Flying on One Wing

Flying on One Wing
Vol: 35 Issue: 31 Tuesday, August 31, 2004

I was trying to come up with an amusing title for this morning’s OL rerun (that’s right, another rerun, sorry). Flying on One Wing almost works — my left elbow still bends.

‘Asphalt rash’ is like my wife’s chili — it’s more intense the day AFTER. While I still have two fingers with skin on the ends of them, the others keep getting in my way. And THEY have no patience with my efforts to ignore them while I type. (Capitals are the worst)

Plus the palms of my hands continue to defy me and attempt to rest themselves on the keyboard.

I have some pain killers, and I took one yesterday and found out how they work. They make you so stupid you don’t CARE if it hurts.

(But there’s not much demand for stupid writers. Well, David Corn and Nellis Hennican have jobs, so I suppose there might be, but . . .)

So with your indulgence, I am going to rerun a previously published Omega Letter again today so I can continue to practice my impression of a dead spider.

God bless you all for your expressions of sympathy.

But I STILL feel like an idiot. . .

The Rome Statute

On December 31, 2000, former president Bill Clinton issued the following official statement from Camp David.

“The United States is today signing the 1998 Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court. In taking this action, we join more than 130 other countries that have signed by the 31 December, 2000 deadline established in the Treaty.”

Clinton’s action, taken in the final hours of his presidency, won praises from the international elitists and Ivory Tower editorialists for taking his ‘bold’ action.

Some background: A permanent international court has been on the globalists wish list since the end of World War II.

In December 1948, the UN General Assembly, after adopting the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, asked the International Law Commission (ILC) to conduct a study on the establishment of an “international judicial organ,” which would try persons charged with genocide.

Under the terms of this treaty, “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members” of an identifiable group is genocide, punishable by the ICC. Christians believe that only those who are Christians can be made eligible for heaven. (I am the way and the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by Me”)

If heaven is exclusive to Christians, then it means nobody else gets to go. The argument has already been advanced that Christian theology is hateful because it proscribes other religions, causing serious mental harm to those other religious groups. Interesting, no?

In the mid-1990s with violence erupting in the former Yugoslavia, the idea for an international court gained traction.

In July 1998 in Rome, the UN convened the “United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,” to establish a permanent international tribunal to try individuals for “the most serious offenses of global concern.”

Apparently, the General Assembly wearied of trying to define crimes before prosecuting them so they created the ICC to prosecute the crime of “aggression,” although, 50 years later, they still haven t defined it.

Once established, the court will claim jurisdiction over every person in the world; grant the ICC prosecutor extraordinary powers; require maximum U.S. monetary support but minimum U.S. influence and grant ICC officials lifetime immunity.

It will also violate national sovereignty as happened when Slovenia, which ratified the treaty on December 31, was forced to amend its constitution, change its penal code, alter its criminal procedure code, adjust various regulations, and conform its law on police forces to adhere to the ICC before it could ratify the treaty.

In the United States, we would have to forfeit protection against double jeopardy. The ICC retains the right to review U.S. court decisions and re-try individuals if the ICC determines decisions “were not conducted independently or impartially,” or were for the purpose of “shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility.”

The ICC treaty also lacks the constitutional safeguards Americans cherish, like the right to confront one s accusers; due process; trial by jury; a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and protection from cruel and unusual punishments.

On April 11, 2002, the ICC received the sixty ratifications that it needed to be established.

Assessment:

On Monday May 6, 2002 the Bush administration announced that the U.S. would ‘unsign’ the treaty signed by former President Clinton, angering those same international elitists and Ivory Tower editorialists who then made it their mission to convince America to get rid of George Bush and replace him with someone more like good ol’ Bill.

It was the first time any President has ever revoked a former president’s signature on a treaty or “unsigned” any kind of treaty. According to the UN Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs no one in the world has ever “unsigned” a UN treaty.

(Of course, America never had a former president like Bill Clinton, so Bush was just beginning to ‘unsign’ all kinds of agreements that, if allowed to stand, would have made America a UN colony.)

The globalist elite went ballistic, arguing that Bush ‘damaged’ the credibility of the president’s signature on future treaties, saying it would lead other nations wondering if the next U.S. president would reverse the decision.

Furthermore, they argued, “Unsigning is an act of unilateral diplomatic disarmament that strips the U.S. of any ICC negotiating credibility and inhibits U.S. ability to use its seat on the U.N. Security Council to refer atrocities to the ICC.” (So?)

Helps to explain why Al Gore got all the good press during Election 2000 while George Bush was pilloried as ‘clueless’ in foreign policy because he couldn’t (at that time) name the president of Pakistan.

Of course, until Osama bin Laden and the Taliban thrust him into the limelight, there were probably only about six Americans in the whole country that had ever even heard of Pervez Musharraf.

In any case, the expansive jurisdiction claimed by the ICC would put every U.S. serviceman and woman, and even U.S. travelers especially if they are or have been public officials, at risk of being grabbed for trial by judges from Sierra Leone, Sudan, Iran, and other nations hostile to the rule of law, but make up the UN’s cadre of ‘international justices’.

