“We Must Go Tell the King”

“We Must Go Tell the King”
Vol: 64 Issue: 31 Wednesday, January 31, 2007

The issue of global warming has really begun to heat up (pardon the pun) in advance of the much-anticipated report to be released Friday by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris.

The issue of climate change has reached almost religious proportions. Those who believe in it will not be dissuaded despite the lack of evidence, and those who don’t believe in it won’t believe in it no matter how much evidence is accumulated.

Among true believers, there is yet another division, this time according to doctrine. Having accepted the reality of global warming, either one believes it is caused by human activity, despite the lack of evidence, or one is certain human activity has nothing to do with it, despite the evidence accumulated.

Take Al Gore’s environmental movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” At various times, environmental scientists have catalogued whole lists of scientific errors, factual exaggerations and faulty computer models so glaring that the film is nicknamed by some of its detractors as “The Truth is Inconvenient.”

If one is a fan of Al Gore (“Hi. I”m Al Gore and I used to be the next President of the United States”) then no matter what science says, Gore’s film is scientific gospel that is being suppressed by Big Business.

If one is inclined to see Al Gore as a sore loser who tried to conduct a judicial coup d’etat by manipulating the eligibility of the disputed votes, Gore’s movie is simply another effort to smear the Bush administration.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle between the two extremes.


I’m not an environmental scientist. I don’t even play one on TV. But it is possible to NOT be an environmental scientist without also being an idiot incapable of having an informed opinion.

There are, for example, Bible teachers who are not fluent in ancient Hebrew and Greek who are still quite capable of teaching the Bible.

If one wants to exegete a word, phrase or verse in its original languages, there are reference tools, like a Strong’s Concordance, for exactly that purpose.

It is no more complicated than it sounds. If you don’t know, ask someone who does.

(This would be a great place to point out that Al Gore isn’t an environmental scientist, either. He is a politician, and therefore, by definition, has a political agenda to advance.)

The IPPC Report is a consensus report signed off on by some 2,000 scientists culled from more than 100 countries. That sounds pretty impressive until one looks at the facts.

There are more than 7,000 atmospheric scientists in the US alone. So the 2,000 IPPC scientists represent but a fraction of all the atmospheric scientists in the world.

In 2001, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine launched a petition project aimed at dissuading the US from signing on to the Kyoto Accords.

In a letter seeking signatories to the petition from Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, is this opinion:

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The petition contains similar language and bears more than 17,000 signatures of basic and applied scientists, and more than two-thirds of them hold advanced degrees.

Among the signers were 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists and 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization were in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences.

According to NASA, the earth isn’t undergoing permanent climate change, but rather, it is at the extreme end of a natural 1,000 year climate cycle.

But daring to dispute the established doctrine that the planet is undergoing permanent, man-made climate change that threatens the extinction of the human race is an act of scientific heresy.

A top meteorologist at the Weather Channel recently advocated stripping the credentials from any meteorologist who dared to question either the reality or the alleged cause of permanent climate change.

Nobody was around to observe the last climate cycle a thousand years ago. And thirty years ago, the same science that blames human activity for global warming that started at the turn of the 20th century were predicting thirty years ago that the earth was entering a new Ice Age.

So, what is the truth? Is global warming permanent? Or part of a cycle? Is it man-made? Or is it the result of external influences, such as the recent, and unusually strong solar storm activity or other factors?

Beats me. And science doesn’t know either. The best they can do on either side is guess.

The IPPC report says as much, revising its estimates of catastrophe over the next century downward by more than 25% from what they predicted in 2001. The difference between the 2001 and 2007 estimates is wide enough to determine whether Florida will be under water in fifty years.

But to those who embrace the religion of Man-As-The-Cause-of-Human-Extinction, it is enough to demand the erection of some kind of cosmic Tower of Babel — right now — lest we all be scattered from the face of the earth. (Genesis 11:4)

The only thing certain about global warming is that nobody knows for sure if it is real. Nobody. Not NASA. Not the IPPC. There is no scientific consensus. It could be. Or maybe not.

It reminds me of the billions of dollars now being spent on research to protect the earth against a catastrophic meteor strike like the one science says caused the extinction of the dinosaurs — 85 million years ago.

Why is there more of chance of an extra-terrestrial collision today than there was fifty years ago — especially given that we are using a interval like 85,000,000 years as our baseline?

Yet the hysteria is only beginning. Astronomers are issuing dark prognostications about what consequences the recent series of solar eruptions will bring to our Big Blue Marble.

Environmentalists are predicting sea level rises will put most of the world’s coastal cities underwater in a matter of decades.

Geologists are warning of a coming magnetic shift in the earth’s magnetic fields.

There is even serious talk of the earth ‘flipping’ on its axis, making the current polar regions the new equator and putting Cuba up near the new North Pole.

Astrophysicists warn that the universe is expanding at a faster rate than anticipated, while astro-climatologists warn of exposure to the star-generated radiation they say is now leaking through the hole in the ozone layer.

The hysteria isn’t based on what we KNOW, but rather, based on interpretations of what we see. It puts me in mind of the old English fairy tale, “Henny Penny”:

“One day Henny-penny was picking up corn in the cornyard when–whack!–something hit her upon the head. ‘Goodness gracious me!’ said Henny-penny; ‘the sky’s a-going to fall; I must go and tell the king.'”

Think, for a moment, about the debate from the perspective of the United Nations. If it becomes a globally-accepted truth that the sky is falling, then there is only one remedy possible.

Turning control over to the UN as the guardian of the globe.

Think of the power that would afford the UN to levy global taxes, impose mandatory restrictions, and even to declare polluting nations as “enemies of humanity.”

And anyone who doubts the adage “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” need look back no further than when the UN was given absolute power over Iraq’s “Oil for Food” program.

