Blood and Gridlock

Blood and Gridlock
Vol: 120 Issue: 30 Friday, September 30, 2011

This just in: Anwar al Awlaki, the American-born terrorist believed to be involved in every major al-Qaeda attack effort since 9/11 was killed by a drone strike in Yemen.

“The terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed along with some of his companions,” Yemen’s Defense Ministry said in a statement sent by text message to journalists, but gave no details.

A Yemeni security official said Awlaki, who is of Yemeni descent, was hit in a Friday morning air raid in the northern al-Jawf province that borders oil giant Saudi Arabia. He said four others killed with him were suspected al-Qaeda members.

Awlaki had been implicated in a botched attempt by AQAP to bomb a US-bound plane in 2009 and had contacts with a US Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people at a US military base the same year.

US authorities have branded him a “global terrorist” and last year authorized his capture or killing, which created its own set of legal problems.  Is it legal for the United States of America to order the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen, under any circumstances?

After all, this is Anwar al Awlaki! The guy is undoubtedly responsible encouraging Major Nidal Hassan to murder a dozen US soldiers at Fort Hood.  He is believed to have been the Flight 77 hijacker’s contact when they arrived in the USA. 

Plus, he embarrassed us big time.  Shortly after 9/11 al Awlaki was invited to the Pentagon to give US officials some insight into what motivated the attacks. This was back in the days when US officials actually believed in the myth of the moderate Muslim. 

They don’t believe the myth anymore, but they still pretend that they do. (But you will note that the government doesn’t invite allegedly “moderate” Muslims to nearly as many high-profile events as it used to.)  

Although I think it is terrific that another terrorist was given confirmation of Allah’s true identity, it is difficult to ignore the hypocrisy of an administration that finds no moral issues with targeting and killing an American citizen without due process of any kind, but was prepared to prosecute US officials for waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Indeed, Candidate Obama was asked his opinion, as “a Constitutional Scholar” about President Bush’s authority to even detain US citizens as enemy combatants.  His scholarly opinion, as offered to Charlie Savage at the Boston Globe,  was as follows:

“No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”

Which is worse?  Being waterboarded? Or being killed?  In the case of waterboarding, US officials obtained intelligence information that thwarted a dozen planned attacks. 

In the case of dropping Osama with a double-tap to the forehead, or blowing al Awlaki to kingdom come, we only know they won’t plan anything new.  We learned nothing about what was already in the pipeline. 

The only way that we could have learned anything would have been to capture them, interrogate them (with whatever enhancements might be necessary) and then after we had squeezed them dry of information, turn them over to a military tribunal for trial and execution.

The same administration and legal authority that was horrified about sending terrorists captured by the Bush administration to Gitmo and demanded civilian trials in downtown New York City for the masterminds of 9/11 doesn’t take prisoners.

It kills them instead.


Today’s OL is a two-fer. I wasn’t planning a column on Awlaki – I didn’t find out he was dead until five-thirty this morning.  I had initially planned to follow up on a question I had asked in Tuesday’s OL

As far back as November, 2009 we were already beginning to notice Obama’s shrinking popularity. With the midterm elections less than a year away, Obama was ramming through legislation that all but guaranteed the Democratic shellacking that they received in 2010. 

I wondered then what it was that Obama knew that we didn’t.  Now that it is his neck on the voter’s chopping block, I am really wondering because he still doesn’t seem to care. 

Last weekend, he alienated black voters, telling them to stop complaining and whining.

From there, he resumed his attacks against “the rich” abandoning any pretext of civility as he demonized them and then proudly admitted he was deliberately provoking class warfare.

Obama knows that most of what he is selling is snake oil — and what’s more, he knows that we know it.

The very next day, there were TWO competing news stories about prominent Democrats suggesting that America’s major malfunction is that it has “too much democracy” and that the country would be better served if we suspended next year’s elections.

North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue, a Democrat, floated the idea of suspending the next round of elections, although she later claimed she was ‘joking’ when she said this:

“You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things,” Perdue said, speaking at the Rotary Club in Cary, N.C. Tuesday. “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. …You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

The very same day, former Obama budget director Peter Orzag published an op-ed piece in the New Republic explaining why America needs “less democracy”:

“To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.”

In a sense, I find myself in agreement.  America was never designed to be a democracy. Indeed, Orzag opened his column with a famous quote from John Adams saying “there was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

But Adams was writing in support of a Constitutional Republic, not the form of imperial socialism favored by the Democrats.

“During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.”

That is why the Founders designed the nation as a Constitutional Republic – to ensure gridlock so that the government cannot rule by decree – and if an elected official should try, he would have to face the people in the next election.

The Founders wanted gridlock.  Gridlock would have prevented the passage of Obamacare. Gridlock would have prevented TARP, the first stimulus, the auto bailout, Cash for Clunkers and even deficit spending.

None of those programs would have passed had Obama not had supermajorities in both Houses.  As soon as the GOP wrested control of the Lower House away from the Democrats, gridlock ensued. 

The White House has been unable to impose new consumer regulations, new taxes, new EPA regulations, a runaway budget, immigration amnesty, and job-killing free trade deals.  Why? 

The root cause of all this inactivity is our peculiar form of democracy. While most democracies are governed by parliamentary systems, our Founders opted for a presidential system, which they consciously booby-trapped with multiple veto points to impede decisive legislative action and sweeping social change.

In America, for instance, presidents take office, but they don’t form a government, as prime ministers do in virtually every other democracy. Presidents can only shape the executive branch. They appoint cabinet members, sub-cabinet officials, military commanders, ambassadors, and the heads of regulatory agencies.

Multiple checks on power prevent rapid or radical changes, in spite of the progressive efforts to undo them.  The results, even though America has been seriously weakened, are clear. 

Europe spent decades burying themselves in socialism, and the Russian, Chinese, and others spent decades slaughtering their own people by the tens of millions.  Those systems allowed for quick and more radical changes, and they are paying the price for that now.

I believe that the Democrats are floating a trial balloon to see what the reaction would be to the suggestion that America’s serial troubles justify suspending next year’s elections. 

The big question is whether or not enough Americans have been sufficiently brainwashed into believing government is the solution, rather than the problem.  Is it possible?  You would be amazed at what works.

The other day, I heard Jeanne Garafalo on MSNBC explaining that the reason that the Republicans like Herman Cain so much is that it hides their racist tendencies. 