The ICC is part and parcel of persistent plans to erase the borders of national sovereignty by globalizing governments, economies, judicial systems, peacekeeping, and so-called humanitarian escapades.

The ICC plans to prosecute charges of war crimes, genocide and other crimes that have not yet been defined, in procedures that violate every U.S. constitutional safeguard. The ICC is accountable to no one, not even to the United Nations, whose charter recognizes the sovereignty of nation-states and where we have our Security Council veto.

The prophet Daniel wrote of the rise and fall of four successive world empires with such breathtaking detail that some still argue, in spite of the historical evidence, that the Book of Daniel was a late forgery written sometime after BC 163.

Some Christians have even been persuaded by this unproven allegation, until it is pointed out to them that if it were true, then Jesus was either a liar or He wasn’t really God, since He Himself made reference to Daniel as a prophet.

The four empires were those of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Alexander the Great’s Greek Empire and the Roman Empire.

Daniel also detailed how each empire would fall. Except for Rome. Daniel said the Roman Empire would not fall, but would collapse from within and, in the last days, would be revived in a somewhat different form.

Daniel said that the revived Rome would not be ruled with an iron fist, but rather, with ‘iron mixed with miry clay’ — partly strong and partly weak. (Like democracy? It is our free democracy here in America that is our greatest weakness to preventing terrorism against us. The EU is ALSO a democracy, albeit somewhat different than ours. Think about it.)

Each empire rose and fell as predicted and on cue and for sixteen hundred years, the only Roman Empire was spiritual — still headquartered in Rome, but without a physical, material, political presence.

But both Daniel and John spoke of the antichrist and HIS empire, saying it WILL be headquartered in Rome and that it WILL be a literal, physical and political empire.

In 1948, (the year Israel was reborn) the political Roman empire began to twitch when six European states entered into the Benelux Treaty. That treaty was expanded and codified into law under the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

The original Treaty of Rome signatories (ten in all) remain to this day a power apart from the greater European Union, with special status unique to them, such status being one of the reasons the expanding EU can’t agree on a constitution. The original ten refuse to give up their special status or acquiesce to demands new states be afforded full membership.

We’ve already looked at the ICC, which came into being under its official name of the ‘Rome Statute’ and we’ve looked at what the it aims to do.

Much of the tension that exists between Washington and our so-called European ‘allies’ stem from Bush’s refusal to turn over the keys to our kingdom to the European-inspired International Criminal Court in Belgium.

So, what are the odds this all came together by happenstance? What are the odds that the Treaty of Rome that created what even the Europeans call a ‘revived Roman empire’ that created a global criminal court called the ‘Rome Statute’ with the authority to try individuals for hate crimes isn’t laying the groundwork for the coming government of the antichrist?

What are the odds that we’re reading this incorrectly and this isn’t the real McCoy?

Then factor in what Jesus said about when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then Israel’s national redemption draws nigh?

The Olivet Discourse was NOT referencing the Church or the Church Age. Christians are ALREADY redeemed. The purpose of the Tribulation Period (the Time of Jacob’s Trouble) is to bring about the national redemption of Israel. (See Zechariah 12:10)

At some point BEFORE the Lord appears to put an end to the war of Armageddon in the Last Day, something else happens.

“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 4:17-18)

We’ve just concluded the holiday season of Christmas and New Year’s. So picture a calendar in your mind’s eye. When it’s Thanksgiving, you know that Christmas is just around the corner.

Those things prophesied by the Lord of Glory are already beginning to come to pass.

Get the order straight in your mind. First, the Rapture. Then, Israel’s national redemption is accomplished during the Day of the Lord at the conclusion of the Tribulation.

The King is coming! Maybe this year. Maybe today.

“Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:18)

Hey– Is That YOUR Bike?

Hey– Is That YOUR Bike?
Vol: 35 Issue: 30 Monday, August 30, 2004

Last night, I rode my bike down to the beach to watch Tropical Storm Gaston roll in. I was standing on the beach when a friend said to me, “Hey, is that YOUR bike?” I turned in time to see it headed down the street.

Forgetting I was old, I started running after it. I was pretty proud of myself, too. I was really flying — I might have caught him, except for those cobblestones. (I’ll bet I was doing at least fifteen mph when I hit the ground.)

When I got back up, I left a signifcant portion of my hands, fingertips and knees on the cobblestones — evidently, I didn’t really need all those extra parts.

I suppose it was some consolation that nobody actually was stealing my bike. A friend of mine was playing a practical joke.

(I intend to burst into peals of laughter as soon as the bleeding is under control)

Unfortunately, right now, I am only able to type with the two fingers that still have skin on them.

So, with your permission, here is a reprint of one of my personal favorite columns.

Special Report: The ‘Defeated’ Christan

You ve all seen him. The defeated Christian. The guy who tries and tries, but after being saved for thirty years, he still hasn t quit smoking. Instead, he hides his cigarettes before coming to church and won t get too close when shaking your hand for fear you ll smell the smoke on him.

Or the Christian who you know is saved, but he just can t quite give up the bottle. Or the Christian who got saved, but doesn t go to church, because he just doesn t think he fits in with the rest of the crowd?

