Bible Believers' Newsletter #202

"We focus on the PRESENT Truth -- what Jesus is doing NOW . . ." ."                  ISSN 1442-8660


Christian greetings in the wonderful Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe Sir Henry Kissinger once remarked, "It is not the truth that matters but what people perceive to be truth". And his fellows manage perceptions world-wide through their control on media and communications, entertainment and education.

The Newsletter is posting early this week so that you may be advised of President Bush's careless slip of the tongue which confirms what we have been saying all along about "perceptions" and the "terrorist" attacks on Manhattan and Washington.

On ABC's Good Morning America this week Diane Sawyer interviewed the crew of a tank in a New York City street, armed with automatic weapons and surrounded by barricades. The interview projected this politically correct racial mix as if they were our sons, brothers, friends and fathers in a process of normalization and desensitization for the coming totalitarian police state.

"Perceptions" . . . back in the USSA!!     Television viewers don't program the studios, the studios program their viewers. Brother Branham taught us: Christians don't have a television set in the house.

Our guest contributor Brother Alfred Adask owns Suspicions & AntiShyster News Magazine which has published since 1990. We include a link to an important article of his called Democracy Enslaves US to NWO from an issue of his magazine bearing the banner, World Marches to Democracy. It contrasts democracy with republicanism, and explains how the former is atheistic. In our main article, Intrigues of the Evil One, our guest shares his personal insight into Satan's subtilty in inspiring the construction of a man-made, artificial reality parallel to God's creation, and how our perception of what we see is often Satan's illusion.

This Newsletter serves those of like precious faith and whosoever will receive the truth is welcome to feed their soul from the waters of the River of Life. Everything presented should be confirmed personally in your own Bible. . . Brother Anthony


Bush Ropes Own Neck Regarding First WTC Strike

Orlando, Fla., December 4, 2001 -- President Bush actually stated that on the morning of September 11 at just about 9 am edt, he watched a video/film clip of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, just prior to that well-known remedial reading session he was about to have with some school kids.

Mr. Bush quite clearly stated that Andy Card came in to inform him of the second WTC attack after he had begun reading to the children . . .

Mr. Bush was definitely watching a "different" channel than most everyone else in the world, to have seen the first WTC attack on a TV set literally within minutes of the event. . . This must have been transmitted from the perpetrators' own video cameras in place near the World Trade Center. . . Complicit factions of the US federal government, including virtually all upper-level members . . . actually filmed their own attack on New York's World Trade Center -- and Bush has admitted that he watched it!

Here's the relevant portion from the transcript of Mr. Bush's statements:

Question: " . . . how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?"

Bush: Well . . . (APPLAUSE) "Thank you, Jordan (ph).

"Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

"But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There are big problems with the above statement. There was no live TV coverage of the first attack. A video allegedly taken by someone who just happened to be filming the Trade Center that morning did air a couple of hours after the initial incident but video of that first plane hitting the tower taken by security cameras did not air publicly until days afterwards.

What's more: there is no reason bush would have thought a passenger jet hitting the WTC in perfectly clear, calm weather was due to any kind of "pilot error." This is merely disingenuous chaff being emitted by Bush to cloud the issue and deflect any radar tracking.

And we should all keep in mind: by Bush's own admission even after Card did inform him of the second attack and Bush knew the Trade Center had been nailed, he just sat there and kept (trying to) read. Full story: cnn.com   whitehouse.gov   guardian.co.uk   http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html


NTSB Birdbrains Sticking Heads in Rockaway Sand

New York, December 2, 2001 -- Little wonder the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has bleated for help from NASA to help them out in the tragic crash of American Airlines Flight 587. . . Here they were with 265 dead, and God knows how many mourners, giving us this claptrap that the tail fell off mysteriously.

"No tail fell off, not before the explosion. I swear to that," said retired firefighter Tom Lynch, who was doing his exercise march along Rockaway Beach Boulevard on November 12.

"It made a bank turn and suddenly there was an explosion, orange and black, on the right hand side of the fuselage. It was a small explosion, about half the size of a car. The plane kept on going straight for about two or three seconds as if nothing had happened, then 'vwoof' -- the second, big explosion on the right wing, orange and black."

"It was only then that the plane fell apart. It was after the explosion and I'm telling you, the tail was there until the second explosion." . . .

He contacted the FBI, NTSB, Rep. Anthony Weiner, and Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. "I got no response from anyone,"

Jim Conrad, who retired last month as a police lieutenant after 34 years, . . "I saw exactly what Tom Lynch saw. . ."

