U.S. Middle East Policy: The Failure of Picking the Lesser of Two Evils

February 24, 2011 – 8:03 pm

A U.S. intelligence official told me a few years ago on a flight to Houston that in the Middle East, we pick the lesser of two evils and side with it. He used the example of America’s attempts to establish a relationship with Iraqi Shiite leader al-Sadr, who spent the past four years exiled in Iran and recently returned to a position of power and influence in the new Iraqi government.

The U.S. backed the Shah of Iran until President Jimmy Carter helped facilitate his departure — which led to the revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini coming to power.

The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein against Iran in the Iran-Iraqi War of 1980–1988 and then overthrew him in Operation Iraqi Freedom, which led to his public hanging.

The U.S. turned its head on Yasser Arafat’s exploits and corruption, the Palestinian terrorist who was the most frequent visitor to the Clinton White House, and now we are working with his Fatah protégé, Mahmoud Abbas.

President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for a Palestinian election despite Ariel Sharon’s warning. Hamas gained 74 out of 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament, and Bush turned around and supported Abbas’ Fatah party with money and weapons to counter Hamas, the democratically elected leader of the new Palestinian government.

President Bush and Secretary Rice persuaded Pakistani President Musharraf to rule jointly with Benazir Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan and was assassinated shortly thereafter.

President Bush and the Obama Administration continue to work with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a corrupt leader who heads the second most corrupt nation in the world. Karsai has admitted that he has received sacks full of money from Iran. His brother is considered one of the most corrupt businessmen in the country.

Additionally, for more than 30 years the United States has supported President Hosni Mubarak’s government, and the close ties between our two militaries stem from decades of strong U.S. support that began with the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement. It has grown to $1.3 billion in assistance that includes weapons sales, training and joint missions.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a new government in Egypt and used diplomatic channels to attempt to coerce Mubarak into resigning.

Obama began his remarks on Thursday, February 3, at the National Prayer Breakfast: “We pray that the violence in Egypt will end and the rights and aspirations of the Egyptian people will be realized.”

Is the Muslim Brotherhood going to be the choice of the Egyptians? If so, they will implement Sharia Law and forever impact the region.

Heredity of Sin

May 30, 2010 – 11:11 am

By Bill Koenig

The reason for every major problem facing America and the world is in the Bible. The root cause is personal sin.

Oswald Chambers wrote: “Sin dwells in human nature, but the Bible makes it very clear that it is an abnormal thing, it has no right there, it does not belong to human nature as God designed it. Sin has come into human nature and perverted and twisted it. The Redemption of God through our Lord Jesus Christ delivers human nature from sin.”

Henry Brandt stated: “You can have victory over life-dominating sin, based on two biblical principles remarkable in their simplicity: 1. There is no human remedy for sin. 2. The only cure for sin is in Christ.

Brandt further stated, “Christ cleanses sin and invites you to walk in the Spirit. The antidote to sinful living is clear and abundant in God’s Word.”

Our nation’s leaders are endorsing the most sinful agenda in history. Public endorsement of sin will have grave consequences as it has since the times of Noah.

Moreover, the belief that man and his works are the solution to the world’s problems is folly, pride and arrogance.

Chambers wrote: “Jesus Christ was not a social reformer; He came to alter us first.”

In today’s ecumenical meetings, the saving of souls from sin was replaced with saving the world from unemployment, poverty, war and injustice. But this is treating the symptoms, not the root cause, which is the heredity and existence of sin in people’s lives.

Yale professor H. Richard Niebuhr in his book “The Kingdom of God in America” (1937) wrote that Protestant liberalism’s message and social gospel has led to a “God without wrath brought men without sin, into a world without judgment, through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

When asked, “Should we be trying to redeem our culture? Franklin Graham answered, “First of all, the Bible didn’t tell me to do that. I can’t Christianize this culture. The god of this world is Satan — this is his culture. He is the god of this age. I’m to preach the gospel. God is calling a people for Himself. I don’t know whom He’s calling, I just have to be faithful and preach.”

Paul stated in 1 Timothy 1:15 (KJV), “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”

Jesus Christ is the One who took our sins to the Cross. His sacrificial love for us guarantees eternal life to those who call on His name.

John 3:16-18 (KJV) says, “For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son [Jesus], that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son [Jesus] 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 begotten Son of God.”

Our nation and the world’s only hope is faith in Jesus Christ.

The ‘Replacement Theology’ Church is on the Wrong Side of the Conflict in Israel

April 2, 2010 – 1:11 pm

By Bill Koenig

Replacement theology church organizations continue to make rash statements about Israel; call it an occupier; blame it for the Palestinian plight; actively pursue divestment of investments in Israel or in companies that do business with Israel; and side with the Palestinians while never addressing the history of problems perpetrated by the Palestinian leaders, by their own terror groups, or by Arab incitement against the Israelis.

These church groups refuse to address the Palestinian leadership’s years of corrupt and exploitation, its militancy, its use of terrorism against innocent victims or the fact that Arab leaders are using the Palestinians as pawns in the peace process with the goal of Israel’s destruction.