Or won t go because he thinks that everybody at church is a big hypocrite? That defeated Christian who knows that even though he is saved, it just didn’t seem to take like it seemed to with everybody else, so he d just as soon not be reminded of it all the time by being around those to whom it did.

Especially since, if he were to mention it, somebody would point out it was either because of some unconfessed sin, or maybe they just weren t all that sincere when they first accepted Christ.

Why is it that some Christians get saved, and immediately become a new creature, where others get saved, and look remarkably like the old one?

Don t tell me you don t know somebody like that. Maybe you even ARE somebody like that. And it s hard . . . so hard to keep trying and trying when it seems to come so easy to everybody else. It s enough to make anybody give up.

I m going to leave the usual beaten path, now, to address an issue that comes up fairly regularly in our forums. Those of you who have no besetting sin, no secret sin in your heart that only you and God (and the enemy) know of, go make yourself a nice cup of coffee. The rest isn t for you.

Now, for the honest readers . . . Why does God deliver some people from booze, cigarettes, pot . . . fill in your besetting sin here _______?

The answer? I don t know. Disappointed? Don t be. Sometimes He just doesn t. It doesn t mean you aren t a Christian. It doesn t mean you aren t saved. It doesn t mean God has abandoned you. It only means you feel defeated. You still have that sin.

Now, how come you feel defeated? Is it your weakness? God s? Haven t you been to Him with this? How come it s still an issue in your life? You KNOW God is real, or else you wouldn t be subscribing to the Omega Letter. What s WRONG WITH YOU?

Nothing.

Welcome to the Church of the Walking Wounded. That s why so many people find fellowship on the internet they don t find in church. No guilt. Nobody can see you sneaking that cigarette or that beer.

You come looking for God, and looking for that forgiveness you keep hearing about, but never find in church.

Instead, you learn that if you smoke, (or whatever) you are defiling the temple of the Holy Spirit and you must give that up first to find fellowship. Except you have been trying for years and just can’t quite make it.

You sit there in the pew, thinking about the cigarette you are going to have on the way home, and you feel ashamed, guilty. Why even go back to chuch? You hypoocrite!

You are taught that God forgave you at the Cross, but now you are on your own. All these sins you now know about yourself are left for you to deal with on your own. Only NOW you know what they are.

So every time you sneak that cigarette, you feel guilty. Fred got saved and within a week, he cut out smoking, he cut out drinking and he cut out cursing.

(You think to yourself, Sure. And for entertainment, Fred is cutting out paper dolls, but then there you go you sinned again!)

This is a very difficult subject I am approaching it with much fear and trepidation. There will immediately be those who will jump on me for preaching a license to sin. I am not. Before you jump on me, read it again first, please.

Sin is the disease of the human race. No human being is exempt from it. The Apostle Paul, speaking of sin, said, This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. (1 Timothy 1:15) Creative hyperbole? Or do you believe every Word of God is true?

The Apostle Paul was, according to God s Word, chief among sinners. He must have had a difficult time being chief among sinners and chief among the Apostles, but that s what the Bible says.

It must have bothered him, like it bothers you. (Those not getting coffee right now) Knowing what is right, but succumbing to temptation to do the wrong thing. Over and over.

Paul writes, For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (Romans 7:14-15,17)

Maybe Paul isn t speaking to you, but he is playing MY theme song. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:22,23)

Does this sound to you like a guy who was having an easy time of it? Why didn t he just do what the pastor tells you? Just take it to the Lord and He ll take care of it.

Ever do that and then He didn t? So you found some good reason why not, or instead just figured you weren t worthy? Or maybe that He cared more about Fred the King of the Paper Dolls?

Paul wrote of, a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. (2 Corinthians 12:7) Now, I ve heard this verse exegeted many times.

To listen to the theories, Paul must have fallen into a thorn BUSH. I ve heard Paul had a speech impediment, that it was his failing eyesight, that he was unattractive to look at, even one argument that he had halitosis!

What does the Bible say Paul s thorn in the flesh was? Everybody looks for something specific to make sense of the verse. They are looking for some physical flaw that Paul thought would hamper his effectiveness for God. In so doing, they miss the forest for the trees.

The Apostle Paul, the chief among sinners , specifically said that his thorn was a messenger from Satan sent to buffet him. Paul s thorn was his SIN. that kept him from being ‘exalted above all measure.’ For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. (2 Corinthians 12:8)

Stay with me here and see the picture. Here s poor Paul, knowing the task the Lord has set before him, knowing that he is chief among sinners and knowing his weakness for whatever that sin might have been.

So he takes it to Jesus, (just like you did) sincerely expecting Him to handle it for him, just like the pastor told you He would for you.

And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for My strength is made perfect in weakness. (v.9)

The Bible says that we are sold unto sin. That it is our natural state. That the most unnatural thing a man could do is NOT sin. You are saved, you believe, yet you wrestle with your besetting sins.

Every time you whip one down, a new one crops up that you have to deal with. It s a never ending battle and you are losing. How can this be?

