SMYRNA - August 1995

SMYRNA

E-MAIL: JereM541@aol.com

AUGUST 1995



TABLE OF CONTENTS:

o "A Horrible Religion"
o The Millenial View
o Smyrna'a View
o The Ten Points of Seelisberg
o Smyrna's Comments
o The Biggest Challange to America
o Waco Hearings
o Plot Thickens, Pot Hotter
o Police Agencies & ADL Control
o Addendum
o Twins -- With Two Fathers
o The Real Newt Gingrich
o 4 Bombs Inside Fed Building in OK City?


"A Horrible Religion"

Back in 1990 scholar John Strugnell, one of the keepers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, called Judaism "a horrible religion", and said it "has survived when it should have disappeared."(1) Of course the mass media and Jewish leaders excoriated him and he was fired from his job. Newsweek said he shamed his calling. Although he may have been correct in his views on Judaism, Smyrna asks its readers to evaluate the worth of that religion, not by what Strugnell said, but with facts from the horse's mouth. To do this, we bring you evidence from the newspaper Jewish Press.(2)

(1) Newsweek, 12/24/90, p. 57.
(2) Jewish Press, NY, 9/19/86, p. 26.

Rabbi Abraham Stone begins his article in the Sep 19, 1986 issue with a statement that should capture our shocked attention like nothing else. He stated: "The Jew and G-d are inseparable. Regardless of the Jew's conduct, observance, affiliation or apathy and lack of commitment, he/she always retains G-d as his master; likewise, G-d always regards the Jew as His prized possession. This timely lesson, which underscores the basis of Jewish unity and harmony, is expressed in Parshas KiTavo, as Moses addresses the Jewish people: " 'You have avouched G-d---he'emarta---this day to be your G-d...and G-d has avouched you---he'emircha---this day to be a people of His select portion' (Dev. 26:17-18)." This obviously was taken from Deuteronomy 26:17-18, but Rabbi Stone neglected to quote the entire two verses - he ellipsed the portions that required Israel to "walk in his [God's] ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice..." In fact, the entire Old Testament is replete with warnings to Israel that if its people did not obey God, they would be disenfranchised. Early in their history just after the exodus from Egypt, Moses relayed God's instructions to the people and they answered with one accord, "All the words which the Lord hath said we will do."(3) They promised to be obedient. That promise didn't last long. They reverted to idolatry which resulted in about 3 thousand men being killed for that sin.

(3) Exod. 19:5-8; 24:3

But God desired a nation to represent His character by its behavior, so He blessed and punished Israel intermittently until the day of Christ's crucifixion, at which time it became defunct and forty years later terminated. Thus, the words of Rabbi Abraham Stone in the Jewish Press that the Jew and God are inseparable regardless of the Jew's conduct, is not only untrue, it reflects their ancient sin of unabashed haughtiness. Their bigotry is clearly identified in Stone's words: "They [Jews and God] are inseparable, absolute and unconditional. Jews are 'believers' (Shabos 97a), and never to be exchanged (Rashi, Dev. 29:l2).(4)

(4) Rashi of Troyes lived A.D. 1040-1105 (Pictorial History of the Jewish People, p.115) "This also relates to the reason given by Kabbalists for the daily morning blessing, 'Who has not made me a non-Jew,' as to the departure of the soul at night; we thank G-d every morning that no soul of a non-Jew has cleaved to our soul..."

Not all Jewish authorities believe in the unconditional election of their "race". More liberal rabbis believe that their election depends upon their obedience to God's commandments, as Rabbi John Zucker states: "Israel was the chosen people only if and as long as she kept the compact with God...some Jews belong to the chosen people and others do not. "(5) But the bottom line is: What is the compact with God? Orthodox Jews try to keep 613 commandments that they believe are found in the Tanakh (entire O.T.), whereas more liberal Jews see their responsibility fulfilled in political and social action. In either case, their world views are substantially (and sometimes radically) different from traditional Christianity. It seems apparent that the Jews who established Bolshevik terrorism in Russia in 1917 were those whose world view demanded political and social action to achieve a utopian society. They were atheistically inclined and launched socialism, controlled by the Communist Party.

(5) California Jewish Record, 9/7/66, p. 7.

