|"This is a collection of articles that I found to be interestesing, and that I agree with. At least most of it. This is not necessarily band views, just mine personaly." -Brad|
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor |
"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days." (Daniel 10:13-14)
The United States military forces in Iraq are currently conducting combat operations against a Shi'ite militia in Fallujah under the control of a radical Muslim cleric named Muqtada al-Sadr. The Pentagon decided to retaliate -- hard -- for the killing and mutilation of four American civilian security contractors there last week.
It seems that too many columns open with the phrase, "military forces in Iraq are currently conducting combat operations against a Shi'ite militia somewhere under the control of some radical Muslim cleric" somewhere.
Despite that, too many people still don't get it. At some point, every columnist in every Western country in the world is likely to write a variation of that same sentence inserting his own country at the beginning. In the meantime, they write columns explaining why America deserves to be Islam's favorite target.
While the West dithers, Islamic forces are gathering, burying old animosities and building new alliances in preparation for what appears to be an all-out confrontation.
About ten days ago, US occupation forces closed an Iraqi newspaper, Al Hawaza. The coalition said it closed the newspaper for 60 days because it had been printing false statement likely to incite violence. The paper belonged to Muqtada al-Sadr. The closure was followed by days of demonstrations, and, eventually, the outrage at Fallujah.
Making matters worse, US coalition forces arrested al-Sadr's aide, Mustafa al-Yacoubi for murder in the killing last April of al-Sadr's rival, Shi'ite cleric Abdel-Majid al-Khoai.
al-Sadr's claim to legitimacy comes from his father, Ayatollah Muhammad Sadeq al-Sadr, who was killed by Saddam in 1999. Portraits of the father are hoisted at every gathering, and his sayings are often cited by the younger al-Sadr. He claims he is descended through his father from the Prophet Muhammad and, as such, is referred to as "al-sayed," or master, by fellow Shi'ites.
It sounds like Middle Eastern Islam conducting business as usual; deception, demonstrations, riots, killings and political intrigue. Strikes, counterstrikes, assassination of rivals, calls for 'death to America' for liberating it from Saddam -- all the usual stuff. But this is coming, not from Saddam's pet Sunnis, but from the Shi'ites who suffered the most at his hands.
The Shi'ites are not Saddam loyalists, they were his targets. They were, together with the Kurds, the ones we actually DID liberate from oppression. Why fight their liberators?
The Islamic paradise of Iran is a Shi'ite Muslim paradise. The Shia are ideological enemies of the Sunnis of Iraq, as well as the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.
If they weren't attacking the West, they'd be fighting each other. Confused yet? While they remain bitter enemies, they share in common the religious worldview of 'Dar al Islam' (Zone of Islam) and 'Dar al-Harb' (Zone of Death).
Since the West lives outside the Zone of Islam, it is inside the Zone of Death to Shia, Sunni and Wahabbi alike. Israel, on the other hand, is an alien presence inside Dar al Islam, and an offense to Islam by its very existence.
Since America not only supports Israel's existence, but is also an occupying force inside the Dar al Islam, it is Islam's enemy twice over.
Iran's fingerprints are all over al-Sadr's movement, and its activities. Iran has been working with the Shi'ites in Iraq since the fall of Saddam. The Iranians are also heavily involved with Hamas, despite the fact that Hamas is majority Wahabbi, and is also receiving funding from Wahabbi Saudi Arabia.
The death of Sheik Yassin created a power vacuum in Hamas. Yassin had close ties to the Saudi royals, whereas Abdul al Rantisi does not. And that's where Iran comes in.
Shi'ite Iran is also the principle supporter of Hezbollah, whose secondary source of support is Syria's ruling Ba'athists, who, although secular, identify themselves with Sunni Islam.
Last month, Hamas lost its web host in Switzerland after somebody remembered that Hamas had been declared a terrorist organization by the European Union. It resurfaced, hosted by a Russian web host company.
All these dots connect, if you are watching closely.
