Cowboys, and Nothing More

Cowboys, and Nothing More
Vol: 72 Issue: 29 Saturday, September 29, 2007

The Ahmadinejad visit to Columbia University has revived that whole free-speech/hate-speech debate, with many folks switching sides for just this occasion. Even the most liberal among us were wondering if we ve taken this free speech thing too far.

Nobody is exactly sure what the American version of free speech actually means anymore. The working definition, so far as I can tell, is that ‘free speech’ is anything liberals agree with, and ‘hate speech’ is anything that conservatives agree with.

A good rule of thumb for me personally is this. If I agree with it, it probably falls into one of the red zone areas of banned speech. If it makes me so mad I want to throw something at my TV, then it is probably free speech.

Ahmadinejad’s invitation to address the students and faculty at Columbia University is an example of ‘free speech’, as I understand its definition, for the 21st century.

Columbia University invited Ahamdinejad to speak with Columbia s faculty knowing full well that the invitation itself would improve Ahmadinejad’s image at home, strengthen his regime and weaken its opposition.

Columbia s faculty knew that Iranian state-run TV would edit and endlessly loop any segments that portrayed Ahmadinejad favorably, so Bollinger s scathing introduction was largely symbolic and aimed at American audiences only.

These are among the best and brightest professors and academics in America, so ignorance is no excuse. They knew the invitation would be used by an enemy of the United States to harm American interests.

But they extended it anyway, defending the decision with high and noble-sounding arguments about free speech, higher education, critical thinking, and so forth.

The faculty knew that Ahamdinejad would evade the questions he didn t want to answer, filibuster with anti-American speeches and slogans, make the usual anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist threats, and exhort his listeners to embrace Islam.

Ahmadinejad even managed to do a little public gay-bashing, replying to a question about executing homosexuals by slyly noting that there are no homosexuals in Iran, eliciting laughter from the audience.

To summarize, Columbia invited the leader of a foreign, self-avowed enemy government currently engaged in combat against US forces to preach treason and sedition against America to its students, bash gays, promote genocide against the Jews, threaten America with war, and proselytize for his religion.

All under the banner of freedom of speech.

Promoting a speech exhorting treason or sedition against the United States is a crime under the US Code. Columbia’s faculty knew they were flying in the face of the spirit of the law, but they also knew they’d never be prosecuted under its letter.

Given that Columbia has a history department, it seems reasonable to assume they had some sense of the historical reasons why treason and anti-sedition laws exist in the first place.

Ahmadinejad’s suggestive reply to the question about executions of homosexuals with the flat statement that there are no homosexuals in Iran would, if made by an American speaker, fall under both current and pending federal hate crimes legislation.

Exhorting the university students to convert to Islam from a public podium on a public university is a violation of the Supreme Court s interpretation of the 1st Amendment that prohibits religious speech on public grounds.

If one were to pick apart every element of Ahmadinejad s speech, one would find that he was afforded a freedom of speech that not even American citizens can claim.

All under the banner of ‘freedom of speech’ — for some. As long as you aren’t pro-military, pro-immigration enforcement, pro-American, pro-life, pro-traditional cultural or family values or, (especially!) pro-Christianity.

Columbia defines that kind of talk as ‘hate speech’.

Assessment:

As expected, Ahmadinejad s visit scored him big points back home. Iran s domestic audience saw their leader give stirring speeches to standing ovations from Columbia s students.

Iranians didn t hear the questions that Columbia was so proud of, but they did hear ABOUT them.

Iran published a letter of protest it sent to Columbia University protesting the hateful and impolite words used by Columbia President Lee Bollinger, assailing Bollinger s “ignorance of the principle of hosting the president of Iran, a country of great civilization and a 7000-year history, and posing a series of mock questions for Bollinger.

Among them was this one: “Why did the U.S. media exert pressure on you to cancel President Ahmadinejad’s lecture…and why did the U.S. TV networks broadcast programs for several days against the Iranian president and…not allow him to respond to the allegations? Does this not run counter to freedom of expression?”

Iran s population didn t hear Columbia’s questions they only heard those parts of the speech that Iran s government wanted them to hear — and the standing ovations given their president by Columbia’s student body.

Iranians didn t hear the students laughing AT Ahmadinejad when he claimed there were no homosexuals in Iran — they heard them laughing WITH their president, obviously having a great time despite popular opposition to his visit.

And what Iranian, either for or against Iran’s mullocracy, would not enjoy the irony of their leadership lecturing America on the principles of free speech? Ahmadinejad couldn t BUY this kind of positive publicity, and it could not have come for him at a better time.

Over in Iran, he is telling his people that America is divided over what to do about Iran’s nuclear program. America s government and media are anti-Islam and anti-Iran, but America s people really, really like him.

Just listen to that applause! Just listen to that laughter! And just look at what hypocrites the Americans are when it comes to freedom of speech!

The university only invited President Ahmadinejad at the behest of the Americans and the Zionists to insult him, but look at how well he was received by the students. (That resonates among Iran s dissident student population and 70% Iran s population is under thirty.)

You see? America isn t what you think it is. You re better off with the government you have.

I ve used the term useful idiots in the past, and have been roundly criticized as being not very Christ-like for my harshness. I didn t invent the term Lenin did.

(Jesus used more Christ-like terms, like ‘vipers’ and ‘hypocrites’ and ‘extortioners’ to describe the useful idiots of the enemy in His day)

But I ve never seen a more perfect example of useful idiocy in action than the demonstration provided by Lee Bollinger and the Columbia faculty.

The Columbia University invitation and its predictable outcome was a major counter-strike against US efforts to destabilize Ahmadinejad s government as an alternative to war.

Columbia’s Useful Idiot Squad didn t decrease the likelihood of war with Iran instead, its’ efforts increased the probability exponentially.

