In the 1990s, Jews were being blown up almost weekly, and we would not acknowledge it as terror. We called it a "cycle of violence." We would not define morality, and we allowed the disintegration of our moral values to affect not only the private life of a president, but also the domestic policy in America and also our foreign policy.

What does your theory mean for the coming presidential election?

Number one, we're in a horrendous battle between darkness and light. We began with a distraction of our moral principles We saw it through the 1960s and the 1970s. We saw it through abortion and prayer in school and all these other issues. We saw it in the White House through Clinton. Then we saw that it translated into our foreign policy--not just our domestic policy. It spread like the Ebola virus.

And now we realize that the holy grail of understanding is that 9/11 was the most apocalyptic day in American history. And we woke up from our innocence to realize that we cannot put our heads in the sand any longer. We've got to stand up to the New Agers who believe that a terrorist is not a terrorist.

What do you mean when you say that 9/11 was America's most apocalyptic day?

No American who saw those buildings fall and that black smoke could think of anything but the horrors of the Book of Revelation. No Hollywood producer could have described something so awful.

But this did not have to happen. We had redefined terrorism and terrorist. Now the dilemma is, terrorism was rationalized as a valid response to its root cause, namely repression and desperation. In the 1990s, the New Agers said, "The reason terrorists happen is because they're repressed and they need to be appeased. These are really just people that are homeless and hungry."

Well, when you believe that, you empower them. The people in India do not commit terrorism and they're very poor, much poorer than those in the Middle East. Once we gave the terrorists the justification for terror, it empowered them to unify to do more of it because they got political concessions from it. Case in point: We offered Yasir Arafat $30 billion plus East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, even though he's committed 2,300 acts of terrorism. What were we saying? We're saying crime pays.

I want to get back to the presidential election. You support President Bush. What happens if Kerry wins?

If Kerry wins, we get Clinton all over again because Kerry has already brought in most of Clinton's holdovers. We'll get New Age liberals who will have the same Middle East policies that Clinton had, which is no Middle East policy. We'll go back to more peace conferences, we'll go back to getting the Jews to give up more land, putting more pressure on Israel. It will be the liberal, New Age, kumbaya mantra that will wreck this country.

But in a prophetic sense what does that mean?

We'll get two Sauls in a row. King Saul was rejected by God. We'll have gone from a Clinton Saul to a Kerry Saul.

Do you envision an apocalyptic scenario as a result?

I think it will open the floodgates for more terror. Because the only things terrorists understand is power. This is a battle between two books, two kingdoms and two spirits.

One of the things we need to be prayerful about is the issue of Saudi oil. Saudi oil is being used as a weapon to try to influence the U.S. elections. Right now, the Saudis are pushing the price of oil up, they're going toward $50 a barrel. The U.S. economy has been completely ravaged through oil. I believe the Saudis are willfully and intentionally decreasing oil production, because they desperately want George Bush to lose.

I don't understand that, because the Saudis have said they would add more oil production.

In the world of the Middle East it means nothing. These are just words. [Radical cleric] Muqtada al-Sadr, who right now is killing American troops and has been for the last six months, has said he was going to stop doing it. Arafat has said he denounced terrorism more than 10,000 times. The Saudis, of course, are going to say that because it's politically correct--but [in the fall], you'll see oil prices higher than they are even now.

The Saudis are terrified of Bush. Bush believes in moral absolutes and democracy. If a democracy comes to Saudi Arabia, then their family-owned corporation collapses.

But how does it help them if Kerry is elected?

Kerry is going to be a New Ager. He's going to be a One World boy. He's going to unify France and Germany and a lot of the countries that the Saudis kiss up to. So the Saudis are going to feel like, "Happy days are here again,"--like they were under Bill Clinton. George Bush believes that a war is going on, and that the Saudis are helping fund it. Kerry doesn't feel that way. Kerry is going to be kinder and gentler to the Saudis, and he'll talk to them. Bush will probably continue fighting the war on terrorism, whereas Kerry will try to find a way of redefining the war on terrorism as good terrorists vs. bad terrorists or good terrorist states vs. bad terrorist states.

Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus