Special Report: The Great Mystery

Special Report: The Great Mystery
Vol: 34 Issue: 24 Saturday, July 24, 2004

“Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” (1st Corinthians 15:53)

Throughout the New Testament, the word translated as ‘mystery’ comes from the Greek ‘musterion’ which literally means ‘secret’ or ‘hidden thing’. In our modern English, however, ‘mystery’ is understood in the Agatha Christie or Sherlock Holmesian sense of the word.

Paul’s use of the word ‘mystery’ when describing the Rapture in 1 Corinthians 15:53 means a truth that had not yet been revealed.

Paul cannot be referring to the Second Coming of Christ; His return at the end of the Tribulation is one of the oldest prophecies recorded in Scripture.

Daniel 12:1-3; Zechariah 12:10; 14:4 all mention the 2nd Coming, and Jude quotes Enoch, the “seventh from Adam” who “prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints.” (Jude 1:14)

The Rapture, therefore, is a previously unrevealed secret, a ‘hidden thing’ of God previously unknown to men.

As the end of this present Age approaches, there are many Christians who are beginning to wonder if we might already be in the Tribulation now. We aren’t. I know that for sure. How? Well, I’m still here!

There are lots and lots of folks who think I am way out there for adhering to a pre-Tribulationist doctrine. (I know this to be true, also, because I get emails from them every time I comment on the Rapture, saying, “Kinsella, you’re way out there!”)

They’ll go on smugly (and endlessly), playing word games like ‘the word ‘Rapture’ isn’t even in the Bible’ as if that meant something. (Try and find the word ‘Bible’ in the Bible. Does its absence mean there’s no Bible?)

Or babble mindlessly about Margarent MacDonald and C.I. Schofield, before pronouncing Dispensationalism and a pre-Trib Rapture a modern-day ‘invented’ doctrine. I say ‘mindlessly’ because they don’t know what they are talking about — they are just quoting somebody else’s research as if it were the Gospel itself.

We have dealt with the Margaret MacDonald argument in previous Omega Letter reports, (https://omegaletter.com/briefings.asp?BID=975) so we won’t address that particular ‘controversy’ here.

Instead of building the argument based on what the Bible doesn’t say about the Rapture, it is helpful to take a good close look at what it DOES tell us about the Rapture.

First, notice that the Rapture involves the movement of believers from the earth to Heaven:

“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.” (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

The ‘dead in Christ’ rise first, those believers who are ‘alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds. The operative word here is ‘rise’.

At the Second Coming, the Lord returns WITH His saints;

“To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.” (1st Thessalonians 3:13)

So the Rapture is not the same event as the Second Coming. Things that are different are NOT the same, and the Rapture and the Second Coming are clearly different.

What would be the point of Rapturing the Church then, anyway? The Lord returns to establish His kingdom on earth, so why pull out all the Christians? Who is He gonna rule?

“And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And He shall set the sheep on His right Hand, but the goats on the left.” (Matthew 25:32-33)

If all the believers are raptured at the Second Coming, that would also include the Tribulation saints. Where would the believers in mortal bodies come from if they are raptured at the Second Coming? Who would be able to enter into Christ’s Kingdom?

Then there is Daniel’s 70 weeks. The Church was absent for the first sixty-nine weeks — the countdown was suspended at the Cross so the Church could be born. Daniel makes it clear that all 70 weeks are determined ‘upon Israel’. (See http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=98)

Revelation 19:7-8 says, “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.”

If the Bride is made ready to accompany Christ to the earth at the Second Coming, (while part of the bride is still on earth during the Tribulation) then how does the Bride (the church) also come with Christ at His Return?

There is the example of Enoch. “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” (Genesis 5:24) Not only does Enoch prefigure the Rapture, note that Enoch’s Rapture was pre-Flood, not mid-Flood, or post-Flood.

The Scriptures are plain, clear and concise on the topic of a pre-Tribulation Rapture — provided one interprets the Bible literally, instead of figuratively or symbolically.

While no man knows the day or the hour of the Rapture, the Second Coming can be accurately predicted, since Daniel tells us He returns exactly 1,290 days after the antichrist;

“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)

“And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” (Daniel 12:11)

The pre-Tribulation Rapture is often called the “Blessed Hope” by those who look for His return before the Tribulation begins. Those who believe the Church will go through the Tribulation sneeringly call it the ‘Great Escape’.

Don’t let anybody steal away your Blessed Hope:

“For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1st Corinthians 15:16-19)

The Rapture happens before the Tribulation, which means that He is coming for us soon! Call it the Blessed Hope or the Great Escape, but He IS coming.

And given the current state of global affairs, it it can’t be much longer until we hear the trumpet. Maranatha!

