Crossing the Invisible Line

Crossing the Invisible Line
Vol: 31 Issue: 23 Friday, April 23, 2004

According to the most recent polls, in spite of all the negative publicity, body slams from both the mainstream media and John Kerry over the Iraq war, plus the efforts to blame him for 9/11, George Bush is inexplicably moving ahead of John Kerry.

An ABC News/Washington Post survey released on Tuesday recorded a five-point lead among registered voters for President Bush over Senator Kerry when Ralph Nader was offered as a choice (48 percent to 43 percent to 6 percent) and a one-point lead when the matchup was narrowed to President Bush and Senator Kerry (49 percent to 48 percent).

In a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released the same day, Bush led Kerry 47 percent to 44 percent, with Nader drawing 5 percent. Without Nader, it was Bush over Kerry 50 percent to 46 percent. The next day, a poll from Investor’s Business Daily confirmed the trend, showing Bush at 44 percent, Kerry at 40 percent and Nader at 4 percent.

The press is incredulous, as evidenced by a glance at the morning headlines detailing the results of the polling. MSNBC all but admits the existence of its anti-Bush propaganda campaign in its headline, “Despite Iraq News, Bush Hangs On”.

The Miami Herald led with, “Bush Leading, Despite Setbacks”, while Newsday moaned “Despite Criticism, Bush Still Leads in Polls”. In order to take some of the luster off polls favoring Bush, the Miami Herald had to reach clean to the Left Coast to justify its negative spin on the story, saying; “Poll: Bush Popularity in California at an All Time Low”.

How’s THAT for spinning a story about Bush leading Kerry in the polls? Do you think the Miami Herald has a political agenda?

On the Left Coast, the Los Angeles Times headlined its story, “Economy, War Mean Uphill Battle for Bush”.

Keep in mind these are headlines for stories detailing how Bush is moving AHEAD in the polls.

Assessment:

It is a mystery to the liberal establishment that they have been unable to fulfill the promises they made in 2000 to make George Bush’s presidency as unsuccessful as possible as payback for ‘stealing’ the election from Al Gore.

In fact, the establishment has been so single-minded in its focus on defeating George Bush that it has stripped away any pretense at objectivity, making necessary the creation of a new term for the political lexicon to describe the phenomenon of ‘Bush-bashing’.

Take the 9/11 Commission, for example. It is a textbook example of ‘Bush-bashing’ — not to mention a perfect example of objectivity being thrown out the window in the pursuit of the goal of ‘getting’ George Bush.

Critics of the administration, especially among the media, simultaneously accuse Bush of not acting preemptively against the Taliban on one hand, while criticizing Bush for acting preemptively against Saddam Hussein.

All the while, they have to juggle the eight months of the Bush administration against eight years of Clinton inaction, without actually mentioning Clinton by name in the process.

After all, it was Clinton who declared regime change in Iraq to be official US policy back in 1998, not George Bush. Bush was acting on Clinton’s policy in 2003 when he deposed Saddam as a preemptive measure as part of the overall preemptive strategy of the war on terror.

And every previous terror attack on the US prior to 9/11 took during the Clinton administration. But somehow, the press has anointed George Bush the scapegoat and given the Clinton administration a pass.

It is hard to manipulate all that and still appear to be objective. So they aren’t even trying. America’s Fifth Estate has crossed an invisible line.

In the early days of the Nazi regime, the press was taken over by Nazi propagandists, but at first, they tried to maintain some semblance of objectivity. If they had simply taken over the press and begun broadcasting blatant propaganda from the start, nobody would have paid any attention to them.

Propaganda, to be successful, has to be believable, at least on the surface. The Nazis discovered after a while that people got used to being lied to, and then it really didn’t matter anymore. People came to expect it, in the same sense that during the Clinton administration, America came to believe that ‘all politicians lie’ — but then they voted for the candidate of their choice in the next election, anyway.

America is slowly being taught in the same way that ‘all newspapers have a bias’. Everybody knows the New York Times and CNN tilt to the left, while the Washington Times and Fox News tilt to the right.

Except that conservatives think Fox News and the WT are ‘balanced’ and the NYT and CNN are not. And liberals think CNN and the NYT are ‘balanced’ while Fox and the WT are not. BOTH sides are delusional.

Which is why both sides go to THEIR source of ‘fair and balanced’ news in a subliminal admission that both sides are biased, but one side leans their way.

Neither side realizes what has happened, but both have crossed over to where they openly accept a VERSION of the truth AS the truth, all the while knowing in the back of their minds it is a MANIPULATED truth.

The Nazis, once they crossed that threshold, were able to move from manipulating the truth into openly fabricating stories that fit the party line, and eventually, enslave a continent.

The Bible says that in the last days, the antichrist will seize control of the global propaganda machine and convince a willing world to accept him as a god and their savior, in much the same way the Nazi propaganda machine deified Hitler.

But in order for the antichrist to control the global propaganda machine, there must first BE a global propaganda machine to control. As we’ve seen, it takes some time to build, and even more time to condition the public to accept propaganda as ‘truth’. The antichrist only has seven years, so the global machine must already be up and functioning when he comes to power.

It wouldn’t take much fine tuning to use the one in place right now.

All Hail Mother Gaia

All Hail Mother Gaia
Vol: 31 Issue: 22 Thursday, April 22, 2004

The first Earth Day celebration was conceived by then U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson and held in 1970 as a “symbol of environmental responsibility and stewardship”.

