The Big Picture: Filling In Some Blank Spots

The Big Picture: Filling In Some Blank Spots
Vol: 93 Issue: 22 Monday, June 22, 2009

Since the beginning of the demonstrations and rioting in Iran, the Iranian government has discovered it is just like the Great Satan that it hates so much. Or so it is now arguing in defense of its hotly disputed election.

At a news conference Monday, Hassan Qashqavi, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, called the turnout officially put at 85 percent, or 40 million voters a brilliant gem which is shining on the peak of dignity of the Iranian nation.

He accused the West of spreading unacceptable anarchy and vandalism. But, he said, the outcome of the vote would not be changed. We will not allow western media to turn this gem into a worthless stone, he said.

However, on Iran’s English-language (and state-controlled) Press TV, the GRC accidentally admitted on Sunday night that the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters — in fifty different cities throughout the country.

Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, the spokesman for the authoritative Guardian Council a 12-member panel of clerics charged with certifying the vote denied claims by another losing candidate, Mohsen Rezai, that irregularities had occurred in up to 170 voting districts.

“Not so!” protested Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei. Kadkhodaei responded to the charge indignantly, saying: Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100 percent of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80 to 170 cities are not accurate the incident has happened in only 50 cities!”

(“Only fifty cities? Stop it. You’re killin’ me.”) It’s just like American elections, anyway, says Qashqavi. “No one encouraged the American people to stage a riot because they disagreed with the re-election of George Bush,” he said.

(George Bush. . . George Bush . . . George Bush . . . – I’m sorry? You were saying?)

The effort to invoke George Bush is as lame as it is funny. I recall a whole lot of folks demanding riots in the streets after each Bush election.

If Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy as Iran’s elected leader is in question, then that should give the Obama administration some serious leverage with Ahmadinejad moving forward.

It should, but it probably won’t. Obama has so completely ignored the ongoing strife in Iran that one headline in today’s Washington Post read; “White House’s Online Silence on Iranian Elections is Gaining Notice.”

Noted the Washington Times, “President Obama has betrayed the pro-democracy protesters in Tehran. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators are risking their lives to contest Iran’s rigged elections. They understand that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election was a fraud and that his main challenger, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, is the victim of a stolen election. “

On the other hand, what is Obama gonna say? “Your election isn’t legitimate because you won the same way that I did?”

Pressing that issue just highlights the fact that Obama was elected in a landslide election that was just too similar to Ahmadinejad’s to give him much moral authority on the topic. (The baton-wielding, jack-booted thugs in this picture were outside a polling station in Philadelphia, not Tehran.)

That’s one reason that the White House has avoided voicing any support for the demonstrators in Tehran or questioning the Ahmadinejad government’s legitimacy. Even rank hypocrisy has its limits.

The Iranian uprising is only partly about the elections. Noted one opposition leader, “Before we had 20% democracy and 80% dictatorship. Now, it is 100% dictatorship.” So it isn’t really that significant a change, to all intents and purposes.

Just as Mousavi’s political views aren’t really that much different from those of Ahmadinejad. Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.

The 1956 Hungarian Uprising propelled Imre Nagy to the front ranks of the opposition although Nagy was as much a product of the Communist system as anybody. But the people needed somebody to rally around, and Nagy was as good a symbol as any.

Mousavi is a bit like Nagy. It isn’t the leadership that Iranians are railing against. It is the system. Noted today’s Washington Times;

“The genie is out of the bottle. The supreme leader no longer reigns supreme. . . . The opposition protests threaten to discredit and sweep away the key institutions of the Islamic Republic. Most Iranians rightly sense that Mr. Ahmadinejad and the apocalyptic mullahs are taking Iran down the path to national suicide. Once Tehran acquires the bomb, a nuclear showdown with Israel is not only likely, but inevitable. It is not just Israel that will be wiped off the map. So will Iran.”

The Bible says that’s not gonna happen.


Israel is not going to be wiped off the map by Iran. The Bible says that Israel survives the Tribulation and goes on to repopulate the Millennial Kingdom, together with the surviving Gentile sheep nations.

And Iran isn’t going to be wiped off the map by Israel. The Bible says that Iran will survive to join the Gog-Magog Invasion against Israel. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Iran’s mullocracy survives its current crisis. Or that what follows the mullocracy will necessarily be an improvement.

But even if the mullahs do manage to hang on to power the result will be a different Iran. Which provides some new puzzle pieces for the Big Picture insofar as Israel is concerned.

Key to understanding the Big Picture is understanding that, although Muslim, Iran is not an Arab country. The Iranians are Persians. An alliance between the Arabs and Iran is only slightly less distasteful to both sides than would an alliance with Israel.

Iran has no genuine friends in the Arab world, and in a sense, they aren’t even really co-religionists.

The Persians are Shi’ite while the majority of the Arab world is Sunni. Think of it as an alliance between the Catholics and the Mormons against a common enemy. Although both claim to be Christian, they have nothing in common except the shared enemy. Remove the shared enemy, and they have NOTHING in common.

Hamas is Sunni, but would make an alliance with anybody in its mission to destroy Israel. The Ahmadinejad government has given Hamas more that $150 million over the past three years, according to the Mossad. More than 80% of Hamas’ arsenal of weapons are Iranian-made.

No matter how this turns out in Tehran, it won’t be good news for Hamas. The same for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Without Iranian funding and support, they’re just another terrorist group.

Without Iranian support, Syria finds itself holding the ball with nobody to pass to. Without Hezbollah, Syria’s control of Lebanon is seriously weakened, as is Syria’s capacity to seriously threaten war with the Jewish State.

According to the Prophet Ezekiel, the Gog Magog War takes place at a time when Israel is living in relative peace and safety. Ezekiel pictures Israel as a land of unwalled villages.