Report: ‘Safer, but Not Safe’

Report: ‘Safer, but Not Safe’
Vol: 34 Issue: 23 Friday, July 23, 2004

The much-anticipated 9/11 Commission Report was finally released yesterday. Its conclusion, in a nutshell, is this: America is safer today than it was on September 10, 2001. Safer, but not safe.

Although the Commission itself is widely praised for being ‘bipartisan’, all the old promises not to politicize September 11th have been forgotten. Both John Kerry and George Bush will be campaigning on that equation — with George Bush focusing on the first part, and John Kerry focusing on the second.

Bush declared that America is safer no less than 11 times Wednesday night during a speech that aides signaled would encompass themes of his fall campaign.

John Kerry said the commission’s report “carries a simple message about our current state of security for every American who remembers that dark September day — we can do better. We must do better.”

Does anybody remember the somber promises in the dark days post-September 11? You know, when everybody promised to put partisanship aside when it came to protecting America?

“The 9/11 report is just one more issue that casts doubt on the truthfulness of this White House,” said Stephanie Cutter, Kerry’s campaign spokeswoman. “This White House is operating under a cloud of secrecy, and the American people have lost the ability to trust them.”

The panel had become “a tool for partisan politics,” Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), a member of the House Republican leadership, charged in an interview last month after the Commission staff released a ‘preliminary report’ concerning Saddam and al-Qaeda.

“With the latest commission finding coming out that there were allegedly no ties between Hussein and al Qaeda, I think they are totally off their mission, and I think that’s indicative of the political partisanship.”

Ouch! Good point. Especially since the staff report got it wrong.

On the question of Iraq and al Qaeda, the final report is a marked improvement over the preliminary staff report.

In point of fact, the report issued yesterday strongly suggests that collaboration between Iran and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization lasted for more than a decade and was more extensive than previously thought.

The 9/11 Commission report comes on the heels of the Senate intelligence report and the so-called Butler report published in London, both of which were mandated to look into intelligence failures before September 11 and in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

The picture that has emerged so far and now reinforced by the September 11 commission is that, overall, incompetence and lack of good information, not government duplicity, were the problems.

Even chief weapons inspector David Kay told the committee that he, too, would have gone to war on the available evidence at the time. However, in one instance at least the information seems to correct:

Both reports conclude that Saddam Hussein was indeed seeking to buy enriched uranium in Niger.

Assessment:

So much for ‘Bush lied’ — but the belief that he did is, by now, so embedded in the public consciousness that they still believe it, even after it has been proved by three separate, exhaustive investigations.

For example, John Kerry: “The Bush administration doesn’t get honesty points for belatedly admitting what has been apparent to the world for some time — that emphatic statements made on Iraq were inaccurate.” How’s that again?

Or that great bastion of truth and integrity, Teddy Kennedy: “It’s bad enough that such a glaring blunder became part of the president’s case for war. It’s far worse if the case for war was made by deliberate deception. . . .We cannot risk American lives because of shoddy intelligence or outright lies.”

In February 2002, Wilson had gone to the African nation of Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein sought to purchase uranium in that country. Wilson claimed that he came up with no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had sought uranium, but that the White House had ignored his findings on the issue.

According to Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts, “Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had ‘debunked’ the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa . . . [N]ot only did he NOT ‘debunk’ the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.”

The British investigation resulted in the release of the Butler Report, which concluded, “[T]he statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the government’s dossier, and by extension the prime minister in the House of Commons, were well founded.”

Having exonerated Tony Blair, the Butler Report went on to say, “By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s state of the union address of 2003 that ‘the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well founded.”

None of this seems to matter. Most headlines about the Commission’s reports are along the lines of the New York Times headline; “Report Cites Lapses Across Government and 2 Presidencies” — which of course it does not.

Instead, the report concludes that neither president was well-served by their respective intelligence services.

Here’s how the Times characterized the Commission findings;

“In the end, the commissioners reached no definitive verdict on whether Mr. Clinton or Mr. Bush deserved greater blame for the lapses and inaction. The report seemed to portray Mr. Clinton as better informed and more intensely engaged than Mr. Bush.”

The Times’ next paragraph is a textbook example of liberal doublespeak; “In contrast to Mr. Bush, the report said, Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, had “a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on bin Laden’s reported location.”

(The Times doesn’t mention another contrast between Clinton and Bush — eight years vs. eight months.)

So the partisanship continues, pretty much guaranteeing that all America will get in return for its investigation is a lot of hot air.

The three thousand Americans killed by al-Qaeda are largely forgotten as people — instead, they’ve become just another partisan symbol to be used as political currency to buy votes.

Dissenters Cry, ‘Censorship!’

Dissenters Cry, ‘Censorship!’
Vol: 34 Issue: 22 Thursday, July 22, 2004

Continental Features President Van Wilkerson conducted a survey of his readership, asking them whether or not he should drop Garry Trudeau’s ‘Doonesbury’ comic strip from his newspaper consortium.

