losing side, politically.

Now ask yourself — how can there BE a political ‘losing side’ in an impartial, bi-partisan commission investigating an attack on ALL of America? That depends on whether the 9/11 commission is perceived as a search for truth, or a case of a guilty verdict in search of evidence to support it.

In the end, the only losers will be the American public who will never fully know the truth. Those who lean toward the Democrats will believe the Democratic version. Those who lean toward the Republicans will accept the Republican version.

Except that things that are different are not the same, remember? Somewhere in the middle, lying undiscovered, is the truth.

“None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.” (Isaiah 59:4)

Iraq – One Year Later

Iraq – One Year Later
Vol: 30 Issue: 19 Friday, March 19, 2004

It’s been a year since the final 48 hour deadline the US gave to Saddam to get out of the country or be invaded expired. One year after, (if you listen to the mainstream media), we are in a ‘Vietnam-style quagmire’ in a country America would never have invaded if not for misleading statements from the White House.

Indeed, there is a significant portion of America that believes that the world is NOT better off with the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Howard Dean made it a feature of his now-defunct campaign; so did the rest of the nominees, including the now-presumptive nominee, John Kerry.

A vote in the Congress to pass a resolution of support for our troops in Iraq stalled over the wording, which began by assuring our troops that the world is better off thanks to Saddam’s removal. Although the resolution of support passed, voting “no” were 90 Democrats, two Republicans (Jim Leach of Iowa and Ron Paul of Texas) and independent self-styled socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

One of the “no” votes came from Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, who in December 2002 urged the reinstatement of the military draft on the grounds that “a disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military.”

Rangel seems to think the poor and members of minority groups who choose to serve their country–along with the better-off and members of majority groups who do–are unworthy of his respect.

It is significant to note that US service members, to this point, remain volunteers — they really DID choose to serve their country, instead of being conscripted as Rangel proposes. That really WOULD create a disproportionate minority military, like it did in Vietnam.

Why would a Democrat like Charley Rangel want to reinstate the draft? The answer is obvious: So that Rangel’s charges, now ridiculous, would carry weight, creating the ‘Vietnam quagmire’ that he and his colleagues are praying for so they can win the November election.

This isn’t the first time he has voted against a resolution honoring the troops in Iraq; he did so also just under a year ago. And as with the 2003 resolution, the vast majority of members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted “no”–23, against only 6 voting “yes” (and 3 “present”).

Also voting not to honor the troops was Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the Congress.


One year after the liberation of Iraq, there remain pockets of Saddam loyalists, al-Qaeda fighters and caches of weapons for use against American forces. Bombings and other attacks occur somewhere in the country almost daily. The news headlines are saturated with information about how dangerous a place Iraq is and what a ‘quagmire’ it is becoming. (‘Quagmire’ — it has a ring to it, doesn’t it?)

The Washington Post celebrated the anniversary of the Iraq War by highlighting the fact that 550 American service members have died and 3,800 have been wounded. The Post noted helpfully that some died or were wounded in combat and others by ‘Iraqis who don’t want Americans in their country’.

(To which we can add, some others died in accidents, several by suicide, some due to illnesses and some were killed by al-Qaeda members, most of whom were NOT Iraqis, but that wouldn’t make it sound so quagmirish, would it?)

Iraq is a country roughly the size and population of California. What do you want to bet that California suffered 550 deaths from gunshots in the last year? Let alone accidents, suicides, illnesses or even terrorism?

(For the record, it is, at least statistically, more dangerous to be an American in Los Angeles than it is to be an American in Baghdad).

The Post posed a cute little FAQ page, asking such leading questions as; “Didn’t we go to war because President Bush said Iraq had dangerous weapons? Have those weapons been found?” so that it can gleefully answer that “No weapons of mass destruction have been found.”

In truth, no weapons of mass destruction PROGRAMS have been found, but weapons finds in post-war Iraq included artillery shells loaded with mustard gas and an significant find of ricin — a deadly poison.

It asked, “If there weren’t weapons, did we need to go to war?” but the Post didn’t answer this one directly — it was too tempting to craft a reply that makes Bush look stupid and Kerry look presidential.

“President Bush says yes, because even if Saddam Hussein didn’t have the weapons, he was trying to get them. Bush believes that Hussein was such a bad guy that one day he’d either use those weapons against the United States or sell them to terrorists who would use them against us.”

Hmmm. President Bush ‘believes’ Saddam was a bad guy. Are there any others who believe that?