According to (US Presidential candidate) Lyndon LaRouche, "If sabotage occurred, it was not a "terrorist" attack but was a "covert special operation" involving the same military, intelligence, and criminal networked involved in the ongoing coup attempt, which began on September 11" (CEC, Australian Alert Service, Vol 3 No. 44, November 22, 2001). Full story: nypost.com


In Name of Security, 000's Lose Constitutional Rights

The actions taken by President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft in secretly detaining untold numbers of individuals and calling for secret military tribunals to handle captured Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners have been condemned as "a constitutional coup d'etat" which may lead to a "police state," according to experts on constitutional and international law.

While most if not all the detainees "look Arab" now, experts warn, tomorrow's detainees could be blond, blue-eyed -- or you.

"What we've seen, since Sept. 11, if you add up every thing that Ashcroft, Bush and their coterie of federalist society lawyers have done here, is a coup d'etat against the United States Constitution," said Francis A. Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "When you add in the Ashcroft police state bill that was passed by Congress . . . that's really what we're seeing now. Full story: americanfreepress.net


US Seeks New Use for Secret Evidence

December 9, 2001 -- The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court for a broad ruling to authorize the use of secret evidence in cases in which it is trying to detain or deport immigrants it contends are in the country illegally. For national security reasons, the government argues that it should share secret evidence with only immigration judges and not with the immigrants and their lawyers. . .
Full story: nytimes.com


Who Needs 12 When One Will Do?

London, December 3, 2001 -- The British the government plans to end two-thirds of all jury trials

At the end of October, a drinking school met at the Home Office's local: the Adam and Eve, . . booze had its customary amnesiac effect, and one man toddled home without his briefcase. . . a timetable for the devastation of the right to trial by jury. . . showed that the government was preparing a vast bill of 525 clauses. It will transform into authoritarian law a report from Sir Robin Auld. . . Auld wants to ban juries from all cases that would attract a sentence of less than two years, and the government will oblige him Full story: The New Statesman.


NSW Parliamentary Bill to Abolish Civil Juries

Sydney, December 6, 2001 -- There is a Bill going through the NSW Parliament right now to legislate for the removal of juries from civil cases.

Will the BANKS be allowed to get away with their fraudulent practices with regard to loan contracts and creating their own money "out of thin air" because "evil counsellors, judges and ministers" "subvert and extirpate" "the laws and liberties" of the people (i.e. Bill of Rights 1689)?

Courts Legislation Amendment (Civil Juries) Bill

"The purpose of this bill is to amend the District Court Act 1973 and the Supreme Court Act 1970 to provide that civil actions, with the exception of defamation actions, be tried without a jury, unless the court orders otherwise. . ." (Extract from the Legislative Assembly Hansard of 28/11/2001 (first reading) and 06/11/2001 (second reading) 52nd Parliament of New South Wales).


Democracy Enslaves US to NWO

A democracy -- which denies both individual rights and the God that granted them -- could diminish the republican forces of individualism and faith that would naturally resist one world government. A "democratic form of government" might be ideal for implementing a New World Order.

In fact, if you'll read the United Nation's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"  (adopted December 10, 1948), you'll see that Article 21(b) explains the basis of the UN's one-world government:

"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

The basis for the authority of all UN governments is not God, but the "will of the people" as expressed in "periodic elections" (rather than fixed constitutions). That's a democracy. And that 1948 UN "Declaration" is probably the political foundation for the world's 20th century march toward our "beloved" democracy.

Like all collectivist political systems -- democracies must be atheistic. Although a particular democracy may allow its subjects to engage in some religious activity, none of those religious principles can be officially recognized or given any authority by the collectivist state. Hence the "separation of church and state" which was never intended by the Republic.

Government secretly imposed the democracy, because they knew the American people would never accept it, if they understood that abandoning the republic meant abandoning their unalienable Rights.

Comment: If Alfred Adask's analysis of the difference between a democracy and a republic is essentially correct, then the fundamental difference between the two forms of government is not political (as most would suppose) but spiritual.

Luke 11:52, "Woe unto you, lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge: you entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in you hindered". Full story: Suspicions and AnitShyster Magazine Volume 11 No. 3, "World Marches to Democracy" (approx 1MB pdf file).


The Great Game, Russia 3 vs US 0

Russian leader Vladimir Putin stole a march on the Bush Administration. . . through their proxy Afghan force, the Northern Alliance. Moscow, which has sustained the Alliance since 1990, re-armed it after September 11 with new tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, helicopters, and trucks. . .