In the poll e-mail he sent Continental’s newspaper clients this spring, Wilkerson wrote: “(I)t is my feeling that a change in one of the features is required. I have fielded numerous complaints about ‘Doonesbury’ in the past and feel it is time to drop this feature and add another in its place. … If the majority of the group favors a replacement, you will be expected to accept that change.”

Of the 38 papers that run the Continental-produced Sunday comics section, 21 wanted to drop “Doonesbury,” 15 wanted to keep it, and two had no opinion or preference. “I wouldn’t call the vote [to drop ‘Doonesbury’] overwhelming, but it was a majority opinion,” Wilkerson said.

One of the newspapers affected, The Anniston, Alabama, ‘Star’ called the decision ‘censorship’.

Star publisher H. Brandt Ayers e-mailed Wilkerson to say he and his paper’s editors “strongly object to an obviously political effort to silence a minority point of view. . . This is wrong, offensive to First Amendment freedoms.”

Singer Linda Ronstadt finished a concert in a Las Vegas casino by dedicating her last song to Michael Moore and urging everyone to go and see ‘Fahrenheit 911’ — an alleged ‘documentary’ whose main points were obliterated by the 9/11 Commission’s report.

The audience reacted by booing, ripping down Linda Ronstadt posters from the ballroom walls, throwing drinks in the air, and even walking out and demanding their money back. The reaction was so raucous that the casino’s president said he didn’t even allow the singer back in her luxury suite afterward and she was escorted off the property.

Whoopi Goldberg was dumped as the spokesperson for Slim-Fast because of her crude and vulgar comments about President Bush at a John Kerry fundraiser held in New York’s Radio City Music Hall.

“We are disappointed by the manner in which Ms. Goldberg chose to express herself and sincerely regret that her recent remarks offended some of our consumers. Ads featuring Ms. Goldberg will no longer be on the air,” said Terry Olson, general manager of the Florida-based diet giant.”

Assessment:

When actor Tim Robbins took to the airwaves to denounce the Bush administration and the war against Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, Bush’s ‘theft’ of Election 2000, etc., etc., ad nauseaum, the Baseball Hall of Fame ‘uninvited’ him to a special event celebrating the movie ‘Bull Durham’.

Robbins promptly called a press conference at the National Press Club to announce that his 1st Amendment rights had been violated, and that he was being ‘silenced’.

“In the 19 months since 9/11, we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred,” he claimed. “Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear.

“A unified American public has grown bitterly divided,” Robbins continued, “and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state.”

I recall noting at the time the odd sense of disconnect that comes with watching a guy calling together the national press corps to announce he wasn’t being allowed to speak and comparing his national audience to Soviet-style repression.

His wife, Susan Sarandon, made similar comments and the United Way dropped her as quickly as Slim-Fast shed Whoopi Goldberg.

Ronstadt, Goldberg, Robbins, Sarandon, not to mention George Clooney, Jeanine Garafalo and others, have all paid some price for expressing their political views, and every single one of them screamed ‘censorship!’ or whined about their 1st Amendment rights being violated.

This is a good time to revisit the 1st Amendment and what it actually says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Apparently, celebrities aren’t any better versed in Constitutional Law than they are in political science.

Slim-Fast isn’t Congress; neither is the Baseball Hall of Fame or the United Way. Neither were the patrons of the Ronstadt concert who paid for a concert, not a liberal political rally.

Moviegoers who boycott outspoken celebrities aren’t Congress. Neither are ordinary Americans the boycott the advertisers who sponsor them.

The Continental Features decision to drop Doonesbury wasn’t made as a consequence of a government decision or even an effort on the part of the organization to impose their own views. They took a poll — let the readers vote — and then acted according to the majority decision. That isn’t censorship — rather, it is the essence of free speech.

John Lenin (the Communist politician, not the deceased Communist rock star) once referred to the millions marching to advance the cause of Communism ‘useful idiots’.

They were useful because they advanced his ’cause’, but in his view, they were also idiots because they didn’t have a clue what his ’cause’ really was. Moreover, if there were any repercussions, they would fall, not on him, but on the idiots supporting him.

Saddam Hussein managed to turn most of Hollywood, half of Congress and hundreds of thousands of ordinary people into useful idiots to his cause. (The evidently less-idiotic French, Germans and Russians got PAID to be useful)

The Anybody-But-Bush lobby has its useful idiots as well. Each of the celebrities who found themselves paying the price for expressing their views immediately started complaining about being ‘censored’ or about their 1st Amendment rights.

But all that proves is that they lack the courage of their convictions. Somebody told them freedom of speech is free, and they believed it. Their subsequent cries of ‘censorship’ firmly establish their ‘idiot’ status, even if their usefulness is a topic for debate.

