Arafat Welcomed in France


Oct. 29….(FOJ) The French have been notorious in their hatred of US President George Bush, but they have rolled out the welcome mat for terrorist leader Yasser Arafat. An ailing Yasser Arafat arrived at a Paris military hospital for treatment of a blood disorder after leaving his West Bank compound for the first time in nearly three years. A helicopter carrying the 75-year-old Palestinian leader landed on the roof of the Hospital d'Instruction des Armees de Percy southwest of Paris on Friday. Arafat was taken by stretcher into the hospital. Arafat is expected to undergo several days of tests before his diagnosis will be determined. The facility is a military hospital with a major trauma center but also specializes in the treatment of blood disorders, according to Christian Estripeau, head of communications for military health services. Earlier on Friday, Arafat left behind his sandbagged Ramallah headquarters in the West Bank for the first time in nearly three years. He flew to Jordan, then on to Paris. Wearing a gray fur hat and an olive-colored jacket, Arafat climbed aboard the helicopter in the West Bank as dozens of bodyguards and supporters chanted, “With our spirit and our blood, we will redeem you, Arafat. The 75-year-old leader looked pale and jaundiced, but tried to smile. In deference to his deteriorating condition, Israel had lifted its travel ban and promised it would allow him to return. It is amazing to me how Israel kowtows to its internal paranoia over the fate of Arafat. Arafat’s low-key departure from Ramallah stood in marked contrast to his triumphant arrival in Gaza a decade earlier, when tens of thousands of Palestinians cheered as his motorcade drove through the Gaza Strip. It is a certainty that Arafat’s fate is one of the dynamic components involved in the complex prophetic climax of the Last Days. Arafat’s demise has already fueled speculation in the West and in Israel that the next Palestinian leader might be a person with whom Israel can be constrained upon to make a peace-pact with. FOJ has regularly stated that Arafat was an impediment to any humanistic peace formula (peace of the Antichrist) in the Mid-east because he was simply a terrorist and not someone that could be appeased by, or satisfied with the trappings accorded a head of State. Arafat is a hater of Jews, and enjoyed the intrigue of terror and bloodletting. It was his life’s work.

The Way We Elect Our Presidents

Oct. 29…..(by Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum) Hillary Clinton's first legislative proposal after her election as New York Senator was to call for the abolition of the Electoral College. It's no surprise that she will use her celebrity status to advance a series of bad ideas, and this is one of the worst. The Electoral College is one of the legacies of the inspired genius of our Founding Fathers. It was part of the great compromise which transformed us from a bunch of rival colonies into a constitutional republic. This great compromise brought together the large states and the small by means of a national Congress based on equal representation of the states in the Senate regardless of population, and unequal representation of the states in the House of Representatives based on their unequal populations. The Electoral College is the mirror image of this same brilliant compromise: it allows all states, regardless of size, to be players in the process of electing our President. The Electoral College induces presidential candidates to gear their time, money and policies toward the whole country, not merely toward the half dozen most populous states. If we had a popular-vote process, the temptation would be irresistible for presidential candidates to offer the moon wrapped in federal dollars to the handout hunters where big-city machines can pile up extra millions of votes. The Electoral College is the vehicle that gives us a President who achieves a majority in a functioning political process. Because of third parties, it is difficult for a candidate to receive a majority (over 50 percent) of the popular vote. No US presidential candidate achieved a popular-vote majority (over 50 percent) in 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, or 1996, but we elected a President when the candidate who received a plurality in the popular vote received a majority (over 50 percent) of the whole number in the Electoral College. In his post-election strategy, Al Gore tried to claim that he should be President because he won the popular vote (as opposed to the Electoral College vote), and that therefore George Bush's election is not "legitimate." But contrary to Al Gore's whining, it really doesn't matter who wins the popular vote because the Electoral College is decisive. One can draw an analogy between the Electoral College and the World Series. The Pittsburgh Pirates won the 1960 World Series 4-3, even though the New York Yankees outscored the Pirates in runs 55-27, and in hits 91-60. No one challenged the fact that the Pirates won fair and square. Without the Electoral College, we would always be saddled with minority Presidents without an adequate basis of support for leadership. The Electoral College saves us from the fate of other nations that suffer from the complexities, uncertainties and agonies of coalition governments patched together when no candidate or party wins a majority. In the 1970s, Senators Birch Bayh (D-IN) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College and instead elect Presidents who get a plurality of at least 40 percent of the popular vote. But that would pose all the same problems of recounts and legal challenges if a presidential candidate received 39.99 percent of the vote and would also contain a built-in incentive to encourage straw candidates to prevent an unwanted candidate from achieving the 40 percent. Fortunately, the Bayh-Kennedy effort was defeated in a close Senate vote in July 1979. Another advantage of our unique Electoral College is that, except as a last resort, it keeps the meddling fingers of Congress out of the election process. It serves as a buffer against federal dictatorship. The Electoral College is the only function of our national government that is performed outside of Washington, D.C. The President is elected by electors chosen in their states according to their own state election laws, who meet and cast their ballots in their own state capitals. No Senator, Representative, or other federal official is permitted to be an elector in the Electoral College. Whereas other countries handle their succession of chief executives by revolution or angry mobs, the only street ruckus during our 2000 dilemma was a little pushing and shoving by Jesse Jackson's friends. The Electoral College has served us well for more than 200 years and there is every reason to believe it can continue to serve us for the next 200.

FOJ Note: The Electoral College is a good thing. It is not a mystical conspiracy. It is a mechanism that was designed by the founding fathers to prevent larger states and large media centers from having too much leverage in national elections. It has helped to preserve states rights and individual voter power. (Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual, but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. --Samuel Adams, Father of the American Revolution)


EU Leaders to Sign Constitution Today


Oct. 29….(My Way) Europe's first constitution faces an uncertain future long after the ink dries on Friday's signatures. After more than two years of difficult negotiations, European leaders gathered for the historic ceremony in a frescoed room in a palace on Rome's Capitoline Hill. They included the leaders of four EU candidates, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Croatia, as well as the heads of state of the EU's 25 member nations. The landmark document is designed to accelerate decision-making and give Europe a sharper profile on the world stage. Neither the ambitious document idealists had hoped for, nor the blueprint for a European superstate skeptics warned against, the constitution must be ratified by each of the EU's member nations before it can take effect. At least nine countries, Denmark, Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Britain plan to put it to a referendum. A single 'no' would stop the constitution in its tracks. The negotiations bogged down often, especially over questions of power-sharing and whether the constitution should refer to Europe's Christian roots. The EU leaders approved the charter last June. On Thursday, Pope John Paul II again criticized the EU for erasing any mention of the role of Christianity (Catholicism) in European history, calling it "an undeniable fact that no historian can forget." The constitution's principle aim is to provide simpler voting rules to end gridlock in a club that ballooned to 25 members this year with plans to absorb half a dozen more. It includes a charter of fundamental rights, new voting rules and new powers for the 732-member European Parliament.


Arafat: Father of Modern Terrorism


Oct. 29….(FOJ) While the world sits and holds it breath over the condition of Yasser Arafat, the truth about the man continues to be glossed over by the worlds media centers. Yasser Arafat is considered the father of modern terrorism! It is Yasser Arafat that we have to thank for the maniacal threat of terrorism. Arafat is linked directly to the deaths of thousands of Israelis, and the deaths of untold thousandss of Arabs and over 100 US citizens, including two diplomats. Arafat and his thugs founded Al-Fatah, an underground network of secret terror cells, which in 1959 began to publish a magazine advocating armed struggle against Israel. Having fought against Israel in 1947, when Israel was a mere coastal community, and again in 1956, Arafat fled to Kuwait. At the end of 1964 Arafat left Kuwait to become a full-time revolutionary terrorist leader, organizing Fatah terrorist raids into Israel from Jordan. It was also in 1964 that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established, under the sponsorship of the Arab League. (three years before Israel took possession) Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc, said of Arafat; " I am not surprised to see that Yasser Arafat remains the same bloody terrorist I knew so well during my years at the top of Romania's foreign intelligence service. I became directly involved with Arafat in the late 1960s, in the days when he was being financed and manipulated by the KGB. The KGB brought Arafat and some of his fedayeen fighters secretly to the Soviet Union via Romania, in order for them to be indoctrinated and trained. Arafat's speech record while in Russia was that American "imperial Zionism" was the "rabid dog of the world," and there was only one way to deal with a rabid dog: "Kill it!" Arafat has made a political career by pretending that he has not been involved in his own terrorist acts. Now, as his days are winding down, Arafat’s legacy is that he not only was a murderer, a terrorist, a liar, and an international con artist, but he has also left a generation of Islamic honed and brain-washed children to carry on his demonic legacy. The world would have been better off if this man had never been born. As soon as Arafat dies, he will wish he had never been born also, for he will most likely have a place reserved in Hell alongside all the other cancerous thugs of human history.


EU: Israel Must Leave Gaza, and West Bank Too

Oct. 29….(FOJ) European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana Friday said Israel’s retreat from Gaza was a good first step, but one that must be followed by a full and complete withdrawal from what the world calls the “West Bank”, including the eastern half of Jerusalem. The veteran Spanish diplomat promised a visiting PLO official Israel’s unilateral flight from the Strip would be used by the world to jumpstart the stalled Road Map to Middle East peace, a plan that rewards the Palestinian Arabs with an independent state, despite their years of corruption and terrorist activity. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon sold his “disengagement” plan to the Israeli people as a means to halt indefinitely the international juggernaut intent on birthing the Muslim nation of Palestine, and secure the Jews’ hold over vital sections of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. It is becoming increasingly apparent he will have difficulty keeping his word. Sharon has insisted that pulling out of Gaza and redeploying the IDF around its perimeter would remove the burden of caring for the hostile Arab population there, and greatly increase Israel’s ability to thwart violence emanating from the coastal strip. Earlier this month, Sharon’s bureau chief, Dov Weisglass, confirmed in an interview that, while Israel remained interested in a final peace settlement, the Gaza retreat was meant to freeze current international peace efforts for the foreseeable future. Israel could not allow the world to continue shoving “land-for-peace” plans down its throat when the “Palestinian” leadership was not interested in peaceful coexistence, Weisglass explained. In addition, Sharon has touted his disengagement plan as a means to ensuring Israel maintains control over large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, as well as eastern Jerusalem, and has lauded tacit US approval of this formula. This scheme is literally tied to the backing and re-election of George W. Bush as the US President for the next four years. However, the world’s other major powers have openly stated they would not sit by and allow the Jews to hold onto those parts of their so-called “biblical heartland,” land that is claimed by the Palestinian Arabs. EU executive leader Javier Solana says that Ariel Sharon and President Bush are mistaken if they think that withdrawal from Gaza is enough. Is it any wonder Europe doesn’t want to see Bush reelected! Solana has promised PLO “foreign minister” Nabil Sha’ath that the EU would do its “utmost” to accelerate implementation of the Quartet’s Road Map peace plan.

Arafat at Deaths Door, Who Knows?

Oct. 28….(David Dolan) Reports on Israel television at midnight say that longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is at death’s door. His wife, Suha, is being rushed from her hotel home in Paris to be at his bedside. Arafat’s top aides, quoted in the Israeli and Palestinian media tonight, say the notorious PLO chairman is either in “critical” or “very critical” condition. Political analysts say this is an official admission that he is probably near death. However, some caution that the infamous Arab leader has appeared to be “checking out” a few times before, and is yet still with us. Arafat lapsed into unconsciousness earlier in the day, but was reportedly revived from that state, although some Israeli analysts say he is likely still in a coma. Doctors from nearby Jordan, which formally signed a peace accord with Israel exactly ten years ago today, have been rushed to his bedside. The main question here tonight is what Arafat’s apparently imminent passing will mean for this volatile region; already convulsing from the turbulent situation in Iraq and the pending unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Late reports from Ramallah say Arafat has appointed a three man committee to run the Palestinian Authority “for the time being.” However, Israeli analysts say the “committee” was probably formed by the three men themselves, without Arafat’s actual knowledge or consent. Many expect the chaos that has been recently escalating in the Palestinian zones to explode when he finally dies, with the likelihood that a bloody power struggle, and possibly even a civil war, will follow. Typical of regional and world dictators, the veteran Palestinian leader has allowed no obvious successor to arise in his despotic wake. Ironically, Arafat slipped into a coma exactly nine years to the day, according to the Hebrew calendar, when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in Tel Aviv.

Other Accounts:


Israeli officials confirmed that the Palestinian leader would be taken to a hospital in Ramallah, the first time in nearly three years he would be leaving his compound. Arafat performed Muslim prayers before dawn Thursday and ate a light breakfast. Arafat's condition appeared to improve overnight, and Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said the Palestinian leader was stable. Arafat woke at 3:30am, prayed and chatted with aides, Erekat said. On Wednesday evening, the 75-year-old leader's persistent, two-week illness took a sudden turn for the worse. Arafat vomited after eating soup, then collapsed and was unconscious for about 10 minutes, a bodyguard said. Aides urgently summoned doctors from Jordan and Egypt, and Arafat's wife, Suha was en route to the West Bank from Tunisia to be by his side. Mrs. Arafat lives in Paris and has not seen her husband since 2001. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in a telephone conversation with his Palestinian counterpart, Ahmed Qureia, agreed in principle to allow Arafat to be flown abroad for treatment, but it remained unclear if that would happen. Communications Minister Azzam Ahmed said that Palestinian leaders had asked all the members of Arafat's Fatah party living abroad to come to Ramallah. "We are preparing ourselves for everything possible," he told the Al-Jazeera satellite television station. Israeli security officials said Thursday that Israel was ready to guarantee Arafat's return should he seek treatment abroad. Israel is doing everything it can to avoid being blamed for Arafat's health problems, officials said. Arafat's illness sparked speculation about the continuity of Palestinian leadership. An official in Arafat's office said the Palestinian leader had created a special committee composed of Qureia, former Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, and Salim Zaanoun, head of the Palestinian National Council, to run the Palestinian Leadership Organization and the Palestinian Authority while he is ill. But when asked if Arafat had set up such a committee, Arafat spokesman Nabil Abu Rdeneh said: "Nothing like that." White House spokesman Scott McClellan, traveling in Michigan with President Bush, said US officials were monitoring the situation.

In Israel, defense officials met Thursday to prepare for the possibility of Arafat's death. Israel has drawn up contingency plans, including how to deal with possible riots and prevent Palestinian attempts to bury Arafat in Jerusalem. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported Thursday that Israel has marked a possible burial site for Arafat in the Jerusalem suburb of Abu Dis, in the West Bank, and has taken the location of the plot into consideration in planning the route of its West Bank separation barrier. Speaking in radio and TV interviews, Israeli officials, who have ostracized Arafat as a leader tainted by terror, speculated about the repercussions should Arafat die. A Palestinian Authority without Arafat could become a partner for peace, said Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom. "We always said we would be willing to talk to a Palestinian leadership that would be willing once and for all to bring an end to the bloodshed," Shalom told Israel Radio. Arafat's health crisis has highlighted how unprepared the Palestinians are for their leader's death, making a chaotic transition period all but inevitable. Arafat has refused to groom a successor, fearing an impatient protege could turn on him.

  • FOJ Note: The death of Yasser Arafat will hasten the prophesied false “peace-and-safety covenant” that the Antichrist will forge with Israel and her many Arab neighbors!

Russia Tied to Iraq’s Missing Ammo

Oct. 28….(Fox News) Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 US military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad. "The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units." Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration. Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said. The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said. The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said. The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material. Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said. "That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of special explosives disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there." The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. US forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday. A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA. The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6. "The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as US combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said. The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime. According to the Pentagon, UN arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken. The UN team left the country before the US-led invasion began March 20, 2003. A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent US and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria. The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to US and Western demands, this official said. A small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional arms that were found after the war were looted after the US-led invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry, he said. However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said. The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country. Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots. The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said. Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq. The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said. Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said. "Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said. Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.

Hanoi Directed Kerry?
Recovered Vietnam documents 'smoking gun' researchers claim.


