The Lion of Judah
Volume IX, Issue 2
December 2004

Tidings of Great Joy

By Dr. J. Harold Smith
(December 1954)

"Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:10-11)

What an occasion for a great royal celebration on that day of all days when Jesus was born on the day we call our first Christmas Day. He was God's "unspeakable gift" (II Corinthians 9:15), and "his only begotten Son" (John 3:16). There was no celebration on the earth, not knowing the need of a Redeemer, but angels celebrated the event in Heaven.

When the angel announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds who were watching their flocks, then "suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (Luke 2:13-14) There were Wise Men from the East who were guided by a star to the place where Jesus was, and "they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. and worshiped him." (Matthew 2:10-11)

The New Testament tells us that the birth of Jesus was a great mystery, as He was "God … manifest in the flesh." (I Timothy 3:16) It also tells us that the "world by wisdom knew not God." (I Corinthians 1::21) We don't need more worldly wisdom to believe and receive the good tidings of great joy.

The mission of the Lord to this world was foreshadowed in a thousand forms in the types and symbols of the Old Testament, and all the Prophets spoke of Him. One of Jeremiah's prophecies read, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." (Isaiah 61:1-2) After Jesus began His public ministry, He returned to Nazareth where He had been raised, and as was His custom, went into the synagogue on the Sabbath Day, stood up and said, "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." (Luke 4:18-21)

What good tidings of great joy were foretold and fulfilled by the Lord, who was born, died, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven to be our representative there, to intercede for us. What this world needs more than anything else on this Christmas Day is Jesus Christ. He saves from sin….no other can; He saves from fear and makes your burdens lighter, and heals your broken heart. "He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds." (Psalms 147:3)

Friends, He is extending His loving hand of sympathy and compassion to you to save you from sin, to love and befriend you. In the good "tidings of great joy" we have a Saviour who has proven in the lives of countless millions, that He satisfies all the cravings of the human heart.

If you will accept your Saviour by simple faith, He will meet your every need. Then, and only then, you will have a most blessed and joyful Christmas.

Your Good Neighbor
P O Box 99
Newport TN 37822-0099
(423) 623-3400

The Way Back To A Free Press

The old days of lockstep print

and TV news are gone forever

By Joseph Farah

www.worldnetdaily.com

"STOP the presses!"

You've seen newspaper editors shout that phrase in old movies when a big story was breaking.

I'm not sure, but "Lou Grant" may have said it in the old TV series about a newspaper city editor in Los Angeles.

I never was a newspaper editor on television or in the movies, but I did play one in real-life.

I'm one of only a handful of people in the United States who have actually said "Stop the presses!" and meant it. I was fortunate enough to have served as a top daily newspaper editor in the old days when breaking news meant just that – stopping the presses, replating and getting breaking news out to people on newsprint.

In fact, I even helped coach actor Ed Asner and the rest of the cast of the "Lou Grant" TV show on what it was like working in a real-life big-city newspaper.

It's all different today. Few people anywhere get newspapers for breaking news. We get breaking news from television, radio and the Internet. Newspapers can still provide context, details, analysis, features, enterprise reporting, investigative reporting and so on, but even today's newspaper executives would agree the place to break news is on their Internet sites. That's where people turn for the latest news.

Back in 1997, I threw my lot in with the Internet. I saw in this new medium the chance to reinvent the American news media, to reform it, to do the job right, to recapture the spirit and purpose and ideals of the free press. My vision was to utilize this new technology to reinvigorate and revitalize the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty, an exponent of truth and justice, an uncompromising disseminator of news.

I believed – and still believe – that the "mainstream," corporate, establishment press lost its vision, lost its way.

It no longer understood its historic, unique and still-vital mission.

What is the purpose of a free press in a free society?

Had I asked that question of the grizzled, veteran newsmen I knew when I began my professional career in newspapers 25 or 30 years ago, I believe many of them could have answered the question correctly. And, yes, there is a correct answer.

"The central mission of a free press in a free society is to serve as a watchdog on government."

That's why the founding fathers of this great nation included in the First Amendment special protections for the press. They understood the vital role the free flow of information plays in an open, self-governing society. The founders believed in checks and balances on the potentially tyrannical power of government. They were all-too familiar with the heavy hand of unaccountable government and they wanted no part of creating a new one.

The free press, they understood, was another layer of the checks and balances they had devised in the new government. That's why the American press is still often referred to as the Fourth Estate. The separation of powers between the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch of government was to keep the federal government off balance, so that its terrible power could not be concentrated in one man or one group of men. And the press, an independent, non-government "estate" would be there to watchdog the first three estates.

But this well-conceived, well-devised system got broken – as many of the founders expected it would as time went by.

As the nation grew and power became more concentrated in Washington, the free press acted less like the vigilant watchdog and more often like a lapdog of government.

I saw this happen in my lifetime. And just as political power became more concentrated in Washington, media power became more concentrated in the hands of a few major corporations – corporations that sought the favor of government at least as often as they sought to check its power.

In a very real sense, today the nation's political, cultural and spiritual health is affected by a strange new beast the founders could never have envisioned – the government-media complex.

Rather than functioning as natural adversaries, today the press more often acts as a kind of public-relations arm of the government – promoting big-government solutions to problems real and imaginary.

It was with the recognition of this fundamental flaw in the institution of the press that I set out to correct the course of the news media – not by criticizing my colleagues, not by throwing stones, not by educating them through seminars, but by doing the job better – leading by example.

Oh, you'd never know it to listen to the Old Media stalwarts. I had to laugh when I read an account of a speech delivered at the University of Oregon recently by Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll.

Carroll says the media industry has been infested by the rise of pseudo-journalists who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information. He's right. Let me name a few of the offenders:

Shall I continue?

Need I continue?

"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

Carroll was too busy noticing the speck in the eye of news organizations like Fox News Channel to be concerned about the beam in the eye of his own.

Carroll works in an office that looks like a newsroom. But the spirit is dead. They call the L.A. Times newsroom the Velvet Coffin for a reason.

Carroll had some advice for student journalists in Oregon: "Don't be a piano player in a *****house."

Let me tell you something: I'm doing what I do today at WorldNetDaily, reinventing and redefining the role of journalism in America, because I didn't want to play the piano in the *****house. To me, that meant working at the L.A. Times or Washington Post. That's what would have been left for me if I hadn't founded WorldNetDaily and the magazine, Whistleblower.

Carroll showed he is one more elite member of the media who doesn't even remember what the mission of the press is. He doesn't have a clue as to the principal role of a free press in a free society. Though he's old enough, he can't recall the main purpose of American journalism.

It's not just about dispensing "accurate information," though the L.A. Times has enough trouble with that mission.

