“Who’s The Cowboy Now?”

“Who’s The Cowboy Now?”
Vol: 52 Issue: 31 Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Last week, French President Jacques Chirac made headlines when he became the first Western leader to threaten to use nuclear weapons to retaliate for terrorism.

During a visit to a nuclear submarine base in Brittany, Chirac told the press; “The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and fitting response on our part.”

Pausing for effect, Chirac went on; “This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind.”

Chirac also noted France had modified some of that country’s nuclear warheads to target specific points rather than for delivering wide-scale mass destruction.

“Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction . . .The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power. . . . All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit.”

While Chirac’s comments caused something of a diplomatic murmur, his threat to use nuclear weapons evoked nothing near the reactions prompted by Israel’s decision to build a defensive fence or America’s decision to remove a murderous dictator.

Most news headlines were pretty neutral, really, with the New York Times saying of Chirac admiringly, “Chirac Steps in Where Bush Fears to Tread’.

One local newspaper, the Bloomington Pantagraph, editorialized, “Who’s the Cowboy Now?” but, for the most part, Chirac’s threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack was barely an above-the-fold story in most newspapers outside of France.

The muted reaction is another example of that curious double-standard the world almost unconsciously applies where either Israel or the United States are concerned.

When the United States sought French support for removing Saddam, the French led a world effort against American ‘expansionism’ that greatly aided Saddam’s pre-war efforts and undoubtedly cost American lives on the battlefield.

The French also led the whispering campaign about US lust for Iraqi oil, began the ‘Bush lied, people died’ myth, and even shared secret intelligence about the US with Saddam Hussein. When US forces captured Iraqi positions, they found they had been facing brand-new French weapons supplied to Saddam in violation of UN embargoes.

It turned out that the French were also neck-deep in the Oil for Food scheme that diverted billions earmarked for Iraqi civilian aid. While Iraqis struggled with expired medicines and shipments of spoiled food, the French worked tirelessly to prop up their tormentor. But when the full French complicity came to light, the world basically shrugged it off.

After all, the Russians, Chinese, Germans and the UN hierarchy were all doing exactly the same thing. People who live in glass houses seldom throw stones at each other.

While the French were leading the global effort to portray the Bush administration as a global loose cannon, Chirac sent French forces into the Ivory Coast to quell a rebellion.

France wiped out the tiny country’s air force. At one point, French troops fired point-blank into a crowd of protestors, killing at least twenty and wounding more than 200.

Do YOU recall any major diplomatic uproar in November, 2004 about French ‘aggression against a sovereign state’ when France deposed Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo?

No? Interesting.

Assessment:

The lack of global outrage at Chirac’s nuclear threat isn’t because there is any doubt that Chirac means it. Or that Chirac would make good on his threat if forced to.

But instead of global outrage, there is almost a sense of unspoken global relief that France raised the nuclear ante enough to give the terrorists pause.

Now, let’s pretend for a minute, that same veiled threat had been issued by the president of the United States?

When the Bush White House briefly floated a doctrine of ‘nuclear preemption’ it was roundly slapped down by both the international community and the domestic political opposition.

More than 3,000 American civilians were killed by Saudi nationals. The attacks were planned in Pakistan. The attackers were part of a pan-Islamic group supported by Syria, Sudan, Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan.

If ever a nation had justification to issue a nuclear threat against the whole Middle East, it would have been the United States on September 12, 2001.

Or, let’s pretend that Israel were to issue a similar declaration of nuclear retaliation.

Israel is a tiny country occupying approximately 1/6th of one percent of the Arab Middle East. Humorist Dennis Miller once compared the Arab-Israeli conflict to fighting over an area the size of a matchbox in the corner of a football field.

Israel is surrounded by enemies dedicated to her annihilation. In only sixty years, she has fended off five wars aimed at her total destruction. As Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir observed following one of those wars;

“The Arabs can fight, and lose, and come back to fight another day. Israel can only lose once.”

Israel has been forced, under global pressure, to surrender most of her strategic buffer zone to a people that just elected Hamas to lead them — and help them create a terrorist state dedicated to Israel’s destruction — within their own borders.

If ever a nation had justification to issue a nuclear threat against her enemies, it would be the State of Israel.

But when Israel decided on a non-lethal form of self-defense, building a defensive wall to keep terrorists out, global reaction was scathing.

How can it be that France can threaten nuclear retaliation for a terror attack while Israel can’t build a fence to prevent a terror attack?