These liberal theologians don’t discuss the Arabs’ role in the War of Independence in 1948; the Six-Day War in 1967; the Yom Kippur War in 1973; the terrorist bombings under PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat’s leadership in the 1990s and the early 2000s; and the ever-growing threat of radical Islam to Israel, the U.S. and the world.

They never mention that Iran is funding Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups that continually call for the elimination of Israel, and they refuse to condemn Iran’s leaders’ scathing comments about Israel or its development of a nuclear weapon. Instead, they co-sponsored a dinner for Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York City in September 2008.

They don’t mention the horrendously violent conflict between Hamas and Fatah; or that in country after country in the Middle East, it’s Muslim fighting Muslim.

They don’t make statements about the abuse of Muslims by their own people; the horrific wars of Iran and Iraq when 1 million people were killed; the Lebanese war and conflict with Hezbollah; or the violent sectarian conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (to name a few).

They also refuse to acknowledge that in nearly every place on earth where there is war or heavy conflict, it’s caused by or carried out by radical Muslims.

They have ecumenical meetings and photo ops with imams, even as Christians are being persecuted and killed by followers of Islam due to their faith in Jesus Christ.

In late August 2009, Arab-financed Jimmy Carter traveled to Gaza with a group of “Elders” — including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and Mary Robinson of Ireland, former prime minister Gro Brundtland of Norway and woman activist Ela Bhatt of India.

Carter, Tutu and Mary Robinson are known anti-Semites. Carter’s statements in his Washington Post commentary were extremely condemning of Israel while not mentioning one thing about the terrorists who make up the majority of the Palestinian parliament. Carter meets with terrorist leaders but lambastes Israel instead of the terrorists who have Israeli and American blood on their hands.

Did Carter tell Syrian President Basher Assad to stop terrorists from crossing the Iraqi borders to kill American troops? Of course not: The Arab-backed Carter is obsessed with the Palestinian cause that he helped birth.

How Harvard, Yale, and Columbia are leading us to Armageddon

March 20, 2010 – 12:13 pm

By Bill Koenig

Graduates from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton and other Ivy League schools have accelerated our nation and the world toward the final-day battle of Armageddon.

These schools with a Christian history (more below) are now bastions of secular humanism. They have produced leaders who are directly responsible for the debacles that we are facing — and which are threatening the very survival of America and the world, as we know it. These very bright and gifted people have left us with accelerating problems on many fronts.

The areas

  • Forty years of flawed Middle East policy is leading to the world’s final battles
  • The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) agenda is legalizing immorality and leading to judgment
  • The financial derivatives collapse is a worldwide financial contagion
  • The financial collapse on Wall Street is leading to a one-world financial order and a one-world currency
  • Secular humanism has led to a godless, immoral world
  • Ecumenical meetings between the Protestant churches and Muslims are leading to a one-world religious order
  • Islam is being legitimized to insure the world’s oil flow
  • Islam’s Sharia finance system is being endorsed
  • The global warming hoax is an attempt at a one-world order
  • Violation of the U.S. Constitution is leading to one-world accountability and the federal government’s takeover of America
  • The ACLU’s excesses have targeted church and state issues

    Ellis Washington, in his article “Harvard, the Ivy League and the forgotten Puritans,” wrote:

    “How did the eight so-called ‘’Ivy League’ schools — Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, University of Pennsylvania, Cornell and Dartmouth — go from being training grounds for Christian missionaries and ministers and respected citadels of higher education to what they are now — propaganda factories for every leftist, perverted, radical, tyrannical, failed ideology known to mankind? — Marxism, Darwinism, Freudianism, Higher Criticism, communism, multiculturalism, relativism, naturalism, positivism, socialism, liberalism, egalitarianism, feminist studies, gay studies, transgender studies, transvestite studies, outcome-based education, radical environmentalism, etc.”

    Unbeknownst to them, all of these schools are rapidly producing leaders in our country that are leading us to the final days and Jesus Christ’s return to Jerusalem. America may not be predominant in final-day Scriptures, but no nation is a more significant catalyst to the final days than the United States of America under the leadership of academic elites whose god is secular humanism.


    Ivy League colleges

    Many Ivy League schools were opened as seminaries to train Christian pastors and missionaries to share Jesus Christ with the world. Today, these secular humanist schools of thought are behind the rapid movement of our nation away from God.

    The following are excerpts directly from the Ivy League universities websites that show their Christian heritage:

    Harvard University: Harvard, which celebrated its 350th anniversary in 1986, is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. Founded 16 years after the arrival of the Pilgrims at Plymouth. During its early years, the College offered a classic academic course based on the English university model but consistent with the prevailing Puritan philosophy of the first colonists.

    Although many of its early graduates became ministers in Puritan congregations throughout New England, the College was never formally affiliated with a specific religious denomination. An early brochure, published in 1643, justified the College’s existence: “To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches.”

    Yale University: Incorporated as the Collegiate School, the institution traces its roots to 17th-century clergymen who sought to establish a college to train clergy and political leaders for the colony. Yale was founded in 1701 nearby Saybrook as the Collegiate School to educate students for “Public employment both in Church & Civil State.”