The proper role of a free press in a free society, as I said, is to serve as a watchdog on government – to expose corruption, fraud, waste and abuse wherever it is found, but especially in the public sector.

If this sounds familiar to you, it is because I keep repeating this important fact, this vital information key to taking back the news media in this country.

Do you remember the days when the press believed its highest calling was to serve as a vigilant watchdog on government fraud, waste, abuse and corruption?

I remember. Those days are long gone.

Today, too many in the media – Dan Rather and CBS News among them – apparently see their primary mission as bringing as much of American private life as possible under the realm of government control.

Take the CBS report recently on homeschooling, for example.

The two-part report, "The Dark Side of Homeschooling," focused on a handful of child-abuse cases from the past decade.

In his introduction .to the report, Rather intoned a ominously:

Rather introduced the next night's segment by again noting "homeschooling is largely unregulated."

The CBS investigation, he said, "reports how some children have suffered abuse – and much worse – while no one was watching."

CBS better be careful, or the network may find no one watching Dan Rather, either.

This isn't just an example of biased, slanted, ideologically distorted media at work. It's an illustration of the way the media have forgotten their mission – to watchdog government, the gravest threat to freedom in any society.

CBS and other establishment news organs now seem to think their primary job is to create imaginary crises – like homeschoolers losing their lives because of abusive parents – and lay the groundwork for a solution imposed by more intrusive, more costly, more pervasive government regulations.

When was the last time CBS did an exposé on abuse in the government schools?

Some people say America's government schools are performing so badly and miseducating children so profoundly that the dumbing-down process must be part of a deliberate conspiracy.

I've been saying it for years.

The American news media have lost their way.

As I said, this publication and its parent company were launched because of my observation that the press had lost its sense of mission.

And although I doubt 1 percent of reporters and editors in this country have any clue about the primary role of a free press in a free society, now there is empirical data to support my anecdotal theory.

The Council for Excellence in Government published findings of a mammoth study, "Government: In and Out of the News."

The study found there is far less news about the federal government than there used to be on the evening news broadcasts, as well as on the front pages of the national and regional newspapers. In addition, news reporting on the federal government tends, the study found, to be focused on the executive branch.

The report examined more than 400 hours of airtime on the three major television network evening news shows and more than 13,000 front-page stories during the first year of three presidential administrations – Reagan, Clinton and George W Bush. The number of stories touching on the federal government dropped by 31 percent on TV news, by 12 percent in the national print press (New York Times and Washington Post) and by 39 percent in the four regional newspapers analyzed (Austin American Statesman, Des Moines Register, San Jose Mercury and the St. Petersburg Times.)

The drop in government coverage would have been even more profound if it were not for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the report notes, the media were on track to produce more than 40 percent less government coverage than they carried 20 years ago.

Now, what's the problem with all this?

The problem is this drop in coverage is further substantiation of my theory that the news media have forgotten their mission to serve as a watchdog on government.

The answer to the institutional problems in the press is not more "fair and balanced" reporting. It's not more "conservative" media. The answer is to return journalism to its roots – to reawaken the press to its vital role in a free society.

It's time to remember who we are. We're watchdogs.

The good news is that technology can be our friend in the goal of revitalizing the free press in America.

Technology can either enslave us or help us find our way back to freedom.

Just as the printing press represented a quantum leap forward in the dissemination and accumulation of popular information and real knowledge, the New Media can create a similar – and even greater – knowledge explosion.

Smarter people who are equipped to rediscover the great moral truths of the ages, who can hold their elected officials accountable, who can read and write and follow directions, who can take care of themselves and their families without depending on government wealth redistribution schemes or corporate babysitting programs – this is the stuff that will truly permit freedom to abound in America again.

Imagine every person having immediate access to the greatest collection of knowledge and wisdom ever accumulated. How about the greatest sermons? That's possible today with the advent of the Internet.

Think about it.

I believe the answer to ending the government school crisis is to provide parents with alternatives. With the Internet and the broadband technology that will soon be offering people lots of other entertainment and news choices, we need to be prepared to offer them real education, real knowledge – not just babysitting.

We have recordings today of some of the greatest teachers who ever lived. Their work can be digitized and made available to people to view on their computer screens. All of the great textual works ever created can likewise be available at the click of a mouse. And, quite literally, as that TV commercial suggested, every movie ever made can be accessed any time by anyone.

Think about this. The telephone network is designed to carry human voice communication at about 55 bits per second. That is a very small bandwidth connection over a long period of time. Computers on the other hand, need a huge bandwidth for millisecond bursts of bits.

Computer networks transmit digital data at a minimal rate of some 10 million bits per second, going up to 155 million bits per second.

Already, about 50 percent of the bits in the telephone network are data. The network cannot survive the coming onslaught of data traffic.

Television, as we have come to know it, cannot compete with the interactive capabilities offered by computers.

Thus television and the telephone system cannot survive the bandwidth revolution. Bandwidth will no longer be scarce. It will be abundant. What does broadband mean? Let me illustrate. Using current fiber-optic technology, you could send the entire Library of Congress over one fiber the width of a human hair, in 24 hours. Using our current telephone wire technology – the most advanced – it would take 500 years to transmit the same information. As a matter of fact, you could never send it, because it would be growing faster than you could send it.

It's all coming. Out with the old, in with the new. Technology can't save us unless those harnessing it understand how the mission of the free press was betrayed.

But now you know.

Now I know.

Now millions of Americans are beginning to understand what makes a free press free.

Now there are alternatives, and people are choosing those alternatives.

More choices. More competition. More voices. That's how we will take back the media. It's already happening. There's no stopping it now.v

Joseph Farah is founder, CEO and editor of WorldNetDaily.com
and Whistleblower magazine, and may be reached at jfarah@wnd.com

Ban Truth – Reap Tyranny

By Berit Kjos

Revised December 1, 2004

www.crossroad.to

"It is a sad day in our country when the moral foundation of our law and the acknowledgment of God has to be hidden from public view to appease a federal judge"1 Alabama's former Chief Justice Roy Moore

"Whereas... both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God... I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be …."2 George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789

"If we will not be governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn, January 3, 1701

"My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out of cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." Jeremiah 2:13

Once again history repeats itself. Like ancient Israel, America has gradually been turning its back to God. While Christians from coast to coast were awakened by Judge Roy Moore's call for a return to religious freedom and Constitutional integrity, their minority response will hardly untangle the roots of anti-Christian socialism now imbedded in our government and civil society.

Do you wonder why US leaders would ban God's universal guidelines for law and order, then choose social philosophies that turn our God-given personal "rights" into the impersonal "rights" of the "greater whole"? Why would they trade our heritage of freedom for oppressive restrictions and unconstitutional limitations on free speech? And why would a federal judge in Alabama ban a stone replica of the Ten Commandments but permit the purchase (using federal funds) of a pagan statue honoring Themis, the Greek goddess of law?