As I said earlier, I don’t know if the earth is undergoing permanent climate change or if the current climate shifts are part of a 1000-year cycle — and neither does anybody else.

But there are certainly indisputable signs that the earth has been getting warmer over the course of this generation. The two hottest years on record both occurred since the dawn of the 21st century.

I don’t know the cause, but I recognize both the signs and the global hysteria they are engendering as being direct fulfillments of Bible prophecies for the last days, given by Jesus and addressed to a single generation, somewhere in time.

“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring.”

Isn’t that EXACTLY what the IPPC report is predicting? As to the ‘distress of nations, with perplexity’ — doesn’t that pretty much sum up the global reaction to the IPPC’s report and the hysterical debate it is helping to fuel?

“Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.”

We don’t know what to worry about most: climate change, falling space rocks, ultraviolet radiation or coastal flooding on a global basis.

We are just as afraid of the risks posed from the heavens as we are that which is about to befall the earth. We only know that our best science says “it isn’t a question of ‘if’ but a question of ‘when'” — and so on.

According to Jesus, the mass global hysteria will get worse and worse until, “. . . they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.”

So, what does it all mean to us in terms of understanding the signs of the times? I’m glad you asked, because Jesus gives us the answer with His next breath:

“And when these things BEGIN to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:25-28)

You just can’t make this stuff up.

The Return of ‘Jihad Jane’

The Return of ‘Jihad Jane’
Vol: 64 Issue: 30 Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Hanoi/Jihad Jane Fonda, evidently having decided that treason is once again fashionable, rejoined the ranks of the ungrateful, appearing at an anti-America rally with Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Addressing the crowd, estimated by the protest organizers at 100,000 (and by DC police at under 30,000), Fonda thundered, “I haven’t spoken at a rally in 34 years. But silence is no longer an option.”

Sigh. Why not, Jane? Why not? What has America done to you to make you hate it so much?

It has taken me thirty-four years to bury the mental image of a black-pajamaed Hanoi Jane sitting at the controls of an enemy anti-aircraft gun, clapping with glee while surrounded by Viet Cong ‘escorts’ while John McCain and others languished in brutal captivity a few short miles away at the ‘Hanoi Hilton’.

Joining Fonda, Sarandon and Robbins at the demonstration were Sean Penn, Jesse Jackson, Representatives Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Maxine Waters of California, and John Conyers of Michigan.

You will remember Tim Robbins, the actor who famously once addressed the Washington Press Corps to complain that his right to free speech was being violated by those who disagreed with his position.

The surreal image of a guy calling a national press conference to complain about not being allowed free speech was replaced by the even more surreal image of Hanoi Jane telling the crowd, “Thank you so much for the opportunity to stand up to this mean-spirited, vengeful administration,” as her fellow protesters SPAT at Cpl. Joshua Sparling, a war veteran who lost a leg in combat to preserve the protesters’ right to demonstrate the TRUE meaning of ‘mean-spirited’.

Sparling attended the rally using a bullhorn to plead with protesters to be mindful of what they were doing. “We went to war for you,” he pleaded. “You are hurting the troops and helping the enemy,” he said as his countrymen shouted him down.

Cpl. Sparling had already made national news previously while still a patient at Walter Reid hospital when he received an hand-lettered greeting card that reflected the attitude of the anti-war left toward those who put it all on the line to defend their right to be stupid. “I hope you die,” the card said.

The participants at the “Rally For Peace” were anything but peaceful. They spray-painted “Our Capitol Building” and “you can’t stop us” on the front steps of the Capitol Building while DC police occupied themselves keeping counter-demonstrators (read: pro-American) from coming too close to the “Peace” protesters out of concern the anti-warriors would turn on them and rend them limb from limb.

If you missed the protests, you probably missed the intellectually stimulating debates that accompanied them. Well, they weren’t really ‘debates’ — since in a debate, both sides are given equal opportunity to voice their opinions. This is the liberal version of free speech — it is only free if you agree with them.

Opposing viewpoints, they complain, stifles THEIR right to free speech.

Still, a few of the more famous among them deigned to take a few questions to demonstrate their superior understanding of what is really at stake here.

When asked what we should do about Iran s professed aim to build nuclear weapons, and their threats to use them, Sean Penn answered that we should understand Iran s concerns that WE have nuclear weapons. Brilliant!

It MUST be brilliant, because I certainly don’t understand what the heck that is supposed to mean. But clearly, I am nowhere near as well-informed as Sean Penn. Penn has never been a soldier, but he’s played one on TV. I’ve been a Marine, but I’ve never played one on TV, so what would I know? No wonder it went over my head.

Otherwise, I would be able to extend some understanding to a regime that has promised to wipe Israel from the map in a blinding nuclear flash at a rally entitled, “A world without Israel and America”.

Tim Robbins, another intellectual giant whose life experiences include playing a murderer who escapes from prison, a baseball player with the morals of an alley cat, and a wife-stealing New Age guru, was asked what would happen to Iraq if the US pulled out.

Robbins responded by asking the reporter why HE wasn’t fighting in Iraq. Point, set and match! His wife, Susan Sarandon, was asked if she thought a US withdrawal would increase the Iraqi civilian casualty count.

She answered by saying that 650,000 civilians had already died in Iraq. Once again, I am ashamed to admit she was too smart for me, since I can’t for the life of me figure out if there was an answer there.

(For the record, the Brookings Institute estimates the Iraqi civilian death toll at about 59,000 since the fall of Saddam — most of whom died at the hands of their own countrymen. 650,000 is the estimate of how many civilians killed by Saddam Hussein – before he was deposed.)

But where they REALLY went over my head was when they unanimously agreed that they “support the troops” — except, evidently, Cpl Sparling.

