The Burden

The Burden
Vol: 61 Issue: 23 Monday, October 23, 2006

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told a group of Palestinian supporters last week that, “there could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state.”

Doesn’t she have anybody to screen her speeches? Is it possible that Secretary Rice doesn’t speak English? Or does she believe nobody pays any attention to what she is saying, as long as she uses a lot of words in the process?

It is fair to say that the Palestinian people have finally come up with a way to distinguish themselves as a ‘people’ in their own right, rather than simply being displaced Arabs with no other homeland that will claim them.

They are the most overtly pro-jihad, terrorist society in the world, exceeding even Iran in their devotion to the cause of ‘Death to Israel’.

And now the Secretary of State is pronouncing the establishment of a pro-jihad terrorist state as America’s potentially greatest legacy?

Greater than, say, the US salvation of Europe from the Kaiser and the Ottoman Empire in 1917-1918? A greater legacy than saving the world from the Nazis and Imperial Japanese in 1945?

The establishment of a Palestinian state run by an openly terrorist government freely elected by an openly terrorist populace would be a greater legacy than the Marshall Plan that turned the losers of World War II into two of the world’s most prosperous democracies?

This would be a Palestinian state dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Hamas was elected in what were unarguably free elections. There was no hint of scandal — it was a triumph for the exporters of American democratic principles abroad.

Given the choices between the allegedly ‘moderate’ former PLO terrorist Mahmoud Abbas, and the overtly, proudly terrorist Hamas, who ran on an uncompromising platform of annihilating Israel, the Palestinian ‘people’ chose Hamas.

Faced with a choice, the Palestinian voters picked the most ardent and committed Jew-haters and America-haters.

Of that people, (the ones who elected Hamas) Dr. Rice said — out loud — that “there could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state.”

I’m not making this up.


“Our cause is liberation from occupation,” Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said in a speech marking the end of Ramadan. “It is a cause of Jerusalem, the land, the state, prisoners and refugees.”

In the aftermath of Pope Benedict XVI s speech at a Bavarian university, which included a quote by a 14th century Byzantine emperor, the state-run television station of the Palestinian Authority described the pontiff as arrogant, stupid, and criminal. The pope will be judged by Allah on the day when eyes stare in terror, the jihad network predicted.

This year, Secretary Rice pressured Israel into turning over checkpoints on the Gaza/Sinai border to a joint force of Palestinians and Egyptians. Since then, Palestinian terrorists have smuggled 15 tons of explosives over the border, as well as quantities of rifles, ammunition, rockets and other weapons and munitions.

Now she wants the U.S. to fund an expansion of Abbas s Presidential Guard from 2,500 to 6,000 troops. She also wants Israel to approve the transfer of additional weapons to the ironically misnamed Palestinian security forces.

The state Secretary Rice says will be America’s greatest legacy will either be run by Hamas (if democracy is allowed to operate unfettered) or by Mahmoud Abbas, the head of Fatah.

The Palestinian Martryr’s Brigades are responsible for every suicide bombing inside Israel in the last two years. Rice s State Department considers the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades a terrorist group.

Members of the Brigades are members of Fatah. It was started by Arafat. When they overran Fatah headquarters in 2003, the Israelis discovered documentation that the party had recently transferred $50,000 to the Brigades.

The Palestinian Martryr’s Brigages are now under Abbas’ command. Everybody knows it. Abbas has authorized the payment of annuities to the families of suicide bombers.

Of both Hamas and the Brigades, Rice s favorite Palestinian politician says, Israel calls them terrorists, we call them strugglers. Also, Allah loves the martyr.

Handing over a state to these deranged lunatics will be America’s greatest legacy?

The prophet Zechariah says that in the last days, God will make Jerusalem a ‘cup of trembling’ and a ‘burdensome stone’ and warns that ‘all the nations that burden themselves with her will be cut in pieces’. [Zechariah 12:2-3)

The collective madness of the world’s power-brokers, as expressed by Condi Rice’s pronouncement of the establishment of a terrorist state dedicated to Israel’s destruction next door to Israel as America’s greatest legacy, gives new dimension to the whole ‘cup of trembling’ theme.

It is incomprehensible that anyone would believe peace could result from granting statehood to unrepentent terrorists. It defies the imagination to think that Condi Rice could believe the majority of Palestinians (who elected Hamas) are really just seeking peaceful coexistence with Israel.