Actually, in light of history, these paradoxes make some sense. As our nation bans truth and forgets God's Word, it weakens both discernment and resistance to the flood of spiritual and social alternatives. Craving thrills more than truth, the majority will barely notice the change. That's one reason why the National Park service dared to name some of the Grand Canyon's majestic formations after Hindu gods, then ban the small Scripture plaques that praised God for the beauty of His creation.3

Do you doubt this is happening? Then take a look at the following trends and events. They point to a sobering reality which America, like ancient Israel, prefers to ignore.

1. Basing legal opinions on UN and European models. Dissatisfied with American law and values, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently announced that "The Supreme Court is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and gay rights."4

Justice Breyer went a step further. "The world is growing together through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America. It is becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people ... And whether our constitution fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think, will be a challenge for the next generation."5

Nothing will undermine American values, freedom and sovereignty faster than reframing our Constitution by the dimming light of European values and global ideology. The following headlines – from 2001 through August, 2003 – give a short glimpse of the natural course America has chosen to follow:

France Passes Controversial Anti-Cult Law: "Courts can dissolve religious groups and impose heavy fines.... ‘[I]f we want to have children's church, Sunday school, that can be seen as influencing minors. If we do work for old people, it's preying on the vulnerable."

Sweden Moves to Criminalize Opposition to Homosexuality: "That means people coming from (the homosexual) lobby group could sit in our churches having on the tape recorder and listen to somebody and say, ‘What you're saying now is against our constitution.' ...the real intent is to criminalize Christianity."

Free speech falls prey to ‘human rights': "...there was Toronto printer Scott Brockie, hauled before our version of the Inquisition – a human rights tribunal – and fined for turning down printing business from homosexual activists. And the case of the Christian couple in Prince Edward Island who shut down their bed and breakfast rather than be forced to condone homosexual acts under their own roof."

The Bible as ‘hate literature'? "A prison sentence for quoting the Bible in Canada? Holy Scriptures treated as ‘hate literature'?"

Advocating for religious freedom: "The government of Belarus is presently considering introducing a highly restrictive religion law that would drive Belarus back into Soviet era oppression, crippling the numerous small Protestant evangelical and non-traditional groups."

Will the Bible be banned in America?: "An extremely disturbing precedent has been set in Canada that homosexual activists in the U.S. are trying to duplicate. According to a December 2001 decision by a Saskatchewan court of appeals, the Bible is hate literature if it is quoted verbatim and in context when it is used to condemn homosexuality as sin..."

U.N, group in ‘showdown with religion': "At a forum Monday, attended briefly by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, panel members singled out Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants as opponents.... Princeton University professor Anthony Appiah, wondered whether or not religion should be limited, as it poses a ‘challenge' to the homosexual agenda..."

California's Omnibus Hate Crimes Act of 2004: "It is clear that this bill [signed into law September 22, 2004] is intended to punish those who speak out in defense of the pre-born as well as restrict the rights of persons to speak out against homosexuality.... Why are crimes against certain people or classes of people more deserving of stronger punishment than the same crimes committed against persons or classes of persons that do not fit into the designated ‘hate-victim' list [which lists "anti-reproductive rights crimes, gender-bias crimes, anti-immigrant crimes, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic crimes and...actual or perceived homelessness]? Are their lives of less importance? Isn't this tantamount to legal discrimination?

Did you notice the "new" views of right or wrong? Our world can't tolerate the old Biblical laws that identify certain behaviors as sin and certain beliefs as incompatible with Christian faith. Offended by the truth, it bans the convictions that once gave rise to social order and prosperity. Its new systems leave no room for an uncompromising moral standard which can't be conformed to man's shortsighted vision of the 21st century community. [Isaiah 5:20]

2. Thrashing the Ten Commandments. Thank God for Judge Moore who dared to stand against the corrupt establishment. "The people of this state elected me," he said, "to uphold our constitution, which establishes our justice system, evoking the ‘favor and guidance' of Almighty God. To do my duty, I must acknowledge God."'6

Later, in his Wall Street Journal article, "In God I Trust," Judge Moore clarified his position:

Our founding fathers – Deists and Unitarians as well as Christians – never intended to ban the Ten Commandments from public places. They viewed this "Decalogue" as universal law, essential to peace and order in the new Constitutional Republic. Constitutional lawyer John Eidsmoe explained it well. In "The Decalogue: Cornerstone of Jurisprudence," he writes:

"Judge Thompson holds court in the Federal Courthouse, a few blocks away from the Alabama State Judicial Building. In front of the Federal Courthouse, standing by itself, is a sculpture of Themis, the Greek goddess of law and justice... Judge Thompson utterly ignored this fact in his ruling. These two monuments – The Ten Commandments in the Alabama State Judicial Building, and the image of Themis in front of the Federal Courthouse – capsulize the real controversy in this case. Will we be governed by the values of the Ten Commandments as represented by Chief Justice Moore's monument, or by the values of paganism and statism as symbolized by Themis at the Federal Courthouse?"8

I hope you and I will choose God's law. After all, He enables us to fulfill it. But contrary forces are driving our nation toward less merciful lawgivers. And a new generation has learned to see both our Constitution and His Word as malleable documents easily adapted to fit our changing times.

3. Re-learning in government schools. Alabama's judicial building is not the only public property in the state to be purged of God's laws. Schools faced the same fate. Across the country, they are shutting their doors to all signs of Christianity. Consider these examples:

These orders to hide God's truth and ignore His values fit into a tragic timeline summarized in our Chronology of Education. But behind the education establishment stands a vast network that joins the media, civil society, socialist organizations and rich foundations together in a common crusade: to transform everything we have treasured about America.

4. Betraying our nation and deceiving the people. In the frontlines of this battle stands the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). From the beginning it has supported any group or activity that would help undermine Christian values. Controversial issues such as pornography, homosexuality, pedophilia and abortion for minors fit right into its agenda.

Small wonder! Its founder, Roger Baldwin, was a committed Communist. He followed the revolutionary blueprint written by Antonio Gramsci. This influential Communist leader warned his comrades that to win America, they must eradicate Biblical values as a social force. Their Marxist goals would be met, not by violent revolution, but by infiltration into all the main social institutions: the media, schools, government, churches and civil society. All must be enticed into the dialectic process, learn to think collectively and set aside obstacles such as absolute truth.