The protesters complained that the war was infringing on their freedom, although they seemed free enough to me.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., spoke to the crowd about some possible intentions of using the congressional money flow to halt the war. “The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today,” he said. “Not only is it in our power, it is our obligation to stop Bush.”


What was even more fascinating that the intellectual brilliance of the antiwarrior’s rhetoric was the coverage they received in the mainstream press. The more treasonous their conduct, the more praise they received.

Not one mainstream media outlet challenged Sarandon’s claim that America killed 650,000 Iraqi civilians. Most of them bore headlines like “100,000 Protest Iraq War in Washington” despite the fact fewer than 30,000 were counted by DC police. According to the liberal blog, Op-Ed News, “hundreds of thousands” attended the rally.

The rally was headline news in China, Venezuela, India, China and, of course, on al-Jazeera, all of whom repeated the claim that ‘hundreds of thousands’ of demonstrators attended.

One has to wonder if any of these irresponsible idiots have even the remotest clue what effect their protests are having on the morale of our troops in the field. Or the enemy’s.

Our troops are wondering if they are risking their lives for nothing, while our enemy is convinced that they need only keep up the fight to achieve total victory. After all, ‘hundreds of thousands’ of Americans, according to the American press, are on THEIR side.

The enemy doesn’t know the difference between Republican and Democrat and they don’t care. They hate us all equally and would be just as happy to cut Susan Sarandon’s throat as anybody else’s.

By any reasonable understanding of the word ‘treason’, these folks should be sitting in a federal lockup somewhere awaiting trial. Instead, they are media darlings and it is precisely those people charged with protecting America that find themselves looking over their shoulders.

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be . . . trucebreakers. . . false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. . .” (2nd Timothy 3:1-4)

In Jihad Jane’s America, calling a traitor a traitor makes one a ‘right-wing partisan.’ Calling for the impeachment of the president in the midst of wartime makes one a ‘patriot’ — or so those calling for Bush’s impeachment are styling themselves.

As in any war, the most dangerous enemy is the one with the means to defeat you. That threat doesn’t come from al-Qaeda, or the Iraqi insurgency, or the global jihadists seeking our military destruction.

It is much closer to home than that.

Enter “The People of the Prince”

Enter “The People of the Prince”
Vol: 64 Issue: 29 Monday, January 29, 2007

In a 2004 OL commentary entitled “Revisiting the Big Picture” we focused our attention on the European Union in the context of the prophecy of Daniel 9:26-27 in which Daniel identified the antichrist as being a ‘prince’ of a revived form of the old Roman Empire.

“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

Often called the “70 Weeks of Daniel”, this prophecy outlines Israel’s future history, beginning at the point at which the King of Persia, Artaxerxes Longimanus (or, ‘Xerxes 1’) issued a decree to Ezra to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.

The Bible tells us that Ezra began his journey to Jerusalem, letter in hand, on the 1st day of the 1st month (Nisan) in the 7th year of the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:9,11). This passage contains more references to dates than almost any other passage in the Bible.

The ancient Hebrews divided blocs of time into ‘heptads’ or ‘shabua’ — periods of 7 years each, in much the same way the Greeks divide blocs of time in units of ten years, or ‘decades’. So, in context, each of Daniel’s weeks’ is a period of 7 years.

Skipping forward (seven weeks plus sixty-two weeks) 483 years brings us to the Crucifixion of the Messiah, suspending the clock and leaving a remaining unfulfilled seven year period.

So, where do we get the identification of the antichrist as a prince of the Roman Empire? From its rebuilding by Ezra until the Jewish Uprising (66-73 AD), the Temple stood on Temple Mount in the middle of the rebuilt city of Jerusalem.

In 70 AD, the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus ordered the destruction of both Jerusalem and the Temple. So the “people”, history tells us, are the Romans and the “prince that shall come” (the antichrist) will be a “prince” (leader) of that people. Are you still with me?

The antichrist will be a “prince” of a geopolitical entity that arises out of the Roman Empire that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple at some point after Daniel’s prophecy. There is only one point in history in which both the events took place simultaneously. Jerusalem has been sacked, destroyed and rebuilt several times since the time of the Romans, but the Temple was never rebuilt after Titus destroyed it.

The Temple wasn’t destroyed by the Arabs. It wasn’t destroyed by the forces of Islam during the Crusades. The only political entity that fits Daniel’s prophecy is the Roman Empire.

We also examined some of the symbols chosen by the European Union to represent the new union, including one published in the Canadian issue of TIME Magazine in December, 1992, depicting Europe as a woman astride a scarlet colored beast and an official EU stamp issued by the 2nd Election European Parliament.


Daniel also tells us that the coming prince will; “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)

That last ‘week’ referred to by Daniel corresponds with the Apostle John’s description of what Christians call the “Tribulation Period” as recorded in the Book of the Revelation, beginning in Revelation 4:1 and forward.

This is a lot of background, and for many of you, it is mostly a review, but it is necessary to revisit it to keep things in context, so bear with me.

Now we’ll focus on the salient part of Daniel’s prophecy (for the purposes of this morning’s briefing): “He shall confirm the covenant for one week.”


Look at the word ‘confirm’ as rendered in Daniel 9:27 (KJV) with me. It is a translation from the Hebrew word ‘gabar’ which means, “to make strong, confirm, or give strength.”

It means the same thing in today’s English. One ‘confirms’ an agreement, or gives strength to the agreement be reaffirming it. But note this. Before one can ‘confirm’ an agreement, that agreement must first exist. You can’t confirm your appointment with the dentist unless you already had one.

Daniel tells us that the ‘covenant’ is ‘with many’ AND that agreement is of a finite duration — one “week” — or seven years.

In September, 1993, Israel entered into an agreement with the Palestinians (and by common understanding, the rest of the Islamic world) to trade ‘land for peace’ within the framework of a deal put together in Oslo, the capital of EU member state Sweden.