Oct. 27….(World Net Daily) The first documentary evidence that Vietnamese communists were directly steering John Kerry's antiwar group Vietnam Veterans Against the War has been discovered in a US archive, according to a researcher who spoke with World Net Daily. A freshly unearthed document, captured by the US from Vietnamese communists in 1971 and later translated, indicates the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris peace talks that year were used as the communications link to direct the activities of Kerry and other antiwar activists who attended. Kerry insists he attended the talks only because he happened to be in France on his honeymoon and maintains he met with both sides. But previously revealed records indicate the future senator made two, and possibly three, trips to Paris to meet with Viet Cong leader Madame Nguyen Thi Binh then promote her plan's demand for US surrender. Jerome Corsi, a specialist on the Vietnam era, told WND the new discoveries are the "most remarkable documents I've seen in the entire history of the antiwar movement." "We're not going to say he's an agent for Vietnamese communists, but it's the next thing to it," he said. "Whether he was consciously carrying out their direction or naively doing what they wanted, it amounted to the same thing – he advanced their cause." Corsi says the documents show how the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice, the Communist Party of the USA and Kerry's VVAW worked closely together to achieve the Vietnamese communists' primary objective, the defeat of the US in Vietnam. "I think what we've discovered is a smoking gun," Corsi said. "We knew when we wrote 'Unfit for Command' that Kerry had met with Madame Binh and then promoted her peace plan. "This document enables us to connect the dots," he emphasized. "We now have evidence Madame Binh was directing the antiwar movement, and the person who implemented her strategy was John Kerry." July 22, 1971, Kerry called on President Nixon to accept the plan at a press conference in which he surrounded himself with the families of POWs, a strategy outlined in the first document. The two documents also connect the dots between the Vietnamese communists and the radical US group People's Coalition for Peace and Justice through the person of Al Hubbard, a coordinating member of PCPJ and the executive director of VVAW while Kerry was its national spokesman. "Al Hubbard and John Kerry were carrying out the predetermined agenda of the enemy in a coordinated fashion," Corsi said. "It's a level of collaboration that exceeded anything we had imagined."


Terrorists Hope To Defeat Bush Through Insurgency in Iraq

Oct. 27….(Washington Times) Leaders and supporters of the anti-US insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home. "If the US Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people," said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance. Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mounting violence had already hurt Mr. Bush's chances. "American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together," he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. "We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud." Mowafaq Al-Tai, a London-educated architect and intellectual, said different types of resistance fighters have different views of the US election. The most pro-Kerry, he said, are the former Saddam Hussein loyalists, Ba'ath Party members and others who think Washington might scale back its ambitions for Iraq if Mr. Kerry wins, allowing them to re-enter civic life.
The most pro-Bush, he said, are the foreign extremists. "They prefer Bush, because he's a provocative figure, and the more they can push people to the extreme, the better for their case." Abu Jalal, answering questions submitted to him through the Iraqi journalist, devised a simple formula for how his group's attacks on American soldiers draw votes from Mr. Bush. "They say there are 1,100 dead soldiers. That means 1,100 families hold grudges against Bush and hate him. There are 6,000 families whose sons were injured who hate Bush and will not re-elect him."
But even within the resistance, not all agree that removing Mr. Bush from office would make a difference.
"The nation of infidels is one, and Bush and Kerry are two faces of the same coin," said Abu Obeida, nom de guerre of a leader of Fallujah's al-Noor Jihadi regiment.


Israeli Knesset Approves Jewish Evacuation

Oct. 27….(David Dolan) In an historic and potentially explosive decision, the Israeli Parliament approved Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s controversial Gaza/northern Samaria withdrawal plan following two tense days of heated debate. For the first time ever in re-born Israel’s short modern history, the government has been empowered to uproot long-established Jewish communities near the heart of the biblical Promised Land. The Knesset victory was bittersweet for the veteran Israeli leader, given that nearly half of his own Likud party legislators did not support his pullout plan, including one cabinet minister and one deputy minister. Even some of Sharon’s supporters, including influential Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, stated emphatically that they were doing so very reluctantly. This embarrassing reality fueled growing fears that the ruling party might completely fall apart, adding to intensifying Israeli political chaos. The country’s 120 elected legislators were asked to approve the June 6th cabinet decision to remove Jewish settlers from their homes in up to four stages. In a compromise at that time with several cabinet skeptics of his plan, Sharon reluctantly agreed to their demands that before any actual evacuations take place, the government ministers will vote once again whether or not to proceed with the process “in light of conditions at the time.”

Despite the categorical evacuation breakdowns, the Israeli leader has always made clear that he fully intends to uproot all 21 Gaza settlements, as he promised US President George Bush when they met at the White House last April, along with the four specified communities in northern Samaria. Indeed, political analysts said the main reason Sharon asked the Knesset to vote on the divisive issue now was that he wanted to secure approval for his plan before the US presidential election takes place on 2 November. The PM is said to be worried that if John F. Kerry becomes America’s next elected leader, the “understandings” he secured from George W. Bush, that the US would eventually recognize many, if not most of the remaining disputed Jewish settlements as part of sovereign Israel if all settlements in the Gaza Strip, and some in Judea and Samaria, were abandoned, might quickly become null and void. Sharon emphasized Bush’s important pledge as he worked to secure Knesset approval for his contested plan. He maintained that since the current White House occupant is apparently ready to recognize Israel’s right to permanently hold on to most of the remaining disputed Jewish communities, especially those located in three settlement blocks in the vicinity of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, there is a good chance of eventually annexing those areas to the Jewish state. He said this possibility is reinforced by overwhelming US Congressional backing for Bush’s pledge. several Knesset opponents of the withdrawal plan countered that if the liberal Democrat is elected president, he will likely ignore his predecessor’s pledge as he attempts to “repair relations” with the United Nations and the European Union, which demand a total Israeli pullout from all land captured in 1967. They added that even if Bush is victorious, Sharon and company are dreaming if they think the rest of the world, let alone Yasser Arafat’s PLO and the Arab countries, will ever agree to Israeli annexation of the three large settlement blocks in Judea and Samaria. “It would be another case of America and Israel against the world, rendering Bush’s pledge virtually meaningless,” maintained one of them.


Robertson Says Courts, Unless Reined In, As Huge Threat to Nation's Future

Oct. 27….(Agape Press) The founder of the Christian Coalition says judicial activism is taking America down a road that will lead to destruction. Pat Robertson outlines the dangers of a culture with "no judicial limits" and uses dozens of legal cases to support his belief that the high court has distorted justice and defied the will of the people. Christians, Robertson says, must speak up before it is too late. "The Bible uses the phrase 'at ease in Zion', and I think we are too comfortable," he says. "We've got lots of money, we've got real pretty churches, and we're driving nice, fancy cars, and it's kind of like 'Why should I get involved? Let's not rock the boat.'" The well-known Christian broadcaster laments that while Christians remain silent and inert, Americans' liberties are being stripped from them on an almost daily basis by the federal judiciary. "The Supreme Court is dead-set against religious values," he says. "Three of them are for us, five of them are against us." Robertson says the problem can be corrected by returning to the original intent of the nation's founders and restoring justice at the highest levels of government. A change in the make-up of the nation's high court could also bring remedy. In that light, Robertson is convinced the upcoming presidential election could halt the liberal agenda of the Supreme Court.

Sacrificing Israel in the Name of ‘Peace’

Oct. 25…..(Charles Krauthammer) The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this. The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so thrill the allies that French troops will start marching down the streets of Baghdad. Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in pledging to bring in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing it. Or you can believe, as I do, that he means it. He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election. Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with US policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?
The answer is obvious: Israel.
In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel. No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines. Read what former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger said in "Foreign Policy for a Democratic President," a manifesto written while he was a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry. "As part of a new bargain with our allies, the United States must re-engage in, ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As we re-engage in the peace process and rebuild frayed ties with our allies, what should a Democratic president ask of our allies in return? First and foremost, we should ask for a real commitment of troops and money to Afghanistan and Iraq." So in a "new bargain with our allies" America "re-engages" in the "peace process" in return for troops and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process." We know what "peace process" meant during the eight years Berger served in the Clinton White House, a White House to which Yasser Arafat was invited more often than any other leader on the planet. It meant believing Arafat's deceptions about peace while letting him get away with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one territorial concession after another, in return for nothing. Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war that killed a thousand Israeli innocents. "Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely what the Europeans, the Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United States to do for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel's safety at heart? They would sell out Israel in an instant, and they are pressuring America to do precisely that. Why are they so upset with President Bush's Israeli policy? After all, isn't Bush the first president ever to commit the United States to an independent Palestinian state? Bush's sin is that he also insists the Palestinians genuinely accept Israel and replace the corrupt, dictatorial terrorist leadership of Yasser Arafat. To reengage in a "peace process" while the violence continues and while Arafat is in charge is to undo the Bush Middle East policy. That policy, isolating Arafat, supporting Israel's right to defend itself both by attacking the terrorist infrastructure and by building a defensive fence, has succeeded in defeating the intifada and producing an astonishing 84 percent reduction in innocent Israeli casualties. John Kerry says he wants to "rejoin the community of nations." There is no issue on which the United States more consistently fails the global test of international consensus than Israel. In July, the UN General Assembly declared Israel's defensive fence illegal by a vote of 150 to 6. In defending Israel, America stood almost alone. You want to appease the "international community"? Sacrifice Israel. Gradually, of course, and always under the guise of "peace."



Mrs. Kerry Would Focus on 'Gay Tolerance' As First Lady

Oct. 22….(FOJ) If her husband is elected president, Teresa Heinz Kerry "pledges to make gay tolerance a centerpiece of her First Lady duties. In an exclusive interview with Planet Out, which describes itself as a gay media company, Mrs. Kerry made a distinction between sex and sexuality. She told Planet Out's senior political correspondent Chris Bull, "A lot of people, particularly those of the more fundamentalist view, think of homosexuality as a sex thing rather than a sexuality thing. They are really very different." Mrs. Kerry was quoted as saying, "A person doesn't choose their sexuality. For the other side, (Christian-Biblical side) there's a tinge of the suggestion of sin, of the choice of 'misbehavior,' quote-unquote, which is not the case at all, Mrs. Kerry said. Mrs. Kerry concluded by saying that the other side was a hate-group. Mrs. Kerry was responding to the flap over her husband's remarks about Mary Cheney. In the third and final presidential debate on Oct. 13, Sen. John Kerry, in response to a question about whether homosexuality is a matter of choice, said, "I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice."

Hashemite Dynasty Shows Its Flag at Gulf of Aqaba

Oct. 22….(Debka) Recently Al Qaeda struck at Israeli tourists staying at a resort in Taba, Egypt. This area is where the borders of Israel, Egypt and Jordan meet. Shortly before the October 7 Sinai bombings at Taba and Nueiba, inhabitants of the Israeli Red Sea resort of Eilat noticed some strange goings-on across the bay in the Jordanian port city of Aqaba. The answer to the riddle was not long coming. One morning, they awoke to the sight of an enormous flag flying from a 136 meter, (446 foot) high pole. The flag, measuring 80 meters (262 feet) by 44 meters (144 feet), was almost the size of an American football field, a towering presence even against the backdrop of the 1,200 meter (3,900 feet) high mountains behind Aqaba. Dimensions aside, there was something odd about the pennant. It looked almost but not quite like the Jordanian national flag; it lacked the trademark star and its colors were in the wrong order. Instead of being arranged in a black, white and red pattern, the flag was black at the top, green in the middle and white at the bottom. After some research, our sources were able to identify it as the royal flag, not of Jordan but of the Hashemite dynasty. that reigns in Amman today but originated somewhere else. Thereby hangs the tale of the huge flag. Through his great-grandfather, the prophet Mohammad was himself a Hashemite, a subdivision of the Quraysh tribe of what is now Saudi Arabia. The most revered Hashemite line then passed through Hassan, son of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima and her husband Ali, the fourth caliph. Hassan was the last of this line to hold the disputed claim to the caliphate, but his progeny eventually established themselves as hereditary emirs of Mecca, the role continuing under Ottoman rule. The last of the line to rule as emir of Mecca and King of Hijaz along the Red Sea was Hussain bin Ali. But, Ibn Saudi, the founder of Saudi Arabia, conquered the Hijaz in 1924 and deposed Hussein, thus ending Hashemite rule of the region and the holy places of Islam. The new Saudi dynasty, supported by the Wahhabi Muslim sect, proclaimed itself Guardians of the Shrines of Islam. Hussein’s dispossessed sons, Abdullah and Faisal, were later placed on the newly-created thrones of Amman and Baghdad, respectively. The Hashemite line survived in Jordan but not in Baghdad. Faisal was assassinated on July 14, 1958 in a military coup that soon led to the rise of Saddam Hussein at the head of the Baath regime. In 1951, Abdullah was murdered by a Muslim zealot at the door of al Aqsa mosque on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. Two years later, his grandson Hussein succeeded to the Jordanian throne as a boy king. He reigned until his death in 1999, when he was succeeded by his eldest son Abdullah II.

Through the many upheavals and disasters visited on them, the Hashemites never gave up their claim of common descent with the Prophet or their vision of returning to their roots, the Hijaz, now the western Red Sea province of Saudi Arabia. In November 1979, Saudi Crown Prince Fahd, son of Ibn Saud and incumbent albeit incapacitated ruler of the oil kingdom, appealed to Jordan’s King Hussein for help to put down a revolt against the throne mounted by Wahhabi Muslim radicals, led by Otheiba tribesmen. The rebels had got as far as seizing the Grand Mosque in Mecca claiming the corrupt Saudi crown was unfit to guard the holy places. These fundamentalists later spawned Osama bin Laden and still nourish his al Qaeda network. The Saudis desperately needed Jordanian commandos to dislodge these early terrorists from the mosque. Hussein agreed to the request but with a key proviso: The Saudi royal family must hand over a section of the Hijaz province where Hashemite Jordan’s historic territorial rights would be recognized henceforth. Realizing this would be tantamount to opening the door to the Hashemites’ return to their ancestral land. King Fahd refused and turned to France for help instead. The new-old Hashemite flag hoisted so dramatically over Aqaba therefore carries a threefold statement, according to Middle Eastern sources, one that will register most immediately with Jordan’s close neighbor on the Gulf of Aqaba coast, Saudi Arabia.

A. It is a symbolic restatement that the Hashemite claim to the Gulf and Hijaz lands on its eastern coast remains in force.

B. Aqaba and Kuwait are the two key transit ports for merchandise bound for Iraq. The flag may be interpreted as a message that the Hashemite branch which once ruled Baghdad has not relinquished its claim there either.

C. This message is as much religious as geo-political and is addressed to al Qaeda and its Wahhabist mentors in Saudi Arabia, Sinai, Jordan, Iraq and Syria: the true and historic messengers of the Prophet Mohammed and his teachings are not al Qaeda but the Hashemites by virtue of shared ancestry and long rule in the holy places. The giant flag bears testimony to the huge importance of symbols in the Middle East.


Bill Clinton Making A Move to run UN?

Oct. 22….(FOJ) Many people have speculated about Bill Clinton using his political clout as leverage to get his wife Hillary elected as President of the United States, but have you ever thought that Hillary could in turn also provide the former President formal US presidential approval as UN Secretary General? Clinton heading the UN has been talked about in UN circles and among the former president's insiders for more than two years. And now, according to a United Press International report, Clinton "definitely wants to do it." The term of Kofi Annan, the current UN Secretary-general, ends in 2006, and, according to the report, Clinton's candidacy would receive overwhelming support from UN member states, particularly in the Third World. "He definitely wants to do it," a Clinton insider is quoted as saying. But Clinton faces an unusual predicament, and potential obstacle, in his quest: Can he get the support of the US government to take on the assignment? UN boosters think Clinton as secretary-general would bolster the prestige of the world body. No American has ever been UN secretary-general even though the United States serves as host country and the major contributor to its budget. "Critics of the UN complain that it's an organization without the muscle and will to put its decisions into effect," a UN source told UPI. "There's a good chance that Clinton could significantly change that situation, and then we'll see if the critics mean what they say." This is not the first time Clinton's interest in the job has been raised. Back in February of 2003, there were reports of a "major international move" to engineer Clinton into the post. Those reports suggested Clinton had already lined up support for his candidacy for the secretary-general position from Germany, France, England, Ireland, New Zealand, a handful of African states, Morocco and Egypt. Below is the article from UPI.