"The transformational Marxists," writes Detective Phillip Worts," advocated a ‘slow march through the institutions,' as famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci would say.... The Gramsci Strategy is the ‘War of Position', (i.e. the battle ground is for the mind and culture) vs. the "War of Maneuver", (i.e. traditional battlefield warfare with guns and bombs)."9

It matches the ACLU strategy: Gradualism. Point by point as in a chess game, you weaken, then block the opposition forces. Today, as the majority of Americans have yielded either to political correctness or to blinding trivia, that destination comes closer and closer. "The Betrayal at the Top: The Record of the American Civil Liberties Union," summarizes both the heart and the goal of the ACLU:

Social changes pushed by the ACLU have lured millions away from God. As truth fades from our common language, the vacuum is being filled with a wide assortment of sensual, spiritual and occult thrills – many of which can easily be adapted to UNESCO's Declaration on the role of religion in a Culture of Peace. They help break down public resistance to an envisioned unifying spirituality and to the new management systems which steer churches as well as governments and corporations toward the planned solidarity.

As management guru Peter Drucker observed, "there is a substantial critical mass of people and churches that are already moving." ...While acknowledging that there are still many unhealthy churches, there is a justified change in basic premises, basic attitudes, basic mind set... on the whole, we are on the march…."11

5. A global spirituality.

Leading the quest for an official union of world religions under the wings of the United Nations are two men, each pushing their own self-styled distortion of Christianity. You can read about Episcopal Bishop Swing, founder of the United Religions Initiative, in "Heresy in high places." Swing's competitor is the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, owner of the Washington Times and countless other organizations that have blended into conservative politics and global leadership training. The two fit together.

Like an octopus reaching its tentacles in all directions, Rev. Moon seeks to identify with the Christian community as well as with liberal and global institutions. As he gains power and buys influence in high places, his hostility toward genuine Christianity becomes increasingly apparent. In a recent speech promoting his Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace, he exposed his horrendous distortion of the Bible and of God's purposes:

But an article titled "Christian Churches Should Stop Using the Cross" shows Rev. Moon's hostility toward the heart of the Christian gospel:

Moon may be blind to the gospel, but he is right about one thing. The cross is a barrier. Jesus alone gave His life for His people and opened the door to His eternity. The cross separates those who accept His gift of salvation from all others. But if we truly care about others, we will lovingly reach across that barrier with the whole truth, not hide or ignore "the offense of the cross."

6. The only safe position.

Today's social changes would sadden, but not surprise George Washington, the first President of the United States. Back in the 1790s, He knew well that the newly established republic would face opposition. Long before transformational Marxists such as Gramsci, Gorbachev and Roger Baldwin came on the scene; he anticipated their subversive tactics. Long before schools or the ACLU began their crusade to cleanse truth from our land, he warned us that resisters could face persecution.

Where did he gain such insight? From the Bible. It is full of illustrations that highlight the unchanging ways of human nature and the conspiracies of foolish men who try to sabotage God's wise plans. Sobered by these realities, Washington offered some timely warnings in his 1796 Farewell Address:

By "religion," Washington meant Christianity. He read God's Word, he counted on His promises and he feared the devastating consequences of rejecting the sovereign Ruler of the universe. So at his 1789 inauguration, he placed his hand on a Bible opened to Deuteronomy 28. That amazing chapter brings warnings America would do well to heed today:

Does that promise remind you of America? Its long list of wonderful blessings show the kinds of favors God showered on our nation as well as on ancient Israel. But verse 15 begins a parallel list of consequences for those who reject His ways.

"But...if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments.... that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you… The Lord will strike you with consumption, with fever, with inflammation, with severe burning fever, with the sword, with scorching, and with mildew… The Lord will change the rain of your land to powder and dust....The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies…

"A nation whom you have not known shall eat the fruit of your land and the produce of your labor... Locusts shall consume all your trees and the produce of your land.... The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.... Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart...."(Deuteronomy 28:47-48)

Could this downward slide to poverty, plagues and servitude be the final page in the history of this blessed nation? Yes, it could – if we, like ancient Israel, refuse to turn back and acknowledge God's sovereignty.

For our God reigns – whether people believe Him or not. And His warnings to nations are as relevant today as they were over two thousand years ago when Israel traded His protection for the futile promise of capricious pagan gods. It led to disaster, as it will for America if we continue on this path:

"Now all these things happened to them [paganized Israel] as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 1 Corinthians 10:11

The world government prophesied in Revelation 13 is no longer a distant dream; it's taking shape right before our eyes. For our children and grandchildren's sake – and for the glory our Lord and Redeemer for whom nothing is impossible, let us pray that America wakes up and takes this promise to heart:

"If My people who are called by my name will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14-15 v

Endnotes:

1. Jeffrey Gettleman, "Monument is Now Out of Sight, but Not Out of Mind," New York Times, 8-28-2003.

2. George Washington, Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789, www.crossroad.to/text/articles/Thanksgiving.html

3. "Bible verses out at Canyon," http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0714canyonbible14.html

4. Gina Holland, "Ginsburg: Int'l Law Shaped Court Rulings," Associated Press, Aug 2, 2003.

5."Justice: Can Constitution make it in global age?, WND, July 7, 2003, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33444. See also From U.S. Sovereignty to Global Conformity.

6. Judge Moore Undeterred by Ten Commandments Battle Setbacks, http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/222003a.asp

7. Judge Roy Moore, "In God I Trust," Wall Street Journal, 25 August 2003.

8. John Eidsmoe, "The Decalogue: Cornerstone of Jurisprudence,"

http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/2003feb/eidsmoe.shtml

9. Detective Phillip Worts, Community Policing, www.crossroad.to/articles2/Community-Policing.htm

10. William H. McIlhany, "The Betrayal at the Top: The Record of the American Civil Liberties Union." http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1777/aclu.htm

11."Peter Drucker on the Church and Denominations." This pdf file is posted on the Leadership Network website at http://www.leadnet.org/allthingsin/archives/netfax/1.pdf

12. Rev. Sun Myung Moon, "God's Fatherland and the One World," September 21, 2002. Toward an Interreligious Council at the United Nations, http://www.truthtrek.net/religion/rev_moon.htm. Scroll down to this conference and notice the horrendous lies in the speech by Sun Myung Moon – owner of the Washington Times and countless other influential organizations.

13. Christian Churches Should Stop Using the Cross, [Moon] Group Says

14. Washington's Farewell Address, www.crossroad.to\text\articles\WashingtonFarewell.html

The name, American Civil Liberties Union, is at best a misnomer. More accurately, ACLU means Assault Christian Liberties Unmercifully.

The ACLU works consistently, and all too successfully, to rewrite America's history. As Karl Marx said, "If I can steal their history, I can steal their country."

The ACLU is attempting to steal our Judeo-Christian history so it can steal our country.