In recent opinion polls, 61 percent of Palestinians supported suicide bombings and terrorism, 56 percent favored rocket attacks on civilian targets, 75 percent endorsed the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers (which sparked a mini-war on Israel s northern border in July and August), and 97 percent were pro-Hezbollah.

This is not a secret. The United States government knows how to read polls and how to interpret them. That is how they GOT to be the United States government.

The only conclusion that makes any sense is that the administration is the one outlined by Zechariah.

Fear of Islam. (The cup of trembling.) The administration is trying to appease world wide Islam by siding with the Palestinians.

The main reason given for the war on terror is US support for Israel with its capital at Jerusalem.

Although the US ‘burdened’ ITSELF with Israel, the subsequent Islamic war against the West resulted in the very real prospect of America and the Western democracies being ‘cut in pieces’ — both politically and literally.

Consequently, Israeli aspirations of Jerusalem as her eternal capital have become a burdensome stone ‘for all people’. The US would like to relieve the West of its burden.

So much so that Condi Rice considers dividing Jerusalem between the Jews and the terrorists America’s greatest potential legacy.

“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)

Kim Jong il: “Sorry About the Bomb Thing”

Kim Jong il: “Sorry About the Bomb Thing”
Vol: 61 Issue: 21 Saturday, October 21, 2006

According to published reports from out of South Korea, Kim Jong il told his Chinese visitors that he “is sorry about the nuclear test” and told them that Pyongyang had no plans for additional blasts.” (That’s a direct quote from CTV News.)

I’m trying to imagine the scene in my mind’s eye. “A nuclear blast? Ooops! Did I do that? What was I thinking? Well, I won’t do THAT anymore!” And thus assured, the world breathes a big sigh of relief.

The news of Kim’s meek apology to the Chinese is contested by no less an authority than Dr. Condoleeza Rice.

“I don’t know whether or not Kim Jong-Il said any such thing,” Dr Rice said on a flight from Beijing to Moscow, where she is continuing her talks with nations involved in the stalled six-way talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear program.

“But the Chinese, in a fairly thorough briefing about the talks, said nothing about such an apology for having launched a test,” she said.

ABCNews reported the allegedly apology, saying, “Coming under united international pressure, Kim Jong Il reportedly apologized for the Oct. 9 nuclear detonation and said he wouldn’t test any more bombs.”


It isn’t ‘united’ international pressure that impresses Kim Jong il. What impressed Kim Jong il was the news of a debate among Chinese generals in Beijing about regime change in Pyongyang.

Kim might be nuts, but he isn’t stupid. And the Chinese are neither. Kim has gone too far — even for inscrutable China — and they can’t allow a nuclear North Korea. If they do, then Japan is certain to be next. And Taiwan is equally certain to follow.

China has more to lose with a nuclear Kim Jong il than the West does. North Korea is totally dependent on China for its survival.

A Chinese embargo on North Korea would starve the regime out of existence in a matter of weeks. But China would then have to contend with millions of surviving refugees. China holds all the cards, but it really can’t afford to win. It is a conundrum.

No matter how one looks at it, North Korea is a catastrophe looking for the time and place to present itself. The decision facing China is how to minimize the consequences of the inevitable.

I believe that we are witnessing a major event in the ongoing development of the fourth sphere of last days’ global power the Bible calls the Kings of the East.

The Apostle John identifies the Kings of the East as a vast army of two hundred million men:

“And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand:(200 million) and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the FIRE, and by the SMOKE, and by the BRIMSTONE, which issued out of their mouths.” (Revelation 9:16-18)

For two millennia, the faithful scratched their heads and wondered ‘what the heck does THAT mean?’. John was attempting to describe what he saw using the vocabulary available to him in the 1st century.

From our vantage point in time and space, it is an unmistakable description of nuclear war, even given the vocabulary limits John was working with.

The North Korean problem won’t go away by itself, and China has the most to lose if it isn’t made to go away somehow.

I don’t claim to have some secret knowledge of the future apart from the same Bible you have. But the focus is on that fourth sphere of global influence, the threat is that posed by fire, smoke and brimstone, and the likely outcome will be a sea change in the political face of the region.

One possible scenario is a unified Korea, but the drain absorbing the North would put on the world’s sixth-largest economy would be crippling. A unified Korea’s natural ally would be China, not Washington. America would serve no purpose maintaining troops on the Korean peninsula.