How can you be sincere, be sincerely saved, and still battle with sins that don t seem to bother other Christians?

There is only one logical answer. It is so simple you are going to immediately say, I knew that. But you probably really didn t.

Jesus did it all. Really. ALL. The most simple of principles, yet most preaching is based on the deception that He didn t. Instead, most are taught in principle, that Jesus got the ball rolling at the Cross, but now that you are saved, whether or not you fail or succeed in beating back your sin nature is up to you.

Therefore, when constantly confronted with your sin and how bad it is, it is much easier to give up and not go face the weekly confrontation. You are defeated.

Rather than being free, you are in bondage to your guilt. How many people do you know who went to the altar call on Sunday who weren t guilt-ridden by Wednesday?

Salvation is either a gift of grace through faith or it is a product of faith plus good works.

Moses had faith and good works. So did Abraham. So did David. But without the Savior, they would be dead in their sins.

The bondage of sin to a Christian is the weight of the guilt of that sin that keeps him from seeking God s face. Jesus set us free from the bondage of sin. Is this a license to sin? As Paul said, God forbid.

All things , Paul said, are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. (1 Corinthians 10:23) Interesting word, expedient . Means, Appropriate to a purpose.

The reality is, we are humans. Even after we become new creatures in Christ, we coinhabit the castle of flesh with the old man.

You will have your battles, but your defeat only comes when you give up. Following Paul s lamentations about his struggle with the flesh and the duality of man, Paul writes, beginning with Romans 8:1, There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

This verse also tends to get spiritualized out of context. I ve heard it argued that if you sin, then you are walking after the flesh, rather than after the Spirit.

I put it to you: Did you ever, since you were saved, commit a sin and not care, not feel any responsibility before God? Well, then, Who are you walking after? The irresponsible flesh? Or the living Spirit?

It isn t sin that defeats the Christian.

It isn t that you still haven t quit smoking, or whatever else it might be that you think is defeating you. Sin is what humans do. Forgive is what God does.

It s GUILT that keeps you defeated, and keeps you from the Throne. It keeps you from telling people about Jesus. It keeps you beaten down.

It is incumbent upon a Christian to try and live a more Christ-like life, but the dichotomy is that the Bible says it is impossible.

If we COULD live a sin free life, then why was a Savior necessary? And what was Paul rambling on about when he talked about the ‘good that he would’ and so forth?

If there were a formula that involved accepting Christ and THEN living a sinless life, then why did He need to go to the Cross at all?

Why not just make the revised Ten Commandments read, ‘Accept Christ and don’t sin” and THEN you can go to heaven? The answer is obvious. Nobody would be there.

We are living in the last days. There is no time to bandage the walking wounded, the battle has been joined. Every soldier is desperately needed on the line.

A soldier on the line does his best, and that is all anyone can ask. Especially the One Who really KNOWS that you are doing the best you can.

And He not only understands, He made you to a specific purpose, which is why all things were lawful to Paul, but not all things were expedient.

What may appear as defeat to you from your vantage point in the action may actually be a tactical victory somewhere else up the line. Only our General knows, and He says, ‘Trust Me’.

Take heart! Don’t let the fact you are a sinner steal your victory. The only prerequisite for being a Christian is that you must be a sinner first. God has a plan for your life, and He has somebody for you to talk to.

That appointment is so important to God that He has arranged your whole life until now — just so you would be available to keep it when that appointment comes due.

Will you be there to keep it? Or will you be licking your wounds in defeat off in a corner somewhere? We’re running out of time, and the enemy’s sole focus for your life is to keep you defeated and ineffective as the hours tick down to the Final Confrontation.

And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 2 Corinthians (12:9)

The rest of you can come back from the kitchen now.

Who Wrote the Bible?

Who Wrote the Bible?
Vol: 35 Issue: 29 Sunday, August 29, 2004

Who Wrote the Bible?

There are two answers to that question. The short answer, and the easiest to defend, is also the most obvious. God did. The Bible says so.

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2nd Peter 1:21)

I say that is the easiest to defend because Christians don’t need much more evidence than that. The Bible is a living Book to those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

To a Christian, the mere fact that there are people who devote their lives to arguing its Authorship is evidence of its Divine inspiration. It makes perfect sense to a Christian — it makes no sense at all to an unbeliever.

While it is a totally unsatisfactory answer to the skeptic, 1st Corinthians 1:18 proves itself to the believer every time he picks up the Book and ponders its truths:

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

Frankly, I don’t think it is possible to convince a skeptic by debating the truth of the Scriptures vs. their chosen ‘truths’ — it would be like debating whether something was red or mauve with a person blind from birth.

It takes a spiritual ‘operation’ to remove that blindness, but we can only point a person in the direction of the Surgeon. After that, they have to request the ‘operation’ for themselves.

But the Bible’s Authorship is proved by its very existence. There is the testimony of the forty different individuals chosen by God to record His Word. There are the acts of the Apostles;

2nd Peter 1:16 explains; “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His Majesty.”