It is significant to note that Sunni Muslims, like those of Iraq's deadly Sunni triangle, make up about 85% of world-wide Islam. Shi'ite Muslims, like the followers of Muqtada al-Sadr and the rulers of Iran, only account for some 10% of Islam. And the Wahabbi Islam of Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda are just one of seven smaller Islamic sects that comprise the other 5%.
Mixed in somewhere with the Wahabbis in that five percent are Kharijis, Druze, Alawi, Ismali, Ahmadiyyah and Sufis. What seems to be missing is the kinder, gentler, Islam of peace favored by that Muslim majority that DOESN'T want to bring jihad to the Dar al Harb.
The prophet Daniel discovered in the writings of Jeremiah a prophecy that said Israel would serve in captivity for seventy years. "In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." (Daniel 9:2)
Daniel wrote, "In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled." (Daniel 10-2-3)
Daniel waited, and he prayed, until an angel of the Lord appeared to him. The angel assured Daniel he had been heard from the beginning, "Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words." (11:12)
But the angel said he was withstood for '21 days' (three weeks) by the 'Prince of Persia' until the archangel Michael "came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia." (11:13) The angel said in the next verse, "Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days." (11:14)
There is a pattern here. Daniel knew the time to liberate the captives was at hand. All the signs were there, all the preconditions had been met, but the liberation had not yet come. He prayed, he waited and he prayed and he waited. The angel explained that he was delayed because he was locked in spiritual combat with the prince of Persia. Michael, the archangel assigned to the protection of Israel, was dispatched to help.
Note the appearance of Daniel's angel:
"Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude." (10:5-6)
Compare it to John's description of the appearance of Jesus Christ:
"And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." (Revelation 1:13-16)
Daniel recorded his reaction when he saw the revealing Angel:
"Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength. Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground." (Daniel 10:7-8)
So did the Apostle John:
"And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: " (Revelation 1:17) Do you see any similarities? There are others.
Daniel's vision was for what would befall Israel in the last days. The first three chapters of the Revelation of Jesus Christ contain the outline of what would befall the Church, leading up to the Rapture.
Daniel's expectation of redemption from captivity for his people was held up by a spiritual battle between the revealing Angel and the Prince of Persia.
The Church is also expecting its redemption. Jesus told us that, "when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." (Luke 21:28)
We see the signs of the times, read the promises of Scripture regarding the Rapture of the Church, and we wait, as Daniel did.
Meanwhile, all around us, a great spiritual war is raging, spilling out into the flesh-and-blood world as a war between the Christian West and the Jews of Israel, against the forces of Islam, the Prince of Persia.
Scripture promises a special crown to those who study Bible prophecy and announce His coming. "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" (1st Thessalonians 2:19)
It is one of only four crown rewards available to the believer at the Bema Seat, the others being; the crown of righteousness (2nd Timothy 4:8), the crown of life (James 1:12) and the crown of glory, (1 Peter 5:4) -- so it is a very significant reward.
"And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." (Daniel 12:9-10)
Friday, April 11, 20034:21:29 AM EST|
Marx, Hegel and an Overheating Sun
Commentary on the News
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
According to NASA, the sun may be getting brighter and hotter. Whether the trend is real has been hotly debated and the controversial finding will be discussed today at the UK/Ireland National Astronomy and Solar Physics meetings in Dublin.
The scientists who have reported the find do not believe that changes in solar radiation are responsible for all climate change but may account for a significant fraction of warming currently attributed to greenhouse gas emissions since 1980.
During that time, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly 0.05 per cent a decade, according to research published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said lead author Dr Richard Willson of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
To detect the upward trend, he stitched together measurements made by six different satellites since 1978. However, the cause of the trend was not understood, he said.
Dr Judith Lean, of the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, is critical of the way the finding relies on splicing together data from different instruments flown on various spacecraft.
The trend may reflect differences in calibration and shifts in instrument sensitivities, rather than changes in the Sun.
An earlier study that combined the various solar brightness data in a different way did not find a significant general brightening of the Sun during the past two decades.