Clinton Eyes UN Secretary-General Post

Oct. 22….(UPI) Former US President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming UN Secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior UN source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named leader of the world body when Kofi Annan's term ends early in 2006. "He definitely wants to do it," the Clinton insider said this week. A Clinton candidacy is likely to receive overwhelming support from UN member states, particularly the Third World. Diplomats in Washington say Clinton would galvanize the United Nations and give an enormous boost to its prestige. But the former president's hopes hang on a crucial question that will not be addressed until after the presidential elections: can he get the support of the US government, a prerequisite for nomination? The political wisdom is that a second George W. Bush presidency would cut him off at the pass. The notion of Clinton looming large in the international arena from "the glass tower" in New York would be intolerable to the Bush White House. If Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wins on Nov. 2 the prospect of Clinton as secretary-general won't exactly be welcome either (come on!---Kerry would sign on in a heartbeat) but Kerry would find it much harder, if not impossible to go against it. After a Middle East UN Secretary General (Boutros Boutros Ghali) and an African (Kofi Annan) it is generally considered Asia's turn to fill the post, UN experts say. No announcement has been made, but behind the scenes China is already pushing the candidacy of Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, who also seems to have US support. If Clinton does emerge as a candidate, however, China would most likely shift its support, (Clinton helped China get super-computer technology for its ICBM’s) the experts say. No American has ever been UN secretary-general, but the United States is both host country to the United Nations and the major contributor to its budget. A hostile US Congress held up its dues for years, until the Clinton Administration negotiated a payment plan for Washington's arrears. Clinton also revived US membership of UNESCO though the Americans did not actually move back into their offices at the Paris-based scientific and cultural UN agency until after the start of the Bush presidency. President Reagan had taken the United States out of UNESCO in protest against alleged corruption by former top agency officials. Clinton is currently recovering from the heart bypass surgery he had to undergo last month, and this has kept him away from the Kerry campaign after a few initial support appearances. The former president has told friends and Kerry staffers he plans to resume campaigning for Kerry, but on a limited scale because his recovery has been gradual. He has talked of his interest in taking over at the United Nations since the publication of his commercially successful autobiography, which he recently said had sold 1.9 million copies. Writing the book kept him busy after leaving office in 2000, but he is now ready to channel his considerable political skills and energy into another role in public life. There had been rumors that he would run the Third Way organization, the world Social Democratic movement he had talked of launching together with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. But the political alliance had come unstuck and the idea ran out of steam partly because Blair and Schroeder found themselves on opposite sides in the Bush-led Iraq war. Putting Clinton in charge of the United Nations would be a real test of international intentions, observers say. "Critics of the UN complain that it's an organization without the muscle and will to put its decisions into effect," the UN source observed. "There's a good chance that Clinton could significantly change that situation, and then we'll see if the critics mean what they say."


Dying For The United Nations

Oct. 22….(Bill Kristol) John Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of US troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." When the Bush campaign talks about John Kerry's wanting a "permission slip" from the UN, many commentators dismiss it as rhetorical excess. But Kerry really does believe that the United Nations is a fundamental, legitimizing body for the use of US force. One hears this deference to the UN all the time in European capitals, but it is rare to hear it even among mainstream American liberals. In this respect, as in others, John Kerry really is a throwback. He still shares the McGovernite distrust of US force and suspicion of the judgments that are arrived at by the American body politic. His near obsession with gaining the approval of the UN, and for that matter of France and Germany, for the conduct of US foreign policy would make him the riskiest commander in chief of any presidential candidate since George McGovern, (Jimmy Carter) and surely makes Kerry unsuitable to govern in a post-9/11 world.

An Age of Miracles

Oct. 20….(commentary by Jack Kinsella) According to a report issued by the Israeli Foreign Ministry's Center for Public Research, Israel urgently needs to "improve its relations with Europe since a European Union growing in power and influence would mean that Israel's main political partner, the United States, would probably diminish in international stature." According to the report, Israel could end up on a collision course with the European Union and face sanctions like apartheid-era South Africa unless the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved. The document presents a ten-year forecast that predicts that, "the Jewish State could become increasingly isolated internationally as the EU grows more influential." 'It is a prognosis of the general outline of the international environment in the future, the report's author said. 'Everyone is aware of the importance of the relations with Europe.' It says that if the recently expanded 25-nation bloc can set aside internal differences and forge a unified foreign policy, it could "harm Israeli interests" by cutting into the clout wielded by the United States, Israel's chief ally. "This could put Israel on a collision course with the European Union," the report says. "Such a collision course holds the risk of Israel losing international legitimacy and could lead to its isolation in the manner of South Africa." The report was drawn up primarily for use within government circles and shows how worried the Israelis are about the prospect of having to stand alone against the assembled nations of the world, led by Europe. Israel's relations with the EU have long been strained over what it sees as favoritism toward the Palestinians in their conflict with the Jewish State. But the situation has deteriorated further in the face of European criticism of Israel's military crackdown in Palestinian areas and the vast barrier it is building largely inside the occupied West Bank. For its part, Israel has complained of what it sees as growing anti-Semitism in Europe and inadequate efforts to combat it. Israel prefers to deal almost exclusively with Washington on Middle East diplomacy. President Bush is seen as the most pro-Israel US leader ever, having agreed the Jewish State should be allowed to keep swathes of occupied land and bar the return of Palestinian refugees under any final peace deal. But Palestinians have always insisted on a European role, seeing them as more sympathetic to their cause than Washington." On Wednesday, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana unveiled a four-point plan to revive Middle East talks, offering new assistance to the Palestinians and warning Israel its aid was at risk if it did not cooperate.

"Regarding the Middle East peace process and our relations with Israel and the Palestinians, there is no doubt that the role of the EU has increased," said Christina Gallach, a spokeswoman for Solana. She said the EU insists Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 must be followed by major troop withdrawals in the West Bank, and pave the way for Palestinian statehood. Assessment:

The above reads as if it had been paraphrased from a sermon on Bible prophecy. And the focus of the report is, in the words of its authors, the result of Israeli gazing 'into a crystal ball'. Now, to the Bible's outline of history, as seen across multiplied millennia, emanating from the distant past and describing a single generation, somewhere in time. According to the ancient prophets, the Jews would one day be restored to her ancient homeland, which they would call "Israel" in a manner that would be nothing short of miraculous. "Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children." (Isaiah 66:8) The working language of Israel is Hebrew, a language already dead when Latin was still the working language of Rome. It was restored to common use when a scholar named Ben Yehuda introduced a working model of Hebrew for use by Israel in 1948. "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the Name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent." (Zephaniah 3:9)

Scripture says that Israel, once restored, would earn the enmity of the world over the issue of control over Judea and Samaria, (the West Bank) and ultimately, would find itself locked in conflict over the issue of control over Jerusalem. "Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. 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. The Lord also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah." (Zechariah 12:2-3,7)

The prophet Daniel and Apostle John both outline the rise of a coming Superstate that will seemingly solve the Arab/Israeli conflict by using an existing seven-year covenant, which entails a literal 'land for peace' formula. (The failed Oslo Agreement (drawn up by Norwegian Europeans) was originally scheduled to have concluded with a peace agreement by September 13, 2000. Oslo was signed in the White House Rose Garden on September 13, 1993. The math works) "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." (Daniel 9:27a) "Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall DIVIDE THE LAND FOR GAIN." (Daniel 11:39)

Daniel further identifies the Superstate that that will be the leading superpower of the last days: "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." (Daniel 9:26) The 'city and sanctuary' are Jerusalem and the Temple. Both were destroyed in AD70 by the Roman general Titus, (who eventually assumed the Roman throne as Caesar). Daniel describes that final government as being like ten 'toes' of iron mixed with clay, partly strong and partly weak, (a democracy, such as Rome was in its final days) attached to the two legs of iron that symbolized the divided Eastern and Western Roman Empire that finally collapsed (but was never destroyed) in the 5th century. "And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay." (Daniel 2:41)

The European Union consists of 28 states, but only the original ten are full members. (From an official EU website: cut and pasted verbatim:) "Set up in 1948 by the Treaty of Brussels, the WEU is a European organization for the purposes of cooperation on defense and security. It consists of 28 countries with four different statuses: Member States, Associate Members, Observers and Associate Partners. All EU countries are full Member States except Denmark, Ireland Austria, Finland and Sweden, which have observer status. The six Associate Members are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland and Turkey, and there are seven Associate Partners: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia." Look at the table of organization carefully. "All EU countries are full Member States except," followed by a listing of the eighteen countries who are not. Here's a math quiz. Subtract 18 non-full members from the 28 total members and tell me how many full members of the European Union there actually are. (The answer is ten)

Take a deep breath; think about this all carefully, while I summarize the whole thing. The document at the center of this story, a 10-year forecast drawn up in August by Foreign Ministry analysts and meant for use within government circles, predicts that the Jewish State could become increasingly isolated internationally as the EU grows more influential. The report warns that if the recently expanded 28-nation bloc manages to set aside its differences and forge a unified foreign policy, it could "harm Israeli interests" by 'cutting into the clout' wielded by the United States, Israel's chief ally. (Interestingly, the Israeli report, like the Bible, doesn't give any hint about how America loses its place on the world stage)

Think about it. Israel is seeing the need to forge a better relationship with the EU and resolve the Palestinian Conflict in the event that the US passes from its position on the world stage. Bible Prophecy is playing itself out before our very eyes.


Al Qaeda's Mideast Linkage

Oct. 20….(By Herbert London / Louis Rene Beres) Linking al Qaeda to Iraqi terrorist impulses was one of the tasks of the September 11 commission. And despite claims to the contrary from the Democratic hopefuls, there were linkages. In the shadowy network of terrorist groups, there are often alignments involving information-sharing, weapons development, safe houses and scientific expertise. The unmistakable rationale for these alignments is future terror attacks against the United States and Israel. None of this is surprising. Immediately after September 11, 2001, not only Hamas approached al Qaeda, but Yasser Arafat's own forces, Al Aqsa Brigades, did so too. Although Palestinian terrorists hardly needed al Qaeda to prod them to commit acts of unspeakable cruelty, the example of September 11 offered direction and new resolve. For its part, al Qaeda has been pleased its Palestinian allies cite the Hadith: "Oh Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters." The idea of killing on behalf of Islam is glorified both by the Palestinian terror organization and al Qaeda. In addition to the usual sanctification of suicide bombing, both groups approve of religious-based murder within the Islamic community. Muslims who collaborate with the United States or are suspected of doing so are deemed Murtaddun (apostates) and a sentence of Murtadd Harbi is applied, to wit, a Fatwa or death sentence. The pertinent Koranic verse is: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to make mischief in the land, is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified, or their hands and feet should be cut off on opposing sides." While al Qaeda's hatred of the United States is only tangentially related to American support of Israel, the Palestinian terror groups focus on this issue exclusively. Nonetheless, it is not uncommon for all these organizations to target the presumptively "unforgivable" sin of American ties to "apostates and criminals" who rule in Kuwait, Jordan, the Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. On Dec. 2, 2002, al Qaeda announced the establishment of the "Islamic al Qaeda Organization in Palestine." The announcement declared "a vow of allegiance to the emir of the Mujahideen, the leader Osama bin Laden, by means of whom Allah strengthened the Nation of Islam." Calling for an end to regimes that "serve only the murderous Jews and the Great Satan," the announcement concludes with a plea to "our brothers in Islam in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to attack the American interests and the heretical institutions of apostasy, Death to the Jews and Zionism; death to America; strength to Allah, Allah is great, and victory to Islam." Although rarely reported in the West, al Qaeda now operates in the West Bank and Gaza at Mr. Arafat's expressed invitation, and with substantial logistical support. Mr. Arafat had imported Hezbollah fighters from Iran and Syria to assist with terrorist attacks against Israel; now he has added Osama bin Laden's Islamic fighters to the deadly terrorist mix. According to authoritative Israeli intelligence sources, Mr. Arafat assembled under his wing Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah, Jibril's Popular Front, Iraqi military intelligence units (Palestinian terrorists were always close to Saddam, even sending Palestine Liberation Army units to help torture Kuwaitis in 1991), the pro-Iraqi Arab liberation Front, and, since April 2002, al Qaeda. Significantly, the same Israeli sources believe the same crosscut of Islamic terrorist groups exists nowhere else but in the United States, though at the moment "only" as sleeper cells. There is probably little doubt terror strikes against the United States and Israel are being planned by joint Palestinian terrorist groups and al Qaeda, supported tactically by Hezbollah. Acknowledging this, Efraim Halevy, former Mossad chief and national security adviser correctly identified the mega-terror menace as authentically "genocidal." Speaking on Dec. 2, 2002, Mr. Halevy emphasized Israel would respond to such barbarous attacks in ways that "have not yet been revealed." The United States, too, would surely respond in ways that could bring counter-terrorist operations to new levels. Arguably, the most important perception that emerges from this analysis is the terror network has no walls between the various organizations. Palestinian terrorists have friendly allies in al Qaeda and vice versa. It is therefore absurd to think Mr. Arafat is a potential American friend and Osama bin Laden is an enemy. They are both enemies. Faced with the potential of al Qaeda-Palestinian terror, Americans should understand the unavoidably best approach to threats of mass destruction is timely, vigorous and dedicated pre-emption against all who threaten us and our interests. At a minimum, we should stop sending our tax dollars to Yasser Arafat and his corrupt Palestinian Authority. We might just as well send tax dollars to Osama bin Laden.

Annan: The World is Not Safer Now

Oct.19….(FOJ) President Bush has often asserted that the world is safer now that Saddam Hussin is sitting in a jail cell. Today the UN Secretary General Kofi Anan voiced exactly the opposite opinion. Anan said, the US-led war in Iraq hasn't made the world any safer, and continued on to say, "I cannot say the world is safer when you consider the violence around us, when you look around you and see the terrorist attacks around the world and you see what is going on in Iraq." Apparently Anan would conclude that the world is safer if the terrorist attacks were going on inside the US instead of Iraq. It seems that everything the US President says about Iraq, Mr. Anan takes exception to. Annan has previously described the US-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein as "illegal," after the President refused to apologize for going to war in Iraq, and adding that the war in Iraq was necessary to remove a gathering threat against America. Now, America is helping a free Iraq hold democratic elections. But Mr. Anan says that if the elections in Iraq at the end of January were not held to his satisfaction, then the UN would intervene. (apparently Mr. Anan would prefer to bring Saddam back to power since he was illegally removed from power) The UN leader said that if Iraq doesn’t maintain the credibility and viability of the elections, then we (the UN) will be duty bound to say so," he said. Annan also dismissed any suggestion that France, Russia and China had been prepared to ease sanctions on Saddam Hussein's Iraq in return for oil contracts. But the facts in the UN oil-for-food program reveal otherwise. They clearly show that the UN and many of its members states used the economic sanctions to profiteer off Iraqi oil. Saddam Hussein had a undercover relationship with France, Germany, Russia, and China that provided those countries with multi-billion dollar commodities vouchers in return for promises to oppose the US efforts at the UN to form a coalition to bring down Saddam’s regime in Iraq. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that Kofi Anan was involved in the scheme to preserve Iraq under the thumbs of a cooperative dictatorship. But Mr. Annan says that it is "inconceivable" that countries like France, Russia and China would engage in such covert activity. It is even more inconceivable that Kofi Anan could prefer a world with Saddam Hussein than one without him. Me thinks he would prefer a world without the United States, and President Bush. Me thinks he would also dearly love for the UN to have the final say in the American election.

Putin: Terror Attacks Aimed at Bush


Oct. 18….(AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that terrorists are aiming to derail US President George W. Bush's chances at re-election through their attacks in Iraq. I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush," Putin said at a news conference after a regional summit in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe. "International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term," he said. "If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power." Still, Putin didn't say which candidate he favored in the US presidential election. "We unconditionally respect any choice of the American people," he said. "I don't want to spoil relations with either candidate." Putin also noted his continuing disagreement with Bush on Washington's invasion of Iraq, which Russia strongly opposed as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. "Russia was always against the military operations in Iraq," he said. Despite their differences, Bush and Putin have cooperated closely in the international war on terror, with Russia assenting to the deployment of US forces in former Soviet Central Asia for operations in neighboring Afghanistan. On his last visit to Central Asia in June, Putin appeared to be backing Bush's assertion that Iraq was a threat, saying at a summit in Kazakhstan that Russia had notified Washington about intelligence that Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks against the United States and its interests abroad.