A war between Iran and Israel would be one of annihilation. You can’t get to Gog Magog from here. Some things have to change.

Regime change in Iran would have a ripple effect across the Middle East and the right regime change could change the dynamic across the Middle East overnight.

Israel could suddenly find herself surrounded by crippled enemies. An illusion of peace and safety would not be far behind.

I am often asked if the Gog Magog War will happen before the Rapture or during the Tribulation Period. There is a third option that is seldom considered. The Gog Magog War could just as easily take place in between the two events.

The Rapture of the Church is a signless event that could have happened at any moment since the first century. However, the Tribulation is an event for which there are plenty of signs.

The Apostle Paul wrote his 2nd Letter to the Thessalonians specifically to disabuse them of the heresy of the time that suggested the Lord had already returned for His Church and left them behind.

What is unique to this generation is that the presence of the Church is increasingly becoming an obstacle to some of the other signs of the Tribulation moving forward.

The Prophet Ezekiel says that the Jews of Israel will be occupied for some seven years cleaning up the carnage left behind by the Gog-Magog War.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that the Gog-Magog war must begin before the Rapture because otherwise there won’t be time to burn all the weapons.

Neither is it accurate to conclude that pre-Tribulation is the same as pre-Rapture. There could be a considerable interval after the Rapture before the Tribulation Period begins. There was an interval of roughly forty years between Pentecost and the interruption of Temple worship in AD 70.

There is no Scriptural reason to assume there won’t be some interval of time between the removal of the Church and the resumption of Temple worship.

If the Rapture and Tribulation were back-to-back events, then the doctrine of imminency would be meaningless. The signs of the Rapture would be the same as the signs of the Tribulation.

But there ARE no signs preceding the Rapture.

We can see the Tribulation coming, but there are still lots of blanks that need filling in. The restoration of the Temple to Temple Mount. The development of a truly global religious system and the rise of a global religious leader.

The one-world government and one-world economy are not yet fully developed according to Scripture.

There is nothing in Scripture that says that the Rapture marks the first day of the Tribulation Period. It only marks the conclusion of the Church Age. So regardless, everything is on time and on schedule, just as the Lord said it would be.

“Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. ” (Matthew 24:44)

“Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1st Thessalonians 4:18)

Iran, Ezekiel and Ahmadinejad

Iran, Ezekiel and Ahmadinejad
Vol: 93 Issue: 20 Saturday, June 20, 2009

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni announced yesterday that the election results will stand as posted. Khameni called Ahmadinejad’s re-election a “definitive victory” for the diminutive dictator and that there was no evidence of vote-rigging.

He offered no concession to opposition supporters who are demanding the elections be canceled and held again. Instead, Khameni addressed the country in a rare speech at Friday prayers at Tehran University.

Taking a page out of the standard Depraved Dictator’s Handbook, he blamed Great Britain and Iran’s external enemies for the unrest. Before the rally was half-way through, the crowd was chanting “Death to America” and asking one another, “What are we here for, again?”

After announcing that Ahmadinejad’s election was legal and fair, he told the protesters to go home before he got mad. Opposition leaders who failed to halt the protests, he said, would be responsible for bloodshed and chaos.

Flexing muscles on the streets after the election is not right, he said, before tens of thousands of angry supporters at Tehran University. It means challenging the elections and democracy. If they don t stop, the consequences of the chaos would be their responsibility.

The problem for Iran’s Supreme Leader is that in at least 70 precincts, more votes were cast than there were registered voters. That isn’t a big deal in America — it happens all the time.

Obama got more votes from some precincts in Indiana than there were voters to cast them. And traditionally, Chicago voters are more faithful to vote Democrat after they’re dead than they ever did while they were still alive.

ACORN is soon to get its billion-dollar payoff for stuffing ballot boxes, registering fictitious voters and voter intimidation in favor of Obama and is even scheduled to conduct the 2010 Census under White House supervision.

Unlike complacent American voters who have forgotten the value of their sovereign franchise, Iranian voters get mad when somebody steals their elections. (Even when there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the candidates.)

So they didn’t go home when the Ayatollah told them to, which evidently stunned the mullahs who run the country. The Guardian Council has apparently overturned the Ayatollah. The GRC announced this morning that they are willing to suffer a recount of ten percent of the ballot boxes at random.

What is going on in Iran?


Step into the Wayback Machine to the 1980’s when the Soviet Union and the United States were both undisputed superpowers. The European Union was still on the drawing board.

Israel was suffering under the first intifada and Iran was much too busy fighting Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to do anything else.

But according to Bible prophecy in the last days, there will be but four spheres of power in the last days; revived Rome, the Kings of the South, Kings of the East and Gog-Magog.

There is no mention of a fifth, overarching superpower resembling the United States. So, following the scenario of Bible prophecy, the Soviet Union and United States must decrease, while the European Union must increase.

For decades, most prophecy teachers believed it would take a limited nuclear war between the superpowers to bring about the conditions necessary for Bible prophecy to move forward. Particularly in terms of Ezekiel’s Gog-Magog War.

But in 1990, Saddam Hussein, at the head of the fifth largest military force in the world and armed with the most modern technology the Soviet Union could supply, invaded Kuwait and dared the world to dislodge him.

On January 17th, 1991 the air campaign began against Saddam Hussein’s forces. The world was stunned at how lopsided the war turned out to be. Iraq’s army in 1991 was rated one of the toughest in the world. Not only was Saddam’s military the world’s fifth largest, it was at the time composed of battle-hardened veterans of the 1980-88 war with Iran.

They knew their weapons and they knew how to use them. Despite that, the US cut through Iraq’s Soviet-supplied defenses like a hot knife through butter.

In less than three week’s time, its stealth technology and precision munitions reduced Iraq’s military to rabble. The ground war, the much-ballyhooed ‘Mother of all battles” lasted just 100 hours. The Soviet Union realized it was undone. By the end of that year, it disbanded of its own volition.