It logically follows that Japan would look increasingly toward economic and military alliances in Asia and Western influence would decline. Which follows the Bible’s scenario of four distinct and separate spheres of global power in the last days.

Gog-Magog (Russia, Iran and allies) the Kings of the South (the surviving Islamic world) the revived Roman Empire and the Kings of the East. And no mention of a fifth superpower resembling America.

Tick . . .tick. . .tick . . .

Too Bad They Both Can’t Lose

Too Bad They Both Can’t Lose
Vol: 61 Issue: 20 Friday, October 20, 2006

Yesterday, the New York Times ran a piece explaining just how difficult and time consuming it is going to be to vote in this mid-term election.

According to the Times, there will be long lines, traffic jams, voting booth problems and so your vote probably won’t get counted. So stay home and don’t bother.

And this morning, Dan Rappaport, a former Democratic lawmaker who is now somehow involved in the voting process (I missed the whole interview) was telling Fox News that the mid-term elections will raise the specter of Election 2000, hanging chads and all.

The consensus opinion is that the system is broken, so don’t bother voting. While I was pondering this, a political commercial came on with a single message; “Don’t Vote.” This one was produced by the AARP whose spokesperson later directs the viewer to their website,

It is worth noting the following, however. The New York Times is overwhelmingly liberal and wants to see the Democrats win. Fox News might not be liberal, but Dan Rappaport is a Democrat and he wants to see the Democrats win. AARP is famously liberal and wants to see the Democrats win.

And since there are more Republican voters than there are Democratic voters, the fewer voters that show up at the polls, the better the Democrats’ chances become.

In their quest for power, they’ve subverted our troops on the battlefield, they’ve subverted the media, they’ve tarnished our national image abroad, so I shouldn’t be surprised to see them subvert the election process itself.

I’ve mentioned in the past that I’m not a big sports guy. My ‘Superbowl’ only comes once every four years, with a playoff every two years. I love the silly season for its silliness, but ‘silly’ was redefined after September 11. What used to be silly is now deadly serious.

Making it even more serious is the fact that the Republicans don’t deserve to win. Its like one of those Chinese puzzles. If we throw the bums out as they deserve, we lose as a country, because the other choice is unthinkable.

What would a Democratically controlled Congress look like in the term leading up to the Superbowl election in ’08? The only agenda the Democrats have for the next two years is to win in ’08 by making the Republicans look weak and ineffective. That’s not as hard as it sounds, even if (and note I said ‘if’) the Republicans WEREN’T weak and ineffective.

To make the majority party look weak and ineffective in a two-party system, all the minority party has to do is block everything the majority (i,e; the government of the United States) tries to do.

It’s worked so far. The war in Iraq has been turned into a political football. The minority has pronounced the war ‘a lost cause’ on dozens of occasions, without regard to the morale of our forces on the battlefield.

The war in Iraq has been mishandled. I don’t argue that point. But the pronouncement that it is a ‘lost cause’ sends the wrong message to our forces and the right message to the enemy.

Allowing such treasonous cretins to govern the Congress is far more terrifying to me than allowing George Bush two more years of majority government. Even if Bush doesn’t deserve it.

We, the people deserve it.


If the Democrats capture the majority in the House or Senate, consider some of the ramifications. First, to your wallet. High on their agenda is their plan to repeal the Bush ‘tax cuts for the rich.’

America is currently enjoying what amounts to statistical full employment. Wages are up. The Dow just closed above 12,000. Why? Because most of us WORK for ‘the rich’. That’s how we earn our livings. Rich people write our paychecks. (Or at least, they are richer than we are).

Repealing the tax cuts means ‘the rich’ (who want to stay rich) take the money they WERE paying you and redirecting it back to the government as taxes.

Now your paycheck has been siphoned off by the government and you are getting a pink slip. It was the tax cuts that provided the incentive to expand and hire more people with the money that used to go to taxes.

Economic mumbo-jumbo aside, this is just common sense. When it goes BACK to taxes, what sustains the expansion?

And since the expansion is paying down the debt now, why does the government need that money back? It doesn’t. But class warfare is the battlefield of the liberal, and the ‘enemy’ is, mindlessly, the rich. It doesn’t have to make sense. It works anyway.

Then there is the war. Some Democrats have already promised to present articles of impeachment against the president as soon as they get majority control of the Judiciary Committee.