France: Mideast Peace Process has Implications for Europe

Oct. 18….(Ha Aretz) French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier expressed deep concern Monday over the breakdown of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, saying the instability in the region had direct implications for Europe. The spirit of violence is threatening the entire region," he said at a news conference. "The instability and insecurity is not only for the Palestinians, but is also for us, the Europeans, our own instability and insecurity." Barnier spoke at a news conference with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on the second day of a three-day visit to Israel. Barnier said Europe has been a financial giant thus far, but a political midget vis-a-vis the Middle East peace process. The foreign minister stressed that Europe was interested in becoming a political giant and playing a greater role in the region's diplomatic process. Many Israelis view France as biased toward the Palestinians in the Middle East crisis. Shalom acknowledged differences with France but said they had not interfered with bilateral relations. "We see France as an example for all of Europe in her determination not to let differences of opinion on the tactical issues in the peace process get in the way of our mutual desire to promote our bilateral cooperation," he said. Shalom also welcomed a role for France and other EU members in pressing for changes in Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. "I call on France and Europe to bring their influence to bear on the Palestinian side to promote Palestinian political reform," he said. Barnier's visit to Israel was the first by a senior French official since Sharon set off a flap in July by saying France was host to "the wildest anti-Semitism" and urging French Jews to flee the country and come here. Both governments said the uproar over the incident was over. Also Monday, Barnier said France had no intention of pressing for economic and political sanctions against Israel, despite its deep concern over Israel's Middle East policies. A confidential 10-year forecast prepared in August by the Foreign Ministry warned that the country is on a collision course with the European Union and could turn into a pariah state, like South Africa during the apartheid years, if the Middle East conflict is not resolved. However, Barnier rejected the possibility that any punitive actions against Israel might be imposed.


Lieberman Boosts Bush on Israel, Has 'Doubts' on Kerry


Oct. 18….(New York Post) Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman has raised eyebrows by telling Florida voters that President Bush has a strong pro-Israel record and John Kerry needs to do more to eliminate "doubts" about his positions on Israel. "We are dealing with a president who's had a record of strong, consistent support for Israel. You can't say otherwise. And I think John Kerry, to reassure people, has to himself be explicit" about Israel rather than rely on surrogates, the Connecticut senator said in surprising remarks near Delray Beach. Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew who was the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee, said he's urged that Kerry speak out more on Israel because "only John Kerry can eliminate those doubts," the Palm Beach Post reported. Lieberman's remarks came Thursday amid a Bush push to cut into the traditionally Democratic Jewish vote, where Al Gore beat Bush in 2000 by 79 to 19 percent. Analysts say polls suggest Bush will get somewhere between 25 and 35 percent of the Jewish vote on Nov. 2, which could be pivotal in Florida and New Jersey. Kerry has rarely mentioned Israel to general audiences, and Israel was all but invisible at the Democratic convention to the distress of Jewish leaders, sparking some to say privately that Kerry is staying mum to court Arab-American support. At the second presidential debate, President Bush stressed his opposition to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Kerry, who has told Jewish groups that he shares Bush's view, didn't say that at the debate, nor did he mention Israel. Kerry has sparked controversy by telling Arab-Americans that Israel's security fence is a barrier to peac, and then a few months later flip-flopped and told Jewish leaders in New York that it was legitimate self-defense. Kerry also cited former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker as possible Mideast envoys, upsetting Jewish leaders who see both as anti-Israel. At the GOP convention, President Bush voiced his support for Israel.

FOJ Note: Senator Kerry has noted in the past that Yasser Arafat remains indispensable to the Mid-east peace process and the elected leader of the Palestinian people must be consulted and included in any peace negotiations. President Bush has never invited Arafat to the White House, and has worked to push democratic reforms in the PA. Arafat is known to be wishing for President Bush’s defeat in this years presidential election, and his PA spokesman has officially endorsed Kerry. Boy, does that say something?

Duelfer: 'A lot of Material Left Iraq and Went to Syria'
Iraq Survey Group head does not rule out Saddam's transfer of WMD

Oct. 18….(Geo-Strategy Direct) At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Oct. 6, Charles Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, did not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service. Duelfer agreed that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war. "A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say." The Iraq Survey Group headed by Duelfer, said Russia, Syria, Jordan and other arms suppliers were paid from Iraqi oil revenues. A CIA report, authored by the Iraq Survey Group, identified Russia and Syria atop a list of 12 arms suppliers to Iraq until the US-led war against Baghdad started in March 2003. The report listed Russia and Syria above North Korea, regarded as the leading missile proliferator to the Middle East, as leading suppliers to Baghdad.

Jordan was the third largest supplier of weapons to Iraq. After Jordan came Belarus, China, India, North Korea, South Korea, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, France, Romania and Turkey. The report said these countries were involved in both "weapons of mass destruction and arms-related procurement." The report said Saddam diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay for both conventional and non-conventional weapons and components. The report said state-owned companies in Russia and Syria defied UN sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms to Baghdad. The report said Syria also served as the leading route for illegal arms supplies from Europe and other countries. Several of Iraq's neighbors were said to have joined in the secret military effort to aid Baghdad. The report, based on interviews with senior Iraqi officials and 40 million pages of documents and classified intelligence, cited Jordan and Turkey as leading suppliers to the Saddam regime.


PA Supports John Kerry

Oct. 18….(Jerusalem Post) The Palestinian Authority made its first open statement Monday expressing support for US democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. PA Foreign Minister Nabil Sha'ath said that the future of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is unsure if George W. Bush is re-elected to office. Shaath also said Monday that the US presidential election was stalling the Middle East peace process and urged other countries to increase their efforts. (FOJ Note: President Bush has correctly identified Yasser Arafat as a terrorist, and therefore has never invited him to the White House, as did his predecessor, and as John Kerry has also indicated he would do. Mr . Kerry has even suggested that he would apologize to Arafat.) Following talks in London with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Shaath said Palestinians were paying the price of America being distracted in the run-up to the November 2 poll. "I keep saying really that we have many times to pay for these American elections unfairly," Shaath told a news conference. (sounds like Mr. Shaath hasa problem with democracy, does it not?) I think something can be done by America's friends and allies, and I think Britain is very well situated to do that," he said. "I think the roadmap provides the answer and a simultaneously observed cease-fire is the way to start it," Shaath added. "We would like very much to see the United Kingdom with its important relationships across the Atlantic, its permanent status in the Security Council and its influence in the Quartet to really help us pursue that road by getting us back to peace," Shaath added. Prime Minister Tony Blair has promised to make revitalizing the peace process a personal priority following the US election. Foreign Secretary Meanwhile, Malaysia's former prime minister has also urged Muslims in America to vote for US Senator John Kerry in an open letter dated October 15 to America's Muslim community saying President George W. Bush has been "the cause of the tragedies" across the Muslim world. Mahathir Mohamad retired last October mired in a controversy after telling a summit of Muslim leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others (US) to fight and die for them."


An Article of Faith & Legislating Morality

Oct. 18….(FOJ) During the last presidential debate held on October 12, a questioner from the audience asked Senator Kerry about abortion and what he had to say to someone who believed that abortion was murder. Senator Kerry began by responding that he was a Catholic, and had been an altar boy, and continued on to mutter something about how he respected different views on such a difficult matter. But the Senator remarked that when it came to an article of faith that he could not legislate something like that. Basically John Kerry’s response to the young lady that believes that abortion is murder is that, articles of faith, or issues of morality cannot be legislated by government. It was a standard response of a liberal politician that has an anti-Christian agenda at the core of his political ideology. The motto of the modern secular liberalist is that morality cannot be legislated. This theme lies at the very heart of their promotion of tolerance of the worldly philosophy while denying liberty to the natural law of God. The liberalist hates the words, “Thou shalt not,” because it is so confining to their natural lusts. So, in order to eradicate the foundation of the Christian Republic that is America, they desire to conform the American mainstream to liberalism, politically, religiously, and culturally. The theme of Mr. Kerry, “can’t legislate an article of faith” was the opposite viewpoint of our founding fathers, who asserted that morality was wholly based upon one document, the Holy Bible.

To legislate means to make a law that enforces a standard of right and wrong! That’s what legislatures are for, to make laws that give the populace a moral code for its national conduct. Mr. Kerry flat out lied to the questioner, and in insulted her intelligence. The only reason that Mr. Kerry replied that he could not legislate an article of faith is because he does not believe in absolute right and wrong, which indicates that his faith is not in a God whose law is perfect! (Psalms 19:7-8 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.) Every single law a nation passes establishes and legislates a standard of morality. The big question becomes, “What standard of morality does a nation desire to have as its measuring stick?” The only answer that our modern secular humanist and liberal politicians will condone is that it be any standard of morality except the Holy Bible.



UN Oil-for-Food Probe Includes Annan's Son

Oct. 15….(Fox News) The US Justice Department criminal probe into the UN Oil-for-Food program is focusing on several individuals, among them UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son, FOX News has learned. Kojo Annan, the Secretary-General’s son was employed by a UN contractor that monitored food and medicine shipments that were flowing into Iraq as part of the multibillion-dollar program created in late 1996. The Oil-for-Food program is now being probed by the Justice Department and Congress as a boondoggle that enriched Saddam Hussein and others. A report delivered last week by Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was able to "subvert" the $60 billion UN Oil-for-Food program to generate an estimated $1.7 billion in revenue outside UN control from 1997-2003.


World Poll: World Opposes Bush, “Except Israel”

Oct. 15….(Haaretz) Two weeks before the US election, hostility toward President George W. Bush has reached new heights internationally. A joint poll taken by 10 newspapers worldwide reveals that most of those surveyed oppose Bush's policies, want to see him defeated, and paint his influence on the global situation in the gloomiest of colors. Israelis, perhaps not surprisingly, are alone in their support of the American president. While in other countries, 60-80 percent of those asked said they believed the war in Iraq to have been a mistake, in Israel most thought it justified. While more than half of those polled elsewhere stated their attitude toward the US had deteriorated, most respondents in Israel said their opinion had improved, and 76 percent said the US action against Saddam contributed to peace in the world. Among Israelis polled, 50 percent said they would like to see George Bush reelected, with only 24 percent for Kerry. The polls were conducted in recent weeks a local newspaper in each country. Among the poll's results: Some 60 percent of The Guardian readers are anti-Bush, with hostility to the US president rising to 77 percent among people under 25. Among Mexicans, 83 percent thought the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Some 36 percent of Canadians believe the US is not a worthy model for democracy. Over 72% of French adults said they would like to see Kerry win the election.

Homosexuality is a Sinful Choice


Oct. 14….(FOJ) Asked Wednesday night whether he thought homosexuality was a choice, Kerry noted that one of Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughters is a lesbian, and said she would probably affirm that she was born that way. “We’re all God’s children,” Kerry said during the debate with President Bush in Tempe, Arizona. President Bush said in the debate he did not know whether homosexuality was a choice or fate. But the Bible is quite clear on this subject. Oh yes, Kerry said that we are all God’s children, but little does he realize that although God is our Creator, that unless we accept Jesus Christ as our sin-propitiation atonement, then we are in reality all children of darkness.
  (John 8:42-44 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me .Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.) God does not leave any room for a gray area on the subject of homosexuality. God calls it an insidious and blatant sin, a sin that ultimately leads directly to a terrible end! Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants were wholly given over to the unnatural sexual use of their bodies. The word sodomy is derived from the life-death-style that existed in the city of Sodom before God brought judgment against the city. Sodomy is the unnatural use of sexual intercourse, especially that between two males, or between two females. All the men of Sodom came to Lot's house, demanding that he allow them to have sexual relations with two male people inside (Genesis 19:5). Lot refused, and offered his daughters to them instead. The next day Lot escaped from Sodom and God destroyed the city because of this great sin. Sodomy was prohibited by the law of Moses, (Deut. 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.) and was also condemned by the apostle Paul. (I Cor. 6:9) In the book of Romans, Paul further elaborates that the culture had justified the practice of sodomy and homosexuality, by rationalizing that homosexuality and lesbianism were simply alternative sexual orientations, just as our culture is arguing today. (Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools) All anti-God cultures in the past have concluded that homosexuality is a natural biological product, and that choice about the matter is not an option.
  But this deduction is opposite from what God says throughout his word. God says that the practice of homosexuality is un-natural, unclean, and unseemly, (aschemosune, which means shameful and indecent) and was dishonorable to ones own body. (Romans 1:26-28 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (lesbianism) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men (homosexuality) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence (sinful consequences) of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate (adokimos, which means unapproved and cast off from God, to become given over to demonic influence) mind, to do those things which are not convenient. (Katheko, which means fit, appropriate or natural because of Godly design) Homosexuality and lesbianism are unnatural behavior! Since God defines it as a sinful action, and indicates that he will not condone it, clearly it cannot be attributed to anything that is a defect in God’s design of the human species. If God creates people to be homosexual at birth, than the sin of homosexuality would be God’s fault. That is impossible! Homosexuality is a learned misbehavior, and it has only to do with the natural human tendency to sin, and not by a Godly design. (I have never seen the so-called “born-this-wa,y” homosexual practice appear in the animal world—wonder why? It is because Satan targets and seduces mankind into enslaving sin) You may notice that I said “the natural human tendency to sin”. Yes, we were ALL born with a tendency to sin (fall of man via Satanic deception) because we are all born separated from the righteousness of our Holy Father. We all need to be reborn of the spirit (through faith in Christ) so that we can be released from the bondage of sin. Any sinner, homosexual or otherwise can have his or her life (sexual lifestyle) changed by the power of God’s indwelling. We can debate the DNA and psychology of homosexuality till the world comes to and end, but one thing is certain; II Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.) When a man or woman accepts Jesus Christ, they will find that they really can, and indeed will desire, to CHOOSE to avoid sinful things in their life! Jesus is the only way to be freed from the slavery of any sin. He is your only hopeful option, and everyone has a choice to Choose him, or not.

God is on Trial in America


Oct. 13….(FOJ) Ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said today that he's glad the US Supreme Court has decided to review Ten Commandments cases from Kentucky and Texas, but he said that those cases don't get at the core issue: the acknowledgment of God. And that is the bottom line. The US Supreme Court is going to finally decide if God in any way relevant within the governing institution of America. It was only a matter of time until our nation reached this point. For over eighty years the secular humanist and social-cultural reconstructionists have been engaged in an all-out assault on the foundations of the American Republic. The first Judeo-Christian building block to be relegated to the dustbin of democratic-socialism and humanism was the doctrine of creation. This fundamental block of Christian social structure was enunciated in the US Declaration of Independence, but thanks to activist liberal reformers like Clarence Darrow, God was discounted in American schools as being the Divine Creator. Thus if God is not the creator, then it stands to reason that he is not the grantor of inalienable rights as our forefathers suggested in 1776. Therefore, once a nation dissects itself from honoring the Creator, it stands to reason that humanistic reasoning would continue to devise methods to erode other basic components of Christianity in a nation. That has been America’s recent (1947-present) experience. Later, in 1947, political revisionists of history demolished the cornerstone of the American Republic by perverting the concept of the separation of Church and State and refashioning it into a political barrier to keep Christian principles and Biblical guidance out of the governmental structure. This philosophical lynching of the spirit of 1776 laid the groundwork for still further liberal assaults on the framework of the building that is the United States of America. Finally in 1963, America’s judicial activists succeeded in ripping out the fundamental planks of the floor of America’s educational system, despite the fact that America’s founding fathers strictly upheld that the Bible was the fundamental source of education to a people that aspire to perpetuate liberty to the generations. The Bible and prayer were banned from the public arena, subjugating them to the cultural closet. With the “closeting” of these basic Christian strongholds, we began to see hedonism and paganism crawl out of the closet, where it had been hid from the LIGHT, and to assume an pop-identity of cultural aggrandizement. It became cool to be bad, appealing to be naughty, and neat to be a rebel. We began to want free love and sexual alternatives, and doubted old truths. We lunged into the “ME” generation. We rationalized that is was not only convenient, but okay to murder the most innocent and fragile gifts of life, the silent unborn, so we could lustily pursue our own selfish sexual freedoms. Now, today we are on the verge of obliterating the most basic building block of a decent and moral society by reinterpreting our laws to accommodate a man marrying another man, or a woman marrying a woman. Where will the debauchery end? Will polygamy be the next fad in the humanistic mindset? Will human beings marrying animals come into vogue and be legalized as well? If there is no God, and there is no Divine law, why wouldn’t we just resort to anything? But, God is not mocked! God is watching! It was he who allowed our nation to be attacked by terrorists three years ago. He was watching as our nation embraced the gods of this world after 9-11, and he has watched as we debate eliminating his name in our national pledge of allegiance. He will also be watching the courts to see if we are going to trample on his laws. Make no mistake about it folks, God has been put on trial in America. He has been enduring a tough cross-examination by our society for decades. He has had little or even no defense at times. But I would point out to all Americans that there is a fierce debate, cross-examination and trial going on in Heaven right now. It is between Satan and God. Satan is highlighting our national rebellion and our multiple offenses against the Most High God. In reality, America is on trial before God, and if we do not repent as a nation, the God will soon render a judgement against our country, and leave us to our own devices and subject to our enemies mercy.