The day the 1993 agreement was signed, I met with Dror Ziegermann, then the Israeli Consulate General to Canada, who explained the deal as it was understood by the Israelis at the time. In his offices in Toronto, Dror broke the agreement down into its three component parts.

The first three years of the agreement were set aside to extend limited autonomy to the Palestinians living in certain parts of the West Bank, particularly Jericho, during which time the Palestinian performance would be evaluated.

If successful, the next two years would be dedicated to the discussion of the borders of a proposed Palestinian state and territorial concessions made by Israel in exchange for a proven formula for peace.

The final two years were to be set aside to discuss the final status of Jerusalem and what role, if any, it would have in this future Palestinian state.

According to the Oslo framework, the final agreement was due to be signed on September 14, 2000, exactly seven years after the Rose Garden signing ceremony between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat.

Of course, the Oslo Agreement failed to meet its goals. Yasser Arafat rejected every opportunity, since his goal was never a Palestinian state beside Israel. His goal was a Palestinian state in place of Israel. To this day, Israel refers to the current conflict as the ‘Oslo War’.

But the terms of Oslo, “land for peace” remains the foundational principle of the peace process. The Road Map for Peace changed the terms in favor of the Palestinian side, but the division of the land between the two sides is still central to any deal.

Since the US invasion of Iraq, the United States has lost much of its credibility in the eyes of the Arab world as being an honest broker between Israel and the Islamic-Arab world. The war on terror is widely seen in the Arab world as a Christian-Jewish war against Islam.

Even some Israeli officials fear the US has lost its influence to the degree it is no longer helpful to the effort.

Ehud Olmert’s Kadima party is floating a proposal to cut the US out of the process completely, turning control of the West Bank over to a European-led multinational force.

Knesset Member Shlomo Breznitz addressed the Herziliya Conference, a collection of Israeli leaders who meet to map out Israel’s agenda for the coming year.

He told the conference that Judea and Samaria should be temporarily transferred to the Europeans and that most of the territory’s Jewish communities should be evacuated.

“The only way to get out of the impasse is to transfer the territories, for a limited time, to an international mandate, that will run them until the establishment of a Palestinian state,” said Breznitz at the conference.

Breznitz told Israel’s Maariv daily newspaper that the reason for turning to Europe is that, after the invasion of Iraq America “lost its status as an honest broker in the view of the Palestinians and the Arab states.”

Breznitz told the conference that his proposal received a warm reception from European and Palestinian officials.

“I have reason to believe, and I don’t want to expand on this, that the Palestinians will support the proposal. Ambassadors and diplomatic representatives from European countries who were shown the proposal also believe that without international help it will not be possible to resolve the conflict,” he said.

According to Israel’s Arutz Sheva National News, he E.U. is in the process of expanding its offices in Israel, including in the PA controlled areas, in anticipation of an increased security role.

It quotes a WorldNetDaily report that Israel and the Palestinians have been conducting behind-the-scenes negotiations in which Israel agreed in principal to hand over most of the West Bank in a deal with Abbas.

One proposal being considered is for the E.U. and Jordan to supervise the transfer of northern Samaria to Abbas’ security forces, now being armed and trained by the United States.

Israel is denying it is considering giving Uncle Sam the boot and inviting the revived Roman Empire a predominate role at the peace table.

Olmert’s spokesperson, Miri Eisin, issued a statement saying, “There were no negotiations regarding a West Bank withdrawal. This would go contrary to other things we have said in the recent past.”

But Israeli leaders previously have denied reports of pending withdrawals only to later carry them out. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at first denied media reports Israel was planning to evacuate the Gaza Strip. Shortly thereafter, Sharon announced what he called his “Gaza First” withdrawal plan and forcibly removed existing Israeli settlements within the Gaza Strip.

And Arutz Sheva reported that, “According to an aide to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, speaking on condition of anonymity, there will be a “historic political evolution and movement in negotiations in the next few weeks and few months, unseen since the Camp David peace talks in 2000.”

And just last Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said he viewed any Palestinian elements recognizing the state of Israel as a partner for negotiations “even if it is Hamas.” If Israel is desperate enough to negotiate with Hamas, it is desperate enough to replace the US with the EU, if it believes the plan might work.

So, let’s pull it all together, shall we?

The Bible identifies the antichrist as a prince of a revived form of the Roman Empire. In 1948, the old Roman Empire took its first step towards unification when it entered into the Benelux Treaty creating the European Customs Union.

In 1957, the European Economic Community EEC was established by the EC Treaty, known by its short name, the Treaty of Rome. In 1992, the Treaty of Rome was expanded to formalize the European Union, adopting the same Biblical symbols that the Book of the Revelation predicted would symbolize the antichrist’s government.

John described the seat of the antichrist’s government as follows: “So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.” (Revelation 17:3)

In 1993, Israel entered into a seven year land for peace covenant with the Arab-Islamic world called the Oslo Agreement, based on the formula of land for peace. Daniel 11:39 said of the antichrist;

“Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.”

Today, there is a proposal to jettison the United States as the principle broker for peace in favor of the European Union, established by the Treaty of Rome.

The EU’s proposed role is to take custody of the West Bank to guarantee a peaceful transition to the creation of a Palestinian State on the historical Israeli territories of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank.

And the EU leader who successfully confirms the basic framework of the seven year Oslo Agreement, according to the prophet Daniel, will be the prince of the revived Roman Empire.

Let’s see. Did I leave anything out?

Perhaps the words of Jesus, as recorded in Luke 21:28: “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”


Special Report: “Bigger than Dallas”

Special Report: “Bigger than Dallas”
Vol: 64 Issue: 28 Sunday, January 28, 2007

Down in Texas, when somebody wants to make a point about something being really big, they use the phrase “bigger than Dallas” — as in, “His ego is bigger than Dallas” or, “he’s got a heart bigger than Dallas.”