While France can shoot indiscriminately into a crowd of Ivory Coast protestors, the United States is under constant global criticism for detaining enemy combatants on a tropical island prison — where they receive Korans, prayer mats and better food and medical care than is available to the US troops guarding them.

It makes no sense, in the natural. To find the answer, one has to examine the spiritual elements at work here.

The war on terror is a war among what the Muslims call, ‘The People of the Book’ — radical Islam vs. Christians and Jews.

The world instinctively recognizes that fact, just as it recognizes that Israel is Judaism’s national representative and America is Christianity’s national representative on this planet in this generation.

When one speaks of the ‘world’s most Christian country’ abroad, it is not a code word for the Vatican, or for Italy, or most particularly, France.

When Osama declared war on the ‘Jews and Crusaders’ there was no misunderstanding — it was primarily a declaration against Israel and America.

France really has no ideological dog in this fight, hence, it can get away with the threat to use nukes if attacked without much fear of global backlash.

The world has an unspoken, instinctive sympathy for the Islamic side, despite understanding that once Islam has dealt with the Crusaders and Jews, it will turn on them next.

The god of this world hates Israel because it is a constant reminder of his impending defeat. The world hates Israel because it is a constant reminder of God’s existence and a threat to man’s own self-image as god.

Why is America seen as a ‘Christian’ country when it’s own people are forbidden to pray in public and its government publicly denies Christ? It isn’t because America is all that pious.

One’s reputation as a Christian isn’t reflected by words. Lots of people claim to be Christians who aren’t. One is known as a Christian if one conducts themselves according to Christian principles. America doesn’t CLAIM to be a Christian country. Officially, it denies it! But the world watches America in action and concludes; “Aha! YOU are a Christian country!”

But it isn’t a compliment. It is an accusation. An accusation America’s leaders vigorously deny — to no effect. America is a country, but a country is the sum of its people.

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:18-19)

In all the world, there are only two nations that are defined exclusively by their relationship to the God of the Bible. Islam calls them the Zionists and the Crusaders.

The world calls them the two most hated nations on earth.

Special Report: Democracy’s Fatal Flaw

Special Report: Democracy’s Fatal Flaw
Vol: 52 Issue: 30 Monday, January 30, 2006

The election of Hamas to the Palestinian leadership reveals the fatal law in President Bush’s plan to introduce world peace through the export of democracy.

The flaw lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy as a form of government. The word ‘democracy’ is formed from two Greek words that, taken together, mean ‘mob rule’.

Many Americans believe the United States is a democracy. That is also evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of the word’s meaning.

The United States is a Republic. As a Republic, its rulers rule by the consent of the governed. That consent is limited to the option of removing unresponsive ruler at regularly set intervals through the process of election.

In a Republic, the neither the government nor the governed rule absolutely; both are restrained by the rule of law, which is defined as emanating from a Creator and enumerated in the Constitution.

Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law have served as the legal bible on Common Law since the first Supreme Court. The Supreme Court relies on Blackstone’s as a final authority to this day.

Blackstone defined a Republic as being constrained by the natural law of the Creator as expressed by the Ten Commandments.

Thus, he argued, since murder is forbidden by Divine Law, no expression by the will of the people could make murder legal. The Declaration of Independence enshrines basic human rights as being granted by the Creator, specifically shutting government out.

For what the Creator grants, only the Creator can take away. That exposes the Marxist ideology secretly driving the liberal effort to abolish government recognition of the existence of God. If there is no God, the power over life, liberty, etc., reverts to government.

It isn’t a theocracy they fear. It is the political power His existence denies them. The existence of God is inherently acknowledged, indeed, is instrumental to limiting the power of the Republic from reverting to a democracy.

The Founding Fathers were careful to ensure America was NOT founded as a democracy. James Madison, co-father of the Constitution, wrote “… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to “liberty and justice for all.”

Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority.

One vote in a jury can stop the entire majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

In a democracy, the mob rules, as most evidenced by the recent Hamas election, more recently evidenced in the election successes of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and before that, with the Muslim Brotherhood’s parliamentary gains in Egypt.

And Iraq’s democracy produced a Shi’ite fundamentalist government more closely resembling that of Iran than the more US-friendly Afghanistan.

There is no republican commitment to minority rights within the Islamic world. Iran calls itself a ‘republic’ but it is an ‘Islamic’ republic –a republic exclusive to followers of Islam.

Islam specifically enshrines and denies certain rights according to status, as a believer, a dhimmi, an infidel, women, etc.