"To really resolve the controversies, we need longer and more precise monitoring of the solar brightness to determine whether or not there are long-term trends," concludes Dr Lean.
Environmentalist groups -- and environmental scientists --have spent much of the last decade scaring the pants off the unscientific public.
For example, we covered the World Wildlife Federation's study that the London Observer that, (the way it was presented) said that within fifty years we're gonna have to find two inhabitable planets, figure out a way to get there [in less time that it would take to escape our star system, let alone get to a new one], and send 2/3's of mankind there. Or we are doomed.
(For more, see 2050 Party Over - Out of Time .)
Here we see where a worldview, a sympathetic media and a Cause come together in a perfect balance. The result is textbook mind control through propaganda.
The technique is the application of the Hegelian Dialectic and the method is the dissemination of propaganda by the use of semantics. In brief, it is called 'Management by Crisis'.
The Hegelian Dialectic or "Consensus Process" is a 200 year-old, three-step process of "thesis, antithesis and synthesis", developed in the late 1700's by a German named Georg William Friedreich Hegel that results in what we now know as "group-think".
Under the Hegelian Dialectic, there is the thesis: an idea, opinion, position; antithesis: the opposite idea, opinion or position; and synthesis: the bringing together of thesis and antithesis to bring about the wanted change.
While touted as a decision making process, the purpose of the process is really to facilitate people into believing the outcome is theirs such that people will climb on board, support and defend the predetermined outcome; and remove accountability for the predetermined outcome from the agency responsible and place it on a group of non-elected individuals who really had nothing to do with the making of the decision (predetermined outcome) and cannot be held responsible by the people it isn't our fault, this represents what the people want, ie, the people made this decision; or this is supported by the community, ie, this non-elected group of people (representing the community) is responsible, not us.
This process is often used by groups to foment change, and is core principle of Marxist thinking. We see it applied by gay rights groups, pro-abortion groups, secular humanists, and most 'anti' groups, from anti-war to anti-guns.
The Hegelian Dialectic is part of the propagandists' basic toolbox, together with the application of semantics.
'Semantics' is the science of using words to evoke a particular emotion, usually one contrary to what would ordinarily be expected.
With the application of semantics, something tantalizing can sound disgusting.
For example, which would you prefer? A piece of muscle tissue sliced from the corpse of an immature, castrated bull? Or a nice, thick, juicy steak?
The environmental agenda is partly scientific, partly religious (mostly New Age, with a smattering of paganist and Buddhist influence) and partly political (Marxism).
It seeks to impose a humanist New World Order, using the principles of Marxism to eventually redistribute the world's wealth until a balance of consumption is achieved. America --3% of the world's population -- consumes 50% of the world's resources.
To the environmentalist, this is an imbalance that needs correcting.
The best way to do that is to apply the Hegelian Dialectic to scare the pants off us -- unless you think there really IS evidence that we need to build Battlestar Galactica by 2050 before we are forced to eat each other.
In generations past, there were asteroids, but nobody was building shelters in case one hit us. The environmentalists have people convinced now that it is just a 'matter of time' before the next earth-killer hits -- the last one having struck 85 million years ago, so . . .
In fact, NASA has a committee with a seven figure budget that is charged with providing early warning against a collision with an NEO or Near Earth Object.
(Doesn't it strike you as odd that there is an official NAME for an event whose last previous occurrence was allegedly 85 million years ago?).
That isn't to say that there are NOT things we are learning about the universe that we never dreamed of in previous generations. We live in a generation in which, according to Moore's Law, our capacity for knowledge now doubles every eighteen months.
My grandmother was born before Marconi sent the first trans-Atlantic telegram. My parents marveled at the introduction of the television set. I was amazed when I saw the invention of the VCR turn a television into either a movie theatre or a classroom.
Today I can watch TV on my computer while I communicate with you instantly, in real time, no matter where you happen to be in the world at the moment, without getting out of my chair.