What is interesting is the universal recognition — in this generation — that the Earth is in trouble. Everybody, regardless of their religious views — or lack thereof — can see the handwriting on the wall — even if they refuse to admit it was written in advance.

For the most part, the proponents of Earth Day are pagans who would scoff at the idea of a Creator God, preferring ‘Mother Gaia’ instead. While they laugh at the idea of a living God, the concept of a living, intelligent, planet seems perfectly rational to them.

“Earth Day” founder Senator Nelso explained, “When I first conceived of Earth Day, a global holiday to celebrate the wonder of life on our planet, I thought long and hard about the day on which it should fall. It must be meaningful. One that might be accepted universally for all of humankind. What could be more appropriate than the first moment of Spring, when day and night are equal around the world and hearts and minds can join together with thoughts of harmony and Earth’s rejuvenation.”

Senator Nelson adds, “Just as a single prayer can be significant, how much more so when hundreds, thousands, millions of people throughout the world join in peaceful thoughts and prayers to nurture neighbor and nature.”

Former Vice President Al Gore in his book, ‘Earth in the Balance’ wrote what he called the ‘Gaia Hypothesis’ using quotes from an ancient Hindu dictum: “The earth is our mother, and we are all her children.” He quotes from the gurus of Sikhism who claim that the “Earth teaches us patience, love; Air teaches us mobility, liberty; Fire teaches us warmth, courage; Sky teaches us equality, broad-mindedness; Water teaches us purity, cleanliness.

He quotes from Baha i that teaches that, Man is organic with the world. His inner life molds the environment and is itself deeply affected by it.” And he quotes from James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia hypothesis.

Gore wrote in his book that the root problem in Western civilization is that “we lost our feeling of connectedness to the rest of nature.”

Near the end of his book, he offers an answer to this alienation by quoting from a prayer of the Onondaga tribe in upstate New York.

Assessment:

A single prayer CAN be significant, if it is addressed to God, but Nelson’s vision is of the prayers of millions addressed to the god of this world, just as Christian Southen Baptist Al Gore preaches any god will do.

Addressing a prayer to a mythical earth god in the expectations it will be answered is like addressing a letter with no return address to ‘Fred’ and dropping in a mail box, expecting it to be delivered to the correct Fred. And then expecting Fred, who doesn’t know you, to grant your request.

The results of praying to the earth are more obvious to the pagan earth worshippers than they are to the rest of us — they pray and pray, and the planet’s ecology gets worse and worse. You’d think they’d get the hint. Either Gaia isn’t listening, she doesn’t care, or — maybe, just maybe, GAIA IS A BIG ROCK FLOATING IN SPACE.

Because, according to the high priests of the god of this world, the planet isn’t healing itself, it is falling apart. That is the reason for Earth Day –to give Gaia a big hint that we’d like her to fix things, or, if Gaia won’t, (or CAN’T) then maybe everybody can meet together on Earth Day and give her a hand. (After all, the Earth doesn’t have any hands of its own)

According to guys like Al Gore, the earth is billions of years old, and man has been here for millions of years. Al Gore has been around for a bit over a half-century.

When Al Gore’s dad was born, the air was clean, the water was clean, the environment was largely unspoiled and few people thought about praying to the planet to please grow more trees so we don’t run out of oxygen. Thus had it been,(using Al Gore’s timetable), for millions of years.

(Amazing what a difference a half-century can make.)

So today is Earth Day, the day when millions of people will all come together, hold hands, sing ‘Kumbayah’, share a universal Coke and pray TO THE PLANET for the protection of the environment. They deny the God of Scripture, but embrace the god of this world, while giving him credit for God’s handiwork.

The skeptics can argue that they don’t believe in God, but Earth Day proves the opposite. They just prefer a god of their own design, one more in keeping with their own worldview.

Indeed, the Apostle Paul makes that exact point:

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

(God is dead, but the EARTH is alive — and worthy of prayer and worship?)

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:19-25)

The Burdensome Stone

The Burdensome Stone
Vol: 31 Issue: 21 Wednesday, April 21, 2004

British Prime Minister Tony Blair began to distance himself a bit from his war ally, George Bush, following the US announcement of support for Ariel Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan. While the White House responded to Israel’s killing of Hamas leader Abdel Rantisi by saying Israel has a right to self-defense, Tony Blair denounced it as an ‘assassination’.

That seems an odd posture for any country engaged in the war on terror to take.

Abdel Azizz Rantisi was a terrorist killer who was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Israelis. Osama bin-Laden is a terrorist leader who is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of Britons.

It is worth asking the question; if a British sniper in Afghanistan got Osama in his cross hairs and took the shot, would he be a hero, worthy of praise? Or an ‘assassin’, worthy of condemnation?

The British press is following its political leader in damning Israel enthusiastically for deciding to pull out of Gaza and withdraw from most of the West Bank.

The Palestinians want it all, and will accept nothing less than ‘all’ and that’s all there is to it, goes the British view of the situation. “Since Israel stole it from the Palestinians in the first place, the thinking goes, any portion the Palestinians lets the Jews keep is more than they have coming.”