Putin put Chief of the Russian General Staff, Col. Gen. Viktor Kvashnin, and the deputy director of KGB, in charge of the Alliance. . . in a coup de main, Kvashnin rushed the Northern Alliance into Kabul. . . The Alliance is now Afghanistan's dominant force, . . The Russians have regained influence over Afghanistan. . .

America's ouster of the Taliban regime meant Pakistan lost its former influence over Afghanistan and is now cut off from Central Asia's resources. So long as the Alliance holds power, the US is equally denied access to the much coveted Caspian Basin oil. Russia has regained control of the best potential pipeline routes. . . Moscow is now free to continue plans to dominate South and Central Asia in concert with its strategic allies, India and Iran. Full story: foreigncorrespondent.com   financialsense.com


Nuclear Experts in Pakistan Linked to Al Qaeda?

December 9, 2001 -- Two Pakistani nuclear scientists who have been detained and questioned by Pakistan did meet with Taliban and Al Qaeda officials in Afghanistan to discuss nuclear issues. But the scientists . . .were not weapons experts, and therefore of little value to terrorists. . .

American and Pakistani officials said that at least some of the scientists the United States is worried about had been involved in the complex of top-secret nuclear facilities southwest of Islamabad where much of Pakistan's 'rogue'[???] nuclear weapons program is concentrated. . .

The new American concern over Pakistan's nuclear program highlights what could well become a growing source of tension between the United States and Pakistan as the war against terrorism enters a new phase. . . .

Comment: Watch your back, Pakistan!   Full story: nytimes.com


Vengeance or Justice?

The Human Rights Foundation (HRF) a South African organization that seeks to end wars around the globe, issued a press release on December 5, 2001, entitled "War Crimes in Afghanistan."

HRF contends that the government of the United States is guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Convention . . . The Foundation believes the Taliban attempted in good faith to negotiate a reasonable alternative to war. . .

The report states: "Let us review the current war in Afghanistan and go back in time to the events of the 11th September 2001. Within an hour of the WTC attacks, CNN had already named Osama bin Laden as the prime suspect. . . "

The Taliban made a second offer 10 days into the bombing to hand over Osama bin Laden to an International Court which was neutral [this was a fair request in terms of international norms and ensuring justice]. This offer was also rejected out of hand. . .

Prior to the Operation Desert Storm, George H.W. Bush refused to negotiate with Saddam Hussein for a peaceful pull out of Kuwait after the latter had entrapped himself there. The Iraqi dictator clearly realized his mistake and wanted to negotiate a save face withdrawal, but Sr. Bush would not allow it and continued with the bombardment of Iraq. The loss of life has now exceeded 500,000 in Iraq, mostly civilians

Comment: HRF have made no allowance for the fact that World War III, plans for which were discovered in 1871, must proceed on schedule.
Full story: eislam.com   fpp.co.uk


Worried Pope Calls on Humanity to Overcome Hatred

Vatican City (Reuters) December 9, 2001 -- Pope John Paul, indicating he believed the United States should not expand its war on terrorism beyond Afghanistan, urged people on Sunday to push for peace and not pursue vendettas.

"In the current complex international situation, humanity is being called on to mobilize its greatest energies so that love triumphs over hate, peace over war, truth over lies, forgiveness over vendettas," the Pope said in a regular weekly address.

His comment came the day after he had urged the world in apocalyptic terms to pull back from the brink of further conflict, apparently signalling his anxiety that once the Afghan war was over the United States would strike elsewhere.

He is also clearly concerned about the seemingly endless spiral of violence in the Middle East. . .

The Vatican was against the 1991 Gulf War, expressing the belief that allies could have applied more diplomatic pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to pull out of Kuwait. Full story: nytimes.com


UN Warns: Don't Take On Iraq

Washington, December 10, 2001 -- The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has cautioned the US not to take its so called war on terrorism to Baghdad, where the US has unfinished business after the Gulf War. But many senior members of the US Congress are not listening to Mr Annan's warning, and they've urged President Bush to eliminate Saddam Hussein's regime.

Senior Republican and Democrat members of the Congress have written to President Bush advising him . . . to move against Saddam Hussein sooner rather than later. . .

Vice-President Dick Cheney also backed the idea of the beginning of a covert war against Saddam Hussein. . .