The world was in shock as it realized just how powerful the United States actually was. More than just shock. The Gulf War brought with it a sense of revulsion against such a naked display of power that still reverberates today. The transformation of Europe went into high gear.

Almost two decades later, the world’s undisputed superpower is under attack from without and within. Despite its technological advantages, America is not quite the terrifying behemoth it was only twenty years ago. The Soviet Union and the US have decreased, and Europe has increased, precisely as Scripture foretold.

The Gog Magog invasion force does not include the whole Soviet Union, just Russia and some of the Muslim ‘stans. The invasion takes the West by surprise, suggesting that the US is not that engaged.

At the time of the invasion, Israel is dwelling in peace and safety. And Iran [Persia] is a mainstream player in the Gog-Magog invasion force, meaning it must still exist in some viable form.

We’ve watched as God has already taken care of the Gog obstacles; the Berlin Wall came down without a shot being fired. All our speculation about war and mayhem was for nothing.

The European Union seems to have hit its stride; the euro is fast-becoming the principle world currency, eclipsing the dollar. And the adage, ‘he who has the gold makes the rules’ suggests that means Europe is on the fast track to replacing America as the world’s premiere super power.

Israel is not yet dwelling in peace and safety as a land of unwalled villages, but Israel IS building a wall that will unquestionably have to come down as any part of a EU-brokered peace settlement.

And then there is Iran. Iran’s Ahmadinejad seems hell-bent on starting a nuclear war with Israel. A nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel creates all kinds of problems for Ezekiel’s scenario. Ezekiel makes no mention of any cataclysmic war prior to the Gog-Magog invasion.

On the contrary, Israel is wealthy, prosperous, and ostensibly dwelling at peace in the midst of what are today her sworn enemies. Iran is a formidable-enough military power to rate first mention among Gog’s allies. A nuclear strike against either Israel or Iran throws a wrench into Ezekiel’s scenario.

In the 1980’s, how the main players would align themselves was a mystery. That mystery cleared itself up during the 1990’s with the Soviet collapse and the rise of Europe in the wake of the first Gulf war. That war also signaled the beginning of America’s Death of 1000 Cuts.

The victory parades of the 90’s gave way to an America facing trillion-dollar deficits, wars and impending wars with countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda.

I am not sure how better to illustrate America’s declining state of affairs than to describe it as an Obamanation.

So, what’s the deal with Iran? It’s just this. Something has to happen to prevent Israel from turning Tehran into a giant, radioactive sea of glass, since the Bible makes no allowances for Persia’s destruction prior to the Gog Magog Invasion.

But with Ahmadinejad given another four years in power, it seems almost a foregone conclusion that either Israel or Iran won’t still be functional by the time Ahmadinejad’s term expires.

However, for Ezekiel’s prophecy to move forward, both must, meaning something else must stop Iran’s quest for nukes before Israel is forced to. Like maybe an Iranian regime change?

Stay tuned.

The Fiction Factor

The Fiction Factor
Vol: 93 Issue: 19 Friday, June 19, 2009

According to the Microsoft National Barack Corporation (MSNBC) the last “true cultural antecedent” for Michelle Obama was Claire Huxtable on the Cosby Show.

Claire Huxtable is a fictional television character who was played by actress Felicia Rashad.

So far, the first lady has chosen to be a food bank volunteer with an outsize entourage and an education activist with the largest soapbox imaginable. But Michelle Obama also fills a role that is not of her choosing but that may, in fact, be the most influential: She serves as a symbol of middle-class progress, feminist achievement, affirmative-action success and individual style.

And she has done all this on the world stage . . . while being black. . .

So much for the Obama election moving America into some post-racial era where skin color is irrelevant. Actually, she is able to ‘do all this on the world stage’– by being the President’s wife. She could have done it while being green.

Time and again, observers grasp for adjectives to describe Obama’s combination of professional accomplishment and soccer-mom maternalism.

(I dunno. Has anybody tried “Mrs. Messiah”?)

It’s no wonder so many eye her with awe and disbelief. Or why a minority still view her with suspicion. There have been few broad cultural precedents for what she represents.

Thus, the closest that Microsoft National Barack Corporation can come to a cultural precedent for what she represents is a fictional black character. (Given all the secrecy that surrounds the Obamas’ personal histories, one finds the fictional Huxtable comparison somewhat ironic.)

According to the Microsoft National Barack Corporation;

The last similarly accomplished and wholesome black woman to enter the homes of TV audiences — both black and white, in small towns and big cities — was Clair Huxtable, the matriarch of “The Cosby Show.” It is a cultural comparison more apt than the one made to Jackie Kennedy, which is rooted in little more than the two first ladies being mothers of young children and their affection for sleeveless dresses.

You see, that is the thing about the Obamas. No real person could ever hope to achieve their status among us mortals — even the Kennedys of Camelot fall short.

The rest of the piece goes on to explain how; only Audra McDonald’s character on ABC’s “Private Practice” — a divorced, stylish doctor with a young daughter, a vibrant social life and a healthy relationship with her ex-husband — really reflects a generation of black women with advanced degrees, solid self-esteem and no anger issues.

No anger issues? (I suppose it all depends on the meaning of the word, ‘anger’.)

During the campaign, Michelle Obama made headlines when she said that the very first time she was ever proud of her country was when her husband was running for president. (That’s a long time to be ashamed of one’s country).

As part of her requirements for graduation, she wrote a thesis entitled, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” Back then, she was both ashamed of her country and angry. (And a wee bit dishonest?)

“I remember being shocked,” she says, “by college students who drove BMWs. I didn’t even know parents who drove BMWs.”

Really? She attended the exclusive Bryn Mawr School, later renamed the Bouchet Academy before going on to attend another exclusive public school, Whitney Young High School.