That is about the best way I can think of to describe the spiritual charge my recent trip gave me. It was “bigger than Dallas.”

I arrived in Dallas at noon on Thursday. I was met at the airport by Ken Berg, the producer of “Zola Levitt Presents”. Ken told me he’d been with Zola for more than twenty years.

Ken also told me it was he who had introduced Zola to the Omega Letter years ago. I was honored to learn from both Ken and Sandra Levitt that Zola read the OL every day and that he thoroughly enjoyed it.

One thing Ken told me was particularly gratifying. He told me that he’d been reading the Omega Letter for years before he discovered what my name was. He said he had to search the website to find it.

That is as it should be. Nobody knows the name of the donkey that carried the Word to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, either. All we know is that the donkey carried the Word where he was led to carry it.

Ken took me to their studio, where I met Jeffrey Seif — another terrific guy with whom I discovered shared a common interest. In addition to being a Bible college professor and former pastor, he is also an enthusiastic member of the police reserves.

I wish I had a camera with me to record the look on his face when he found out I also had a law enforcement background — also in Texas. We became fast friends.

I did two interviews while I was there — one with Dr. Seif and the other with Sandra Levitt. Sandra Levitt was truly a joy to meet — Zola was a man greatly blessed. She is a warm, lovely woman upon whom God had clearly conveyed a double measure of the gift of hospitality.

By the time I’d been there fifteen minutes, I felt that I had known them all for years. I couldn’t have been made more welcome, and I could not have been more comfortable with them.

We had a wonderful time of fellowship. When the time came to leave, I didn’t want to.

(I bet they can hardly wait to get to work each morning. By the time I got back to my hotel, I was already missing them)

Doing an interview is like preaching a sermon — there are always three of them. There is the one you plan to give, the one you actually give, and the one you wish you had given.

My brain tends to stay one step ahead of my mouth — what starts out in my head as a carefully reasoned response comes out of my mouth sounding like the first draft of a bad column.

In my mental review of it all, my interviews with Jeffrey and Sandra were no exception. I call it my ‘Through the Bible in Thirty Seconds Syndrome’.

That is why I prefer writing to speaking extemporaneously — writing, one can tweak and massage what you are trying to say until it comes out the way you want it to.

But to listen to the praise heaped upon me by Sandra and Jeffery, one would think I had just explained the mysteries of the universe. As I said, they were incredibly gracious.

They made me proud to be a Christian. I encourage you to support them where and how you can — it is a worthy investment for the Kingdom.

When I got back to my hotel, I met with John Brown, founder of Zion Oil and Gas. For those of you who saw him with me on Marcus and Joni’s “Celebration” program on “Daystar” let me tell you that the John Brown you saw on TV is the same John Brown I spent the next two days with.

(For those who missed the program, I have a DVD of the broadcast that we will stream from the website as soon as I can get it up to Mike for conversion. I want you all to meet this amazing man.)

I don’t know where to begin with John Brown. To call him a “man of faith” is an understatement of monumental (dare I say,’Biblical’?) proportions. This guy has more faith in his little finger than I have in my whole body.

Working with nothing but the prophecies of Scripture as his guide, John has dedicated his life to discovering the oil the Bible says is hidden under the Land of Israel. And paid a heavy price for his devotion. His personal testimony is awe-inspiring.

But not to enrich himself, but rather, out of love for Israel and a desire to give the Jewish State a level playing field against which to compete with her oil-rich Arab neighbors who’ve dedicated much of their vast riches to Israel’s destruction. How do I know that?

John took me to the Zion Oil and Gas offices in Dallas, where he made a point of introducing me to the various geologists, accountants, executive officers and lawyers who work there.

It was more like being introduced to members of a church fellowship than the executive officers of an oil company.

While I was there, John called the Zion officials in Israel, including the president of the Israeli division of Zion Oil and its chief counsel. John would suddenly say, “I want you to meet Jack” and hand me the phone.

(I bet he did this a dozen times while I was there — it was a bit unnerving for a shy guy like me who is never happier than when locked away in an attic somewhere.)

That is just how John Brown is. To John Brown, the most important person in the room is whoever he is in that room with at the moment.

It isn’t an affectation. It is who John Brown is. I was watching carefully.

I actually heard him tell one of his marketing executives that he didn’t want them to try and entice new investors and not to waste time on such nonsense — his words, not mine.

“This is God’s project,” he said. “God will provide in His time. We needn’t worry ourselves about that. The mission is to spread the message about what God is about to do for His Chosen People. Spread the word, and let God handle the rest.”


I’ve done interviews before, lots of times, both as the interviewer and the interviewee. My experiences with Christian programming have seldom left me with a good taste in my mouth afterwards.

On camera, everybody is always sweetness and light, lots of talk about God and doing His will, accompanied by great swelling words of praise and plenty of prayer — aimed at convincing viewers that the best way to find God is to send Him a check — in care of their program.

But when the lights and cameras go off, the Holy Spirit seemed to go back to His dressing room and wait until He was summoned for His next TV appearance. So my time with the Levitt program was a refreshing surprise.

I wasn’t prepared to be refreshed twice in a row. But I was.

Appearing on the “Celebration” program on DayStar was a brand-new experience for me. At Daystar, the Holy Spirit isn’t the star of some show — He is the reason for it.

From the Green Room to the sound stage, everything was about honoring God. (My BS detector is a finely-tuned instrument — and it never went off a single time. )

Marcus and Joni Lamb were not your typical hosts. When the cameras and lights went off, Marcus and Joni stayed and chatted with us (mainly John and Steve Spillman) for another half hour or so. This, despite the fact that Marcus was clearly suffering with a cold or flu that would have put me to bed for a week.