Like I said, you would be amazed at what works.

Peace, Love and Tolerance

Peace, Love and Tolerance
Vol: 120 Issue: 29 Thursday, September 29, 2011

An Iranian pastor and head of a network of Christian house churches in Iran is scheduled to be executed sometime today for refusing to recant his faith in Jesus Christ.

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani was first sentenced to death in November, 2010 for apostasy. Naderkhani turned to Christianity when he was 19 and later became a pastor in the northern Iranian city of Rasht.

Key to the issue is whether or not Nadarkhani, the son of Muslims, had ever been a practicing Muslim. Pastor Nardarkhani pleaded not guilty, partially on the grounds that from puberty he was never a practicing Muslim and thus had not renounced the Muslim faith.

But he has denied that Muhammad was a prophet of God.

Nadarkhani found himself in hot water before Iranian religious authorities when he challenged a government decree that all schoolchildren – including Christians – be instructed in the religion of peace and love and tolerance as part of their curriculum.

The pastor has been given three opportunities to repent of his conversion to Christianity but refused.

“Repent means to return,” Nadarkhani told the court. “What should I return to? To the blasphemy I had before my faith in Christ?”

“To the religion of your ancestors, Islam,” a judge said.

“I cannot,” insisted Nadarkhani.

The pastor’s death sentence was overturned by the Iranian Supreme Court in July. The Iranian Supreme Court ruled that Nadarkhani had not left the religion of peace and love and tolerance, since he never practiced it as a youth, and therefore is not guilty of apostasy.

The Supreme Court then sent the case back to the court that first imposed the death sentence for review. Back in Nadarkhani’s hometown where he openly practices his faith in Christ, the sentence was reimposed by the local court.

If the reimposed sentence, now under final review by an appellate court, is upheld, then Pastor Nadarkhani will be hanged sometime today. 

It is worth noting that the sentence was NOT imposed for leaving the religion of peace and love and tolerance.  It was imposed for NOT denying Christ.

In Kazahkstan, draft legislation seeks to make illegal any religious group that fails to register with the government.  All religious communities would have to register with the government, “or face liquidation through the courts” according to the draft.

Christians have been alarmed as much by the content of the draft legislation as by the ‘unprecedented’ speed with which it is passing through the country’s legislature. Both laws passed through Parliament’s lower house in one day, 21 September, with some minor amendments.

The legislation is due to be considered at a plenary session of the Senate, the upper house of Parliament, on Thursday – but it is not certain whether it will be adopted on the same day.

Last November in Pakistan, a 45 year-old Christian mother of five was convicted of blaspheming the religion of peace and love and tolerance and sentenced to death by hanging.  Aasia Bibi denies the charge, saying she was falsely accused by her co-workers who objected to sharing a water bowl with a Christian!

No date has been set for an appeal hearing, however, and supporters are concerned that Bibi’s life may be in real danger even if her sentence is never carried out.

A number of Pakistanis accused of blasphemy have been killed by mobs or individuals angered by the alleged offense – including in some cases while the person was in court or in custody, supposedly under state protection.

Adding to the concerns for her safety, Yousuf Qureshi, imam of the largest mosque in Peshawar, told a rally Friday that his mosque would give 500,000 rupees (about $5,800) to anyone who kills Bibi. He also warned the government not to tamper with blasphemy laws which he said protect Mohammed’s “sanctity.”

Last July, two Pakistani brothers, both Christians, were arrested and accused of blasphemy against the religion of peace and love and tolerance after leaflets “bearing their names and featuring derogatory comments about Mohammed” were “discovered” in the brothers’ home town.

Presuming that these two brothers, born and raised in Pakistan, were not either mentally ill or suicidal, one wonders why they would affix their names to leaflets condemning Mohammed, knowing what the penalty is for blaspheming the religion of peace and love and tolerance? Tolerance

We’ll never know how the court would have ruled on that particular question.  Both men, who were chained together at the time, were shot down like dogs as they left the courtroom by ‘unknown’ gunmen intent on protecting the religion of peace and love and tolerance.

Minorities Minister Shabhaz Bhatti and Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer brought the issue of the two brothers into the international spotlight after the killings.  Both Bhatti and Taseer were later assassinated by members of the religion of peace and love and tolerance.

Taseer’s bodyguard, who admitted killing the governor because of his opposition to the blasphemy laws, has appeared in court several times but proceedings appear to be stalled. No-one has been arrested and charged with Bhatti’s murder. After shooting him his assailants left a note accusing him of blasphemy.

Meanwhile radicals have vowed to defend the blasphemy laws to the death, the government has assured religious leaders it has no plans to amend them, and their enforcement continues unimpeded.

On June 22, a 29 year-old Pakistani named Abdul Sattar was sentenced to death by a court in the north of Punjab province, after being convicted of blaspheming Mohammed in text messages.

The previous month, a 25 year-old Christian named Babber Masih was arrested and charged after being accused of using insulting language against Mohammed.

According to the Center for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement, which provides free legal aid to Pakistani Christians, the accused man’s brother says Babber has been mentally ill for the last six years.

More than 960 people were charged under the blasphemy laws between 1986 and 2009. While no Pakistani government executions have been carried out, at least 32 people facing blasphemy charges had been killed by angry practitioners of the religion of peace and love and tolerance.

Which makes them just as dead. 


“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” (Matthew 7:15-16)

From time to time, foolish people will question the religion of peace and love and tolerance’s refusal to tolerate other religions in the name of peace and love. 

Especially when the religion of peace and love and tolerance kills people for doing so.  For example, in just the past forty-eight hours;

  • 2011.09.28 (Abu Ghraib, Iraq) – Three children are among five family members brutally shot to death in their home by al-Qaeda intruders.
  • 2011.09.28 (Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan) – Sunni hardliners roll up on a local police checkpoint and machine-gun eight officers.
  • 2011.09.28 (Narathiwat, Thailand) – A 6-year-old boy is among the casualties when Islamic terrorists open fire on guards outside a school.
  • 2011.09.27 (Aden, Yemen) – A suicide bombing near a hotel leaves two people dead.
  • 2011.09.27 (Baghdad, Iraq) – Sunni terrorists detonate a bomb outside a popular Shia restaurant, killing three members of the night crowd.
  • 2011.09.27 (Shindand, Afghanistan) – Eleven children and four women are among a family of sixteen shredded by Mujahideen bombers.