(More than 9,000 students applied for the 450 spots in the 2007-2008 freshman class.)

She grew up in the richest part of Chicago, attended exclusive private elementary and high schools before going on to attend Princeton and Harvard and she didn’t know any adults who drove BMWs?

(I know several — one is a plumber.)

Despite the assertions of the fawning Microsoft National Barack Corporation to the contrary, Michelle Obama not only has anger issues, they are a lot bigger than Clair Huxtable’s.

She’s publicly criticized the US as “guided by fear” and “just downright mean.” One wonders, given all that her country has offered her; a Harvard degree, a six-figure income, now the most famous woman in the world, what does she have to be angry about?

Perhaps that is why MSNBC claims she has ‘no anger issues’. They can’t figure out what she could possibly be angry about, either.


It isn’t really about Michelle Obama. It is about MSNBC and its sister organization, NBCNews. And ABCNews. And perhaps later, CBSNews. But mostly, it is about propaganda and how open the public is to accepting it as the clock continues to count down toward the conclusion of the Church Age.

‘Propaganda’ is defined as the “dissemination of biased and misleading information as a political strategy.” The purpose of propaganda is not to inform, but rather, to influence its audience.

MSNBC and NBC are officially “in the tank” for Obama and are therefore rendered useless as reliable sources of information. Michelle Obama is merely the example the proves the point. Claire Huxtable . . . No anger issues. . . somebody who beat the odds and made it “the hard way.” Pul-eeze!

Claire Huxtable is a fictional character invented by imaginative writers. And by any possible measure, Michelle Obama is the angriest First Lady in US history. And for Mrs. Obama, the “hard way” was private schools, Princeton and Harvard.

NBC, MSNBC and CNBC have two things in common. The first is that all three are in competition for the most Obama-friendly news coverage. (CNBC’s anchors were actually TOLD not to do stories critical of the Obamas.)

The second thing they have in common is that they are all owned by General Electric Corporation. GE is heavily invested in green technology, and if the carbon tax is passed GE will get billions of dollars in contracts from Obama’s cap and trade scheme.

Noted Bill O’Reilly recently, GE is also counting on government-ordered computerized health records. If that passes, GE’s technology could be used, earning the company billions. To make that happen, GE has appointed former Senator Tom Daschle to its health advisory board.

Daschle was President Obama’s choice as secretary of Health and Human Services until a tax scandal derailed him.

Now, ABCNews has also decided to surrender its news credentials in exchange for a seal of approval from the Obama White House. Next week, ABC’s Good Morning America will broadcast from the White House.

Charlie Gibson will also anchor a live broadcast of World News from the Blue Room and a primetime special titled “Questions for the President: Prescription for America” moderated by Gibson and ABC’s Diane Sawyer.

However, the questions and questioners will be selected by ABC. ABC turned down a request by the GOP for equal time, showing the Left’s contempt for the “Fairness Doctrine” except as it can be used to stifle the Right.

Deception is an important element of the last days. Jesus warned against it. Paul warned against it. Deception is the stock and trade of the coming antichrist. Until this generation, America was probably the least likely nation on earth to buy into the antichrist’s lies.

That was then. This is now. The conditioning process is completed. Not nearly completed. It IS completed. We’re ready.

To this generation, deception is part of politics as usual. A majority of Americans agree with the poll question, “All politicians lie.” What does that mean? It means we know we are being deceived, but don’t care, provided we like the lie being told. It’s the smoothest liar that gets the job, not the most honest politician, since there’s no such thing.

“Fair and Balanced” is a slogan, not reality. Liberals think CNN is fair and balanced. The truth is, there is nobody reporting from the center. There’s no market for the raw truth. News consumers prefer to choose the outlet whose lies most closely mirror their own worldview.

When He was asked, “What will be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the age?” the first thing that Jesus told His disciples was, “Take heed that no man deceive you.”

The Apostle Paul wrote in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3: “Let no man deceive you by any means.” Speaking of the coming antichrist, Paul writes:

“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”

It’s all about deception. And the public willingness to embrace it.

“And for THIS cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:9-12)

Is Jimmy Carter Just Naive?

Is Jimmy Carter Just Naive?
Vol: 93 Issue: 18 Thursday, June 18, 2009

Is Jimmy Carter Just Naive?

Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were being treated “more like animals than human beings” by Israeli rules that have limited travel, banned the import of all but basic goods and prevented reconstruction.

“Never before in history has a large community been savaged by bombs and missiles and then deprived of the means to repair itself,” said Carter the historian.

Actually, the historical list of destroyed large communities is rather long, but for Jimmy Carter, when it comes to slamming Israel, historical accuracy is irrelevant.

“This abuse must cease. The crimes must be investigated. The wall must be brought down, and the basic right of freedom must come to you,” he said at the United Nations school Hamas used as a shield to fire rockets at Israeli tanks during last year’s “Operation Cast Lead.”

You’ll recall that Israeli gunners returned fire, hitting the school, which Israel had no way of knowing was being used as a shelter. Hamas did, which is why they set up a gun emplacement there. To draw Israeli fire into the shelter.

Carter, who met with Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader in Gaza, said he told the group’s officials that they should halt attacks, recognize Israel and join peace talks.

“They have made statements and taken actions that suggest they are ready,” Carter said.

“If there is a real project that aims to resolve the Palestinian cause on establishing a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, under full Palestinian sovereignty, we will support it,” Haniyeh said.

Notice that Haniyeh did not say whether that would involve recognizing Israel or agreeing to halt Hamas’s armed resistance.

Ready for what? Peace with Israel? Hardly. Hamas would be required by its own charter to disband if it agreed to either recognizing Israel’s right to exist or by giving up the pursuit of Israel’s destruction by armed struggle.

