Ahmadinejad’s Himmler

Ahmadinejad’s Himmler
Vol: 74 Issue: 30 Friday, November 30, 2007

During the Nazi era, Adolph Hitler created a special elite force called the Schutzstaffel, meaning ‘Protective Squadron’ but best known by its abbreviation; the SS.

In 1929, Hitler appointed Heinrich Himmler it’s commander and, by 1933, the force grew to a quarter-million men.

Himmler’s SS was deeply rooted in mysticism, drawing on models such as the Knights Templar for tradition and the Jesuits, (who are sworn to absolute obedience to the Pope), Himmler’s SS were Germany’s strongest, smartest, toughest and most fanatically loyal forces.

It was to the SS that Hitler entrusted his mad, ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question’ and history bears witness to how effectively they carried it out.

Ordinary human beings entered SS training camps on one end, and unreasoning killing machines emerged out the other end. Ordinary men that would murder toddlers in their mother’s arms without hesitation or compunction, murder their own countrymen on command, men who would willingly murder their own families if ordered to do so.

There are two historical facts worth noting about the SS: The first is that all SS members were rotated in and out of the death camps, based on manpower needs and also to give assignments to wounded Waffen-SS officers and soldiers who could no longer serve in front-line combat duties.

That means that every single member of the SS, regardless of their assignment, knew what went on behind the barbed wire.

Secondarily, it was discovered during the subsequent war crimes trials that during the entire war, no member of the SS was ever prosecuted by the Nazis for refusing to commit atrocities.

The SS had its own theology, based in German runic mysticism called “Ariosophy,”which combines Zoroastrian Aryanism with Blavatskian Theosophy.

Aryanism is a mystic belief in the former existence of a pure, or ‘master’ race of supermen whose blood descendants have the potential to regain their former super powers through eugenics and selective breeding.

“Theosophy” holds that all religions are attempts by the “Spiritual Hierarchy” to help humanity in evolving to greater perfection.

Ariosophy was a combination of Aryanism and “Theosophy. According to the adherents to Ariosophy, the Aryan was a “master race” that built a civilization that dominated the world from Atlantis about ten thousand years ago.

This civilization declined when other parts of the world were colonized after the 8,000 BC destruction of Atlantis because the inferior races mixed with the “Aryans.” But it left traces of their civilization in various places, mainly in Germany.

The non-Aryans, or ‘mongrel’ races included Slavs, some Poles, Russians, but most especially, the Jews.

Assessment:

Zoroaster was an ancient Persian religious poet and prophet whose collected poems form the Zoroastrian Scriptures, called, the “Gathas”.

The term “Aryan” originates in the Persian cult of Zoroastrianism. In 1925, the ancient state of Persia officially changed its name to that of Iran.

“Iran” is Persian for “Aryan.”

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is Iran’s SS. Like the SS, the IRGC are sworn to absolute obedience to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameni and his designate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

They have their Islamic version of Ariosophy, and their own master and mongrel races; Persian Muslims are superior to Arab Muslims, Muslim Arabs superior to non-Muslims, and all are superior to Jews.

Many of the IRCG’s leadership are themselves members of the Iranian clergy.

The IRGC is said to control 30 percent of the Iranian economy and operates Teheran’s nuclear program. The elite military organization controls more than 500 companies worth more than $12 billion.

Under Ahmadinejad, membership in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has become a virtual requirement to attain a senior position in government.

The majority of the IRGC are regarded as messianics who pray five times a day for a global war that would usher in the Shi’ite savior. The IRGC’s Basij force contains 90,000 full-time and trained fighters ready to commit suicide attacks on command.

The IRGC’s core is every bit as dedicated as Heinrich Himmler’s forces were to their Fuhrer, and none more so than Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

Jalili is a firm loyalist of both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his spiritual guide, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi.

Mesbah believes Iran requires nuclear weapons to wage an Islamic global war that would finally demonstrate the Shi’ite claim of divine right and usher in the return of the Mahdi, or Islamic messiah.

Jalili, also a member of the IRGC, lost his leg in battle during the Iran-Iraq War and is a key adviser to Ahmadinejad on foreign affairs, particularly relations with the United States and Venezuela.

The 18-page letter from Ahmadinejad to Bush earlier this year that sought to justify Iran’s nuclear program was written at Jalili’s urging. That letter was filled with references to their shared messianic philosophy.

Jalili, Ahmadinejad, and many of his top government officials are members of the Hojattieh,or “Twelvers” a messianic sect that believes that Shi’ites must provoke a global war to hasted the arrival the Shi’ite messiah, known as the Mahdi.

At least two ministers in the current Iranian government Interior Minister Ministry Mostafa Pour Mohammadi and Intelligence Minister Gholam Hosssein Ejehi are positively identified as belonging to the messianics.

So here is the situation. The head of Iran’s nuclear negotiation committee is religiously committed to starting a nuclear war with the West, starting with the Jews. He is also a member of the Iranian equivalent to the SS.

His job is not to negotiate a settlement, but to stall the West long enough for the IRGC to get their hands on the Bomb. And, like Ahmadinejad, he believes that his eternal destiny depends on successfully starting the Battle of Armageddon.

On the other side of the negotiating table are a collection of appeasers that would have made Neville Chamberlain blush.

In the middle is an army of soon-to-be-nuclear fanatical Aryan spiritual supermen, eager to kick off the battle with a mushroom cloud over a nuclear-armed Israel.