(The irony is that it was Great Britain that created a much-larger Jewish homeland via the 1917 Balfour Declaration in the first place -after Britain ‘stole’ it from the Ottoman Empire in World War I)

In any case, the fact Israel wants to retain control of six long-established settlement blocs out of all of Gaza and the West Bank is unacceptable to the Brits. Just as it is unacceptable to the whole of the Arab world. And unacceptable by the United Nations entire; but for the US, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia.

Think about it for a second — I mean, really THINK about what we are talking about. Virtually unanimous global support for the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the West Bank! There are about a quarter million Jews concerned, many of whom have lived in their homes for thirty years or more! It staggers the imagination.

What really staggers the imagination is the global uproar that would ensue if Israel attempted to ethnically cleanse the Jewish State of its Israeli Arab population.

Think this through. Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab states. Some of its own Israeli-Arab citizens have been been directly involved in terrorist acts against Israel on the behalf of those Arab enemy states. Israel possesses about 1/6th of one percent of the entire Middle East — the rest is in Arab hands.

If Israel tried to expell a relative handful of Arabs into an Arab world more than one hundred times its size, Israel couldn’t even count on Micronesia, let alone America, to support it. But let the Arab world try to expell a quarter-million Jews from its territory into tiny Israel — and it takes a US veto to stop the UN from sending troops in to help with the cleansing operation.

Assessment:

The global reaction to the Israeli unilateral withdrawal is the exact opposite of what one should expect. Ever since Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza, the world has demanded an Israeli withdrawal. The UN General Assembly has passed resolution after resolution demanding an Israeli withdrawal, going all the way back to 1947. (Most of them were unanimous, except for dissenting votes from Israel, the US, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia.)

So now, Israel is pulling out, asking only that the quarter million Jews already settled for a generation be allowed their homes. Instead of having Palestinian Arabs dancing for joy in the streets, while diplomats clink together celebratory glasses of champagne, the disengagement plan is meeting universal opposition.

What about the Arab ‘Right of Return’? Where will the Palestinians work? Who will take care of Gaza when the Israelis pull out? How will the Arabs govern their war-torn new state and shattered economy?

(Those answers should provide clues about the true nature of Israel’s ‘brutal occupation’? IF one were looking for the truth, that is.)

That nobody can see the deliberate, systematic effort on behalf of virtually the whole world to drive the Jewish state out of existence (or turn a blind eye to it) is no more acceptable to me than that Europe ‘didn’t know’ where its Jews went when they boarded those trains headed east during WWII.

In 1947, the Palestinians were offered a state larger than the one they claim to demand now, but they rejected the UN Partition Plan in favor of a plan to wipe out the Jews and take it all. The Arabs who lived on the UN’s Jewish Mandate fled, expecting to return after the Jews were annihilated. They gambled and lost. (Those Arabs and their descendants are the ones affected by the ‘Right of Return’)

The ‘Right of Return’ is analogous to betting against the house in a casino, losing, and demanding your bet back as a ‘Right of Refund’. But it enjoys the backing of every nation on earth except Israel. And now, the United States, and (possibly) Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.

The Arabs didn’t want a state in 1947, they wanted to deny the Jews one. Subsequent history proves that goal remains unchanged. And secretly shared.

Following the 1967 Six Day War, Golda Meir, then-Israel’s prime minister, offered to return virtually all the territories Israel had just captured in exchange for peace. That included the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians and Arab States answered with the famous “three nos” — no recognition, no negotiation, and no peace.

In 1979, the Palestinians turned a joint Egyptian and Israeli invitation to join the peace negotiations at Camp David. Had they accepted, they could have had an independent state decades ago.

In 2000, Yasser Arafat turned down the Camp David proposal that would have given the Palestinians the beginnings of a thriving Palestinian state. It included all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.

Not only did the Arafat turn down the offer, he unleashed the second intifada. There is now little left to rule, but the Arab goal was never statehood from the beginning.

At each historic opportunity, what scuttled the Palestinian chance at statehood was the Arab insistence on evolving terms they knew Israel could never accept, like demanding all of Jerusalem, or holding out for an eventual ‘Right of Return’.

The UN endorsed it, for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that, institutionally, the UN shares the Arab vision of a Jew-free Middle East. Israel has been the catalyst for most of the UN’s headaches since the day it first raised its flag and declared its existence. The world would a much simpler place to govern if Israel were an Arab state.

And the Right of Return would give the Arabs an overnight electoral majority, meaning Israel would be an Arab state at the next election. George Bush, in his endorsement of unilateral disengagement, took the ‘Right of Return’, not to mention Jerusalem, right off the table.

That is one of the reasons behind a new Palestinian tactic being tested now. Ahmed Queria threatened recently to abandon claims to the West Bank and Baza and to demand equal citizenship in a ‘bi-national’ state. It would have the same ultimate effect of creating an instant Palestinian majority. And the eventual end of a Jewish State in the Middle East.

President Bush was stating the obvious when he said: “It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue . . . will be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of the refugees there rather than in Israel.”

But as obvious as it is, it is evidently only clear to Israel, the US, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia.

“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” (Zechariah 12:3)

The Claim From Spain is Really Pretty Lame

The Claim From Spain is Really Pretty Lame
Vol: 31 Issue: 20 Tuesday, April 20, 2004

The newly elected Socialist government of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero showed terrorists that sometimes, terror can win. Zapatero announced that his government will abruptly withdraw Spain’s contingent of 1,300 troops from Iraq.