--An excerpt from Rein in the ACLU by Phil Kent

www.washingtontimes.com

Terrorists Off-limits, but Christians Fair Game

By Brian Yates

www.loupatriot.com

The faculty at UC Berkeley has a set of guidelines designed to keep professors from pushing their personal agenda on students. These guidelines were established to keep the campus from becoming a sanctuary for communist professors. Teaching should "stick to the logic of the facts." This policy was largely forgotten until recently when a course catalogue for a "Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance" class warned that "conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections."

This type of agenda is to be expected at Berkeley; I doubt too many of you are surprised. It's somewhat less expected; however, here at U. of L.

While "Social Stratification" sounds somewhat less threatening than the Arafat lovefest mentioned above, and its course description neglects to warn students of any political persuasion to "enter at your own risk," the lack of tolerance for conservative opinion is no less prevalent.

The Thursday following President Bush's resounding reelection, K. C. Martin walked into a class discussion of the election among the students and her professor, Dr. John McTighe. With much of the class upset over the outcome, one student asked how we managed to reelect "such an idiot" president.

Many exit polls suggested that voters considering morals made up a significant part of President Bush's voting block. Dr. McTighe took this one step further when he said, "It was the religious zealots who say they are voting on morals. I think we should all buy AK47's and shoot them all! That's what I would suggest, if it were allowed."

McTighe saw no problem with making this type of statement in class because apparently he felt among friends. According to Martin, "on several occasions the teacher [McTighe] said we were all liberals, so he probably assumed it was okay to bash Republicans."

Understandably, Martin was upset: "I was offended that he would say such a thing...he has no idea what I believe. I don't think that gives him the right to assume every student is a liberal and he can say whatever he wants."

McTighe contends that he qualified his outrageous comments by saying "Yes, I'm being sarcastic," and that while he does believe "religious zealots" were partly responsible for the president's reelection, his reference to guns came while discussing the "implications of a widely perceived connection between fervent religious beliefs and support for gun ownership." Not to get off the subject here, but maybe this "widely perceived connection" could be more that people who support the First Amendment also just happen to support the Second Amendment as well. You know, all those nuts who actually believe in upholding the Constitution.

McTighe told university officials that he said people should buy a weapon to protect themselves from those in the gun ownership movement. (Note: it's not a movement; it's a constitutionally-protected right.) He may as well have claimed that he was suffering from "post-election selection trauma" and knew not what he was telling his class.

The scorn of all of us professing to believe in God is clear in McTighe's obscene remarks to his sociology class. The reason for this is simple: liberals feel threatened by God. Op-ed pages across the country were echoing with shouts that voters making decisions based on their morals is bad for America. It's not bad for America; it's bad for liberals.

Let's put this in perspective here: liberals have spent the last three years whining about the need to protect the rights of terrorists. Remember the uproar over classifying detainees at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants? We were told that we should have more concern for the rights of terrorists. What about giving Saddam the death penalty? Oh, how inhuman! Liberals won't allow us to shoot terrorists and murdering dictators, but if you believe in God, not only should you be shot, but they want to use an assault weapon.

Many of you are probably incensed at McTighe's words right now; however, I'm prepared to let him off the hook. He's understandably upset following a difficult election. He is in luck though; the American Health Association is offering free counseling for those afflicted with Post-Election Selection Trauma. He seems to be in dire need.

Brian P. Yates is a junior majoring in accounting and the Publisher of the Louisville Patriot. You can email Mr. Yates at byates@loupatriot.com

Nothing to Hide,
Nothing to Fear

The United States is now leading Europe and the rest of the world into a new age of surveillance. In the wake of 9/11, America has produced security technologies from data mining at airports to biometrics for U.S. visitors – that are being exported and adopted across the globe. But while America's libertarian, antigovernment culture may help protect its citizens from the worst excesses of government surveillance, Europeans may not be so lucky.

The British public, with its instinctive trust of government has proved indifferent to the mission creep. More concerned about feeling safe than being safe, it is unmoved by the government's own studies, which suggest that the proliferation of surveillance cameras has had "no effect on violent crime" or terrorism.

European attitudes toward privacy vary widely, but Western Europeans tend in general to be less suspicious of centralized government authority than Americans are. When the United States announced the US-VISIT program, which will require all foreigners visiting America to be fingerprinted, photographed and placed in a biometric database, there was no official protest from France and Germany; both countries are already planning to fingerprint visa applicants. Brazil, by contrast, retaliated by fingerprinting U.S. visitors.

Europe's greater deference to government authority led countries like Germany and Britain to adopt surveillance measures after 9/11 that in some ways went further than the USA Patriot Act. In 2002, for example, Germany adopted a law that authorized the government to create a central database with personal information about foreigners, including fingerprints and religious background. The law also made it legal for German national ID cards to include biometric data, such as fingerprints. And it explicitly endorsed data mining on a broad scale, requiring government agencies to turn over personal data to the federal police.

In Britain, which is even less suspicious of government surveillance than Germany because of its difference experience with fascism and communism, the increase in surveillance powers has been even more dramatic. Anti-terrorism laws passed in 2000 and 2001 allow constables to arrest without a warrant anyone they suspect of being a terrorist. They can hold suspects for 48 hours without allowing access to a lawyer. They can also fingerprint, photograph and search suspects for distinctive body marks without their consent. And any noncitizen the government designates as a suspected international terrorist can be indefinitely detained without trial. [Newsweek (European Edition), 6 March 2004 p. 51] as reported in Midnight Call, P O Box 280008, Columbia SC 29228

What is RFID?

RFID stands for Radio Frequency IDentification, a technology that uses tiny computer chips smaller than a grain of sand to track items at a distance. RFID "spy chips" have been hidden in the packaging of Gillette razor products and in other products you might buy at a local Wal-Mart, Target, or Tesco – and they are already being used to spy on people.

Each tiny chip is hooked up to an antenna that picks up electromagnetic energy beamed at it from a reader device. When it picks up the energy, the chip sends back its unique identification number to the reader device, allowing the item to be remotely identified. Spy chips can beam back information anywhere from a couple of inches to up to 20 or 30 feet away.

Some of the world's largest product manufacturers have been plotting behind closed doors since 1999 to develop and commercialize this technology. If they are not opposed, their plan is use these remote-readable spychips to replace the bar code.

RFID tags are NOT an "improved bar code" as the proponents of the technology would like you to believe. RFID technology differs from bar codes in three important ways:

1. With today's bar code technology, every can of Coke has the same UPC or bar code number as every other can (a can of Coke in Toronto has the same number as a can of Coke in Topeka). With RFID, each individual can of Coke would have a unique 10 number which could be linked to the person buying it when they scan a credit card or a frequent shopper card (i.e., an "item registration system").

2. Unlike a bar code, these chips can be read from a distance, right through your clothes, wallet, backpack or purse – without your knowledge or consent – by anybody with the right reader device. In a way, it gives strangers X-ray vision powers to spy on you, to identify both you and the things you're wearing and carrying.