When one reads Ezekiel’s account of the Gog-Magog War, Persia’s forces are riding horses and carrying swords.

” . . . I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:” (Ezekiel 38:4)

Although I favor a literal reading of the Bible, I always automatically assumed that description was symbolic, since Ezekiel would not have the vocabulary to describe a modern battlefield.

Maybe my assumption was wrong. The Prophet Zechariah was able to find the vocabulary to describe a neutron attack;

“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)

Israel is believed to have some 400 nuclear weapons in its arsenal with which to retaliate against an Iranian nuclear strike.

Maybe Ezekiel’s invaders are carrying swords and shields because that’s all they have left?

The Two-State Solution

The Two-State Solution
Vol: 74 Issue: 29 Thursday, November 29, 2007

Given the obvious fact that none of the participants or observers really believe that the Palestinians will be able to deliver on any promises of peaceful coexistence, one has to wonder — why bother?

Israeli opinion polls are already pronouncing Annapolis ‘a failure’ with more than fifty percent in one poll expressing that view.

Why is the White House pushing for a two-state solution when it knows that the ‘second’ state, Palestine, will be born as a failed state, run by terrorists? And why, of all times, is it so urgent to create a Palestinian state now, in the midst of a war on terror?

President Bush doesn’t really believe that the majority of Palestinians want peace. I don’t believe it is possible for anyone to be that willfully ignorant, and even if he was, he has advisors to set him straight.

Ehud Olmert believes it even less than Bush — Olmert has lived his life under the threat of Palestinian violence. Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem during both intifadas.

Before Olmert was Prime Minister, he was a hawk. Come to think of it, prior to becoming prime minister, so was Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and even Yitzhak Rabin.

But each abandoned their hard-line approach when assuming the high office, and each one since Rabin have embraced the land-for-peace concept and Palestinian statehood.

On the other hand, Yasser Arafat did all that he could to scuttle any possible move towards Palestinian statehood, rejecting a deal outright in 1999-2000 that would have created a Palestinian state seven years ago.

And for all his talk about independence and statehood, Mahmoud Abbas has done precious little to advance the idea except talk about it. Even the Palestinian people themselves seem to be deliberately scotching any opportunities the second they come up.

When you get right down to it, the two countries that seem most intent on forcing the Palestinians to accept a statehood deal are the Israelis and the Americans.

The rest of the world talks about it in dreamy, ‘what if’ terms, but Israel and the US are the only nations actually moving the process in that direction.

Why?

Assessment:

When Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza strip from Jordan and Egypt in 1967, the Jordanians and Egyptians who lived in those territories became persons without a country overnight.

They were no longer Egyptians, protected by Cairo, or Jordanians under the protection of Amman. Those who fled to their homelands were interned in refugee camps. Those who remained lived under Israeli occupation.

They weren’t Jordanians or Egyptians anymore; neither were they Israelis. In a sense, they had no other choice but to declare themselves ‘Palestinians’.

And Israel has no choice but to get them out of their territory, either by deporting them, or by giving up the territory to them.

Deporting them is not an option. The world body would never stand for it. Neither would the Arab League. Interestingly enough, even if nobody else objected, the Israeli people themselves wouldn’t stand for it.

There are still too many Jews in Israel who got there after being deported from their birthplaces in Europe. Israel’s rallying cry, “Never again” would become meaningless.

Still, the only ones who seem genuinely and unmoveably opposed to a two-state solution are the Palestinians themselves. The big stumbling block is the Palestinian demand for the “Right of Return.”

The Palestinian demand for a “Right of Return” REQUIRES Israel to create a separate, Palestinian State. The Palestinians know that their demand for a “Right of Return” would collapse if they had their own state for the refugees to return to.

The day after Annapolis, Ehud Olmert gave an interview to Ha’aretz that solves the mystery:

“If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (with Palestinians) … then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.”

Olmert is absolutely right. If Israel fails in its effort for a two-state solution, then the only alternative will be for Israel to absorb the Palestinian population. Israel could not absorb them without extending them the right to vote.

Olmert said that if Israel failed to agree to a two-state solution and tried to absorb Palestinians into a Jewish state without giving them equal voting rights, influential U.S. Jewish organizations “will be the first to come out against us” — and he is right.

After than would come the Arab League, the UN, the EU, and finally, the United States.

“They will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents,” Olmert told the paper.

If Israel were to keep the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinian voters would soon outnumber Jewish voters and Jews would become the minority in an Arab state. And that is the only alternative to the two-state solution.

On the other hand, if the Palestinians had their own state, Israel would be relieved of both the responsibility and the blame when the Palestinians fail, and fixing the problem would fall to the UN or the Arab League.

A Palestinian state would be responsible for the activities of its citizens. The Syrians don’t let their citizens attack Israel because they don’t want to go to war with Israel.

The Palestinians are under no such constraint at the moment, since, as stateless individuals, they have nothing to lose – Israel can only retaliate against individuals within their midst.

Statehood would replace Palestinian victimhood, the Palestinians would not have Israel to blame, and Hamas and Hezbollah would lose their number one recruiting slogan.

The United States is pushing for Palestinian statehood for the same reason. Many of the al-Qaeda terrorists believe they are fighting for Palestinian independence. The Palestinian ‘problem’ is the reason most often cited for the war against the West.

A two-state solution wouldn’t eliminate al-Qaeda, but it would certainly thin their ranks.