Immediately after hearing Spain’s announcement, radical Shi’ite cleric Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr to declare a moratorium on attacks against Spanish troops in Iraq. See? If you just do as you are told, the terrorists will leave you alone!

Members of Zapatero’s government began efforts at damage control, imploring the international community not to read too much into the withdrawal.

“That does not mean that Spain is giving up its commitment to the stability and democratization of Iraq,” Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said in a speech in Madrid.

“And of course, we will be the leading actors in the international fight against terrorism.” Sure. Spain is ‘committed’ — to the last drop of American blood.

No doubt, Spain will ‘act’ like its cooperating with the ‘international fight against terrorism’ — but is doubtful that Spain will be able to put on a believeable performance after running away from Iraq.

Moratinos, who until recently, stood staunchly at Jose Maria Aznar’s side in backing the United States in Iraq, tried to spin Spain’s withdrawal as a ‘strategic reorganization’ saying, “We’re not washing our hands [of the Iraq ‘crisis’.]”

Instead, Moratinos tried to make the case that Spain’s betrayal of its previous commitment to Washington will be a GOOD thing.

“This decision should not affect bilateral relations between Spain and the United States,” he said, adding that Spain’s list of shared interests with the United States would be “wider and more attractive” under Zapatero.

Presumably, the Bush administration will be much more favorably inclined towards a faithless ally than it would have been had Spain stood firm, but even Moratinos couldn’t explain how.

Spain’s announcement was followed immediately by an announcement by Honduras that it will also tuck its tail between its legs and flee al-Qaeda, saying it will bring its 350 man contingent home ‘immediately’.

Assessment:

One can’t simply blame Spain’s about-face in Iraq on the policies of a new government. A review of the Spanish press suggests Zapatero’s retreat from Iraq meets with widespread popular approval.

Madrid’s El Mundo had originally supported the coalition effort, until the first Spanish troops were killed in combat. Now, they applaud Zapatero’s decision, saying in an editorial that, “the risks of staying there far outweighed the advantages. The soldiers could have been kidnapped or killed or used to blackmail the government.”

Good heavens! Soldiers at risk! Who could have imagined such a thing? The editorial must have warmed the hearts of the al-Qaeda leadership. The problem, as most of the Spanish editorials are quick to point out, is that while;

“Saddam Hussein was an abominable dictator . . . Iraq wasn’t the right place to fight jihadism.” (El Pais)

Of course not. Too many jihadists there — and some of them might hurt, or even kill, Spanish soldiers!

The editorial in El Pais went on to explain what WILL end jihadism, saying that if the West was “serious about destroying the hotbeds of extremism. . . it ought to concentrate on a rapid and fair solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

Of course, a ‘rapid and fair solution’ means giving Israel to Arafat, but Spain has already proved itself willing to give Iraq to bin-Laden, so why not?

The Barcelona daily, in its tortured effort to turn reality upside down, advocated stronger alliances with ‘moderate’ Arab regimes. La Vanguardia explained;

“As Mr Zapatero sees it, the fight against international terrorism depends on rebuilding a multilateral framework and involving moderate Arab regimes. It will not be won by conventional warfare but by intelligence. The new government wanted to ensure that its first action was to correct its aim.”

La Vanguardia failed to identify either a ‘moderate’ Arab regime or what qualifies, (since a 44 nation coalition does not), as a ‘multilateral framework’, anymore than it explained how Spain could ‘fight’ by withdrawing its troops in the face of the enemy to rely on ‘intelligence’.

(Once Spain has its ‘intelligence’, how will it act on it without troops to ‘fight’ with?)

The Spanish withdrawal is not much more significant, in military terms, than the withdrawal of Honduras. The two countries together contribute some 1500 troops, as compared with a quarter-million US troops. It is a far more significant tactical defeat for the coalition because of the victory it gives to al-Qaeda.

It also expresses an almost child-like faith in the abilities of the UN that is shared by most of the rest of the world, who regularly pray for UN involvement to solve the Iraq ‘crisis’. The fact the UN is largely to blame for the crisis is only a secondary consideration, if it is considered at all.

The same UN that everybody is clamoring to for salvation from Islamic terror is the one that allowed Saddam to rape Iraq under its very nose, unchecked, for more than a decade, while billions disappeared from the UN Oil for Food account. All that is forgotten.

Although the insurgency in Iraq involves a relative handful of fighters (several thousand out of sixty million) and most of Iraq is pacified (Kurdish Iraq is almost incident-free), the world is convinced that Iraq is in ‘crisis’ — and that crisis cries out for a global savior untainted by the stain of America or Israel.

The spirit of Spain’s editorial pages is echoed throughout Europe, and even from American liberals who don’t know any better.

John Kerry told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that, if elected, “I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration,” he said. “Within weeks of being inaugurated I will return to the U.N. and I will rejoin the community of nations.”

Let’s summarize and connect the dots, shall we? The Western world finds itself reluctantly locked in ideological combat with most of the Islamic world and literal combat with a multinational group of Islamic terrorists. Why? For supporting America in its war with Iraq, or Biblical Babylon. (The moment Spain betrayed its commitment to the United States in Iraq, a ‘moratorium’ was declared on attacks against Spain.)

The United States, according to al-Qaeda, is a target because it, in turn, supports Israel in its war for existence.

Unwinding the chain, we find nations who support America become targets because America supports Israel, who is the real target.