What does introducing articles of impeachment in the midst of a war against the Commander-in-Chief say to the enemy? Or to our forces in combat? What kind of government would we end up with? How does a wartime president successfully fight a war in the midst of such opposition?

It is, after all, to America’s advantage that the war come to a successful conclusion, and not just a conclusion. But a successful conclusion (i.e. American victory) is decidedly to the disadvantage of Democratic political fortunes.

To win power for themselves politically, they need for all of us to lose on the battlefield.

Like I said, it is like one of those Chinese puzzles.

That is the only reason that I can’t take any satisfaction at seeing the Republicans pay the political price for their incompetence.

The stakes are just too high.

Another Ramadan Moon

Another Ramadan Moon
Vol: 61 Issue: 19 Thursday, October 19, 2006

The Islamic holy month of Ramadan concludes October 23rd at sunset with the festival of Id al-Fitr. The final days of Ramadan are filled with heightened religious significance. It is widely believed in Iraq that fighting foreign occupation during the holy month puts them closer to Allah.

Which explains why October was the bloodiest month in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, with Iraqi civilians dying at the rate of fifty per day. Ramadan fever claimed sixty-nine US lives in Iraq during the same period.

On Thursday, October 12, Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Mosul, Saliba Chamoun, buried one of his priests, the latest victim of violence targeting Christians and other minorities in Iraq during Ramadan.

During that same violent week, there were reports that a 14-year-old boy was crucified in the Christian neighborhood of Albasra, in accordance with the express teaching of the Koran on how best to kill Christians.

“I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, then will I crucify you all together.” (Sura 7.124″

And once again, as has been his custom since 19 Islamic terrorists murdered three thousand Americans, President George W. Bush invited Islamic leaders to celebrate the Ramadan custom of ‘iftar’.

This year’s celebration was the president’s sixth since being in office, and he’s getting pretty good at it.

Bush started his iftar speech with the traditional Ramadan greeting of Ramadan Karim putting on his now-traditional Theologian-in-Chief hat and praising Islam as ‘a religion that brought hope and peace to more than a billion people worldwide.’

The president didn’t name any of the places where Islam allegedly brought hope and peace. Pakistan is a sectarian cesspool and terrorist breeding ground, most of the Islamic Middle East is in shambles, and wherever Islam has taken hold in Europe, the prevailing emotion isn’t hope, but fear.

A British father of two was convicted of a hate crime for putting up a banner in front of his home in the wake of recent Islamic protests in London over the Mohammed cartoons and the Pope’s remarks about Islam being a violent religion.

His banner, when compared to the signs being carried by Islamic protesters, was relatively mild; “Kill all Muslims who threaten us and our way of life.”

At least Gary Mathewson wasn’t calling for the deaths of all Muslims — just the enemy. The Islamic protesters were calling for the deaths of everyone from the Pope to ‘infidels’ in general.

Mathewson’s neighbor, Ian Pennington, filed a complaint, saying, “I thought it was stupid and a rather silly and ridiculous thing to do.” Pennington, a retired military officer with 23 years of service added, “This could have come to the attention of Islamic extremists, and we could have had a visitation.”

Islam is so hopeful and peaceful that it scared the pants off a retired military officer. And of course, it scared the pants off the court, who convicted Mathewson of “religiously aggravated disorderly conduct.”

Islam is so peaceful that nobody dared to bring any of the Islamic demonstrators that were carrying signs to ‘kill all Christians and Jews’ to court to face charges of ‘religiously aggravated disorderly conduct.’

Immediately after praising Islam as a religion of peace and love, the president contradicted his own statement, telling the assembled Islamic leaders;

You know that the majority of the victims of the terrorists have been innocent Muslims, and many of you have seen terrorist violence in your own cities and your streets, said the president, briefly acknowledging reality before drifting back to Islamic Pleasantville where;

We are proud to work with you to defeat the terrorists and extremists and help bring a brighter future to millions of Muslim people throughout the world who yearn for moderation and peace.


It’s been said that the secret to success and power is to ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer.’ That may explain the annual day of homage to Mohammed at the nation’s capital.

But that isn’t how the Islamic enemy sees it. To him it is evidence of weakness and a willingness to submit to Islamic dhimmitude. A ‘dhimmi’ is one who is permitted to practice a religion other than Islam within the Zone of Islam, but is subject to Islamic blasphemy laws.