When the Orthodox wing of Jewry disagreed with them on matters such as Zionism, the Orthodox Jews were "persecuted", i.e., discouraged from promoting Zionism and denied emigration privileges. The Zionists were the refuseniks, et al. In other words, the above Jews agreed on establishing world domination but the two factions opposed each other on how it should be achieved. The "Iron Curtain" was set in place so that the rest of the world would not know what their intentions were. In our view, their intentions are very much alive today, but they have "shifted gears" for expedient reasons.

How does all this fit the "chosen people" concept? The "chosen ones" believe that they are endowed with special qualifications and privileges which they must use for the betterment of mankind, even if that "betterment" means ironfisted control over others. Such control demands the destruction of anyone or anything that hinders their progress. They know what is best for us. In our booklet Strong Delusion, we establish that the anti-Christ system is led by Jews. Under this hegemony Christians must submit or perish. All non-Jews will be governed by the "Noahide Laws", wielded by Jewish controllers.

The saddest and most frustrating thing about this whole scenario is the blind cooperation given to the anti-Christ leaders by millions of Christians. Many people ask us how we interpret the existence of a political-religious state in the Middle East called "Israel". They ask, "Isn't the reality of that state proof that Biblical predictions are being fulfilled? What other explanation is there?" Our answer: Yes, prophecy is being fulfilled, but not for the reasons popularly understood.


Return to Table of Contents

THE MILLENNIAL VIEW

The popular chiliastic (millennial) view is that the Old Testament predicted that the Jews would be regathered from the four corners of the world and reclaim Palestine which was promised to them because they are descendants of Abraham. At the proper moment in history foreknown to God, a peace treaty will be signed between Israel and the leaders of Gog/Magog, and the latter will break that treaty in the middle of the so-called seven year tribulation period. Israel will be attacked and it all leads to Armageddon. The "rapture" will occur either at the beginning of that seven year time or in the middle, depending upon which detail you espouse. After the "rapture", the Jews will evangelize the world and suffer martyrdom in the process. But the God of Israel Who made a covenant with Abraham will destroy her enemies, and the Jews who have been blinded for centuries about Messiah will embrace Jesus Christ Who returns to establish His earthly kingdom for a thousand years, furnishing the leadership that the Jews expected from Messiah back in Roman times.
Return to Table of Contents

SMYRNA'S VIEW

Now for the Christian view that Smyrna believes is the correct one:

The existence of "Israel" today is fulfillment of prophecy - the prophecy which identifies Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8-9) as that "great city" symbolically called Babylon the Great in the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, the "whore" of 17:1 ("that great city" of 17:18). This Jerusalem is the headquarters of the Beast system described in The Apocalypse. In this view, Jews collectively are not God's chosen; their leaders are the prime movers of the Beast system. Individual Jews may convert (as many have) to Jesus the Messiah before His return. As for the alleged seven year long tribulation period, there will be no such thing. That doctrine is based upon the error of breaking off the "seventieth week" of the "seventy weeks of years" described in Dan. 9:24-27. Because the seven year tribulation idea stands or falls on the "seventieth week of Daniel", and because that is an erroneous premise, it follows that there will be no seven year tribulation and therefore no pre- or mid-trib rapture. These false ideas are originally from the fertile brains of Jewish teachers who eventually succeeded in infiltrating the doctrine into a big segment of the Christian community. They have enjoyed full cooperation (either wittingly or unwittingly) from non-Jewish and "Jewish Christian" apologists.

For example, The American Board of Missions to the Jews, Inc. of New York, published The Ten Points of Seelisberg,(6) a document summarizing an International Conference of Christians and Jews which met in 1947 at Seelisberg, Switzerland. Those ten points in effect prevent Christians who abide by them from telling the whole truth about Judaism. Here they are:

(6) Oct 1971 issue of The Chosen People, p. 2

The Ten Points of Seelisberg

1. Remember that One God speaks to us all through the Old and New Testaments.

2. Remember that Jesus was born of a Jewish mother of the seed of David and the people of Israel. and that his everlasting love and forgiveness embrace his own people and the whole world.

3. Remember that the first disciples, the apostles, and the first martyrs were Jews.

4. Remember that the fundamental commandment of Christianity, to love God and one's neighbour, proclaimed already in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, is binding upon both Christians and Jews In all human relationships without any exception.

