An Endorsement from Osama bin-Laden

An Endorsement from Osama bin-Laden
Vol: 37 Issue: 30 Saturday, October 30, 2004

It worked in Madrid. After al-Qaeda blew up a train in what Spain called “it’s 9/11” it issued a communique offering Spain a deal; “If you don’t bother us, we won’t bother you.”

At the time, Spain was governed by Jose Maria Aznar, one of America’s staunchest US allies in the war on terror. The Madrid attack was timed to coincide with Spain’s national elections. Aznar’s government was forecast to easily defeat Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s Socialists.

The Socialists who had pledged to withdraw Spain from the coalition defeated Aznar in a surprising upset, and Zapatero announced that his government would abruptly withdraw Spain’s contingent of 1,300 troops from Iraq.

Immediately after hearing Spain’s announcement, radical Shi’ite cleric Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr to declare a moratorium on attacks against Spanish troops in Iraq. The message was clear. Spain had surrendered to al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda had accepted.

The week following Zapatero’s announcement of withdrawal, John Kerry told “Meet the Press” that, if he was elected, he would do the same thing.

“I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration,” he said. “Within weeks of being inaugurated I will return to the U.N. and I will rejoin the community of nations.”

Osama bin-Laden released his latest video ‘message’ to America four days before Election Day in order to accomplish in America what he did in Spain — use terror and fear to bring down a sitting government.

The whole message was a tirade against George Bush, comparing his administration to that of the dictatorships of the Middle East. bin-Laden had clearly been reading the New York Times, because he sounded like a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee:

“He [Bush] moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom [from Middle Eastern dictatorships] to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism.”

Echoing the criticism offered by John Kerry of the President’s actions on September 11, when he finished reading the story to school kids after hearing of the first attack, bin Laden taunted;

“We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before [President George W.] Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on. And we never knew that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face those events by themselves when they were in the most urgent need of their leader.

He was more interested in listening to the child’s story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.”

Osama’s ‘message’ read more like a list of Democratic talking points for the John Kerry campaign than the usual “we will make your streets rivers of blood’ rhetoric we’ve come to expect from the demented terrorist leader.

Once he had finished campaigning for John Kerry, bin-Laden underscored his point that a vote for the challenger is a vote for peace and safety.

“Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.”

Assessment:

The message couldn’t be more clear. Osama bin-Laden just offered the same deal to America that he offered to Spain. “If you don’t bother us, we won’t bother you.”

The Bush Doctrine calls for the US to hunt down and destroy terrorists wherever they can be found, and to treat states that support terrorism as national enemies of the USA. That policy will not change if George Bush is re-elected to the White House.

John Kerry SAYS now that he would be as tough on al-Qaeda as the Bush administration. But from his comments, it appears that bin-Laden has been following the campaign closely, so he is undoubtedly aware of John Kerry’s antiwar past. He has campaigned on an antiwar platform since receiving the Democratic nomination. Osama is betting on Kerry’s deeds, not his words. (Unlike many US voters)

Clearly, bin-Laden’s goal is to see John Kerry defeat George Bush.

It was a message echoed ’round the world. “Bin Laden shocks U.S,” was Saturday’s headline in Britain’s Financial Times newspaper. “Bin Laden to U.S. voters: your fate is in your hands,” said the front page of The Daily Telegraph.

Montasser el-Zayat, a Cairo-based lawyer who defends Islamic radicals, said the video amounted to an “unprecedented attack on Bush at a very critical time, before the U.S. elections.”

Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland, called the tape “a very crude but sinister attempt to try to influence the presidential election.”

Diaa Rashwan, a Cairo-based expert on extremist Muslim militants, said bin Laden was trying to influence Americans “to give Kerry their votes, not Bush.”

The only one who didn’t seem to get the message Osama was sending America was John Kerry himself. When the tape emerged, Kerry started slamming Bush for having not captured bin-Laden as evidence that he “can run a more effective war on terror than George Bush.”

Clearly, America’s enemies disagree, which is why they are campaigning on behalf of John Kerry.

So far, John Kerry has gotten the tacit endorsement of France and Germany. The release of the ‘missing explosives’ report by the UN’s Mohammed el-Baredei was timed to damage the Bush re-election chances and hand John Kerry his ‘October Surprise’.

His candidacy is supported by the American Muslim Council, CAIR, and Kerry is overwhelmingly favored over Bush in the Arab world. One recent poll showed that the only foreign country where George Bush was favored over John Kerry was Israel.

Now, Kerry has received the endorsement of Osama bin-Laden.

Yesterday, Kerry urged supporters at a rally in Orlando to vote for him so that he ‘can steer America a new direction’ — virtually echoing the demands made by Osama bin-Laden.

Is anybody listening?

Dominoes Beginning to Tumble. . .