Columbia s faculty had every reason to expect this exact outcome when they decided to extend the invitation. And it isn t like they don t have a political science department and any freshman student could have forecast the political damage merely extending the invitation itself would cause.

Here s how the Associated Press characterized it:

“Bollinger’s sardonic comments reflected a blatant disregard for the tradition of hospitality revered in the Middle East.” As a result, the university president’s remarks might end up “deflect[ing] some of the U.S. criticism he got for issuing the invitation to the Iranian president,” but his strongly worded comments “could also backfire by drawing sympathy for Ahmadinejad, even in quarters where he would normally be sharply criticized.”

Ahmadinejad turned Bollinger s harshly worded introduction into propaganda highlighting American hypocrisy when it comes to its own principles.

He used the predictable exuberance of youth to elicit for himself (and his cause) standing ovations, and used the laughter and applause from his audience as fodder back home for bolstering the image and stature of his government.

The same AP report also noted that Bollinger s gift to Ahmadinejad had already begun to pay dividends, quoting an Iranian student who told the AP; The meeting and their approach showed that Americans, even in a cultural position, are cowboys and nothing more.”

Columbia University defended inviting Ahmadinejad by saying that if this were 1937, we d have invited Hitler.

If Columbia 1937’s faculty had shared Columbia 2007’s sense of logic and American patriotism, Columbia 2007’s faculty would be teaching all their classes in German today.

Rather Switch Than Fight

Rather Switch Than Fight
Vol: 72 Issue: 28 Friday, September 28, 2007

Rather Switch Than Fight

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice opened a conference of nations representing the nations deemed to be the sixteen largest emitters of greenhouse cases to discuss ways to reduce emissions to acceptable levels as a way of addressing the issue of global warming.

According to the New York Times account of the conference, (written before the conference had finished its first day), it served only to highlight how isolated the Bush administration is on the issue of global warming.

The New York Times, having dropped any pretense at objectivity when it comes to global warming, has led the Left in criticizing the administration for not signing the Kyoto Protocol Treaty, which would impose severe penalties on excessive Western emissions while exempting China (now the world s largest polluter) and India (a close third after the United States) .

To read the New York Times or listen to the Looney Left, one would think that, a) Kyoto is a good thing, and b) it is being arbitrarily blocked by the Bush administration. Neither is true.

When Kyoto first came up, Bill Clinton refused to sign it. If passed, he threatened a veto. When the Senate refused to even consider ratifying it in 1998 by a vote of 95-0, the New York Times applauded both.

The Times is only supporting Kyoto because Bush opposes it. If Bush favored Kyoto, the New York Times would suddenly remember all the flaws it contained when Clinton opposed it.

The New York Times may soon become a Kyoto opponent, if Condi Rice was speaking for the administration when she keynoted the conference by acknowledging that global warming was a real problem and that the United States was a major contributor.

It makes one wonder how the administration arrived at that conclusions with the available information. For that matter, it makes me wonder, personally, how anyone can.

Let s lay it out as a linear argument and see where it leads. The goal of the conference, ostensibly, was to come up with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to combat global warming.

To combat global warming, one must first have the answers to the following questions.

1) What is the ideal, or normal, temperature for the earth s atmosphere?

2) Is the current global average above normal, or below normal?

To arrive at the answers to those questions, one must also have the answers to these questions to work with.

3) What is the approximate length of a weather cycle?

4) Are current trends at odds with historical trends?

Once having obtained the answers to those questions, one can then discuss;

5) the degree to which human activity is responsible, and,

6) having established that benchmark, go on to discussing the appropriate remedy.

Instead, the conference skips the first five answers, and proceeds to Question Six as if the first five were irrelevant.

The answer to Question One is nobody knows. Here is what we DO know. During the Medieval Warming Period (between the 10th and 14th century,) temperatures were warmer than they are now.

That was followed by what is called the Little Ice Age (mid 14th century 1900) during which temperatures were much colder than they are now.

(It is worth considering that the range between the peak temperatures in the Medieval Warming Period and the lowest temperatures during the Little Ice Age were more extreme than even Al Gore s most extreme predictions. History records no catastrophic weather-related disasters as a result)

The answer to Question Two is unknowable. There is not enough data to establish historical trends going back any earlier than 1000 AD. The last thousand years have established only two weather cycles, (as opposed to weather trends which are short-term. There was a hot one and a cold one.

The hot one lasted almost four hundred years, the cold one lasted about the same time, and the current cycle is only one hundred years old.

If there IS anything to learn from the limited historical trends available, it is that there are at least limited answers to Questions Three and Four. (But since neither fits the predetermined conclusion, they are dismissed out-of-hand.)

Logic and Occam s Razor both argue that the historical trends favor the answer we are one hundred years into a normal four hundred year warming cycle.

Since the last century was so cold, the 20th century was much warmer, despite the cooling trend (1940-1975) most of us remember from our youths that seems to reinforce the global warming argument.

Which brings us to Question Five, To what degree are humans responsible? Since this is a warming trend that may or may not be part of a forty-year pattern within a greater four-hundred year weather cycle, Question Six can t be answered without knowing the answer to Questions One through Five.

What we DO know is that 95% of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere are natural and are emitted from the oceans and volcanic eruptions. The majority of the other five percent is caused by natural processes, like decaying vegetation, animals and animal byproducts, etc.

And, to some degree within that five percent, human activity.

Assessment:

It is easy to see why the Left has embraced global warming as a cause. It fits the contorted liberal worldview that simultaneously argues that all individual humans are basically good, while viewing human beings as a species as inherently evil.

Global warming is a cause that demands government intervention as a solution. And it takes the solution out of the hands of national governments, (which the Left despises), demanding the creation of a global authority, (which the Left won t start to despise until after they ve created it).

And it gives the Left endless opportunities to practice the gentle art of propaganda and persuasion. Weather scientists are forecasting an la Nina weather effect this year, bringing colder temperatures and more severe winter storms.