5. Avoid disparaging biblical or post.biblical Judaism with the object of extolling Christianity.

6. Avoid using the word Jews in the exclusive sense of the enemies of Jesus, and the words the enemies of Jesus to designate the whole Jewish people.

7. Avoid presenting the Passion in such a way as to bring the odium of the killing of Jesus upon Jews alone. In fact, it was not all the Jews who demanded the death of Jesus. It is not the Jews alone who are responsible, for the Cross which saves us an reveals that it is for the sins of us an that Christ died.

Remind all Christian parents and teachers of the grave responsibility which they assume, particularly when they present the Passion story in a crude manner. By so doing they run the risk of implanting an aversion in the conscience or subconscience of their children or hearers, intentionally or unintentionally. Psychologically speaking, in the case of simple minds, moved by a passionate love and compassion for the crucified Saviour, the horror which they feel quite naturally towards the persecutors of Jesus will easily be turned into an undiscriminating hatred of the Jews of all times, including those of our own day.

8. Avoid referring to the scriptural curses, or the cry of a raging mob. His blood be opon us and upon our children, without remembering that this cry should not count against the infinitely more weighty words of our Lord: Father, forgive them. for they know not what they do.

9. Avoid promoting the superstitious notion that the Jewish people is reprobate, accursed, reserved for a destiny of suffering.

10. Avoid speaking of the Jews as if the first members of the Church had not been Jews.

Quoted by Peter Schneider, The Dialogue of Christians and Jews. pp. 71-73.

Smyrna has great difficulty with these "rules". Although it is impossible to do justice to them in this limited space, we will comment briefly on each.

SMYRNA'S COMMENTS

1. One Triune God has communicated to mankind through the Bible.

2. Jesus was not born of a Jewish mother. Mary was an Israelite but not a Jew, for Jewishness is a religion-culture that was not embraced by Jesus and most Galileans. His love is for the potential of each soul for regeneration, not for its beliefs and practices.

3. The first disciples, the apostles, and the first martyrs were not all Jews.

4. Loving God and one's neighbor is binding upon all people, not just Christians and Jews. But loving one's neighbor must not preclude faithfulness to the entire New Testament and its precepts.

5. We should not disparage others, but we must reveal facts about beliefs and practices so that others may know what to believe of their own free will.

6. Smyrna has repeatedly stated that not all Jews are enemies of Jesus, but their leaders are quite forthright in condenming Jesus and His followers.

7. "Rule" number seven is very important to Jewish leaders seeking historical absolution for the crucifixion of Christ. However, it is true, and we have stated before, that not all Jews were guilty of condemning Jesus, but the primary blame accrues to those Jewish leaders who tried Him and found Him guilty of blasphemy, which was worthy of death. The important thing about Jewish teachers today is their continued assertion that Caiaphas and company did the right thing.

As for everyone's guilt being the cause of His death, this is true in a very general sense, but to follow this reasoning too closely leads to the hypothesis of Deicide (God killed His own Son), which is a theological absurdity.

8. This "rule" obviously comes from "bleeding heart" liberals. If we avoided all the admonitions in Scripture about the wrath of God and the final destination of those who disobey, no one would ever be saved. Jesus' compassionate words, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" must be understood by exegeting and expositing the Greek language and with an overall comprehension of the Scriptures. His compassion for His enemies is genuine, of course, but if His enemies persist in rejecting His love, their sins remain unforgiven.

9. Individual Jews have exactiy the same opportunity as non-Jews to repent and trust Christ as Savior. But like all other "nations" or "religions" or "cultural provincialism", they as a group find no favor with God. God, under the New Covenant, saves individuals, not groups.

10. The first members of the Church were not all Jews. Our view regarding Jews depends entirely on the accurate definition of the term.

In closing, we opine that we would not call anyone's religion "horrible" as John Strugnell did, and the Jewish religion is not any more self-damning than any other religion. That's the point! It is not religion that saves or condemns us; we are individually condemned by our rejection of the mercy of God as revealed in Christ, or we are saved by individual repentance and trust in Christ. True Christians are not interested in ridiculing others' religions nor in personal attacks upon them. But we are interested in truth and the defense of our own beliefs in a personally non-belligerent manner.