There is a story told in the Middle East about a scorpion who asked a turtle to carry him across a stream. “I can’t do that,” the turtle said. “You’ll sting me and I’ll die.”

“No, I won’t,” the scorpion said. “Then we’d both die.” The turtle thought about this, and finally agreed. Halfway across the stream, the scorpion stung the turtle.

“Why did you do that?” asked the astonished turtle. “Now we’ll both die.”

“What did you expect?” the scorpion replied. “It’s the Middle East.”

Everybody wants to see a two-state solution — except the Arabs who demand it the most loudly.

It won’t work, of course, since the Arabs don’t want it to. But they can’t abandon it as long as it remains a viable option.

So it is in Israel’s best interests to keep the dream alive. And in the Arabs’ best interest to scuttle it.

After all, it is the Middle East!

Special Report: “Israel, Palestinians Agree To Agree”

Special Report: “Israel, Palestinians Agree To Agree”
Vol: 74 Issue: 28 Wednesday, November 28, 2007

The Annapolis Summit concluded with speeches and handshakes and the WBAL-TV’s report was headlined, “Abbas, Olmert Reach Peace Agreement in Annapolis,” while Bloomberg reported, “Israel, Palestinians to Talk Peace As US Takes Role of Judge.”

But what really happened at Annapolis was pretty much what was expected to happen at Annapolis — the Palestinians simply agreed to resume negotiations at the point where they broke down seven years ago when Yasser Arafat launched the “Oslo War” — no harm, no foul.

Every broken promise made by the Palestinians since 1993 was forgiven without comment and Abbas was handed a clean slate. But every concession obtained from Israel under false pretenses since 1993 is now set in stone.

Imagine defaulting on your mortgage, then telling the bankruptcy judge that either the bank forgives both the past due payments and remaining unpaid balance — or you’ll burn down the bank.

Instead of locking you up as a terrorist, the judge orders the bank to cancel the past due payments and begin negotiating away the unpaid balance, in the interests of ‘keeping the peace’.

If anything, that is pretty much what came out of Annapolis. Yesterday, they agreed to agree on discussing further agreements.

Today, President Bush is hosting both leaders to read a joint statement pledging to “usher in a new era of peace” and agreed “to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations”.

The problem is that Olmert’s approval ratings are lower than President Bush’s and Mahmoud Abbas doesn’t control all of the West Bank or any of Gaza.

Forgive another lame analogy, but it is like negotiating with a neighbor about the price of a house down the street– because the guy who lives in it doesn’t want to sell, and the neighbor seems more willing to come down on the asking price.

But that’s ok — you don”t have the money to buy it, anyway! As long as you’re negotiating. . .

Assessment:

Although the negotiations are to resume where they left off in 2000, they are to be based on a modified version of the three-phased Road Map for Peace drawn up by the “Quartet” of international arbitrators, the US, EU, UN and Russia, according to President Bush.

Phase I could be a problem, since Phase I calls for the Palestinian Authority to disarm Hamas.

When you come right down to it, Hamas holds 76 seats in the Palestinian parliament, where Abbas’ Fatah Party holds only 43. The Palestinian Authority is a democracy, and Hamas holds a clear majority as a result of a democratic election.

Under the rules of democracy, Hamas is the legitimate government of the Palestinian people. On the other hand, under the terms of the Oslo Accords, it is the Palestinian Authority whose legitimacy is questionable.

The Palestinian Authority was formally established in 1994 as a five-year transitional body to represent the Palestinian people during which time the final status negotiations were to take place.

From the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994 until the death of Yasser Arafat in late 2004, there was only one election for president and the legislature — in 1996.

When Arafat died, the Palestinian Authority had to rewrite itself into legitimacy before it could stand for election.

Under the parliamentary system, the leader of the majority party becomes prime minister and head of state. Yasser Arafat invented the role of ‘president’ for himself, but Israel and the US insisted on recognizing the Palestinian Prime Minister — at the time, Mahmoud Abbas, as head of state.

Until the Hamas parliamentary victory made Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh Prime Minister in 2006, and the US and Israel arbitrarily transferred head of state recognition to the presidency, once again, Mahmoud Abbas.

The real, legitimate, democratically-elected government of the Palestinian people is Hamas. The present-day Palestinian Authority is a puppet government jointly imposed on the Palestinians by the United States and Israel.

That isn’t an anti-American or anti-Israel rant. Those are the bare-bones facts from which all sides are working.

Forgetting for a moment that you are a blood-thirsty terrorist intent on destroying Israel, if you were a Palestinian voter, how you you see it?

You voted your conscience in a clear, open and fair democratic election, your guy won, and the US and Israel — whom you already hate — ignored the results of the election and went with the guy you voted against.

Let’s personalize it a bit and try to get more than a superficial understanding of the situation as it exists from the Palestinian perspective.

Remember the 2004 Election? Suppose the Europeans were somehow able to install John Kerry because, although Bush got more votes, Kerry got a lot of votes — and Europeans liked him better.

Once installed by the EU, John Kerry starts negotiating the return of California, New Mexico and Texas to Mexico — at the EU’s insistence. Step One requires John Kerry to disarm everybody who voted for George Bush.

How would you rate his chances for success?

One of the first principles of warfare is “know your enemy.” And diplomacy is simply warfare by other means, so the same principle applies.

If you and I can personalize it enough to see it the way the majority of Palestinian voters see it, then so can the smart guys at the State Department and the equally smart guys in the Israeli foreign ministry.