No problem. The Australian interviewed a scientist who claims the La Nina forecast for this year is late because of the strength of the opposite El Nino effect. The headline? El Nino Shaped By Global Warming .

Its easy to find reasons why the Left loves global warming. It explains EVERYTHING.

Why do your tires wear unevenly? Global warmng. Why is Haliburton so rich? Global warming. Why does radical Islam hate George Bush? Global warming. What’s that coming out of Al Gore’s mouth . . . ?

Ummm, global warming?

What is less easy to understand is why the Right is beginning to embrace it. The population has been conditioned to believe that everything from the Islamic genocide in Darfur to confused whales swimming up inland rivers is the fault of global warming.

Now we find that even Condi Rice is announcing that global warming is a real problem — and that the United States is in large measure responsible for it.

It turns out that there is real power in being a global warming alarmist. It revived Al Gore s political career, won him and Oscar and an Emmy, made him even richer and more powerful than he had been while in office and turned him into something of a rock star.

In fact, every politician, political organization and corporation that has jumped on the global warming bandwagon has seen their stock rise. Every research group that issues reports favoring global warming finds itself awash in grant money.

Arguing against global warming can be very costly. Meteorologists and weather scientists who disagree are routinely savaged, their grants dry up, and their reputations are called into question.

Politicians who argue against global warming are ridiculed by their colleagues, in the press, and by their electoral opponents.

It is easier to switch than fight.

One cannot imagine a more literal fulfillment of the prophecy given by Jesus as a sign of His soon return in Luke 21:25-26 than the debate over global warming.

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.

The distress of nations is real enough. Just watch Al Gore s Inconvenient Truth and watch the sea and the waves enveloping the world s low-lying coastlines. It s VERY distressing.

Distressing enough for the UN to convene a panel to address it, but to this point, they are perplexed at what to do.

( Is global warming the result of sunspots or human activity? We can t do anything about sunspots, so let s pick human activity . . . is this logical?)

But the world is afraid. It is very afraid despite the fact the historical evidence suggests its a normal cycle and it is of one voice in its cry for somebody to DO something before its too late.

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.

Note that Jesus spoke only of the FEAR of catastrophic weather changes — He didn t predict that they would come to pass.

What He said was that one of the signs that would signal His soon return would be the PERCEPTION of global catastrophic upheaval and the fear it would engender.

What we HAVE is a world consumed with fear over the perception of global warming.

Of what comes next, Jesus said, And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Note:

An early thunderstorm caused a five second power outage this morning. Of course, I mistakenly plugged my computer into the ‘surge’ port on my battery backup instead of the battery port, so my computer went blank.

And, of course, I was almost done, and double of course, I didn’t save it. So my excuse is, “Sorry your Omega Letter was late. The storm ate my homework.”

But while I still have your attention, please pray for our dear friend and OL member Georgia Miller, who is in the hospital in Houston recovering from surgery. And for her husband Ken, who is no doubt beside himself with worry.

“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. ” (James 5:16)

Syria’s Evil Moron

Syria’s Evil Moron
Vol: 72 Issue: 27 Thursday, September 27, 2007

By all accounts, Syrian President Bashar Assad never particularly wanted to be president of Syria. His brother Basill was going to be president of Syria. Bashar studied opthamology in London and became an eye-doctor.

In 1994, his older brother Basil was killed in an auto accident, and Dr. Assad reluctantly laid down his stethoscope and entered into the Assad Family School of Dictatorship.

He returned to Damascus, joined the army, rose quickly to the rank of colonel, and reportedly had a short, but distinguished military career, earning the nickname, “The Guardian Hunter.”

When the elder Assad died in 2000, the Syrian parliament convened to amend the minimum qualifying age for the presidency from age 40 to Assad’s age of 34.

Because of Assad’s Western background and by virtue of his choice of medicine as a career, many expected the younger Assad to be a new and improved kind of dictator.

While Bashar Assad may have had the intellect necessary for a career in medicine, it didn’t transfer over well to politics. Assad’s dictatorship is as brutal as his father’s, but has the political instincts of a brick.

Less than a year after coming to power, he declared that Israelis “try to kill the principles of all religions with the same mentality with which they betrayed Jesus Christ and in the same way they tried to kill the prophet Muhammad.”

He also said the election of Ariel Sharon proved that Israel was “a racist society, even more racist than the Nazis.”

Assad’s record lends Western analysts to doubt Assad’s sanity, with the only question being whether he is an evil megalomaniacal genius or an evil, megalomaniacal moron who just thinks he’s a genius.

All the available evidence lends weight to the ‘evil moron who thinks he’s a genuis’ option.

Assad allied his regime with Saddam Hussein just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and has been modeling itself after it ever since.

Last summer, an accident at a Syrian military base established Syria was mounting missiles with VX, sarin and mustard gas warheads.

The mere suspicion that Saddam had WMD justified the invasion of Iraq.

Another argument favoring the removal of Saddam was Iraq’s support for terrorism. Saddam’s government paid a bounty to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber, for example.

Syria, on the other hand, openly supports, supplies, trains and funds Hezbollah. The offices of both Hamas and Islamic Jihad are listed in the Damascus phone book.

Another justification for the removal of Saddam Hussein was the brutality of his domestic security services. Assad’s domestic intelligence services are equally brutal.

Both Assad and Saddam were members of the ruling ethnic minority. (Saddam was a Sunni who ruled over a largely Shiite country, and Assad is an Alawite who rules over a Sunni majority.)

And Syria even has a Baath Party and a Republican Guard.

Saddam was an evil political genius who made one miscalculation too many. Assad is an evil political moron who made all the same miscalculations all at once. Saddam was an existential threat to Israel’s survival as a Jewish state.

Assad may well represent a threat to the existence of the entire Jewish race.