At the very least, those that dare to question the peace, love and tolerance of the religion of peace and love and tolerance can expect to be marginalized as being ‘Islamophobic’ because they have difficulty discerning where the religion of peace love and tolerance hides the peace, love and tolerance part of the religion.

All that those on the outside ever get to see as examples are al-Qaeda, terror attacks, calls for the destruction of Israel, ethnic cleansing of Jews, blasphemy trials for Christians, hangings, assassinations and executions.

The duty to be tolerant is reserved for non-members, who are required to accept that leaving the religion of peace and love and tolerance is worthy of death, that its own rules take precedence over the laws of the land, and that its members have religious duty to overthrow infidel governments and religions.  

Nothing personal, but I just have to kill you and take over your country.  Unless you want to join the religion of peace, love and tolerance, that is. But there is no compulsion in religion, the Koran says. So take a second, think it over. I’ll wait.  . . oops, time’s up.”

In the Sudan, where the Islamic majority has been conducting a systematic campaign of genocide against the Christian south, the US called on both parties to renounce violence, as if there were some kind of moral equivalency between fighting to exterminate a people and fighting to prevent one’s own extermination.

The religion of peace, love and tolerance offers unbelievers a special status: dhimmitude. This describes a person of an inferior religion living under Islamic religious rule. 

Under Islamic religious rule, persons of other religions can be permitted to exist, provided they submit to Islamic blasphemy laws.

A dhimmi can practice his own religion and exercise his own religious conscience as long as it doesn’t blaspheme Allah, the Koran, Mohammed and Islamic doctrine.

Where are the Muslims speaking out against the violence being perpetrated in their name?   Why is it that when the religion of peace and love meets every challenge to its doctrine with violence and hatred, nobody seems to notice the dichotomy?

Where is that bastion of freedom, the defender of free speech, the protector of religious minority rights?  What does the United States of America have to say?  

It says, “America will never be at war with Islam.”

When does a person become a dhimmi?  When he submits to the rules of dhimmitude.  Meanwhile, pray for Pastor Nadarkhani.  

And pray for us all.  

The Idumean Prophecy

The Idumean Prophecy
Vol: 120 Issue: 28 Wednesday, September 28, 2011

The desperate effort by the Palestinian Authority to obtain official recognition at the United Nations is primarily aimed at calling attention to the plight of the Palestinian people.

The intent is cynical; it is the Arabs themselves that are responsible for the Palestinian refugee camps. 

In an interview with the Lebanon Star dated September 15, PA Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah revealed that the PA effort was not aimed at ending the war. It seeks leverage, not peace.

“When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”  

Despite the PA demand for statehood as a homeland for displaced Palestinians, not all Palestinians will be automatically granted Palestinian citizenship.  Palestinian refugees living in ‘Palestine’ (whom one would expect would be the first to become citizens of their own state) will remain stateless.

…Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state, an issue that has been much discussed. “They are Palestinians, that’s their identity,” he says. “But … they are not automatically citizens.”

Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”

Meanwhile, the Palestinians of Gaza continue to build ties, not with the Palestinian Authority, but with its natural ally and pre-1967 homeland of Egypt, while the Arab world in general continues to prepare for war.

What today is the modern Gaza Strip is part of historical Philistia. The cities of ancient Philistia were Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath. Philistia’s northern border city was the city of Joppa, or Jaffo.

The Gaza Strip comprises the southern third of ancient Philistia, and the modern cities of Ashdod, Ashkelon and Ekron are still claimed by the Palestinians as part of their land, extending up the coast to Jaffo, south of Tel Aviv.

“Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired; Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the LORD come upon you, BEFORE the day of the LORD’s anger come upon you. Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD’s anger.”

“For Gaza shall be forsaken, and Ashkelon a desolation: they shall drive out Ashdod at the noon day, and Ekron shall be rooted up. Woe unto the inhabitants of the sea coast, the nation of the Cherethites! the word of the LORD is against you; O Canaan, the land of the Philistines, I will even destroy thee, that there shall be no inhabitant.” (Zephaniah 2:1-6)

Most commentaries on these verses either view these verses as history, or see them as an allegory for the nations that will be judged in the last days.

However, when most of these commentaries were written, Philistia was a forgotten part of the Ottoman Empire, not one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints.

At the time most commentaries on Zephaniah were published, the “Israel” of the last days was assumed to be a euphemism for the Church and not a real place.

“The LORD will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the habitations of the shepherds shall mourn, and the top of Carmel shall wither. Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron:” (Amos 1:2-3)

The phrase, “three transgressions of Damascus, and for four” doesn’t mean Damascus committed only four sins. It simply conveys the idea of ‘sin upon sin upon sin’.

In any case, Damascus is the oldest continually-inhabited city on earth, so its prophesied destruction remains yet a future event. Amos uses the same phrase to describe the judgment against the Phillistines;

“Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Gaza, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they carried away captive the whole captivity, to deliver them up to Edom: 

“But I will send a fire on the wall of Gaza, which shall devour the palaces thereof: And I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, and him that holdeth the sceptre from Ashkelon, and I will turn mine hand against Ekron: and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord GOD.” (Amos 1:6-7)

Gaza is home to several million ‘Palestinians’ who derive their name from the Roman name for ‘Philistine’ or ‘Palestina’. Like the prophecies concerning Damascus, those concerning Gaza have never been completely fulfilled in history.

The Edomites are the descendants of Edom, or Esau, twin brother of Jacob. Jacob (which means, “supplanter”) and later renamed by God, “Israel” was the father of the twelve tribes of Israel.  

The Bible says that after an unsuccessful day of hunting, Esau came home “famished” and found Jacob cooking a pot of red bean stew, or ‘pottage’.  

He asked for some, and Jacob asked if he would be willing to trade his inheritance for it.  Esau agreed.  The whole story only occupies a few lines of Scripture, so I am sure the exchange was broader than that.

The Bible account makes it sound like Esau was being flippant: “thus he despised his birthright.”  Maybe Esau meant it, maybe he didn’t.  But Jacob clearly intended to take it seriously.

So Jacob made good on the deal by tricking Isaac into giving Jacob the blessing that traditionally would be reserved for the first-born.

The blessing, once given, could evidently not be retracted. When Esau found out, he swore to kill Jacob. 