America supports Israel because Americans overwhelmingly see Jews as spiritual relatives who share the same basic Judeo-Christian fundamental roots. The Judeo-Christian foundation is the Bible.

On the other hand, Europe is well into its post-Christian era, and European antisemism runs deep and wide through the fabric of European society. Europe has been so heavily infiltrated by Islamic culture in the last few decades that it has earned the nickname, “Eurabia”.

The world, and especially Europe, is crying out for a global government to take the reins and save them from the mess in Iraq and the war on terror. As El Pais noted, if the West is “serious about destroying the hotbeds of extremism. . . it ought to concentrate on a rapid and fair solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

Daniel says that the Tribulation begins with the emergence of such a global savior. The act that propels him to global prominence is his seeming solution to the Arab-Israel crisis and the confirmation of a peace process of seven years duration. (Daniel 9:24-27)

The prophet Daniel penned his prediction almost 2600 years ago, 150 years after Israel ceased to exist and 2500 years before Israel would be reborn. The Arab-Israel peace process began with the 1993 Oslo Agreement.

Oslo was an agreement that set in motion a series of steps — a process — that was supposed to culminate in a ‘final solution of the Jerusalem question’ and the establishment of a Palestinian state by September 13, 2000 — a period of seven years.

Oslo failed and resulted in more than three years of all out war that appears to be coming to a head with Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan.

Now that the dots are connected, does anybody else see the same picture emerging that I do?

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

Where Are Iraq’s WMD? Ask al-Qaeda!

Where Are Iraq’s WMD? Ask al-Qaeda!
Vol: 31 Issue: 19 Monday, April 19, 2004

An al-Qaeda-linked terror group was stopped before they could conduct a chemical weapons attack against the Jordanian government’s intelligence headquarters. The plot was allegedly hatched by abu-Musab al-Zarqawi.

Zarqawi is a major player in the terror war who rose to infamy when a memo from Zarqawi to Osama bin-Laden was intercepted in Iraq. Zarqawi is a Jordanian citizen.

Piecing things together from wire service reports and insider intelligence reports, it appears that Zarqawi’s plot involved the use of deadly VX gas in a chemical bomb that, if detonated, would have killed everyone within a square mile of Ground Zero.

According to a BBC report, another operation planned by the network was to use “deadly gas against the US embassy and the prime minister’s office in Amman … and other public buildings in Jordan”.

According to the London-based Arabic daily, al-Hayat, the “majority of the members” were arrested, but not all of them. Two detained men identified as Suleiman Khaled Darwish and Ali Adwan “established the cell, which was funded by al-Zarqawi from Iraq and Iran,” Jordanian sources told al Hayat.

With the help of a third man, Azmi Abd al Fattah al Jayousi, they managed to smuggle three cars packed with explosives. In one of the cars, security forces found the chemical charge. The Jordanian authorities are still looking for al Jayousi.

The Jordanian officials were quoted as saying, The bomb, had it been detonated, could have affected people in a one kilometer radius and cause the deaths of more 20,000 people, according to estimates by bomb experts .

Assessment:

This story isn’t getting very much attention in the US press. The reason that it is largely being either ignored or underreported is because it raises questions the mainstream would prefer to leave unanswered until after the US elections in November.

According to the UPI wire services, but ignored by most media, is the fact an al-Qaeda car that was to be used in the attack was intercepted just 75 miles from the Syrian border. All three cars that were eventually found in Amman entered Jordan from Syria.

Time to set the Way Back machine to one year ago. Just before the outbreak of hostilities between the United States and Iraq, reconnaissance photos showed convoys of tanker trucks and other heavy truck traffic streaming from Iraq into Syria. According to Israeli intelligence, those convoys contained Saddam Hussien’s chemical and biological arsenals.

In July, 2003, Task Force 20, supported by helicopters and AC-130 gunships, struck the convoy and a housing compound “in a village not far from the Syria border.”

Task Force 20 captured 20 Iraqis, all of whom were later released. It was later revealed that the village ‘not far from the Syria border’ was on the Syrian SIDE of the border — 25 miles inside Syria.

The firefight killed at least eighty Syrian soldiers.

In early May, two top Iraqi biological scientists who had been hiding in safe havens in Syria exfiltrated back to Iraq where they were captured by US military forces.

Possibly the first prominent official to warn that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction could go to Syria was former UN inspector Richard Butler. He warned that when he worked in Iraq between 1997 and 1999, he saw intelligence indicating that suspicious containers were routinely moved in and out of Iraq from Syria, and that there was evidence they contained banned materials.

Intelligence gathering, including defector testimony, indicated that even in August 2002, before Saddam let UN inspectors back in, indicated that Iraq was still receiving WMD components and materials through Syria.

On January 17th, according to Italian sources, Saddam Hussein signed a secret agreement with Syria. Iraq would send three CDs of formulas and technical information about weapons including nuclear explosions; 3 test-tubes full of anthrax and botulinum spores; and detailed analysis of tests carried out with these weapons on people to Syria, in exchange for Syria harboring Iraqi scientists, technicians and their information.

By the end of February, three Iraqi microbiologists and a small group of technicians would be safely in Syria, and a top nuclear physicist and his team soon arrived soon after, in early March.

Former head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, confirmed that Saddam Hussein sent convoys to Syria full of Iraqi equipment that could not be identified, and that they could possibly have had weapons of mass destruction.