Assessment:

In early September, Israeli warplanes made a daring raid into Syrian airspace to destroy what was widely reported to be a “Syrian nuclear program” being supplied by the North Koreans.

It is extremely unlikely that Syria could have started a full-blown nuclear “program” under the watchful eyes of the Israelis next-door. If not a nuclear ‘program’ — then a ‘nuclear’ what?

The options are limited. Whatever ‘nuclear’ thing it was, it was threatening enough for Israel to risk penetrating Syrian air defenses with eight F-15 warplanes (and their pilots) to destroy it.

North Korea has nuclear reactors and enough nuclear material to construct at least six bombs. Syria has neither the technology nor the facilities to turn it into bombs themselves.

North Korea has both, needs the money, and has already sold the Syrians nuclear weapons-capable missiles capable of reaching all of Israel.

Whatever Israel destroyed, it was delivered by a North Korea cement freighter three days before. If it were simply fissionable material, its seems unlikely Israel would have chosen the military option first.

Were it anything less than a workable nuclear bomb, Israel would have had time to make a diplomatic case. And if Israel could prove North Korea was supplying nuclear material to Syria, Israel would still have time (and the justification) to act unilaterally if the world body sat on its collective hands.

The military commentator for Israel’s state-owned television network, Yoav Limor, reported only that the operation was time-sensitive and took place around the industrial city of Dir E-Zour, along the Euphrates River and near the Iraqi border.

“Apparently, Israel had such an important reason to attack there, even given the risk of war,” Limor said.

Adding to the anomalies, Damascus threatened an immediate military response to the attack. It’s been almost a month, and not a peep from Damascus.

Assad’s government should be demanding that the UN Security Council take action against Israel’s unprovoked attack. But it isn’t.

One gets the distinct impression that Assad has realized he’s gone one step too far over the line and is trying to scramble back over to the other side.

The world doesn’t know what Assad had smuggled in on that North Korean freighter. But Israel knows. And Assad knows that Israel knows.

That’s not as cryptic as it sounds. Its one thing for Israel to suspect Assad has weapons of mass destruction, even nuclear ones. At worst, it means a conventional first strike to destroy them in the event of war.

It is another for Israel to know there is a nuclear weapon an hour’s drive from its border. In the event of war, Israel can’t be certain there isn’t another one. Or leave anyone alive in Damascus to give the order to fire it.

And Assad knows that, too.

Olmert Refuses To Say It Ain’t So

Olmert Refuses To Say It Ain’t So
Vol: 72 Issue: 26 Wednesday, September 26, 2007

According to a report published in Israel’s Arutz-Sheva, the chairman of the Palestinian Authority met last week with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

During that meeting, Mahmoud Abbas allegedly told Dr. Rice that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had agreed to divide Jerusalem and surrender the eastern part of the city to the Palestinians for the capital of their proposed state.

Arutz-Sheva was quoting from a report carried by al-Hayat al Jadeeda, a Palestinian newspaper that obtained its information from “an unnamed Palestinian source”, so it is difficult to say for certain that the reports are true.

(Generally speaking, Palestinian newspapers are not well known for the accuracy of their reporting.)

So when the report was published, Likud MK Limor Livnat asked Olmert, point blank, to state for the record that he has no intention of dividing Jerusalem or surrendering Israeli sovereignty over Temple Mount.

So far, Olmert has refused.

And most Israeli op-ed pieces regarding the issue say that Olmert’s Kadima Party has had both Jerusalem and the Temple Mount on the table all along.

Noted Nadav Shragai, writing in Ha’aretz; “Seven years after the Camp David summit in 2000 and the cabinet’s subsequent decision to adopt, with reservations, then U.S. president Bill Clinton’s plan to divide the capital, no one in Kadima is asking if Jerusalem will be redivided. The only question is how it will be redivided.”

Vice Premier Haim Ramon is floating a plan that would divide the Old City between Israeli and Palestinian sovereignty, with the Muslim and Christian Quarters under Palestinian rule, and the Armenian and Jewish Quarters under Israeli rule.

Under Ramon’s plan, sovereignty over the Temple Mount would be divided between Palestinians and Jews, rather than being surrendered entirely to the Muslims.

Kadima is divided, not over surrendering, but rather, over how much to surrender.

A counter-coalition has arisen with Kadima, headed by MK Otniel Schneller. Schneller is unwilling to give up Israeli sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but will accept religious management of the holy sites.

But Schneller avoids using the word “division” saying his group will accept any substantial concession on the Temple Mount and demands that in the final Jerusalem arrangement, space be allocated on the Temple Mount for Jewish prayer, echoing the demands that former prime minister Ehud Barak raised at Camp David in 2000.

But for now, Olmert is still the key decision-maker — at least until his government is recalled by a ‘no confidence’ vote. Back when Olmert was major of Jerusalem, he was adamantly opposed to any division of what Moshe Dayan called, “Israel’s eternal capital” — but that was then. This is now.

And now, Olmert is letting everybody else do his talking for him.

Assessment:

It is difficult to imagine that Israel’s Jews would surrender either their holy city or their holy mountain, particularly given the message it sends to the world about both Judaism and Islam.

We’ve discussed many times in the past the main stumbling-block to peace between Israel and the Islamic world in conjunction with the West’s inability to see the problem.

Both Islam and Judaism claim Jerusalem and the Temple Mount for their respective religions. Possession for either side means defeat or victory for their respective deity.

Islam’s claim to Jerusalem and al-Aqsa is rooted in the Islamic concept of dar al harb (Zone of War) vs. dar al-Islam (Zone of Islam). Once a place becomes part of dar al-Islam, it remains part of dar al Islam. It can never cease to be part of dar al-Islam.

For example, the Madrid bombing in 2003 was claimed as retribution for the loss of Muslim Andalusia to Spain in 1492.

So, what is today modern Israel was part of the Islamic Ottoman Empire from 1517 to 1917, and is part of dar al-Islam.