There is no minimum standard of ‘natural’ i.e., God-given rights in the Islamic world, except those granted to followers of Islam. In an Islamic country, one vote, (the late Yasser Arafat’s, for example), cancels out the majority, not the other way around.

None of the factions among the various Islamic experiments with democracy were committed to a unified form of representative self-government. Instead, they are competing mobs hoping to cut the biggest slice of the pie for themselves.

And that is the fatal flaw in trying to impose a democracy on a mob. If one sends a mob to vote, one ends up governed by the mob that has the biggest guns.

Heaven From the Cesspool

Heaven From the Cesspool
Vol: 52 Issue: 28 Saturday, January 28, 2006

Heaven From the Cesspool

It s been observed that, Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die . It makes you wonder why is that? Since the worst thing anybody can do to another human being is kill them and the most desirable outcome for any Christian is to go home to glory. . . what s up with that, anyway?

The Bible describes heaven as a place where the streets are made from gold, and where the pure river of the water of Life proceeds out from the throne of God and of the Lamb where there shall be no night, since God Himself with illuminate it and so on.

What kind of mental image does this give you?

To me, it sounds pretty neat, but . . . somehow, not.

Please don t run screaming from the room screaming blasphemy just yet I m not finished. Give me a few more lines.

I recall sitting between a couple of sand dunes, surveying the wind-swept beach on one of North Carolina s Outer Banks, watching as the breakers crashed into the pilings on the nearby pier. The sun was shining, the breeze was warm; it was altogether an idyllic scene.

The beauty was breathtaking. Alone with the Lord, I mused about what heaven must REALLY be like, if this wasn t it. Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, John s description of heaven was, um, nice, but where I was sitting was pretty nice, too. There were no rivers of living water, but I know that I am saved and have eternal life already.

The sand isn’t made of gold, but what value will gold have in eternity, anyway? It will pave the streets, as common as the sand. I like the sand.

And I LIKE the night; I ve sat in that exact same spot at night, and when the breeze is warm and the stars are out, with the moon reflecting off the ocean it is no less idyllic than it is during the day.

I enquired of the Lord, and I began to get a bit of the Big Picture, as seen from outside of space and time. (No, I wasn t smoking anything and I didn t start to hear voices).

Instead, I thought about what the Bible said about heaven, and more to the point, what the Bible says about our Big Blue Marble.

The Bible describes the fall of Lucifer, his sin, and his ejection from heaven, together with the third of the angels who rebelled with him. When they were cast from heaven, where did they go?

The Book of Job says: And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. (Job 1:7, 2:2)

It has been my experience in studying God s Word that when He causes something to be repeated, as in this case, it is worth giving it an extra look.

When Satan and his crew cast from heaven, they were cast to the earth, what the theologians call the cosmos diabolicus or literally, a world of evil. To the angels, it was the worst place they could imagine — a place of involuntary and horrific exile.

Planet Earth is the one place in the universe where sin can exist without throwing the entire universe out of balance, thanks to the fact it has an environment that contains it.

Our environment, which sustains us, also contains us and keeps us from doing to the universe what we have already done to our planet.

Indeed, we managed to get to the outer fringes of our planet and what did we do? Filled it with orbiting space junk, some of which threatens OTHER orbiting space junk, such as the international space station.

Meanwhile, back on earth . . . when the fallen angels were cast to earth, it was an astonishing drop. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isaiah 14:12)

To the angels, the beautiful seaside scene I described earlier is a cesspool of sin, a place of punishment to the angels who rebelled, a place so horrible, that seen from the heavenly perspective, merely being stuck here was enough to turn Lucifer the Archangel into Satan the Destroyer.

Imagine our planet from God s perspective. Everything is stained by sin. The beautiful beach scene? Stained by sin. The ground we walk on? Stained by sin.

I tried to imagine that stain for what it is, and of course, I cannot. I can only defer to the Bible s description of sin. It is so filthy, so repugnant, so disgusting, that God can t bear to view it.

When God created Adam, He created a special place for him. The Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve fell, they were first cast OUT of the Garden, and into the cesspool where sin was allowed to operate freely.

Jerusalem sits in the middle of the cesspool. In the center of Jerusalem was the Temple, a place kept scrubbed of the taint of sin by the Levitical priesthood, and the Holy of Holies, a place scrubbed even more carefully.

The only place where God would commune with sinful man on this sin-stained planet was that tiny place where the muck of sin was scrubbed away as much as possible.

Until even that place became so buried in the muck and mire of sin that, after four hundred years of silence, He decided to Personally scrub it –and us — clean of it, once and for all.