Evidently not. “Other people, (aside from Bush) including President Bush’s opponent for the presidency, Democrat John Kerry, say that we went to war too quickly. They say we should have tried to get Hussein to give up power some other way. The fact that no weapons have been found is proof, they say, that there was no urgent need to go to war.”

So Bush ‘believed’ Saddam was a bad guy, whereas the absence of weapons is ‘proof’ that John Kerry was right all along. Subtle, no?

Another FAQ from the Post reads, “Is life better for the Iraqi people now, in terms of safety, electricity, hospitals, education?” Let me answer first, before I let the Post spin doctors take over.

Oil production in Iraq is at pre-war levels. Electricity exceeds pre-war levels. Iraq’s infrastructure is being rebuilt, the Iraqis have approved an interim constitution, there are more hospitals, clinics, medicine, food, the standard of living is measurably better than before the invasion, the job picture is improving and wages are going up. For every terror attack that occurs in an Iraqi city, thousands of other cities are untouched. For every Iraqi killed by a terrorist, a hundred Iraqis are not being tortured in some prison for criticizing Saddam’s moustache.

The Post sees Iraq in somewhat less optimistic terms: “In some cases, things are much better than they were a year ago. In one sense, people are safer than they were, because when Saddam Hussein was in power, his police would kidnap, torture and kill anyone suspected of speaking out against him. But because people were afraid of Saddam Hussein’s policemen, there wasn’t much crime.”

“Now, because there are fewer policemen and people are fighting to control parts of Iraq, there is more crime. Also, while Iraqis are happy that Hussein is gone, they want to run their own country. That has led to attacks on U.S. soldiers.”

Wow! Iraqis are only safer ‘in a sense’ because, while they no longer have to fear rape, torture and murder by their government, they are still at risk from criminals! You see, Saddam’s terror regime had a good side. Criminals were afraid of him!

To the Post, the ‘sense’ in which they are safer is like, oh, being in Los Angeles instead of Pyongyang, but to the Post, that is evidently a bad thing. And, according to the Post, attacks on US soldiers are from ‘Iraqis who want Americans out of the country’ – and not Saddam loyalists or al-Qaeda. Or so the Post claims.

Yet polls taken recently in Iraq say that the majority of Iraqis are terrified that America might pull out. According the poll, most Iraqis say they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and that life will continue to improve — but only if America stays put. But that is a closely guarded secret, since it also spoils the whole ‘quagmire’ image.

Abroad, the French are a bit less vocal about US involvement in Iraq, although they are still seething about it. This time last year, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was on every newscast, decrying American unilateralism and insisting on more time for inspections. This time this year, we know that Saddam paid the French off, and that France gave Saddam regular briefings on its talks with the United States.

This time last year, Kofi Annan was thundering that only under UN authority could anyone dare to touch Iraq, and that defying seventeen resolutions demanding compliance under the threat of force was insufficient reason to actually USE force.

This time this year, the UN is conducting an ‘internal investigation’ into the UN’s administration of the Oil-For-Food program and kickbacks to its officials amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. Not to mention almost ten billion dollars they just can’t seem to find.

This time last year, the German government of Gerhard Schroeder told the UN, “At the moment, there is no reason to put an end to the success of the inspections.” (The ‘success’ of the inspections — did you notice that?) The ‘success’ Schroeder was referring to was that while inspections continued, Germany could continue to trade on Iraq’s black market.

Saddam ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” (Not to mention the bribes) It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.

During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.

In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.

This time this year, the Germans are keeping a low profile, hoping that if they keep quiet, they won’t hear US officials reading their names out of Saddam’s little black book of bribe recipients at some future UN Security Council meeting.

One year ago, the countries most prominently represented in Saddam’s little black book were prepared to force a showdown with Washington. They were prepared to keep Saddam in power at all costs and used Bush’s domestic popularity problems to their best advantage, pandering to the useful idiots that attended all the ‘Save Saddam from the Barbarian Americans!’ rallies.

Today, they are condemning the Iraq War and occupation, but not on any principled stand — there is none to take. Instead, Old Europe condemns it out of fear that supporting Washington will bring down the wrath of al-Qaeda on them.

Thanks to the Madrid bombing, they are more afraid of the terrorists than they are the Great Satan they warn is planning to take over the world. The only thing they hate more than al-Qaeda is George Bush. Immediately after the Spanish voted in the al-Qaeda-friendly socialists, the new Spanish prime minister endorsed John Kerry for president.