    In the over 300 years since its founding, Yale has worked to educate those who would become leaders and contributors to every sector of society. Yale graduates include five Presidents of the United States (including four of the last six), 45 Cabinet members, over 500 members of Congress, and too many other senior officials, judges, diplomats and military officers to name. (Yale Charter)

    University of Pennsylvania: “It has long been regretted as a misfortune to the youth of this province that we have no academy in which they might receive the accomplishment of a regular education,” observed Benjamin Franklin in 1749.

    Franklin’s associates in this college-creating endeavor included ten patriots who would go on to sign the Declaration of Independence and seven signers of the Constitution. The Academy of Philadelphia opened in 1751 in the building, which once housed George Whitfield’s charity tabernacle on Philadelphia’s Fourth Street, near Arch.

    Princeton University: The College of New Jersey (as Princeton University was known until 1896) was a child of the Great Awakening, an institution born in opposition to the religious tenets that had ruled the colonial era. The principles on which Princeton University was founded may be traced to the Log College in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, founded by William Tennent in 1726.

    Tennent was a Presbyterian minister who, along with fellow evangelists Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen, Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Davies and George Whitefield of England, preached and taught an approach to religion and life that was the very essence of the Great Awakening period.

    The seven founders of the College of New Jersey were all Presbyterians, with Ebenezer Pemberton, a minister and a graduate of Harvard, the only one of the seven who did not graduate from Yale. The remaining six included Jonathan Dickinson, Aaron Burr Sr. and John Pierson, who were ministers; William Smith, a lawyer; Peter Van Brugh Livingston, a merchant; and William Peartree Smith.

    The aforementioned seven approached Gov. Lewis Morris in late 1745 or early 1746 seeking a charter for a college that would, in time, become Princeton University. Gov. Morris, an Anglican and a Loyalist, refused the charter because of the applicants’ anti-Anglican views and beliefs. Soon afterwards, Gov. Morris died and John Hamilton became Acting Governor of New Jersey. Hamilton was also an Anglican but more liberal-minded than his predecessor.

    Columbia University: Controversy preceded the founding of the College, with various groups competing to determine its location and religious affiliation. Advocates of New York City met with success on the first point, while the Anglicans prevailed on the latter. However, all constituencies agreed to commit themselves to principles of religious liberty in establishing the policies of the College.

    In July 1754, Samuel Johnson held the first classes in a new schoolhouse adjoining Trinity Church, located on what is now lower Broadway in Manhattan. There were eight students in the class. At King’s College, the future leaders of colonial society could receive an education designed to “enlarge the Mind, improve the Understanding, polish the whole Man, and qualify them to support the brightest Characters in all the elevated stations in life.”

    The college reopened in 1784 with a new name — Columbia — that embodied the patriotic fervor that had inspired the nation’s quest for independence. The revitalized institution was recognizable as the descendant of its colonial ancestor, thanks to its inclination toward Anglicanism and the needs of an urban population, but there were important differences:

    Brown University: As the third oldest college in New England and the seventh oldest in America, Brown was the Baptist answer to Congregationalist Yale and Harvard; Presbyterian Princeton; and Episcopalian Penn and Columbia. At the time, it was the only one that welcomed students of all religious persuasions (following the example of Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island in 1636 on the same principle).

    Brown has long since shed its Baptist affiliation, but it remains dedicated to diversity and intellectual freedom.

    Dartmouth College: The Reverend Eleazar Wheelock, a Congregational minister from Connecticut, founded Dartmouth College in 1769. He had earlier established Moor’s Charity School in Lebanon, Connecticut, principally for the education of Native Americans.


    Middle East affair — CFR members

    The United States Middle East policy legacy has been 40 years of miscalculations and missed opportunities. American diplomats and presidents refuse to acknowledge that Arabs and members of Islam are like no other people in the world and must be handled differently.

    Moreover, the CFR’s pressuring of Israel to divide her land has empowered the terror organizations that are threats to the world. The $1 trillion-and-climbing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to take a major toll.

  • Henry Kissinger (Harvard) was Richard Nixon’s national security advisor and then secretary of state. He was one of the original participants in the land-for-peace efforts.
  • Zbigniew Brzezinski (Harvard and Columbia) served as national security advisor for Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. He advises Obama and is not a friend of Israel.
  • George H.W. Bush (Yale) began the latest land-for-peace process in Madrid, Spain, in 1991.
  • Bill Clinton (Yale) was active for eight years in the Israeli-Palestinian talks.
  • G.W. Bush (Yale and Harvard) coined the term “Israel and Palestine, two democratic state living side-by-side in peace and security.” Bush’s aggressive war in Iraq and Afghanistan accelerated final-day events. His efforts to democratize former Soviet Union countries infuriated Russian President Vladimir Putin and increased his involvement in the Middle East and aligning with final-day countries; Iran, Turkey, Syria and others.
  • Hillary Clinton (Yale), Obama’s secretary of state, is active in the peace process in Israel.
  • Richard Haas (Harvard) is the president of the CFR who introduced the book Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President in the first week of December 2008. The book was the collaborative effort of 15 scholars.