Scripture says the angels were astonished that the Lord of Glory would assume human form, step out of sinless and perfect eternity, and wallow in the mire of sin with sinful humanity. Every step for Him must have been an agony, like walking knee-deep in sewage.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Hebrews 2:9)

It is a measure of how disgusting sin is to God. The fact it was the place God cast the rebellious angels is revealing. To the angels, our beautiful planet earth is a leper colony. We mortal humans are little more than bugs, willingly wallowing in the yuck of sin, yea, REVELING in it.

Yet the Scripture says that the angels are fascinated by us, and by our plight, and astonished by our unwillingness to climb out of the muck. It amazes them that men love the world, since they see it for what it is, and have some basis for comparison between it and the things of the spirit.

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with SO GREAT A CLOUD OF WITNESSES, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us . . . (Hebrews 12:1)

For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and TO ANGELS, and to men. (1 Corinthians 4:9)

Scripture tells us that; For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

We cannot imagine heaven, we can only compare it to earth and all its beauty and wonderment, and realize that the earth is the universe s garbage dump. Heaven is like the Bible describes it; but it is much more.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Corinthians 2:9)

What IS death, that we fear it? In a word, separation. Death separates us from our loved ones. Death takes our loved ones from us, separating us from them until eternity.

Sin is a form of death. It separated the fallen angels from fellowship with God. It separates the unsaved from God. Revelation 20:14 speaks of the Great White Throne Judgment in which unbelievers are cast into the Lake of Fire as the second death — a second and permanent separation.

Sin separates us from God, our sin nature blinds us to that fact and so we love the world, and thereby astonish the angels. Picture the nastiest, gooeyest, smelliest substance you can think of, and imagine being in it up to your neck. From the angelic perspective, that s where we are, and most of us are loving it, until we get saved.

Jesus said, Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. (Luke 15:10) The angels know what that sinner has just escaped from.

Jesus also describes what we become in eternity in Luke 20:36, Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Paul tells us that we will receive new, immortal bodies. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Corinthians 15:49-50)

What is heaven like? I don t know.

But I know what a beautiful, sunny day, a warm ocean breeze and the sights and sounds of the waves as they gently break on the shore is like.

And compared to heaven, it s a cesspool.

To the angels, it is a place of exile, a leper colony, a place where the fallen angels were sent to await their fate at the Great White Throne. Our ‘beautiful’ planet is the angelic ‘hell’ to which they were cast to await sentencing to the Lake of Fire.

But we will be ‘equal to the angels’ says the Lord, in our immortal, sin-free bodies, and equal to the angels in understanding just HOW evil and repugnant this place really is, from the perspective of the spirit.

Why is it, then, that everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die?

Because if we knew what awaits us there, we d all jump off a cliff tomorrow.

I got a phone call this morning from Captain Rick telling me the weather is just right for going out on the ‘Scarlet Lady’ to chase around some tuna. I fear I won’t be getting too many more opportunities this year. This morning’s briefing is, therefore, a re-publication of one of my favorite columns (while I play hookey). Thanks for your indulgence. – Jack

Canada’s Red State Revolution

Canada’s Red State Revolution
Vol: 52 Issue: 27 Friday, January 27, 2006

Canadians, fed up with their national identity being reduced to, ‘we’re not the Americans’, threw out the Liberal government last week, handing power to the Conservative Party for the first time in more than a decade.

Canada’s government is a parliamentary system. That is to say, Canadians do not vote for an individual leader as in the case in the US. Individual voters cast ballots for their party’s candidate for that ‘riding’ (similar to a voting precinct).

When the voting is done, whichever party holds the majority of seats in the parliament chooses the national leader. When the Liberals held the majority, the national leader was Paul Martin, who succeeded Jean Chretien.

When the Republicans captured the White House in 2000, Canadian Liberals were as furious as were their liberal US counterparts, (and seemed, at least to me, to become just as unhinged).

As an interesting aside, I note that American liberals are returning the favor. Rosie O’Donnell called it “a sad day for Canada when the Liberal government has been ousted by the Republican Right.”

Rosie O’Donnell’s comment exposes the secret of liberal double-speak.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t know what you are talking about, as long as your audience doesn’t either. Ignorance is bliss.

For the record, Canada doesn’t have a Republican party because Canada isn’t a republic, it is a democracy.

America, (where Rosie O’Donnell’s celebrity status somehow makes her smarter) isn’t a democracy, it is a Republic.