Dominoes Beginning to Tumble. . .
Vol: 37 Issue: 29 Friday, October 29, 2004

Dominoes Beginning to Tumble. . .

After seeing the video of Yasser Arafat being propped up on both sides by supporters while dressed in sweats and a knit cap, the scene was so surreal I intended to title today’s OL ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’.

(If you’ve seen the movie, you’ll get the pun. If not, it would take too long to explain it.)

In any case, Britt Hume made the joke first, and then the New York Post followed up with photos of Yasser and a clip from the movie, and headed their column, “Weekend at Yasser s” — funnier than my idea, and more accurate.

It doesn’t look like the old Master Terrorist is long for this world — but that isn’t the first time I’ve said THAT, either. Arafat has an almost demonic capacity for survival — anytime Death approaches him, Arafat keeps him busy elsewhere — but this time, Arafat might actually be about to go to his reward.

The death of Yasser Arafat will create a welcome, albeit dangerous, void in the Palestinian political establishment.

Welcome, because both sides know there is no hope for peace as long as Arafat is alive. Dangerous, because his death will trigger a power struggle that could result in all-out civil war.

There is no established line of succession within the Palestinian Authority or the PLO. Arafat has ruled in the manner of ancient Middle Eastern kings — he keeps the second tier of command at each other throats in a constant power struggle which then fractures any unified effort to challenge his power.

It works. The Palestinian Authority is widely recognized by the Palestinian people as corrupt and incompetent. The Palestinians know that while they barely have enough to eat, they are paying for Sufi Arafat’s $100,000 per month apartment in Paris. And that Yasser Arafat has somehow become one of the richest men in the world.

Despite all that, he is still the figurehead of the Palestinian national struggle, and as such, his power and popularity are tarnished, but undiminished.

Under the Palestinian Authority’s Basic Law, if Arafat dies, he will be replaced by the speaker of the parliament for sixty days while new elections are organized.

The Palestinians, under Yasser Arafat, have not been able to organize an election in nearly a decade. The last Palestinian election was when Yasser Arafat was given a two-year term in 1996)

The presidency of the Palestinian Authority is not Arafat’s only grip on power. He is also chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization and head of the Fatah faction, which dominates the PLO.

Each group has its own rules for succession, and there is likely to be ‘competition’ among several Arafat deputies for leadership. (Think of the Kerry campaign — only with guns and bombs, instead of distortions and personal attacks).

Palestinian civil war, although probable, is not the only option. There is a surprising amount of ambivalence in the Palestinian ‘street’ over Arafat’s impending death.

An editorial in Jordan’s Al-Rai newspaper commented; “It is not in our culture to wish someone’s death. But politically speaking, the death [of Yasser Arafat] is not a big loss for the Palestinian people.”

Many Palestinians are relieved at the prospect of Arafat’s death, as long is it didn’t come at Israeli hands. Former Arafat cabinet member Abdel Jawad Saleh said, “He is and was sick,” Saleh said. “There is no possibility of blaming the Israelis for his death. . . There is a great possibility of smooth succession if everyone abides by the law.”

Even Hamas and Islamic Jihad have pledged in statements not to take advantage of the power vacuum stemming from Arafat’s illness, taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude for the short-term.

By and large, reports the Jerusalem Post, “The bottom line, reiterated politicians, opposition members, Fatah members, and bystanders in Ramallah, is that their future could scarcely be worse than their past.”

Assessment:

The death of Yasser Arafat changes the entire complexion of the Middle East ‘peace process’ and sets the stage for a new dynamic for the region. The European Union has been trying to insinuate itself into the process, hoping to replace the United States as the principle broker for regional peace.

Following a meeting with PA Foreign Minister Nabil Sha’ath in Brussels last Friday, the E.U.’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said “important events are going to take place in the coming weeks.”

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel the next day, Solana also alluded to increased E.U. involvement in the peace process, adding that Ariel Sharon’s Gaza disengagement plan would not be sufficient to bring peace.

“If Sharon believes that with a pullout from Gaza everything is already done and that peace would come automatically, we won’t support that,” he said. “That wouldn’t be a dream, but a nightmare.”

The EU is planning its own version of the ‘road map’ to peace — one that Israeli foreign ministry officials have already nicknamed the ‘street map’.

The EU’s foreign ministers, increasingly frustrated with the situation in the region and their lack of impact on events, gave EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana a mandate earlier in the month to draw up a recommended plan of action in the Middle East. He is slated to present it to EU leaders on November 5.

The decision to initiate a “street map” came at a meeting of EU foreign ministers two weeks ago in Luxembourg. At the end of that meeting, a statement on the Mideast was issued that was deemed in Jerusalem as unusually harsh towards Israel, even by EU standards.