The discussion wasn’t about ratings, or numbers, or money or business. It was about Israel and prophecy and their love for both. Even after all the cameras went off, it was still all about loving God and how best to honor Him.

After the program, John asked me to stay over in Dallas for another day to just visit and talk about Israel, the Bible, and Bible prophecy. He took me to his home to meet his wife, Joan. What a darling lady.

Although I was staying at a five-star hotel (courtesy of John Brown) she insisted I carry a bag of cookies, a banana and a bottle of chocolate milk back to my hotel with me. She INSISTED.

Since John drove me back to my hotel, it wasn’t like I could discreetly ‘lose them’ before getting back, so I stuffed them in my pockets when we got there so I wouldn’t look like I was brownbagging my lunch in a five-star hotel and took them up to my room.

Then I went back down to the lobby to have dinner with John. He and I visited for hours. It was after ten p.m. before John headed home.

I woke up in the middle of the night, ravenously hungry — something totally out of character for me. There was that banana and milk and cookies. Nothing I could have ordered from room service would have fit the bill better. I recall thinking, “How did she know?”

Everything about my trip there was like that.

The next morning, the Founder and Supreme Boss of Zion Oil and Gas, with offices in Dallas, Los Angeles and Tel Aviv, showed up at 7 am at my hotel to have breakfast with me — before personally driving me to the airport.

By the time I got home Saturday night, I was tired, overwhelmed and in desperate need of a change of clothes. But I was blessed and renewed beyond measure by the whole experience.

It was a concentrated dose of the Holy Spirit that lasted from the moment I touched down at DFW until I boarded the plane to go home.

It was a blessing that was “bigger than Dallas.” One that I sorely needed. Thank you all for giving me a couple of days off to receive it.

And thank You, Jesus, for blessings received.

The Mark of the Beast

The Mark of the Beast
Vol: 64 Issue: 25 Thursday, January 25, 2007

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (Revelation 13:16-17)

The prophecy of the Mark of the Beast is one of the most universally recognized predictions contained in the New Testament. It doesn’t matter whether one is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Taoist, mention the Mark of the Beast of ‘666’ and nobody is going to say to you, “Never heard of it!”.

The Mark of the Beast has been a Hollywood story line for years, going back to the ‘Omen’ trilogy in the 70’s right on through to last year’s ‘End of Days’ starring Governor Arnold Schwartzeneggar. (‘Governor’ — sounds weird)

Anyway, the point is that the Mark of the Beast is NOT something known only to initiates or Bible scholars or even Christians in general. It is pretty much a universal concept — just as most religions have their own form of antichrist and their own form of eschatology.

With that in mind, an American company announced a new syringe-injectable microchip implant for humans at a global security conference in Paris. The chip is designed to be used as a fraud-proof payment method for cash and credit-card transactions.

The chip is being touted as a defense to identity theft. Identity fraud costs the banking and financial industry some $48 billion a year, and consumers another $5 billion. That is a lot of incentive.

Scott R. Silverman, CEO of Applied Digital Solutions, called the chip a “loss-proof solution” and said that the chip’s “unique under-the-skin format” could be used for a variety of identification applications in the security and financial worlds.

Art Kranzley, senior vice president at MasterCard, commented on the Pay Pass system in a USA Today interview: “We’re certainly looking at designs like key fobs. It could be in a pen or a pair of earrings. Ultimately, it could be embedded in anything someday, maybe even under the skin.”


Back in 1992, I covered the CardTech/SecureTech Conference held in Washington, DC. The conference was similar to the one being held in Paris, but the technology was in its infancy. The conference attendees included some of the biggest names in banking and technology and the keynote speaker was former CIA Director William Colby.

I was able to interview a number of the attendees, from the then-director of Barclay’s Bank in England to the Netherlands smart card guru David Chaum.

There were two central themes to the conference. The first was to be expected — how to get the cost of the chips down (at that time, they were a prohibitively high $5.00 per chip) and, how to get the public to accept the technology by downplaying the ‘Mark of the Beast’ angle. (That’s what they really called it in the lectures.)

I’ve said it before — its amazing the difference a decade makes. What was being discussed in 1992 as a theoretic possibility is now reality. A decade ago, the conference attendees were bemoaning the fact many people were uncomfortable with ATM technology.

Now, they bemoan the fact ATM’s are insecure. A thief can force someone to discolose their PIN numbers, they argue, and drain the account. An implantable chip, they argue, will prevent that.

This is, of course, nonsense, since most ATM’s limit the amount of cash withdrawn in a single day. Back in 1992, the conference attendees were presented with the blueprint for a conditioning process to prepare society for the coming cashless revolution.

First debit cards, then credit card-branded debit cards, then value-added cards, until eventually, cash would become useless except for small purchases.

Ask yourself, how many times have you purchased a big ticket item, like a fridge, or a car, and paid for it in hard cash in the last decade? Today, if you tried to buy a $300 plane ticket for cash, you’d be sitting next to an FBI agent on your flight. (If you got on the plane at all)

Ten years ago, scoffers would say, ‘if somebody ever eliminates cash and demands a commercial ‘mark’ containing ‘666’ — then I will believe.

The Universal Pricing Code (UPC) has been on all products for two decades or more. ‘Universal’ means just what it says. No products can be sold in the US or EU commercially without it. In fact, in the EU, it is nicknamed the “EU Mark”.

Take any product you have in your cupboard out and look at the UPC barcode. It is a series of parallel lines readable by a computer. Notice that it begins with a little longer series of parallel lines, then there is an identical long one in the middle and another at the end. Each of those longer lines are read by computers as a ‘6’. (How many long lines are in YOUR barcode?)