By Charter, Hamas’ leaders would be guilty of both blasphemy and treason and they’d have to all fall on their swords. But the Charter DOES allow for ‘any means’ to pursue the ultimate goal of Israel’s destruction, including deception.

Which is why hours later, Deputy Hamas Foreign Minister Ahmed Youssef told the Associated Press that his group greatly appreciated Carter’s “historic” visit, but rejected international conditions for officially including Hamas in the land-for-peace process.

“Hamas finds the conditions unacceptable,” he said. “Recognizing Israel is completely unacceptable.”

Can Carter be that naive? Or does he just hate Israel?


Carter believes that the problem isn’t the Arab world, but Israel. It is Israel that seeks to control “Palestinian land” according to Carter, and not the other way around.

That’s just silly. Israel amounts to .6% of the Middle East land mass and accounts for just 2% of the regional population. It has never ‘occupied’ any land not first used to stage an attack aimed at Israel’s annihilation.

We’ve already noticed Carter’s predilection for revising history. But revising it doesn’t change it — history is what it is.

Even the name ‘Palestine’ isn’t Arab, but Greek. The Romans renamed Judea to ‘Palestina’ after the Jews’ traditional enemies, the Philistines. The Philistines weren’t Arabs, they were ethnic Greeks.

The land under dispute today wasn’t “Arab” land prior to 1948. From 1517 until 1917, what is now Israel was not Arab land. It was Turkish land. It belonged to the Ottoman Turks until the Ottomans lost WWI to the Allies.

Winston Churchill created the “Arab world” at the San Remo Conference in 1922. The British then controlled the Palestinian Mandate until 1948.

Carter wrote a book accusing Israel of being an ‘apartheid state’. Is it possible he can be that naive? Or maybe not understand the correct meaning of the phrase?

More than one million Israeli Arabs enjoy all the same benefits in Israel as Jewish citizens, including the right to vote and be represented at the Knesset. The openly apartheid state-in-waiting is ‘Palestine” which demands it be Jew-free as a condition of peace – a position Carter heartily supports.

Israel’s security fence is designed to keep Palestinian terrorists out of Israel. Carter calls it a prison designed to keep Palestinians confined in the West Bank. Again, can he possibly be that naive?

If Israel didn’t build a fence to keep Palestinians out of Israel, the Palestinians would have built one to keep out the Jews. There is a fence along the border with Israel and Jordan. Israel didn’t build it. Jordan did.

There are fences along the borders with Syria and Lebanon, as well. Where there aren’t fences, there are mines, radar, and outposts manned by machine gun toting soldiers from both sides. How is this fence more apartheid than the other border fences?

Jimmy Carter isn’t naive. Nor is he misinformed. Jimmy Carter is a smart man, smart enough to have captured the White House. He may have been a fluke, but he was smart enough to capitalize on the aftermath of Watergate and get himself elected.

He knows that Hamas is a terror group dedicated to Israel’s destruction and that Hamas cannot make peace with Israel without self-destructing. He knows that the fence keeps out terrorists. He knows that Operation Cast Lead followed six thousand rocket attacks against Israel.

Jimmy Carter knows all this, but he evidently can’t help himself. Antisemitism, once it takes hold, must be incredibly seductive.

Carter’s recent book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”, is filled with factual errors, misrepresentations, plagiarism, and outright fabrication. But it also explains a lot about his worldview.

For, in attacking Israel the way he chose to do, he is promoting a view that there is no longer a covenant between Jews and God that Christians are bound to honor. His book, in short, is a brief in support of “replacement theology.”

Replacement theology says that the Jews are no longer part of God’s plan for humanity. Some, (like Carter) argue the Jews of Israel aren’t really the Jews of antiquity anyway. It is via this line of thinking that many mainstream Christian churches support the ‘Palestinians’ and decry Israel.

Jimmy Carter isn’t naive. He knows exactly what he is doing.

Liberals: What Makes Them Tick?

Liberals: What Makes Them Tick?
Vol: 93 Issue: 17 Wednesday, June 17, 2009

I wish I knew how their minds work, but it is mystery to me. I can’t figure them out. It is as if they get up in the morning and plan what steps they’ll take today towards the ultimate goal of their own national destruction.

I am referring to American liberals — a class of Americans I confess completely baffle me. Nobody in the right mind can believe that a single-payer health care system can work — particularly not the liberal politicians that are advancing the plan. They know better.

It sounds good, but it doesn’t work.

There is no nation in the world where a government-run single-payer system hasn’t resulted in sub-standard health care and health care rationing.

In a single-payer system, the government pays the doctor a set fee per patient. The patient can’t pay extra and the doctor can’t bill extra — that would result in a ‘two-tiered’ system, one for the rich and the other for the poor.

A single-payer system rectifies that imbalance by extending similarly poor care across-the-board. When a doctor can only charge so much for each patient’s visit, there is only two ways for a doctor to earn more. See more patients. Or move somewhere outside that system.

Here is how that works in Canada’s Ontario Health System. A doctor earns a flat fee of $17.75 per patient. According to the government, that should entitle a patient to 20 minutes of the doctor’s time.

Based on these figures, the government thinks a doctor should earn about $50 an hour. Forty percent of that fee is overhead (office expenses, nurses, receptionists, etc.), leaving the doctor with about $28 an hour for himself.

Of course, $28.00 an hour doesn’t even make his medical malpractice premiums, so the average doctor’s visit is more like five minutes or less.

To make ends meet, individual doctors are coming together to form ‘clinics’ where several doctors share the office staffing and expenses. There are six doctors that have joined my family doctor and now my family doctor’s office is a ‘clinic’.

I overheard the receptionist at my doctor’s office tell someone on the phone that they have more than ten thousand patients. (I’m not making this up)

A doctor’s appointment for 2 pm means you will likely be called at three-thirty. You’ll spend thirty minutes in an examination room before a doctor can see you. And the exam will be five minutes or less.