The enemy recognizes that the White House would never dare to host a Christian religious celebration. Bush dare not even send out Christmas cards anymore. For the last four years, he and Laura have sent out ‘holiday greetings’.

The White House’s acknowledgment of Easter is an Easter Egg hunt, not a commemoration of the Last Supper. Jesus is banished from the public arena.

But Islam is welcomed and even granted presidential approval as a great religion of peace and love (whom we are coincidentally at war with).

The enemy knows that George Bush is a Christian. A Christian president who dare not mention Jesus but who acknowledges Allah as God and Mohammed as a prophet sounds pretty submissive to me. No doubt it sounds even more submissive to the enemy.

What is even more interesting is the news coverage of Ramadan. The news pages are filled with stories about happy Muslims and unhappy Muslims and how they spent their Ramadan.

The Palestinians ‘had the worst Ramadan ever’ while American Muslims had a great time, that kind of thing.

The rest of the news stories were about how Ramadan was responsible for an increase of death and destruction in Iraq.

There was the same eerie sense of disconnect to the news that there was to the president’s speech.

“Islam is a great religion of peace and hope and its highest holiday, Ramadan, is directly responsible for an annual increase in death and mayhem and destruction. We therefore celebrate this holy day with you.”

Somehow, this disconnect seemed to evade the President of the United States, his advisors and military officials, the State Department, and the majority of newspaper editors around the world.

They don’t want to offend the great religion of peace and hope by accidentally connecting the dots between Ramadan and the increase in Islamic violence.

It’s too dangerous.

“Judgment Cometh?”

“Judgment Cometh?”
Vol: 61 Issue: 18 Wednesday, October 18, 2006

According to ongoing reports in Worldnetdaily, there has been a series of warnings given to US Muslims to flee the United States in advance of an impending terrorist mega-attack.

WND’s report is confirmed by the al-Quds Media Center, who reported that Jamal Ismail, a senior journalist who once worked for Al-Jazeera television channel and is now head of the Al-Quds Media Center, said he received a phone call Thursday from Taliban leader Mulla Masoom Afghani.

Afghani said he was speaking from somewhere in Kandahar province. He read out the message in Arabic, which I recorded. In it he advised Muslim residents of America to get out to escape harm because the US could face big attacks in the month of Ramadan, said Jamal Ismail.

The main threat envisioned by the WND writers was a nuclear threat, using nuclear weapons it suggested were already in the country. There remain to this day some number of nuclear ‘suitcases’ unaccounted for since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I’ve heard numbers ranging from 161 to fewer than 100, but not a single report saying all are accounted for. If even one is unaccounted for, it is still out there, since nobody has had an unexpected nuclear explosion in the last 16 years.

And we are not talking about one, but somewhere between 100 and 161 of them.

The ‘nuclear suitcase’ was designed as a demolition device in the 1950’s for use by Russian saboteurs in the event of war.

Their existence has been confirmed by Russian officials, including Soviet/Russian General Alexandr Lebed, who supplied the figure ‘161’ to the US Senate when he briefed the US Senate in 1997.

Alexander Yablokov, former advisor to President Yeltsin on environmental issues, confirmed that the weapons Lebed referred to had been produced – though he did not say he agreed that some might be missing. Speaking on the NTV television channel, Yablokov stated: “I talked to those who did those bombs. And I know that they exist.”

Yablokov had earlier made this claim in a letter, dated September 9, 1997 in the weekly newspaper Novaya Gazeta: “The statement by Alexander Lebed concerning suitcases with nuclear bombs is definitely not groundless.”

Subsequent to the revelation of the nuclear suitcases, it was revealed that the United States also had developed similar weapons, called ‘nuclear backpacks’. On October 1, 1997, US Defense spokesman Captain Robert Doubleday admitted:

“I think we are aware that the Russian nuclear arsenal contained atomic demolition munitions which some people define or characterize as suitcase bombs. They are not really suitcase bombs since it requires two people to carry them, and they are not flat, so that they don’t fit in suitcases.”

Doubleday added: “We had munitions that were small like that, also. They were tactical nuclear weapons.”

I say all that to say the nuclear suitcases ARE real. And a significant number of them can’t be accounted for. Where are they?


In the 1970’s, Hollywood released a new Charles Bronson movie entitled ‘Telefon.’ The story centered around Bronson’s character, a KGB agent who was assigned to track down and assassinate Russian ‘sleeper agents’ living inside the United States.