In the early years of computers, it was determined that the perfect ‘divider’ (like a period in conventional writing) would be a multiple of three. For years, it wasn’t standardized. Some manufacturers would use 3’s, some would use 6’s and some used 9’s to separate the information represented by the bar code sequences.

To standardize it, the EU insisted that all manufacturers hoping to sell their producst in the EU use three 6’s on what they called the ‘EU Mark.’ Today, three sixes is the global standard.

So, there already IS a ‘mark’ for products that employs the mystery number 666. And cash is on the way out.

“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” (Revelation 13:18)

Today’s OL is a retread while I am traveling to Dallas. It was first published in November, 2003. Please keep me in prayer. – Jack

”The State of the Union is Strong”

”The State of the Union is Strong”
Vol: 64 Issue: 24 Wednesday, January 24, 2007

In most State of the Union speeches, the president opens with his assessment of the nation’s strength and health.

Bush 2006: Tonight the state of the union is strong, and together we will make it stronger.

Bush 2005: the state of the union is confident and strong.

Bush 2004: the American people are showing that the state of our union is confident and strong.

Bush 2003: In a whirlwind of change and hope and peril, our faith is sure; our resolve is firm; and our union is strong.

Bush 2002: As we gather tonight, our nation is at war; our economy is in recession; and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our union has never been stronger.

Clinton 2000: My fellow Americans, the state of our union is the strongest it has ever been.

Clinton 1999: My fellow Americans, I stand before you tonight to report that the state of our union is strong.

Clinton 1998: Ladies and gentlemen, the state of our union is strong.

Clinton 1997: My fellow Americans, the state of our union is strong.

Clinton 1996: The state of the union is strong.

But in his 2007 address, President Bush waited until his address was almost over before delivering the punch line:

“Yet we can go forward with confidence — because the State of our Union is strong … our cause in the world is right … and tonight that cause goes on. God Bless.”


Watching the reaction from his audience, one can understand why Bush waited until the last sentence to give his assessment that the state of the union is “strong.” It was instructive to watch how the Democrats reacted to certain buzz words and buzz phrases.

In observing the Democratic reactions during the periods of applause, he probably was waiting until the end so he could avoid being pelted with rotten fruit.

On some domestic issues, like the need to balance the budget, cut Congressional ‘earmark’ spending and introduce medical malpractice reform, a few Democrats grudgingly climbed to their feet and applauded half-heartedly.

When it came to addressing the problem of entitlements, reforming Medicare/Medicade and Social Security, even Nancy Pelosi stood to applaud.

But what I was watching for was the reaction by the Democratic presidential hopefuls to get some sense of what chance any of President Bush’s ideas have of ever coming to fruition, should any of them capture the White House in ’08.

The two Bigs in the room, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, sat stoicly throughout most of his speech. I was particularly fascinated at their reaction to the foreign policy section.

The President laid out the consequences of failure in Iraq to the Congress and the country, and it wasn’t a pretty picture.

“If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective.”

When the president spoke of the necessity for victory in Iraq, none of the Democratic hopefuls for his job came to their feet. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton didn’t even applaud from their seats.

The camera panned the audience from left to right — the aisle between them was clearly visible, since all the Democrats remained in their seats while all of the Republicans leapt to their feet to give ‘victory’ a standing ovation.

“Victory” is evidently not on the Democratic agenda.

Even when the President implored the Congress and the country to give the new strategy a chance for success, the Democrats remained unmoved.

“I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you made,” Bush said. “We went into this largely united, in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure.”

“Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work,” Bush said. “And I ask you to support our troops in the field and those on their way.”

Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were unmoved.

“While the president continues to ignore the will of the country, Congress will not ignore this president’s failed policy,” they said in a joint statement after his address. “His plan will receive an up-or-down vote in both the House and Senate, and we will continue to hold him accountable for changing course in Iraq.”

The Democrats selected freshman Senator Jim Webb to deliver the Democratic rebuttal. According to Webb, a majority of the Congress, a majority of the people, and a majority of the military now oppose the war. (A majority of the military?? Which ‘military’ — al Qaeda? )

According to Webb, the Democrats don’t want a ‘precipitous withdrawal’ — they want a withdrawal ‘in short order’ — a distinction without a difference, as nearly as I can tell.

Senator Webb chose Dwight Eisenhower to use as the Democrat’s historical model;

“As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.”

So, the Korean War is the Democrat’s model for victory. Although Webb intended this as a rebuttal to victory in Iraq, he unwittingly provided what is probably the single most powerful argument in favor of the Bush policy of staying the course.

“Tonight,” said Webb, “we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.”

History already has shown us the way, although Senator Webb evidently didn’t get the memo.

America pulled out of Korea before the job was done the year after I was born. Fifty-four years later, we now face a belligerent, nuclear-armed North Korea. Eisenhower didn’t bring the Korean War to an end. He postponed it for a half century. This is a solution?

Someone once observed that the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over, hoping that this time, it will turn out differently. So in the end, it was really Jim Webb that informed America the true State of the Union, 2007.

Prozac all around.

Member’s Report: Round Up

Member’s Report: Round Up
Vol: 64 Issue: 23 Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Today’s is one of those ‘mixed-bag’ reports; some news, some observations, and an overview of what is going on behind the scenes at your Omega Letter.

First, allow me to weigh in on a question posted in our member’s forums — although the members have done a magnificent job answering the question directly in the forum thread. The question involves sin and forgiveness;

“I have been raised that yes God does forgive us of our sins if we ask for forgiveness, but that if we continue to sin the same sin knowing that what we are doing is a sin, that He will at some point stop. My oldest daughter tells me that her minister is telling her that no He does forgive always.”

One runs into a problem the moment we attempt to anthropomorphize — or assign human attributes — to God. God cleared that up way back in the Book of Numbers.