(And in eighteen months or so, the computer I am currently working on will be virtually obsolete).
When Daniel was given a vision of the world as it would be in the last days, he was stunned. Daniel asked the revealing angel to explain to him what he had witnessed. The angel told him, "thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and KNOWLEDGE SHALL BE INCREASED." (Daniel 12:4)
We are certainly living in the days of ever increasing knowledge.
When asked what would be the signs of His coming and of the end of the Church Age, the FIRST thing Jesus said was, "Take heed that no man deceive you." (Matthew 24:4)
It is pretty clear -- to me, at least -- that there is a global effort to manipulate public opinion by the various special interest groups and the media, using the principles of Hegel and Marx to scare the pants off the public in order to effect political change.
Luke records another sign for the last days;
"And there shall be signs in the SUN and in the MOON, and in the STARS; and upon the earth DISTRESS OF NATIONS, with PERPLEXITY; the sea and the waves roaring; (Luke 21:25).
Weigh THAT warning against the fears of global warming, depleting the earth's resources, catastrophic collisions with NEO's and the sun that is about to overheat.
Added together, it suggests that this generation is the one to whom these warnings were intended. Even the skeptic can see that some Bible prophecies seem to be coming to pass -- just go to the movies and see how many movie plots revolve around the end of the world.
Tied all together and given an honest hearing, the conclusion is inescapable.
"And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your Redemtion draws near....................................
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor |
One day as we were coming home from church, my grandson Bailey chirped, "Gwandad!! Jesus died for you!" There was a pause and he said, "He died on a Cross because bad men put him there. He was covered with boo-boos!" (Being three, Bailey is not up on all the latest medical terms, but he knew what he was talking about) "An' He died for Mummy and for Gwandma and because He loves us."
I was absorbing all this as I drove when Bailey asked me the next logical question, although I wasn't braced for it coming from a three-year-old.
"Why did He have to die?"
When we got home, I tried to explain to a three-year old something that many adult Christians have difficulty explaining. Yet it is one of the first questions posed by the skeptic.
Why, indeed, if Jesus was God, did He have to die? To the skeptic, the whole Cross, Blood and death thing doesn't make any sense. I know many Christians to whom the answer is simply, "So He could be resurrected on the third day."
That was never a satisfactory answer when I was a skeptic, either. 1 Peter 3:15 says, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. . ." So let's do. The Scripture says God's Justice demands a sacrifice, but for most Christians contending with the skeptic, that answer is unsatisfactory. The explanation that only a sinless man was qualified to take on the sins of the world makes sense, but it doesn't answer the nuts-and-bolts question of why He had to die. Not fully. The answer to the nuts-and-bolts legalities is found, not in the New Testament, but rather in the Old.
In Genesis Chapter 15, we find Abram questioning God's promise that his seed will be numbered as the stars of heaven and that they would inherit the land to which God had led him.
Genesis 15:6 says "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." But Abram wanted a guarantee, nonetheless. "And he [Abram] said, LORD God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" (15:8)
It was then that God proposed a blood covenant after the manner of the Chaldeans. "And he [God] said unto him, [Abram] Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon." Abram knew what to do next, since this was something he was familiar with. "And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not." The blood covenant worked this way. The animals were slaughtered and cut up. The pieces were intermingled and then carefully arranged to form a kind of aisle through which the two parties to the covenant would walk together, hands joined.
The principle of a blood covenant, and the symbolism of the rended animal parts was clearly understood to Abram. Whoever broke the covenant would end up like those piles of animals. A blood covenant was, by common custom, a joining of 2 or more persons, families, clans, tribes, or nations, where the participants agree to do or refrain from doing certain acts. More specifically, God had proposed a patriarchal covenant.
The patriarchal form of covenant is a self-imposed obligation of a superior party, to the benefit of an inferior party. In this form, the terms the parties use to refer to each other are: father and son. God's proposal included not only Abram, but extended to Abram's seed forever.
(Galatians 3:29 makes plain that Christians are also "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.")