(And I’ve got one of the most sought-after doctors in the region.)

Under Ontario’s single-payer, government-run health care system, the average doctor bills $244,581.00 per year. That number is misleadingly high because it includes doctors with specialties not covered by the government system.

If you need an eye doctor, the government pays for one visit per year. You pay for subsequent visits.

In 2007, forty-three opthamologists earned $1 million or more. That brought up the average, but government figures still show that 95% of all doctors in the system earn less than $500K per year.

Consequently, there aren’t enough doctors and the ones that don’t specialize or move away are, well, you get what you pay for.

Hospitals in Canada for the most part, look like Third World institutions. Niagara Falls, as Canada’s most recognized address, is the national showpiece. The last time I was in Niagara General Hospital, the floors were unwashed, the paint was peeling, and I saw a cockroach scurry under a chair.

Down in North Carolina, the locals joke about Carteret County General Hospital — “in the front door, out the back” (where the morgue is). But I took Gayle there once when she was sick.

It was as clean as a military facility. Gayle was treated immediately. And the staff actually seemed empathetic, something that doesn’t exist in a government-fun facility where you pretend you’re paying the bill and they pretend they care if you’re satisfied with the care you receive.

NONE of this is a secret. None of the liberals in Congress or the Senate are unaware of the consequences of universal government-run single-payer health care. They know that it means substandard care, health care rationing, the loss of the best and brightest to other careers (or other countries) but none of that seems to matter.

What matters is that they advance their agenda.


Universal health care is just one of the liberal causes that otherwise sober-minded and intelligent human beings want to foist on America.

Liberals want to return the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ despite the evidence that shows that it STIFLES the free exchange of ideas, although the liberals claim their goal is to expand the free exchange of ideas.

Unfortunately, nobody wants to hear liberal talk radio, which is the reason that 95% of talk radio is conservative. That’s nobody’s fault. The market delivers what people are willing to support.

The ‘Fairness Doctrine” undoes that by demanding that what the public won’t pay for be forced on them. So, in the interest of ‘leveling the playing field’, taxpayers will be expected to support with their tax dollars those liberal programs unable to compete in the fair market.

Historically, rather than comply with the government ‘fairness’ rules, most radio and TV station managers just drop the discussion format from their programming schedule.

Speaking of the Fairness Doctrine, I read today on the Drudge Report that ABCNews is abandoning all pretense of political neutrality and is literally planning to anchor a nightly news broadcast from INSIDE the White House.

The network reportedly plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.

The GOP complained that by excluding any opposing voices, ABC was in effect, giving the Democrats free air time to advance a one-sided political agenda. ABC fired off a letter of response to the GOP which could be boiled down to four words: “So what? We won!”.

When it is liberals who are interested stifling opposition, ‘fair’ is a call in baseball. Alternatively, ‘fair’ is anything that advances a liberal cause.

This morning, President Obama signed an executive order extending federal benefits to same-sex “couples.” This is a big deal to liberals, who think it should be expanded to a recognition of gay marriage.

The institution of marriage exists to provide structure to the family unit. The purpose of marriage is for that family unit to reproduce, maintaining the continuation of the human species. The family unit is so-called because it is self-sustainable.

The family unit is the model upon which government is designed. A gay ‘family’ will die out without a trace in a single generation. The liberals in government know this.

Just as there has never been a successful single-payer, government-run health care, there has never been a successful gay country.

Why do the liberals want to release pictures that make America look like we routinely abuse prisoners? Why do liberals oppose waterboarding terrorists but have no problem with waterboarding members of the US military? Why do liberals want to disarm America?

Why do liberals want to raise taxes? Why do they support bankrupting the country in order to bail out autoworker’s unions? Why do they support illegal immigration? Why are they opposed to enforcing existing laws?

Why do they work against their own best interests and the best interests of the country when it comes to advancing elements of their agenda? Finally, why are they so hateful about it?

I’ve come to the conclusion that there are three possible explanations for liberal thinking.

1) Mental deficiency. Some people confuse cognitive dissonance, (the state of having inconsistent or contradictory thoughts or beliefs) with intelligence.

So when Barack Obama says that raising taxes will put more money in their pay checks, they think, “Nobody would say that if it wasn’t true. Everybody else is just too dumb to get it.”

They think that they are smarter than everybody else. And the proof is that they can see the social justice of gay marriage and the mercy and compassion inherent in abortion rights.

2) Self-Loathing. One could rightly classify self-loathing as a mental illness, unless one is a liberal. Liberals can justify self-loathing by examining their own principles.

3) These are the last days and liberals are evidence that the Bible is true.

The Bible outlines the liberal worldview of the last days in detail. The amazing part about Paul’s admonition to Timothy is how his description actually grows more accurate as time passes.

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. . . .” (2nd Timothy 3:1-5)

I am not ‘picking on’ liberals, neither is this intended to be political in any normal sense of the word. I intend it as instruction, not criticism.

The OL is about Bible prophecy and liberals are the evidence that these must be the last days.

“Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. ” (Proverbs 9:9)

America’s Former Best Friend Forever

America’s Former Best Friend Forever
Vol: 93 Issue: 16 Tuesday, June 16, 2009

It is like a scene from one of those 50’s horror movies that makes you want to shout out to the character, “Look out behind you! It’s a trap!” The trap is so obvious (to you) that it’s actually frustrating. “What’s wrong with this guy?”

I feel a similar sense of frustration as I watch Israel try and jump through the progressively difficult diplomatic hoops demanded by the Obama administration; “Look out behind you! It’s a trap!”

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said that Obama was very pleased to hear Netanyahu finally publicly commit to the creation of a Palestinian Arab state. Gibbs went on to decree that the Emperor Obama wants to see a final status peace deal that includes both a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestinian state living side by side.