The harsh statement and the mandate given to Solana to come up with a plan, reflect deep European dissatisfaction with US leniency on the settlement issue. The Europeans are frustrated they have no real leverage to shape events, angry over Israel’s operation in Gaza, and furious at Sharon’s determination to go through with the disengagement plan without cooperating with the Palestinians.

Like the failed Oslo Accords, the original road map to peace idea came from Europe. It was proposed by Denmark while they held the six-month rotating EU presidency.

Oslo failed because of Yasser Arafat. The road map to peace hit a brick wall, thanks to Yasser Arafat. The EU’s new ‘street map’ to peace has Israeli officials snickering, but that is because Arafat isn’t dead yet.

The Israelis are desperate for peace, and any agreement, Oslo, the road map, or even a ‘street map’ that might lead there is worth considering.

Ironically, after Arafat, the second biggest stumbling-block to peace is the United States of America.

Neither Israel nor the US would negotiate with Arafat, but, until Arafat’s illness, the EU was planning a diplomatic blitz to end Arafat’s Ramallah isolation. The EU has credibility with the Palestinians. The US does not.

Let’s step back and look at the wider picture for a moment. This is one of those historical crossroads in-the-making.

Since the turn of the 21st century, US credibility has been steadily declining. At the same time, European power and influence has been expanding to fill the void. The UN is on the verge of implosion. The Europeans are actively lobbying to replace the US as the principle peace broker between Israel and her enemies.

It looks like Arafat may die and clear the way for a new, European-sponsored peace effort, built on the rubble of the failed seven-year Oslo Agreement.

While all this is going on in the Middle East, America is embroiled in its own cold civil war that has fractured the country and hamstrung the government.

The Russians, French, Germans and Chinese, together with the UN, took advantage of Washington’s political distractions to plunder Iraq’s Oil-for-Food account, creating a five-party alliance of thieves whose fondest dream would be to see somebody gun down the American sheriff that broke up their conspiracy.

Among the other plunderers of Iraq, according to the Duelfer report and documents released by the Iraqi government, was the Vatican. The current Pope, John Paul II, like Yasser Arafat, is at death’s door.

New reports say the Russians are continuing to develop their alliances with the Muslim Middle East, despite their own war against Islamic terrorists in Chechnya.

And through it all, the most important city in the world, the one that is the obsession of the EU, UN, Russians, French, the Islamic world and the United States, is, was, and now more than ever, is the tiny city of Jerusalem.

“And He spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.”

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till ALL be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:29-32)

Taking into consideration the wider picture, there is not that much left to do on this side of the Rapture.

“And when these things BEGIN TO COME TO PASS, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

al Qaqaa Depot ‘Looted’ — by the Russians!

al Qaqaa Depot ‘Looted’ — by the Russians!
Vol: 37 Issue: 28 Thursday, October 28, 2004

In March, 2003, President Bush made a phone call to Russian President Vladimir Putin to express U.S. concerns “involving prohibited hardware that has been transferred from Russian companies to Iraq,” White House Press Spokesman Ari Fleischer told journalists during the March 24 White House press briefing.

“We are very concerned that there are reports of ongoing cooperation and support to Iraqi military forces being provided by a Russian company that produces GPS [global positioning system] jamming equipment,” Fleischer said in response to a journalist’s question. “There are other causes of concern, as well, involving night-vision goggles and anti-tank guided missiles.”

At the time, President Putin assured President Bush that he had his facts wrong. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov gave a statement that day saying Russia had observed all UN sanctions against Iraq and had not supplied any military equipment to Saddam Hussein.

Of course, it was nonsense. Prior to the regime change in Baghdad in April 2003, French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with Saddam Hussein s regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the Iraq s oil wealth.

Political and military ties between Moscow and Baghdad were extensive. Documents found in the bombed-out headquarters of the former Iraqi intelligence service (Mukhabarat) in Baghdad reveal the full extent of intelligence cooperation between the Russian and Iraqi governments.

According to reports in the London Sunday Telegraph, Russia provided Saddam Hussein s regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders.

The Russians are also believed to have illegally sold arms to Iraq right up until the outbreak of war with the United States in March 2003. The Bush Administration accused Russian arms dealers of selling thousands of night-vision goggles, as well as anti-tank guided missiles and electronic jamming equipment, to the Iraqis in open violation of UN sanctions.

During the course of Saddam Hussein s dictatorship, Russia reportedly provided him with $14 billion worth of arms shipments.

Assessment:

Senator Kerry continues to hammer away at the Bush administration for allegedly ‘losing’ 350 tons of high explosives from the al Qaqaa weapons depot.

Mohammed el Baradei, head of the IAEA, told reporters on Monday that the IAEA had 350 tons of high explosives — some suitable for nuclear weapons — under IAEA seal and that looters made off with them because the US failed to secure them properly after the fall of Baghdad.