He confirmed that senior Iraqi scientific and military officials who would have access to technical documentation and knowledge of the programs fled to Syria immediately before and during the war.

According to intelligence reports from the time, the major transfer of WMD goods from Iraq to Syria and Lebanon occurred between January and March of 2003.

However, the first shipments occurred even before then. In December of 2002, Israel claimed that Syria was hiding Iraqi mobile biological weapons labs, chemical and biological components and munitions.

By late June, Israeli Air Force commander Halutz was confident enough to predict that Iraq s WMD would be found, probably in Syria. The West identified Mustafa Tlas, the Syrian defense minister, as the man in charge of the secret WMD transfers to Lebanon and Syria from Baghdad, Tikrit and al-Qaim.

The intelligence indicated some weapons were destroyed, some left in Iraq underground, and others sent to other countries. Much of it was buried under an army base in northern Syria and in huge pits made by Syrian engineers in Lebanon s Bekaa Valley.

According to Mossad, the search had been narrowed down to Syria s al-Jazirah province, specifically an area known as Dayr Az-Zawr, which is wedged in between the Turkish and Iraqi borders.

Syrian defectors are also confirming that Assad is hiding the weapons. Nizar Najoef, a respected Syrian journalist who has received awards for his integrity, has defected to Western Europe and told the Dutch press that Syria is holding Saddam s weapons in at least 3 secret sites.

1) Tunnels under al-Baida, near Hama in northern Syria in a site that is part of an underground facility, built by the North Koreans to produce SCUD missiles. Iraq s banned missiles are here.

2) Talsnan, north of Salamija, at a secret air force base.

3) Sjinsjar, on the border of Lebanon south of Hums.

The foiled Jordanian plot makes three things clear. First and most terrifying is the fact al-Qaeda is in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

The chemical to be used in the Jordan attack was VX gas, a deadly nerve gas that Saddam was believed to possess in great quantities.

The second is that the VX gas originated in Syria. The bombs were assembled there and driven across the border to Jordan.

Piecing together the wire services and intelligence reports, it is a fairly safe assumption that Saddam transferred his weapons of mass destruction to Syria, just before the war.

The third is that none one of the liberal mainstream news services connected the dots that lead back to Saddam Hussein. One would assume, considering that America is at war with al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda is in possession of chemical weapons, that might be an angle worth pursuing.

But connecting the dots might answer the question; “Where are Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction?” If the answer is ‘Syria’ then it means Bush didn’t lie, after all.

The carefully constructed scenario of an out-of-control, warmongering Bush administration that deceived the world in order to seize control of Iraqi oil will be exposed for what it always was.

An effort to use US security as a partisan political tool to ‘get’ George Bush — no matter what the cost to the country.

In the new 21st century America, patriotism stops at the party line.

Special Report: The Third Temple

Special Report: The Third Temple
Vol: 31 Issue: 17 Saturday, April 17, 2004

“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:4)

In his 2nd Letter to the new church at Thessolonica, the Apostle Paul was addressing a specific teaching that had been corrupted by a false teaching that the Rapture had already occurred and they Thessalonians 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.”(2nd Thessalonians 2:2-3)

Note something right off the bat. The “Day of Christ” is the triumphant 2nd Coming at the conclusion of the Tribulation Period and the national redemption of Israel.

Paul refers to an event that the Thessalonians interpreted as meaning that Day ‘was at hand’ and NOT that the “Day of Christ” had come and gone. Instead, they feared they’d been left behind to go through the Tribulation.

“Our gathering together unto Him”, Paul assures the Thessalonians, is a separate event that, had it occurred, would have meant the countdown to the “Day of Christ” had started.

Moreover, Paul assures the confused Thessalonians, “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; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:3-4)

The religious Jews of modern Israel believe the restoration of Israel to the land is evidence of the coming of the Jewish Messiah, and have been planning for a 3rd Temple to resume the Temple worship system since the British recaptured Jerusalem from the Ottoman Empire in 1917.

Writing in the London Sunday Illustrated Herald, the British official eventually responsible for redrawing the maps of the Middle East and carving the Balfour Declaration Mandate in half observed, “It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate from the same people.” Winston Churchill, February 8, 1920.

That may sound antisemitic, but only if one fails to understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

While the Jews are not responsible for the death of the Messiah, they did reject Him. They didn’t recognize Who He was, by Divine Plan. That isn’t a condemnation of the Jews, it is a recorded fact of history.

“He came unto His own, and His own received Him not; But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name:” (John 1:11)

Jesus Himself confirmed that the antichrist will be received as the Messiah by Israel during the early part of the Tribulation:

“I am come in my Father’s Name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” (John 5:42)

Speaking of the salvation of the Cross, the Apostle Paul explains; “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.” (Romans 11:7-8)

Paul explains further that; “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” (Romans 11:25)

In that single verse, Paul forever dashes any justification for antisemtism, instead, revealing the enormous debt the Church owes the Jews. Apart from any Divine judgment against Israel for past sins, the “blindness, in part, is happened to Israel” so that we, the Gentiles, could be saved.

That being said, there is something else important to note about the Third Temple of 2nd Thessalonians 2:4: Many Christians teach that the Third Temple is the Temple of the Antichrist — it is even so nicknamed. But Paul says — note this well — the antichrist takes his seat “in the temple of God”.