I am not taking up for the Palestinian side — we were only forgetting ‘for a moment’ that we were stepping into the shoes of blood-thirsty terrorists intent on destroying Israel simply because it is a Jewish state.

But that momentary glimpse of what it really is that everybody is cheering about brings Annapolis into perspective.

The Annapolis Summit’s stated goal is to bring about the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side in peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state — in the next fourteen months.

We’ve a much better chance of solving the energy crisis, curing cancer and eliminating world hunger — in the next fourteen months. And everybody at the summit — from the Jews to the Americans to the Saudis — knew that going in.

So why even bother? We’ll tackle that question in tomorrow’s OL.

All Roads Lead To Rome

All Roads Lead To Rome
Vol: 74 Issue: 27 Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Nobody really expects much to emerge from the Middle East Peace Summit in Annapolis. Not the Israelis, not the Americans, and certainly not the Palestinians. At best, it’s a case of forcing somebody to do something, even if it is wrong, on the theory that any movement is better than standing still.

This flies in the face of the single most valuable piece of advice my father ever gave me, which was, ‘when you don’t know what to do, don’t do anything until you do.’ There is a similar saying down South — ‘don’t fix it til you know what’s broke.’

But Bush is just following the lead of his predecessors, from Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton — all of whom tried to fix the Middle East without bothering to figure out what was broke first. At best, Annapolis is likely to set in motion what I call the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Jimmy Carter rammed through the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1977, which led to the signing of a peace deal in 1979. The unilateral nature peace deal inflamed the Islamic world.

(In an Egyptian government poll taken only last year, after three decades of ‘peace’ ninety-two percent of the Egyptian public still views Israel as an enemy nation.)

Egypt was suspended from the Arab League in 1979. It resulted in the assassination of Anwar Sadat by the Muslim Brotherhood. Among the conspirators was a young pediatrician named Ayman al Zawahiri — who went on to become Osama bin Laden’s number two man.

Egypt’s realignment created a power vacuum in the Arab world that a young Saddam Hussein was only too eager to fill. Until Egypt’s fall from grace, Iraq had been only a secondary regional power.

Because of the vague language concerning the implementation of Resolution 242, the Palestinian problem became the primary issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict immediately following the Camp David Accords.

Camp David was the springboard that launched the process that gave the world Beirut in the 1980’s, Saddam Hussein in the 1990’s, the Oslo War in 2000, and Osama bin Laden in 2001.

In 1977, Jimmy Carter was looking for a way to distract attention away from the recession and runaway inflation, the energy crisis, the erosion of the dollar and high unemployment at home.

The Camp David Accords became his presidential legacy, and despite his presiding over what was arguably one of the worst presidencies in US history, the first line in historical bio will be his accomplishments at Camp David.

Bill Clinton rammed through the second Camp David Accords in an effort to keep Monica Lewinsky’s name out of the first line of his historical bio. His administration botched the 1993 Oslo Agreement by allowing Arafat to set the precedent of signing agreements he had no intention of honoring while requiring Israel to live up to the obligations those same agreements imposed on them.

Arafat grew accustomed to style over substance, and when he was forced into Camp David II, he sparked the intifada Israel now calls the “Oslo War.”

All the various agreements and deals brokered by the Bush administration between Israel and the Palestinians fell victim to the same fate, because every agreement since the Carter administration as attempted to fix what isn’t broken by ignoring what obviously is.

Israel wants peaceful coexistence with her Arab neighbors. The Egyptian government wanted the huge US aid package Carter tied to Camp David. The Egyptian population wanted the absence of war.

There is a difference between ‘peaceful coexistence’ and ‘the absence of war’. What exists between the US and Canada is ‘peaceful coexistence’. It is hard to imagine those two nations ever going to war.

What exists between the US and Russia is the ‘absence of war’. It is hard to imagine how we will manage to avoid an eventual US-Russian war.

What was broken in Egypt in 1977 remains unfixed to this day, Camp David Accords I and II notwithstanding. The goal of Annapolis will only make it worse. Israel wants peace. The Arabs will accept nothing less than victory, which is not a Palestinian state beside Israel, but a Palestinian state instead of Israel.

(One of the sticking points that has already emerged is a Palestinian objection to labelling Israel as ‘a Jewish state’.)

Annapolis aims to hand the Palestinians complete victory over Israel in exchange for what they openly declare to be a one-sided peace.

And a one-sided peace is called surrender.

Assessment:

While Abbas and Olmert meet in Annapolis, the democratically-elected Hamas government issued a statement calling Abbas “a traitor” and pledged to reject any decisions or agreements produced from the summit.

You see, THAT is what is broken and hasn’t been fixed. Not Hamas. Not Hezbollah. Not terrorism. Peace isn’t something that exists between governments — it is something that exists between two peoples.

The US could declare war on Canada, or vice-versa, but it would take Americans shooting Canadians or Canadians shooting Americans to prosecute that war. That’s a whole different story.

President Bush is fond of noting that no democracy in world history ever started a war. That was because nobody ever tried to impose a democracy on a people to whom war was a religious duty.

The first chance the Palestinian people got to vote for a government that represented the will of the Palestinian people they elected Hamas. Instead of recognizing the problem, the administration tried to fix it by ignoring the results of an election it demanded.

If the majority of the Palestinian people identify with Hamas and its platform of three ‘Nos’ – no negotiation, no recognition, no peace — then the only thing that can come out of Annapolis is a new violation of the Law of Unintended consequences.