Supreme Court to Decide Ten Commandments Issue


Oct. 13….(AP) The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will take up the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government land and buildings, a surprise announcement that puts justices in the middle of a politically sensitive issue. Justices have repeatedly refused to revisit issues raised by their 1980 decision that banned the posting of copies of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. In the meantime, lower courts have reached a hodgepodge of conflicting rulings that allow displays in some instances but not in others. The high court will hear appeals early next year involving displays in Kentucky and Texas. In the Texas case, the justices will decide if a Ten Commandments monument on the state Capitol grounds is an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion. A homeless man, Thomas Van Orden, lost his lawsuit to have the 6-foot tall red granite statue removed. The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument to the state in 1961. The group gave scores of similar monuments to American towns during the 1950s and '60s, and those have been the subject of multiple court fights. Separately, the justices will consider whether a lower court wrongly barred the posting of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses. McCreary and Pulaski county officials hung framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses and later added other documents, such as the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence, after the display was challenged. "The Ten Commandments case could be the blockbuster religious liberty case that the Supreme Court has seen in a really long time," said Mathew Staver of the conservative law group Liberty Counsel, who represents the Kentucky counties. Last week, the justices rejected an appeal from a high-profile crusader for Ten Commandment monuments, ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, for defying a federal order to dismantle a Ten Commandments monument. Staver said some courts have allowed monuments, others have ordered their removal. A divided appeals court panel sided with the American Civil Liberties Union in the Kentucky case. "It's part of our American heritage. People are upset when they see that being removed," Staver said. The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said Tuesday that he hopes the court uses the cases to declare government displays of religious documents and symbols unconstitutional. "It's clear that the Ten Commandments is a religious document. Its display is appropriate in houses of worship but not at the seat of government," Lynn said. The Ten Commandments contain both religious and secular directives, including the familiar proscriptions on stealing, killing and adultery. The Bible says God gave the list to Moses. The Constitution bars any state "establishment" of religion. That means the government cannot promote religion in general, or favor one faith over another. In the past decade, justices have refused to get involved in Ten Commandments disputes from around the country. Three conservative justices complained in 2001, when the court declined to rule on the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display in front of the Elkhart, Indiana Municipal Building. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said the city sought to reflect the cultural, historical and legal significance of the commandments. Rehnquist noted that justices' own chambers includes a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. The cases are Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500, and McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.


EU to Unveil Plan to Help Palestinian State

Oct. 13….(EU Observer) The European Union is set to produce a plan to ensure the viability of a Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders. In a bid to step up the EU's engagement in the region, the plan is set to focus on reconstruction as well as ensuring security is brought to the territories. It will also set out the need for holding free and fair elections. Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, who is a former EU envoy to the Middle East, said that it is hoped the plan would be adopted in November at a meeting of EU leaders in Brussels, according to reports. The move follows deep unease in Europe over the lack of progress in implementing the EU, US, UN and Russian backed ‘Road Map’ for peace and a response to Israel's plans to withdraw from Gaza. "We want to show the will to start moving and commit ourselves to the situation in the Middle East", Mr. Moratinos told a press conference. Diplomats insist that the Road Map is still on the table, but little progress has been made ahead of the US presidential elections. With a vote on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plans to withdraw from Gaza in 2005 set to come before the Knesset in two weeks time, the EU is keen to make sure no power vacuum ensues. In the security area, the EU is said to be considering a police mission on the ground to help train Palestinian security services in the event of an Israeli withdrawal, in co-ordination with the Egyptian government.


Maryland to Consider Creation Science

Oct. 13….(FOJ) A school in Maryland is considering the option of teaching creation science to its students along with the theory of evolution. However, the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State are opposing the teaching of creation science in the state. They respond that the teaching of creation science is a violation of the separation of church and state philosophy, supposedly written in the American Constitution. Ironic isn’t it that you can teach a theory about mankinds existence, but because of a modern mis-interpretation of the Constitution, you can’t teach the kids the TRUTH. Our post-modern culture is surely in the perilous last days spoken of by Timothy when men are (II Timothy 3:7) ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
 (Isaiah 5:20-21 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!)

Why the World Hates George W. Bush
The Secular Drive to Marginalize The Christian Faith

Oct. 12….(By Allan Dobras) The scorn and vitriol heaped upon President Bush by his detractors during the three years plus of his presidency go far beyond political disagreements over how to best answer the pressing needs of the nation. There is little doubt that the president elicits a genuine and personal hatred from his critics, not only in this country but abroad as well. The question is, why? In a strange dichotomy, President Bush is arguably one of the most decent men to have ever occupied the White House. He rarely has an unkind word to say about his critics even when they go after him with swords drawn. Insiders in the White House have nothing but good things to say about him and he comes from a respected, religious family that has endured decades of public life with nary a hint of scandal. President Bush lifted himself up from an impetuous youth to the highest office in the land in no small part due to the mentoring of evangelist Billy Graham, one of the most admired men in the world, and his personal faith is a cornerstone in his life. This story alone should be the source of great praise and admiration, not derision. So why then is there so much hatred for George Bush? Although some may say the hatred stems from the controversy over the Florida vote during the 2000 election, the reality is that the final analysis of the vote shows that George Bush won the election under any conceivable recount circumstance. Actually, the Gore campaign can be more faulted for its attempt to manipulate the Florida vote by insisting on a recount limited to three heavily Democrat counties. Whether it is opposition toward some domestic political issue, his handling of the war on terror, or the war in Iraq, none can rationally account for the intensity of personal hatred leveled at President Bush as he seeks reelection. The answer to the “why,” is really part of an issue that simmers just below the surface but nonetheless evokes a level of hatred, and fear, that can only be understood in the context of the conflict between enduring truth and spiritless relativism. That is, a clash between two mutually exclusive worldviews, one driven by religious faith and the other driven by secular humanism. Former Clinton labor secretary, Robert Reich, put this clash of worldviews in clear perspective in his July 1, 2004 article entitled “Bush’s God,” which was published in The American Prospect. The article complains about a Bush campaign strategy that is designed to reach out to persons of faith. Mr. Reich says in part:

In its eagerness to promote the teaching of creationism in public schools, encourage school prayer, support anti-sodomy statutes, ban abortions, bar gay marriage, limit the use of stem cells, reduce access to contraceptives, and advance the idea of America as a "Christian nation," the Bush administration has done more to politicize religion than any administration in recent American history. The great conflict of the 21st century may be between the West and terrorism. But terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The underlying battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist fanatics; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe blind allegiance to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is no more than preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe that truth is revealed solely through scripture and religious dogma, and those who rely primarily on science, reason, and logic. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism is not the only danger we face.

In essence, Mr. Reich is saying that “Bush’s God” is more of a threat to modern civilization than fanatical terrorism. His description of the issues at risk because of the president’s faith, sodomy, abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and contraceptives, reveals that little imagination is needed to see that sexual liberation is at the heart of the clash between the opposing worldviews. With sexual liberation as the goal, there is no doubt that homosexual affirmation is the instrument being used to undermine the values associated with “Bush’s God.” Hedonistic secularists realize that the legitimization of homosexuality, particularly legalization of gay marriage, is a dagger into the heart of the Christian faith and the institutions that shelter its values. President Bush’s adherence to the principles of his faith represents a formidable obstacle to victory. That is the reason why he is at once hated and also feared, for as St. Paul said, the believer has “the aroma of death,” to the perishing. Therefore, his removal from the presidency must be accomplished at all costs. To accomplish this goal, the president’s detractors have mounted a fierce, personal attack on him through dozens of recently published books, several movies, numerous commentaries, and by a heavily imbalanced popular media. (Dan Rather and the ABC memo) Additionally, Mr. Reich suggests that the president is an “anti-modernist fanatic” (all Christian fundamentalists) and his religious views place him far out of the mainstream. But recent Gallup polls show the opposite: 68 percent of Americans favor teaching both creationism and evolution in the public schools; 78% of the American people favor a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary prayer in public schools; 68 % of the American people agree that partial-birth abortion should be banned; thirty-nine states have so far passed defense of marriage acts prohibiting gay marriage; and since the June 2003 decision by the Supreme Court that declared the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, opposition to legalization of same-sex relations has increased to 49% compared to 43% who favor legalization. One may debate Reich’s view that America should not be regarded as a “Christian nation,” but it should be pointed out that over 80 percent of the American people identify themselves as Christian; most of the founding fathers of our republic considered themselves Christians; and Christian-Judean values had a tremendous influence in the nation’s founding documents, laws, and rules of government. Although it is clear that the founding fathers avoided the establishment of a religious theocracy, it is equally clear there was no intent to insulate government from religious influence, and therein lies the rub. Quite clearly, it has been the strategy of hedonic secularists to use homosexuality as a spearhead in its drive to marginalize the faith of true Christianity and infuse sexual freedom. To great extent, they have successfully invaded almost every institution in America with a message of acceptance toward sodomy as a lifestyle preference. Much of industry, government, media, and academia celebrate “gay pride,” require “gay” sensitivity training, offer domestic partner benefits, and prohibit contrary points of view. It is readily apparent how important the infusion of unmitigated sexual “freedom” into the church and the culture is to the secularists, and why they are working so hard to defeat President Bush. A leader who believes in the existence of absolute truth, a President who seeks to apply his faith to his life, is a threat to a post-modern secularist in principle. In an age when the most grievous of sins is to interject your religious beliefs into the public debate, those in leadership positions who profess to know Truth set themselves up for fierce opposition. Amen!

(II Corinthians 2:14-17 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.)

Christian Leaders Urge 'Biblical' Vote

Oct. 11….(World Net Daily) A little more than three weeks before the November general election, 71 influential evangelical Christian leaders have issued an open letter to the American people urging them to rely upon biblical values in their selection of candidates. The letter, which addresses nomination of Supreme Court justices, defense against terrorists, abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research and natural resources, was deemed legal by a qualified adviser because it deals with issues rather than candidates or parties. However, if the choice is between Republican President Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the obvious conclusion, unsurprisingly, would be that the president's policies best represent the beliefs of the letter's signatories. The letter is endorsed by ministry leaders, pastors and Christian professors, including James Dobson and D. James Kennedy. The evangelical leaders urge pastors and Bible study leaders to teach on "these crucial ethical issues facing our nation." "We urge all Christians that they have a moral obligation to learn about the candidates’ positions, to be informed, and to vote," the letter says. "We urge all Christians to pray that truthful speech and right conduct on both sides would prevail in this election." The letter reads:

The Bible speaks to several ethical issues in this election

Many Americans seek guidance from the Bible for important issues of life, while we recognize that many others do not. With thankfulness for the freedom of all Americans to believe whatever they think best regarding matters of religion and ethics, we offer this statement of our personal understanding of the teachings of the Bible for the thoughtful consideration of all who are interested in how the Bible might speak to ethical issues in the current election.

1. Supreme Court justices: People don't often think of the appointment of Supreme Court Justices as an ethical issue, but it clearly is now because several decisions of the Supreme Court have imposed on our nation new policies on major ethical and religious questions. A small majority of our current Supreme Court, and lower courts that follow their example, have gone beyond their Constitutionally-defined task of interpreting laws passed by Congress and state legislatures, and have in effect created new "laws" that have never been passed by any elected body. By this process they have imposed on us decrees that allow abortionists to murder unborn babies (contrary to Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9, "you shall not murder"), that protect pornographers who poison the minds of children and adults (contrary to Exodus 20:17, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; see also Matt. 5:28), that redefine marriage to include homosexual couples (thus giving governmental encouragement to actions that Romans 1:26-28 says are morally wrong), and that banish prayer, God's name and God’s laws from public places (thus prohibiting free exercise of religion, and violating Romans 13:3 which says that government should be “not a terror to good conduct, but to bad"). In taking to itself the right to decree such policies, the Supreme Court has seriously distorted the system of "checks and balances" intended by the Constitution between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. It is unlikely that any elected body such as a city council, state legislature, or the US Congress, would have decreed policies like those mentioned above, for such groups are accountable to the will of the people. Not so the Supreme Court, which is appointed for life. And democratically-elected members of Congress and state legislatures are helpless to change those Court-mandated policies unless the makeup of the Supreme Court is changed. We believe the ethical choice is for a President and for US Senators committed to appointing judges who will follow the original intent of the Constitution and just interpret law and not make it, rather than for candidates who have often voted to block such judges in votes in the Senate.

2. Defense against terrorists: A fundamental responsibility of government is to “punish those who do evil” (1 Peter 2:14) and thus to protect its citizens. We now face a unique challenge, because terrorists who will sacrifice their own lives in killing others cannot be deterred by the usual threat of punishing a criminal after he commits a crime. While Jesus instructed individuals not to seek personal revenge but to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39), the Bible teaches that governments are responsible to “bear the sword” (Romans 13:4) and thus to use force to oppose violent evil. We believe the ethical choice is for a candidate who will pursue terrorists and, when necessary, use force to stop them before they strike us, not for a candidate who only promises to respond if we are attacked again.

3. Abortion: The Bible views the unborn child as a human person who should be protected, since David said to God, "You knitted me together in my mother's womb" (Psalm 139:13; see also Psalm 51:5; 139:13; Luke 1:44), and strong penalties were imposed for endangering or harming the life of an unborn child (Exod. 21:22-23). We believe the ethical choice is for candidates who believe government should give protection to the lives of unborn children, not ones who believe government should allow people to choose to murder their unborn children if they wish.

4. Homosexual marriage: The Bible views marriage as between one man and one woman, for "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:31). Because our courts have shown a troubling tendency to overturn the laws that have already been passed concerning marriage, we believe the ethical choice is for candidates who support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

5. Embryonic stem cell research: Creating more human embryos for their stem cells is making the beginnings of little babies for the purpose of harvesting their parts, contrary to the command, "You shall not murder" (Exod. 20:13). There is a good alternative: using adult stem cells for medical research, because this does not destroy the life of the adult whose cells are used. We believe the ethical choice is for a candidate who has decided he will not allow government funds to be spent to create more human embryos just to take their stem cells.

6. Natural resources: God put human beings on the earth to "subdue it" and to "have dominion" over the animals (Gen. 1:28). We value the beauty of the natural world which God created, and we believe that we are called to be responsible stewards who protect God's creation while we use it wisely and also seek to safeguard its usefulness for future generations. The Bible does not view "untouched nature" as the ideal state of the earth, but expects human beings to develop and use the earth’s resources wisely for mankind’s needs (Gen. 1:28; 2:15; 9:3; 1 Tim. 4:4). In fact, we believe that public policy based on the idealism of 'untouched nature" hinders wise development of the earth’s resources and thus contributes to famine, starvation, disease, and death among the poor. We believe the ethical choice is for candidates who will allow resources to be developed and used wisely, not for candidates indebted to environmental theories that oppose nearly all economic development in our nation and around the world.

7. Should Christians speak out and try to influence our nation on these issues? God's people in the Bible often spoke about ethical issues to government rulers. Daniel told the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar to practice "righteousness" and to show "mercy to the oppressed" (Dan. 4:27); several Old Testament prophets speak to foreign nations about their sins (Isaiah 13-23; Ezekiel 25-32, Amos 1-2, Obadiah (to Edom), Jonah (to Nineveh), Nahum (to Nineveh), Habakkuk 2, Zephaniah 2); and Paul spoke to the Roman governor Felix "about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment" (Acts 24:25).

As Christian leaders we agree that the primary message of the New Testament is the good news about salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. But the primary message is not the whole message, and another significant part of the New Testament teaches us how people should live. With respect to issues like these we have mentioned, the Bible also teaches us about what kinds of laws governments should have. The laws of a nation have a significant influence on the nation's moral climate, for good or for ill. This is because laws can either restrain evil or encourage it, and because laws also have a teaching function as they inform people about what a government thinks to be right and wrong conduct. Therefore we urge pastors and Bible study leaders to teach on these crucial ethical issues facing our nation. We urge all Christians that they have a moral obligation to learn about the candidates' positions, to be informed, and to vote. Such influence for good on the direction of our country is one important way of fulfilling Jesus’ command, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:19).