The 1st Amendment affords everyone the right to free speech, the right to petition the government, the right to peaceably assemble, and forbids the government from passing laws that might interfere with those rights.

But NOWHERE does the 1st Amendment say we have to listen to free speech if we think it is stupid. There are no 1st Amendment guarantees that free speech will automatically become popular speech or that Americans must either like or patronize the speakers.

Nonetheless, the cries of ‘censorship’ are resonating with other liberal idiots like Peter Jennings. When Tim Robbins complained about being “punished” for his unpopular views, Peter Jennings and company dedicated an entire segment to it and even compared a few ‘disinvites’ to McCarthy-era ‘blacklists’.

At the top of the April 16 World News Tonight, Jennings teased: “And here at home, the well-organized effort to get at entertainment stars who thought the war was a bad idea.”

At the first ad break, Jennings plugged the upcoming story: “And at the end of the broadcast tonight, the dangers of being anti-war — if you work in Hollywood.”

Actor Mike Farrell: “We know that there have been organized attempts to get people fired from their jobs.”

Promoting the story before a later ad break, Jennings intoned: “When we come back this evening, being against the war and in show business. And the people who want to punish you for that.”

In the liberal, Orwellian-style double-speak, supporting America’s war on terror is ‘false patriotism’ while slamming your country in wartime is evidence of a real patriot.

Up is down, black is white and only the ‘smart people’ get it. People want to believe they are smarter than the average bear, and when they hear somebody like Tim Robbins say something so obviously stupid, they figure he must know what he was talking about or he wouldn’t say anything that stupid in the first place.

So they believe it — and pretty soon, they even start repeating it, smugly aware that they know something you don’t, even if they can’t explain it.

The deception works because it addresses humanity’s oldest and most enduring spiritual defect — pride. Paul says the ‘strong delusion’ of 2nd Thessalonians 2:11 works because the people “received not the love of the truth” (v. 10) and because they “had pleasure in unrighteousness” (v. 12)

The net effect of all this is described by Paul to Timothy, prefaced by the warning, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” (2nd Timothy 3:1)

The next four verses sum up the liberal agenda of those who now cry ‘censorship’ because their audiences are drying up.

“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” (2nd Timothy 3:2-5)

We quote this passage regularly in your Omega Letter but I pray that it won’t lose its impact because of its familiarity. Read v.2-5 again. Look at them. Compare them to the ’causes’ espoused by the Useful Idiots on the liberal left.

See it for what it is — an incredible prophecy — a letter-perfect description of the liberal agenda of the last days, penned twenty centuries ago, but being fulfilled in THIS generation.

Get excited about it! Remember how Paul prefaced the chapter:

“This know also, that IN THE LAST DAYS, perilous times shall come”.

So will Jesus.

The Strange Case of Sandy Berger

The Strange Case of Sandy Berger
Vol: 34 Issue: 21 Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said that he ‘regrets’ the way he handled classified terrorism documents after it was revealed he stole a number of them from the National Archives.

As the title implies, it is a strange case, and it is still unfolding. The reason for making Berger the centerpiece of today’s OL is so we can follow it from the beginning and watch as the anatomy of a spin campaign comes together.

First, the background. As the National Security Advisor during the Clinton administration, Berger was called to testify before the 9/11 Commission about what efforts had been undertaken against terrorism during his watch.

Berger, as a consequence of his former job, still has top-secret security clearances. Berger went to the National Archives to review the files to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the 9/11 Commission.

While determining which files he would provide the Commission, Berger reportedly stuffed some of them into his shirt, and, according to the New York Post, even stuffed some of these classified memos into his socks, before walking out with the documents.

The documents involved cover what has become a key point of contention between the Clinton and Bush administrations concerning who responded more forcefully to the threat from al Qaeda.

They were National Security Council memos that discussed the 1999 plot to attack U.S. millennium celebrations and offer more than two dozen recommendations for improving the response to al-Qaeda.

And Sandy Berger took them. Not copies. The originals.

Assessment:

Something stinks here. First, Berger admits to taking the documents, but claimed he was merely absent-minded when he reportedly tucked them away in his socks. (There is some controversy over whether he stuffed them in his socks or his pants — stay tuned)

But, to give Berger the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume, for just a moment, that Berger WAS absent-minded when he removed classified terrorist documents from the National Archives.

What did he do when he got home, took off his clothes to go to bed, and a pile of top-secret documents fell out onto the floor?

Did he notify officials of his error immediately and return the documents to the archives with a profuse apology for absent-mindedly filling his pockets and briefcase with top-secret files? If he had, the ‘absent-minded’ defense might have held water.

Instead, Berger kept the documents, not knowing that he had been videotaped stealing them by National Archive employees. Eventually (after about two months) somebody got around to asking Berger where those files went.