3. Unlike the bar code, RFID could be bad for your health. RFID supporters envision a world where RFID reader devices are everywhere – in stores, in floors, in doorways, on airplanes – even in the refrigerators and medicine cabinets of our own homes. In such a world, we and our children would be continually bombarded with electromagnetic energy. Researchers do not know the long-term health effects of chronic exposure to the energy emitted by these reader devices.

Many huge corporations, including Philip Morris, Procter and Gamble, and Wal-Mart, have begun experimenting with RFID spy chip technology. Gillette is leading the pack, and recently placed an order for up to 500 million RFID tags from a company called "Alien Technology" (we kid you not). These big companies envision a day when every single product on the face of the planet is cataloged and tracked with RFID spychips!

As consumers we have no way of knowing which packages contain these chips. While some chips are visible inside a package, RFID chips can be well hidden. For example they can be sewn into the seams of clothes, sandwiched between layers of cardboard, molded into plastic or rubber, and integrated into consumer package design.

This technology is rapidly evolving and becoming more sophisticated. RFID spychips can even be printed, meaning the dot on a printed letter "i" could be used to track you. In addition, the tell-tale copper antennas commonly seen attached to RFID chips can now be printed with conductive ink, making them nearly imperceptible. Companies are even experimenting with making the product packages themselves serve as antennas.

It could soon be virtually impossible for a consumer to know whether a product or package contains an RFID spychip. [An overview from CASPIAN's Spychips website http://www.Spychips.com]

Government Uses Color Laser Printer
Technology to Track Documents

by Jason Tuohey, Medill News Service

WASHINGTON – Next time you make a printout from your color laser printer, shine an LED flashlight beam on it and examine it closely with a magnifying glass. You might be able to see the small, scattered yellow dots printer there that could be used to trace the document back to you.

According to experts, several printer companies quietly encode the serial number and the manufacturing code of their color laser printers and color copiers on every document those machines produce. Governments, including the United States, already use the hidden markings to track counterfeiters.

Peter Crean, a senior research fellow at Xerox, says his company's laser printers, copiers and multifunction workstations, such as its WorkCentre Pro series, put the "serial number of each machine coded in little yellow dots" in every printout. The millimeter-sized dots appear about every inch on a page, nestled within the printed words and margins.

"It's a trail back to you, like a license plate," Crean says.

The dots' minuscule size, covering less than one-thousandth of the page, along with their color combination of yellow on white, makes them invisible to the naked eye, Crean says. One way to determine if your color laser is applying this tracking process is to shine a blue LED light – say, from a keychain laser flashlight – on your page and use a magnifier.

Crime Fighting vs. Privacy

Laser-printing technology makes it incredibly easy to counterfeit money and documents, and Crean says the dots, in use in some printers for decades, allow law enforcement to identify and track down counterfeiters.

However, they could also be employed to track a document back to any person or business that printed it. Although the technology has existed for a long time, printer companies have not been required to notify customers of the feature.

Lorelei Pagano, a counterfeiting specialist with the U.S. Secret Service, stresses that the government uses the embedded serial numbers only when alerted to a forgery. "The only time any information is gained from these documents is purely in [the case of] a criminal act," she says.

John Morris, a lawyer for The Center for Democracy and Technology, says, "That type of assurance doesn't really assure me at all, unless there's some type of statute." He adds, "At a bare minimum, there needs to be a notice to consumers."

If the practice disturbs you, don't bother trying to disable the encoding mechanism – you'll probably just break your printer.

Crean describes the device as a chip located "way in the machine, right near the laser" that embeds the dots when the document "is about 20 billionths of a second" from printing.

"Standard mischief won't get you around it," Crean adds.

Neither Crean nor Pagano has an estimate of how many laser printers, copiers, and multifunction devices track documents, but they say that the practice is commonplace among major printer companies.

"The industry absolutely has been extraordinarily helpful [to law enforcement]," Pagano says.

According to Pagano, counterfeiting cases are brought to the Secret Service, which checks the documents, determines the brand and serial number of the printer, and contacts the company. Some, like Xerox, have a customer database, and they share the information with the government.

Crean says Xerox and the government have a good relationship. "The U.S. government had been on board all along – they would actually come out to our labs," Crean says.

History

Unlike ink jet printers, laser printers, fax machines, and copiers fire a laser through a mirror and series of lenses to embed the document or image on a page. Such devices range from a little over $100 to more than $1000, and are designed for both home and office.

Crean says Xerox pioneered this technology about 20 years ago, to assuage fears that their color copiers could easily be used to counterfeit bills.

"We developed the first (encoding mechanism) in house because several countries had expressed concern about allowing us to sell the printers in their country," Crean says. Since then, he says, many other companies have adopted the practice.

The United States is not the only country teaming with private industry to fight counterfeiters. A recent article points to the Dutch government as using similar anti-counterfeiting methods, and cites Canon as a company with encoding technology. Canon USA declined to comment. [http://news.yahoo.com]

From www.danielpipes.org

[Theo van Gogh and]

"Education by Murder"
in Holland

"Education by murder" describes the slow and painful way people wake up to the problem of radical Islam. It took 3,000 deaths to wake up Americans, or at least to wake up half of them who are conservative. Likewise, it took hundreds of deaths in the Bali explosion to semi-wake up Australians; it took the Madrid assault for Spaniards, and the Beslan atrocity for Russians. Twelve workers murdered in Iraq woke up the Nepalese.

But it took just one death to wake up many Dutch. Indeed, one gruesome killing may have done more to arouse the Netherlands than September 11, 2001, did for Americans.

The reason for this lies in the identity of the victim and the nature of the crime. He was Theo van Gogh, 47, a well-known radical libertarian, a filmmaker, television producer, talk show host, newspaper columnist, and all-around mischief-maker who enjoyed the distinction of being a relative of one of Holland's most renowned artists, Vincent van Gogh. In recent years, Theo garnered attention by critiquing Islam (in a 2003 book Allah Knows Best and a 2004 film Submission).

He was murdered at 8:40 a.m. on November 2 in his hometown of Amsterdam while bicycling down a busy street to work. In the course of being shot repeatedly, Van Gogh beseeched his killer, "Don't do this. Don't do it. Have mercy. Have mercy!" Then the killer stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another, nearly decapitating van Gogh.

The presumed murderer, Mohammad Bouyeri, 26, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, left a five-page note in both Arabic and Dutch attached to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it he threatened jihad against the West in general, ("I surely know that you, Oh Europe, will be destroyed"), and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures.