Twenty-five hundred years ago, the Prophet Daniel foresaw the current peace process and foretold it in detail. Sometimes, it is easy to lose sight of what an awesome feat of prognostication that really was.

Daniel was a captive of the Babylonian Empire. The northern Kingdom of Israel had already been destroyed, Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, and the Jews were either in exile abroad or under occupation back home.

From the mid 5th century BC until AD 1948, there would be no such thing as an independent state of Israel. From AD 70 to 1948, there was no such thing as a Jewish homeland.

But Daniel predicted there would be a Jewish homeland in the last days, that it would be surrounded by enemies, that the focal point of the dispute would be the Temple Mount, even describing the Oslo ‘land for peace’ formula, saying 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.”. (Daniel 11:39)

As I said at the outset, not much is expected to emerge from the Annapolis summit beyond some sort of vague ‘agreement to agree’ on some future issue, declare success and go home to the status quo. The prophet Daniel would seem to concur.

According to Daniel, a seven year treaty based on the formula of dividing the land for gain will be confirmed, but not by an American president or in an American-led process.

The prophet Daniel says the agreement will be confirmed (not brokered) by a ‘prince’ of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary [the Romans in AD 70].

“[A]nd the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, [Josephus, an eyewitness to the carnage, claimed the blood rose to the level of a horse’s bridle in the streets of Jerusalem] and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” (Daniel 9:26-27)

For the antichrist to interrupt the ‘sacrifices and oblations’ there must exist a Jewish Temple. Whatever comes out of Annapolis, it is unlikely to restore the Temple Mount to Jewish hands.

Annapolis may be on the road map to Daniel’s false peace, but it is just a waypoint — it isn’t the final destination. Daniel says the final destination is Rome — and we aren’t there yet.

But if Annapolis fails, as the saying goes, all roads lead to Rome.

Doing God

Doing God
Vol: 74 Issue: 26 Monday, November 26, 2007

When former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his communications director, Alastair Campbell were being interviewed for a British television program, the interviewer asked the PM about his personal faith.

Before Blair could respond, Campbell interrupted to warn the interviewer; “We don’t do God.”

In an interview with David Frost during the run-up to the Iraq War, Blair was asked point-blank if he ever prayed with President Bush. After several nervous ‘harrumphs’ Blair told Frost that he had not.

During his three terms in office, Blair refused to discuss his religious faith, or lack thereof, despite a number of attempts to draw him out on the subject. All that was known was that Blair regularly attended Church of England services, which by itself, suggests nothing.

In the UK, the Church of England is as much politics as it is religion. The head of the Church of England is the Queen. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a political appointee. There are twenty-six Anglican bishops among the British House of Lords.

For a British Prime Minister, attending Church of England services is more a demonstration of patriotism than an exercise in religious faith.

So, when now-former Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted in a BBC documentary entitled “The Blair Years” that he really DID ‘do God’ during his time at 10 Downing Street, a significant portion of the British Establishment was aghast at the news.

Evidently, for a British politician to ‘come out of the closet’ and admit to being a Christian is much worse than being ‘outed’ in the regular fashion. In the interview, Blair all but apologized for his Christian faith, saying;

“There is no point in me denying it. I happen to have religious conviction. I don’t actually think there is anything wrong in having religious conviction – on the contrary, I think it is a strength for people.”

Let’s leave any personal judgments regarding Blair’s former lack of Christian testimony to the Lord and focus instead on Blair’s ‘admission’ and the reaction it engendered in British political circles.

“There’s no point in me denying [that I believe in God],” Blair said, as if religious faith were a criminal indictment.

It is worth noting at this point that three years ago, after rescuing his two daughters from a fire at their dacha, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed to have undergone a religious conversion and now claims to be a Christian.

The point is not whether Tony Blair or Vladimir Putin became born-again Bible Christians or whether or not they are genuine believers. That, as I said earlier, is a judgment best left to God.

The point is that the leader of the godless atheist former Soviet Union felt more free to admit in a belief in God than did the Prime Minister of the traditionally Christian United Kingdom.

It was the British that gave the King James Bible. It was the British who sent out the early missionaries to evangelize the darkest corners of the world. Dr. David Livingstone, who was immortalized by explorer H.M. Stanley’s greeting, “Dr. Livingstone, I presume?”, was a British missionary believed lost in Africa.

Livingstone refused to be ‘rescued’ from his Christian missionary work and lived out his life in Africa spreading the Gospel. If one could somehow pluck Dr. Livingstone from his grave in Zambia, Africa, and play Tony Blair’s ‘confession’ of Jesus Christ, Livingstone would no doubt stroke out on the spot and die all over again.

But not so much for Blair’s wishy-washy confession, but for the national attitudes that necessitated it.

The reaction to Blair’s confession spawned a legion of editorials and commentaries that go a long way toward explaining why Blair felt the need to qualify his confession of faith by saying, “I don’t actually think there is anything wrong in having religious conviction.”

Judging by the editorial content, most of his countrymen disagree.

Wrote John Humphries in a scathing Telegraph editorial, “We Prefer Politicians Without a Hotline To God”;

“The vast majority of Americans believe in God and most of those fully expect him to return to Earth pretty soon – probably to Arkansas or thereabouts. Research I conducted for my latest book suggests that fewer than a third of people in this country believe in the sort of God worshipped by Tony Blair. About the same number believe in something, but they’re not sure what. And almost half think the influence of religion is harmful. Fewer than a fifth think it is beneficial.”