Are you still with me? Here's where we are so far. Abram has just prepared a blood covenant between himself and God in which his seed would forever be bound to God as heirs. To be an heir, under the implied terms of the covenant, also required being faithful to the Father. Abram understood those terms and waited for God to appear. Consider the picture. Abram waited, driving away the carrion eaters from his grisly creation, waiting for God Himself to come down, join hands with Abram and together, they would swear a blood oath. God would be the Father of Abram and his descendents, who would then be required behave as sons to keep that covenant.
Genesis 15:12 records that as Abram waited for God, a deep sleep fell upon him. During that deep sleep, "it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:" (Genesis 15:17-18)
And there's the key! While the covenant was between Abram and God, by passing through the aisle alone, God signed the contract -- alone -- for both sides, binding Himself to keeping both parts. We know that Abram's seed did NOT remain faithful to the covenant. And violating the blood covenant demanded that somebody had to die. That was what justice required.
The Apostle Paul was, before his conversion on the road to Damascus, a Pharisee, or a religous lawyer, one well qualified to explain the law of covenant oaths.
As Paul explains, "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. (Galatians 3:9) Further. that "they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." (3:9) And also, "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." (3:11) Of the covenant that God signed on behalf of Abraham, Paul explains "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." (3:15)
The covenant could only be confirmed when the price demanded for its violation was paid in full.
When the Law was given to Moses four centuries later, it was assumed by the Jews that to break it was to break the Abrahamic Covenant, for which the penalty was death. Remember, somebody had to die. But God signed on behalf of Abraham, and Paul pointed out the blood penalty required of the covenant was paid in full.
"And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Why did Jesus have to die? Because the covenant demanded satisfactory payment for its violation, and no one who had broken that covenant was qualified to stand in payment except those who signed it. And God signed on behalf of Abram and his seed. It is for that reason that God stepped out of eternity and into space and time. To keep the provisions of the original covenant and be a true Son, as it demanded.
And having kept its terms on behalf of sinful humanity, it was incumbent upon Him to make payment, as justice demanded, for its violation by those on whose behalf the covenant was signed. To be torn and rended like the animals that formed the corridor through which God alone passed.
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah (53:3)
To make restitution on behalf of the seed of Abraham. You. Me. And everyone who ever broke its provision of faithfulness. All of us. Jesus made that payment on our behalf. On the Cross, as He gave up the ghost, Jesus cried with a loud voice 'it is finished' (Tetelestai!) meaning, literally, "paid in full."
The terms of the violated Covenant were met, its price was paid by its Signer. God's justice was fulfilled. That is why Jesus took on a human form and allowed Himself to be crucified by His own creation. That is the reason the Blood of Christ is so precious. Why nothing less would do.
Because justice demanded it.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
One of the most misunderstood issues today is the question of "Who are the Palestinians"? The truth about this matter has been so deliberately obscured that even to raise the question will seem strange to most readers. |
In my book, "The Everlasting Hatred, the Roots of Jihad," I trace the history of the people now being called the "Palestinians." The land of Israel became known as Palestine after the Roman destruction of Israel in A.D. 70. It was ruled by many different invaders for the following 19 centuries.
In the 7th century, the Muslims took control of Palestine for the first time. From A.D. 635 until 1917, the Muslims ruled it, with only a few interruptions by the European Crusaders. During that span of time, the land was reduced to total desolation. Many people who traveled the land in the 19th century remarked on the fact that Palestine was as desolate as the moon and very few people lived there. In 1867, Mark Twain remarked about his visit to the Holy Land in his book, "The Innocents Abroad." He lamented, "Stirring scenes occur in the valley [of Jezreel] no more. There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent – not for 30 miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride 10 miles hereabouts and not see 10 human beings."