“God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall he not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19)

Specifically, the suggestion being advanced is that, at some point, God’s capacity for forgiveness can be exhausted.

That would be a human attribute, not a Divine one. It is the sort of thing a man would do, based on the human concept of fairness.

I’ve always loved the Apostle Peter. I believe the Lord selected him because Peter is the ultimate human being.

It was Peter who leapt to the Lord’s defense by cutting off the ear of Caiaphas’ servant. I

t was Peter who grew faint when he attempted to step out onto the surface of the Sea of Gallilee.

It was Peter who promised most profusely to stand with the Lord, and it was Peter who failed the most spectacularly, denying the Lord not once, but three times.

“Then came Peter to Him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?”

That is typical human thinking. How many times does somebody have to do you wrong before you just can’t forgive them anymore?

Jesus, however, answered the question from the Lord’s perspective. “Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.” (Matthew 18:21-22)

Obviously, Jesus was not referring to keeping track until someone commits 490 sins — we’d lose count long before that. We would also lose count long before we committed 490 sins against God.

God says He doesn’t keep track of how often we sin, either.

“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” (Hebrews 10:16-17)

When it comes to man’s relationship with God, the Bible makes a point of ensuring we have all the details.

We know the wages of sin is death. We know that eternal life is the unmerited gift from God. (Romans 6:23) We know that all men are sinners, Romans (3:23) and that all our works of righteousness are, from the Lord’s perspective, “like filthy rags.” (Isaiah 64:6)

In a man’s eyes, there is a point at which a person cannot be forgiven. We even have a word to describe such a person — “incorrigible.”

We expect God to think like we do. But the Bible tells us that God’s forgiveness is perfect, because the penalty exacted as payment for our sins is perfect.

Writes the Apostle Paul; “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:21)

Let’s briefly dissect that verse. Paul speaks of ‘frustrating’ the grace of God. The dictionary defines ‘frustrate’ as follows: “thwart: hinder or prevent (the efforts, plans, or desires)”

Paul is saying that God’s grace is thwarted or hindered by the human concept of forgiveness. In addition, notes Paul, if righteousness is obtained by keeping the law, the Christ died for nothing. Do you see another way to understand this verse?

Human logic would indicate that if a person continues in sin, at some point, that sin will accumulate to the degree that one can sin oneself out of God’s grace.

The operative phrase here is “at some point.” At WHICH point? Which sin is the one at which God draws the line? At what point does sin accumulate to the point where God withdraws His forgiveness? The 490th sin?

Now, is it the 490th time you repeat the same sin? Or is one allowed 490 different sins over the rest of one’s lifetime before hitting the cut-off point?

Can anybody tell me the answer? No? Then how can anybody be certain they are still saved? Are you writing them down as you commit them and trying to stay under the 490 mark?

Do you have some other benchmark at which there is no more forgiveness available? Does God? Well, actually, yes, He does.

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” (Matthew 12:31)

The term ‘blasphemy’ means “defiant irreverence.” Continual rejection of the Holy Spirit s promptings to trust in Jesus Christ is the unpardonable blasphemy. Remember what is taught in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

The only condition when someone would have no forgiveness is if that someone is not among the “whoever believes in Him.” So blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is a rejection of the Gospel in favor of standing before the Judge clothed in our own righteousness.

Pulling it altogether, we learn that there is but one sin that will send you to hell. Rejecting the offer of salvation.

One is either eternally saved, or one has never been saved. The Bible makes no allowance for some middle status.

God is not a man. He is Perfect Love. Man cannot experience perfect love in this lifetime, so man has no benchmark against which to relate to it. The best we can experience is imperfect love, so we tend to define God’s love against our understanding of it.

Salvation by grace through faith “bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: He maketh the devices of the people of none effect.” (Psalms 33:10)

Recreating God’s grace to fit man’s viewpoint is the counsel of the heathen, not the counsel of God.

Member’s Update

The next few weeks will be busy ones for us. On Thursday, I will be flying to Dallas to record an interview with Sandra Levitt to air on “Zola Levitt Presents.”

I am not sure when it will air, or whether or not they will simply air snippets of the interview in various programs or the entire interview. I suppose the best way to be sure to catch the interview is to watch the Zola Levitt program every week. (I’ll let you know more about it after its in the can.)

On Friday, I am scheduled to appear on DayStar’s flagship program, “Celebration” with Steve Spillman and John Brown of Zion Oil to discuss the probability of a massive oil strike in Israel and its potential ramifications.

Again, I don’t know when this program will air, either, but I will try and find out when I am there and let you know. And in any case, we’ll try and capture it when it does air and stream it via the website.

During the first week in February, I will be heading down to True Potential Publishing in South Carolina to go over the final manuscript for my upcoming book, which is scheduled for printing April 1st. Not sure how long I’ll be down there — I guess I’ll be there for as long as it takes.

In the third week in February, we’ll be heading down to Orlando for the three-day National Religious Broadcasters Convention as guests of True Potential Publishing.

We are setting aside late March-early April to spend preparing for another season on the road, getting our ducks in a row, all our doctor’s appointments out of the way, etc.

In May, Road Tour 2007 will kick off with an OL Member’s gathering in Houston. Nicole Boedeker is cooridinating the tour. For more information, write Nic at roadtour@omegaletter.com

And, sometime in the next week or so, we hope to have our newly redesigned Omega Letter website online. Mike’s been working round-the-clock getting it ready. I’ve seen it — you are gonna love it. I can hardly wait.

So, that’s what we’ve got planned for 07, should the Lord tarry. It promises to be an exciting year for the Omega Letter membership. Please pray for me on Thursday and Friday that the Lord will use me according to His purpose and that He gives me the words to be an effective messenger of the King.

And please pray for our shared mission as we continue in our service to Him together.

Until He comes. Maranatha!