Menzies Campbell, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, went so far as to suggest the British public might have been less willing to give Blair the triumph of three consecutive general election victories; “if they’d known the extent to which ethical values would overshadow pragmatism.”

Just think about that statement for a minute! British Leftist MP George Galloway’s ethical values were shaped by oil credits from Saddam Hussein and Galloway’s seat in parliament is in no jeopardy.

But Blair’s admission of Biblical ethics and values would have ended his political career.

Blair fared no better among the ‘third of Christians [who] “believe in the sort of God worshipped by Tony Blair” than he did among atheists like John Humphries:

In ANOTHER Telegraph editorial, Damien Thompson opined: “To Many of Us, He Isn’t a Nutter But a Hypocrite.” In it, Thompson complains;

“Tony Blair says that as prime minister he shied away from talking about religion for fear of being thought a ” nutter”. But in the eyes of many Roman Catholics, he is something worse: a hypocrite.”

Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. It seems that the only choices the British public gave Blair were to resign his career or be a religious hypocrite. It is less important which Blair is than it is that those were the only choices the British public would countenance.

Assessment:

I don’t want to make Tony Blair into a religious martyr, or go on record as either endorsing or questioning the validity of either his doctrine or confession.

Whether or not either Blair or Putin are sincere or sincerely saved is NOT the point — they are merely the object lessons illustrating the point I’m trying to make. In fact, two points.

First, Jesus Christ is more welcome in the Kremlin than He is at Number 10 Downing Street. The second is that Bible says that it is Christian Crusader Europe that embraces the antichrist, and not the godless Russians.

The Apostle Paul explains the process in his 2nd Letter to the Thessalonians. He begins by addressing a heresy that had crept into the Church in Thessolonika about the Rapture of the Church — (our gathering together unto Him) specifically, that it had already happened and they had been left behind to face the “Day of Christ” (or the Tribulation Period):

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:1-2)

Paul told the Thessalonians what must first precede the [Judgment], “Day of Christ” — beginning with the ‘great falling away’ (Gk apostasia or ‘apostasy’) which would be followed by the revelation of the ‘man of sin’ or the ‘son of perdition’ who declares himself to be God when he seats himself at the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant in the “Temple of God”. (2nd Thessalonians 2:3-4)

Obviously, we’re not there yet. The man of sin has not yet been revealed, the Ark not yet recovered, the Temple not yet rebuilt and the peace covenant has not yet been confirmed. But the apostasia in the heart of English-speaking Western Christianity is already well-advanced.

The apostasia comes first, Paul says. But before the revelation of the man of sin who sets all the rest in motion, Paul says there must first be one more event.

“And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time,” Paul writes. Follow along with me here, and keep in mind the context of today’s report:

“For the mystery of iniquity [apostasy] doth already work: only He who now letteth [restrains] will let [continue to restrain], until He be taken out of the way.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:7)

THIS is where we are at this moment in this prophecy. The Blair story perfectly exemplifies the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in which Blair’s faith is somehow a political liability to a society that has fallen away from the faith [apostasia] .

One can see the same creeping apostasia in the two remaining bastions of Western English-speaking Christianity, America and Australia, (where John Howard’s Conservatives were just bounced out of office on their ear. )

But as long as there remains a believing remnant, the antichrist is restrained. Now notice that Paul’s “Restrainer” is a personal pronoun and not an ‘it’.

He will restrain until He is taken out of the way.” The Restrainer of evil in the Church Age can only be the Holy Spirit Who Personally indwells every believer. His Ministry is to comfort and guide believers in all truth and to impart spiritual gifts such as discernment and understanding. Jesus said He would remain with us until His Return.

Everybody with me so far?

But the Holy Spirit is God, and God cannot be ‘removed’ since nothing can exist apart from God. David wrote, “If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou art there.” (Psalms 139:8)

But before the antichrist can be revealed, the Restrainer must be ‘taken out of the way”. That means His restraining influence on me must ALSO be ‘taken out of the way’ or else the Bible does not mean what it says.

If we follow the premise as laid down in unambiguous terms by the Apostle Paul in these verses, that leaves us with two questions remaining to be answered. The first is this.

Is it possible for the Restrainer to be “taken out of the way” and still indwell me as a Christian, convicting me of sin, comforting me in times of spiritual peril, and guiding me in all truth?

The second question is similar to the first, but longer.

Is it possible that I could become, er, un-indwelt, bereft of the spiritual gifts afforded me by His indwelling Presence, through no specific fault of my own not shared by all redeemed Christians — and then left to face the greatest time of spiritual and physical peril known to the human race spiritually alone — after a lifetime of spiritual companionship?

It would almost seem so. First, the apostasy, then the revelation of antichrist, then the tribulation, but between the apostasy and the revelation, the Restrainer must be taken out of the way, while the remaining believers carry on without Him.

There is only one other logical explanation — that the believers are withdrawn together with the Restrainer — AFTER the apostasia, but BEFORE the revelation of the man of sin, (described by Paul in 1st Thessalonians 4:16-18).

We are already looking backward fondly to the days before the onset of the Great Apostasy that makes being a Christian a liability, and looking forward to the day that SOMEBODY confirms a peace deal between Israel and the Arabs that leaves Israel in control of Temple Mount.