Therefore, for an observant Muslim to recognize Israeli sovereignty over any of Israel, any of Jerusalem or any of the Temple Mount is blasphemy against Islam and against its prophet.

There is no doubt that Ehud Olmert knows this. Since the days of the Babylonian exile, Jews the world over celebrated Passover with the hopeful words; “Next year in Jerusalem.”

The Psalmist wrote of Israel’s indelible connection to the city, writing, “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.” (Psalms 137-5-6)

How, then, is it even possible that Israel would consider surrendering either Jerusalem or the Temple Mount? Moreover, doesn’t Bible prophecy say that, “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”? (Luke 21:24)

Weren’t the “Times of the Gentiles” fulfilled when Israel recaptured the city and Temple Mount in 1967? For many, that has become a matter of doctrine — 1967 marked the conclusion of the “Times of the Gentiles.”

Unfortunately, it is more a case of wishful thinking than doctrinal truth. Israel may have captured Jerusalem and the Temple in 1967, but neither has been under exclusive Israeli sovereignty. The Gentiles still call most of the shots in East Jerusalem and all the shots on Temple Mount.

Bible prophecy says that any handover over the city and sanctuary in the last days would be the temporary product of a false peace. The Prophet Daniel says that the antichrist will work out some kind of temporary accommodation over Jerusalem and the Temple Mount that will allow the Jews access to the Temple Mount, but that agreement will only last three and one half years.

The Prophet Zechariah (12:1-4) predicts the whole world would one day stand against Israeli possession of both Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, going so far as to say that any who ‘burden themselves’ with God’s city will be ‘cut in pieces.’

(The single most-often repeated reason for al-Qaeda’s declaration of war against the United States is America’s support for Israel.)

Apart from America, the whole world opposes all things Israeli, including her existence, mainly to avoid incurring the wrath of Islam.

Ezekiel, Zechariah, Daniel, Hosea, Obadiah (and this is by no means an all-inclusive list) all agree that in the last days Israel will become a global pariah, and all agree it will be because of Jerusalem.

The fact that Israel is considering the surrender of the Temple Mount and Jerusalem throws a giant monkey-wrench into the “Times of the Gentiles” doctrine — if one interprets it to mean the “Times of the Gentiles” were fulfilled on June 7, 1967.

But it fits perfectly with the Prophet Zechariah’s overall outline of events. Zechariah also writes, “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.”

Jerusalem will be divided once more in the last days — (and it is worth noting that in order for it to be divided one more time, it had to first be ‘reunited’ – at least, on paper) — that is where the events of 1967 are relevant to Bible prophecy.

No matter what agreements Olmert eventually makes, it won’t be enough to satisfy Islam. Islam cannot accept a Jewish presence in dar al-Islam.

Zechariah predicts that eventually, the Lord “will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.” (Zechariah 14:1-2)

So don’t let the possibility that Israel will surrender some of its territory — even Jerusalem and the Temple Mount — over to the Arabs in exchange for peace, shake your faith in the accuracy of Bible prophecy.

It simply proves that we are closer to the fulfillment of all things that we had first believed.

“There Are No Homosexuals in Iran”

“There Are No Homosexuals in Iran”
Vol: 72 Issue: 25 Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was hoping to make friends among the liberal faculty and students of Columbia University when he accepted their invitation to speak there.

I would have bet he flubbed it when, in response to the question, “why does your country execute homosexuals,” Ahmadinejad told the assembled Columbia faculty and students, “We don’t have homosexuals in Iran.”

Columbia is supposed to be one of the most prestigious Ivy-league schools in the country. To get in, you can’t just be rich — you also have to be smart.

So, when Ahmadinejad answered the question, ‘why do you execute homosexuals?’ by saying “we don’t have any homosexuals” what do you think that means?

Does it mean, “We used to have homosexuals but we executed them all”? Or does it mean, “They are so afraid of being executed that they are all in hiding.”?

Or does it mean that homosexuality is not part of Persian culture?

Clearly, he couldn’t have meant Option Three. While the Persians might not have invented homosexuality themselves, who do you think taught it to the Greeks as a social skill?

The leaves two remaining explanations for the answer. Iran killed them all, or they are so terrified of being killed they’ve gone underground.

So, when Ahmadinejad told Columbia’s best and brightest that, ‘there are no homosexuals in Iran!’ — he could not have chosen a more malevolent answer, saying, in essence, that they were either all dead or in hiding.

I expected the audience, among the most liberal and pro-gay in the country, to do what they would have done had a US military officer said something similar about gays in the military, to stand up and walk out in protest.

Instead, they laughed. They LAUGHED. I listened carefully for a ‘boo’ or for some sign that somebody out there ‘got it’ but evidently, nobody did. Or they didn’t want to offend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by being impolite.

I am trying to imagine a situation in which an American official from either party could get away with saying something similar, but I just can’t get there from here. Evidently, liberals are a forgiving lot.

Who knew?

Assessment:

Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia made him an instant hero to the Left. The New York Times said admiringly, “President of Iran is Defiant to His Critics.”

New York’s Newsday characterized his diatribe this way; “Iranian Prez Comes out Swinging.” TIME Magazine wanted to tell its readers “Why Ahmadinejad Loves New York.”

Ahmadinejad said, to a round of applause from his audience, that the “freest women in the world are the women of Iran.” In Iran, women cannot get a passport without permission from their father or husband. A women’s court testimony is worth half a man’s.

Men can easily divorce their wives, but the bar is set much higher when it is the woman who instigates divorce proceedings. In Iran, a girl reaches marriageable adulthood at age nine.

None of this seemed to bother the liberals in the audience, who at times gave Mahmoud Ahmadinejad standing ovations for some of his comments.

Ahmadinejad bragged about freedom of the press and of Iranian access to the internet, claiming that Iran has a vibrant opposition press.

Iran has banned more than 100 publications in the past decade. Foreign press is strictly controlled.