    President Barack Obama (Columbia and Harvard) was the first president to endorse the Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender agenda through proclamations, posting of his LGBT agenda and legislation.

    Here’s how Harvard grads implemented the LGBT campaign:

    Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America’s media:
    Click here for the article.

    If you think that the radical changes in the minds of Americans — and in your own mind — about homosexuality in the last decade are an accident, you must read the section below. It’s taken from the 1989 book, After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays in the 90s (Penguin Books) — which immediately became a beacon for the then-emerging homosexual movement.

    Building on the basic strategies outlined in Marshall Kirk’s groundbreaking 1987 article, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” this book puts forth the very sophisticated psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques that we’ve all seen and been affected by over the years — without understanding their purpose and impact.

    Kirk is a researcher in neuropsychiatry. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1980, majoring in psychology, and writing his honors thesis on the testing of gifted children.

    The book describes his co-author Hunter Madsen as having received a doctorate in politics from Harvard in 1985 and as an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing who has designed commercial advertising on Madison Avenue, served as a consultant to gay media campaigns across the country, and appears frequently on national media as an advocate for gay rights.

    Of particular note is their tactical device throughout the book of referring to religious dissenters and other critics of homosexual behavior as “bigots.” Their language is purposefully crude to enhance that idea. Much like the “big lie” theory developed in the 1920s and 1930s by the Nazis, the constant repetition of this eventually has the desired psychological effect on masses of people.

    As you read this, keep in mind that it was written in 1989 — and look around to see how far the homosexual movement has gotten using these techniques.

    David Kupelian of WND.com wrote:

    Kirk and Madsen’s “war goal,” explains marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, was to “force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society.” Rondeau presented a comprehensive study in his book, Selling Homosexuality to America.

  • President Obama (Columbia and Yale) selected Elena Kagan, the dean of the Harvard Law School, to be his Solicitor-General. She has been committed to the elimination of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
  • Cass Sunstien (Harvard) — the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In a recent book, Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued.

    “Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government,” argues Sunstein. He continues, “The only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people.”

  • Sen. Joe Lieberman (Yale): The current law, dubbed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” calls for service members to be discharged if they disclose that they are homosexual.

    The law “is inconsistent with our most important national values and diminishes our military readiness,” one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told reporters.

    “The record is now clear that the application of the current ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy has diminished America’s military readiness,” he said.

  • George W. Bush (Yale and Harvard) committed the U.S. to $50 billion in fighting AIDS. In search of a legacy, President George W. Bush committed $15 billion in funds over five years to battle AIDS in Africa.


    Financial derivatives – Financial collapse

    The financial derivatives model was established at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It has cost American taxpayers $1 trillion and climbing. It was a major vehicle in the subprime fiasco and all other excesses on Wall Street.

    Myron Scholes met Fischer Black (Harvard), and Robert C. Merton (Columbia), who joined MIT in 1970. For the following years, Scholes, Black and Merton undertook groundbreaking research in asset pricing, including the work on their famous option-pricing model.

    The term Black–Scholes refers to three closely related concepts: The Black–Scholes model is a mathematical model of the market for an equity, in which the equity’s price is a stochastic process.

    The Black–Scholes PDE is a partial differential equation which (in the model) must be satisfied by the price of a derivative on the equity. The Black–Scholes formula is the result obtained by solving the Black–Scholes PDE for a European call option Click here for the commentary. .

    The Guardian’s Julia Flinch: The worst economic turmoil since the Great Depression is not a natural phenomenon but a man-made disaster in which we all played a part.

    The following is from “25 people at the heart of the meltdown”:
    Click here for the article.

    Alan Greenspan, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, 1987- 2006 (Columbia). He is viewed as one of those most culpable for the crisis. He is blamed for allowing the housing bubble to develop as a result of his low interest rates and lack of regulation in mortgage lending. He backed subprime lending and urged homebuyers to swap fixed-rate mortgages for variable rate deals, which left borrowers unable to pay when interest rates rose.

    For many years, Greenspan also defended the booming derivatives business, which barely existed when he took over the Fed, but which mushroomed from $100 trillion in 2002 to more than $500 trillion five years later.

    William Jefferson Clinton (Yale). President Clinton’s tenure was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation.

    In 1995, Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment.

    G.W. Bush, U.S. President (Yale and Harvard). From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he failed to move Congress.

    Stan O’Neil, Merrill Lynch (Harvard). Merrill Lynch CEO for nearly six years (ending in 2007), O’Neil guided the firm from its familiar turf — fee businesses like asset management — into the lucrative game of creating collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which were largely made of subprime mortgage bonds. To provide a steady supply of the bonds — the raw pork for his booming sausage business — O’Neal allowed Merrill to load up on the bonds and keep them on its books.

    By June 2006, Merrill had amassed $41 billion in subprime CDOs and mortgage bonds, according to Fortune. As the subprime market unwound, Merrill went into crisis, and Bank of America swooped in to buy it.