(As an aside, today Kerry announced that endorsements from foreign leaders are ‘inappropriate’. So far, the public international endorsements are all from socialists, communists, and the Islamic paradises like Iran and Maylaysia. I expect bin-Laden to offer his endorsement any day, now, which is probably what the Kerry camp is afraid of.)

“John Kerry rejects any association with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable,” Kerry’s spokesman said this morning.

One thing hasn’t changed, however. Even one year later, the Left, (both foreign and domestic) continues to lie about the whole issue, talking down America, the economy, the administration and even other coalition members, hoping something will click.

One still hears about ‘American unilateralism’ in Iraq, even though there are more nations in this coalition than there were in the one that liberated Kuwait. We continue to hear of a ‘quagmire’ that ‘Bush has gotten us into’ and of the ‘lies’ of the Bush administration that got us into it.

Even though those ‘lies’ were being circulated by such luminaries of the past as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, John Kerry, Charley Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, etc., etc., since each of them at one time or another has warned of the dangers inherent in Saddam Hussein’s arsenal.

One of the most important observations to come to the forefront one year after the war with Iraq is how desperately the Left wanted to see us lose.

And how disappointed they are that we haven’t. Not yet, anyway.

Special Report: The American War

Special Report: The American War
Vol: 30 Issue: 18 Thursday, March 18, 2004

A culture war has been raging in the United States for years. Unlike traditional wars, it cannot be won by military action, but it is a real war, being carried out on US soil by US citizens against one another.

For example, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defied state law by allowing same-sex marriage licenses, a New York Times profile reported him sporting “a wide grin,” “describing his motives as pure and principled,” and cited his “business acumen, money, good looks and friends in the right places.”

But when Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore also defied the law — by installing a Ten Commandments display in his public building — a Times profile said that “civil liberties groups accused Justice Moore of turning a courthouse into a church,” while allowing that he had also become “an Alabama folk hero.”

On the editorial page, the Times criticized Moore, likening him to George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, but supports Newsom’s protest and gay marriage.

America’s culture war can be defined as conservative vs. liberal, Right vs. Left, rich vs. poor, Democrat vs. Republican but in reality, the war is between believers in Christ and believers in the world system, both inside and outside of mainstream Christian culture.

It isn’t really a war between cultures so much as it is a spiritual conflict. For example, while polls show a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, some of the country’s top editorial pages support it.

“Same-sex marriages pose no threat to anyone but rather affirm a commitment of love, an emotion that is universal,” says the Boston Globe.

“We believe that extending the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples would be fair and beneficial; we understand that many Americans feel otherwise,” says The Washington Post.

“Clearly those who claim that it signals the end of civilization need to get their outrage odometers adjusted,” says the Los Angeles Times.

Polls demonstrate the culture war between Christ and the world is taking casualties within mainstrean Christian culture as well: A poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggest that opposition to same-sex marriage is widespread among white evangelical Protestants (84 percent) and blacks (65 percent).

Other mainline Protestant Christians showed a 20-point drop in opposition to same-sex marriage (from 64 percent to 44) and a 19-point drop among white Roman Catholics (from 60 percent to 41 percent) but only a 1-point decline among white evangelical Christians and African Americans. Do you see a pattern developing?

Another front in the culture war is the battle raging over Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Before it was even released, it had ignited passions across the country.

“Too gory!” exclaimed movie reviewers. The same movie reviewers loved Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill” and “Pulp Fiction.” Not to mention “A Nightmare on Elm Street” “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Natural Born Killers” all of which have achieved ‘cult film status’ and are immune to criticism. The same reviewers who criticized “The Passion” for its gore cheered the historical accuracy of the first thirty minutes of “Saving Private Ryan.”

The culture war isn’t over the movie, but rather the subject material — namely the Salvation of the human race. The world system doesn’t like to think that it needs salvation, and it doesn’t like to be reminded of the historical Jesus.

If the Passion of Jesus is real, then hell is real. And if hell is real, then it becomes decision time. And to the world, ‘decision time’ means giving up all the ‘fun stuff’ — something they would rather not do.

So rather than admitting outright that their real objection is to Christianity in general, they fall back on whatever seems safe. Antisemitism, or too much gore, or historical ‘inaccuracies’ that didn’t seem to bother anybody when reviewing “The Last Temptation of Christ” or “Jesus Christ, Superstar”.