The Apostle Luke begins his testimony to Theodophilus; “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the Word.” (Luke 1:1-2)

To deny the historical truth of the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles is tantamount to denying the historical accuracy of the eyewitness testimony of the witnesses to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Each of the Apostles was an apostate Jew in the eyes of their friends and families. They were ostracized, insulted, beaten, run out of town, arrested, imprisoned, and generally hounded everywhere they went. Each of them was given an opportunity to save his own life by renouncing his testimony of Jesus.

And with the exception of the Apostle John, every single one of them chose a brutal, torturous death, instead. (The Apostle John was tortured by being boiled alive, but somehow survived and was exiled to the Island of Patmos. He was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.)

The skeptic denies their eyewitness testimony, but fails to give any reasonable explanation for why. Why would they all accept a life of misery and deprivation, culminating in a torturous death, just to spread a myth?

Does it seem reasonable that twelve guys would sit around a campfire and make up a story that ruined their lives (in the natural) just so they could be known by their first names 2000 years later?

Nobody denies the accuracy of Plato’s writings. Or Tacitus. Or Homer. Or Suetonius. Or Flavius Josephus (except the part where he refers to Jesus as an actual historical figure).

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date around the time of Jesus copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea.

We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. The oldest existing original manuscript of a New Testament book dates to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed Asia Minor). In all, there are more than 24,000 ancient manuscripts against which to compare our modern Bible.

The number of manuscripts is astonishing, when compared to other universally-accepted ancient historical writings, such as Caesar’s “Gallic Wars” (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the “Annals” of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).

New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order.

A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance. Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over 1,400 years of copying?

Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God’s word so we would not be deceived.

Skeptics, liberals, and cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.

But it doesn’t matter. The skeptics continue to assault the Bible on any and all fronts, applying the most unreasonable standards for accuracy imaginable.

They hate it, and they can’t even explain why. That is also, to the Christian, evidence of its Divine Origin.

That hatred is so blind, so unreasoning, and so irrational that it cannot be explained in any other way.

“Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake.” (Luke 6:22)

“Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.” (1 John 3:13)

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” 2nd Peter 3:3-4)

Does the Name Mike Boorda Mean Anything to You?

Does the Name Mike Boorda Mean Anything to You?
Vol: 35 Issue: 28 Saturday, August 28, 2004

Does the Name Mike Boorda Mean Anything to You?

This morning, I ran across a blog site that asked the question; “Does the Name Mike Boorda Mean Anything to You?” In point of fact, it does.

Admiral Mike Boorda was US Chief of Naval Operations until 1996.

Reverberations from the 1991 Tailhook convention, at which dozens of women were assaulted by drunken naval aviators, were sapping Navy morale.

A string of embarrassing problems at the Annapolis officers’ Academy, from cheating in examinations to drug abuse and car theft, had further damaged the Navy’s image.

Admiral Boorda was a legendary figure among Naval officers; he was a ‘mustanger’ — an officer who came up through the enlisted ranks — who was known as a ‘sailor’s sailor’, patriotic to the core and a conservative icon. His appointment as CNO ended the string of Navy scandals, leaving bored reporters with nothing to report.

Then, a godsend. In February 1995, a former marine colonel named Roger Charles received an intriguing tip-off from a navy contact at the Pentagon. After leaving the Marines, Charles had become a specialist reporter for the National Security News Service, a privately funded Washington agency focusing on defense news.

America’s most senior admiral was regularly to be seen in public, Charles reported, wearing military decorations he had not earned.

Newsweek seized on the story, and, following a year-long investigation, dispatched two of its investigative reporters to confront Admiral Boorda with the ‘evidence’ it had uncovered.

Admiral Mike Boorda was wearing his Distinguished Service Medal and his Legion of Merit Medal with a combat ‘V’ attached. The combat ‘V’ is only authorized when the medal is awarded during combat operations.

Since Boorda was aboard ship in the waters off Vietnam, there was a question as to whether or not Boorda’s combat ‘V’ was authorized.

When Boorda heard that Newsweek was investigating, he ordered his driver to take him home for lunch. In his study, he wrote two letters. The first was to his wife of four decades, Bettie.

According to a friend, it “tragic note filled with despair and apology”. He feared he was about to be exposed as a fraud and he simply “could not stand this attack on my integrity”.

The second letter was to the navy that he had served so faithfully since he lied about his age in 1956 to enlist at 17. He apologized for wearing insignia to which he may not have been entitled and hoped that his sailors would feel, as he did, that it was simply an “honest mistake”. (The Navy has since ruled the decorations WERE authorized)

When he finished his letters, Boorda walked out of the house and down a garden path where he sat down on a bench and shot himself to death.

Assessment:

The blog’s mention of Admiral Boorda intrigued me, and I starting digging around in the internet, mostly for my own curiosity. I ‘googled’ Admiral Boorda and read the initial reports in the news archives. One of the Google hits came from the current news archives on a story running this morning in WorldNetDaily.

It noted the 1996 Boston newspaper interviews with John Kerry discussing the suicide of Admiral Jeremy “Mike” Boorda.

“In a sense, there’s nothing that says more about your career than when you fought, where you fought and how you fought,” Kerry told the Boston Herald in 1996. “If you wind up being less than what you’re pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you.”