Deputy US Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, an influential hawk in the administration, and considered the leader of the next stop Iraq faction, wouldn't publicly rule out a military strike. Full story: abc.net.aom.au


US Proposal: Deploy Jordanian Forces in West Bank

December 8, 2001 -- Well-informed sources said that the US envoy Gen. Antony Zeini conveyed to the Jordanian King Abdullah II a proposal agreed by Israel for sending Jordanian troops to the Palestinian territories in order to separate between the Palestinians and the Israeli soldiers.

According to the Palestinian sources, this proposal won the consent of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat as (Jordanian) forces will help him maintain control of the situation.

Comment: Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, wishes to evict the Palestinians from their homeland and push them back into Jordan. Full story: arabicnews.com


Intrigues of the Evil One

By Alfred Adask

For 18 years I have been trying to peer through the veil and actually see how this world operates. And while I don't have a clear vision (and probably never will), I know that I see a little more than most.

What I see so far is that we in the Western World (especially the USA) live in a world that is absolutely unlike that which we are led to believe in or imagine. The secular world operates according to principles the average man can't even imagine, let alone believe. So far as I can see, there are two parallel "realities": one is the natural world, created by God, and populated by natural man and the "things" which God has made; the other is based on artificial (man-made) entities like corporations and trusts, that create an illusion of life. Virtually everyone accepts the artificial world as "real".

I began to suspect the nature of this "artificial reality" when I first began to understand Ephesians 6:12: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers . . . ." I'm not absolutely certain that artificial entities like corporations and trusts fit into the classification of "principalities and powers". But I know for a fact that artificial entities (corporations, trusts, etc.) cannot be identified as "flesh and blood". Therefore, if our adversary is not "flesh and blood" (made by God), then artificial entities (made by man) could be our spiritual adversaries.

In terms of the law, all artificial entities (corporations, trusts, etc.) are "legal fictions" that exist only in legal contemplation -- in our imaginations -- but not in reality. Although the usual definitions and descriptions of "legal fictions" are dressed up to sound rather impressive or dignified, the truth is this: All "fictions" are lies. And that's a fact.

Just because "legal fictions" (artificial entities) are created by the authority of our courts and/or government doesn't change the fact that they are lies. They don't really exist. General Motors has no size, color, weight or taste. It's an invisible, imaginary entity that isn't really there. The same is true for IBM and Microsoft. They are illusions and finally, lies.

And that's not wild-eyed rhetoric or mere personal opinion. That's the law. Dig a bit into the topic and you'll discover that law dictionaries admit that artificial entities are legal fictions and therefore, "lies".

Once you see that "legal fictions" are lies, you're bound to recall the "father of lies". If Satan is the father of lies, and corporations and trusts are lies, there are obvious spiritual implications. If that relationship is valid, then it should come as no surprise that corporations inevitably seduce us into acts and values that are contrary to God's will and our own salvation.

My suspicion that artificial entities are inherently opposed to Godly principles is supported by the fundamental "benefit" promised by all artificial entities: Limited personal liability. With the right assembly of corporations or trusts to shield your business, your assets or your savings, you can accidentally cause a great deal of trouble for others and -- even if you're caught -- avoid personal liability. In other words, if I act as the officer of a corporation and I accidentally make a decision that causes a number of people to be injured or even killed, I can probably avoid personal liability for those damages. The injured can sue the corporation -- but not me. If I set up a series of corporations and trusts, I can even separate my business assets from the corporate business that is responsible for the injuries and thus operate negligently and still shield myself from personal liability.

Almost every business in the Western World understands the idea of "limited liability" and seeks to establish that shield for itself. On the face of it, limited liability (the ultimate promise of all artificial entities) seems like a positive and rational choice in this "litigative society".

However, there are two problems with artificial entities:

First, by providing "limited liability" (the legal shield against potentially ruinous, unlimited personal liability), the artificial entities encourage people to take dangerous risks or even knowingly violate the law in the belief that -- even if they're caught (which is unlikely) -- they can avoid personal liability for their acts by hiding behind the corporate "veil". This mentality encourages people to pursue personal gain without regard to public welfare. For that reason, corporations and trusts subtly encourage their officers to engage in criminal behavior. Why not? Even if you're caught, you won't be (personally) punished. Thus, corporations and trust subtly tempt us to break God's laws.

Second, while we may all hope for mercy, if there is a Judgment Day, it seems apparent that God will judge us all for every act and thought. Depending on that judgment and God's mercy, we may find ourselves in Heaven or Hell. I believe that Hell is a terrible consequence and the ultimate expression of "unlimited personal liability". God seems to tell us that if we violate enough of His laws, we may be condemned to Hell. If so, the whole principle of the Old Testament and the foundation for the New, is the threat of unlimited personal liability for our acts in this life (Romans 6:23).

