SMYRNA - April 1995

SMYRNA

E-MAIL: JereM541@aol.com

APRIL 1995



TABLE OF CONTENTS:

o He is not Dead! He is Risen!
o The "Race Card"
o The System is Shot
o A Word About Court TV
o CAVEAT!
o "Whipping Boy" Pat Robertson
o Jewish Influence on the Internet
o More
o Late Breaking News


HE IS NOT DEAD! HE IS RISEN!
He sits at the right hand of God
making intercession for our sins
(Rom.8:34)

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ are well documented historical events. Although many have tried to disprove these two happenings they have never succeeded, and many have become believers as the result of their efforts.

Sadly, many people have never understood the reasons why His crucifixion and resurrection were necessary for our reconciliation to God Almighty. Moderns are especially vulnerable to the prolific writings of skeptics who either ridicule or explain away the Biblical accounts. Some do not believe that God exists, and others don't accept the existence of sin that alienates us from Him.

Unbelief is the one condition of the human soul that God cannot forgive. The Bible states: "...he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Heb. 11:6b)

You see, God has installed a fail-safe "mechanism" in each of us that makes it impossible to fool him, because he detects whether or not our inner beings (our motives) are true or false. If we deny that we have sinned; if we believe that we don't need forgiveness - God will not accept us into his family. Above all else we must be honest with him, so if we confess to him that we have sinned, this is the first step in being reconciled. He will forgive sin if it is confessed, but he will not forgive sin that is denied or minimized.

The second truth in understanding the crucifixion and resurrection is that sin must be punished, i.e., it must be accounted for. God is the sumpreme Judge in His kingdom of justice (righteousness) and His law demands punishment for all who violate it. Violation of His law is sin. Violating His law is the same as slapping Him in the face. We cannot slap any judge in the face (not even an earthly judge) and remain unpunished. To slap the Creator of the universe in the face is the ultimate in arrogance and self-will.

The Bible says that we all have sinned - broken God's law, and only the rebellious, arrogant person will deny this. Well, then, if we have all broken God's law, how shall we pay for our crime? Will He accept money? No. Will He accept service? No. Will He accept a sacrifice? What kind of sacrifice would we offer? Many religions have offered acts such as walking on coals of fire, lying on beds of nails, pilgramages to religious sites, the slaughter of animals, and even human life. There seems to be a universal acknowledgement of the need to sacrifice to gods in order to appease them. Even the ancient Israelites sacrificed unblemished animals for their sins. Do any of the above sacrifices appease the perfect Creator of heaven and earth? The answer is an emphatic "No!" The Bible states: "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure." (Heb. 10:6)(1) But the Bible continues: "...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb. 11:6b) Aha! Praise be to God, there's the answer! Jesus Christ paid the penalty for us by his death - as a substitute.

(1) This is a reference to Psa. 40:6-8.

Dear friends, if you have not appropriated this gift of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, you should run - not walk - to God immediately and confess that you are a sinner who needs saving, and tell Him that you believe that Jesus died in your place and you desperately want to be saved. Don't allow cynical sociologists, psychologists, humanists, or anyone else to stop you from this act of faith - a faith corroborated by actual history. Your life can be changed. Your eternal destiny is at stake.

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish. but have everlasting life.

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only betgotten Son of God."

(John 3:14:18)
Return to Table of Contents

The "Race Card" - A Lesson In Morals

The lawyers of the defense team for O.J. Simpson have demonstrated what is fundamentally wrong in our society. They are attempting to divert attention away from the alleged guilt of their client to the imagined guilt of others. Lawyers have a code of ethics, defined in Black's Law Dictionary (Fourth Edition) thusly:
"ETHICS. What is generally called the 'ethics' of the profession is but consensus of expert opinion as to necessity of professional standards."
Two things are wrong with this. It isn't based on truth, which is the foundation of justice, it is based on "professional standards", whatever they determine them to be. Second, lawyers could never abide by a code of ethics because they have been taught that everything is arguable so they characteristically split hairs. In other words, their conduct is not based on external criteria, but comes from a "consensus" of "experts" who merely agree that they ought to practice "professional standards". Like everything else over which they argue, this is slippery ground. Based on this, there is little wonder that O.J. Simpson's defense team concocted a scheme to slander police officer Mark Fuhrman, accusing him of planting evidence, a charge for which they had absolutely no evidence. Their wishy-washy ethics allowed such immorality and in this instance it followed the propaganda line of political correctness, i.e., that everyone is a racist who doesn't agree with the advertised concensus on what racism is.