Berger said that, (AFTER HE WAS ASKED FOR THEM), he returned all the files, ‘except for two or three copies of the millennium report that MAY HAVE BEEN THROWN AWAY’??

How does a former National Security Advisor obtain a top-secret security clearance without knowing the law regarding handling top-secret materials? The answer is obvious. It is impossible.

Had this been a military officer who removed classified files, he would already be in Leavenworth. But seven months after the theft, the strange case of Sandy Berger is only just now finding its way into the public arena. And the competitive spin machines are just warming up.

First, the Republican spin. Berger was, until yesterday, one of John Kerry’s main campaign advisors. The GOP alleges that Sandy Berger removed those documents in order to help John Kerry’s campaign.

That requires a stretch, given that, when the theft took place, Howard Dean looked like he had the nomination in the bag. Kerry was running a distant fourth. THAT dog won’t hunt.

What makes more sense is that the documents involved could conceivably have made the Clinton administration look negligent, which would have the effect of helping the Bush campaign, no matter who his opponent was. And Berger is nothing if not a partisan.

More to the point are the four questions posed by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, (R-IL) regarding the reported thefts.

“What could those documents have said that drove Mr. Berger to remove them without authorization from a secure reading room for classified documents?”

“What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation’s most sensitive secrets? “

“Did these documents detail simple negligence or did they contain something more sinister?”

And finally, Hastert asked, “Was this a bungled attempt to rewrite history and keep critical information from the 9/11 Commission and potentially put their report under a cloud?”

It is important to remember that Berger made ten visits to National Archives to review the files — at the request of former president Clinton. And what is most astounding–besides the fact that Berger knew what he was doing was wrong–is that he removed documents on two separate occasions.

Following me so far? Now to the Democratic spin machine. First, deny and counter-charge. Berger denied the missing original documents were relevant to the 9/11 Commission’s investigation. (We’ll have to take his word on that, since they no longer exist.)

Then the Master of the Counter-Charge, Bill Clinton, immediately questioned the timing of the Berger flap. He told the Denver Post that he had known about the investigation for months and that it is a ‘non-story,’ sighing, “I wish I knew who leaked it. It’s interesting timing.”

Subtle, yet effective. Shift attention away from the actual criminal act by suggesting it was a ‘politically motivated’ leak. That will be Point One on the DNC’s ‘talking points’ for this week’s talk show circuit.

Let’s defuse that one now by agreeing that it was undoubtely leaked by somebody in the GOP to hurt Kerry’s chances. That is what politics is all about. Would the Democrats keeping damaging information about Bush under wraps?

Deny and countercharge — but this is wartime, and these were classified wartime after-action reports. What comes first? Country? Or party?

The fact is, Berger stole original, classified terrorism documents, and, according to him, inadvertently ‘destroyed’ them, denials and countercharges notwithstanding.

One need look no further than the New York Times to prove that America’s ‘Paper of Record’ is really nothing but a propaganda rag for the Democratic National Committee. Consider this: Sandy Berger, Democrat, stole potentially embarrassing top-secret documents from the National Archives.

These were wartime documents relative to the war on terror, taking it out of the realm of politics and into the category of life or death — either for the enemy, or for us.

Clinton called it a ‘non-story’ and the New York Times ran it on page A-18.

Conversely, when Arnold Schwartzeneggar, Republican, called his opponents ‘girlie-men’, it ran on the front page.

“Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matthew 24:4)

Iraq to the UN: “Where Are You?”

Iraq to the UN: “Where Are You?”
Vol: 34 Issue: 20 Tuesday, July 20, 2004

The United Nations, having done all it could to keep the tyrant, Saddam Hussein, in power, is strangely disinterested in helping the post Saddam Iraqis reconstruct their shattered country.

It grows increasingly obvious, as the Oil-For-Food Scandal progresses, that the reason for the obstructionist tactics at the UN was financial. Let me put it as delicately as I can.

The United Nations stole billions from starving Iraqis while Iraq was suffering under crippling, UN-imposed sanctions. Remember the pathetic images of starving children being used by Saddam’s useful idiots here and abroad to justify lifting the sanctions during the 1990’s?

UN officials at the highest levels knew that the money they were stealing was helping to perpetuate that misery. While the UN babbled endlessly about US intervention and collateral damage and human rights violations by the United States, they were virtually silent about human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein.

Wholesale mass executions, state-sponsored rape and torture, imprisonment without due process . . . I don’t recall hearing much about that from the UN General Assembly, Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac or Gerhardt Schroeder prior to the coalition invasion, do you?

Without the Oil-For-Food Scandal, the UN’s conduct concerning Iraq makes absolutely no sense. But add the growing list of UN officials, Russian and European countries and politicians on Saddam’s payoff ledger, suddenly, it makes perfect sense.