WND says the Herald described Kerry as among the veterans who said although they would take offense at someone falsely wearing the “V” pin, they couldn’t see how it would drive Boorda to suicide.

“Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes, which he clearly understood,” Kerry told the Herald.

Kerry also spoke with the Boston Globe.

“The military is a rigorous culture that places a high premium on battlefield accomplishment,” WND says he told that paper. And of Boorda and his apparent violation, Kerry said: “When you are the chief of them all, it has to weigh even more heavily.”

The Bible places great emphasis on the power of the spoken word. “The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.” (Proverbs 18:8) In Admiral Boorda’s case, the words of the talebearer wounded him to his death.

Proverbs 29:20 is also applicable here. “Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.” In John Kerry’s case, he is on record saying that falsely claiming military honors is sufficient cause to question his qualification for a leadership position.

The Preacher writes; “Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.” (Ecclesiates 5:2)

James says, “Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.” (James 3:5-6)

John Kerry wants to be the President of the United States. Let me say this about that.

In the grand scheme of things, I don’t really care who wins the Oval Office in November.

Wait! Don’t fire off that email yet! Hear me out.

I admit I have a preference — I have as large a stake in the outcome as anybody else does. But my main focus is on the Big Picture painted by Bible prophecy for the last days. Romans 13:1 makes it clear that the ‘higher powers’ of government are ordained by God.

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

I don’t know how else to take that verse except at face value. Simply stated, it means that God put George Bush in the White House according to His Purpose, just as He put Bill Clinton in office before him. It also means that He will put John Kerry in power, if it suits His ultimate Purposes.

When Gamaliel defended the Apostles in the council, he warned; “Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)

It is with that principle in mind that I say I don’t care who wins in November. If he is elected, its because God wants him there. But it seems pretty clear that John Kerry is an opportunistic fraud whose word has been proved unreliable.

Kerry has said publicly on at least 50 occasions that his Christmas Eve in Cambodia was the seminal event that turned him from a war hero into a war protestor. Except he invented the seminal event that he claims shaped his political worldview.

When questioned, instead of addressing the issue, he attacked the men who were at least as heroic as he claims he was. As I’ve mentioned before, John Kerry embodies the characteristics outlined in 2nd Timothy 3:2-6 that Paul says are the hallmark of the ‘perilous times’ of the ‘last days’.

So, if America knowingly elects such a man as their chosen leader, it fits the Big Picture rather neatly. That is why this election is, I believe, so significant in the context of understanding the signs of the times.

As a Christian, I don’t care who wins in November. I trust God.

But as a person who must live in this world for now, I sure hope it isn’t John Kerry.

The Worst Ex-President in History

The Worst Ex-President in History
Vol: 35 Issue: 26 Thursday, August 26, 2004

During his four years in the White House, he presided over the worst economic downturn since World War II, allowed a bunch of thugs to seize our embassy and our citizens, and supported Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos, Pakistani General Zia al Huq, Saudi King Faud and many other dictators. But Jimmy Carter was a much better president than he is an ex-president.

In fact, Jimmy Carter holds the hands-down record for being the worst ex-president the United States has ever known. His post-presidential meddling in foreign affairs has cost America dearly, both in terms of international credibility and international prestige.

He defied US law by visiting Cuba, even addressing the Cuban public and handing Castro a huge propaganda victory. He oversaw the elections in Haiti, against the expressed wishes of the Clinton administration. A coup followed.

Carter once described Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito as “a man who believes in human rights.” Regarding North Korea’s dearly departed Kim Il-Sung, Carter found him “vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country,” adding “I don’t see that [North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.”

He was similarly generous regarding Manuel Noriega, Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceaucescu and, of course, Yasser Arafat. He said of Ceausescu and himself, “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights.”

Virtually all of the humanitarian activities of the Carter Foundation abroad have been in direct opposition to US foreign policy. Carter called Bush s description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil” was “overly simplistic and counterproductive.

Added the man who was once attacked by a rabbit, “I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement.”

His most recent adventure may be partly behind the predicted $3.00 per gallon analysts say we’ll be paying for gas by year’s end. Jimmy Carter went to Venezuela to ‘monitor’ that country’s effort to recall President Hugo Chavez.

In 1992, a band of army officers led by Lt. Col. Hugo Ch vez Fr as attempted to overthrow President Carlos Andr s P rez. Although court-martialed and jailed, Ch vez emerged a hero.

In 1998, he was elected president on promises to clean out corruption and reduce poverty. Once in office, Ch vez promoted a new consitution to consolidate his powers and began to constrain the business community, civil society, and rival politicians.

As a presidential candidate, Hugo Ch vez campaigned against the “savage capitalism” of the United States. On August 10, 2000, he became the first foreign leader to visit Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War, and he allegedly aided Afghanistan’s Taliban government following the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States.

At the same time, Ch vez said that Cuba and Venezuela were “called upon to be a spearhead and summon other nations and governments” to fight free market capitalism.

Venezuela is also one of the countries upon which the United States is dependent for oil, and has been since the US first began relying on imported oil supplies back in 1948.