For example, F. Lee Bailey, one of Simpson's lawyers, lied to the court on March 15, 1995 by telling Judge Lance Ito that he had personally talked to a black U.S. Marine who would testify, that Fuhrman had made racist remarks back in 1995-96. But the Marine, interviewed on NBC's Dateline by Stone Phillips, denied having talked to Bailey. Prosecution attorney Marcia Clark called Bailey a liar at which he became furious. The Marine later changed his story but had by now lost all credibility. The judge and most others were unhappy with Bailey because he also had lost credibility. But this wasn't the first time that the lawyers had made misrepresentations to the court and to the world. Mind you, a person's reputation, career and possibly even their life may be placed in jeopardy because of the immorality of lawyers. They, of course, were unconcerned with the misery they had introduced into Fuhrman's life. Apparently, lawyers can lie and cheat on behalf of their clients and their pocketbooks if they can get away with it.

The above event apparently did not put a dent in F. Lee Bailey's moral irresponsibility, because the very next day he lied to the court again. In his effort to impeach the credibility of Mark Fuhrman, he asked the court for permission to bring a glove to the courtroom and demonstrate to the jury that Fuhrman could have hidden the glove found on Simpson's property in his sock at the murder scene and carried it to Simpson's place. But Bailey brought a small glove and a zip-lock bag for his demonstration, and the prosecution objected because the glove at the crime scene and the glove on Simpson's property were both extra-large, and the zip-lock bag was not the kind of bag carried in a detective kit possessed by Fuhrman. Once again, Bailey was caught. The world had been waiting with bated breath to see the great F. Lee Bailey perform major surgery on Mark Fuhrman, but instead the prosecution had the pleasure of saying, "Gotchya!" to Bailey.

Some TV commentators dismissed Bailey's lies and the prosecution's retorts as a tempest in a teapot, much as kids would exclaim, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" Those commentators totally missed the import of the situation, accentuating their own moral insensibilities.

If we do not submit to a standard of conduct originating from outside ourselves we will inevitably practice self-serving means. The "race card" played by Simpson's lawyers attests to this. One member of the team, Robert Shapiro, has now publicly stated that he regrets having used the race issue at all in their defense strategy; he disagrees with Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, and we presume O.J. Simpson, for it now appears that Simpson plays a major role in defense decisions. However, it also appears that Shapiro didn't want to play the "race card" because he has good rapport with the Los Angeles County D.A. and doesn't want to jeopardize it. Once again we see self-serving interests.

What standard of conduct should we be practicing that originates outside ourselves? Although Smyrna's choice is the standard set by Jesus, i.e., that we should love God Almighty and love our neighbors as ourselves (treat others the way we would like to be treated), there are similar rules of conduct in other cultures. The Ten Commandments of the ancient Israelites are among highly desirable, moral imperatives. These standards originate with a higher power, the Creator, and thus furnish an ethical system beyond us. Lawyers, to be sure, have argued the finer points of all the external moral philosophies. As the ancient Pharisees circumvented their laws by rationalizing their actions, so the lawyers (and others) of today achieve the same results. But there remain some, including a few lawyers, who see the wisdom of the ancient precepts and help to preserve what little sanity we have left.

The very expression "race card" in the Simpson case betrays the inherent immorality of those who coined the expression and those who implemented it, because it implies that Simpson, Shapiro, Bailey, Dershowitz and Cochran are merely playing a game (albeit a very serious one), and if their moves are successful they will win. What a tragic attitude! What a callous disregard for justice! If they win this "card game", O.J. will go free whether or not he committed the horrible crime. If they win this "card game" they could hypothetically put police officers in prison for life. But neither of these possibilities deters them from practicing the cult of expediency which is probably the most prevalent "crime" of all.