After Isaac died, Esau took his wives, his children, his servants and his cattle and moved away from his brother to Mount Seir in Edom, a territory bordered by the Jordan River and including much of modern Jordan, including Petra.

After the Babylonian captivity the Edomites, (called Idumeans by the Greeks and Romans) were driven north by the Nabataeans to the areas around what is today southern Judah and Samaria in the West Bank.

The Idumean’s capital city was Hebron, not Jerusalem. Hebron was captured by Judas Maccabeus in 163 BC. The rest of the West Bank area was conquered by John Hyrcanus in 127 BC, who compelled the Idumeans to be circumcised and convert to Judaism.

King Herod Antipater and his son King Herod the Great were Idumeans, or Edomites, who were set up as puppet kings by the Roman occupation.

Here is where I want you to see how in God’s perfect justice, even Esau’s righteous claim against Jacob was satisfied in Jesus Christ.

Once Jesus, a direct descendant of Jacob, was condemned by the Sanhedrin, He was sent for judgment before Herod, the Idumean king. Thus Esau’s son judged the Son of Jacob guilty, but not for any sin of His own.

God so arranged the details that Jesus not only redeemed humanity in general, He redeemed Jacob (“the supplanter”) and He redeemed the Land of Promise from any lingering Edomite claim.

Perfect justice was satisfied.  But the descendants of Edom want vengeance, not justice. 

They’ve been seeking it for four thousand years.


According to Bible prophecy, Israel must face at least two more major military alliances aimed at her annihilation.  The first alliance is that of Edom and his descendants, often referred to as the Psalms 83 War

It is so-called because Psalms 83 outlines the precise scenario facing Israel today.  It names all the parties to the conflict according to their ancient tribal names, which trace forward in history to include the modern Arab states now allying themselves against modern Israel.

It is an alliance of ethnic Arab states, and only ethnic Arab states.  The majority of the combatants are Muslim, but this is not an Islamic effort.  Psalms 83 makes it clear that this is an ethnic battle, a proxy war between Jacob and Esau in which Esau intends to make good on his oath to kill Jacob. 

The purpose isn’t to conquer Jacob. It is to destroy Jacob.  We learn two other salient facts about the Psalms 83 conflict.  The first is that Israel survives intact.  The second is that after that, the Edomite nations of Psalms 83 vanish from the prophetic record.

The second great conflict facing Israel in the last days is the Gog Magog invasion prophesied by Ezekiel. This conflict differs from that of the Psalms 83 War in several significant ways, all of which suggest that it occurs at some point after the Psalms 83 conflict.

First, at the time of this conflict, Ezekiel says, Israel is living in relative peace and safety, a “land of unwalled villages” rather than as a nation on high alert surrounding itself with security walls and fences.

Israel has never lived in peace and safety because of the Edomite threat that surrounds it.  Every nation named in Psalms 83 is absent from Ezekiel 38’s alliance and every nation named by Ezekiel is absent from Psalms 83’s roster.

The nations in the Gog Magog alliance are linked primarily by religion, with the exception of Gog (Russia).  The prophet says that Gog is reluctantly drawn in, as if it had a hook it its jaw, whereas the rest of the alliance seems quite eager. 

Persia (Iran), Libya (Islamic North Africa excluding Egypt) Ethiopia (Cush, black Africa) [Cush means “black”] Gomer (Cimmerians, Kurds) and Togarmah (Turkey).

Turkey continues to make noises as if it intends to participate in the next big war with Israel, but it won’t. It can’t afford to risk its NATO status and other alliances, especially now that Greece has signed a mutual defense agreement with Israel. It will sit out Psalms 83.

Ahmadinejad continues to bluster and threaten Israel and generally give the impression that Iran will leap aboard any military confrontation with Israel, but Ahmadinejad’s star has faded within Iran’s mullocracy. 

Ahmadinejad has pushed Iran too close to the brink with the rest of the world for Ayatollah Khameini’s comfort.  Debka is also reporting this morning that France is warning Iran of an imminent strike against its nuclear facilities while Russia is practicing for reprisal strikes on its soil.

The entire world is debating whether to seize Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria from the descendants of Jacob and hand it over to the descendants of Esau.  All of the Psalms 83 combatants are threatening war as an alternative.

The UN is well aware of Esau’s real plan, which is to continue the conflict until it destroys Israel, but is pretending to believe the plan is to create a peace-loving state to provide citizenship status to stateless Palestinian refugees.  

Here is what I want you to see this morning. I want you to see the incredible accuracy of Bible prophecy and contemplate what it says about its Author. 

The world is seemingly in a state of chaos, to put it mildly, economically, politically and socially.  At the heart of it all is tiny Israel, a nation the size of New Jersey, and Jerusalem, a city the size of Indianapolis.

“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” (Zechariah 12:3)

There are two separate and distinct geopolitical alliances in development, both of them aimed at the destruction of Israel, but for different reasons and on differing timetables. 

The Idumean allies want to destroy Israel and take the land, whereas the Persian allies simply want to destroy Israel.

Both alliances were named by name, numbered and listed according to intent and motive, thousands of years in advance and both alliances were scheduled to rise concurrently with that of the nation of Israel.

The Gog Magog alliance could not exist without the prior existence of a Jewish state called Israel, neither could the Idumeans.

But from the time the prophets first prophesied the restoration of Israel during the Babylonian Captivity until May 15, 1948 no such place as Israel existed on any map.  In a single generation, out of all the generations to come before, the entire scenario has moved into view. 

It looks like chaos to the world.  But it isn’t. Things continue to unfold precisely according to the detailed blueprint outlined in Bible prophecy. 

It is proof positive that God is not dead.  The Throne is still occupied.  The enemy has not won.  And there is still time to get out the message and share the Promise.

“I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” (John 14:18)

The Lord is coming!

The (New?) World Order

The (New?) World Order
Vol: 120 Issue: 27 Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The New World Order isn’t exactly new – it’s been a long time in the making.  The phrase “New World Order” as used in the modern context probably originated with Cecil Rhodes in the early twentieth century.

Rhodes was an English-born mining magnate and politician, founder of South Africa’s De Beers diamond company, founder of the African state of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe and Zambia),  founder of numerous globalist societies and think tanks and creator of the Rhodes Scholarship.

Rhodes dedicated his life to the advancement of a globalist cause. Rhodes’ goal wasn’t merely to see a world government, he set up a trust to “federate the English-speaking peoples and to bring all the habitable portions of the world under their control.”