Kerry continues to repeat the story even after both ABC and Fox have reported that IAEA documents indicate there were less than three tons of explosives under IAEA seal at the facility in the first place.

NBC reporters embedded with the 101st Airborne reported that when they arrived at al-Qaqaa the day after Baghdad fell, the allegedly ‘looted’ high explosives were already gone.

And Bill Gertz reported today in the Washington Times that they were removed by the Russians in the days leading up to the war.

The Russians sent special forces into Iraq in the weeks leading up to the war to shred evidence of Moscow’s collusion with Saddam Hussein, including removing some high tech weaponry before invading US forces could discover them.

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said it would have been impossible for the facility to have been looted after the war. The al-Qaqaa site was closely monitored before, during and after the war, since it was known to contain huge stockpiles.

A Pentagon statement pointed out; “The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division’s arrival at the facility.”

Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam’s Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots.

The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, according to Shaw.

Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a “redoubt” in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.

The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, according to Gertz’ report.

A 26-page Iraqi document was discovered by US intelligence that detailed the extent of Russia’s involvement with Saddam’s military. It was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam’s minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.

It says Russian Special Forces organized large commercial convoys of weapons that were then trucked out of the country to Syria.

The document included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons.

John Kerry was hoping that the ‘looter’ story would be the much-prized ‘October Surprise’ that would turn the election in his favor. And if the story, as he tells it, were true, it would be the October Surprise presidential challengers dream of.

It appears to be backfiring. But the information that is emerging continues to dovetail with events prophesied by Scripture for the last days. Despite its pretense that there is a ‘new’ Russia, the old Russian bear is still very much alive and well.

It is almost as if Russia can’t help it. There was a brief period of hope, a period when it looked as if Russia and the US might truly bury the hatchet and work together for peace.

Working together, Russia and the United States could easily settle the Arab-Israeli conflict. Had the Russians worked with the US, instead of re-arming the Arab world, the North Koreans wouldn’t be nuclear, the Iranians wouldn’t be a nuclear threat, Pakistan and India wouldn’t be nuclear powers, A.Q. Khan’s nuclear proliferation network wouldn’t have existed and Yasser Arafat wouldn’t have been able to sabotage the Oslo Accords.

But Ezekiel said of Russia that, after a brief period of ‘visitation’, (I vividly recall the day the newly-freed Russian Duma suspended a session because lawmakers were rushing out to the hall to get one of the free Bibles being handed out in the hallway), the Russian bear would ‘think an evil thought’.

This qualifies.

Strongly Deluded

Strongly Deluded
Vol: 37 Issue: 27 Wednesday, October 27, 2004

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (2nd Thessalonians 2:11)

Most of the time, when examining current events that point toward the coming fulfillment of this prophecy, the main focus falls on either the ‘strong delusion’ or THE ‘lie’.

I emphasize ‘THE Lie’ because the natural next step is to try and deduce exactly what ‘lie’ Paul is referring to. All these are specifics of the Tribulation Period. But this isn’t the Tribulation Period, so how is it relevant to current events?

Back up a bit in the verse to, “And for this cause. . .” and we are back to the headlines. In context, Paul is talking about the removal of the Restrainer (the Rapture), the revelation of ‘that Wicked’ (the antichrist) and his method of control (propaganda).

The Rapture has not yet occurred, and we don’t know who ‘that Wicked’ is, but we are already being conditioned to be receptive to propaganda.

How does one become ‘conditioned’ to propaganda?

Consider the following statement and ask yourself if you agree with it.

“All politicians lie.” Odds are that you do. And even if you don’t believe that ALL politicians lie, you must certainly believe that MOST do.

Now apply logic to the statement: “All politicians lie, therefore I accept the fact that political preference is merely being deceived by my deceiver of choice.”

That is how a nation — or a planet — is conditioned to be receptive to propaganda.

Though the Russians, French, Germans and the United Nations are up to their armpits in corruption and theft, (and stained with Iraqi blood in the process) they retain at least a semblance of their moral authority.

We have been conditioned to expect corruption in high places — so this is just business as usual. Their greatest sin was getting caught.

IAEA head Mohammed el Baradai’s effort to influence the election in Kerry’s favor by planting the al Qaqaa missing explosives story SHOULD have had the media screaming ‘foul’ — especially since it wasn’t true.

But not only did the New York Times and CBS News allow themselves to be used as political tools of foreign influence, they continue to defend their story (again) even after it was shot full of holes. But we know they are pro-Kerry propaganda rags, so the outrage is blunted by previous conditioning.

John Kerry continues to trumpet the ‘missing explosives’ story, hoping to seize on it as the ‘October Surprise’ that will influence last-minute voters. In 2000, the Bush DUI story broke on the eve of the election, causing a five point drop in his numbers that gave us Election 2000.