Abortion is another example — recently the Los Angeles Times corrected a review about a play that celebrated fertility (a favorite subject of the world) in which the reviewer called the play ‘pro-life’. Although the play had NOTHING to do with abortion, the LA Times’ editors changed ‘pro-life’ to ‘anti-abortion’.

The words ‘pro-life’ are forbidden by the Times’ editorial board because it might give the impression that if those opposing abortion are ‘pro-life’ then those who favor it are ‘pro-death’ or ‘anti-life’. ‘Anti-abortion’ strikes the right semantic ‘balance’; who wants to be ‘anti’ something? Especially since the opposite of pro-life is, by definition, anti-life?

Last week, the UC Student Senate passed a bill to give $2,400 to send 10 buses of students to a pro-abortion rally in Washington. That is considered ‘education’ but you won’t find public universities shelling out funds to send students to a pro-life rally.

Cincinatti’s Xavier College ponied up $30,000 to pay lunatic left-winger Michael Moore to address the student body. Some students wanted to hear from conservative columnist Walter Williams. They even put up $10,000 of their own money. Xavier refused to kick in the balance of $3000.00 — about ten percent of what they paid Moore.

That the world is well aware of the spiritual conflict is easily seen by the automatic assumption that anybody who is pro-life must be a Bible thumping born-again Christian, so financing such a student trip would violate the alleged ‘Separation Clause’.

Polls show the majority of Americans are pro-life, but the world system equates being pro-life to Jesus Christ. And hates it.


The spiritual war raging in America is taking place at the same time a larger spiritual conflict has gripped the whole world. Unlike America’s war, this one IS being fought using bullets and bombs. That war pits Muslims against Jews and Christians, which is what brought it to America’s shores. Because America is rapidly becoming one of the last strongholds of Christianity left in the world.

While there are more Christians in China than there are Americans on earth, no nation on earth has more Christians per capita and no nation on earth exerts more global influence than ‘Christian’ America.

The culture war raging in America represent the opening skirmishes in the coming War of Armageddon that rages throughout the Tribulation Period.

Consider what would happen to America if suddenly, there were no Christians remaining to continue the spiritual conflict with the world system. What if the only worldview left in America were the one espoused by the liberal left and the God-haters?

What would it mean to America’s global status? What if there was nobody to restrain Ted Kennedy or John Kerry or Jay Rockefeller’s doctrine of internationalism? What if there were no Christians left for Islam to fight?

One of the spiritual wars taking place in America right now concerns whether or not America is really a Christian country to begin with. In America, pledging allegiance to one nation ‘under God’ is already illegal. So is displaying the Ten Commandments on public land.

If there were no Christians, America’s culture war would be over and the stage would be set for the War of Armageddon to begin in earnest. The Armageddon War isn’t against the Church, it is against Israel and the Tribulation saints.

What would happen if, suddenly, Christianity disappeared from the face of the earth is outlined by the Apostle Paul. Paul had taught in his first Epistle to the Thessalonians of the coming Rapture of the Church.

“For this we say unto you by the Word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18)

In his Second Epistle, Paul is specifically addressing a heresy that was being taught in Thessolonica that the Lord had already returned for His Church and that they had been left behind.

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” (2nd Thessalonians 2:1-3)

Paul outlines the spiritual conflict, saying that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way.”

The NIV translates this same verse, “For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the One who now holds it back will continue to do so till He is taken out of the way.”

The One Who ‘holds it back’ is the Holy Spirit of God indwelling the Church. The Holy Spirit is God. God is omnipresent, meaning He is everwhere. The Psalmist wrote; “If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou art there.” (Psalms 139:8)

It is only AFTER the restraining influence of the indwelt Church is removed, Paul says, that the Antichrist can come to power. “And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His Mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming:” (2 Thessalonians 2:8)

Note that the text makes ‘that Wicked’ a proper noun, and that he will be destroyed by the 2nd Coming of Christ at the conclusion of the Tribulation Period. The identification of ‘that Wicked’ as the antichrist is obvious from the context.

After the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is ‘taken out of the way’ Paul explains the ‘strong delusion’ that will cause the secular world to embrace the antichrist.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12)

The Rapture would decimate the United States, hand victory to the internationalists, the liberals, the homosexual movement, the God-haters and the abortionists in a war they undoubtedly will think they have won.

It is obvious that the only thing restraining evil today is the believing Church. For those to be left behind, the conditioning process has already begun.

The Rapture is at hand. That means there isn’t much time left for us to fulfill our commission as watchmen on the wall.

The King is coming! Tell somebody.