A rogue agent was threatening to ‘activate’ the sleeper agents, and the Kremlin didn’t want to trigger a war. In the movie, the sleepers had been planted decades before. They owned homes and businesses, were important members of their communities — they were completely invisible.

When the call came via telephone (hence the movie’s title) the sleepers would dig out their long-stashed weapons and carry out their assignments.

It was absolutely chilling. And the ‘sleeper agent’ plot-line is altogether probable.

It is a certainty that Russian sleeper agents were inserted in the Kruschev era. And it is almost as certain that they brought weapons suitable to their assignments.

In the 1950’s, there was no array of sophisticated radiation detectors at border crossings. Nobody was inspecting inbound ship cargo in the 1950’s — heck, nobody is now.

One doesn’t have to be a conspiracist nut to conclude that some of those missing suitcase nukes have been here since the 1950’s, which is why they are officially unaccounted for by the Russian government.

Sleepers equipped with these weapons would be trained in how to shield the nuclear signature and could have had forty years to improve on their hiding places.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, I recall reading a story of a Russian general who was selling his medals at a Moscow flea market to buy food. I remember thinking at the time that there were hundreds of Russian generals, some of whom had information much more valuable than their medals.

If there were nuclear sleeper agents inside America, somebody knew who they were and where they were. Somebody, somewhere, would have access to that sleeper list.

And any general not selling his medals at flea markets was probably selling his services to the Russian mafia.

Osama has been dropping hints of a nuclear attack against the United States for years. There are rumors dating back to the mid-1990’s of his efforts to buy some of those missing Russian nukes.

Whole books have been written around various al-Qaeda nuclear scenarios. But nuclear weapons are hard to make.

(It took North Korea years, and their first test was something of a dud. Iran is still estimated to be years from achieving a working nuke)

And, post 9/11, they are almost impossible to smuggle into the country. My sister-in-law who lives in Canada had a radiation X-Ray the day before they were planning to fly out of Buffalo on a trip.

When she crossed the border, they found themselves encircled by armed ICE agents. She had set off the radiation detector at the border. Those detectors are pretty sensitive.

It is admittedly speculative, but when you get down to it, given the facts;

1) Russia was on the brink of nuclear war with the US throughout the Kruschev Era,

2) Russia did possess low-yield nuclear suitcases, and,

3) They remain unaccounted for,

it is hard to imagine that Kruschev would NOT have planted sleepers with nuclear devices inside the United States. The big question is whether Osama was able to buy the list.

That America is ripe for judgment is unquestionable. Our recent history reads like a page from Gibbons’ “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.”

America’s Republican democracy is so-called because it was formed as a Republic under God. Our rights and liberties are granted by God. As such, they are guaranteed by God. Without God, the Republic itself is without foundation.

The nation’s capital is a cesspool of corruption, sexual immorality and vice. Of our major cities, someone once said, “If God doesn’t judge San Francisco, then He will owe an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Las Vegas actually has a promotion campaign based on its tolerance of sin and corruption. “What happens here, stays here,” the seductive tag line promises. The single most profitable business in America today is porn. New York and Los Angeles are cesspools of crime, pornography, drugs and murderous gangs.

New York, Washington, San Fransisco, Las Vegas and Los Angeles, arguably America’s wealthiest and most abundantly blessed cities, have all been mentioned as potential al-Qaeda targets.

Revelation 7:14 identifies the last-days Church arrayed in white robes has having come ‘out of great tribulation’ — not the Tribulation Period, since it takes place DURING the Tribulation Period, but a period of ‘great’ tribulation — like maybe a nuclear war?

America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy. It is popularly assumed that the reason for its absence is the Rapture. That is my personal preference, but there is no support for it in Scripture. The Scriptures say only that the Rapture precedes the revelation of ‘that Wicked’ (2nd Thessalonians 2:8) and not before hard times for America.

“For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” (Luke 12:48)

It isn’t that far-fetched a scenario. I wish it were.

The Assault on Marriage

The Assault on Marriage
Vol: 61 Issue: 17 Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The Assault on Marriage

I used to go have breakfast down at the local diner every morning with friend, ‘Red-Headed Jeff.’ It became something of a ritual until one day I mentioned something about my wife within earshot of the waitress.