China's Thirst for Oil Reaching Top Gear

Oct. 11….(BBC) China is not the biggest oil consumer in the world, that prize still goes to America, nor is it the world’s biggest importer, which is also the USA. What China outdoes the rest of the world at is the growth of its oil appetite. Ten years ago China imported no oil at all. Last year it overtook Japan to become the world's second biggest importer. Its thirst continues to grow. Imports are expected to rise another 40% this year. For the international oil market it has all come as something of a shock. The reasons are not hard to find. In the last few years, the Chinese have taken to cars with alacrity. Beijing now has more than two million private cars. Many are small hatchbacks, but there are a growing number of hulking gas guzzling sports utility vehicles. Even the Hummer has made it to the streets of Beijing. In the 1950s, China discovered massive oil reserves in the far north of the country near the border with Siberia. For 40 years the Da Qing oil field has kept China self-sufficient. But just as China's demand for oil is surging, the pumps on the Da Qing oil field are starting to splutter. And so the Chinese search for oil has become frantic and desperate. In the deserts of China's far-west, teams of oil men have been searching for more than a decade, but so far nothing. In the South China Sea, exploration rigs have been test drilling for even longer. They have found quite a lot of gas, but so far no oil to speak of. China has tried to buy up oil fields in central Asia with mixed results. It is trying to persuade the Russians to build a pipeline from Siberia to keep the Da Qing oil refineries pumping, but the Japanese are also competing for that pipeline deal. The result is that China is facing an energy shortage. Even its massive coal supplies cannot keep up with demand. The only people who seem happy are China's shipbuilders. On the slipways of Shanghai and Guangzhou, armies of welders are assembling a fleet of new ships to bring energy and materials to China, iron ore and natural gas from Australia, and oil from anywhere China can get it. China is negotiating with Sudan and Nigeria, Russia and Iran for oil guarantees. Only one thing seems certain, China's appetite for oil shows no sign of slowing. Today China has 10 million private cars, and by 2020 that number will be 120 million.

FOJ Note: Is it just mere coincidence, or is China’s new thirst for oil tied into Bible Prophecy. Revelation 16 portrays the fact that the Kings of the East will be compelled to cross the Euphrates River Valley (Iraq) and become engulfed in the Israeli-Arab conflict in the last days. In fact, the scenario depicted by Revelation 16 and Daniel 11:44, indicates that the Kings of the East (China) will advance westward in conjunction with the Russian invasion on Israel to counter the moves of the Antichrist in the Middle East, and it is likely that the motivation for all these spheres of world power will be the oil reserves that reside within the domain of the King of the South.



Iran Implicated in Taba Attacks?

Oct. 8….(Debka) While Israel strongly suspects Al Qaeda involvement in the Sinai terrorist attacks, DEBKA file intelligence and counter-terror sources reports that the explosives used to tear away the entire frontage of the Taba Hilton and hit the Nueiba oasis campside further south on the Red Sea coast were of Iranian manufacture; the same make as the bombs used in the 1996 Khobar Towers blast and he 2003 Istanbul attacks. Egyptian intelligence investigators are working on the same premise as their Israeli counterparts that a Hizballah cell based in Sinai rigged the four bomb cars and by mid-September had them ready for yesterday’s multiple strike. Two were reserved for the 10-storey Taba Hilton, where bodies are still being dug out of the rubble. Intelligence of suggestive Hizballah movements prompted the counter-terror center at the Israeli Prime Minister’s office to warn Israeli travelers on the eve of the Jewish New Year to miss out on their favorite holiday sites in Sinai. Nonetheless, 15,000 Israelis were trapped there Thursday night. (The Hizballah’s Sinai cell is part of the Palestinian international weapons smuggling network that has grown out of the Sinai-Gaza tunnel system and which now branches out to East Africa, Arabia, the Persian Gulf, Syria, Turkey and Chechnya.)


Duelfer`s WMD Report Fuels Debate on Iraq War

Oct. 8….(Debka) Head of Iraq Survey Team Charles Duelfer asserted Wednesday, October 6, in testimony and report to the US Senate Armed Forces Committee that no WMD stockpiles were found to exist in Iraq in 2003. However, Iraq was producing missiles beyond UN-imposed limits and could have fitted them with warheads very quickly. The ICG team found no active nuclear program and no conclusive findings on biological programs. However, by 2003, Iraq had capabilities for producing chemical or biological weapons in months and retained the intellectual capacity to reconstitute WMD programs. Once sanctions were defeated, Saddam purportedly intended to reactive his banned programs focusing on chemical weapons, long range missiles and nuclear arms, according to the ISG report. His objectives were Iran and Israel. Iraqi scientists working on nuclear programs were instructed to preserve and hide documents and the chemical industry was reorganized in the mid-1990s to allow the weapons program to be restarted quickly. The ISG team found no evidence of mobile biological weapons facilities but cannot be sure they will not turn up to negate its report on this question. Duelfer warned of the danger that Iraqi WMD expertise could be transferred to other hands. Iraqi insurgents have indeed tried to develop WMD, but their efforts have been stopped. In answer to a question, Duelfer said Saddam chose not to have banned weapons at the particular point of time before the war, given the frame of reference after 9/11 including sanctions, isolation, and reduced revenues. All in all, it was the ICG chief’s view that those conditions were not sustainable. Had he stayed in power, his advisers and most Iraqis were sure he would have pursued WMD. In fact he said he would. Speaking analytically, Duelfer maintained the world is better off with Saddam gone. Duelfer could not say definitively that Iraqi weapons were not transferred out of Iraq before the 2003 war. One of the report’s chapters, run on the CIA’s website Thursday, October 7, shows how kickbacks and corruption in the UN oil for food program rescued Saddam from internal decline, something the US had hoped for since the Gulf War ended. Saddam amassed $11 billion from oil smuggling to circumvent sanctions first imposed in 1990. The now-defunct UN oil-for-food program was begun at the end of 1996 to allow Baghdad to buy civilian goods and sell oil to pay for them under UN monitoring. Hundreds of individuals and companies from more than 40 countries, and government officials in Syria and Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and the UAR, are said to have funneled arms and goods to Iraq in violation of sanctions. They include names in France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the UN Security Council.


Saddam Paid Off French Leaders

(Washington Times) Saddam Hussein used the UN humanitarian oil-for-food program to pay $1.78 billion to French government officials, businessmen and journalists in bribes to have sanctions removed and US policies opposed, according to the CIA report made public yesterday. The cash was part of $11 billion secretly skimmed from the UN oil-for-food program, which was used by Iraq to buy military goods. According to a section of the report on Iraqi weapons procurement, the survey group identified long-standing ties between Saddam and the French government. One 1992 Iraqi intelligence service report revealed that Iraq's ambassador to France paid $1 million to the French Socialist Party in 1988. The CIA report stated that the Iraqi ambassador was instructed to "utilize the $1 million to remind French Defense Minister Pierre Joxe indirectly about Iraq's previous positions toward France, in general, and the French Socialist party, in particular." In the late 1990s, Iraq also used an oil-purchasing voucher system through the UN oil-for-food program, which began in 1996 and ended in 2003, to influence the French to oppose US initiatives at the United Nations and to help get the sanctions lifted. The Iraqi Intelligence Service paid off French nationals by dispensing vouchers that allowed the holders to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in commissions by selling them to oil buyers. The payoffs help explain why the French government, along with Russia and China, opposed US efforts in the United Nations in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion, US officials said. Iraqi intelligence agents also targeted French President Jacques Chirac, by giving gifts to a spokesman, two of his aides and two French businessmen, the report said. One Iraqi intelligence report stated that a French politician assured Saddam in a letter that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any US effort to attack Iraq.


CIA: Russia Got Rich Violating UN Sanctions

Oct. 8….(Moscow Times) Russian government officials, political leaders and companies helped Saddam Hussein secretly amass $11 billion between 1996 and 2003 and pocketed an estimated $130 million, violating intricate UN sanctions on Iraq in the run-up to the US invasion, a CIA report says. Starting in 2000 at the latest, more than two dozen Russian officials and companies began funneling money to Hussein-controlled bank accounts in exchange for lucrative vouchers to sell Iraqi oil, which were then sold to traders approved to operate within the United Nations oil-for-food program. According to "secret lists" kept by Iraq's Oil Ministry and Hussein's vice president, the Russian individuals who participated in the scheme included former Kremlin chief of staff Alexander Voloshin, former Federation Council Speaker Yegor Stroyev, former Fuel and Energy Minister Yury Shafranik, Communist Party chief Gennady Zyuganov, LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, the mercurial leader of the southern Buddhist republic of Kalmykia. Other major benefactors included the Foreign Ministry, the Emergency Situations Ministry, the pro-Kremlin Unity party, Kremlin-controlled energy firms Gazprom, Zarubezhneft and Rosneft, the state-owned trading company Machinoimport, private oil company TNK, and Alfa Eco, a subsidiary of the powerful Alfa financial-industrial group.

Al Qaeda Suspected in Terror Attacks in Sinai


Oct. 8….(World Watch) Israeli rescuers Friday dug through the debris of a luxury hotel for victims of a series of bombs at resorts in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula that are popular with Israelis. At least 30 people were killed, with more than 100 wounded, and officials feared the death toll would rise. Israel's intelligence chief told Cabinet ministers Friday that the bombings at Egyptian resorts were most likely carried out by al-Qaida. Israeli intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, made the assessment at an emergency Cabinet meeting convened a day after the deadly bombings, which wounded more than 120. Thousands of frightened Israeli tourists rushed back home, streaming into Eilat just across the border Friday morning. Many complained bitterly that Egyptian authorities prevented tourists from leaving the hotels after the blasts and delayed them at the border. Israeli and Egyptian rescuers searched the shattered Taba Hilton, where at least four people still were believed to be buried by the biggest blast that sheared outer rooms off a 10-story wing. Israel's Cabinet met Friday to discuss the attacks, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office said he and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak agreed by telephone that they must fight terrorism together. Sinai's resorts were particularly crowded Thursday, the last day of the weeklong Jewish festival of Sukkot, when thousands of Israelis vacation there. The most devastating of the bombings was at the Hilton, where a car laden with explosives crashed into the lobby and detonated, an Israeli official said on condition of anonymity. There were reports of a second or third explosion in the compound, one of which may have been a suicide bomber. Two smaller blasts quickly followed in Ras Shitan, a camping area near the town of Nuweiba, 35 miles south of Taba. Israel's deputy defense minister, Zeev Boim, told Israel's Army Radio that Palestinian militants apparently were not involved and he suspected al-Qaida affiliates: "On the face of things, this is different from what we are familiar with from Palestinian terrorist groups." Mushir al-Masri, a Gaza spokesman for the Hamas militant group, denied Hamas involvement, but said the bombings were "an expected result" of Israeli operations against Palestinians. No established groups have claimed responsibility, but three previously unknown groups claimed separately to have carried out the attacks. There was no way to confirm their authenticity. Contributors to Islamic Web sites praised the attacks and linked them to a recent video said to have been issued by al-Qaida's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri. That video, shown by Al-Jazeera television October 1, called for militants to organize and attack countries that had given Israel "means of survival." The tape also urged holy warriors to fight Israelis and Americans before they enter Egypt. The explosions came a month after the Israeli government urged citizens not to visit Egypt, citing a "concrete" terror threat to tourists. The warning, issued Sept. 9, identified Sinai as the target of a potential attack. Egypt has long struggled with Islamic militants interested in overthrowing the secular government, but has contained the threat with periodic crackdowns and by allowing Islamists some political activity. The last major militant strike in Egypt was the 1997 massacre of 58 foreign tourists by Islamic extremists in the southern resort town of Luxor. Taba is the main crossing between Israel and Egypt, and the gateway for thousands of Israelis who travel to the hotels and resorts on the Red Sea. Before the blast, 12,000 to 15,000 Israelis were believed to be in the Sinai. Israel relinquished the entire Sinai to Egypt in 1979 in return for the promise of peaceful co-existence.


History Unrevised ... Again

Oct. 8….(commentary By Hal Lindsey) Un-revising history in this generation is becoming a full-time job. Especially as it pertains to the man who would be president, if he can convince enough Americans his version of history is the truth. First, a little back-ground, not because it is new information, but because it is accurate. As a young man, John Kerry wore his nation's uniform into action in Vietnam. While it may not be entirely true that he volunteered for combat duty, Kerry did spend four months in Vietnam before coming back to the United States to denounce his comrades. It was during his anti-war, anti-hero period that John Kerry learned how powerful the spoken word could be. It got him elected to the Senate. It got him nominated for president. And the polls all suggest it won him new votes after last Thursday's debate. But how he said what he said is what earned him new supporters. What he said must not have made it through the barrier between their ears. It is a matter of historical fact that John Kerry built his career by opposing the best interests of the United States. Both his anti-war activities in the 1970s and his Senate record in the years since contain all the evidence necessary to establish that as fact. There was his ringing endorsement of the now wholly discredited Winter Soldier investigation, which depicted US troops in Vietnam as rapists and killers. He said that America was the single worst violator on the entire planet of the Geneva Conventions. By Kerry's light, any Viet Cong atrocities paled in comparison with those committed by US troops as a matter of policy. In the '80s, Kerry was a passionate defender of the communist Sandinistas. Indeed, the point of his infamous "Christmas in Cambodia" Senate speech was to prevent the Reagan administration from taking action to overthrow the communists. Today, for anybody listening to his recent debate with President Bush, Kerry's words should have removed any lingering doubt. John Kerry spent the first half of his debate time lambasting the Bush administration for "going it alone" against Saddam. But when it came to North Korea, Kerry lambasted the administration for having too many allies. Kerry says in that case that America should engage in bilateral talks with Pyongyang. That's what the North Koreans favor as well. Right now, Pyongyang has to deal with not just the United States, but also China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. That puts the North at a disadvantage it wouldn't have in unilateral talks with the United States. For that reason, Pyongyang favors a Kerry presidency. After all, look what they won in bilateral talks with another Democrat president, Bill Clinton. During last week's debate, Kerry called for sanctions against Iran as a way to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power. When it was pointed out that we already have sanctions against Iran, Kerry blamed the Bush administration for the "unilateral" nature of those sanctions. The sanctions were first imposed by Ronald Reagan in 1987. A second set of tougher sanctions were imposed by Bill Clinton in 1995. And a third set of even tougher sanctions were imposed against Tehran by Clinton in 1999. There weren't any sanctions left for Bush to impose. Kerry switched tactics at that point, saying if he were president, he would give nuclear fuel to Iran in return for a promise they won't use it for weapons. Within hours, Tehran's Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi laughed at the Kerry proposal. He told a press conference, "We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others." Like the North Koreans, the Iranians were listening closely to the debates. Evidently, they were listening more closely than either the American mainstream media or Kerry's supporters. Our enemies evidently focused their attention primarily on what Kerry said, instead of how Kerry said it. According to John Kerry, the only way to effectively combat terrorism is by working with "allies." But not the 30-odd allies in the coalition. Those allies, Kerry dismisses as "a coalition of the bribed and coerced." To Kerry, the only allies that matter are France, Germany and Russia. Paris, Berlin and Moscow did not obstruct US efforts in Iraq because they opposed President Bush – they did so because their own best interests required a Saddam Hussein in power. In the debate, Kerry insisted he would "never give a veto to any country over our security." Asked by moderator Jim Lehrer to describe his position on preemptive war, Kerry said this:

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

This is confusing. Before taking "preemptive" action, America has to pass a "global test"? What if we don't pass? According to Kerry, he wouldn't have taken action against Iraq without these so-called "allies." Since, as we now know, they were secretly Saddam's allies, they opposed the United States tooth and nail. Had Kerry been in office, would he have acted anyway? Wouldn't French, German and Russian opposition been the equivalent to a veto? It doesn't make sense. Kerry now says that while the end result, Saddam's removal, was fine, but the war itself was a tragic mistake. But how else would Saddam have been ousted? Kerry didn't elaborate, and Lehrer never questioned him. According to the latest polls, the majority of Americans think John Kerry "won" the debate. He did win in debating skill and style, because his premises were not challenged. Pyongyang and Tehran critically analyzed his content and concluded he could be manipulated to their advantage. The reality is that America is facing a greater existential threat at this moment in its history than at any time since British troops captured New York City in August 1776. America has no worse enemies among the assembled governments of the world than those in Tehran and Pyongyang. Now is not the time to empower North Korea by abandoning the six-nation diplomatic effort and making it a case of "us against them." Neither is it the time to offer to give the mad mullahs in Tehran more nuclear material in exchange for only a promise. It didn't work when Clinton tried it with Pyongyang in 1994, either. And now is definitely not the time to let the United Nations, France, Germany and Russia decide what is in America's best strategic interests. Nor John Kerry.