If God says you are subject to unlimited personal liability for your acts in this life, but artificial entities promise that you can enjoy limited personal liability, it doesn't take a genius to understand that by promising limited personal liability, all artificial entities (corporations, trusts, etc.) advocate a system of values fundamentally opposed to those of the Bible. From a spiritual perspective, I have a very difficult time regarding all statutory artificial entities as anything less than diabolical.

And yet we live in a world dominated and overwhelmed by artificial entities like IBM, General Motors and Microsoft. People who work as corporate officers are held in high esteem and enjoy high credit ratings. Those of us outside the corporate world tend to be less prosperous. The average person regards corporations as something positive, or at least no more than a standard tool for business. Virtually no one senses that a spiritual disability may be attached to a corporate system of values.

So perhaps my notions are simply mistaken. If we take a vote, I know my opinions are sure to lose.

But I can't seem to deny or abandon my own perceptions and conclusions. And so I'm led to believe that this entire "artificial world" is, at best, a kind of unintentional blasphemy -- and at worst, the work of Satan. (The natural world is comprised of all things which were made by God. The artificial world is commonly seen to be that which is made by man (rather than God) -- but could as easily be considered to have been made by Satan).

The problem is that this artificial world is so "seamless," so omni-present that it's become as "invisible" to the average person as oxygen or gravity -- it's all around, but nobody "sees" it. As a result of this "massive invisibility," the corporate system of values is generally unchallenged on a spiritual level.

Therefore, I understand that the preponderance of evidence is clearly contrary to my notions. This deception is so massive, so complete that at first glance -- even to me -- it seems too incredible to be plausible, let alone possible. If this artificial world is possible, if it is as I suspect, then it's simply too extraordinary to be the work of mere men. And that may be precisely why it survives. Because it seems as impossible as having a pet dinosaur in the back yard, virtually no one bothers to look and see if there's a huge reptile out back. The lie is so big, everyone believes it precisely because we can't imagine a lie so large.

I realize I may be mistaken about what I think I see. I really wish someone could make me understand my error -- my life would be enormously simplified.

But if my observations of the "artificial world" are generally correct, this artificial world must have been motivated and created by Satan. Mortal man is simply incapable of creating such a massive deception and keeping it secret since its inception around the American Civil War.

Which is why I say you must give the Devil his due. If my notion of an "artificial world" is valid, then Satan has created a deception so unbelievable that even the elect seem completely deceived. Insofar as people embrace that "artificial world", and it's as attractive as hell, (if you know what I mean), they necessarily stray from God. Not merely from God's Word and Law, but from His Presence, from an awareness of God.

This artificial reality is somewhat like "Donkey Island" in Pinocchio -- the young boys can smoke cigars, drink beer, play pool and slowly change into donkeys. Except in this artificial reality, we are simply amused and entertained until life is gone and instead of changing into donkeys, we've been changed into atheists and sinners who may have lost their chance for salvation.

As you can imagine, I can ramble on for hours. But I'll stop here.

Except to say I almost wish I was like most people and unable to "see" this artificial world. And in truth, I don't "see" this artificial world as a consequence of my own "super-human" vision. Insofar as I see it at all, I do so only because God shows me, because He allows me to see. And that's why I'm convinced my observations are essentially correct. If it were just me looking, I'd agree I must be nuts. I'd at least keep my mouth shut. But I am convinced that God has slowly led be to see one insight and then another, for over 18 years, and slowly built my understanding until today, I see through a glass, darkly. I can feel his presence in every new insight. (Alfred Adask, is the Proprietor of Suspicions & AntiShyster News Magazine). nl202.htm


Pass it on . . . Send this article to someone you know
Brother Anthony Grigor-Scott is a non-denominational minister. He has ministered full-time since 1981, primarily to other ministers and their congregations in various countries. He pastors Bible Believers' tiny congregation, and is available to minister in your church.
For Further Information Contact:
Bible Believers' Church
Currabubula, NSW 2342, Australia
e-mail: ags@biblebelievers.org.au
Order: Bible Believers' web site on CD.
URL: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/
Subscribe: Majordomo@biblebelievers.org.au
With the message: subscribe bible_believers_newsletter
Unsubscribe: Majordomo@biblebelievers.org.au
With the message: unsubscribe bible_believers_newsletter