Resources to aid your Understanding

Seminar 3 audio tape set

Subtitle: Rush called our torture and sexual degradation of Iraqi prisoners "brilliant" and said they were just good old boys trying to relax and "blow off steam"! On parallel path, other Conservative media pundits took much the same line. Is this abominable reasoning the official Bush domestic "Line of Defense"? Muslims are likely to be enraged even more.

This possibility took on greater probability once White House Spokesman McClellan refused to repudiate Rush's remarks

The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!

Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!

Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.




Cutting Edge has long said that Rush Limbaugh was a very clever, sophisticated part of this entire New World Order scenario. We believe he was raised up to be the ultimate Republican Party apologist, and a role which meant that he had to be a very strong Bush Administration apologist. For both Presidents Bush, Rush was their greatest defense, the guy who grappled with Bush criticizers "in the trenches" and verbally won the battles.

We have posted two Rush Limbaugh articles, and would like you to review them before we go any further.

* NEWS1030 -- "Rush Limbaugh -- Mega-Dittos To The Master Communicator" (Posted August, 1996)

* NEWS1156 -- "Rush Limbaugh Blasts Conspiracy Theories As 'Intellectual Laziness': Displays great Biblical ignorance" (Posted March, 1998)

We believe Rush Limbaugh to be a very sophisticated and important part of this entire march toward the New World Order. Rush has the ability and the resources behind him to correctly and effectively enunciate the many problems facing America and the world today. This ability is very important because you cannot solve a problem unless you first analyze it correctly first.

However, Limbaugh then offers a bogus answer for the problems he has just listed; his answer is to elect more Republicans and/or Conservatives. You and I both know how false this answer is, because these are just labels, and labels mean absolutely nothing. You and I also know that Republicans are just as committed to the New World Order plan as are Democrats. The entire political system is nothing more, nor less, than the Dialectic Struggle in action, with Republicans serving in the Thesis role and the Democrats in the Antitheses role. Through perpetual struggle between the parties, the ultimate goal of a One-World system of Government, Economy and Religion will be achieved -- the "Synthesis".

You can say the same of the labels, "Conservative" versus "Liberal".

Thus, no matter whom you elect, you will get larger government, more intrusive laws, more intrusive regulations, more emphasis on globalism and more "wars and rumors of wars". Nothing much will ever change. This fact is the reason Concerned Women of America warned in May, 2002, that the record of the Bush Administration on gay policy was identical to Clinton's policy (NEWS1652). This is also the reason Bush has continued most of the radical environmental policies of Clinton, even to the point of issuing a paper to the United Nations in which Bush said that "human actions" are responsible for global warming (NEWS1663). This last action frustrated even Limbaugh who called Bush "George W. Al Gore"!

But, for the most part, Limbaugh has served as the major apologist for the Republican Party generally and Presidents Bush specifically.

Rush has also served the plan of the Illuminati in yet another way. The "Illumined Ones" knew that, as they began to take some of the painful but necessary steps to achieve the New World Order, many decisions were going to have to be made that were going to anger a lot of Conservatives. Since America has a great many Conservatives, their considerable anger was going to have to be controlled and contained. Just as a huge lightning strike can be harmlessly discharged into the ground by a lightning rod, so Limbaugh was designed to be the political lightning rod of the Illuminati, to acknowledge to Conservatives the righteousness of their anger, only to harmlessly discharge the powerful lightning strike through him. Limbaugh has been the perfect political lightning rod, simply because he offers a bogus solution to the problems, a solution which sounds so right and so workable.

The internal, domestic changes wrought during the years of President Clinton were so many it would take a book to describe them fully. Clinton policies and personal actions during 8 full years badly eroded what was left of the Christian moral values. Clinton not only advanced the cause of abortion, but he was the major cheerleader for Partial Birth Abortion. Clinton's tax and spend policies radically changed America without most of us even being aware. Clinton's Extreme Environmentalism was so blatant he had Conservatives up in arms almost every day; just before he left office, he used his presidential authority to issue thousands of Executive Orders, some of which were exceedingly radical. President-elect Bush promised to review all these orders but then quietly let them go into effect. Clinton finished pushing through NAFTA approval, an issue so grievous to Conservatives it took Limbaugh nearly one year of arguing for it to quiet the anger down. Rush's seemingly inexplicable support of NAFTA was the first issue which alerted me to his true nature and his real agenda.

Clinton changed America forever. Conservatives were positively outraged for 8 full years; many confessed their outrage to Limbaugh and he acted like the lightning rod, taking this huge amount of anger and discharging it into the ground harmlessly. Limbaugh has served the Illuminati well.

Now, Rush Limbaugh rushes to the aid of President Bush as he grapples with this scandal where American and British have been torturing and sexually degrading Iraqi soldiers and civilian women for many months now. Let us turn to this issue to see where Limbaugh has decided to enter the fray.


Even though we have spoken of this scandal at great depth already, we feel the need to capsualize the issue in this article before we proceed.