Return to Table of Contents

THE SYSTEM IS SHOT

No system of jurisprudence can be better than the pervasive moral quality of the society which it serves. If a culture cannot perceive right from wrong, its system of jurisprudence will reflect that fault. If a culture asks "What is right?" or "What is truth?" it has already been compromised and will be unable to design or maintain an equitable system of jurisprudence. This is our condition in the U.S. today. If the reader wants proof of this, just watch the O.J. Simpson trial.

For example, the latest juror to be released front the jury in the Simpson case, Jeanette Harris, said that the prosecution's case against Simpson is bunk. She also said that most of the jurors had already made up their minds. This is the best indicator we have at the moment of the depth of the defection from moral standards which are necessary to continue a viable system of jurisprudence.

Many people are tired of hearing about the Simpson case. Smyrna had decided not to spend much time on it, but then we realized how important it is as an example of contemporary immorality, and that's a subject in which we are keenly interested. Probably the most important moral aspect of this case is the ability of those with money to "buy" their freedom, and in the process bog the whole system down in a quagmire of minute, irrelevant procedures. The lawyers, no different than elementary school children in today's government schools, are brainwashed by a finely tuned system of casuistry. Unlike school children, however, they make big bucks at it.

This writer finds it difficult to accept the validity of questions by lawyers to witnesses on the stand regarding their recollection of a minor detail six months or six years ago. And because the witness cannot recall how many hairs were on his/her head at the moment in question, the witness is considered impeached to some degree. This is a most asinine expectation. And yet the rules of evidence and court protocol allow such a ridiculous procedure. May heaven protect us from our present legal system.!


Return to Table of Contents

A WORD ABOUT COURT TV

When Court TV first aired, we thought it would be a good idea because we would be able to enter the court room, as it were, and see just what transpires. Basically, the idea is good. But as it turns out, the program is run by lawyers who invite other lawyers to sit in as commentators, and so we're back to square one in terms of lawyers running the entire show. It is frustrating to listen to these people play their little games that they learned in law school. They speculate wildly and thereby do harm to public opinion. It doesn't seem to bother them that non-lawyers may see right through some of their pil pul, because they are having fun with fun-and-games. "What do you think of this witness, Mr. Finklestein? Do you believe his poor memory proves that he is incompetent at his work?" Answer: "Probably. Or it might just be that he had poor toilet training as a child."

One Court TV commentator said of Detective Mark Fuhrman that Fuhrman's ego might have caused him to resent being called off such an important case, so he might have planted the glove on Simpson's property. What a lot of garbage!


Return to Table of Contents

CAVEAT!
Judge Lance Ito, Marcia Clark, & Talmudic Courts

On March 21, 1995, in the courtroom where O.J. Simpson is being tried for murder, a very interesting tete-a-tete occurred between Judge Lance Ito and Marcia Clark. As they and Robert Shapiro were arguing over the scope of the impending cross examination of Detective Philip Vannater, the judge wanted this phase limited to four questions by the defense. He finally said he might ask the questions, himself. Shapiro said he had no objections to that and lto laughed good naturedly. Prosecutor Marcia Clark in jest said to the judge: "Would Your Honor do my next three witnesses?" He replied, "Sure." That ended the levity, whereupon Clark continued with her presentation, but the judge interrupted:

"You know in the Talmudic Courts there are no lawyers, it's just the judge asking questions."

Clarke: "I think it's a great idea."

Ito: "I think so, too."

Clark: "But they don't have any juries, either, do they?"

Ito: "No."

Clark: "Right."

This brief exchange between a Japanese-American judge and a Jewish lawyer is quite interesting. We wonder if it harbors any predictive value for our future under the Noahide laws?

(Smyrna has this conversation captured on video tape.)