Return to Table of Contents

THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE TO AMERICA (Immorality)

(Updating the O.J. Simpson Trial)

As the 0.J. Simpson double murder trial slowly grinds its way onward, the immorality of the defense lawyers becomes increasingly obvious. For example, Gerald Uelmen, Stanford University Law School instructor and lawyer for Simpson, quoted the law regarding false witness while under oath. Essentially, it says that if a witness under oath lies about a rnaterial fact, the jury is free to disbelieve him on every other statement. In other words, one lie can totally discredit the witness.

However, there is an all-important caveat to it which the defense team convenienfly overlooks. The following message, sent to Judge Lance Ito, speaks to the issue.

Dear Judge Ito:

O.J.Simpson's defense lawyer argued this morning that if a witness lies under oath about a material fact, the law states that the jury may choose to believe that he/she is lying on all other points of testimony. Simpson's lawyer said the defense will argue that point of law if they can establish that Mark Fuhiman lied about using the "N" word in the last ten years.

Perhaps lawyers occasionally need non-lawyers to help them see the forest rather than individual trees only. The operative word above is MATERIAL. As a layman I assume that a MATERIAL fact is one that bears on the substance of the case; one that goes to the essence of the evidence. If I'm correct, Mark Fuhrman could lie about using the "N" word all day long and he would not be lying about a MATERIAL fact. What if he were a racist? What does that prove? Alan Dershowitz could lie about having been a Nazi youth but that doesn't prove that he is unfit to be an officer of the court! I could lie about hating cops but that doesn't prove that I would ever harm one -- or that I DID harm one.

Cheri Lewis' argument this morning was "right on" There must be probable cause to believe that Fuhrman actually planted evidence, not some hypothetical nonsense that MIGHT suggest that he is a racist, that is, unless one's beliefs (as opposed to acts) have become so politically incorrect that they are tantamount to committing a crime!

Simpson's defense decided from day one that racism would be played out in this trial. They should be placed under the microscope, not a bright cop who MAY or MAY NOT be racist.

Simpson's lawyers have petitioned the court to appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute Mark Fuluman for lying under oath about not having used the "N" word in the last ten years. This proves that this trial is all about racism, not about who murdered Nicole and Ron. Alan Dershowitz and Robert Shapiro decided to play the race card from the very beginning. As we stated before, Simpson may go free (even though in all probability he is a murderer), and Fuhrman may end up in prison for allegedly being a racist, though that's not a crime -- up until now, that is. >Smyrna proposes that the court appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute Johnnie Cochran for lying as an officer of the court (he stated that his client Michael Jackson is innocent, and now he states that his client Simpson is innocent), to prosecute Robert Kardashian for covering up evidence, and to prosecute the entire defense team for obstructing justice by sidetracking the trial from material evidence to hypothetical nonsense. Anyone who does not see that the Simpson lawyers are fundamentally immoral, are contributing to the bottom line of what's wrong in America.
Return to Table of Contents

WACO HEARINGS

After watching many hours of C-Span coverage of the Congressional hearings on the tragedy at Waco, Smyrna is convinced that all is not right. The format for hearings is not such that the truth can be ferreted out. Key questions that should have been asked, were not. Practically all of the Democrats were determined to give support to the BATF and FBI regardless of any culpability on their part. The hearings were largely a partisan effort, the Republicans manifesting a far greater degree of honesty than the Democrats. This writer believes (based on certain criteria) that Democrats have about an 80% greater chance of being immoral or criminally prone than Republicans. The reason for this is the philosophy of government of each party. The Republicans, although far from spotless, promote limited government, while Democrats promote socialist programs. Finally, most of the Republicans asking questions were too timid toward the end, giving the impression that they were either afraid or had been convinced by those witnesses who had a vital interest in covering their tracks. Smyrna admits that the FBI witnesses gave a good account of themselves. If it weren't for hard questions that were not asked, we might be convinced of the truthhulness of their stories.

Some of the questions that should have been pursued were:

1. What hard evidence is there that the Branch Davidians actually used 50 caliber weapons against the BATF? There were no bullet holes, no empty cartridges. All we have is the word of the BATF agents who say they heard gunfire that sounded heavier than ordinary rifles. No damage was done by 50 caliber weapons. One FBI witness held up a 50 caliber cartridge along with a 9 mm cartridge, and compared the two, which, of course, was terrific emotional fodder for the naive. It made for good propaganda. The point is, if the 50 caliber was not used, the comparison was not only moot, but reeked of insincerity.