The difference between the two is obvious. The DUI story, while more than twenty years old, was true. And Bush admitted it was true.

The al-Qaqaa story is not true. And Kerry knows it isn’t true. But he doesn’t care — it might help him win. And neither does the media or Kerry’s supporters.

Kerry has made the alleged dishonesty of the Bush administration a centerpiece of his campaign. It was a brilliant manuever, say the pundits. In 2004, being a skillful liar with no qualms about bearing false witness is ‘political brilliance’.

Nobody seems to have noted the irony; Kerry switched tactics from his early ‘Vietnam hero’ plan to ‘Bush lied’ — because his Vietnam record proved to be a patchwork of lies, questionable documents and unprovable claims.

When it was finally proved that Kerry lied about being ‘seared — seared’ in his memory that he was in Cambodia in Christmas, 1968, the Kerry camp said that maybe it was ‘near Cambodia’ and maybe ‘it was a month or two later’. (Kerry was in Vietnam four months.)

Remember how the media handled it? ‘The Kerry campaign has sinced backed off on the Cambodia story.’

In other words, Kerry got caught in a lie, so he is gonna quit telling it, so let’s just move on. The best way to move on beyond the fact you got caught in a petty lie is to accuse somebody else of telling a great, big, fat lie.

The media has also gotten caught telling some whoppers, and its response has been to tell more. The media has been censoring anti-Kerry news by either ignoring it or under-reporting it, while it shouts anti-Bush stories from the housetops.

A new study for the non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism examined 817 stories produced by six major news outlets; The New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald) and the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, plus CNN and Fox News.

In the final accounting, 59% of stories that were mainly about Bush told a mainly negative story, while 25% of Kerry stories played out that way. One in three stories about Kerry were positive, one in seven for Bush.

Back to ‘this cause’ that is responsible for the strong delusion and The Lie.

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:10)

One of the major criticisms launched against the Bush administration is that Bush is too religious. The media takes every opportunity to lampoon Bush’s moral compass as evidence of his ‘rigid inflexibility’ — I’ve even seen him described as being blinded by a ‘messianic complex’.

Bush’s simple accounting of his faith is that he was saved by grace, is sustained by prayer and that Jesus changed his heart. To the crowned heads of Europe, the godless United Nations, and the American liberal left wing, that means, ‘not too bright’.

The white-hot hatred of the left for all things Bush is rooted in his expression of faith. It was his expression of faith that the left zeroed in on during Campaign 2000.

Bush’s DUI conviction, crowed the left, proved Bush was really a hypocrite. The only segment of the population with whom that charge didn’t take root was among genuine Christians.

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby noted that, in 22 years of following John Kerry’s career, the one thing he would never has characterized John Kerry as would be ‘religious’.

He writes; “And if at any point during all those years you had asked me whether I thought Kerry was a religious man, I would have answered without hesitation: “No, not at all.”

Jacoby was writing in the context of John Kerry’s sudden religiousity, his quoting the Bible at every opportunity, referring to himself as a former altar boy, and, Jacoby notes, putting out “on the campaign trail he wears a crucifix and carries a rosary, a prayer book, and a St. Christopher medal.

Propaganda works among those ‘who have received not the LOVE of the truth’ says the Apostle Paul. Instead, in their hearts is the ‘deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish’.

God-talk is acceptable from John Kerry BECAUSE the public knows he doesn’t really believe it. It is NOT acceptable from George Bush because they know he DOES.

It is for THIS cause that God sends them strong delusion (the removal His Restraining Spirit) that allows them to believe the lie during the Tribulation.

Because they prefer The Lie to the truth.

For those of us awaiting His return, that strong delusion won’t work. It can’t. That’s why the Church can’t be on the earth during the Tribulation. That’s why a pre-Trib Rapture isn’t a ‘Great Escape’, it is a necessary part of God’s Plan for the last days.

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

Perilous Times

Perilous Times
Vol: 37 Issue: 26 Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Fresh evidence of the mainstream media’s effort to manipulate the presidential election by smearing the administration came to light when the New York Times broke an ‘exclusive’ detailing the administration’s failure to secure an arms depot in post-war Iraq.

Matt Drudge reported today that the NYTimes, together with ABC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN, worked together to make it the most high-profile story of the late-election campaign, with the highlight being the Bush administration’s failure to secure the arms depot and keep America safe.

The original story went something like this: During the initial phase of the liberation of Iraq, the administration failed to anticipate the wide-spread looting that followed the collapse of Saddam’s government.

During the post-war chaos, some 350 metric tons of high explosives — explosives so dangerous the International Atomic Inspection Agency had them under seal — were stolen from the unguarded weapons depot.