The trust he set up to further his Insider global agenda was called the Rhodes Trust. Its’ purpose is outlined in its charter:

“The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are obtainable by energy, labour and enterprise, … the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and finally, the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”

Baron Rothschild funded Rhodes in the development of the British South Africa Company and DeBeers Diamonds. The Rhodes scholarship is funded by his estate and administered by the estate of Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild.  

There are only thirty-two Rhodes scholarships available each year for American students.  Their graduates include some of the most influential globalists of the last fifty years.

Dean Rusk, Secretary of State under Kennedy and Johnson; Senator William Fullbright; Senator Bill Bradley, President Bill Clinton; Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot; George Stephanopolis; former House Speaker Carl Albert and broadcaster Howard K Smith were all Rhodes Scholars.

The list of Rhodes scholars also includes former CIA Director Stansfield Turner, James Woolsey, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, generals and NATO commanders Wesley Clark and Bernard Rogers, CFR President Richard Haas, Governors Bobby Jindal, Don Seigelman and David Boren.

In 1975, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives in Congress signed “A Declaration of Interdependence” which said that we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.

“Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation,” the document said.  

In October, 1975 Henry Kissinger told the UN General Assembly:

“Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order.”

While running for president in 1976, Jimmy Carter told voters,

“We must replace balance of power politics with world order politics.”

President George Herbert Walker Bush probably did as much as anyone in advancing the idea of the New World Order with his “Thousand Points of Light” speech.

President Bush (41) addressed a joint session of Congress on the eve of the formation of the UN Persian Gulf Coalition.  Eerily, the speech was delivered on September 11, 1990.

A new partnership of nations has begun. We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective a New World Order can emerge … When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the United Nations founders.

In April, 1992 then-Senator Joe Biden wrote the article, “How I Learned to Love the New World Order.”

Today, he is the Vice President of the United States.


President Obama isn’t a Rhodes Scholar — as far as anybody knows. We don’t know anything about the guy, even after almost three years in office.  Nobody knows anything except what Obama’s people tell them. 

His educational records are sealed. We know what schools he claims to have attended, but we don’t know for how long, what his grades were, or who paid for his tuition.  We don’t know where he was born, for sure, and everything about his experiences in Indonesia are fuzzy.

But somehow, he managed to arise out of nowhere, going from junior Senator to beating the Clinton machine to get the Democratic nomination and ultimately, getting elected to the White House. 

And from the moment he took his seat in the Oval Office, he has been busily implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming and then collapsing the existing system. 

It isn’t that Obama is following in the steps of his predecessors in the establishment of the New World Order. Obama’s administration has been focused like a laser beam on the single objective of overwhelming the existing one. 

No president in modern history has risen so high and fallen so far in such a short time. Yet he continues to run roughshod over the voting population, including his own base, as if his re-election was a foregone conclusion.

Obama continues to press his class warfare attacks against the rich, even as members of his own base begin to question whether he is going too far.

As far back as November, 2009 we were already beginning to notice Obama’s shrinking popularity. With the midterm elections less than a year away, Obama was ramming through legislation that all but guaranteed the Democratic shellacking that they received in 2010.  

I wondered then what it was that Obama knew that we didn’t.  Now that it is his neck on the voter’s chopping block, I am really wondering because he still doesn’t seem to care.  

Last weekend, he alienated black voters, telling them to stop complaining and whining.

From there, he resumed his attacks against “the rich” abandoning any pretext of civility as he demonized them and then proudly admitted he was deliberately provoking class warfare.

Obama knows that most of what he is selling is snake oil — and what’s more, he knows that we know it. 

Fairy tales are ancient learning devices used to pass on immutable truths to children down through the ages. Immutable truths like the one about what happens when one kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Nobody really believes that taxing employers will produce jobs. What they do believe is that America will be better off as part of a new world order. Obama won’t be there to run it – and I think he knows that. He really doesn’t seem to care. 

I don’t think that Obama’s campaigning signifies anything – it isn’t that he has shifted from governing to campaigning. He never stopped campaigning, even after getting elected.

Campaigning is evidently the only thing he is good at. Maybe that is why he was selected. 

I’ve said all along that I don’t believe that Obama is the antichrist, but he does fit the role of one who is preparing the way for his coming. By the time the antichrist makes his appearance on the scene, the world will be ready for him.

I think that may be what Obama is all about. Preparing the way. 

The antichrist steps in at a time of great peril; Revelation 6:2 depicts him as a conquerer with a bow, but no arrows, signifying that his conquests are by acclamation.

The prophet Daniel says of the antichrist, “by peace [he] shall destroy many.” 

I don’t believe it is the job of the Church to be watching for the antichrist.  I believe the Scriptures teach it is the duty of the Church to be watching for the coming of Christ for His Church, not the coming of His enemy. 

I don’t believe the Church will still be here when the antichrist comes to power, so his identity is largely irrelevant. ‘Largely’ irrelevant. Not completely. 

The Bible goes into great detail concerning the antichrist, listing at least twenty-seven separate prophecies regarding the man of sin. No Scripture is without relevance to the Church, including those concerning the antichrist.

What is important is viewing those Scriptures from the right perspective. The signs of the antichrist impart a sense of urgency.  There are no signs preceding the Rapture.

But the Rapture occurs before the revealing of the antichrist. So if it looks like the antichrist is just around the corner, the fact that Rapture comes first reveals much – but only to the generation to whom it was intended.

We have no signs for what comes before the Rapture, but we do know what comes afterward.  If we can see the signs of what comes afterward, then how close is that which comes before? 

We will never know the identity of the antichrist – I doubt that even he does.  The Bible identifies only two times in which a person was indwelt by Satan himself. 

The first was Judas Iscariot and the second is the antichrist. Judas didn’t even know that he was the one that would betray Jesus until after Satan entered into him.

“Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him unto them.” (Luke 22:3-4)

The search for the antichrist has become an obsession for many — even within the professing Church.

But the purpose for Bible prophecy is not to entertain, titilate or scare people with stories about the coming of Satan’s boogeyman. 

Its purpose is to validate the truth of Scripture to a lost and sin-sick world. It is to give the warning that time is running out on this world, and that the time is coming when the unsaved world has to make a choice.

The Christ?  Or the antichrist?  Pontius Pilate offered the Jews a similar choice before he pronounced sentence on Jesus.  Will it be Jesus?  Or Barabbas?