Return to Table of Contents

"Whipping Boy" Pat Robertson
and His Christian Coalition

Why do certain pro-Jewish organizations and individuals take a lot of flak from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)? Why is the ADL so tough on them in spite of their anxious desire to please the Jewish community? For example, Pat Robertson's book, The New World Order, published in 1991, has come under fire from the ADL four years later for allegedly being anti-Semitic. "The New World Order, written during the Gulf War, lays out Robertson's speculations on biblical prophecy, world history and a conspiracy by 'European bankers' to control the U.S. economy". Robertson, of course, "...strongly denied that the term was a veiled reference to Jews..."

The ADL of B'nai B'rith said that the term "European bankers" was a veiled reference to Jews, and that the term typically is used by people who believe there is a Jewish conspiracy to control world finance. The same thing happened to Charley Reese of The Orlando Sentinel. In his 4/4/95 column he said, "A fellow wrote the other day, taking umbrage at my references to 'New York bankers.' He stated that those were code words for Jews."

"Methinks they protesteth too much" is an old adage that describes Jewish complaints such as this. Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, Jewish leaders usually protest too much. There is so much evidence that Jewish-led organizations are up to their eye balls in intrigue for world hegemony that informed people must laugh inside when they see such denials. Pat Robertson and others, however, who are protectors of "God's chosen people", simply lie down and become door mats. This behavior comes close to fitting the description in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion of created, false opposition. The authors of the Protocols (whoever they were) stated:

"In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards."
We inform our readers again that it doesn't matter whether the Protocols are genuine, plagiarized, or whatever. The fact of history is that Jewish rabbinism through the centuries attests to the accuracy of their essence. Read our Strong Delusion.

In another attempt to appease the ADL, Ralph Reed, head of the Christian Coalition (Pat Robertson's creation), in a speech to the ADL's 17th annual National Leadership Conference, said that it is a" 'blatant wrong' "for those of the religious right to talk of the United States as a" 'Christian nation.' " He noted " 'barbarous acts' " against Jews in the past, acknowledged the "Holocaust" and pogroms, and promised that the 1.5 million members of the coalition will do all it can to work against hatred of Jews.(2)

(2) The Oregonian, 4/4/95.

People have asked us repeatedly why Pat Robertson and other Christians continue to be whipping boys for implacable Jewish leaders. We don't know a detailed answer to that. We only know that they have become so convinced of the correctness of the doctrine of dispensationalism that they have closed their minds to other possibilities, or they are a front for Jewish stratagems. It doesn't really matter which is the case; the results are the same. Remember, Smyrna has many times stated that dispensationalism is a doctrine spawned in Jewish minds and cunningly exported into the Christian community.

Jewish leaders have their fronts and sympathizers everywhere. Note the recent orchestrated thrust by Israel firsters to influence Secretary of State Warren Christopher and President Clinton to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In the Los Angeles Times of 4/4/95 it was reported that Senators Alfonse D'Amato and Daniel Moynihan, along with 57 others drafted a letter to Christopher urging him to take action. But these politicians are not alone. A Christian organization took out a full page ad in the Jewish Forward newspaper 3/31/95, urging Bob Dole to give his support to the move. Which organization was it? You guessed it - the Christian Coalition. The ad was signed by Ralph Reed, its director, and paid for with organization money.

Smyrna called the California office of Christian Coalition and left word for its director, Sara Hardman, to call us, but she turned it over to their national office and Mike Russell telephoned. After inquiring whether or not they had polled their members to learn how many would support the leaders in this pro-Israel power play, we learned that they were simply forcing their opinions on their members without actually knowing how much support they could expect. They didn't get a sampling of how many members want their money used for such purposes. lnstead, Russell told us that they ASSUMED that since there is a general feeling of support for Israel in the evangelical community, they figured their members would go along.

We proposed the question: What if your 1.5 million members received well prepared instructions on the difference between dispensationalism and orthodox Christian doctrines and three-fourths of them withdrew their support for Israeli causes? What would you do? He said he supposed they would have to revamp their policies. This conversation confirmed Smyrna's suspicions, i.e., that the leaders of "Christian" organizations dishonestly speak for their members. However, the members have no one but themselves to blame, for they have refused to inform themselves and are being used by their enemies. These are harsh words, but not nearly as harsh as those of Jesus and his apostles. We are living in deceptive times - times of strong delusion. When will God's people awaken from their stupor and pledge their undying allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ?