This is another evidence that the Church Age concludes at the Rapture, and that the Rapture takes place before the beginning of the Tribulation Period. The Tribulation is also called “The time of Jacob’s Trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7) or the 70th Week of Daniel. (Daniel 9:24)

The Tribulation Period is the final week of the Age of the Law, which was cut short at the Cross. (Daniel 9:26)

Also, when examining Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, look at God’s sixfold purpose to be accomplished at their conclusion:

1) to finish the transgression,

2) to make an end of sins,

3) to make reconciliation for iniquity,

4) to bring in everlasting righteousness,

5) to seal up the vision and prophecy, and,

6) to anoint the most Holy.

For Christians, this was accomplished at the Cross. But national Israel will be saved, Paul tells us. “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” (Romans 11:26)

While some Jews were saved in the 1st century, and some in each century since, Paul says that in God’s Divine Plan, “ALL Israel shall be saved.” There is no misinterpreting the word ‘all’.

The purpose of Daniel’s 70th Week is to accomplish all that is promised in order to bring about the Millennial Kingdom. The Church plays no role, which is why the Church is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture in the context of Daniel’s 70th Week.

Because, as Paul told the Thessalonians, “we have not yet been gathered unto Him” so the Day of Israel’s national redemption, the “Day of Christ” (see Zechariah 12:10) is not “yet at hand”.

Why is all this important to the Third Temple? Because the Third Temple is ritually legitimate during the Tribulation. According to the Temple Mount Institute, Temple worship could be resumed today, if they could rebuild the Temple itself.

According to director Chaim Richman, (who told me this personally in 1992), they know where the Ark of the Covenant is located in a secret chamber inside the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount Institute makes a similar claim on its website.

A rabbinical school (or yeshiva) for the training of the priests for this temple is presently in existence in the Old City. To ensure ritual purity, its students live on elevated platforms and are not permitted to touch Israeli soil until the Temple area can be ritually cleansed.

Sacred vessels and priestly garments have been prepared. Cedar from Lebanon captured in the north during the war there in 1982 has been placed in storage for the next temple, and so on.

Thus there has been considerable preparation for the Third Temple by the religious Jews of modern Jerusalem. Both the Askenazi and Sephardic Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem agree that such a temple will be built as soon as circumstances permit.

It would not be necessary for the entire Temple to be rebuilt before the restoration of the Jewish system of Temple worship and animal sacrifice. (David’s first temple was a tent to house the Ark of the Covenant).

But the worship and sacrifice MUST be performed on a ritually cleansed Temple Mount. The only problem is the al-Aqsa mosque that currently occupies that spot.

Illegal construction underneath the Temple Mount by the Muslim Waqf (who control the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock) is causing the ancient retaining wall that holds it up to crumble.

Using forbidden heavy earth-moving equipment, they are now excavating a northerly channel on the Temple Plaza heading in the direction of the Dome of the Rock. Breaking into the bedrock in this area, archeologists warn, would also harm the gold-topped Dome, which sits on that rock.

It seems more than probable, especially with the announcement by the US and UK that it will support Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan, that another Arab-Israeli war is on the horizon, particularly if that wall should crumble and topple the al-Aqsa Mosque.

There is some reason to suspect that the collapse of the Dome is the reason Arafat has ordered such extensive excavations despite dire warnings of what might result. A collapse of the Dome would rally the entire Arab world to his cause, particularly after Arafat blames Israeli sabotage for its destruction.

There is absolutely no reason to doubt that, in the event of any such war, Israel will recapture the Temple Mount. And there is no reason to believe they will ever surrender it again.

According to the Mitzvot, it is the obligation of every generation of Jews to rebuild their holy Temple on Temple Mount. Flush with the victories of 1967, the Israeli government surrendered the Temple Mount to Arab control to forestall the inevitable UN demands that Israel surrender ALL the territory it captured.

Over the last decade, Israel’s exchange has proved futile, as the Arabs have managed to reclaim almost all the land Israel gave up sovereignty over the Temple Mount to keep.

The Israelis are unlikely to ever surrender it again.

“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.” Psalms 137:5-6)

America’s Uber-Spy

America’s Uber-Spy
Vol: 31 Issue: 16 Friday, April 16, 2004

The Bush administration is considering creating the post of ‘National Intelligence Director’ to oversee all of America’s fifteen different intelligence agencies.

The plan, drafted more than a year ago by a presidential advisory panel headed by Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser, was given little White House attention until now.

It is being reviewed, the officials said, as a possible answer to the Sept. 11 commission’s preliminary conclusion that the current organization of the government’s intelligence agencies has left no one truly in charge on intelligence matters.

Also being discussed within the White House, the officials said, were possible changes within the F.B.I., including the creation of a new directorate within the bureau responsible for domestic intelligence-gathering and analysis. The alternative of creating a new domestic intelligence agency was also being discussed, according to the New York Times.

The idea of establishing a director of national intelligence or, alternatively, expanding the authority of the current director of central intelligence is not new.

In the last two years, it has been recommended to the White House by the joint Congressional committee that looked into the Sept. 11 attacks as well as by a panel headed by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.

The Scowcroft Committee suggest a consolidation of intelligence agencies to the White House more than a year ago. The plan was revived after it became apparent the 9/11 Commission was more interesting in finding fault than finding fact, and following revelations that the CIA had warnings of terror attacks like September 11 as early as 1995, but failed to share them with other agencies.