But the Jewish State of Obama is growing smaller with each passing speech. On June 4, Obama stated in his address to the Muslim world in Cairo, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements it is time for these settlements to stop.”

That statement represents a complete reversal of the US position in 2004 when President Bush sent Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a letter of understanding. In that letter, Bush said the United States would back Israel retaining major Jewish population centers in the West Bank as part of any final status agreement.

In addition the US Senate passed a resolution formally endorsing the Bush letter. Had the letter been a treaty, the Senate endorsement would be the equivalent of formal ratification.

Among those senators who voted for the resolution endorsing the US position was then-NY Senator Hillary Clinton. As the junior Senator from New York, and therefore heavily dependent on NY’s Jewish population for support, Hillary not only voted for the resolution, she heartily supported it.

But Hillary’s Senate career is over. She no longer has to pander to her constituency. To keep her job, she need only pander to Barack Hussein Obama.

And so, up until Obama’s speech to the Muslim world, the State Department was dodging questions about whether or not the Obama administration would recognize the letter from Bush to Sharon.

When finally cornered on the question during a joint May 27 news conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Clinton replied coldly,

“There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements. If they did occur, which, of course, people say they did, they did not become part of the official position of the United States Government,” she said.

(Remember, Hillary voted for the resolution endorsing that letter “which of course, people say” Bush sent and the Senate endorsed).

“And there are contrary documents that suggest that they were not to be viewed as in any way contradicting the obligations that Israel undertook pursuant to the Roadmap. And those obligations are very clear.”

Clinton added that the United States does not recognize the legitimacy of any Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, regardless of status.

“The president was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.”



The White House was silent in the face of reaction from an “enraged” Palestinian Authority to Netanyahu’s speech. According to reports from Israel Today and the Debkafile, the Palestinians are openly discussing the resumption of terror as a tactic of negotiation.

More and more Palestinian politicians in Ramallah argue that because the Israeli prime minister placed new obstacles on the road to the Middle East peace process, they are entitled to revert to the late Yasser Arafat’s two-stage tactics of synchronized terror and diplomacy. This would mean resuscitating the Fatah’s al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Tanzim terrorist organizations because, they say, Abbas would be ill-advised to engage in peace talks with Israel unarmed with the Palestinians’ primary tool of pressure, terror.

Some even argue that Abbas’ Fatah, by going back to violence, would force the US president to accept that they will never give up any of their principles, i.e. Israel’s total withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem its capital and the right of 1948 refugees to return to their homes. . .

As for Netanyahu’s demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, Palestinian spokesmen said that never in a thousand years would any Palestinian comply. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak supported this assertion when he accused Netanyahu Monday, June 15, of “scuppering” the Middle East peace process because “no one will support this in Egypt or anywhere else.”

Let’s break down what it is that has so enraged the Arab world. First, the presence of Jewish settlements in an Arab-decreed No Jew Zone and second, an Israeli demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish State.

The Jews are decried as racist for wanting recognition as a Jewish State because 20% of the Israel population is non-Jewish. The Jews are not asking that the non-Jews be uprooted and moved to ‘Palestine’.

They are asking only that the character of the 80% majority be recognized for what it is.

By contrast, the Arabs demand (and the world supports) that all Jews be totally evacuated from every square inch of ‘Palestinian land’ in a ‘Palestinian state’ that has been carved from the heart of Biblical Israel as a homeland for a Palestinian people that never actually existed.

Until 1967, the only ‘Palestinians’ in the Holy Land were the Jews. Residents of the West Bank were Jordanians. Those in Gaza were Egyptian. Prior to 1948, they were all part of the British Mandate. Before that, they were citizens of the province of Southern Syria in the Ottoman Empire.

From the time of Christ until the mid-20th century, the only ‘Palestinians’ in the world were the Jews. The Holy Land is the Land of the Jews and has always been the Land of the Jews. The Palestinian people are the Jews.

But the world insists that the Arabs are the rightful owners of the Land of Promise first conquered by Joshua 1400 years before Christ. That the city of Jerusalem founded by King David of Israel is the rightful capital of a future Palestinian state.

And that the threshing floor purchased by King David a thousand years before Christ is the rightful property of Islam, founded in the 6th century after Christ.

For all of its sixty year history, Israel has counted on the fact that its best friend and ideological twin, the United States, has not bought into the lie that Israel is rightfully an Arab state stolen by the Jews in 1948.

How could Americans who believe the Bible is the Word of God ever simultaneously believe Jerusalem is an Arab capital? But the more the Bible becomes a book of myths and legends, the easier it is to revise Jewish history and make it sound believable.

“And David went out to meet them, and answered and said unto them, If ye be come peaceably unto me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you: but if ye be come to betray me to mine enemies, seeing there is no wrong in mine hands, the God of our fathers look thereon, and rebuke it.” (1st Chronicles 12:17)

“Look out! It’s a trap!”

Middle East Crisis Du Jour

Middle East Crisis Du Jour
Vol: 93 Issue: 15 Monday, June 15, 2009

In the hours immediately following the publication of the election results in Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni officially “welcomed” the results that showed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sweeping the election by two-to-one over his nearest challenger.

By Saturday night, the streets were swollen with protesters. By Sunday, Western news organizations were reporting that protesters were being killed in the streets of Tehran.

This morning, there are two competing headlines concerning the Ayatollah and the election. The London Sunday Times’ headline reads:

“Iran’s Supreme Leader Orders Election Inquiry as Opposition Defies Rally Ban.”

CNN International’s headline (posted four hours ago, according to Google), reads: “Tehran Tense As Iran’s Supreme Leader Endorses Vote Outcome.”