2. In a video tape made by the FBI, a segment recorded an agent in a van who said: "I'm honed to kill." Does that remark have anything to do with the fine edge of constant training required by the Hostage Rescue Team (HRT)? Could their sharply honed skills be achieved by means of psychological (mind control) techniques? Is this why they require daily training?

3. Jeffrey Jamar, FBI agent in charge of the Waco operation, testified that they never considered the event as a hostage situation. Why, then, was the HRT called in and kept there for 51 days? The team's need for refreshing its finely honed skills was one of the main reasons for ending the siege on April 19,1993.

4. Where is the entrance door to the Branch Davidian building that attorney Dick DeGuerin said had bullet holes entering from the outside? The Congressional committee was urged to find it and some of the members promised they would. Why didn't they pursue this vital piece of evidence?

5. Attorneys DeGuerin and Zimmeinnan both testified that the Davidian dogs were shot prior to the storming of the building by the BATF. Why was this important piece of evidence not established either as being true or not true, because it would answer the question of who fired first.

6. According to The Spotlight newspaper of Aug. 7, 1995, the British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, reporting in the London Telegraph, claimed that Kin Jewell was not in Texas at the time she claims to have been molested by David Koresh. Smyrna called the House Crime Committee and asked if any of the Waco investigators had checked this out. A man (Tim Bidwell) told us that he consulted with some staff member and was told that Evans-Pritchard is not a credible reporter, that he is the one who has been claiming that President Clinton uses cocaine in the White House and has sex capades. The Crime Committee representative said they dismissed the story by Evans-Pritchard as phony. But the question remains, what are the facts? Can the Congressional committee produce hard evidence? We were advised to consult the personnel of the upcoming Senate hearings on Waco this Fall.

Is Ambrose Evans-Pritchard a reliable reporter? Perhaps he is, for in another story about Vincent Foster by James Norman, a senior editor with Forbes magazine, it was revealed that Evans-Pritchard had revealed information corroborated by Norman. Forbes magazine is a trusted medium, so we conclude that Evans-Pritchard is at least sometimes "right on". Why, then, would a Congressional staffer spread the word that he is not trustworthy? We niust remember that Washington, DC is a hotbed of intrigue, influence peddling and infiltration. This should be sufficient knowledge to believe in conspiracies that even many Republicans don't believe in.

7. One of the FBI witnesses testified that the tanks surrounding the Branch Davidians had port holes in front (indicating that they were about 8 inches in diameter). He said that the Davidians had rifles with scopes that could easily fire into those port holes, creating a ricocheting danger to the men inside. The key question is, why didn't the Davidians do so? If they were in an attack mode instead of a defense mode, why didn't they fire into the tanks? This suggests that they really believed they were defending themselves.

What is Smyrna's opinion about the worth of the Congressional hearings on Waco? We believe that some important data were revealed for the astute, but by and large it was a partisan fuss all the way. The Democrats tried to scuttle it at every turn. The Republicans, with a few exceptions, were ineffective. Co-chair Bill McCollum concluded that there was no conspiracy by government authorities, and that the Branch Davidians set the fire toward the end. These are unfortunate conclusions, not because they are necessarily false, but because Mr. McCollum believed the government witnesses more than he believed others. Many of the Republicans seemed intimidated. Congressman Charles Schumer, Democrat from NY, was his usual self-hateful, arrogant and abusive. Congressman John Conyers of Michigan was another Democrat who tried to obscure the truth. A third Democrat, young Gene Taylor of Mississippi, gave us the impression that maybe he wasn't playing with a full deck. He, too, was extremely partisan-minded. Repeatedly, he asked the witnesses: "Have you heard, or read, or seen anything that would justify the murder of the four BATF agents at Waco?"

He nearly always got the answer he wanted: "Absolutely not!"

This writer sent a fax to him, with copies to other representatives. Here it is:

To: Congressman Gene Taylor Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC
Subject: Your question - asked of all the witnesses in the Waco hearings

You asked: Have you heard or seen or read anything that would justify the murder of the four BATF agents?

I ask you: Have you heard or seen or read anything that would justify the murder of Vickie Weaver and her son Sammy by Federal agents?