The true Church has already chosen Jesus. There is no need to put the question before it again.

The Skeptical Brain

The Skeptical Brain
Vol: 120 Issue: 26 Monday, September 26, 2011

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2nd Timothy 3:16-17)

It is often said by skeptics that to be a Christian, one has to leave his brains at the door of the church before going in. The implication is, of course, that nobody with any intelligence would believe in God or believe the Bible is His inspired work.

One of history’s greatest scientists was Nicholas Copernicus.  (He kept his brain handy at all times).

Copernicus was the astronomer who mathematically proved that the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun, and not the other way around. Copernicus believed in God, and often cited God in his works.

Sir Francis Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. He was considered quite brainy.

Bacon established his goals in three parts; the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating;

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”

“…for as God uses the help of our reason to illuminate us, so should we likewise turn it every way, that we may be more capable of understanding His mysteries; provided only that the mind be enlarged, according to its capacity, to the grandeur of the mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the mind.”

Rene Descartes was a mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. It was Descartes who formulated the ‘system of thought’ by asking what could be known if all else were doubted – suggesting the famous “I think, therefore I am”.

Which reminds me of a joke . . .

Renes Descartes walks into a pizza joint and orders a large pizza.  “You want anchovies on that?” he was asked.  “I think not,” he said, before disappearing. 

Descartes is often cited to support the concept of atheism. However, Descarte’s conclusions actually established the near certainty of the existence of God.  Only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences, can we trust our senses and logical thought processes.

The existence and goodness of God is, therefore, central to Descarte’s entire philosophy.

Isaac Newton was an historical figure of undisputed braininess and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central.

What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space.

Far from finding atheism in science, Newton found the evidence of God’s existence in the perfect harmony of predicted and fulfilled Bible prophecy. When Newton entered a church, he brought his brain in first.

In fact, Sir Isaac indulged in a little prophecy himself:

“About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamour and opposition.”

Albert Einstein is another scientist often quoted by atheists as having proved the validity of atheism as a logical philosophy. There is no evidence that Einstein was a Christian, but there are his own words to disprove any argument that he believed in atheism. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein:

“Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.”

This actually motivated his interest in science, as Einstein once reportedly remarked to a young physicist:

 “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of Einstein’s was,

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

It is worth noting at this point that Einstein’s brain was so remarkable that after his death, it was removed and preserved for testing. 

So it could be said that while Einstein didn’t leave his brain at the door before entering a church, he did before entering eternity.


Putting one’s faith in Christ is not in harmony with the concept one has to ‘check his brains at the door’ of a church. The greatest scientific minds in history found few, if any, contradictions between science and the Bible.

If anything, the more they discovered about science, the more they saw the harmony that exists between science and Scripture.

Every generation in history has had its share of great thinkers, philosophers, scientists and debaters. Since the Bible claims 100% accuracy, 100% of the time, the Bible has always been the most tempting target to attack.

If one single fact in Scripture were conclusively disproved; historical, scientific, geographic, or even biological, then the Bible’s central claim of authority — that is, its Authorship — would crumble, together with the foundations upon which both Judaism and Christianity are built.

The philosopher, debater or scientist who accomplished such a feat would be the most famous who ever lived. Keeping in mind all the generations, in all the countries in all the centuries since the Bible was assembled, who was that single, brilliant individual?

You don’t know because he doesn’t exist

There have been usurpers who have attempted to disprove the Bible by using the various translations of the Bible, but the best they can actually do is cast doubts on the abilities of the translators. The translators didn’t pen the Scriptures, nor did they inspire them.

The Bible was written using the two most specific languages civilization has ever devised, and not a single word of the Hebrew or Greek texts has ever been conclusively disproved.

The Book of Job is believed to be the oldest book, chronologically speaking, written before Moses wrote the first five Books dealing with Creation and the Law.

Job lived sometime before Moses, somewhere in the Middle East. Yet Job records;

“He stretches out the north over empty space;  He hangs the earth on nothing (Job 26:7)

Who told Job that? Especially since it wasn’t until 1981 that astronomers discovered a huge, unexplained ‘hole’ in space in the direction of the northern hemisphere?

Before the time of Moses, Job explained the earth’s hydrological cycle, writing;

“For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man.”(Job 36:27-28)

How did Job know?

The complex nature of how water is supported in clouds despite being heavier than air is clearly implied when God demanded of Job,

 “Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge.” (Job 37:16).

“Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31).

In the last century astrophysicists have discovered that the stars of Pleiades move in unison with each other, and are thus gravitationally bound, exactly as Job describes.

What else did Job know?  

“For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” (Job 19:25-27)

Note the italicized sections. Job was not a Jew.  Neither was he a Christian.  Job was born before Abraham and was probably still alive during Abraham’s lifetime. Before the birth of Joseph. Before the captivity in Egypt.  Before the Exodus. Before the Ten Commandments.  

But Job knew his Redeemer was alive at that moment.  Job knew He would stand upon the earth in  “latter days.”  Job knew of the resurrection and knew his own eyes would behold the Messiah – almost a thousand years before Moses penned the first five Books of the Bible.

Then, we have Isaiah’s profession that the earth is round, 2000 years before Columbus proved it.

“It is He who sits above the circle of the earth . . .” (Isaiah 40:22)

Einstein regarded the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as the most immutable law of the physical universe.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all systems degenerate from order to disorder. That Einstein was one brainy guy!

But his observation came two thousand years after the writer of Hebrews quoted Job, who lived another two thousand years before that.

“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment. . .”

So Hebrews 1:10-11 confirms the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics two thousand years before Einstein proved it.

To accept the theory of evolution, which is the foundation of the atheist argument that there is no God, one has to throw Einstein’s brain (and Copernicus and Descartes and Newton and Bacon and Spinoza) out the window and argue the exact opposite.

God exists because if He didn’t exist, there would be no debate about His existence. The Bible is true because it contains facts that were unknown until those facts became known. And in every case where the facts are known, they line up with the Scripture.

The evidence for the existence of God is therefore overwhelmingly solid, if one uses one’s brain to examine the existing evidence. 

 Indeed, what is missing from the debate is the evidence for the existence of the skeptic, although the Scriptures offer an explanation for that, too.

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

It seems the Bible has ALL the evidence.  Even evidence that explains the brain of the skeptic.