Now that the UN, Russians, French, Germans and Saddam’s useful idiots are working for free, the new Iraq is getting what it s paying for. Nothing.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari held a press conference to announce, with some pride, the appointment of 43 new ambassadors, in its first effort to reengage with the world since regaining sovereignty.

But Zebari had a few words to say about the United Nations. Summarized, they amounted to a question: “Where are you?”

Zebari said the UN isn’t living up to its commitments to help Iraq hold a national conference scheduled for later this month and elections scheduled to be held by January.

In these two areas, organizing a national conference and holding elections, we do need the support of the UN, he said. We are a bit frustrated by the lack of speed by the United Nations in coming come to our aid and helping us in organizing and facilitating the convening of the national conference.

There are other areas where the United Nations has failed to live up to both its commitments and its responsibilities under its own Charter. After almost a year, the UN has finally appointed a full-time representative to Iraq, a Pakistani national named Ashraf Jehangir Qazi.

The UN pulled out of Iraq after its Baghdad headquarters was blown up by Saddam holdovers. The UN had refused US military protection, instead rehiring the same guards that had been their guards under Saddam’s regime.

It evidently never occurred to them that Saddam’s ‘guards’ were really Saddam’s ‘minders’ — specifically selected for their loyalty to his regime.

So, the UN decided to close its mission to Iraq, blaming the US for failing to provide adequate security. The US protested that the offer of coalition troops had been rebuffed, and offered again to handle security at the UN mission. Instead, the UN shut down and pulled out, where they could interfere from a safe distance.

For months, the Russians, French and Germans ran an anti-American public relations campaign, criticizing the US occupation and insisting the US agree to a strong, independent UN role in Iraq’s security and reconstruction.

Six weeks ago, the Security Council finally agreed to create a special UN security force. Since then, not a SINGLE country has provided the soldiers and paramilitary police officers needed to make it operational.

And of the $13 billion in non-American aid pledged, only about $1 billion has been turned over to the U.N. and World Bank funds set up to take in most of the donations. And almost half the money contributed, $490 million, is from a single donor, Japan.

The Iraqi interim government had hoped that the US handover would loosen the purse strings from European nations that opposed the U.S.-led occupation and from wealthy Arab neighbors two groups that have long been generous donors to Saddam’s Iraq. But the new Iraq is getting what it paid for. Nothing.

Iraq has had no success in getting any of Saddam’s creditors to forgive any of the $120 billion debt he ran up. Rend Rahim, Iraq’s ambassador to the United States, said the aid “is much, much lower than what Iraq was promised . We shouldn’t be set adrift, on our own.”

Rahim also told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington on June 29 that “so far, we do not have any serious pledges for the reduction of Iraqi debt.” She criticized countries that have been unwilling to forgive more than a small portion of the debt, saying that they “really want their pound of flesh.”

U.S. officials have pressed for creditors to forgive 95% of Iraq’s debt. But French and German officials, whose countries are owed $3 billion and $2.5 billion, respectively, said they want to limit the relief to no more than 50% of what they are owed. And, on top of all that, Iraq owes an estimated $125 billion in reparations from the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

But this isn’t Iraq’s debt — it is Saddam’s debt, and a significant portion of that debt was incurred by paying bribes to the UN, French, German and Russian recipients.

Assessment:

Scripture says that in the last days, a global government WILL exist, but it isn’t the UN. According to the prophet Daniel, the final form of global government will be a revived form of the Roman Empire.

Time for a review: According to Daniel Chapter 2, in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the king had a dream that so troubled him, he couldn’t sleep.

“Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. . .” (2:2)

But the sorcerers and Chaldeans were flummoxed. The king couldn’t remember the dream, and they couldn’t interpret it without know what it was.

“The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.” (2:5)

Since they couldn’t do it, the king ordered them all slaughtered. Among those covered by the decree was the prophet Daniel. Daniel sought the Lord for counsel, and God revealed both the dream and its meaning.

In the king’s dream, he saw an image, that Daniel described as, “This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.” (2:31)

The image’s head was of ‘fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.’ (2:32-33)

Historically, Daniel’s interpretation outlined the four great world empires of history — in advance. Daniel identified the head of gold as Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon and the breast and arms of silver as the Medo-Persians.

History identifies the belly and thighs of brass as Alexander the Great’s Greece, and the two legs of iron as the Roman Empire.

In its waning years, Rome’s empire was divided in two. The Western Empire, headquartered in Rome, and the Eastern Empire, ruled from Constantinople in modern Turkey. These are the two ‘legs of iron’ of Daniel’s vision.

Now we move to the feet, ‘part of iron and part of clay’. (2:33)

“And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.” (2:42)

Daniel goes on to give a letter-perfect description of the fractured and fractious nature of the modern European Union.

“And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.” (2:43)

But wait! All this sounds good, but there aren’t TEN nations in the EU, there are more than twenty-five. What’s up with that?