Iran has blocked more than ten million internet sites, and in 2006, began focusing on sites dealing with women’s rights.

Ahmadinejad’s speech was filled with references to Islam, and with calls for his audience to convert to Islam. Neither the press nor the audience seemed to mind. George Bush once referred to Jesus Christ by Name during his campaign. (Bush was so savaged by the Left in the press that he never did it again.)

When pressed about Iran smuggling weapons into Iraq to fight the United States, Ahmadinejad first denied that it happened, then followed it up with “Are you saying that a few missiles are going to be a problem?”

Not a single followup question addressed his apparent admission that Iranian missiles are being using against US forces in Iraq. (Nobody else even mentioned ‘missiles’)

Nobody booed when Ahamdinejad sidestepped the question about whether or not he meant it when he called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

When he was asked for a ‘yes or no answer’ he complained that he wasn’t being given the chance to speak — which earned him another standing ovation from the audience, and earned the audience another diatribe — and nobody seemed to care that he never answered the question.

In all, Ahmadinejad’s visit was a propaganda coup of immeasurable importance to his regime. Back home in Iran, those who may had begun to chafe under their repressive mullocracy will be treated to endless loops of Ahmadinejad being cheered by students of a prestigious American university.

In Iran, where 70% of the population is under thirty, a student endorsement carries more weight than a UN endorsement of their government. (If the freest student body in the world doesn’t think things are so bad in Iran, then maybe it isn’t as bad as they thought it was.)

Iran’s state-controlled propaganda machine will use the Columbia lecture to highlight America s divisions, to bolster Ahmadinejad s international legitimacy and standing, to reiterate that it is Ahmadinejad and his puppet masters who raise Iran s prestige and position, and to underscore to the Iranian people that the regime is in charge.

If Iran’s dissidents had any hope of regime change, those hopes grew that much dimmer with every standing ovation Columbia’s students gave their leader.

During the darkest days of WWII, US President Franklin D Roosevelt told the nation, “As a nation, we may take pride in the fact we are soft-hearted. But we cannot afford to be soft-headed.”

We can afford it even less now than we could then.

Durban II

Durban II
Vol: 72 Issue: 24 Monday, September 24, 2007

“And I will persecute them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them:” (Jeremiah 51:37)

In September 2001 the UN assembled its members in Durban, South Africa for what was called the “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Intolerance.”

The conference was misnamed; it should have been titled “The World Conference FOR Racism, etc., etc. Especially Against Israel”.

The Durban Conference on Racism was an orgy of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. The Jew-bashing was so intense that even France, at one point, threatened to walk out of the conference. When anti-Semitism offends the French then somebody somewhere has crossed a red line.

The Conference ended with a resolution that defined Zionism as racism and declared, “Anti-Arab racism is another form of anti-Semitism…that has led to violence and hate crimes.”

The final document of the Summit speaks of “massive institutionalized human rights violations through the acts of…apartheid in the occupied territories of the Palestinians” and calls “on business worldwide to divest from the Israeli economy…”

The Durban Conference was absolutely stunning in its unapologetic celebration of Jew-hatred. To this day, I remain amazed that the world doesn’t recall Durban in the same way that it recalls the Nuremberg Rallies or the Wannsee Conference on the Final Solution to the Jewish Question.

Even with the benefit of hindsight, the Durban Conference is still remembered fondly by its organizers and participants, instead of the most overtly racist and anti-Semitic gathering of world leaders since the 1936 Munich Olympics.

The global love-fest with the Arab world was temporarily interrupted a week after Durban when 19 Arabs hijacked three airplanes on September 11.

But its been a decent interval since the destruction of the Twin Towers and the outbreak of the war on terror and the UN is itching to get back to the good old days when bashing Israel and America was the sport of kings, rather than being the exclusive province of terrorists.

So the UN announced from Geneva last week that it is just about time for another UN Conference on Hating Israel and America (oops, I mean ‘Conference on Racism and Xenophobia).

The UN has turned the planning and organization of Durban II over to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

On its first day, the Preparations Council (or Prepcom) elected Libya as its chairman, Cuba as its spokesman, and Iran as a member of its executive council.

These three nations will take the lead in planning a conference on human rights. Noted Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of the Swiss-based “UN Watch”; “Choosing Libya and Iran to fight racism is like choosing Jack the Ripper to fight sexual harassment.”

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, by virtue of holding the majority of seats on each of the African and Asia regional groups, will dictate the terms of the conference.

Among the items on the OIC’s wish list for Durban II are:

* rewriting pre-conference questionnaires to avoid asking potentially embarrassing questions about human rights protections of states within the OIC;

* adopting new rules of procedure ‘especially designed’ for the Conference;

* paying for the Durban II preparations from the U.N. s regular budget — (23% of which comes from the US); and

* allowing the same NGO’s to attend Durban II as those who turned Durban I into a global referendum on alleged Israeli racism.

One U.N.-accredited NGO that will be entitled to join the action is the International Islamic Relief Organization.

The IIRO branches in Indonesia and the Philippines were recently put on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals List for “facilitating fundraising for al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups.”

The objectives of Durban II will include anything the OIC considers contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

Pakistan ensured the agenda included; contemporary forms allows for exhaustive discussion, to find ways to fight new forms to fight against racial profiling in the name of the fight against terrorism.

Egypt worried that the aftermath of 9/11 “saw a new and dangerous phenomenon in incitement to racial and religious hatred [T]he highly defamatory cartoons published by a Danish newspaper deeply hurt over a billion Muslims around the world, and threatened social harmony and peace, both nationally and internationally.

Put another way, then, the U.N. s Durban II has been created to increase mass hysteria over allegations of global Islamophobia perpetrated by those fighting terrorism or publishing cartoons in an obscure Danish paper.