Canada has a Conservative Party, which corresponds to American Republicans only in that they share certain universal conservative values. Canadian conservatives oppose gun registration, gay marriage, unwarranted government intrusion, etc., as do most US conservatives, regardless of party affiliation.

New Prime Minister Stephen Harper is on record opposing the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouses gases and once referred to Canada as a “northern European welfare state” weighed down by too many social programs.

Assessment:

Canada’s official policy of ‘multiculturalism’ was the brainchild of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the flamboyant Liberal leader during Canada’s turbulent Sixties.

Nobody ever gave Trudeau enough credit for his political astuteness. Thanks to Trudeau, the waves of grateful immigrants that flooded to Canada’s largest cities parked their votes with the party who let them in, giving the Liberals the lock on the immigrant vote for decades.

Take a look at America’s Blue states. All the big cities are havens of multiculturalism as well as Democratic strongholds.

In Canada, all the big cities voted Liberal as well. The Conservative Party, for example, won no seats in Canada s three major cities: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Canada’s mainstream media, (even more liberal than America’s) launched a propaganda barrage against the Conservatives and their leadership.

But all of rural Canada voted conservative, pretty much mirror imaging America’s Red State/Blue State electoral map.

Another interesting similarity between the two political revolutions is the role God plays in each.

George Bush’s profession of Christianity became a big election issue, with liberal Democrats darkly warning of a Bush theocracy. One liberal took the US electoral map and labeled the Red States ‘Jesus Land’. Every mainstream media story about Candidate Bush found a way to inject the words ‘evangelical’ and ‘fundamentalist’ somewhere.

In Canada, the mainstream media tried to demonize Harper by tying him to American Christian conservatives and saying Harper had a hidden religious agenda.

In both cases, the mainstream media failed to recognize that their audience shared that ‘hidden religious agenda’. Indeed, Harper concluded his victory speech using words unheard from any Canadian political leader in decades:

“God bless Canada.”

Officially Terrorist . . Palestinians Elect Hamas

Officially Terrorist . . Palestinians Elect Hamas
Vol: 52 Issue: 26 Thursday, January 26, 2006

Officially Terrorist . . Palestinians Elect Hamas

Two conflicting stories popped up in this morning’s Jerusalem Post. The first, headlined “Tourism to Israel Increases by 27%” competed for space with the story reporting the first democratic election of a terrorist government in modern history.

It was a study in contrasts. One story celebrated a ‘victory’ over terror as evidenced by the return of tourism.

The other lamented the election victory of Palestinian terrorists vowing to combine their newly attained political power with terrorism to achieve their goal of Israel’s destruction.

Hamas won almost all of the 16 constituencies in the West Bank and Gaza, in particular the Jerusalem district, where Hamas won all four seats allocated for Muslim candidates.

The Palestinian parliament has 132 seats. Wednesday’s election was split into a vote for 66 seats for local districts and 66 for a national ballot. In the West Bank, Hamas won all nine seats in the Hebron district, four of the five seats in Ramallah and captured the majority of seats in Nablus, Jenin, Qalqilyah, Tul Karm and Salfit.

In the Gaza Strip, Hamas was the sole victor in the northern, Gaza City and Dir al-Balah districts. The group won four of the five seats in Khan Yunis, where Fatah candidate Mohammed Dahlan apparently won the fifth seat. Fatah won the majority of seats in Rafah.

“Hamas has won more than 70 seats in Gaza and the West Bank, which gives it more than 50 percent of the vote,” said senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyah early Thursday.

On hearing the election results, the entire Palestinian Authority tendered its resignation while Mahmoud Abbas asked Hamas to form a new government. He vowed that Fatah would refuse to join any coalition government formed by Hamas.

“Fatah rejects participating in a government formed by Hamas,” Jibril al-Rajoub, a senior Fatah official in the West Bank, told Reuters. “Hamas has to take up its responsibilities. Fatah will act as a responsible opposition.”

Fatah official and Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat announced, “Hamas will be asked to form the new government. We in Fatah will not join them. We will be a loyal opposition and rebuild the party.”

Assessment:

The election, boiled down to its basics, put the choice between peace and continued confrontation with Israel in front of ordinary Palestinians.

Fatah ran on its promise to resume peaceful negotiations with Israel. Hamas vowed to never give up the armed struggle, promised it would never disarm, and assured Palestinian voters that it would never revise its charter.

By charter, Hamas exists for only one purpose — the destruction of Israel.

Fatah, measured against any other standard in the world, is ALSO a terrorist organization. It’s military wing, the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade, doesn’t have as large a body count to its credit as does Hamas, but it is every bit as merciless and deadly.