Mr. Taylor, turn about is fair play. Because you obviously felt that your question was tremendously important, millions of Americans feel that my question is tremendously important. Will you answer my question as the Waco witnesses answered? I would appreciate your candid and equitable reply. Thank you.


Return to Table of Contents

Plot Thickens, Pot Hotter

Searching for truth is quite exhilarating. Those who are not "into it" are missing a lot of fun. And since there's so much skullduggery going on, opportunities are unlimited for those who are willing to work. Job security is one of the benefits unless the bad guys do you in.

One of the "bad guys" who poses as a good guy needs a little light focused on his life. Morris S. Dees, we're told, is the "conscience of the South", holding forth at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama. It is he who founded the Center and Klan Watch, bastions of leftist activity in Dixie Land. In fact, we don't know of organizations better qualified to be identified as socialist-communist centers than Dees' office and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which was made famous by Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Southern Poverty Law Center maintains a mailing list that reaches to every nook and cranny of the nation. Our guess is that it is largely (if not totally) finnished by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, the world-wide, highiy influential, exclusively Jewish Masonic Lodge. This makes Morris Dees a "wheel" in the circles of liberal-leftist civil rights endeavors. And remember, in our May '95 issue we revealed the following: Charles Leslie Dees, Morris' brother, is head of the Gulf States Distributors which sells police equipment. He also publishes the Police Marksman magazine, an article in which we reviewed, showing it to be typical propaganda against patriotic Americans. This means that Morris the Leftist has access to many thousands of law enforcement officers across the land, spreading his propaganda of hate. He recently testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the desirability of monitoring and restricting the "right-wingers", and for stricter gun controls. Here's his address:

Southern Poverty Law Center,
400 Washington Ave.,
Montgomery, AL 36104.

But now let's learn what kind of man Dees is. In about 1979 his wife Maureene sued for divorce and was cheated out of her lawful share of his wealth. She appealed, and in the legal brief written by her attorneys, she revealed some pretty nasty things, among which were his extra-marital affairs, a desire to live with her and another woman simultaneously (wanting her consent), fooling around with his 16 year old step-daughter, fooling around with his future daughter-in-law, going to bed with a homosexual, and other "niceties". At that time he was worth about $3 million but succeeded in cutting her off. However, we learned a few days ago that on appeal she received a far better settlement.

This is the kind of person who is the civil rights "conscience" of the South. This is the kind of man who is able to infiltrate his leftist doctrines into police officers' minds. Finally, the leftists want to be given quasi-official status with police agencies:


Return to Table of Contents

Police Agencies & ADL Control

Smyrna believes that the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL), through its "front" the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), helped to provide the psychological profiles of Vernon Howell (David Koresh), Randy Weaver and his wife Vicki and others, used by the FBI to make tactical decisions in both the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. That's why Len Horiuchi, FBI sniper, assassinated Vicki. It also appears that the ADL has been "running" the Special Investigations section of the Justice Department for years. The April 28, 1995 issue of the Jewish newspaper Forward corroborates our suspicions that the ADL plays a role in law enforcement intelligence and planning. As a reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing, the Forward lamented the bad treatment of the ADL when it reportedly illegally obtained intelligence files from the San Francisco Police Dept. The Forward stated:
"The rise of violent right-wing elements like the ones thought responsible for the Oklahoma bombing might have been contained tf the Anti-Defamation League, along with national and local law enforcement agencies, had not been hampered in the past two years from pursuing their investigative work."
This is a very revealing statement. First, it is an admission that the ADL spies on individuals and groups that it thinks need to be tracked. Second, it implies that the ADL is in league with law enforcement agencies, either direcfly or indirecfly (see Smyrna, May 1995: "Here's How it Works, Folks!", pg. 6). It might as well be an official arm of law enforcement. And that's what it wants. Smyrna has it from a reliable source that a proposal has been made in Washington that the ADL, and perhaps others such as The Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, be made quasi-official arms of the FBI, BATF, Justice and Treasury Departments. The theory is: since law enforcement agencies are prohibited by law from storing intelligence information on many organizations and individuals, they need help from the ADL and others that are not hamstrung by these laws.