A Million Shekel’s Question

Oct. 8….(David Dolan) Ariel Sharon will probably be up before dawn on November 3rd to anxiously watch the US election returns on CNN International and Fox. Although the beleaguered Israeli Prime Minister is wisely taking no public position on the tight presidential race, it is fairly clear he’s banking on a second term for George W. Bush.
Unlike tens of thousands of Israelis who hold duo American citizenship, Sharon cannot cast a ballot in the hotly contested election. But he is just as eager as any of them to learn the outcome of the vote, realizing that his controversial Gaza withdrawal plan might be derailed by a John Kerry victory. How could the Massachusetts senator’s triumph possibly thwart Sharon’s declared goal to pull all Israeli settlers and soldiers out of the Gaza Strip by late next year, along with four small Jewish communities north of Jerusalem? After all, Bill Clinton amply demonstrated that Kerrys Democratic Party strongly supports the “land for peace” formula in which Israel abandons territory, part of the Jewish biblical heritage, not to mention strategic for modern Israel’s defense, in exchange for paper promises of peace from her various Arab enemies. The portly Israeli leader is under serious siege for having seemingly sold out his right-wing supporter base by unveiling his unilateral evacuation plan early this year. Known for decades as Israel’s greatest settlement champion, he won a landslide victory in 2003 against a Labor party opponent who strongly advocated the very withdrawal program that Sharon is now avidly pushing. What is the Israeli leader’s most potent argument against his many critics? It boils down to this: The Most Powerful Man on Earth (US President Bush) has pledged to back Israel’s consensus desire to annex portions of the disputed territories inside and around Jerusalem’s broad municipal boundaries, and also due east of Tel Aviv and other coastal cities. All this is in exchange for a total Gaza pullout and a few other “painful concessions” that Sharon has yet to fully enumerate. Would President John Kerry honor the Texan’s unprecedented pledge, which was alluded to by the American leader, if not fully spelled out when he met Sharon at the White House last April? That is the Million Shekel question many Israeli journalists would have loved to ask the Democratic challenger during the foreign policy debate. Given that the dovish senator says he wants to “restore frayed relations” with Europe and “boost American cooperation” with the United Nations and other international institutions, it seems likely he would not endorse Bush’s historic pledge, which amounted to a significant US policy shift. That would leave Sharon with greasy falafel on his face, if not flung out of office, before he could implement his emotive pullout plan. As the current President (Bush) apparently recognizes, Israeli moral, legal and political arguments for annexing portions of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria captured from Jordan in 1967 are outlandishly strong. To begin with, the holy city was Judaism’s heart and soul long before Muhammad and his loyal followers trekked the deserts of Arabia. The same holds true for the rolling hills and valleys of Samaria and Judea where Jacob and kin lived their lives and were buried, where David was crowned king, where Elijah rode a celestial chariot up to heaven, etc. Legally speaking, Israel’s disputed biblical heartland was never recognized as a valid part of Jordan by most UN member states, including all Arab ones, despite Amman’s announcement that the territory it occupied in 1948 had magically become “the West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.” Nor was it ever part of some country called Palestine, despite frequent Arab inferences that it was. “Palestine” was simply one of several names for the biblical Holy Land (including Southern Syria) that appeared after the time of Christ; never a sovereign country, nor even an “occupied” one. Indeed, Joshua hardly “Conquered Northern Palestine,” nor did the warrior ever hear of such a term for Moses’ Promised Land. It first appeared over 1,000 years later when applied by imperial Rome to insult the vanquished and detested Jews, since it was derived from their ancient Philistine enemy. Israel’s legal claim to the eastern half of Jerusalem and surrounding areas is particularly strong given that the League of Nations, the precursor of today’s UN, sanctioned Great Britain to oversee “the establishment of a Jewish homeland” in the historic territory, captured from Ottoman Turkey during World War I. The “Mandate” area included all of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, where thousands of Jews had already been living for centuries. Of course, Arabs were living there too, and a contemporary solution must obviously be found to their stateless situation and other serious problems. But a total Israeli pullout to the supposedly sacrosanct 1967 “border,” which was in reality just the cease-fire line from the 1948 conflict that was triggered by widespread Arab rejection of the UN partition plan, is neither a workable nor realistic answer, as George Bush apparently recognizes. Does John Kerry agree with him? (NO) That is the big question many Israeli journalists want to ask the Democratic contender. Since the answer is probably no, Ariel Sharon will undoubtedly be seeing red if the American TV election maps on November 3rd are predominantly colored blue.

America’s Sovereignty Under Subtle Attack Via Presidential Election

Oct. 6….(FOJ) The closeness of the 2000 US Presidential election, with all of its accusations has cracked open the door for Globalist ideologues to infiltrate the American political system. The United States as we have known it for over 228 years is in the crosshairs of a Global conspiracy to undermine this years election! Foreign election monitors determined to oversee the US election this November seem to be coming out of the woodwork. The main culprit in undermining America’s sovereignty is a former President. Yes, good ole smiley Jimmy Carter has recommended that UN, and other international agencies send monitoring committees need to legitimize the American election. (Since when does America need the world to teach us about democracy?) The bottom line is that this year’s November presidential election is being used by Globalists to humiliate the United States and place in doubt the legitimacy of our government. (if George Bush should win) How many times have we heard Al Gore, and other liberal Democrats accuse George Bush of stealing the 2000 election? President Bush did not steal the 2000 election, but rather the liberal Socialists within the Democratic Party failed to steal that election, and they are now resorting to compromising America’s sovereignty in order top hand over the apex of American political power to a Globalist concept. Those calling for the election monitors, like Democratic California Representative Barbara Lee, (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.) argue that the move is necessary in order to "make certain that every person's voice is heard, and that every person's vote is counted." Eddie Bernice Johnson, the Texas Democrat who is the leader of the thirteen members of Congress who originally started the process by writing to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, says, "The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their standing in the world."(sounds like another Global Test the liberal Democrats want America to pass?) In reality, the constant chatter about "transparent and fair elections" and the "democratic process" is simply a smokescreen to hide the real purpose of the monitors. They are being sent into the US to de-stablize and defame the American Republic and its system of self-governance, and to ultimately impose a political agenda suitable to the dictates of the UN, and the global governance concept of the EU. Virtually everyone involved in the election-monitoring scheme is a radically-active leftist committed to a political agenda that calls for the destruction of national sovereignty by replacing it with global governance. To implement such an agenda in the United States requires a breakdown in the trust of our national and state government institutions. That's the true mission of the monitors. Consequently, the November election will resemble nothing ever before seen at the polls by Americans. The very idea of sending UN monitors to monitor and American election is the ultimate in absurdity. America has been the epitome of liberty and freedom, and is the world’s lone bastion of open democratic elections. Unfortunately, this pandora’s box was granted an opening by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who legitimized the presence of foreign election monitors by inviting the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Consider the following information from an article written by Tom Deweese.

A spokesman for the OSCE said the group's purpose in the election is to "apply political pressure." That group, headquartered in Vienna, Austria, is led by one of the most corrupt politicians in the United States. Alcee Hastings, the new president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, will be the man who actually appoints and assigns the group's election monitors. Hastings was a federal judge who was caught in an FBI sting in the 1980's for trying to take a $150,000 bribe. He was impeached by a Democrat-controlled Congress that voted 413-3 to oust him. The vote proves there were a lot of Democrats and a lot of fellow blacks who knew just how corrupt Hastings was. This year alone, Hastings is being investigated by both the federal and Florida State election commissions. Bribery, kickbacks and intimidation are just a few of the tools Hastings uses to control his political fiefdom. Part of Hastings' fiefdom is Broward County, Florida, one of the disputed areas in the 2000 election. Though the monitor proponents want to blame Governor Jeb Bush for election problems, it can be confidently speculated that Alcee Hastings had much more to do with choosing some of the corrupt election officials in that county than did the Governor. Hastings has clearly stated that he believes George W. Bush intends to steal the election. Clearly the OSCE is biased with a mission. Next into the monitoring game is a group called Global Exchange. This far left group, headquartered in San Francisco, bills itself as "an international human rights organization dedicated to promoting environmental, political and social justice." For the record, the term, "social justice" was invented by Karl Marx. Global Exchange promotes the radical Sustainable Development agenda of top-down government control over local representation. Its web site supports and praises Fidel Castro as a great humanitarian. Global Exchange hates free enterprise, private property, and cars. It is the poster child for the "think globally, act locally" crowd who were demonstrating outside the Republican national convention in New York City this past August.

It should be noted that Global Exchange calls itself a non-governmental organization (NGO). Only the United Nations officially sanctions NGO’s. More importantly, Global Exchange is a private organization with absolutely no standing to bring election observers into this nation. Yet on September 13, Global Exchange announced that it had already brought a team of international election monitors into the country. The 20-person "pre-electoral fact-finding team" split into five groups and headed to key battleground states to conduct "investigations" in Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Missouri and Ohio. The teams met with state and local elected officials, held town meetings, talked with community organizations and observed voter registration drives. Another team is scheduled to fan out across the nation in time for Election Day. One of the leaders of the Global Exchange delegation is Dr. Brigalia Bam, Chairperson of the Independent Electoral Commission of South Africa. Unlike the United States, South Africa is considered an emerging but not stable governmental system and has held only two successful national elections since 1994. Yet Dr. Bam promotes herself as an election expert, saying, "Through sharing with Americans the democratic innovations and advances occurring around the world, we hope to bring to light the best practices that may benefit the US political system." Dr. Bam's "light" is globalism and "social democracy," now practiced in much of the European Union and South Africa. Its other name is Socialism. Other members of the Global Exchange team are from India, Guatemala, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and a variety of Third World countries and UN international organizations. Global Exchange said in its September 13 news release that its monitoring team is "non-partisan," and that they just want to "boost voter confidence." Such lofty goals don't coincide with the rhetoric from Global Exchange's founder, Medea Benjamin. She is currently on a speaking tour of key battleground states with Daniel Ellsberg, an anti-war activist and the man who stole top secret documents from the Pentagon in the 1970's and released them to the media. Standing on a platform with Ellsberg at an appearance at Lane Community College in Oregon, Benjamin said the possible reelection of President Bush would lead to an escalation of the war in Iraq and an increase of anti-American sentiment throughout the world. She went on to appeal to the crowd to vote for John Kerry. One final note to confirm the bias and leftist ties of Global Exchange; the group's news releases are distributed by a public relations firm call Riptide Communications. Riptide's website describes the mission of the company as one which "provides high quality press and public relations to groups and individuals committed to progressive social change. Now, right on cue, former President Jimmy Carter has stepped into the election observation game, claiming that voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements." For two decades Jimmy Carter has fancied himself as some kind of expert on election observation. In fact, his many intrusions into the elections of sovereign nations have helped to make the practice acceptable. The fact is Jimmy Carter goes into those nations with his own agenda. That agenda is clearly revealed in his comment about "international requirements." As a former president, Carter should know that the United States is a sovereign nation that elects its own observers through local and state elections. Unlike most tinhorn dictatorships found around the world, our Republic insures that the American people are in control of their own election process, thus guaranteeing them the power to replace corrupt officials. Mr. Carter should also know that there are no "international requirements" for elections except in his personal demented vision of a world controlled by an international self-appointed elite. It should be obvious to anyone that Carter, a Democrat, has a bias against George Bush and his comments are designed to add legitimacy to the invading international monitors. In a final point to complete the circle, the Democrat National Committee has deployed up to 25,000 lawyers to run a "voter protection program." In other words, the Democrats intend to file a massive amount of lawsuits if things don't go their way. Foreign election monitors are pouring into our nation for one purpose; to enforce a political agenda that will affect the outcome of the election. There is nothing open, fair or non-partisan about it. The game plan is simple. The monitors will challenge poll results, the Democrats will file suit and the media will deem the election void. US prestige as the shining beacon of freedom will be tarnished and our ability to govern our own elections, as we've done successfully for over 200 years, may be permanently lost. Americans must understand now that their very liberty is at stake. None of these monitors have official standing to do anything in this nation. None should be allowed anywhere near polling places. None should be allowed to see official election documents and any local or stand election official who meets, deals or offers services to the monitors should be thrown out of office. America's election process does not belong to the international community - yet.

‘UN: A Cover for Islamic Terror’

Oct. 6….(JNEWSWIRE) It is inconceivable that the UN, which is supposed to be spreading peace, is being used as a cover for terror” against Jewish men, women and children, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman told Army Radio Friday. Gillerman was speaking following the release of surveillance footage showing Hamas terrorists loading a Kassam rocket into the back of a UN ambulance for safe transport. The Israeli ambassador said he would lobby UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to fire the head of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) in the Gaza Strip, Peter Hansen. Hansen “is a hater of Israel. He is the source of the problem,” Gillerman said. Friday’s incident was far from isolated, and Israel possesses documentation of past UN involvement in the terrorist activities of Hamas and Hizballah. On Friday evening, Israeli television viewers were presented by Channel Two News with surveillance footage shot earlier in the day above Gaza City showing “Palestinian” terrorists loading a missile into the back of a van. As the angle widened, the vehicle was clearly identified as an ambulance bearing the letters “UN”.
The footage was shot by an unmanned drone deployed as part of ongoing IDF anti-terror operations in northern Gaza. While anti-Israel rhetoric is nothing new at the UN, the incident proved that the world body is also being used as a physical tool in the terrorist war against Israel’s Jews, Gillerman said. “We view this incident very seriously, and I intend on Monday to turn to the UN secretary-general with a very strong complaint,” he said. “It is unacceptable that the UN, which is supposed to further the goals of peace, will turn into a shelter for murderers,” the ambassador said. Hansen, an open supporter of Arab efforts to establish another Islamic Arab nation on ancient Jewish lands, vehemently denied the charge, and insisted the item seen loaded into the ambulance was a stretcher. Friday’s use of UN humanitarian equipment in the terrorist war against Israel was hardly an isolated incident. On several occasions terrorists in both Gaza and Samaria have been spotted taking refuge inside UN vehicles and facilities in order to avoid IDF troops. In the north, Hizballah terrorists actually drove a UN-marked vehicle up to Lebanon’s border with Israel in October 2000 and killed three IDF soldiers there. That incident occurred under the direct observation of a nearby UN border post filled with armed “peacekeepers”. But even as “Palestinians” were busy murdering another Israeli and wounding dozens more on Sunday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan insisted Jerusalem abide by the rulings of the World Court and tear down its anti-terror fence. “While we accept that the government of Israel has the responsibility and duty to protect its citizens, any action it takes has to be in conformity with international law,” Annan said. (there’s that Kerry Global Test idea again) As with most of the international community, Annan’s position has long been that Israel should place the security of its citizens in the hands of Yasser Arafat’s PLO, which he called on to increase efforts to foil future anti-Jewish terror attacks. In typical fashion, however, Arafat sidestepped responsibility for Sunday’s attack by accusing Israel of planning and perpetrating the fatal Tel Aviv bombing. This despite the fact that his own Fatah Al Aqsa Brigades had claimed credit for the killing. Israel must respect the rulings of the International Court of Justice, UN chief Kofi Annan said, joining a chorus of Arab voices insisting the Jewish state adhere to the court’s decision that its security fence must come down. Israeli officials in Jerusalem have slammed the court for completely ignoring the reason Israel was forced to construct the fence, at great cost to itself, in the first place, “Palestinian” terrorism. Annan has long belonged to that part of the international community that insists the only legitimate form of security for Israel’s Jews is that provided by the Palestinian Authority. The terms of the Oslo Accords obligate the PA to provide Israelis with security by disarming and dismantling the terrorist organizations operating out of territories under its control. That commitment has never been fulfilled, leading to efforts by Israel to defend its citizens by launching anti-terror military operations, setting up roadblocks and now building a fence, all of which have been condemned by the world.