Angel Baby

Angel Baby
Vol: 120 Issue: 24 Saturday, September 24, 2011

According to the Bible, there are four different classes of created, sentient (self-aware) spiritual beings; Gentiles, Jews, Christians and angels.

Mankind was created in God’s image and God’s likeness but that doesn’t mean that we look like God physically.  (We might, but no man hath seen God at any time, who knows?)  But spiritually, we are all created with an eternal element — like God, Who is also eternal.

While a man’s body dies, his spirit cannot. The Bible refers to spiritual death, and to the death of the soul, and to the Great White Throne judgment of the Lake of Fire as the “second death” but that doesn’t refer to the end of a soul’s existence.

It refers to the permanent loss of fellowship with the Lord and the permanent loss of heaven.   In the sense that salvation means eternal life, dying in one’s sins results in eternal death. Not eternal annihilation, but a death that continues forever – and without end.

“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:44, 46,48)

When the Lord repeats Himself in Scripture, it is because He wants to be sure that we “get” it.  Hell is real – He says so three times in a row.  Those in hell don’t die – He says so three times. 

And hell is a place of fiery torment – He says so. . .  three times!

So, mankind is created in God’s image in that man is an eternal creation.  The first man was created a Gentile. Adam didn’t KNOW he was a gentile, because at that time, there were only angels and Gentiles. 

Adam fell, and with him, the entire race.  Out of Adam’s seed God chose Abraham as the father of two peoples.  The descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob He selected as his Chosen People through whom He would reveal Himself to the nations.

If the Jews could have known in advance what they were chosen for, they may well have echoed the old joke about Abe Moskowitz who goes to heaven to meet God. 

He asks God, “Is it true that the Jews are the Chosen People?” God answers, “Yes, you are the Chosen People.”  Abe retorts, “Then could You please choose someone else for a change?”

Spiritually, a Jew is different creation than is a Gentile. The Jew is not a Gentile, neither can a Jew become a Gentile.  A Gentile can choose to become a Jew, but not the other way around. 

Being a Jew is a choice; one is either chosen, or one chooses, but it involves a choice.  But it is a one-way choice. A Jew that lives like a Gentile is a ‘lapsed Jew’, or a ‘secular Jew’, or an ‘unbelieving Jew’– but he cannot become a Gentile – he is a Jew.

The fourth spiritual creation of God is the Christian.  The Bible identifies a Christian as a “new creature” — one that is distinct and separate from either a Jew or a Gentile.  

A Christian is not a Jew, neither is he a Gentile, but is a new creation of God.  A Gentile can be born again, but it is a one-way transformation.  Once a born-again Christian, he cannot revert back to being a Gentile – at worst, he is a lapsed Christian.

An ethnic Jew that becomes a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Zoroastrian or a Marxist or an atheist is still a Jew.  He is a secular Jew, or a Meshumadim (a heretic) but he remains a Jew, nonetheless.   

There is no such thing as a Christian Jew.  There are Messianic Jews – that is to say, born-again Jews that have accepted Jesus as Messiah, but they are no longer Jews as far as other Jews are concerned.

From the perspective of Orthodox Judaism, they are worse than heretics.  


Angels and angel stories pre-date the oldest Hebrew texts of the Bible. The Sumerians, who pre-date ancient Egyptian society, was the most ancient civilization to depict winged humans in their carvings and statues.

The Sumerians tell the oldest known angel stories of “messengers of the gods” who would intervene between the “gods” and men. Angel stories permeate most ancient primitive cultures. Winged, angelic-like beings can be found within most all of their artwork and lore.

There is a reason why most Gentile cultures also have some form of angelic tradition – they predate Christians and Jews – angels were the first sentient creation of God.  

The fact that all cultures have some form of angelic tradition doesn’t cast doubt on the Bible – it enhances the Bible’s credibility. Only the Bible explains where they came from and who they are. 

Angels are as real as we are. Angels were interacting with man long before the Bible explained who they were. If angels were an invention of Jews or Christians, then there would be no Gentile angelic tradition.

There are stories of angels in the ancient literature of Babylon, Persia, Greece, as well as references to angel-like spirit-beings within Eastern mystical religions like Buddhism and Hinduism.

Historically speaking, angels exist independently from Christianity or Judaism. Every major religion has its own, unique form of angelic being. What makes them unique, however, is the role they play — all religions tend to describe them the same way.

  1. They are more or less universally described as winged creatures of indeterminate sex and of indescribable beauty. 
  2. They are capable of appearing both as a spirit and in corporeal form.
  3. Depending on the religious tradition, they range from being the gentle and benign to that of malignant creatures possessing great powers.

The Bible tasks angels with serving mankind in this life, and then tasks mankind with judging angels in the next:

“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 18:10)

“Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?” (1st Corinthians 6:3)

The Bible says that fallen mankind serves a secondary purpose in the instruction of angels;

“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us.” (Hebrews 12:1)

“Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. ” (1st Peter 1:12)

In some religious traditions, angels are viewed as gods in their own right — the Romans and Greeks had a pantheon of lesser gods; Mercury, (or Hermes) is depicted by the Greeks as Romans as the ‘winged messenger’ of Jupiter (or Zeus).

But where angels have really hit their stride is within the New Age. People are invited to get in touch with their ‘inner angel’ or their ‘angelic spirit guide’. Some teach we are all angels-in-waiting and that after we die, we become angels.

One hears that all the time, particularly from parents grieving the loss of a child; “She’s God’s little angel, now.” 

Nope. Angels are messengers and warriors, but they aren’t former people.  People don’t become angels. People are either Gentiles or Christians or Jews, but they never become angels.

Almost all religious traditions have some form of angel. They almost all describe the same being. But the Bible is unique in that it explains who and what angels are.

The Bible demonstrates how the angels harmonize with the rest of creation. Angels serve as messengers of God. Our relationship with angels is symbiotic and in harmony with creation.

This tells us three things right off the bat.

  1. Angels are real.
  2. Angels are not religious.
  3. The Bible is true.

So angels are unique.  They are what they are and they can’t be anything else because that is the way that God made them.  

And that is the one thing that angels have in common with Christians. 

Durban III

Durban III
Vol: 120 Issue: 23 Friday, September 23, 2011

A decade ago, the United Nations sponsored what was billed as a “World Conference Against Racism” that at first, people thought was convened to combat racism, xenophobia and intolerance.  Instead, the Durban Conference was convened to advance racism, promote xenophobia and push intolerance.