Fatah was created and nurtured by Yasser Arafat and, while it never abandoned terror as a method of political persuasion, it was willing to at least pursue a path of negotiating for peace with Israel. Hamas promises Israel’s total destruction as the only acceptable settlement for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Palestinian voters rejected compromise, choosing continued confrontation instead.

This is key . . . heretofore, one could point to Yasser Arafat, or corruption within the Palestinian Authority, or cronyism or nepotism as causes for the failure of peace negotiations.

It was possible to maintain the fiction that the Palestinians wanted peace but it was their leadership that was unwilling. Not any more.

Hamas was elected in what was, according to observers, a legitimate, honest democratic election. The Palestinian people have spoken, and, by their vote, they have chosen terror instead of compromise, embracing war and eschewing any hope for peace.

Washington has only itself to blame. The Bush administration’s unwavering faith in democracy caused it to push for Palestinian elections, convinced, as it is, of the existence of a moderate majority among Islam.

It was convinced that, if the majoriy of Palestinians turned out to vote, they would overwhelmingly reject violence and terror and embrace peaceful coexistence with Israel. The election was touted as the Palestinian’s first real chance at a popular peace.

Voter turnout was massive; nearly 78 percent of eligible Palestinians showed up at the polls — and voted into existence the world’s first officially terrorist government.

What is next? Well, in the absence of talks, Israel is more likely to pursue unilateral moves to set a final border with the West Bank following its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip last year.

Israel will continue to build its security fence, and will have little reason not to annex any Palestinian-claimed territory within the fence boundaries in the name of security.

The Hamas victory drives the final nail into the coffin of the ‘Road Map for Peace’, now as dead as the Oslo Agreement. The Road Map’s FIRST requirement was to disarm and disband Hamas. Instead, the Palestinian people ELECTED them.

Peace between Israel and the Arabs is a key element in Bible prophecy. According to the prophet Daniel, (9:27) a leader will arise from the revived Roman Empire of the last days who, the prophet says, will CONFIRM a seven-year peace deal with Israel using a process that will ‘divide the land for gain.’ (11:39)

The seven year Oslo land for peace formula exists, but remains in limbo, unconfirmed and unconfirmable without the cooperation of the Palestinian side.

The United States has joined Israel in ruling out working with any Palestinian official with ties to Hamas, but the European Union offered its congratulations and promised to work with anybody, saying only that Hamas must be ready to work for peace with Israel if it joins the Palestinian government.

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” (Daniel 9:27)

Daniel’s scenario continues to develop, precisely along the lines predicted for the last days.

“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)

We are well past the beginning. Our redemption grows ever nearer. So does the sense of urgency for those of us chosen to serve as watchmen on the wall.

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

Abortion: Losing Ground In Polls?

Abortion: Losing Ground In Polls?
Vol: 52 Issue: 25 Wednesday, January 25, 2006

According to some recent polls, including a new Gallup Poll, national support for abortion in the United States is waning. Ten years ago, support for abortion was in the high 60’s. The Gallup Poll indicates that figure is hovering around fifty percent.

At the same time, ALL the Democrats on the confirmation committee voted against Sam Alito. In their explanations, all expressed some fear that Judge Alito would vote against Roe v. Wade.

So, according to the polls, the country is even split between those who support abortion and those who oppose it. The Senate is split evenly between those who support abortion and those who oppose it.

The abortion issue is the political campaign tool of choice among socialists/liberals. Abortion is Big Business, worth about $900 billion per year. Don’t let the enormity of that figure drown out its significance.

Millions, billions, trillions, they are numbers we hear all the time. They roll off our minds like water from a duck’s back. We have no frame of reference against which to measure $900 billion so it fades away into the ‘white noise’ of one’s mind.

Let’s consider those numbers differently. Few of us (if any) can grasp the difference between $1 million and $1 billion. When we work with dollars, they are in tens, hundreds and thousands.

Numbers higher than that fall into a different category, like 20 year mortgages vs. 30 year mortgages. A stack of money big enough to buy a house is not something we can picture easily in our minds.

Instead, let’s consider it in values we are more familiar with, like time.

A million seconds from now equals 12 days. We can get a handle on that. That would be, uh, February 6, 2005.

A BILLION seconds from now equals 32 years. That would be, uh, January 25, 2037. (I will be, uh, 85.)