These self-interest groups must never be allowed to become quasi-official arms of the government. Even the proposal is repulsive. It would violate the Constitution and common sense. Further, the arrangement would probably exempt the ADL, et al., from oversight authority by Congress.[*] The whole idea is preposterous in the extreme. What chance would a Christian organization have of becoming a quasi-official arm of the Israeli government? One thing is for certain. The Jewish planners possess a generous measure of brass -- better known as chutzpah!

[* They already *are* so exempt!! --BeWISE]


Return to Table of Contents

ADDENDUM

Recently this writer tuned in to C-Span coverage of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference being held in New Orleans. Joseph Lowery, black president of the organization, was speaking. He is the pastor of a black church. He gave a fiery speech about the need for activism in all areas of life, from voting to marching in the streets. This meeting was in a church on Sunday. We wondered where the IRS was, and its rules regarding political speeches and activities in tax-exempt churches.

Toward the end of "Brother" Lowery's energetic presentation he analogized many events from the Bible in support of Christians becoming politically involved. For example, he reminded his audience of the collapse of the walls of Jericho after the Israelites marched around the city seven times. "You got to march! You got to march!" He wiped his brow with his handkerchief. He was into it. The congregation shouted, "Preach on, brother!" At one point he said if blacks don't look out for number one, nobody else will. He said, "Jews ain't goin' do it!" He referred to Justice Clarence Thomas as "Whatcha m'call it." Obviously, he doesn't think much of Justice Thomas.

The real point of this information on the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is to tell our readers that preacherman Joseph Lowery's interpretation of the Bible was standard communist propaganda. Moses must have been a communist. Joshua was undoubtedly a communist. Jesus was a first-rate communist. Why? Because their teachings demanded humanistic, socialist activism.

Just as Christian missionaries taught Africans to read a hundred years ago, then the Communists furnished them with literature, so the blacks in the Bible Belt were taught shallow Christian doctrines as a result of which many now have fallen prey to communist propaganda. And by the way, informed patriots were warning people more than twenty years ago that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Martin Luther King, Jr. were Communist oriented. Few listened.

Every man would like to be God if it were possible; some few find it difficult to admit the impossibility. --The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations, p.334.

Return to Table of Contents

TWINS -- With Two Fathers

"The Netherlands: A fertility clinic's startling error... Wilma and Willem Stuart were giddy with joy when Dutch medicine produced what five years of trying on their own couldn't: a child. In fact, the in vitro fertilization gave them twins." (Newsweek, July 3, 1995, p.38)

Modern science is one of the chief gods of this world. It has sent men to the moon, produced the atom bomb, and now is playing around with our genes. We don't know at this moment exactly how far some scientists have gone in their mind-boggling efforts to push the frontiers of knowledge and achievement further and further from what normally occurs in God's creation. Where will they draw the line? Probably nowhere. Man has an insatiable appetite for accomplishing the improbable. Why must a mountain be climbed? Just because it's there. The Bible implies in Gen. 11:6 that, if not restrained, man will try to achieve anything his imagination conjures up, and not all that he imagines is good.

Obviously, much of modern science has been beneficial from the perspectives of health, comfort, and convenience. This writer would not want to be deprived of refrigeration, dentistry, some medicine, energy to power machines, and so on. But not all scientific endeavors have produced benefits, and that's the rub. Man has the capacity to do almost anything, but the moment he forgets that sin hounds him at every step, he will become Dr. Jekyl's clone. This is where we are in science today. We are on the verge of some monstrous creations in genetics, if indeed those creations are not lurking somewhere in some laboratory already.

The above photograph[*] is startling evidence of what happens when we mess with God's creation. The fact that one baby is white and one is black is not the real jolt. The real shocker is that some technician apparently didn't sterilize a pipette which contained sperm from a previous donor - in this case a Negroid (by the way, this is a proper term for "African-Americans", it is not pejorative, and many of their own use it).

What if that pipette or some other lab instrument contained whatever produces AIDS?

From the Christian perspective, since we believe that God is sovereign and knows what He's doing, if a couple cannot bear children for whatever reason that can't be corrected by natural means, the alternative of adoption or going without might just be better than playing God.