She looked at us and asked, “Aren’t you a couple?” I stifled the urge to ask, ‘a couple of what?’ and just smiled. But we agreed to have breakfast together a bit less often. And at a different diner.

But the incident made me think about how perceptions have changed. I took my wife to the local emergency room a few years back.

She had the flu and lost her voice, so I had to do her talking for her. I was amazed that in each case where I gave them my name and identified myself as her husband, they always asked her last name as if expecting it to be different than mine.

A little thing, but more evidence of the shift in perspective.

A report in the New York Times outlined (with some odd sense of triumph) the fact that for the first time in history, traditional marriage is a minority group among American households, under the headline, “It s Official: To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered”

“Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.”

The Times went on to highlight the numbers, saying, of 111.1 million American households, 49.9% — less than half — were made up of traditional households.

It went on to extoll the social virtues of unmarried couples living together, highlighted gay ‘marriages’ as a significant change in the social fabric, and ‘devoting a single line to noting that the numbers of single young adults and widows were both growing’.

As I read through the Times’ article, I got a whiff of a little ‘perspective shifting’ going on right in front of me.

The Times had some fun with numbers, using percentages of percentages to make them sound larger.

For example, it noted that; “Since 2000, those identifying themselves as unmarried opposite-sex couples rose by about 14 percent, male couples by 24 percent and female couples by 12 percent.”

Wow! That sounds like a lot! And if you didn’t read it through twice, carefully, you might have missed, as I did, the fact that those were percentages of the FIVE percent of unmarried couples who were ‘co-habitating’.

“The census survey estimated that 5.2 million couples, a little more than 5 percent of households, were unmarried opposite-sex partners.”

Wait, a second. My head is starting to hurt. The Times first said married couples were now a ‘minority’ among American households but it appears only 5 percent of all households consist of unmarried heterosexuals. Are all the rest gay?

Well, not exactly.

“An additional 413,000 households were male couples, and 363,000 were female couples,” the Times reported. Curiously, the Times didn’t express that in percentages. Six figure numbers SOUND bigger.

Expressed as a percentage, 1.4% of all households being gay doesn’t sound like very many. Especially given the disproportionate clout enjoyed by the gay rights lobby based on their claim that 10% of the population is gay.

(It is worth noting that an estimated 2% of all Americans believe they’ve been abducted by aliens. But nobody is advocating UFOlogy courses for pre-schoolers.)

I read through the article three or four times trying to unravel the numbers actually represented by the percentages within percentages. I am still not sure I’ve gotten it all figured out.

But if I do, it appears that the following is true: Less than half of households are traditional married couples. Less than six percent of households are made up of cohabiting heterosexuals. Less than one percent of the total are gay ‘marriages’.

The remainder of households are made up of young unmarrieds, widows and widowers. Since people are living longer, and the children of the divorce generation are approaching marriage later and more carefully than their parents, that is unsurprising.

What is surprising is the tone of the piece. And the clear agenda behind it. It took two full readings before it sunk into my thick head that there were no facts here.

Just breathless innuendo; “But marriage has been facing more competition. A growing number of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound.”

Yeah. 24% of 5% of the total. Profound.


The same story could have borne the headline; “More Widows and Young Unmarrieds Than Before.” But the Left’s agenda is to promote ‘alternative lifestyles’ as having somehow ‘triumphed’ over traditional marriage. Even if they have to lie to do so.

Let’s take the numbers apart and see what they look like.

The ‘growing’ number of ‘unmarried with partners’ represents 5% of all households. It is out of this five percent that all the larger-seeming percentages are being conjured. But the Times headline said married couples were outnumbered.

The NYTimes slant was deliberate, because the destruction of the family unit is a basic principle of Marxist-Leninism. Leftists have long taken a decidedly jaundiced view of the traditional family.

To them, a household consisting of an adult male and female united in matrimony and their offspring is an antiquated, repressive institution standing in the way of constructing a better, more egalitarian world.

Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto declared that the “hallowed correlation of parent and child is nothing more than bourgeois claptrap.

“Destroy the family,” Lenin said, “and you destroy society.”

History teaches that every totalitarian movement has tried to destroy the traditional family unit. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wanted the family destroyed, as did Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

They believed this to be necessary because the family was seen as a dangerous threat to the power of the State, which was to assume the rights, responsibilities and authority of the family.

The family alone, however, teaches the hard truths of moral values.