Besides supplying the United States with 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, Venezuela provides most of the petroleum consumed by U.S. allies in the Caribbean and Central America.

Regional leaders know that opposing Ch vez in any significant fashion could result in less favorable sales terms or cuts in deliveries.

In September 2003, President Ch vez accused the Dominican Republic of harboring Venezuelans–like former President Carlos Andr s P rez–who allegedly might conspire against his government. Chavez then stopped oil deliveries, prompting a temporary energy crisis while Dominican officials scrambled for new suppliers.

From the perspective of American economic interests, not to mention homeland security issues, Hugo Chavez is a very bad man to have in the neighborhood. And, thanks to Jimmy Carter, Chavez isn’t going away anytime soon.

Venezuela’s opposition party finally forced a recall election, with opinion polls showing that voters favored his recall by a margin of more than 2 to 1.

When there were questions about possible vote tampering by the Chavez side, the opposition called for election monitors. Chavez agreed to let Jimmy Carter oversee the election, and the Carter Center headed for Caracas.

Assessment:

Under Jimmy Carter’s watchful eye, Hugo Chavez defeated the recall attempt by a wide margin — reflecting almost a mirror-image of the opinion polls.

While two out of three Venzuelans polled before the election wanted Chavez out, when the ballots were counted, Chavez was declared the winner by an almost exact opposite margin. “About 58 percent said ‘no’ to a recall, while 42 percent said ‘yes,'” wrote the Washington Post.

Carter ignored a press release from the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland Assoc. that reported, “Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for Chavez.” The release, dated 7:30 p.m. on election day, said, “With Venezuela’s voting set to end at 8 p.m. EST according to election officials, final exit poll results from Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, an independent New York-based polling firm, show a major victory for the ‘Yes’ movement, defeating Chavez in the Venezuela presidential recall referendum.”

One of the most effective ways to monitor the fairness of an election is to employ the use of exit polls. In a nutshell, here’s how exit polls work. After somebody has finished voting, a pollster will ask them how they voted. In emerging democracies, about 90% of voters participate.

By contrast, in America, where exit polls are widely used to call elections before the votes are all counted, less than 40% of voters participate.

Statistically, exit polls should mirror the actual vote, within a relatively thin margin of error.

The margin of error between Carter’s certified fair-and-square ballots and the independent exit poll results constituted a swing of almost forty points — a statistical impossibility. Chavez counted on Carter leaning his way — Carter’s history of promoting anti-American dictators is no secret.

As Stephen Hayward noted in a column at Front Page, “among his complex motivations is his determination to override American foreign policy when it suits him.”

Indeed, Carter’s penchant for interfering in US foreign policy is so well known it won him a Nobel Prize. Jimmy Carter will go down in history as the first US ex-president ever to be awarded a Nobel Prize for the sole purpose of conveying an insult to his country from the Nobel committee.

Gunnar Berge, chairman of the five-member committee, told reporters that giving the Peace Prize to Carter “must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq … It’s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States.”

(“How can we REALLY show how much we hate the Americans? I know! Let’s give a Nobel Prize to Jimmy Carter!”)

Once Chavez had stolen the election and Jimmy Carter certified the results, certain American critics (pretty much anybody with a brain) started questioning whether or not Jimmy Carter had just sold American interests down the river — again.

Carter hit back in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece, writing;

“We are familiar with potential fraudulent techniques and how to obtain a close approximation to the actual results to assure accuracy.”

Having established that Jimmy Carter is far too savvy to be conned by a mere thug like Chavez, Carter then dismissed the results of the exit polls, writing;

“During the voting day, opposition leaders claimed to have exit-poll data showing the government losing by 20 percentage points, and this erroneous information was distributed widely.”

Well, that’s that! The New York pollsters ‘widely distributed erroneous information’ — Hugo Chavez won fair and square. Jimmy Carter says so.

Penn Schoen evidently must have cheated, although it is a reputable New York polling firm with a 20 year track record, including working for Bill Clinton in 1996, Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2001, Michael Bloomberg in 2001 and many other national political campaigns.

Why would it risk its hard-won professional reputation over an election in Venezuela? Carter doesn’t explain.

Hugo Chavez is bad news from the perspective of US national security. He is bad news from the perspective of homeland security. He is bad news from the perspective of US dependence of foreign oil. And he is bad news for America’s economic security.

Which makes Hugo Chavez good news for the worst ex-president in US history.

Media Gives In, Sort Of

Media Gives In, Sort Of
Vol: 35 Issue: 25 Wednesday, August 25, 2004

“A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue.” (Proverbs 17:4)

Last week, I noted Brent Bozell’s observation that, from May 4 until my column, the Big Three networks had run a total of 75 stories about Bush’s service in the Texas National Guard and only seven about the controversy surrounding Senator Kerry’s Vietnam service.

In a column this week, Bozell noted; “A Nexis search reveals a list of some of the national outlets that had never relayed a quote of these words before the second Swift Vet ad was released: CBS, NBC, National Public Radio, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Here are the major newspapers who’ve captured this testimony exactly once : The Washington Post and The New York Times, buried inside their papers on Saturdays in late February.