Within hours, John Kerry was hammering the administration for its failure to “guard those stockpiles.” Kerry seized the moment, using it as evidence of Bush’s incompetence in Iraq.

“This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration.”

John Edwards went even further — eclipsing even his outrageous claim that voting for John Kerry would cure spinal cord injuries and Parkinson’s Disease.

“It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president.”

And former press secretary and top Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart provided what may be the definitive example of ‘useful idiot-speak’, blustering;

“In a shameless attempt to cover up its failure to secure 380 tons of highly explosive material in Iraq, the White House is desperately flailing in an effort to escape blame. Instead of distorting John Kerry s words, the Bush campaign is now falsely and deliberately twisting the reports of journalists. It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous.”

Assessment:

The Times broke the story on Monday. Matt Drudge noted on his website that ABCNews mentioned the Iraq explosives depot at least 4 times, CBS 7, MSNBC managed to work it in thirty-seven times, while CNN topped the list, finding a way to mention it a whopping FIFTY times so far!

To be fair, ABC and CBS only have a half hour so they couldn’t hammer away at it the way 24 hour cable news outlets can.

And the effort was beginning to bear fruit. The White House was caught off-guard by the story and had no prepared response. CBS planned to air the story in a 60 Minutes piece just before Election day.

There was only one problem with the story. It wasn’t true. The most delicious irony of all is the source of the dissenting evidence. The depot was captured one day after the liberation of Iraq. Embedded with the troops that captured the al-Qaqaa arms depot was an NBC news crew.

And the explosives were ALREADY GONE when they got there.

This story originated with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s press release about the missing explosives. The last time the IAEA inspected the facility was January, 2002. It knew the explosives were missing when we secured it in April, 2003.

Why would it suddenly announce the missing explosives RIGHT NOW? The IAEA isn’t an American organization — it’s headed by an Egyptian and is overseen by the United Nations.

Answer? For the same reason Germany’s Der Speigel’s story, (published today) about al-Qaaqa was headlined; “A Culture of Cover-ups”.

Picking the story up from New York Times writer Paul Krugman, Der Speigel summarizes the story in its lead paragraph thusly; “The president’s officials have thrown a shroud of secrecy over any information that might let voters assess his performance in the war on terror.”

Germans will likely never hear NBC’s report. Neither will those reading Australia’s ABCNewsOnline.

It reported that, “European diplomats told the newspaper that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cautioned the US about the danger of the explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told US officials about the need to keep the them secured.”

Might this be a good time to repeat that the story is NOT TRUE? That the weapons were already gone when US forces, with the embedded news crew present, captured the depot? And, the IAEA already knew that when it released this week’s hoped-for October surprise. It was a deliberate lie designed to influence the US election by embarrassing the administration.

Not long ago, a British newspaper decided that this election is too important to be trusted to American voters alone. It obtained a voter roll for a county in Ohio and asked its readers to write the prospective voters and urge them to vote against Bush.

The United Nations has already expressed a preference for John Kerry over George Bush, as has most of Old Europe and especially, the Arab world. The world calls Bush ‘too inflexible’ but is careful to avoid admitting it prefers Kerry because they think he would be easier to bend.

America continues on its trip through the looking-glass, where no story is too inaccurate to report and no correction is important enough to mention, provided it favors the liberal left.

The left has promised to steal the election if it can’t win it. It has propagated lies designed to hurt the administration, even if those lies damage national security, international prestige, foreign policy, or even the troops in the field fighting and dying in ‘the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time’ in the process.

Far from merely dividing America, the Left has succeeded in dividing the world into two camps. In one camp, we find George Bush, Red State America, Israel and a handful of world leaders.

In the other, we find every dictatorship, Islamic regime, socialist state and globalist organization, allied with John Kerry and Blue State America.

It pretty much dovetails with the way the Bible divides up the world in the last days. Whether they succeed in conquering the Red States this time or not, the battle lines have been clearly drawn.

Paul describes the clash of opposing worldviews in the last days this way:

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. . .” (2nd Timothy 3:1-4)

“Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2nd Timothy 3:12-13)

Perilous times indeed!

How Close is It, Really?

How Close is It, Really?
Vol: 37 Issue: 25 Monday, October 25, 2004

How Close is It, Really?

Whether one views the polls, listens to the candidates or watches the TV pundits, the only fact upon which both Americas agree is that this year’s election will be ‘close’.

Various pundits describe the race as ‘too close to call’ or ‘balanced on a razor’s edge’ and the Democrats are so sure it will be another squeaker that they’ve recruited an army of ten thousand lawyers — in advance — to dispute any close election results in the courts.

John Kerry has already vowed to challenge the results of the election, even if it isn’t close. In fact, in the event of a close election, Kerry intends to declare victory, even if he loses.

But how close will it be? It all depends on which polls you read.