    Sandy Weil, Citicorp (Cornell). Who decided banks had to be all things to all customers? Weill did. Starting with a low-end lender in Baltimore, he cobbled together the first great financial supermarket, Citigroup Click here for the article. . Along the way, Weill’s acquisitions (Smith Barney, Travelers, etc.) and persistent lobbying shattered Glass-Steagall — the law that limited the investing risks banks could take. Rivals followed Citi.

    The swollen banks are now one of the country’s major economic problems. Every major financial firm seems too big to fail, leading the government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to keep them afloat. The biggest problem bank is Weill’s Citigroup. The government has already spent $45 billion trying to fix it.

    Frank Raines, Fannie Mae (Harvard). Raines, who was at the helm when things really went off course. A former Clinton Administration budget director, Raines was the first African-American CEO of a Fortune 500 company when he took the helm in 1999. He left in 2004 with the company embroiled in an accounting scandal just as it was beginning to make big investments in subprime mortgage securities that would later sour.

    Fannie and rival Freddie Mac became wards of the U.S. government.

    Robert Rubin (Harvard). In 1997, together with then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives, when such regulation was proposed by then-head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Brooksley Born.

    Overexposure to credit derivatives of mortgage-backed securities was a key reason for the failure of U.S. financial institutions Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, American International Group, and Washington Mutual in 2008. Rubin was highlighted in a Public Broadcasting Service “Frontline” report, “The Warning.”

    Arthur Levitt Jr., a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has said in explaining Rubin’s strong opposition to the regulations proposed by Born that Greenspan and Rubin were “joined at the hip on this.” “They were certainly very fiercely opposed to this and persuaded me that this would cause chaos,” said Levitt.


    Secular humanism

    Humanist Manifesto II — Excerpt from the Preface

    by Paul Kurtz (Columbia) and Edwin H. Wilson (1973)

    As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith.

    Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.

    New statements should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction that humanism offers an alternative that can serve present-day needs and guide humankind toward the future.

    Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life-stance focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives.

    From Harvard Magazine, December 2005, p. 33:

    Paul Kurtz received his Master’s degree and Doctor of Philosophy degree from Columbia University. Many of his contemporaries attend Ivy League Schools.


    Global warming hoax (Harvard)

    Al Gore (Harvard) — Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr. Gore.

    Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in. (The Telegraph, UK)


    Sharia finance (Harvard-sponsored meeting)

    Islamic Finance Project. Through their Islamic Legal Studies Program at Harvard Law School, Harvard sponsored a Treasury Department seminar last week entitled ‘Islamic Finance 101.” The advertised purpose of the closed meeting was to provide Treasury regulators with objective information on Islamic Finance, a rapidly growing sector also known as Sharia-Compliant Finance (SCF). In reality, the seminar was little more than a government-sponsored promotion of the subversive Islamist agenda carried out under the guise of Sharia Finance. (Frank Gaffney Jr.)


    Constitution (Yale Law School dean)

    According to the past writings of Harold Koh, the former Yale Law School dean who is now the U.S. government’s top authority on international law and its application domestically, “norms” like the new Human Rights Council resolution should supersede U.S. laws and even the Constitution.


    ACLU (Harvard)

    The ACLU’s Crystal Eastman and Roger Baldwin. Baldwin received his bachelor’s and master’s from Harvard. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was founded in 1920 by a group of people who were concerned that the Bill of Rights was nothing but a “parchment barrier” to governmental misdeeds. The ACLU is a legal organization that provides attorneys and legal expertise in cases where Civil Rights are allegedly being violated.

    (Note: Many religious groups oppose the ACLU because it actively works to over-indulge in “separation of church and state” issues. A majority of the members are far-left liberals. Jay Sekulow’s ACLJ opposes them continuously.)


    One-world order (Princeton and Yale)

    Princeton graduate John Foster Dulles, responsible for the convergence of one-world political order and one-world religious order.

    George Herbert Walker Bush (Yale) said in the January 29, 1991 State of the Union: What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea—a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children’s future.

    The community of nations has resolutely gathered to condemn and repel lawless aggression. Saddam Hussein’s unprovoked invasion—his ruthless, systematic rape of a peaceful neighbor—violated everything the community of nations holds dear. The world has said this aggression would not stand, and it will not stand.

    World leaders gathered in New York to resolve global problems with former President Bill Clinton (Yale) as he opened the fifth annual session of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).

    Obama gave the keynote speech, saying, “Bill Clinton has helped improve and save the lives of millions.” In the audience sat another 60 current and former heads of state along with the chief executives of Coca-Cola, Nissan, ExxonMobil and Goldman Sachs and some Hollywood stars.

    Among its accomplishments, the CGI says, are commitments to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 million tons, treat 34 million people for tropical diseases, give 10 million children better education, and provide safe drinking water to three million people in Asia. (Agence France-Presse)


    One-world religious order (Yale Divinity School)

    Yale theology declaration that God and Allah are the same

    An eight-day conference at Yale University that drew scores of prominent Muslim, Christian Protestant and Catholic leaders from around the world ended with a unanimously accepted declaration for mutual respect, understanding and further interfaith discussions.