Abortion is a business doing $900 billion a year, (which is pretty close, so to speak, to a trillion)

A TRILLION seconds from now equals 32,000 years. That would be, lessee, January 25, 32,005. I will be, ummm, thirty thousand and fifty three. (I might even be dead by then.)

So, the Left embraces abortion because without the abortion lobby’s money, the only other issue they have to shop around for special-interest donations is their opposition to a war they both supported and authorized.

(If one only has a single issue around which to build an opposition, it helps if you didn’t vote for it.)

Assessment:

The science of semantics proves its effectiveness when one considers its application to the abortion ‘debate’. I set off ‘debate’ in quotes because the whole controversy is based in deception.

Consider the wide range of results in the various abortion polls. Americans are happy enough to identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ — but that number drops dramatically when they are asked to identify themselves as ‘pro-abortion’.

If asked if they support the killing of a million and a half unborn children a year, the answer is an overwhelming no. Frame the same question around ‘women’s rights’ or ‘individual liberties’ and abortion ‘rights’ suddenly enjoys majority support again.

Look with new eyes at just how powerful semantics (the science of using words to evoke a particular emotional response) really is.

Use the right words, and the majority of people are suddenly incapable of making the mental connection between a woman’s ‘right to choose’ and the death of an innocent child.

It is no secret that the majority of abortions are conducted as a matter of convenience. Abortion proponents claim the right of abortion is necessary to protect the health of women, or in cases of rape or incest.

It has NOTHING whatever to do with protecting the $900 billion abortion industry. After all, the Democrats are there to protect ‘choice’ for the LITTLE people — while keeping those who advocate choices other than abortion away from abortion clinics.

It is the Republicans that is the Party of Big Business, the Party of Corruption, The Party of Liars, etc., etc.

According to a 2004 AGI study on abortion statistics, 67% chose abortion simply because they did not want the inconvenience of a child, another 8% because they liked their sexual partner well enough to sleep with them, but not well enough to have a child with them. 7% because they were still children themselves and just too young to be a parent, 7% due to stated (whether real or imaginary) health concerns, either of the mother or the fetus and 4% because it would interfere with their career path.

Only .5% were due to rape or incest, .5% to conceal an otherwise secret relationship and 5% for reasons unstated. Taken together, fully ninety percent of all abortions (about 1.15 million a year) are the result of a woman’s right to choose to have sex without consequences.

Let’s take away the semantics and reframe the question: “Do you support a woman’s right to kill her unborn child as a form of birth control?”

Such a question has never been put to the public in a national poll. If it were, the pro-abortion lobby would immediately denounce it as a ‘loaded’ question, — an open admission that it isn’t what one says that is important, but they way one says it.

And they’d get plenty of agreement from the deluded masses who willingly embrace both the deceivers and the deception. The truth in the 21st century isn’t what is true, it is what one prefers to believe is true. And they don’t mind admitting it, provided they don’t have to say so in so many words.

The Bible says that the springboard that propels the antichrist to power is his ability to manipulate the truth and deceive the masses into believing he is the messiah.

“And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,” (2nd Thessalonians 2:8-9)

It also exposes the social worldview that will make his deception possible:

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who BELIEVED NOT THE TRUTH, but had PLEASURE IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12)

The same kind of social worldview that can find a distinction worthy of debate between the concepts of pro-choice and pro-abortion — depending on how one frames the question.

Ahmadinejad’s ‘Messiah’

Ahmadinejad’s ‘Messiah’
Vol: 52 Issue: 24 Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Yesterday, a reader emailed me about Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s expectation of the coming of the 12th Imam.

To recap, in a November 16 speech in Tehran to senior clerics who had come from all over Iran to hear him, the new president said the main mission of his government was to; “pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi (may God hasten his reappearance)”.

The mystical 12th Imam of Shia Islam disappeared as a child in 941AD, and Shia Muslims have awaited his reappearance ever since, believing that when he returns, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about the Last Judgment and the end of the world.

In order to prepare for the Mahdi, Ahmadinejad said, “Iran should turn into a mighty, advanced, and model Islamic society”. Iranians should “refrain from leaning toward any Western school of thought” and abstain from “luxurious lives” and other excesses.

Ahmadinejad is also rumored to have ordered his cabinet to sign a loyalty pact with the 12th Imam and throw it down a well near the holy city of Qom, (where they believe the imam is hiding).

The reader wanted to know, since both Islam and Christianity have an end-time scenario that lasts for seven years, could the 12th Imam also be the antichrist?

He also wanted to know if the similarities (Messianic figure, seven years’ duration, persecution, etc. ) between Islamic and Christian eschatology indicated both religions were equally valid?