In 1948, all the major polls predicted Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry Truman — the Gallup poll had Dewey up by 15% on election day. But Truman defeated Dewey by a respectable five percent.

In July, 1984, a respected poll said Reagan was trailing Democratic challenger Walter Mondale by two percentage points. But in November, Reagan defeated Mondale 59% to 40%, one of the 20th century s biggest landslides.

Some other famous headlines from the past:

May 3, 1984: “Mondale-Hart, Reagan-Bush Tickets Running Neck and Neck in New Poll”

October 28, 1980: “Carter Goes Into Debate With Lead in New Poll”

July 12, 1936: “Roosevelt’s Popular Lead Is Reduced to 51.8% in July Poll; Landon Ahead in 21 States, Has Electoral Vote Majority”

Assessment:

Although the 2000 presidential race has emerged as the closest in a generation and possibly of all time, several others have been too close to call until the final ballots were tallied.

Indeed, John F. Kennedy’s defeat over Richard M. Nixon in 1960 wasn’t official until noon the following day. And Jimmy Carter wasn’t the clear winner in 1976 until 8 a.m. the next morning.

In both of these cases, however, the loser conceded defeat graciously, to avoid putting the country through the kind of devisive political debacle Al Gore forced on America in 2000.

In 2004, even if it isn’t close, Kerry intends to exploit Democratic anger by claiming the election was stolen ‘again’ by the Republicans.

Frankly, I don’t think it is going to be that close.

And I don’t think that Democratic strategy of forcing another Constitutional crisis is going to work. But here is how it would play out, if it does.

In a head-to-head matchup, using national figures, the race is a statistical dead heat. Although the polls have Bush ahead by a point or two, the margin of error is plus or minus four points — so Bush could actually be ahead by ten points, or Kerry could actually be ahead by eight. Hence, the ‘dead heat’.

But, as we’ve noted previously, America is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic, and the president is not elected by the national popular vote, but by each individual state.

In heavily populated states like California and New York, Kerry could get every single vote cast in that state, and win the popular vote by a wide margin.

But it wouldn’t advantage him any more than winning that state by a single vote. The president is elected by the majority vote in each individual state.

The candidate who wins the majority in the most individual states is the winner, not the candidate who wins the most votes overall.

That’s how Gore lost in 2000. He got a whopping majority of votes in the states he carried, but he didn’t carry enough of them to win the election — even though he received more total individual votes than George Bush.

At the moment, Real Clear Politics gives George Bush 234 electoral votes, compared to John Kerry’s 211.

In play are the following ‘battleground states’ — which explains WHY they are so-called ‘battleground states’.

Minnesota (10 votes)is too close to call — but Bush has a slight lead (Bush +1.0%).

Florida (27 votes) is a statistical tossup but Bush enjoys a slight lead (+.08%)

Michigan,(17 votes)which is a heavily Democratic state, favors Kerry by +4.0%

New Hampshire (5), New Mexico, (Bush 2.7%) (5 votes), Ohio,(Bush +.06%) (20 votes) and Wisconsin (Bush +2.0%)(10) are all within the margin of error.

It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win. If Bush wins in the battleground states now leaning his way, he will win the election with 311 Electoral College votes and a clear mandate for the next four years.

It advantages both sides to maintain the fiction the race is ‘too close to call’ — if one side thinks his guy has things sewed up, then he might not vote.

So, while the race is statistically too close to call, I am going to go out on a limb .. it’s Bush by a landslide.

Stay tuned. . .

Musings . . .

Musings . . .
Vol: 37 Issue: 24 Sunday, October 24, 2004

This issue marks the one thousand and seventy-first Omega Letter I’ve written since we published our first issue on October 14, 2001.

In our forums, you have published many times that number of postings, covering the stories we’ve missed, sharing your own experiences and understanding of current events, and sharing your faith and courage with the rest of us.

Together we’ve weathered many tragedies; illnesses, marital problems, deaths and separations. We’ve considered together the mysteries of the universe, and watched together as some of that mystery was dispelled as formerly mysterious prophecies of Scripture began to unfold before our eyes.

We’ve discussed earthquakes, famines, wars, noted together the ascendency of Europe even as American global prestige and influence wanes; been astonished together as the mainstream media dissolved before our eyes into a haze of competing propaganda messages.

We’ve witnessed the power even overt propaganda can have on a sophisticated, educated and articulate society; useful idiots still cram the streets mindlessly repeating slogans long-since disproved by fact.

We’ve watched as the United Nations was exposed as a corrupt, self-serving, propaganda-spewing global political syndicate, instead of the non-partisan guarantor of global human rights it was created to be.

We witnessed with our own eyes, as the nations of the world actively fought to keep Saddam Hussein in power by any means necessary, knowing full well that his regime was responsible for the torture and deaths of millions, so they could continue to line their pockets with illegal bribes of money stained red by rivers of Iraqi blood.