Somewhere between Tony Blair whining, “I don’t think having faith is a bad thing”; and a news headline announcing, “Israel, Arabs Announce Lasting Peace Agreement” — comes the Rapture of the Church.

And that’s just about the point at which we find ourselves on the timeline right now.

Asia’s Armageddon Arsenal

Asia’s Armageddon Arsenal
Vol: 74 Issue: 24 Saturday, November 24, 2007

The Western media had a brief flirtation with the disturbing news coming out of Burma, or Myanmar, but since nobody could make up there minds whether it was really supposed to be called ‘Myanmar’ or ‘Burma’ they quickly lost interest in the story.

Burma officially changed its name to “Myanmar” at the UN in 1989, but neither the US nor the UK recognized the name change. So before going forward, let’s agree to call the place “Burma” for the sake of clarity.

First off, where the heck is it? Burma is nestled in a corner of Southeast Asia bordered by China, Laos, Thailand, Bangladesh and India.

Burma achieved independence from British colonial rule in January, 1948 marking the end of the era in which ‘the sun never set on the British flag’ and the end of the European Colonial Era.

Burma has been ruled since 1962 by a military junta that has turned the country into an international criminal enterprise run by Senior General Than Shwe. Than Shwe is cut from the Kim Jong il mold; a superstitious nutbar who keeps astrologers on staff to advise him.

In Burma, everything from poetry to films is censored through state control of all media, including the internet. The Burmese are kept as much in the dark about the outside world as the North Koreans.

The Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders has placed Burma among the bottom 10 countries in its world press freedom ranking. It says the press is subject to “relentless advance censorship”.

Internet access is tightly controlled by the government. It is further hampered by a poor telephone infrastructure and an unreliable supply of electricity.

Reporters Without Borders calls Burma a “black hole” whose system “increasingly resembles an intranet as more and more foreign electronic services have been cut”.

But that’s how things have been in Burma for forty-five years. So how come I had to tell you where it is? Put another way, how come I had to look it up before I could tell you?

(Burma gets so little international attention that the best I could say until I looked it up was that it was somewhere near India)

But all that is about to change.

Assessment:

According to recent intelligence information, Burma is planning to join the new 2nd-tier nuclear club that now includes Pakistan, India, North Korea, and soon, Iran.

The military junta decided in January 2002 to build a nuclear reactor and the government controlled news in Burma has reported that Burma’s pending new constitution will place the development of nuclear energy under the control of the Defense and security industries along with production of arms and ammunition and explosives including biological and chemical weapons.

Officials said the sites for the reactor include a region known as the Mandalay Division of the country, which is near the new capital called Nay Pyi taw. A second locations is the nearby Magwe Division.

Both locations have been identified as probable locations for either an existing or planned nuclear facility. Burma is getting help with the covert nuclear project from technicians from Russia and North Korea.

The reported North Korea connection to the nuclear project, if confirmed, would trigger another major crisis with the North Koreans — and with China.

Beijing is helping with a huge underground hydro-power plant in Mandalay, raising concerns that China is proliferating nuclear technology to Burma like it did to Pakistan in the 1980s.

Russian involvement included a joint project led by Burmese and Russian specialists from the Atomstroy Export Group to build a 10 megawatt pool-type nuclear research reactor in Kyaukse Mandalay Division.

According to intelligence sources, some 300 Burmese military officers have been study nuclear science in Russia and one source stated that a North Korean ship carrying senior Korean nuclear technology specialist, Maj. Hon Kil Dong was sent to Rangoon in July 2006.

This information comes via the subscription intel website, Geo-Strategy Direct, compiled by Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, one of the most plugged-in reporters in Washington and an extremely credible source.

“And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. . . And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. . . And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. . . And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.” (Revelation 16:12,16,21)

When you consider that the Apostle John was attempting to describe something that did not exist in a language that had no words to describe it, John did an excellent job of describing the effects of a nuclear explosion — right down to the hailstones.

When a nuke goes off, the water vapor that rises to the top freezes in the upper atmosphere and comes back down in hundred pound chunks of nuclear ‘hail’.

The Scriptures identify four spheres of global power in the last days by region as seen from the perspective of Jerusalem: the kings of the south, the antichrist’s government to the west, the Gog-Magog alliance to the uttermost north of Israel, and the kings of the east.

The Scriptures don’t tell us much about the Kings of the East, other than their location, their numbers (200 million soldiers) and that the battlefield will be marked by voices, and thunders, and lightnings, an earthquake of indescribable proportions, and giant hailstones.

But as we get closer to the time appointed, the picture begins to come into focus. The People’s Republic of China , the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, India, North Korea, and now Burma.

Asia is arming itself for Armageddon.

Note this, as well. We’ve noted in previous briefings that every modern event related to Bible prophecy can trace itself in someway to the birth of Israel in 1948.

The government of antichrist rests on his control of three central pillars of Western society — a centralized global government, a centralized global economy and a centralized global religious system.

The revived Roman Empire was born out of the 1948 Benelux Treaty. The UN Constitution, “the Universal Declaration of Civil and Political Rights, was signed in 1948.

The World Trade Organization was created out of the 1948 GATT Treaty, which also spawned the IMF and World Bank. The World Council of Churches was created in Amsterdam under UN auspices in 1948.

The invention of the transistor led to the official ‘birth of the computer age’ — making centralized control of all these things possible, — in 1948.