In other words, it is the family which is the enemy of the State because it provides the formation of character which gives the young the ability to grow up to become independent, stable, functioning, and compassionate individuals.

Traditional families teach independence. Independence is poison to the Leftist ideal of cradle-to-grave dependence on the state.

That is why the Left is working so hard to redefine marriage until it has no meaning at all. Because the family unit was designed by God. The Left’s god is the state.

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” (Romans 1:28)

Special Report: ‘Fair’ Is a Call in Baseball

Special Report: ‘Fair’ Is a Call in Baseball
Vol: 61 Issue: 16 Monday, October 16, 2006

I got an email from a reader recently that complained that God is not being fair by condemning non-Christians to hell. If God was fair, claimed my correspondent, He’d give everybody a second chance.

We’ll deal with the second chance idea first, and then go back to the issue of God being ‘fair’.

Salvation is a win-win scenario, both for those of us who are saved, and for God. God extends His grace to us, which the Bible says gives Him pleasure because He loves us. When we accept the gift of salvation, we do so by faith. God counts that faith towards our account as righteousness and is therefore able to enter into fellowship with us.

It is a two-way street; God chooses us, and we choose Him. Nobody is compelled to come to Christ; Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, but God only has fellowship with those who accept the Gift that is offered.

It is about faith. Faith that God is. Faith that Jesus has paid the penalty for our sin. Faith that He will keep His promise to save us. Paul notes that ‘we walk by faith and not by sight’ (2nd Corinthinans 5:7) and God loves us for that.

A ‘second chance’ after we are dead is not faith. It is not a choice between trusting in Jesus and trusting in ourselves.

When a criminal stands before a judge, he is almost always sorry. But when he is standing before the judge, his sorrow is for himself. He is sorry he got caught, sorry he got convicted and is sorry he is going to have to pay the penalty.

That is not the same thing as being sorry he committed the crime. He committed the crime because he trusted he would be able to get away with it.

He knew that there was a penalty attached to the crime when he committed it, but criminals operate on the theory that they won’t get caught, or that they will somehow beat the rap.

It isn’t until all hope is lost that they (sometimes) admit their guilt and sorrow, and that admission usually doesn’t come until just before sentencing in the hopes maybe their sentence will be reduced.

The second chance theory is like that. It assumes that once a person actually sees that there is a heaven and there is a hell, they will choose heaven and God will honor that choice because He is ‘fair’.

In that scenario, one is choosing between two certainties. But salvation comes by faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

A person counting on a second chance is like a convicted criminal hoping that his apology for his crimes will cause the judge to set aside the jury’s verdict and the proscribed punishment.

And it is because the judge is fair that the criminal knows his apology won’t change his conviction.

But when it comes to God, people assume God is unfair for exactly the same reason.


This will come as a shock to some of you. God isn’t ‘fair’. If God was fair, nobody could be saved. There are good people who are not Christians, but who try to do the best they can.

And there are devoted followers of other gods who go to outrageous lengths to please their deity. Consider the followers of Islam, for a second. Their god is distant, unknowable and demanding.

The observant Muslim prays five times a day, doesn’t smoke or drink, fasts for a whole month every year, keeps strict dietary laws, and knows the only certain way to paradise is death by jihad.

If that kind of dedication isn’t enough to earn one a place in paradise, then a Christian who seldom goes to church, smokes and drinks, doesn’t pray very often and seldom witnesses for his faith shouldn’t have a chance.

But the Scriptures say that the observant Muslim is condemned, but the wishy-washy Christian is redeemed. Does that sound fair to you?

What would be fair would be if God condemned all sinners to hell. And since the Bible says that ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ then all should be condemned. “Mercy” is not the same as “fairness.”

I know who I am, just as God knows who I am. If I were God, I would be forced to condemn me as a sinner. That would be only fair. Instead, God extended His mercy to me and made a way for me to get around the fairness doctrine because He knew I could never do so on my own.

God knows that there is never enough I could do to blot away my own sins. If I prayed five times in a certain direction every day, fasted for a month out of every year, and performed a litany of other duties as part of my worship to Him, it wouldn’t change the fact that I was guilty of sin.

A man could be a pillar of the community, a well-known philantropist and dedicated to doing good things, but all that is meaningless if he is charged with a serious crime. There is an old saying about not doing the crime if you can’t do the time. THAT is ‘fair’.

Christians are saved, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

‘Fair’ is a call in baseball.