There are a number of seeming similarities between Islam and Judeo-Christianity. Indeed, there are enough to give rise to the erroneous belief that Allah is just another name for God.

Like Christians and Jews, the Koran claims Divine inspiration. Islam refers to many figures from the Bible, including Abraham, Ishmael, Moses, and Jesus.

Islam shares a belief in a final seven year period of apocalypse where sinful man is judged together with the expectation of a messiah figure who will come at the end of the age.

But it isn’t Islam’s similarities but its differences with Judeo-Christianity that tell the real story.

First, let’s examine what can be known of God from His revealed Word:

God is a Person, Who can be known, Who reveals Himself in Three Persons, He is love, He is intimately involved in the affairs of men, He is a Spirit, He has a personality, He loves, He thinks, is omniscient, omnipotent and, most importantly, is a God of grace.

Allah is revealed by the Koran as unknowable, far off, neither Father, Son nor Spirit, is uninvolved in the affairs of man, does not interact with man, is defined only as what Allah is NOT, rather that what he is, and is the author, not of grace, but of judgment.

The Koran is unique among all the sacred writings in the entire world — because it alone counsels its followers to make war on unbelievers in order to earn salvation by dying in jihad.

Former AG John Ashcroft once got himself into hot water for summarizing the differences this way:

“Islam is a religion in which god expects your son to die for him, whereas Christianity is a faith in which God sent His Son to die for you.”

Is Islam the religion of the antichrist? Or could the 12 Imam be the antichrist? The Apostle John described the religion of the antichrist as having two horns like a Lamb, (counterfeit Christianity) but that ‘spake as a dragon.’ (Satan) (Revelation 13:11)

It is doubtful that the 12th Imam will be universally accepted as a ‘man of peace’ described by Daniel, (but I admit it is a tantalizing thought.)

Assessment:

Islam claims that Allah is the same God Who is revealed in the Bible. Mohammed was an itinerant trader who spent a great deal of time among Christians and Jews some six hundred years AFTER Christ.

He was exposed to the teachings of both faiths, incorporating parts of each into his subsequent ‘third testament’, the Koran.

Mohammed attests to the truth and validity of both Testaments: (Suras 2:87, 29:46, 32:23, 5:44, 6:154, 6:155, 2:87, 5:46, 5:68, 29:46 and 43:63)

For example, Sura 5:68 – “O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law (Torah), the Gospel (Injeel), and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.”

But the Koran itself is a mass of contradictions with the Revealed Word, falsifying both the facts and teachings of both testaments.

According to the Koran, the line of spiritual succession goes through Ishmael and not Isaac. Moses was a Muslim. Jesus was not the Son of God, and was neither crucified nor Resurrected, but merely a prophet of some lesser status than Mohammed.

God DOES have a begotten Son (not made, but One with the Father), confirmed even by the Old Testament, as well as the New.

“Who hath ascended up into heaven or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in His fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the Earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, if thou canst tell?” (Proverbs 30:4)

And not only do adherents to Islam NOT read or study the Gospel,the possession of a Bible by one of the ‘People of the Book’ in Islamic fundamentalist states can result in a death sentence. (That seems a pretty revealing fact in and of itself.)

Belief in a single god does not mean that the God of Scripture is the one being worshipped by Islam. And, because the God of the Bible was known and worshipped many centuries before Mohammed came along, it is also clear who the true God is.

If the Koran accepts the Bible as the word of God, it should adhere to its teachings. If it does not, than it reveals itself and its source without need of additional comment.

The New Testament clearly states that prophets must follow the same God as the One revealed by the earliest prophets and not lead people to other false gods (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

The fact that Ahmadinejad is awaiting the coming of an Islamic messiah is not evidence of the Divine inspiration of the Koran. A quick skim through the Koran clearly establishes that Mohammed did not teach the God of the Bible.

What IS prophetically significant is that EVERYBODY, from obscure Islamic sects to Hollywood producers, all share some instinctive expectation of a coming judgment against the earth for its sins.

It is a gnawing, spiritual awareness so profound that even those who know nothing of prophecy and care nothing for the things of God can’t shake it.

That awareness cuts across religious, secular and political lines, together with a inexplicable sense of urgency that the time of reckoning is almost here.

Even the lost sense the end is approaching. The only real disagreement is in the details; Global warming? Nuclear war? Killer Asteroids? The result is the same.

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” (Romans 1:19)

Whether they choose to heed the evidence or not.