ABC repeated one snippet of the paragraph, the “Genghis Khan” snippet, in four stories surrounding the anniversary of the testimony in April. Kerry said then: “I’m sorry that they’re offended by that, but that’s what happened.” “

Tony Blankley, editor of the Washington Times, noted; “It was only after a CBS poll showed that Kerry had lost a net 14 percent of the veteran’s vote to Bush — without aid of major media coverage or substantial national advertising — that the major media outlets began to lumber, resentfully, in the vague direction of the story.”

In an op-ed piece in the London (that’s in England) Telegraph, Mark Steyn described a Pat Oliphant cartoon that appeared in the Washington Post depicting the Swiftees as Bush-backing deadbeats sitting round a bar; “I never seen Kerry do nothing hee-roic,” says one loser. “Damn right,” says another. “You and me was right there in latrine maintenance. We orta know.”

Steyn notes; “The redneck spelling’s a nice touch, ain’t it? I wonder which of the anti-Kerry campaign’s 254 Swift vets, including 17 of Lieutenant Kerry’s 23 fellow officers, Oliphant thinks were in latrine maintenance.

Maybe he’s got in mind fellows like Paul Galanti, who appears in the latest anti-Kerry ad and whose plane went down over North Vietnam in 1966. He was held in the “Hanoi Hilton” Viet Cong POW camp until 1973.

That’s seven years getting tortured by the gooks, only to be mocked by some lame-o cartoonist as a redneck latrine operator.”

Then Steyn delivers his knockout punch: “I said a couple of weeks back that John Kerry was too strange to be President, and a week or two earlier that he was too stuck-up to be President. Since I’m on an alliterative roll, let me add that he’s too stupid to be President. What sort of idiot would make the centrepiece of his presidential campaign four months of proud service in a war he’s best known for opposing?”

“I wouldn’t stand for Parliament on a family values platform because I know someone’s bound to bring up the 123 gay porn movies I had a bit part in back in Amsterdam in the 1970s.”

Assessment:

It appears the cat has finally clawed its way out of the bag, despite the liberals’ quiet attempt to beat it to death before it did.

Fox News reported on Monday that the Kerry campaign has conceded that it is possible that Kerry’s first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound, just like the Swiftees alleged.

That concession came only a few days after the Kerry campaign also conceded that John Kerry wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, either. Just like the Swiftees alleged.

So now the mainstream liberal networks, stung by charges they ARE liberal networks, have leapt into the fray, investigating, not the allegations against Kerry, but the possible connections between any of the SWIFT Boat Veterans and the Bush administration.

The Kerry damage control strategy continues to be to suggest that the Bush campaign is behind the ads — now look at the mainstream media’s investigative focus.

It isn’t about whether or not John Kerry was being truthful. Instead, it is concrete evidence that the Big Three Networks take their marching orders from the Kerry campaign as faithfully as Moveon.org does.

For example, the Kerry campaign’s admission that John Kerry wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, was explained away by supporters as having ‘occurred thirty-five years ago’ — now it is the new liberal mantra.

Every talking head defending Kerry, when asked about the Cambodia lie, does the same thing. Their eyes glaze over, they take on a blank stare, and begin to repeat mindlessly, ‘it was thirty-five years ago. . .’ before getting back on point . . ‘The ads should be withdrawn’.

I’ve yet to hear an explanation from either the Kerry camp or the media for why the Swiftees should be silenced that doesn’t, in the end, boil down to ‘because Senator Kerry doesn’t like them.’

Now, to the point. Despite the media’s best efforts, the story is out.

Kerry even helped, saying in a recent speech that maybe America shouldn’t judge him on his Vietnam service alone, but also judge him on his anti-war activities as well.

Kerry reasoned that because he both fought in the Vietnam War and fought against it, it proves he is a man of integrity. Even though he may not have deserved the Purple Heart as alleged, and despite the fact he never went to Cambodia. After all, it was more than thirty-five years ago.

On the other hand, Kerry assures veterans, they shouldn’t hold his antiwar testimony to Congress against him, even if it did give aid and comfort to Hanoi. After all, he explains, it was more than thirty-five years ago.

Despite the Kerry doublespeak, Kerry still enjoys the support of about half of America’s voting public. A Google search of “Kerry” and “Swift” returns more major media reports attacking the reputations of the Swift boat veterans than there are questioning why 254 Swift vets, including 17 of Lieutenant Kerry’s 23 fellow officers and his whole chain of command — including a retired admiral, would risk their personal reputations — just to lie about John Kerry.

According to 2nd Thessalonians, the antichrist will come to power amid a supernaturally-permitted ‘strong delusion’ that Paul says they wanted to believe anyway, because the lie was more in keeping with their chosen worldview than the truth.

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

Not a single Kerry defender has indicated any doubt whatever that John Kerry is telling the truth, even after his campaign tacitly admitted he was a serial liar about both Cambodia and the circumstances of his first Purple Heart.

The truth is what they want to believe — evidence notwithstanding — because it is more in keeping with their chosen worldview.

A strong delusion, indeed.