CNN was quoting form the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), who, in this version of reality, called the election a “divine miracle”:

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the record voter turnout in Friday’s election showed Iranians value “resistance against oppressors,” the agency reported.

“Pointing to enemies’ massive propaganda campaign to discourage people from taking part in the elections, Ayatollah Khamenei also said there was really a divine miracle behind this elections, given its results that was 10 million higher than any of the previous ones in the 30-year history of elections in Iran,” IRNA reported.

Don’t believe everything you read. Believe the pictures.

The fact that the Ayatollah and Supreme Council ordered an “investigation” is essentially meaningless. Look at the photo — that’s a little old lady surrounded by Iranian security officers.

Four of them are carrying truncheons. The guy behind her has his raised as he takes aim for the back of her head. The guy in the green shirt beside her just knocked the guy under the motorcycle’s front wheel to the ground.

The guy on the bike is about to open-handed slap her. That picture would be the same if Mousavi had won and Ahmadinejad was the one crying about a stolen election.

The fact is, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two candidates, so don’t get too caught up in feeling sorry for Mousavi.

Mousavi, like Ahmadinejad, was a hero of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. He was fully involved in the Embassy takeover and hostage crisis.

Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran from 1981 to 1988 Mousavi fully supported the death fatwa proclaimed against Salman Rusdie for writing “The Satanic Verses”.

When he introduced his cabinet in 1985, he boasted that his interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashami, was a religious conservative who d built his reputation while building Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Mousavi opposed ending the eight-year Iran/Iraq War, despite the fact that by 1988, Iran was sending unarmed ten year olds out in the first wave of attacks to use up Iraqi ammunition before sending out what remained of its military-age forces.

The carnage of that war is the reason that 70% of Iran’s population is under 35 and 60% is under 28.

And Mousavi is just as opposed to suspending Iran’s nuclear program as is Ahmadinejad. So don’t buy into the hype that Mousavi is some kind of reformer or that the Iranian Supreme Council cares if the election was fair or not.

If anything, the Ayatollah and Supreme Council are considering how Ahmadinejad’s re-election and the public demonstrations are strengthening Israel’s position.


Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech over the weekend was widely anticipated to create a massive policy rift between Israel and the United States. It didn’t.

Consequently, the Iranian Supreme Council is taking a ‘time out’ to consider their options. Ordering an investigation is not the same thing as saying the election was actually rigged.

It could just as easily be the first step in whitewashing it. It all depends on what the Ayatollahs decide works best.

Until this weekend’s election, Iran had the US eating out of its hand, so to speak. Barack Hussein Obama is begging them to give America one more chance to be friends.

The US media had started doing all these complimentary pieces about Iranian culture, pandering to the Iranians as part of the whole courtship process. It served as a shield against a preemptive Israeli attack.

Barring some provocation, Israel would not dare attack Iran while the US was trying to rehabilitate its relationship. And keeping the world’s attention focused on the “Palestinian problem” kept Israel at bay.

On Sunday, Benjamin Netanyahu defused much of the tension between his country and Washington when he made a declaration of support for Palestinian statehood. It was a brilliant piece of statecraft.

In the speech, Netanyahu said Israel would agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state on the condition that it was demilitarized and that the Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish State.

Netanyahu’s codicils of demilitarization and recognition left the Arab side with no option but to reject it, strengthening Netanyahu’s argument that no matter what Israel does, it won’t bring peace.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said that the speech “sabotages” regional peace efforts. “Netanyahu’s remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralyzed all efforts being made and challenges the Palestinian, Arab and American positions,” he said through spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeinah.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, one of only two Arab governments to make peace with Israel, said the speech “scuttles” any chance for a settlement.

“You won’t find anyone to answer that call in Egypt, or in any other place,” Mubarak was quoted as telling the troops.

Mubarak added that the problems in the Middle East would not be solved until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was resolved. “The solution to the crises in the Arab and Muslim world lies in Jerusalem,” he said.

So, let’s go back and examine the two points that the Arabs categorically reject. First, the recognition of Israel as a “Jewish” State.

The Palestinians demand a “Palestinian” State. Not just a Palestinian state, but one with no Jews allowed. They also demand that the Jews accept Palestinian ‘refugees’ into Israel, instead of “Palestine”.

The Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state lays bare its true goal to eliminate the Jewish state and replace it with a Palestinian one.

Even if the EU doesn’t really care, it does make it much harder to pretend it doesn’t know about the Arab “final solution” to the Jewish Question. (Even harder than it was when they pretended the same thing in 1945)

The ‘two-state solution” is simply the diplomatic flavor of the month. The Palestinians only support it because Israel rejects it. Now that Netanyahu has opened the door to the idea, its the Arab side backing off.

The second condition, that any new Palestinian state be demilitarized, is not something that Netanyahu invented. It is part and parcel of the Road Map for Peace outlined by the so-called “Quartet.”

The first condition imposed on the Palestinians by the Road Map is that they disarm. Five years later, the Gaza Strip is a huge ammo dump administered by Hamas, who is both the Strip’s legally-elected government and a proxy for Iran.

Even the most anti-Israeli Western government will have a hard time opposing Netanyahu’s conditions in light of the circumstances on the ground. (Like I said, it was a brilliant piece of statecraft.)

So, adding things up, here’s how things appear to be shaping up. The riots in Tehran have the Ayatollahs a bit shaken; they’re not entirely sure how to react, so they’ve ordered an ‘investigation’ to give themselves time.

The expected distraction from Israel didn’t materialize and so the world’s attention is focused on Tehran instead of Tel Aviv. Instead of Washington continuing to court Tehran at Tel Aviv’s expense, the worm may have turned.

Netanyahu met all the US conditions. The Palestinians rejected any conditions, including all of those previously imposed by the road map. The ball is now in Obama’s court.

Which reminds me. Where is Obama, anyway?