Durban II will hardly reduce racial, ethnic, and religious terrorism, it is being designed to exacerbate it. It is worth remembering that Durban I wasn’t in response to 9/11 — it ended three days before, on September 8, 2001.

Assessment:

Durban II is consciously being planned as a conference aimed at promoting anti-Semitic racism. Pakistan’s Ambassador to the UN is already doing pre-emptive damage control.

Addressing the opening session, Ambassador Masood Khan offered suggestions on “how to deal with the smear campaign against the Durban Review Conference”, which Khan said is “designed to discredit the past and future work on these issues.”

What past work on these ‘issues’ is Khan speaking of? The ‘past issue’ was Durban I. And the “smear campaign” includes things like photos of Islamic delegates to the first conference carrying signs proclaiming “Death to Israel.”

“The PrepCom leadership and members should stay the course and not be distracted by negative propaganda,” Khan said.

Instead, Khan proposed that;

“The conference should move the spotlight on to the continued plight of the Palestinian people and non-recognition of their inalienable right to self determination.”

In addition to spotlighting Israeli human rights abuses, Iran suggested the conference recognize the dangers presented by Islamophobia, which was not on the agenda in 2001.

“Today the defamation of Islam and discrimination against Muslims represents the most conspicuous demonstration of contemporary racism and intolerance.”

“Islamophobia” wasn’t on Durban I’s agenda because until 9/11, nobody was afraid Islam was planning to set the world on fire.

Twenty-five hundred-plus years ago, the Prophet Jeremiah predicted that Israel will remain a world pariah until the coming of the Messiah at the conclusion of the Tribulation Period, and “a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them.”

Even before that, Moses prophesied that Israel would “become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.” (Deuteronomy 28:37)

The Psalmist lamented, “Thou makest us a byword among the heathen, a shaking of the head among the people.” (Psalms 44:14).

Moses made his prediction before there ever was a Land of Israel or a Jewish people. Jeremiah wrote during the exile, after Israel had been destroyed by Syria in 702 BC and as Judah was being conquered by Nebuchadnezzar in 686 BC. The Psalmist wrote his lament even as God’s Chosen People were facing annihilation.

Yet today, Israel exists. As the prophets predicted, it remains a byword and an astonishment, hated above all nations, for reasons nobody can logically articulate. The central issue is ownership of Jerusalem, precisely as predicted by the Prophet Zechariah.

Durban II is just another example of how accurately the Bible has forecast the events of the last days before the return of Christ.

Because these ARE the last days before the return of Christ.

“And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. . . Verily I say unto you, THIS generation shall not pass away, till ALL be fulfilled. (Luke 21:28,32)

Warning To Damascus: “The ‘Burden’ is On You”

Warning To Damascus: “The ‘Burden’ is On You”
Vol: 72 Issue: 22 Saturday, September 22, 2007

In recent weeks, there’s been an explosion of intelligence information that all seems to point toward an impending war of annihilation between Israel and Syria.

The accidental explosion at a Syrian base near Aleppo that Damascus attributed to hot weather detonating a stockpile of explosives was really a chemical weapons accident.

It’s since been established by multiple sources that the explosion killed ‘dozens’ of Iranian weapons engineers and their Syrian counterparts whom they were assisting in mounting chemical warheads on Scud-C missiles.

The explosion released VX gas, sarin gas and mustard gas blistering agent throughout the area.

VX gas is one of the most dangerous chemicals ever created by man. It can be inhaled, or absorbed through the skin. It takes less than a single drop to kill a human being. VX is so adhesive that it is virtually impossible to remove from the surface that it is in contact with.

VX has extremely low votility, which means it does not evaporate or decompose. An area oversprayed with VX in a military attack stays stuck to surfaces, with the potential to kill anyone who comes near them.

VX kills by cutting off the nervous system. It binds to the enzyme that transmits signals to the nerves and inhibits them. Therefore the nerves become isolated and uncontrollable.

In the movie, “The Rock,” Nicolas Cage’s character describes the effect in graphic Hollywood fashion, saying, the victim “convulses until he snaps his own spine.”

Sarin is a clear, colorless, and tasteless liquid that has no odor in its pure form. Sarin rapidly evaporates into a gaseous vapor that spreads rapidly into the atmosphere.

It can be inhaled, or absorbed through exposed eyes or skin. It mixes easily with water. Contaminated water will kill anyone touching or drinking it. Sarin also contaminates and poisons food.

Exposure to even tiny amounts of sarin results in loss of consciousness, convulsions, paralysis and respiratory failure. Severe exposure means certain death.

The third chemical agent being fitted to Syrian missiles is reportedly a “mustard gas blistering agent.” Since mustard gas has been around since the 1st World War, it somehow doesn’t sound as ominously lethal as VX or sarin.

In its pure form, mustard blistering agent is colorless, odorless, viscous liquid. In its gaseous form, it is yellow-brown in color and smells a bit like mustard plants or horseradish.

Mustard gas is ranked a Schedule 1 chemical weapon by the UN Chemical Weapons Convention, the same classification as VX and sarin. Those exposed usually suffer no immediate symptoms.

Within 4 to 24 hours the exposure develops into deep, itching or burning blisters wherever the mustard contacted the skin; the eyes (if exposed) become sore and the eyelids swollen, possibly leading to conjunctivitis and blindness.

At very high concentrations, if inhaled, it causes bleeding and blistering within the respiratory system, damaging the mucous membrane and causing pulmonary edema.

Blister agent exposure over more than 50% body surface area is usually fatal.

These are three of the weapons that Syria is preparing, with Iranian assistance, for use against the Israeli population.

It has been an open secret that Syria has been stockpiling vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons and delivery systems for at least a decade.

I recall reporting in mid-1990’s that Syria’s chemical and biological arsenal was already the largest in the Middle East.

(And that was before Saddam Hussein’s rumored stockpiles mysteriously ‘vanished’ into Syria in early 2003.)