By all eyewitness accounts of that era, Palestine was a total desolation. There were virtually no trees and no people. Because of lack of trees, the weather changed and it rarely ever rained. The irrigation systems of the once fertile valleys were all destroyed, rendering most areas into malaria-ridden swamps. The terraces of the mountainsides were torn down, causing terrible erosion that left only barren rocks. This was the condition of Palestine by the beginning of the 19th century. It was at this time that Jews began to flee severe persecutions in Russia and Eastern Europe. In the mid-1800s, some Jews came to Palestine and, with the generous aid of some successful Jews like the Rothschilds, began to buy property from Muslim Ottoman Turks. The Muslims thought the land was worthless anyway, so they sold it to the "dumb Jews" for extremely inflated prices.
To everyone's amazement, the Jews were very successful at reclaiming the land. Many of them died from malaria and the rigorous life the work demanded, but they performed an agricultural miracle that made the land very productive again. As a result of their success, poor migrant workers from the surrounding Muslim countries began to flood in to work for the Jews. The Jews literally became victims of their own success – almost all of the people calling themselves "Palestinians" today are the descendants of those migrant workers.
Much more is said and documented on this subject in my book. But the main point is this: The Muslims have repeatedly shown they understand these things. Since they know that the so-called "Palestinians" are not a homogeneous people, but rather a mixed conglomerate of workers with no cohesive organizational or political skills, they have repeatedly not given them a state.
When the Hashemite Tribe, who were rulers over Mecca and Medina for centuries, were driven out by the Saudis, the British gave them control over the vastly greater numbers of "migrant workers" in Trans Jordan. The British said this would be, in effect, "The State of Palestine." Instead, the Hashemites, who make up only about 20 percent of the population, turned it into their own kingdom and called it the Kingdom of Jordan.
When the Jordanians and Egyptians controlled the so-called West Bank and the Gaza Strip for 19 years (1948 to 1967), there was never a thought of giving the disorganized mass of "migrant workers" a state. Why? Because they knew there was no cohesive, homogeneous people known as "Palestinians."
The current efforts of Jordan and Egypt (and all the rest of the Muslim Middle East nations) to give these same people a state is clearly a ploy to get a foothold inside Israel. It is a strategic accommodation to establish a base from which the final assault against Israel can be made. What they couldn't do militarily is now being facilitated through the United States and the E.U.
Muslims will never accept a permanent presence of infidels in what they claim is sacred Islamic soil. Especially Jewish infidels for which the Koran reserves its most vehement condemnations. In their minds, the Koran and Allah will not let them accept Jews in what they view as their third holiest site.
The United States had better learn these things, or we will find ourselves guilty of facilitating the destruction of God's people, to whom the Word of God says the land belongs forever. God will not let that happen, but He will certainly judge those who have any part in trying to do it.
God warned: "Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Surely I have spoken in My burning jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom [Arabs], who took MY LAND to themselves as a possession, with whole-hearted joy and spiteful minds, in order to plunder its open country ... But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, for they are about to come.'"
You may not recognize most of their names, but these are the men who signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. They knew full well that they would be hung or shot as traitors to the Crown if they were captured. I am sure that each man weighed his decision to affix his signature to this document very carefully. They knew their beloved families would suffer as a result of their action. These were well-educated men of means. They knew that they could lose their houses, lands, and businesses. But they loved freedom so much that they risked everything to allow America to be birthed. They knew that unless leaders stepped forward and said, "I believe that this is right and necessary," no one else would find the courage to oppose the tyranny. And so these men, most of them fairly unremarkable prior to that momentous day, became extraordinary men because their consciences required them to become leaders. |
The repercussions from signing the Declaration of Independence would have caused many to turn away from their duty, but we find no record of any of the signers doing so. The tactics the British attempted to crush the rebellion can only be described as savage. Not only were soldiers tortured in captivity; their wives and children were murdered, sometimes being burned alive in their homes. Yet, as I was researching this article, I was impressed by the faith of one of the signers, a medical doctor named Matthew Thornton, as he encouraged the people of New Hampshire. "In a word, we seriously and earnestly recommend the practice of that pure and undefiled religion, which embalmed the memory of our pious ancestors, as that alone upon which we can build a solid hope and confidence in the Divine protection and favour, without whose blessing all the measures of safety we have, or can propose, will end in our shame and disappointment."