We certainly are not implying that the Christian Coalition is devoid of commendable causes. The vast majority of its members undoubtedly want sane goveritnent and a Christian culture, in spite of Ralph Reed's scolding that America is not a Christian nation (his inference is that we never were). But Jewish leaders don't care how many worthy causes Christians undertake as long as they support Israel and the "chosen people" heresy.


Return to Table of Contents

JEWISH INFLUENCE ON THE INTERNET

Ken McVay (left)[photo is in original "hard copy" --BeWISE] of Vancouver, Canada is a self-appointed, one man "hit squad" on the Internet. He likes to call people names. Apparently, he is willing to misrepresent the truth to accomplish his goals, which are to discredit all who disagree with Jewish leaders' claims about the "holocaust" and policies regarding Israel. One recent example was a short story in NetGuide magazine (we told you their activists are everywhere) written by Joel Furr, a free lance writer. Our response to the article follows and is pretty much self-explanatoty. Will the magazine publish it?

April 1, 1995

Patrice Adcroft, Editor-in-Chief
NetGuide Magazine
Manhasset, NY

Dear Ms. Adcroft:

Joel Furr's brief article (The Reich Stuff) featuring Ken McVay's war against "hate" traffic on the Internet in your Feb. 1995 issue needs correcting.

First and foremost, the practice of using emotional buzz words to denigrate those with whom one disagrees, e.g., "neo-Nazis", "anti-Semites", "inept researchers", and "incompetent liars" is a sure sign of the absence of scholarship. McVay and Furr need to expand their vocabularies.

Second, their reference to an "old magazine" that carried an article about "some Jewish politician making claims of a mass extermination of Jews after World War I" lacked documentation. To what magazine and Jewish politician were they referring?

Here's the documentation they omitted: The American Hebrew of Oct. 31, 1919, published by the American Jewish Committee, carried a story by former Governor of New York Martin H. Glynn. Its title was The Crucifixion of Jew Must Stop! In Glynn's article he referred to the figure of "six million" and a "threatened holocaust". This was just after World War I, not World War II. Obviously, this was not an anti-Semitic publication but rather a Jewish periodical, and Gov. Martin Glynn was not an anti-Semite.

Finally, The American Hebrew, ceased publication 39 years ago, not 50-60 years as McVay claimed. It appears that Mr. McVay should get his facts straight before trashing others.

Sincerely,
[SMYRNA]


Return to Table of Contents

MORE

In another article in this same Jewish-managed magazine, the publishers interviewed Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, who favors the control of "hate" speech in cyberspace. He has presented the FCC with a paper documenting alleged hate against blacks, homosexuals and Jews, and plans to bring the issue before Congress.

On the other hand, Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU says that if one person or group is censored, everyone will eventually be controlled.

One of the problems inherent in the emotional debate over so-called "hate crimes" is that terms are never defined by those who wish to censor others. What is "hate speech"? What is "anti-Semitism"? What is "racism"? "Racism" may be in the form of remarks or acts perceived to be offensive by the offended, whether or not intended by the "offender". There are, of course, real racists; a few people actually dislike others simply because they are of a different color or culture. It was related on TV at the beginning of O.J. Simpson's trial that when he walked into the courtroom he looked around to see how many blacks were there as opposed to whites-something he had never done before. This kind of attitude on Simpson's part, however, would be totally unacceptable as perceived racism on the part of whites if Simpson in fact committed the heinous crime of a double murder. It would be a calculated ploy, either by him or his defenders, to play to the sympathies of the masses. PERCEIVED RACISM by the "offended" must be examined carefully before accusing anyone of actual racism.

As for alleged homophobia, there are undoubtedly a bigger percentage of people who are repulsed by homosexuality than there are those who dislike people of other races. The reasons are obvious. But again, do homosexuals hunt for reasons to be offended? Many of them do. As with "racism", the reasons behind "offensive" behavior must be examined carefully.