    “Let us learn to love each other. Let us learn to love all neighbors. And let us do that in the name of our common future and in the name of our one God,” Yale Divinity School professor Miroslav Volf, who co-hosted the event, told about 150 participants on the final day of the July 24-31 conference.

    In the name of the Infinitely Good God whom we should love with all our Being …

    Click here to the A Christian Response to ‘A Common Word Between US and You’ communique.

  • Secular Humanism’s Failing Legacy

    March 4, 2010 – 12:05 pm

    By Bill Koenig

    Secular Humanism

    Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives.
    (From the Harvard Magazine December 2005, p. 33).

    Humanist Manifesto II – Excerpt from the Preface
    Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson (1973).

    As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.

    New statements should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction that humanism offers an alternative that can serve present-day needs and guide humankind toward the future.

    Secular Humanism’s Legacy

    The following is the very revealing legacy of what secular humanism has brought to America.

    The ‘me’ obsession
    • What is in it for me?
    • Excess pride, ego and narcissism
    • Belief that man can influences the earth’s temperatures
    • Whatever feels good do it
    • An obsession with the rights of one person despite the effect on the population at large
    • Excess wants and desires lead to materialism
    • Idolatry – worshiping earthly gods
    • Image obsession
    • A belief that man can solve all the world’s ills (they will never acknowledge man’s sin nature)

    • Liberal college and university professors shaping minds
    • No absolute truths/moral relativism
    • Moral drift due to no absolutes
    • Establishment of laws when one’s “no-absolute” behavior gets out of control and infringes on others
    • Loss of common sense
    • Civil rights over morality a strategy used by the homosexual agenda
    • Homosexual activists are aggressively attempting to force their acceptance into schools, companies, the military and the public
    • Homosexuals call others intolerant but they aren’t tolerant of those who oppose them

    • Washington’s partisanship due to extreme beliefs and turf protection
    • Special interests have more say than the American public
    • Lack of civility
    • Creating dependence on the government
    • Socioeconomic and ethnic division due to a dependent mentality
    • Excess federal government regulation and taxes

    Universal god
    • Unity of religions
    • Unity to bring earthly peace
    • Belief that there are many paths to a universal god
    • Oprah Winfrey’s very popular new-age movement focused on man’s deity and spirituality
    • Harry Potter books witchcraft
    • Seventy percent of America participates in Halloween
    • Evil is a state of mind that can be changed with the right influence not an internal battle between good and evil

    An entertainment addiction
    • Nationwide gambling explosion
    • Greed at all levels of life in America
    • An ever growing perversity on TV, movies, advertisements and online

    • Favor abortion – violence in the womb
    • Pets have more rights than pre-born children in their mother’s womb

    • One of two marriages end in divorce
    • Many mothers have chosen to enter the workplace so children can go to good schools and live in safe neighborhoods
    • Children out of wedlock
    • 30 to 35 percent of children don’t graduate from high school
    • A more violent society
    • Some schools have turned into war zones
    • Record consumer debt
    • 13 million US homes have no equity

    • Epidemic of people turning to drugs and alcohol to cope with life and its struggles
    • Confusion, disruption and division in our homes, schools, communities and governments
    • Lack of righteousness
    • Many living lives of despair, hopelessness and desperation
    • Lack of civility

    Nation is living the consequences of our sin

    • Life will get worse and more difficult in America
    • The Lord is longsuffering but judgment comes quickly
    • Will America call on God’s name and repent for their wicked ways or suffer judgment?

    My meeting with a PLO negotiator from Jericho

    February 13, 2010 – 2:42 pm

    By Bill Koenig

    I noticed at the Metro train stop by the White House on Tuesday, January 18 a newspaper called The Washington Diplomat that focuses on the very large diplomatic community here in Washington.

    It captured my interest because January’s lead article was entitled “PLO Going Nowhere?”

    I started reading the article to get the Palestinian perspective. The person being interviewed was Maen Rashid Areikat, the new head representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United States — headquartered in Washington.

    I thought to myself: That name sounds familiar. I looked through the article for his biography to see if he was who I thought he was. Sure enough, he was.

    On my return flight from Israel to Dallas in the first week of January 2000, I was upgraded to Business Class on my oversold British Airways flight from Tel Aviv to London. The Lord had arranged for me to sit next to Maen Rashid Areikat of the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department.

    Maen told me he was on the way to London for some backroom negotiations with the Israelis.

    We talked for the entire length of the five-hour flight. We discovered that we had both graduated from Arizona State University. Maen also received his MBA at Western International University in Phoenix. He talked about how he loved living in Arizona.

    Maen is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met — a really good guy.

    I enjoyed discussing areas of mutual interest and, especially, hearing his perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what it is like for him and his family to live in the Palestinian territories.

    He said he was born in Jericho and attended Catholic schools. He spoke with much sincerity about wanting his family to live in peace and security. He showed no hatred or anger towards Israel.

    I thought: If this man were leading the Palestinians, there would be an agreement with Israel such as the ones Israel achieved with Jordan’s King Hussein and Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat.