Iranian Leader Wants Nuke in 4 Months

Oct. 5….(World Net Daily) Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a US official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service. According to the official, an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community has stated that Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders on the nuclear weapons program. Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.
Jafari-Jalali, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Majles, stated in an Iranian press interview last week that the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to Tehran withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran's military announced earlier this month that it would test-fire a "strategic" missile during the Ashura 5 military exercises of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said earlier this month that, "given that an effective deterrent policy does not halt at a certain point, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues upgrading its defensive capability." Shamkhani said Iran has acquired an effective deterrent power to confront its enemies in the region. Iran test-fired a Shihab-3 on Sept. 18 and had also tested one in August. Meanwhile, British intelligence, working with Iraqi security, has uncovered a cell within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps that is working to destabilize Iraq. The Iranians had paid insurgents to conduct attacks in southern Iraq. "I don't think there's any doubt that the Iranians are involved and are providing support" to the Iraqi insurgents, Secretary of State Colin Powell said last week.


EU to White House: Adopt Kerry Iran plan
High-level lobbying by European diplomats urge Bush to provide Tehran with nuke fuel

Oct. 5….(World Net Daily) The London Financial Times reports that, according to "unnamed diplomats and a Kerry adviser," top EU officials from Germany and the Netherlands are lobbying the Bush Administration to adopt John Kerry's position on Iran and its nuclear program. High-level meetings were held with both the White House and the Kerry campaign last week. The European proposal offers Iran a guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel for its civilian reactors with all waste products to be returned and closely monitored. Iran would pledge to end development of its own enrichment plants that could be used to make nuclear weapons. During the debate with President Bush last Thursday, Kerry remarked that the US should have given Iran the nuclear fuel it wanted. "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said. (FOJ Note: Iran has flatly stated they want nukes to destroy Israel. It seems the Kerry and EU plan would sacrifice Israel for the sake testing Iran to see if it means what it says!) "If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together." "Kerry and the European positions are close in a number of ways," Robert Einhorn of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Financial Times. Indeed, one diplomat echoed Kerry's prescription of 'diplomacy' when he told the Financial Times, "The European message was that we cannot let weeks pass before the next deadline without doing something. We need a last-ditch approach, not more pressure, but a mix with a package and incentives." The dependence of Kerry's plan on the Europeans was made clear by running mate, John Edwards, to the Washington Post last month. "If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us." Time to employ "serious negotiating leverage" may be running out. Senior Iranian officials have told the Financial Times that the 'grand bargain' offered by the Europeans and championed by Kerry is not acceptable as Iranian officials are calling for the development of nuclear weapons within the next four months.

Going It Alone . . . The American War on Terror

Oct. 5….(Commentary on the news by Jack Kinsella of the Omega Letter with comments by FOJ) Although the US war on terror is ostensibly a global war with many allies, in reality, it is an American war on terror. And that is something we’d better get used to. The mythical United Nations worshipped by the Left does not exist. The United Nations that does exist is united only in its opposition to all things Israeli, which, by definition, includes all things American. If there is a single issue over which there is almost no division at the UN, it is the shared view that world peace will never be possible as long as Israel exists. When an anti-Israeli resolution comes before General Assembly, the vote is always the same: the whole world votes in favor, with the United States, Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands opposed. Our ‘closest allies’ at the UN, according to the liberal left, include Germany, France and Russia. With allies like that, who needs enemies? They claim to stand united with America against the terrorists, provided the US doesn’t ask them to do anything except stand. None of them seem particularly interested in doing anything beyond that. Even Russia is going after their own terrorists, but any claims of cross-cooperation are a fantasy, except in cases where it benefits Moscow. America’s global war on terror remains America’s war, despite the very significant contributions from genuine allies like Australia, the UK, Poland and some of the former Eastern European Soviet bloc countries. But both Tony Blair and John Howard are in deep trouble at home because of their courageous commitment to the US effort to liberate and rebuild Iraq. Both face tough re-election battles, and the central issue in each campaign revolves around Iraq and the war on terror. On the other hand, our other alleged ‘allies’ at the UN, especially France, Germany and Russia, are not just sitting on their hands, they are actively helping terrorists and terror states procure and develop weapons of mass destruction. As author Bill Gertz explains in his book, ‘Treachery’, “intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.” Iraq's Mirage F-1 fighter jets were made by France's Dassault Aviation. Its Gazelle attack helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which became part of a consortium of European defense companies. The State Department confirmed intelligence indicating the French had given support to Iraq's military. The central figure in these weapons ties is French President Jacques Chirac. His relationship with Saddam dates to 1975, when, as Prime Minister, the French politician rolled out the red carpet when the Iraqi strongman visited Paris. France's corrupt dealings with Saddam flourished throughout the 1990s, despite the strict arms embargo against Iraq imposed by the United Nations after the Persian Gulf War. By 2000, France had become Iraq's largest supplier of military and dual-use equipment. In mid-March 2003, US intelligence and defense officials confirmed that exporters in France had conspired with China to provide Iraq with chemicals used in making solid fuel for long-range missiles. In April 2003, an American A-10 Thunderbolt was shot down by Iraqi forces. The A10 was hit by a French-made Roland anti-aircraft missile. Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year. A week later, a US Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier. Keep in mind that these weapons were being sold to Saddam Hussein’s government in violation of UN sanctions while Dominique de Villepin was fighting tooth and nail at the UN to keep Saddam in power. In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry. They found French-made trucks and radios as well as RPGs with French-made night sights. A Defense Department-sponsored report produced in February identified France as one of the top three suppliers of Iraq's conventional arms, after Russia and China. The report revealed that France supplied 12 types of armaments and a total of 115,005 pieces, while Iraq was under UN embargo. Why would our allegedly closest allies arm our enemies, knowing those weapons will be used to kill Americans? Because they hope we’ll lose. Even if America survives, they are hoping that it will result in a corresponding reduction of American power and influence, ending what Jacques Chirac dubbed a ‘unipolar’ world. If al-Qaeda can successfully cripple America to the degree it is no longer the world’s only superpower, then the task of developing a counter-balance to American global influence becomes that much easier. As the Bible’s outline for the last days continues to develop, more and more of the Big Picture begins to come into focus. According to Scripture, in the very last days, Israel will face the assembled might of the world’s collective armies alone. Zechariah writes, “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.” (12:3) Consider the historical progression so far. There is no political potato hotter today than Jerusalem. Every nation that has attempted her destruction was cut to pieces. Israel won all five of her wars by utterly decimating her enemy’s war-making capability. It took years after each attempt for the Arabs to sufficiently rebuild their military capabilities so they could try again. Even with the almost unlimited military aid given the defeated Arab states by the Soviets and Europeans. Zechariah says that all that burden themselves ‘will be cut in pieces,’ allies as well as enemies. America became a target of Islamic terror more for its support of Israel than any other reason. According to Zechariah, Israel is alone in this final confrontation, under siege by all the people of the earth, there is no mention of an ally standing beside her, apart from God. Zechariah says that; “In that day shall the Lord [and not Washington] defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” (12:8) In the Big Picture, we can already see the four spheres of global power defined by Scripture assuming their final forms; the reviving Roman Empire, the Gog-Magog alliance, the Kings of the East and the Kings of the South [Islamic Saudi Arabia & North Africa]. That pretty much encompasses our erstwhile ‘allies’ in the war on terror who are sitting on the sidelines hoping for an Islamic victory over America.

FOJ Note: Scripture makes no mention of a fifth overarching superpower resembling the United States, but it does depict one under the authority of the Antichrist based in Europe. Most of the EU lead-states are actually plotting and scheming for the downfall of the US as a superpower, so the EU can amalgamate America under the EU umbrella, and so the EU can emerge as the West’s superpower state to compete against Russia and China for world control. Who will be its leader? The leaders of the EU are already touting the office of the EU Presidency as a replacement for the command status of the American Presidency. We can look for the Antichrist to emerge in this arena, and perhaps very soon. Is it any wonder that the socialist democrats in the American political sphere are so eager to align themselves with supposed allies in Europe, and insist upon the US submitting its Presidential powers for the defense of America to a UN sanctioned litmus test? Why would any American political leader ever concede the power and prestige of the American Presidency? Well, everything in our world today revolves around Israel. Europe is not willing to fight a World War over the security and existence of Israel. Europe and the liberal political establishment will not condone America’s traditional support for Israel, (this is what the war on terror is all about) and they are working in league to change America’s political behavior in regard to the Middle East, to make it conform to a more European worldview, a worldview that does not recognize the Divine sanctity of Israel, (appease the Muslim world) and will therefore be willing to sacrifice Israel up on the alter of Global governance and world peace.

The Phenomena of the B-bomb

Oct. 4…..(FOJ) The September 11th attacks on America jolted the genteel psyche of many Americans, and forced them to ponder why in the world anybody would purposely fly a jumbo aircraft loaded with jet fuel into the side of a tall building. But while American’s cooly went about their daily lives in the pre-9/11 era, Israeli’s were being blown to smithereens in café’s, synagogues, homes, and shopping malls. As America (during the Clinton Administration) cajoled Israel into land concession after concession to a terrorist organization, during the Middle East Peace Process, FOJ regularly warned its readers that the sadistic threat of human bombs that were being utilized against Israeli civilians would some day make its way to America. During the Cold War, people in the US and the former Soviet Union feared the horror that could come from an intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with an a-bomb. Little did we realize that there was a bomb that could be more fearsome than those contained in the nuclear arsenals of world superpowers. The modern phenomena of body bombs was first utilized by the Hezbollah terrorist organization against American troops in Beirut in 1983. Since its success against the US IN 1983, radical Islamic states in the Middle East saw the effectiveness of using body (human) bombs against Israel to gain leverage. This new human-weapon system was contracted out to terrorist command and control units. By combining the radical Jew-Christian hate filled sermons of fundamentalist Islamic Imams with the political machinery of the terrorist sponsoring States, the multi-pronged system of coordinated terror cells were born. Today, Damascus is the coordination center for twelve such terrorist networking systems. But any rational thinking human being must ponder how in the world that the terrorist supporting networks are able to keep recruiting new body bombs. When one stops to consider the fact that most of the world’s nuclear powers are limited in the stockpiles of their a-bombs, because of the requirements for enriched uranium, one must wonder how the terrorist cells are able to keep restocking their arsenal of b-bombs. You would think the terrorists would run out of “nut-cases” that would perpetrate such foolish acts. What drives people to volunteer to become a body-bomb on behalf of a political ideology? Well, the truth of the matter is that the inventory of b-bombs is being replenished through the name of religion. (Islam) The Islamic clerics constantly brainwash their populace with hate-filled rhetoric that stems from a demonically inspired hatred for Israel. But that hatred is more deep-rooted than just being the spirit of Anti-Semitism. It is rooted in a hatred for God! Jehovah God says: (Proverbs 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.) The Islamic clerics are able to inspire hatred in its constituency because the god of fundamentalist Islam is in reality none other than Lucifer. It is in fact Satan that inspires people to love death! Hating Israel is a by-product of hating the god of Israel, and that hatred is the ideology that fuels anti-Semitism and leads poor misguided souls to loving death at the inspiration of Allah. It is a truth, all that hate God, love death! FOJ urges the enslaved Arabic peoples of the Middle East (being subjected to religious propaganda and totalitarian submission) to cast off the hatred of Allah and seek eternal life through Jesus Christ.


Going-it-Alone in the War on Terror?

Oct. 4….(FOJ) Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry slandered President Bush in the 1st debate last week for adopting the go-it-alone mentality in the war on terror. The Senator lamented that the US is basically having to fight alone, and that the President should have recruited some friends and allies to help us fight the enemy. He remarked more than once that America is putting 90% of the war cost and suffering 90% of the casualties. Well, as I recall, President Bush went before the UN General Assembly and challenged that world institution to step up the plate and oppose terrorism. The President requested help from our allies, and our allies simply refused to help. It is a fact of recent history that there wouldn’t even be a free France or Germany had it not been for the stand-up willpower of the United States. It is all too apparent that most of the Democratic countries in the world would rather try the humanistic appeasement and world unification approach in dealing with terrorism. Most of the secular socialist politicians in the free world today would actually prefer an America that is conformist towards a world government, and wish that America would subject itself to Mr. Kerry’s Global Test when acting militarily. But the USA does not really need a coalition of allies to help us see victory. Of a truth it is that there is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. As Patrick Henry said; “The battle is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, and the brave. Patrick Henry concluded his famous remarks with a line that is suitable for our time again today, “Almighty God, I know not what course others (prospective allies) may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" God almighty is the grantor of liberty. President Bush recently stated that liberty and freedom are not America’s gift to the world, but rather they are the gifts of the Almighty. He was absolutely right, for it was God Almighty who was America’s number one ally in those battles that brought liberty to America. I pray that America will remember that we need God in today’s struggle, and that we needn’t be overly concerned with what the Globalists think. America simply needs to repent and acknowledge God once again, and then we would have the best ally that anyone could get.



The Debate Shows There’s Trouble Ahead


Oct. 1….(FOJ) Today, while political pundits and partisans are analyzing the Presidential debate, and deciding which candidate did whatever better, I am more concerned about the fate of the United States at this extremely critical point in history. As a Bible prophecy ministry, I viewed the debate, not from a political perspective, but from a perspective that looks for insights into how the selection that our country makes in this election will shape America’s role in end-time events. John Kerry slammed President Bush for taking the United States into war in Iraq without enough global support, while President Bush said he doesn't need a permission slip from the rest of the world to protect America and its interests. But the prophecy concern of the debate concerns the topic of nuclear proliferation. As I continue to evaluate the world situation today, it is clear that certain rogue States acquiring nuclear weapons is a grave matter. Added to the fact that these same States (axis of evil and others) are the sponsors of world-wide terror, and that they are sworn to Israel’s destruction, it reflects the fact that our world is headed for perilous times. These perilous times will in turn set the stage for the sudden rise of the Antichrist. The Antichrist will likely be able to craft some sort of alliance to shield the world from the threat posed by these horrible weapons of mass destruction. Both candidates explicitly said that their Number 1 concern for the country right now is proliferation. President Bush specified that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists was his utmost worry. Bush also noted that his administration has upheld the doctrine that those countries that harbor terrorists are just as guilty as the terrorists themselves, and that is without a doubt the absolute truth. In fact, some of these rogue states will compel the superpowers into the final conflict in the Middle East. Mr. Kerry said the President should have the authority to launch preemptive strikes if he sees a threat to national security, "but that if and when you do it, you've got to do it in a way that passes a Global test, and that you have to acquire UN sanctioned legitimate reasons for action." (The Ten Kings of the Tribulation era would agree with that assessment for they will actually establish the Global authority for that very job ) President Bush took issue with that, saying the United States shouldn't have to pass any "global test" and get approval to protect itself. I couldn’t help but look ahead in Bible prophecy, and take note that our world, and our nation is headed directly toward a showdown that will climax in the rise of the Antichrist, and lead to the Armageddon scenario. The debate ended on the subject of nuclear proliferation and the nations of North Korea and Iran’s drive to acquire those weapons. It is clear to me that trouble is looming, no matter who is elected. Ironically, everything today is coming to pass just as the Bible indicated it would. How I wish our politicians understood Bible prophecy!


Marriage Protection Rejected by House

Oct. 1….(World Net Daily) A constitutional amendment that would clearly define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman was defeated in the US House of Representatives last night as it fell 49 votes short of the two-thirds needed. The House vote was 227-186. "God created Adam and Eve, He didn't create Adam and Steve," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., on behalf of a measure that supporters said was designed to protect an institution as old as civilization itself. Democrats countered that Republicans were motivated by election-year politics as much as anything, particularly since a Senate vote this year ended any immediate chance the amendment could be sent to the states for ratification. President Bush has issued a statement expressing disappointment with the vote's outcome. The President said, "Because activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of the country, we must remain vigilant in defending traditional marriage."

Share this page with your friends.

October 2004 September 2004
August 2004 July 2004 June 2004
May 2004 April 2004 March 2004
February 2004 January 2004 December 2003
November 2003 October 2003 September 2003
August 2003 July 2003 June 2003
May 2003 April 2003 March 2003
February 2003 January 2003 December 2002
November, 2002 October 2002 September 2002
August 2002 July 2002 June 2002
May 2002 April 2002 March 2002
February 2002 January 2002 December 2001
November 2001 October 2001 September 2001
August 2001 July 2001 June 2001
May 2001 April 2001 March 2001
February 2001 January 2001 December 2000
November 2000 October 2000 September 2000

Home Email Library

Links Study Grace

Map Introduction Articles

Subscribe Webmaster Book Room

About this Ministry

questions and answers


Site Meter