Police investigators quickly realized that the assassin was an Islamist whom they knew well and had been following until just two weeks earlier; they also placed him in the "Hofstadgroep" network and charged him and six of his associates with "conspiracy with a terrorist intent." The authorities additionally asserted that these had possible connections to the Takfir wa'l-Hijra and Al Qaeda terrorist groups.

That a non-Muslim critic of Islam was ritually murdered for artistically expressing his views was something without precedent, not just in Holland but anywhere in the West. Dutch revulsion at the deed shook the deep complacency of what is perhaps the world's most tolerant society. The immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, one of the five persons threatened, publicly rued the country's having long ignored the presence of radical Islam. "For too long we have said we had a multicultural society and everyone would simply find each other. We were too naive in thinking people would exist in society together."

Jozias van Aartsen, parliamentary leader of the WD party, went further, warning that "jihad has come to the Netherlands and a small group of jihadist terrorists is attacking the principles of our country. These people don't want to change our society, they want to destroy it."

One day after the murder, 20,000 demonstrators gathered to denounce the killing, and 30 people were arrested for inciting hatred against Muslims. The interior minister, Johan Remkes, announced that he could not rule out unrest. "The climate is seriously hardened." Proving him right, the next two weeks saw more than 20 arson and bombing attacks and counterattacks on mosques, churches, and other institutions, plus some major police raids, giving the country the feel of a small-scale civil war.

Dutch attitudes towards Muslims immediately and dramatically hardened. A poll found 40% of the population wanting the nearly million-strong Muslim community no longer to feel at home in the Netherlands. Double that number endorsed more stringent policies toward immigrants.

De Telegraaf, a leading paper, published an editorial unimaginable before the van Gogh murder calling for "a very public crackdown on extremist Muslim fanatics." Even left-wing politicians woke up to the need to speak "harsh truths" about immigration, focusing on the disproportionate criminality of Muslims.

Islamist terrorism in the West is counterproductive because it awakens the sleeping masses: in brief, jihad provokes crusade. A more cunning Islamist enemy would advance its totalitarian agenda through Mafia-like intimidation, not brazen murders.

But if Islamists do continue with overt terrorism, the tough Dutch response will everywhere be replicated.

They're Terrorists
- Not Activists

"I KNOW it when I see it" was the famous response by a U. S. Supreme Court justice to the vexing problem of defining pornography. Terrorism may be no less difficult to define, but the wanton killing of schoolchildren, of mourners at a funeral, or workers at their desks in skyscrapers surely fits the know-it-when-I-see-it definition.

The press, however, generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms. Take the assault that led to the deaths of some 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia, on September 3. Journalists have delved deep into their thesauruses, finding at least 20 euphemisms for terrorists:

Assailants – National Public Radio

Attackers – the Economist

Bombers – the Guardian

Captors – the Associated Press

Criminals – the Times (London)

Extremists – United Press International

Fighters – the Washington Post

Group – the Australian

Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial

Gunmen – Reuters

Hostage-takers – the Los Angeles Times

Insurgents – in a New York Times headline

Kidnappers – the Observer (London)

Militants – the Chicago Tribune

Perpetrators – the New York Times

Radicals – the BBC

Rebels – in a Sydney Morning Herald headline

Separatists – the Christian Science Monitor

Commandos – Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando"

And my favorite: Activists – the Pakistan Times

The origins of the unwillingness to name terrorists seems to lie in the Arab-Israeli conflict, prompted by an odd combination of sympathy in the press for the Palestinian Arabs and intimidation by them. The sympathy is well known; the intimidation less so.

Reuters' Nidal al-Mughrabi made the latter explicit in advice for fellow reporters in Gaza to avoid trouble on the website www.newssafety.com, where one tip reads: "Never use the word terrorist or terrorism in describing Palestinian gunmen and militants; people consider them heroes of the conflict."

The reluctance to call terrorists by their rightful name can reach absurd lengths of inaccuracy and appologetics. For example, National Public Radio's Morning Edition announced on April 1, 2004, that "Israeli troops have arrested 12 men they say were wanted militants." But CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, pointed out the inaccuracy here and NPR issued an on-air correction on April 26: "Israeli military officials were quoted as saying they had arrested 12 men who were ‘wanted militants." But the actual phrase used by the Israeli military was ‘wanted terrorists.'"

(At least NPR corrected itself. When the Los Angeles Times made the same error, writing that "Israel staged a series of raids in the West Bank that the army described as hunts for wanted Palestinian militants," its editors refused CAMERA's request for a correction on the grounds that its change in terminology did not occur in a direct quotation.)

Metro, a Dutch paper, ran a picture on May 3, 2004, of two gloved hands belonging to a person taking fingerprints off a dead terrorist. The caption read: "An Israeli police officer takes fingerprints of a dead Palestinian. He is one of the victims (slachtoffers) who fell in the Gaza strip yesterday." One of the victims!

Euphemistic usage then spread from the Arab-Israeli conflict to other theaters. As terrorism picked up in Saudi Arabia and press outlets such as The Times (London) and the Associated Press began routinely using "militants" in reference to Saudi terrorists. Reuters uses it with reference to Kashmir and Algeria.

Thus has "militants" become the press's default term for terrorists.

These self-imposed language distinctions sometimes cause journalists to tie themselves into knots. In reporting the murder of one of its own cameraman, the BBC, which normally avoids the word terrorist, found itself using that term. In another instance, the search engine on the BBC website includes the word terrorist but the page linked to has had that word expurgated.

Politically correct news organizations undermine their credibility with such subterfuges. How can one trust what one reads, hears, or sees when the self-evident fact of terrorism is being semi-denied?

Worse, the multiple euphemisms for terrorist obstruct a clear understanding of the violent threats confronting the civilized world. It is bad enough that only one of five articles discussing the Beslan atrocity mentions its Islamist origins; worse is the miasma of words that insulates the public from the evil of terrorism.v

Daniel Pipes, director of the Philadelphia-bases Middle East Forum and author of "Eastern Exposure" column on WorldNetDaily.com, is the author of 11 books, most recently "Militant Islam Reaches America."

Khomeini in Dearborn

By Robert Spencer

Last Friday, Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., held an anti-American, anti-Israel demonstration. Protestors carried a large model of Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque and waved signs bearing slogans such as "U. S. Hands Off Muslim Land." But the most arresting image was of a Muslim woman carrying a large sign featuring the face of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Time dims memories. I wonder if any onlooker at the demonstration saw the Khomeini sign and remembered those tense days of the Iranian hostage crisis, when Khomeini's regime violated the traditional sanctity of the embassy and held 50 Americans for month after month while Jimmy Carter dithered. I wonder if any of the onlookers knew that Khomeini's triumph in Iran in 1979 embodied the idea that Islamic law was superior to all other ways to order societies, and must be pressed forward by force.

Khomeini declared: "Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world... But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world."