    When I read his article (which I link to below), I saw his very sincere and hopeful side. While he seems totally removed from the radical side of the PLO as led by Yasser Arafat, Fatah and Hamas, I also see a person who doesn’t address the fact that Hamas is the greatest threat to his dream of his living in peace and security.

    We know Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas redirected millions of dollars of foreign aid to their bank accounts and their cronies. This led to Hamas becoming a force in Palestinian politics, when they met the social needs of the Palestinians while gaining great favor, which led to their capturing 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Parliament in the January 2006 election.

    As we continue to hear and read of the ongoing tensions between Fatah and Hamas, we realize that Maen’s job is extremely difficult.

    I will contact Maen soon. I want to share with him once again the biblical perspective of what is taking place in Israel. He is the kind of guy who will listen. Who knows? He may be the Arab leader who signs the Daniel 9:27 covenant.

    The following is the link to Maen’s interview and my final comments:

    With widening Israeli-Palestinian gulf,
 PLO envoy clings to statehood dream (Larry Luxner, The Washington Diplomat)

    Click here for the full article.

    Final comments: This is a Palestinian perspective from a man who was 4 years old in 1967 and whose father was a Palestinian activist.

    The key point is that Maen sincerely wants his family and the rest of the Palestinians to live in peace. That dream has been stopped due to a corrupt Palestinian government and Palestinian terror groups.

    Furthermore, “Palestine” was not all Arab: It was the home of the Jews of Palestine and the Arabs of Palestine.

    Yasser Arafat and the terror groups have done great harm to the Palestinian people. Palestinians are living in refugee camps in many Arab countries and being treated as third- and fourth-class citizens. They have been pawns in the peace process. Many Palestinians would prefer to live in Israeli-controlled cities, not those managed by the Palestinians.

    Hamas, the political party that is in control of the Palestinian Parliament, will not recognize Israel’s right to existence and is determined to have full control over all Palestinian property, which includes Ramallah.

    Israel is not the Palestinians’ problem and never has been the Palestinians’ problem. Rather, it is their corrupt leadership and refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. They can complain and call for actions against Israel, but it will never solve the Palestinians’ own political problems.

    Could Benjamin Netanyahu be the Israeli prime minister who signs the Daniel 9:27 covenant?

    February 5, 2010 – 9:35 pm

    By Bill Koenig

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be the leader who agrees to the final biblical peace deal spoken of in Daniel 9:27. No Israeli politician is better known. No Israeli leader is a stronger defender of his nation’s threats.

    In his policy speech at the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University on June 14, 2009, Netanyahu was superb, clever, reasonable and strategic. He attempted a very delicate political balancing act — which, for the most part, seemed to succeed.

    He calmed the Kadima Party and the Labor Party with his statement that he favors a Palestinian state, but he offered very challenging contingencies that must first be satisfied.

    He satisfied Israel’s right-wing political parties on the statement of a unified (not divided) Jerusalem.

    Members of the Likud Party who don’t want to see any of Israel’s biblical land given to the Palestinians were disgruntled about the talk of a Palestinian state, but they appeared satisfied that Netanyahu’s requirements for the Palestinians are all but impossible for them to meet.

    He also enjoined Israel’s concerns and the moderate Arabs’ concerns about a nuclear Iran. This was a good strategy.

    He said:

  • If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

  • If the Palestinians turn toward peace — in fighting terror, in strengthening governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace and in stopping incitement against Israel — we will do our part in making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access and to enable them to develop their economy.

  • Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek its destruction.

    Netanyahu addressed 140 Israeli ambassadors and heads of delegations that were in Jerusalem on Dec. 28, 2009, for the first-ever series of high-level briefings. He once again emphasized his conditions to a peace deal:

  • Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state.

  • Demilitarization of any future Palestinian state.

    Netanyahu said, “Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is necessary for any agreement with the Palestinians that would lead to an end to the conflict.”

    “We want an end to the conflict,” he said. “That means the Palestinians must stop attempts to use a Palestinian state as jumping-off point for further claims against Israel. No claim to flood Israel with refugees, which would mean the end of the Jewish state; and no irredentist claims to the Negev, Galilee or Israeli citizens, which would mean the dissolution of the Jewish state.”

    Ha’aretz reported: Netanyahu said the situation in Lebanon, and the rearming of Hezbollah despite Security Council Resolution 1701 prohibiting just that, proved that agreements on paper were ineffective.

    “I am doubtful that anyone can do this except a real Israeli presence, Israeli forces,” he said, intimating that in any future agreement with the Palestinians, Israeli forces — not international ones — would have to be on the eastern border of a future Palestinian state to prevent it from importing arms and staging attacks against Israel.

    Obama Admin threatens to withhold aid to Israel

    American President Barack Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, threatened in the first week of January to withhold financial aid to Israel if they did not accept demanded concessions to get the stalled peace process back on track.

    In an interview with Charlie Rose, Mitchell was asked what leverage the U.S. has to get Israel to comply with Arab and international demands. He answered:

    “Under American law, the United States can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel.”