We’ve watched the rise of the Islamic powers within the UN. The systematic torture and murder of Christians world-wide has increased in direct proportion to Islam’s growing UN influence, exactly as Scripture said it would in the last days.

We’ve discussed the latest trend in Islamic terror; the beheading of Western (to Islamic terrorists, that means ‘Christian’) hostages, together with the fact the Bible predicts that beheading would be the fate of witnesses for Jesus in the last days.

“. . .and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God . . .” (Revelation 20:4)

We’ve noted the strange cosmic events that continue to increase in frequency and intensity — from the weird solar storms at the turn of the century to the increasingly destructive forces of natural disasters.

Together, we’ve shared the prospect of a biological catastrophe being unleashed by terrorists while trying to cope with an ever-increasing list of new diseases unheard of in generations past.

We’ve watched the social decay spread — on a global basis — from legalized drugs and prostition to the point at which it has become necessary for the world’s only Christian nation to debate whether or not the Founding Fathers really intended marriage to be an institution exclusive to a man and a woman.

We’ve witnessed together the continued breakdown of relations between Israel and the rest of the world. We’ve watched together as the phenomenon of global anti-Semitism has revived and flourished to the point where anti-Semitism is openly acknowledged by leaders of government. We’ve even watched as Israel began construction of what we’ve dubbed “Ezekiel’s Wall.”

Since our first issue of the Omega Letter, we’ve tracked the steady decline of the UN’s reputation and relevancy, and witnessed together the expansion of the old Roman Empire to twenty-eight members.

We discovered together that the EU really only has ten full members. We’ve noted that those ten have created sub-tiers of membership for the remaining eighteen, and witnessed the EU’s launch of it’s newest sub-tier; “The European Neighborhood Policy” that will expand its empire into the Middle East.

And together, we’ve witnessed the most amazing thing of all — the outbreak of the spiritual war of the last days — the spark that will ultimately ignite the War of Armageddon.

While ostensibly a global war on terror, it is actually a war between the forces of Islam and the forces of Christianity and Judaism. The war that has been raging between the ‘Prince of Persia’ and the forces of Michael for eons — spilling out into the here and now before our eyes.

We’ve talked about this and much more, both in the Omega Letter dailies and in our forums. It was during our first few months of publication that we began to discuss the question of why there is no mention of America in Bible prophecy. Those of you who have been long-time members can recall the furor that topic caused when we first raised the issue.

As this election cycle progressed, we discovered together the emergence of a second America that has evidently dedicated itself to the destruction of Red State America to the degree that it has already announced its intention to steal the election by legal trickery if it can’t win the election the old fashioned way — by stuffing ballot boxes for their candidate while attempting to disqualify ballots for their opponent.

Note this as well — we are talking about a time frame of thirty-seven months! Every issue of the Omega Letter — one thousand and seventy-one of them, so far, has been focused on current events.

In other words, all of the above, without exception, we have watched come together into focus in less than three years’ time.

In so doing, we’ve attracted the attention of the enemy. We’ve been censored by Internet Service Providers, we’ve had our sources of funding cut by our merchant solutions, we even had to emigrate to keep from violating Canada’s anti-hate legislation.

Through it all, we’ve perservered in faith, knowing that God will provide a hedge of protection and make provision for His own. We’ve learned not to panic (even when our PayPal account shows a balance of $37.94 like it does this morning) since we’ve seen God do much more with less.

Preparing each morning’s Omega Letter is an exercise in faith — and faith, like muscles, is strengthened by repeated exercise. By faith, I try and communicate the truth — as I believe God reveals it — not by visions and bright lights, but by the careful comparison of His Word to events in our world.

Seeing it unfold in detail, as we do each morning in the Omega Letter, proves beyond question His intimate involvement in the affairs of men and provides daily reassurance that He remains on the Throne, despite the seeming chaos enveloping the planet.

In that sense, you are a gift from God to me. Each morning, we exercise and strengthen our faith together, while we prepare in faith, for the chaos that day might bring.

Today is our one thousand and seventy first issue of the Omega Letter. I recall reading a few months back that the editor of the Jerusalem Post was stepping down because he was burned out after having written three hundred columns or so over three years.

In a thousand-plus columns, the closest thing to burn-out I’ve experienced is in wondering if I am repeating myself too often.

We are the watchmen on the wall, and the fact we are still on that wall after a thousand-plus columns and three years of dodging enemy rounds is proof positive that we are not watching in vain.

The Lord is coming back very soon. And we’ll keep sounding the alarm until He does.

I praise God for each and every one of you. You will never know this side of heaven how much the power of your multiplied prayers sustain me.

But I do. May God bless you all as richly as your friendship blesses me.

Until He comes.