Finally, the Cold War, which set the stage for the Gog-Magog Alliance, officially began with the Berlin Airlift standoff between the US and Soviet Union in 1948.

Look up these nations in your encyclopedia: The People’s Republic of China declared its existence in 1947. Pakistan declared independence in 1947. India declared independence in 1947. North Korea split from South Korea in 1948.

And Burma declared its independence in 1948.

“Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:34-36)

Man from Hope

Another Man from Hope
Vol: 74 Issue: 23 Friday, November 23, 2007

Hope, Arkansas may be given the opportunity to redeem itself for its previous offering to the nation as it’s second native son, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. begins to surge in the national polls.

A month ago, Huckabee was written off as a ‘fringe’ candidate like the Left’s Dennis Kucinich or the far Right’s Ron Paul. (There doesn’t seem to be a ‘far Left’ candidate — since that would suggest at least one of the Left’s offering isn’t.)

Huckabee was written off as a ‘fringe’ candidate by the media primarily because of his credentials as a born-again Christian. (As Reverend Mike Huckabee, he ascended to the Governor’s mansion from the pulpit of a Baptist Church.)

Huckabee got my attention in one of his first debates when Tim Russert pressed him on whether or not he would lead the United States towards becoming a more Christian nation.

The Governor answered; “We are a nation of faith. It doesn’t necessarily have to be mine.” He also told Russert, (and the nation) “I make no apology for my faith. My faith explains me.” Good answer.

My greatest fear when it comes to choosing a president based on his faith is not that much different than that of the ACLU. What if he governs according to his faith?

And what if he is wrong?

As an example, a lot of Christians voted for George Bush exclusively on his profession of faith. But Bush is a Methodist. The Methodist Church embraces what is known as ‘replacement theology’.

Replacement theology is the belief that the Church replaced Israel as God’s Chosen and that all the promises to Israel were passed to the Church. According to this view, all Bible prophecy concerning Israel was fulfilled in AD 70.

Since modern Israel is not the Israel of the Old Testament, it holds no special place in the plan of God. The same goes for Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

The “two-state solution” his administration is advancing — including the division of Jerusalem and some kind of time-share arrangement for the Temple Mount are perfectly consistent with Bush’s Methodist theology.

(But I doubt many of you would have voted for Bush — had you known in advance where it would lead Israel)

Huckabee’s answer, “we are a nation of faith, it doesn’t necessarily have to be mine” was somewhat reassuring. Huckabee’s acknowledgment that there are differences between Christianity and other faiths might end the current administration’s practice of advancing Allah as an alternative name for God.

While Huckabee was a fringe candidate, if the media mentioned him at all, it was stuff like the Washington Post’s profile last January:

“He lost more than 100 pounds and penned a diet book about the experience, “Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.”

But this morning’s AP headline read, “Huckabee Rides Evangelical Wave in Iowa”. Mike Huckabee is a fringe candidate no longer.

Assessment:

Of all the candidates in the field, Mike Huckabee is the one that most scares the Left. The nuanced attacks have already begun. Noted the AP;

“GOP officials wonder if he’s on a path to reprise the 1988 performance of televangelist Pat Robertson, who shocked people with his second-place showing here but never got closer to the White House.”

If there were actually any “GOP officials” comparing Huckabee to Pat Robertson, the AP writer failed to quote any of them.

Instead, they quoted a pro-abortion ‘undecided’ — a member of the Iowa Christian Alliance, a liberal college professor, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and three unidentified voters of unknown political persuasion — not one of whom came close to comparing Huckabee with Robertson.

The quotes the AP DID use, however, were things like, “He’s definitely the most evangelical candidate in the race,” and, “Huckabee has made deep inroads in the evangelical community.”

The AP noted with alarm that, “Huckabee’s down-home style has proven effective, as has a record that many see as untainted by nuances and switches.” It also noted that “Huckabee is backed by 44% of evangelical Protestants.”

The picture that the AP is clearly trying to paint is that of another religious looney who may dupe a significant portion of the rest of the religious looneys, which would spell trouble for their side during the general election.

If the mainstream media is this scared of Mike Huckabee already, then maybe its time to give Mike Huckabee a second look.

On spiritual faith, Huckabee says; “Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have. Faith gives us strength in the face of injustice and motivates us to do our best for “the least of us.”

On the role of political faith; “The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred.” (Huckabee impresses me here as the first politician in two dozen years that seems to have read the First Amendment verbatim.)

On abortion, he is unequivocal: “I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.” Huckabee opposes gay marriage and supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage “as a union between one man and one woman.”

(It still amazes me that such an amendment should be necessary. It’s like defining a dog as having four legs and a tail in order to keep from confusing it with a porpoise — but for this brain-damaged generation, it IS necessary. And Huckabee supports it.)

On immigration, Huckabee promises to “take back our country for those who belong here. No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver s licenses for illegals.”

On Israel, Huckabee says, “I am a steadfast supporter of Israel, our staunch ally in the War on Terror, the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East, and our greatest friend in that region.”

Huckabee opposes gun control, weapons bans, the Brady Bill and supports 2nd Amendment Rights.

On the war in Iraq, Huckabee says it is part of the war on terror, opposes a withdrawal timetable and declares, “I am focused on winning.”

Huckabee proposes to make seeking energy independence a national priority and promises full energy independence by the end of his second term.

The AP’s opinion notwithstanding, Mike Huckabee is no Pat Robertson. No wonder he scares the Left!

At last! A candidate worth watching.