Khomeini delivered notorious rebuke to Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd: "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: "Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]....Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!... Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

Was the woman who carried Khomeini's image in the Dearborn demonstrations concerned about the human rights of women? Did she know that Ayatolla himself married a 10-year-old girl when he was 28?

It is unlikely that the protestor knew that in 1985, Sa'id Raja'i-Khorassani, the Permanent Delegate to the United Nations from the Islamic Republic of Iran, declared, according to Amir Taheri, that "the very concept of human rights was ‘a Judeo-Christian invention' and inadmissible in Islam... According to Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the Shah's ‘most despicable sins' was the fact that Iran was one of the original group of nations that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

I wonder if anyone at the Dearborn protest realized that the appearance of these signs in Dearborn, Michigan, exalting this man as a hero, indicated that Khomeini's vision for society is alive in America today – and that it is dangerously naive to assume that all Muslims immediately and unquestioningly accept American pluralism and the idea of a state not governed by religious law. The Netherlands is just finding out, thanks to the cold-blooded murder and attempted decapitation of the "blasphemer" Theo van Gogh by a Muslim who appears to have been part of a larger jihadist cell, and not all the Muslims in Holland are the committed pluralists and secularists that they have been assumed to be by credulous European authorities.

With Khomeini a hero in Dearborn, Americans may be finding that out for themselves before long. Just where American Muslims stand on Khomeini's doctrines – and how many stand with Khomeini – are still forbidden questions for the major media. But if the old man could have spoken from his sign in Dearborn, he might have said, "Ignore me at your own risk." --An excerpt from the article, Khomeini in Dearborn, published by Human Events, PO Box 668700, Charlotte NC 28266-8700, 1-800-787-7557

TIMES OF THE GENTILES

AIDS Surge Worries Docs

December 2, 2004 – Atlanta – A rise in new cases of AIDS and HIV infection among gay and bisexual men in many states, reported in a federal study yesterday, has given support for concerns the disease is resurgent in the country. The report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released in connection with World AIDS Day, said new HIV and AIDS diagnoses in 32 states rose 11% among gay and bisexual men between 2000 and 2003. Rates were stable among most other population sectors, and the overall infection rate rose to 19.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2003, from 19.5 in 2000. AIDS, which destroys the immune system and leaves victims vulnerable to an array of infections and cancers, has killed about half a million Americans and 22 million worldwide since 1981. [www.nypost.com]

Another ‘Choice on Earth' Holiday Card

In its continual attempt to ‘normalize' abortion, Planned Parenthood has once again offended the Christian community by releasing the latest edition of its ‘Choice on Earth' holiday cards. "Contrary to the open-minded image the abortion organization aims to present for itself, Planned Parenthood has zero tolerance for anyone – or any religious group – that recognizes abortion as an evil act that kills a preborn baby," said Jim Sedlak, executive director of American Life League's STOPP International. Planned Parenthood recently announced the release of the cards on its website. The advertisement reads, "Tis the season to share with family, friends, colleagues, and loved ones the message of ‘Choice on Earth.' By replacing ‘peace' with ‘choice,' or more accurately, ‘killing the innocent on earth,' Planned Parenthood is essentially saying ‘abortion on earth,' Sedlak said. "This blatant mockery of Christian values – and of Christ Himself – truly demonstrates the bigoted, anti-religion, anti-God nature of Planned Parenthood." "This latest stunt goes right along with the philosophies which have ... produced ... ‘I Had an Abortion' t-shirt, and a Florida advertisement... ‘Give the gift that stops giving. A gift certificate for a holiday vasectomy at Planned Parenthood," he said. "....Planned Parenthood is not a benevolent healthcare provider, but rather, an offensive organization that profits from selling sex and aborting babies." [www.religionjournal.com]

Quotes on Fundamentalism

Missionary Rocco Piserchia said Andy Rooney attributed voters' reliance on religion in the recent election to ignorance. "I am an atheist," Rooney said. "I'm sure I'll offend a lot of people by saying this, but I think religion's all nonsense." He said Christian fundamentalism is a result of "a lack of education. They haven't been exposed to what the world has to offer." Prof. Gerd Ludemann describes liberal theology as "contemptible." "I don't think Christians know what they mean when they proclaim Jesus as Lord of the world. That is a massive claim. If you took that seriously, you would have to be a fundamentalist. If you can't be a fundamentalist, then you should give up Christianity for the sake of honesty." [http://hiwaay.net/~contendr]

Netherlands Hospital Admits It Killed Babies

"A hospital in the Netherlands [Holland] – the first nation to permit euthanasia – recently proposed guidelines for mercy killing of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives. The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives – a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates." [Fundamental Digest, P O Box 489, West Branch, MI 48661]

American Muslim TV Network

Bridges TV, the first nationwide American Muslim TV network has begun operations, broadcasting on the GlobeCast World TV satellite system. Bridges TV declares that its intention is to "fuse American culture with the values of Islam in a healthy, family-oriented way." Will this channel do something truly positive, such as tell the truth about the elements of Islam that give rise to violence, and discuss the hard choices Muslims must face in order to prevent the continued growth of jihad radicalism and terrorism among them? It's impossible to tell so early in the network's life. [Human Events, P O Box 668700, Charlotte NC 28266-8700]

Poll: Most Americans Don't Believe Evolution

A new CBS poll has found that Americans do not believe that humans evolved. Furthermore, even if they evolved, the majority opine that God guided the process. Only 13% of those polled say that God was not involved. Even so, the majority would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools. According to the CBS study, the support for evolution is greater among those with more education and among those who either did not attend religious services or did so rarely. Interpreting the results politically, 47% of John Kerry's voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67% of Bush voters. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71% want it at least included. Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution, while only 37% want evolution replaced outright. Sixty percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50% of those who attend religious services every week. [www.newsmax.com]

"United Way Should Get Nothing from Christians This Christmas." Group won't help Boy Scouts,
but it supports numerous pro-homosexual groups with the money.

A pro-family organization has issued an alert to those who may be considering giving to one of the nation's largest charities. Bob Knight, spokesperson and director of the Culture and Family Institute, says the United Way has been crossed off his gift list. That is because the well-known charity refuses to share its money with the BSA while it openly supports numerous pro-homosexual groups with its money. The Boy Scouts had been a long-time beneficiary of United Way funding, until pressure from the homosexual community led to the BSA groups nationwide being cut out because their national organization promotes faith and moral values and prohibits homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters. At least 50 United Way chapters have excluded the Boy Scouts from a share of their fund-raising drives, claiming the BSA's Christian values are discriminatory. Although not all the nation's United Way chapters have severed ties with the BSA, Knight points out that "the national headquarters have done nothing to stop the trend." [AgapePress..as reported by www. religionjournal.com]