In 1995, the CIA produced a National Intelligence Estimate titled “the Foreign Terrorist Threat in the United States” that spoke of “transient groupings of individuals” that “lack strong organization but rather are loose affiliations.”

While the 1995 intelligence assessment did not mention bin Laden or al-Qaeda by name, it clearly warned that Islamic terrorists were intent on striking specific targets inside the United States like those on September 11, 2001.

The report specifically warned that “civil aviation, Washington landmarks such as the White House and Capitol and buildings on Wall Street were at the greatest risk of a domestic terror attack by Muslim terrorist groups.”

The NIE was updated in 1997; after that, no NIE was produced on terrorism before 9/11, even though Osama bin Laden clearly was on the CIA’s radar screen.

The 1997 assessment, which remains classified, “identified bin Laden and his followers and threats they were making and said it might portend attacks inside the United States,” according to leaked accounts.

Philip Zelikow, executive director of the September 11 commission, confirmed the 1997 warning about bin Laden but said it was only two sentences long and lacked any strategic analysis on how to address the threat.

“It failed and it failed and it failed and it failed,” commission chairman Thomas Kean said of the FBI. “This is an agency that does not work.”

The same might be said of the CIA and, by extension, the nation’s entire counterterrorism structure.

Assessment:

While the focus of the 9/11 Commission appears to be blaming George Bush for intelligence failures dating back to the early days of the first Clinton administration, the evidence points the finger of blame at the fragmented intelligence services that were exploited by al-Qaeda to pull off the attack.

It appears that there is plenty of ‘blame’ to go around, if one is willing to assume that the September 11 attacks could have been prevented — but so far, not a single witness from either side has gone so far as to say they could.

Richard Clarke, whose contradictory testimony threw the hearings into partisan controversy, when asked directly, said that the attacks could NOT have been prevented. Even if the Bush administration had implemented every one of his recommendations, Clarke admitted.

The US intelligence community was cobbled together as part of an overall reorganization of the US War Department in the late 1940’s. It was designed to protect against a threat from other nations, and especially against the Soviet Union.

Most of the intelligence apparatus was gutted by the Clinton administration during its first term, as part of what was then optimistically called “the peace dividend.”

What remains is underfunded, understaffed, under utilized, and now, under attack for not preventing the 9/11 attacks. It makes sense to reorganize the intelligence apparatus of the United States to reflect the threats of 2004, instead of 1948.

If it works, (and it has to work better than what is in place now), then it is an iron-clad certainty that other western nations facing the same threat will emulate its success.

As a consequence of the war on terror, it won’t be long before there are a half-dozen or so National Directors of Intelligence, from America, from the EU, from Canada, Russia, China . . . all meeting at some National Intelligence Director’s Summit, something along the lines of the G-7, to coordinate international anti-terrorism intelligence efforts.

The context of the shared threat from terror means such an international intelligence council is inevitable, and the discussion of a planned US National Intelligence Director is the kick-off event.

Viewed through the prism of Bible prophecy, this is another seemingly benign development that isn’t. Centralizing the US intelligence services will create an ‘uber-spy’ with powers on a similar scale to those of J. Edgar Hoover within the FBI, except over all US intelligence services. It is a necessary development if we are to succeed in the war on terror.

The Bible says when the antichrist comes to power, he will take up the reigns of global government, seize control of the global economic system and control a new global religious structure.

The global government is in chaos, the global economy is dictated by and large by positive or negative developments in the war on terror, and the war itself is rooted in animosities between three religious systems.

Here is how centralization works in harmony Bible prophecy as we approach the end of the age. The antichrist only has seven years to accomplish all that the Bible lays out for him during the Tribulation.

There isn’t time for him to develop a global economy. One has to be in place. The same for a global political system. (The global religious system would take less time, especially after the Rapture of the Church has occurred.)

Since the antichrist is working on within a limited time frame, all these systems and infrastructures must already be in place and functioning in advance.

In order to seize control, all these systems must be centralized. As it stands right now, the CIA doesn’t know what the DIA or FBI is even doing, let alone being able to control it. Neither could the antichrist. But if all these agencies were under control of a single individual, one would only need control that individual to control the whole works.

That is why the media is concentrating itself into as few hands as possible. It would be impossible to control 16,000 newspaper editors, but not so hard to control the executives of only seven major media outlets.

The same can be said for the global banking industry. Intelligence services are unknowingly concentrating themselves for the same ultimate purpose.

It would be impossible to control individual nations individually, but less difficult to control regional power and trading blocs. On the international level individual nations are coming together into regional trade and power blocs like NAFTA or the EU or MERCOSUR or ASEAN. The job gets more manageable.

Concentrating US intelligence gathering under an intelligence superspy agency makes perfect sense, given the threat facing us. But as Christians, we live in two simultaneous realities; the physical and the spiritual. Both are real now.

In the physical reality, the Proverbs tell us that; “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12, 16:25)

In the spiritual reality, Jesus tells us that; “when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

Note to Members

I messed up on posting the advertising poll. I did something wrong and now Mike has to fix it. Sorry about that. We’ll repost it as soon as possible and I’ll let you know. In the meantime, your feedback by email and in the forums about the advertising plan is overwhelmingly positive and much appreciated. I’ll keep you posted.