In 2001, the targets were Israel and “Western Imperialism” but primarily, it was against Israel.  Forty countries walked out of the conference, but that meant one hundred and sixty countries remained to party.  And what a party it was!

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan gave lip service to Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, not in homage to the millions murdered, but as a prop for his real message:

“We cannot expect Palestinians to accept this as a reason why the wrongs done to them, displacement, occupation, blockade and now extra-judicial killings, should be ignored, whatever label one uses to describe them.”

None of the actual issues of racism or intolerance were actually addressed at Durban.  Nobody mentioned the genocidal efforts of the Islamic government of Sudan.

But the conference ran a full day over its scheduled end so it could pass a resolution demanding Israel grant the “Palestinian Right of Return” that would ensure Israel’s demographic destruction.

In the end, the conference considered a resolution that attempt to equate the Holocaust with Israel’s alleged “ethnic cleansing of the Arab population” such as the following paragraphs from the original draft:

29. All States must acknowledge the suffering caused by lack of respect for the equality of human beings manifested through wars, genocide, holocaust, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities. All States must reject/prevent and punish ethnic and religious cleansing and genocide in all regions of the world and work together to prevent their recurrence. The (holocausts/Holocaust) and the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine…must never be forgotten;]

62. We are convinced that combating anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and [Zionist practices against Semitism] is integral and intrinsic to opposing all forms of racism, stresses the necessity of effective measures to address the issue of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and [Zionist practices against Semitism] today in order to counter all manifestations of these phenomena.

The Durban Conference on Racism went so well for the Arab side that they clamored for another, also held in Durban in 2009, presumbably because America had just elected a president named Barack Hussein Obama.

At that 2009 conference, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got a standing ovation when he accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians and repeated the anti-Jewish libel equating Zionism with racism.

Sidebar: This is an excellent place to make the observation that just outside the city of Bethlehem is a checkpoint and at that checkpoint is a sign that says, “No Jews Beyond This Point.”

Just imagine the global outcry at a sign in, say, Johannesburg, proclaiming, “No blacks beyond this point.” Or a similar sign posted somewhere in America. One cannot even imagine a sign inside Israel stating, “No Arabs beyond this point.”

The world supports the Palestinian’s right to exclude Jews from its claimed ‘homeland’ but goes ballistic at Israel’s effort to exclude terrorists from theirs.  

There is no place in Israel where Israeli-Arabs cannot go. And the only people in Israel favoring ethnic cleansing are the Arabs who demand a Palestinian state ethnically cleansed of Jews. 

One could not imagine such things could be possible in the 21st century — even as we witnessed it taking place. 

The Islamic obsession with Israel’s destruction is viewed with some kind of detached sense of tolerance — we pay lip service to how much we abhor it, etc., etc., but with a shrug of the shoulders in acknowledgment that “that is what they do.”

On the other hand, Israel is held to a standard that not even the United States could meet. Suppose that Mexican separatists started lobbing rockets into civilian markets and schools in US border states.

How long do you think we’d listen to UN demands for ‘tolerance’?


A decade after UN Secretary General Kofi Annan accused Israel of ethnic cleansing, extra-judicial killings, illegal occupation and imposing an illegal blockade, current UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon opened Durban III with a plea to the Arab governments not to abuse the conference, without going into specifics.

“We are all aware that the original Durban conference and its follow-up two years ago caused immense controversy. We should condemn anyone who uses this platform to subvert that effort with inflammatory rhetoric, baseless assertions and hateful speech. Our common commitment must be to focus on the real problems of racism and intolerance”.

Notice that the current UN chief did NOT mention Israel by name as the victim of the racist assaults.  The UN only mentions Israel by name when it is issuing condemnations against the Jewish State. 

According to UN Watch in Geneva, the Human Rights Council has adopted, since its founding in 2006, about 70 resolutions condemning specific countries – 40 of which have been against Israel.

In the General Assembly, about 20 anti-Israel resolutions are adopted each year, as opposed to just five or six against other countries.

So his speech was not any sort of defense of Israel – it was an effort by Moon to prevent the UN from embarrassing itself

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said in a statement this month; 

“The Durban conference and the anti-Semitic atmosphere in which it was held was a particularly unpleasant and divisive chapter in the U.N.’s history. It is not an event that should be celebrated.”

The White House said the United States had not taken part in the event because “since its inception… the Durban process has included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism.”

“We remain fully and firmly committed to upholding the human rights of all people and to combating racial discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance, anti-Semitism and bigotry,” the statement said.

This year, fourteen countries are boycotting the event entirely.  The usual suspects, like Iran, Cuba, Lebanon, etc., were there, Israel-bashing sticks in hand, but they were preaching to the choir.  

The US, Israel, and a number of western Europeans stayed home or organized a counter demonstration. But if fourteen nations boycotted the conference entirely, then that means that 179 countries showed up.

The global hatred of Israel is astonishing and inexplicable in any natural sense. Israel is hands-down the most Westernized and free democracy in the Middle East. It is the most productive state in the Middle East.

Most of Europe’s citrus imports come from Israel, the land Ezekiel described as “which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.’ (38:8)

The Jews of Israel consist of native-born citizens of almost every country in the world, including the United States of America. They have more in common with the West than any other state in the Middle East.

By contrast, the Islamic Middle East hates the West with a religious fervor. Everything about us is an offense to the Religion of Perpetual Anger. The only people they hate worse than the Jews are the Americans, the Europeans — and each other. 

Israel is hated by the whole world, but not without a cause. David knew why three thousand years ago. The same reason applies today:

“Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face.” [Psalms 69:7]

So what can we take away from this week’s UN events? The world denies the existence of God openly; but its every action confirms the opposite. Nobody fights against a non-existent enemy. If God wasn’t real, the battle wouldn’t be real, either.

The god of this world has no doubt of the reality of the God of the Universe.  He has met Him.

The restoration of Israel is more than just a thorn in the enemy’s side. The Bible says that the restoration of Israel to her ancestral homeland would begin a one-generation countdown to Satan’s Waterloo at the Second Coming of Christ.

“Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” (Revelation 12:12)

Durban III is just another in a series of  last-ditch efforts by the enemy to forestall the inevitable. While he doesn’t know the future, Satan can read.

And he knows his hourglass is almost out of sand.