    Israel’s Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz quickly reacted, saying, “Israel had no intention of making use of the U.S. loan guarantees in the near future, as it had managed to raise enough funds on its own.”

    Mitchell’s remarks came shortly after Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren rejected Washington’s attempt to place a firm two-year deadline on the peace process.

    “In the past, attempts to impose time frameworks have not proved either realizable or helpful,” Oren told The Jerusalem Post. Previous deadlines have only increased the Palestinians’ refusal to meet their peace obligations, confident that Israel would be forced to comply regardless in order to meet the timetable.

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told a Jerusalem press conference on Sunday, Jan. 10, that he expects President Barack Obama to explicitly announce that his Administration is not planning to alter America’s policy regarding financial aid to Israel.

    Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) stated at the same press conference that even if Obama tried to use U.S. financial aid as leverage, Congress would never approve such a measure.

    The Bible’s road map — the ultimate plan

    God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their descendants (Genesis 15:18). The Promised Land is not to be divided; and the Bible said that there would be consequences to those who attempt to divide the land of Israel (Joel 3:2 and Zechariah 12-14).

    We realize that Israel will eventually agree to a final seven-year peace plan and that the false messiah will sponsor a peace plan that will be confirmed by the nations (Daniel 9:27).

    The false messiah will come forward at the midway point to stop sacrifices on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Daniel 9:26-27, Daniel 11:31 and Matthew 24:15).

    The Great Tribulation will begin at that point and last for 42 weeks (Revelation 11:2, Revelation 12:6, Daniel 7:25, Revelation 12:14).

    During the final 42 weeks, the Jews will mourn for the one they pierced (Zechariah 12:10). They will not see the Messiah until they say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Matthew 23: 39, NKJV)

    God will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone (Zechariah 12:3), and He will destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:9). At the end of the 42 weeks, there will be final battle for the city of Jerusalem — the battle of Armageddon (Zechariah 12-14).

    We must continue to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6) — a peace that will only occur when Yeshua returns to Jerusalem to begin His 1,000-year millennial reign.

    Even so, come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20)

  • Jesus came as the world’s Savior — not a social worker

    February 5, 2010 – 9:32 pm

    By Bill Koenig

    Jesus came to earth as the Messiah — the Savior of the world — not a social worker.

    Today, many Protestant and Catholic Church leaders are focused on the social gospel and the establishment of the kingdom of God on Earth while virtually never mentioning that salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ or that He will reign for 1,000 years from the New Jerusalem due to their lack of eschatological teachings.

    In a review of Dr. Martin Erdmann’s book, Building the Kingdom of God on Earth: The Churches’ Contribution to Marshal Public Support for World Order and Peace, 1919-1945, the reviewer wrote that the kingdom of God [the church] had been stripped of all biblical and theological distinctives and now was virtually identical to the new world order and its political and social agenda.

    Today, it is acceptable in major international religious and political meetings to portray Jesus Christ as a social worker, while using words from the Sermon on the Mount to show that Jesus Christ was socially conscious. Furthermore, it has helped lead to a false perception that there are many paths to God.

    Yale professor H. Richard Niebuhr in his book The Kingdom of God in America (1937) wrote that Protestant liberalism’s message and social gospel has led to a “God without wrath brought men without sin, into a world without judgment, through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

    In today’s ecumenical meetings, the saving of souls from sin was replaced with saving the world from unemployment, poverty, war and injustice. But this is treating the symptoms, not the root cause, which is the heredity and existence of sin in people’s lives.

    Oswald Chambers wrote: “Sin dwells in human nature, but the Bible makes it very clear that it is an abnormal thing, it has no right there, it does not belong to human nature as God designed it. Sin has come into human nature and perverted and twisted it. The Redemption of God through our Lord Jesus Christ delivers human nature from sin.”

    Henry Brandt stated: “You can have victory over life-dominating sin, based on two biblical principles remarkable in their simplicity: 1. There is no human remedy for sin. 2. The only cure for sin is in Christ.”

    We live in a fallen, sinful world filled with people whose only hope is in a Savior named Jesus Christ who took the sins of the world to the Cross on our behalf; and through Him and only Him, is there a promise of forgiveness and an everlasting life.

    Convinced but not converted

    My wife’s and my former churches as children, Catholic and Episcopalian, respectively, believe that baptism as a very young child is all that is required to be a Christian and to have everlasting life. These and many other Protestant churches believe that it isn’t necessary to be “born again,” and they deny the importance of making a public proclamation of one’s faith in Jesus Christ.

    Many religious leaders are convinced, but they aren’t converted. They have conformed to religious dogma, a false piety and discipline; and because they aren’t born again, the Holy Spirit is nonexistent and they haven’t been transformed. And they don’t have a personal and intimate relationship with the Savior of the world.

    Isn’t it an irony, yet not a surprise, that their religious beliefs and their political agendas are the main catalysts that will bring these times to completion and Jesus Christ’s return to Jerusalem?

    Is this a surprise? Absolutely not: It was predicted in the Bible.

    “I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I
    consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” ~ George Washington