Have you ever thought about what happened to the men who signed the Declaration of Independence? Five were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured to death. Nine died from wounds received in the war for independence. Two of them lost sons who died while serving in the Revolutionary Army. Carter Braxton, a wealthy trader, saw his ships sunk by the British Navy. He died in poverty after selling his home and property to pay his debts. Thomas M'Kean was hunted by the British and had to hide his family to save their lives. His possessions were taken from him; poverty was his reward.
Thomas Nelson, Jr., a wealthy man, was appointed Commander of the Militia of Virginia. Many times, with his army starving and in need of provisions, he paid for them out of his own pocket. At the battle of Yorktown, Nelson found that his home had been taken over by the British for their headquarters. He urged General George Washington to open fire, and his home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt. The home and properties of Frances Lewis were burned. The British imprisoned his wife, and she died within months. John Hart and his children were forced to flee for their lives as Mrs. Hart was dying. Hart lived in forests and caves for a year. He returned to find his wife dead and his children vanished. He died from exhaustion and a broken heart. British soldiers looted the properties of Ellery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Rutledge, Middleton, Norris and Livingston. These are just a few of the sacrifices of these American heroes.
These men were not wild young rebels. They were men of substance. They had security; many were wealthy. They had much to lose, but they valued liberty more than their own lives, more than the lives of their families. Unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Their sacrifices gave us a free and independent America. We honor their courage today.
Some of us take these liberties for granted. That is a grave error. Freedom isn't free. If we forget that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, we may someday have to make the same sacrifices that these brave men did.
If you listen to the mainstream press, you will learn the Bush administration justified the war against Saddam Hussein using "questionable intelligence." |
It is being alleged, mainly by the Democrats, that the White House deliberately deceived the nation. They allege there was no case for war. Sen. Hillary Clinton and former-President Bill Clinton are among the chief critics of the administration's handling of Iraq. Together with former-Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Sen. Carl Levin, Al Gore, and other prominent Democrats, they have launched a vicious campaign to discredit the administration of George W. Bush. They now charge that, in reality, there never were any weapons of mass destruction. They say both the CIA and the president lied. They charge it was all concocted to make Dick Cheney and his friends at Halliburton rich.
They surely sound different than they did when they were facing the same Saddam Hussein that George Bush just deposed. Just listen to what Bill Clinton said on Feb. 17, 1998, just before he ordered Operation Desert Fox against Saddam's Iraq: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." He made this statement on a national broadcast. At the time, Clinton's attack on Saddam's Iraq was being criticized as a "wag the dog" effort to deflect attention away from his scandals and upcoming impeachment.
Madeline Albright defended her boss, saying, "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
On Nov. 19, 1999, Albright told the world, "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
These are the warnings they gave America when they had the same intelligence access that the current administration has. The only thing that has changed is now they don't have access to the top-secret information the president has.
Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, justified the 1998 air war against Iraq by charging, "He [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." THESE ARE THE SAME WEAPONS THE DEMOCRATS NOW DENY EVER EXISTED. Democratic Congressional Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, has opposed the current war on Iraq from the beginning. But in 1998, she said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process." So what happened between 1998 and now? Did Saddam have a change of heart that everybody except the White House knew about? Was new intelligence uncovered that suggested that Saddam had abandoned his weapons programs? Not according to the hugely partisan Senate Intelligence Committee. Democrat Sen. Carl Levin sits on that committee. In a letter to President Clinton signed by John Kerrey and Carl Levin, these two stalwarts pleaded, "[We] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." And this was from Carl Levin and John Kerry – today's most persistent and vocal critics of President Bush and his policy that was based on Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Their hypocrisy is almost beyond belief. They must think no one remembers their words of wisdom.
It is true that the Bush administration hasn't found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. But if they deceived us about Iraq possessing them, they learned from the pros – the Clinton administration