Nobody, except the Israelis, Syrians and North Koreans (and none of them are talking) know exactly what Israel destroyed in the Syrian desert on September 6. About the only thing that seems certain was that it was nuclear in nature, and that it originated in North Korea.

(As an aside, it is worth remembering that the world is much smaller now, thanks to the Caracas-Damascus-Tehran air corridor. Whatever is in Syria today could be in Caracas in 12 hours and at the US-Mexican border in a week.)

Tensions between Israel and Syria are so jumpy that yesterday, the IAF scrambled three Israeli fighters to respond to a flock of migrating birds.

Assessment:

A Syrian opposition party newspaper reprinted a December, 2006 report from the Kuwait daily, Al-Siyasa, which reported that Syria was conducting “an advanced nuclear program” in Hasakah, a province in northeastern Syria.

The report quoted British sources as having identified Colonel Maher Assad, a relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad, and Rami Mahmouf as the two people “supervising” the project.

According to the report in Al-Siyasa, the Syrian nuclear program used Iraqi materials smuggled by Saddam Hussein’s sons prior to the US invasion in March, 2003.

(Isn’t it interesting that no mainstream media outlet picked up the Al-Siyasa story about Saddam’s nukes going to Syria? The media put all its bets on Saddam’s nuclear program being a myth. So they ignored it altogether.)

On September 20, weeks after the accident exposed Syria’s chemical weapons program and the Israeli air strike exposed Syria’s nuclear program, the International Atomic Energy Agency adopted an Egyptian-sponsored resolution declaring the Middle East a “nuclear weapons free” zone.

The resolution, which would require Israel to dismantle its existing nuclear arsenal, was pushed through by a 53-nation Arab bloc, despite abstentions from, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Ghana and Zambia. The measure passed 53 for, 2 against (US and Israel) and 47 ‘courageous’ abstentions.

But it was the reports of the Syrian chemical weapons accident that may have ultimately sealed the fate of Damascus, despite the machinations at the UN. Once the news went public, Israeli public opinion instantly hardened.

“We will not attack them first. But if they ever use these weapons against Israel, then we must be clear it will be the end of this evil and brutal dictatorship,” Yuval Steinitz, a right-wing member of the Israeli parliament, told the Daily News yesterday.

In addition to its nuclear arsenal, (whose existence Israel will neither confirm nor deny) is Israel’s arsenal of neutron bombs. In 1997, Jane’s Defense News reported on an Israeli plan to retaliate against a feared chemical attack from Saddam Hussein “with a devastating neutron bomb barrage.”

The neutron bomb kills by irradiating the area of detonation with untold trillions of neutrons that kill all humans and animals, but leave all buildings and vehicles intact. This bomb also releases very little radiation, so the area formerly inhabited by living people can be immediately occupied.

The Prophet Isaiah, as we’ve discussed, prophesied the “burden of Damascus” which predicts the utter destruction of Damascus at Israeli hands over what amounts to weak global objections. Damascus, the world’s oldest continuously-inhabited city, is prophesied to become a ‘ruinous heap’.

But Damascus is only 135 miles from Jerusalem. The total nuclear destruction of Damascus would threaten much of Israel with radioactive fallout, not to mention the results of the blast.

Israel has small yield nuclear artillery that would effect much destruction, but the kind of destruction that ‘removes Damascus from being a city’ would demand a combination of low-yield nukes and a neutron barrage.

The problem of proximity is complicated by the fact that any war with Syria will include Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, right along Israel’s border, and with Hamas from Gaza and the PA from the West Bank.

Still, the Prophet Obadiah predicts the destruction of House of Esau by ‘the fire’ of the House of Jacob, leaving no survivors among the House of Esau. (Obadiah 18)

And the Prophet Zechariah describes the scene from the perspective of the battlefield, describing 21st century warfare using a 5th century BC vocabulary:

“And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.” (Zechariah 14:12)

We’ve devoted most of the past week to studying and updating the situation on the ground between Israel and Syria and its possible implications to unfolding Bible prophecy. I confess it’s been a terrifying scenario to contemplate, but it is the scenario that exists, and ignoring it won’t make it go away.

This may — or it may not be — a prelude to the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of the destruction of Damascus. It is still possible, although unlikely, that Assad will realize his peril and suddenly stand down. And in the event war does break out, Damascus may — or it may not — survive.

While it is difficult to imagine, given the circumstances, that it could turn out any other way, there is no way of knowing if THIS is the fulfillment until after it happens. That isn’t the point.

The issue isn’t whether or not Isaiah got his prediction right, but rather one of whether or not I am reading the timeline correctly. I could be wrong on the timeline with Isaiah’s accuracy remaining untouched. I’m not hedging on Isaiah — I’m hedging on Jack. I’m not a prophet — just a student of prophecy.

Even if Damascus manages to survive this confrontation, it is just a matter of time before Syria miscalculates and uses chemicals against Israeli targets.

And THAT is the point. More than two thousand, five hundred years before the fact, the Hebrew Prophets had already predicted this precise scenario would unfold.

They predicted who the antagonists would be, by name and region. They predicted that the target would be Israel, twenty-five centuries before there WAS an Israel.

And they predicted, from their various (and different) vantage points in geography and history, all these events would occur at the same point on the timeline, just before the coming of the Messiah-King.

Everything that they predicted that could come to pass HAS come to pass, literally, and not allegorically, from the restoration of Israel to the alignment of nations to the effects of 21st century battlefield weaponry in the field — with 100% accuracy.

There is no reason to believe that, given such stunning accuracy so far, those prophecies remaining to be fulfilled will be fulfilled any less accurately or literally in the days ahead.

Be confident, despite the chaos and uncertainty. All is according to God’s Plan, outlined for us in advance so we would KNOW the signs of the times and rejoice in them, rather than fear them, for we know what they mean.

“The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.” (Proverbs 29:25)