Likes and dislikes among human beings will always be a part of our existence. No amount of legislation can remove them, even though some may be outlawed. But our personal preferences are not the issue. The issue is whether or not factual truth may be freely expressed on any subject. Those who derogate others by calling them names, or defaming them in other ways, need to be corrected with facts or avoided, not censored. For example, Jewish activists regularly refer to those whom they dislike as "bigots", "anti- Semites", "liars", etc. Such language creates heat, not light. Such language should not be shut out of the market place of free speech because those words alone cannot harm someone. And if those words should cause others to physically harm someone, the persons who commit the physical harm must be held accountable, not the one who used the words.

Now we come to the real reasons why some Jewish activists want to censor "hate" speech. If we ignore those who really do hate - who shed no light on any given issue, we are left with those whose views simply differ from Jewish claims. For example, Fred Leuchter is an engineer who designs and installs execution chambers. He went to Auschwitz and other camps to determine if Jews had been executed in gas chambers by the Germans in World War II. He said he carefully tested the alleged gas chambers and found that they had not been designed nor used for such purposes. He neither hates nor lies, yet he is called a neo-Nazi, an anti-Semite, and other choice names. No one refutes his evidence, they just call him names. This is the kind of censorship that many Jews want. Closing Smyrna would also give them great pleasure. They are the real hate mongers.


Return to Table of Contents

Late Breaking News

We just received our latest issue of the Jewish newspaper Forward and learned that Ralph Reed, director of Christian Coalition, is highly praised therein for his recent prostration before the Jewish community (see our article on Pat Robertson, earlier this issue). Even liberal Jews, and ordinarily hostile Jews such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, are pleased with his overall stance. And why wouldn't they be? According to David Twersky in his article headlined Reed Among the Lions..., he said such things as "Jew's have changed both the world and America... They 'gave civilization its first and still best code of law. . .' " This is the kind of flapdoodle that makes Christ's knowledgeable believers nauseated. Here's why:

Reed either doesn't know or doesn't care (there's no difference in the practical results) that the Jews didn't even exist when God, through Moses, "gave civilization its first and still best code of law." More than 750 years passed before Rabbinism (Judaism) was concocted. Reed's error is the fundamental reason why millions of Christians today are being led by strong delusion (see our book by that name).

According to Twersky, Reed acknowledged that Christians bear "a measure of culpability" in the atrocities committed against Jew's over the centuries. This is an over-worked tune. Correct history would reveal much needed revision. But what about the atrocities against Christians committed by Jews? Doesn't Reed know about the 12 million or so Christians annihilated by Jews who ruled with an iron fist over Russia? What of their role in the crucifixion of Jesus? And what about the Apostle Paul who was hounded from place to place by the Jews? Reed's doctorate from Emory University is in history. What's his problem?

People such as Ralph Reed who head up Christian organizations use their members for influence peddling so that Jewish leaders may be placated. This tactic is used frequently. When is the last time you heard of a Jewish leader standing before a Christian organization, apologizing for their insensitive and sometimes brutal treatment of Christians? What about their continued efforts to discredit the New Testament and our Lord Jesus Christ?

Smyrna doesn't advocate an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth as Jewish leaders do - we simply want spineless Christians to know and appreciate their roots and history, and to stand firmly but courteously for our tenets. We are sickeningly sad about "leaders" like Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Paul Crouch, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Chuck Colson, and a host of pastors and leaders within denominations going limp at the thought of offending the implacable heads of the anti-Christ world conspiracy.

"Does Mr. Reed speak for the Rev. Robertson?" asks Leonard Fein in the same issue of Forward. More importantly, Smyrna wonders, does he speak for the 1.5 million members of his Christian Coalition? We have put it to him in writing, but we will not hold our breath while waiting for his answer.


Return to Top
o Back to Apostasy
o Go to May 1995


Courtesy and care of: Be Wise As Serpents BBS
International Christian Educational Services
bewise@pixi.com