As we’ve pointed out in previous Omega Letter briefings, there really ARE only ten full members of the EU — the ten nations that make up the Western European Union. At the EU’s own website, they identify their member nations, broken down by status.

The ten full members are Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK. The remainder are either Associate Members or Observer States under the Treaty of Rome or Associate ‘Partners’ from the old Warsaw Pact states. But note the power rests with the TEN.

(Don’t take my word for it. Here is the link to the WEU’s own website. Check it out for yourself. http://www.weu.int/Delegations.htm)

Daniel identifies the ten ‘kings’ as forming the final form of world government.

The United Nations, as it exists in its present form, is doomed to join its predecessor, the failed League of Nations, the ash heap of history.

It is more than ironic that Daniel made his prophecy for the last days directly to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Especially since the self-styled reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar, Saddam Hussein, rebuilder of Babylon, may well be the final straw that breaks the UN’s collective back.

Closing the circle a bit too neatly to be coincidence, and preparing the way for Daniel’s ten toes to ultimately give the UN the boot:

“And in the days of THESE KINGS shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom SHALL NOT BE LEFT TO OTHER PEOPLE, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” (2:44)

“J’Accuse!”

“J’Accuse!”
Vol: 34 Issue: 19 Monday, July 19, 2004

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged French Jews to flee the country to escape a rising tide of anti-Semitism there. The latest French Interior Ministry figures show 510 anti-Jewish acts or threats in the first six months of 2004 – compared to 593 for all of last year, according to the Associated Press.

(CNN reported only 67 attacks against Jews and 160 threats — CNN also claims those to be French Interior Ministry figures)

Anti-Semitic acts against Jewish schools, synagogues and cemeteries have risen in France in recent years, coinciding with the growth of tension in the Middle East.

Speaking to visiting American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, Sharon said, “If I have to advise our brothers in France, I’ll tell them one thing — move to Israel, as early as possible. I say that to Jews all around the world, but there (in France) I think it’s a must and they have to move immediately. “

“We see the spread of the wildest anti-Semitism there,” Sharon continued. “In France today, about 10 percent of the population are Muslims … that gets a different kind of anti-Semitism, based on anti-Israeli feelings and propaganda.”

Sharon often calls on all the world’s Jews to migrate to Israel. He acknowledged the French government was making efforts to stem anti-Semitism but added that the threat was so grave that French Jews should head for Israel without delay.

Needless to say, Sharon’s comments sparked a firestorm of criticism from the French. “France is not Germany of the 1930s,” said Julien Dray, spokesman for the opposition Socialist Party.

Parliamentary speaker Jean-Louis Debre called the comments ‘unacceptable’ and ‘irresponsible,’ saying, “These are matters which distort reality . . . and I think they are an expression of hostility towards our country,” he said.

Assessment:

The French are especially sensitive to criticism, in particular, any criticism of the way it treats its Jewish population. The Jews are a blight on France’s ledger sheet that Paris prefers to ignore whenever possible.

French history is all about its greatness — except for the whole ‘Jew’ thing. French schoolkids read all about Napolean, but not so much about Alfred Dreyfuss.

Dreyfuss was a French military officer (and a Jew) falsely accused and convicted of treason in 1894. The French press then joined in, saying that, of course, a Jew would turn on the country and so forth.

Dreyfuss was sentenced to life imprisonment on Devil’s Island. Then, in 1898, the real traitor, a Major Esterhazy, was discovered and court-martialed.

The French military closed ranks, and Esterhazy was acquitted in a show trial so transparent that French expatriate writer, Emile Zola, wrote his famous essay entitled, “J’accuse” (I accuse) exposing the whole affair.

French historians don’t dwell much on the Dreyfuss affair. It is a form of national amnesia, in much the same way that, during World War, EVERYBODY was in the Resistance except General Henri Petain.

Petain was leader of the collaborationist Vichy Government that rounded up 75,000 French Jews for the Nazis and shipped them off to Auschwitz. Of them, only 2,500 returned.

(Petain must have been quite an amazing man — running the entire Vichy government all alone, as he evidently did).

In any case, the French are really mad at Sharon for bringing the whole ‘Jew’ thing up again. (I can tell because the keywords “French Jew” kicked back a whole page of headlines on Google saying, “French Officials Angry at Israeli Leader”).

There is an old joke; “Why are there large trees along the Champs Elysee? Answer? So the Nazis could march in the shade!” There is much truth in humor.

Unfortunately, France has learned virtually nothing from WWII. In 1945, Reverend Martin Niemoller wrote;

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Catholics, but I was not a Catholic so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”

He was right. Shortly after writing those words, the Nazis came for him.

There was nobody left to speak out for him as they put a rope around his neck and pushed him off a chair.