Return to Table of Contents

The Real Newt Gingrich

Folks, we've been had. We might have known that our enemies are far more powerful and smarter than we (smarter means devious). We were told that Republicans won big in the last election because of their "Contract with America". Well, think again. They won simply because millions of Americans were fed up with the status quo and wanted change. It wasn't the "Contract with America", despite what Gingrich and company have told us. The "Contract with America" was a gimmick to fool the sheeple so they would vote for wolves in sheeps' clothing.

One would like to believe that Newt Gingrich is one of the good guys. He's an excellent speaker. He is knowledgeable. He is convincing. But is he genuine? Here's what The Jewish Press of March 31, 1995 had to say: He is staunchly pro-Israel. He supports a unified Jerusalem. He has long surrounded himself with Jewish friends and advisors such as "inner circle" Ed Kutler, Alvin Toefler, pollster Frank Luntz, Morris Shechtman, et al. Luntz was the key strategist in the preparation of the "Contract with America". Exposure to Jewish thinking and Jewish sensitivities has certainly had an impact on Gingrich, who strongly opposed Ronald Reagan's 1985 visit to the cemetery in Bitburg, Germany."

More recently, Gingrich fired his historian appointee, Prof Christina Jeffrey because she said that a curriculum to teach the "holocaust" was not balanced because it did not present the Nazi perspective. Even Congressman Charlie Schumer, radical liberal Democrat from NY, praised Gingrich for his quick action against Jeffrey.

Newt has been involved with the National Jewish Coalition over the past ten years. He has helped raise money for it, and its leaders, such as Sheldon Kamins and Eric Javits, along with NJC members Mark Neuman, Jacob Zamansky, and Richard Fox have helped raise money for Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich grew up in Pennsylvania, not Georgia, whose citizens he purports to represent in Congress. And with his close association with Jewish interests, we wonder why he bothers to be a member of New Hope Baptist Church in Fayetteville, GA. Is this a political ploy? Remember, the Bible Belt is full of Baptists, and they vote. Of course, if most of them are dispensationalists they probably love him for his faithfulness to "Israel".

It just seems that millions of Christians are so ignorant about the Talmud, Judaism, and the Bible, that we can't win for losing. This wrong-headedness is exemplified in Billy Graham's betrayal of Christian principles by down-playing the importance of the issues of abortion and homosexuality, and assigning top priority to the ecology issue. He'd rather hug a tree than a baby. (Aug.1995 issue of Texe Marrs' Flashpoint.)


Return to Table of Contents

4 Bombs Inside Fed Building in OK City?

Conspiracy buffs are now called concpiracy nuts by the ignorant and by those who have something to hide or something to gain. Pay no attention to them. Conspiracies in governments are the rule in history, not the exception.

We may never know exactly who bombed the Murrah Building in OK City, nor why, just as we don't have certain knowledge about the assassination of JFK. But we can know facts that tell us not to trust mass media nor government explanations.

The most important development to emerge from the OK City bombing is the investigative work done by Ted Gunderson and colleagues, and Gen. Benton K. Partin, retired Air Force expert in weapons development and bomb damage analysis. Each has published a report on his findings. Both agree that more than one explosion occurred. Gen. Partin's work was reported in the July 31, 1995 issue of Criminal Politics magazine, of which this writer is a contributing editor. A diagram drawn by Partin illustrates why there were four bombs inside the building. He isn't just guessing; he did a thorough analysis, even consulting with the architects who designed the building. He revealed what Smyrna had already gleaned - that there were two craters at different locations, malting it impossible for the alleged truck bomb to have caused both.

According to Criminal Politics magazine, Partin claims that four bombs destroyed reinforced concrete pillars on the third floor. His report include color photographs, diagrams, etc., and it may be obtained by calling Criminal Politics at 1-800-543-0486 (at cost, $12).

Ted Gunderson, 28-year veteran of the FBI (old school), also has published a report on the OK City tragedy. and his report includes evidence from experts in the field of explosives. It may be obtained by contacting him at 2118 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 422, Santa Monica, CA 90403.

Timothy Mcveigh and Nichols have now pleaded not guilty and Fourtier has plead guilty. He obviously has turned states evidence and it will be interesting to see to what extent he has sold his soul to those who want us to believe that a single fertilizer bomb was the cause of the mass murder and tragic event. Conspiracy? You bet. At every turn. Remember, when two or more people plan a reprehensible or unlawful act -- that's a conspiracy.


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


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