“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. . . But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them.” (John 16:2,4a)

Preparing Togarmah

Preparing Togarmah
Vol: 34 Issue: 18 Sunday, July 18, 2004

Preparing Togarmah

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has been causing a lot of heartburn in Washington lately as Turkey continues to edge further away from the West and towards other Muslim countries in the region, in particular, Syria.

Over the past few months, Erdogan has been embracing Iran and Syria while keeping a respectable distance from the pro-U.S. government in Iraq, which can actually use Ankara’s help.

Erdogan has been defending the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad while meeting with the Iranian leadership, even as Teheran accelerates its nuclear weapons development.

Turkish diplomats, according to Geo-Strategy Direct, have assured the State Department that Erdogan is just ‘posturing to his Islamic constituents’.

But last week, Erdogan refused to meet with Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who made the trip to Ankara in an effort to decrease rising tensions between the two countries.

Erdogan did, however, find time to meet with Syrian Prime Minister Naci Otri, who was in Turkey at the same time as Olmert. Israel’s Haaretz newspaper wrote that even the technology development agreement, which was thought would certainly be signed, could not be made since the Turkish side was not ready.

The newspaper questioned the sincerity of the smiles and declarations that Turkey-Israel relations were good.

Assessment:

Turkey is the among the most Westernized and prosperous states of the Islamic world, which, in itself is fascinating, since, until 1917, Turkey WAS the Islamic world.

The sultans of the Ottoman Empire ruled from what is now modern-day Turkey for four hundred years — before siding with the Kaiser in the first World War. That fatal error resulted in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire into the modern states of the Middle East.

Turkey is the only Islamic state to be a full member of NATO. Currently, the Turks are stumping for membership in the European Union. The French and Germans are trying to keep them out.

This week, Erdogan will pay an official three-day visit to France where he will will carry out talks with French political party leaders on July 21st. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan is expected to meet Fran ois Hollande and UMP leader Alain Jupp — who also opposes Turkey’s EU membership.

Among the nations listed by Ezekiel as participants in the Gog-Magog war against Israel in the last days is a nation called ‘Togarmah’.

Verse 6 adds Gomer and Beth-Togarmah to the coalition. “Gomer” was the first son of Japheth. The Gomerites were the ancient Cimmerians, expelled in 700 B.C. from the southern steppes of Russia into what is today Turkey.

“Togarmah” is the 3rd son of Gomer and beth at the beginning of the name is the Hebrew word for ‘house’ or ‘place of’. In Ezekiel’s time there was a city in Cappodocia (Modern Turkey) known as Tegarma, Tagarma, Til-garimmu, and Takarama.

The possibility that four of the names mentioned in Ezekiel are now in Turkey makes a pretty strong argument for Turkey being a part of the invasion of Israel.

And THAT always puzzled me, because of Turkey’s Constitutionally secular government and its embrace of the West, and in particular, Israel. Turkey is the only Islamic state to have a mutual defense agreement with Israel and the only Islamic state to conduct joint military exercises with the Jewish State.

Added to that is Turkey’s membership in NATO and its desire to join the EU.

Ironically, it appears that German and French opposition to Turkey’s admission into the Union may drive the Turks away from the West and deeper into the Islamic world.

It is important to remember that, until 1979, Iran was a close ally of the United States and one of the most heavily Westernized nations in the Islamic world, just like Turkey. Then the Shah was deposed, the Ayatollahs came to power, and Iran became the West’s worst nightmare.

In the mid-1970’s, prophecy scholars were scratching their heads over Persia’s inclusion in the Gog-Magog roster, too. Just like Turkey, it didn’t seem to make any sense.

How could modern Iran, with its secular government and strong ties to the West, find itself part of a Russian-led invasion of Israel? By 1980, it was pretty obvious. Amazing what can happen in a few years.

Looked at from this perspective, remember that Ezekiel confidently penned the exact roster of nations that will move against Israel in the last days almost 2,600 years ago!

It was only a quarter century ago that Iran was our friend. Today, it is a Russian nuclear client state with ties to al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, and is dedicated to the destruction of both the United States and Israel.

Today, Turkey is moving in much the same direction as was Iran a quarter-century ago — away from the West and back into the traditional Islamic world.

Remember, Turkey, a NATO member, blindsided the administration when it refused to allow US forces to stage from its territory into Iraq, forcing coalition military planners to rewrite their invasion plans. Another membership rejection from the EU could be enough to push Turkey all the way over.

Twenty-five years ago, Russia was the Soviet Union, Iran was America’s closest ally, and Turkey was running a close second. Most Americans had never heard of Islam, and even if they had, they didn’t know much else. The phrase, ‘radical Islam’ had not yet entered the American lexicon.

Ezekiel’s roster is almost complete. Watch Turkey.

Two thousand years ago, Matthew recorded Jesus’ promise to one generation, somewhere in time.

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:34)

I believe Him.