On April 30, 2004, the prestigious New Yorker Magazine broke a story which boggled the minds of people throughout the world. Seymour Hersch, the author of this shocking expose' -- "TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB" -- wrote that for some time now, American forces have tortured prisoners and sexually abused them in order to degrade them. In fact, as I read of the specific types of torture being carried out, I realized that each type seemed specifically aimed at a particular Muslim religious sensibility. At this point, I immediately thought of the "Blood In The Streets" strategy, which called for the Iraqi invasion to produce, among many other things, such a sense of such outrage against all Western values that the Muslims of the world will begin attacking America and Israel in great numbers, totally disregarding our tremendous advantage in military weaponry. The objective would be to so enrage the Muslims that they will declare war on us and begin attacking us in wave after wave, giving our leaders the excuse to annihilate tremendous numbers of monotheistic Muslims who would never be able to accept the polytheistic claims of Antichrist. [NEWS1913 and NEWS1914 for more details)

What kinds of torture and sexually degrading atrocities were our solders perpetrating on Iraqi Muslim men and civilian women?

The Army conducted two investigations. Seymour Hersch commented that the first investigation smacked of a whitewash. However, the second investigation was more credible. Its author was Major General Taguba. Let us quote his investigation, which runs to 55 pages in the original.

NEWS BRIEF: "U.S. Army report on Iraqi prisoner abuse: Executive summary of Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba", MSNBC, May 04, 2004


* "5. (S) That between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320thMilitary Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF). The allegations of abuse were substantiated by detailed witness statements (ANNEX 26) and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence."

* "6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee; [C/Edge NOTE: This is rape]
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee; (C/Edge NOTE: Muslims consider dogs to be "unclean" animals; thus, intimidating a Muslim prisoner with an attack dog attacks yet another specific Muslim religious sensibility)
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

While reading these descriptions, I was taken aback by the realization that so many of these types of tortures seemed so sanitized in this general's report. For example, Item 'j' sounds sanitized and surreal until you remember the picture of Private England standing holding a leash around the neck of a helpless Muslim prisoner lying on the floor. Item 'k' similarly sounds sanitized until you realize that we are talking rape here! Item 'l' seems sanitized until you recall the photo of a naked Muslim prisoner cowering up against the rails of a jail cell, protecting his private parts as a vicious dog is seen straining on a leash, ready to attack should the soldier let go. Item 'm' does not sound as bad as an MSNBC article in which a US official admitted that a video existed which showed a soldier "having inappropriate contact with a dead body", a statement that surely sounds like "sex with the dead" ["U.S. says no plans yet to close Abu Ghraib", MSNBC, May 9, 2004[.

Amnesty International and the International Red Cross both have issued statements within the week just past which stated that they have been aware that these abuses have been occurring for a full year! Further, Amnesty International issued a statement calling these sadistic, sexually perverse acts a "war crime", demanding that the United States prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. However, some are beginning to question whether the same US Army who hid these abuses for a full year can now be trusted to investigate itself. Amnesty called for the creation of an independent tribunal to be convened which would have the authority to command witnesses to appear before its members, subpoena records and enforce judgments. ["Amnesty calls for Independent Tribunal", Amnesty International Press Release, 5 May 2004, http://news.amnesty.org]

Such a tribunal would sound a death knell to American sovereignty specifically and individual national sovereignty generally. Such a tribunal would establish that only a global government can prevent such disastrous wars and even more disastrous human rights abuses. Too many people might just agree, forgetting the terrible record the United Nations possesses in this area. To understand that some people are believing that only the UN can solve these problems, consider this breaking news story.

NEWS BRIEF: "Church Group Wants U.N. to Take Over Iraq", Fox News, May 11, 2004

"A national religious group representing 36 Protestant and Orthodox denominations said Tuesday that U.S. foreign policy is "dangerous" and urged President Bush to turn over authority in Iraq to the United Nations. The National Council of Churches (search), which has been highly critical of the war, acknowledged that Christians disagree on the issue, but said that giving control to the U.N. was the only way to create 'lasting peace'."

Once enough people view National Sovereignty as the evil which has started all wars and which is behind all human rights disasters can the United Nations begin to function with full power and authority. From the beginning of this Iraq war, I stated that the Illuminati had staged World Wars I and II to establish this precept. Therefore, even as American tanks were victoriously entered Baghdad, I was warning that the Illuminati cannot allow this Bush war to be seen as completely victorious and without any significant downside. Somehow, the people of the world were going to have to come to a point where they see this Bush endeavor as an unmitigated disaster. I did not know at this time in 2003 how this scenario would play out, but firmly felt that Bush was going to have to be brought down over Iraq, and said so on several occasions.

This torture and sexual degradation disaster seems tailor-made to accomplish this scenario.

One other matter concerning the general's report is in order. His method of writing does not give any indication whatsoever how many times these kinds of abuse were carried out on their victims. Was it one rape he uncovered or 400? Evidence exists suggesting that these types of tortures were carried out many times over, not just once. If just one type of an abuse was carried out, that incident would not warrant being placed in a report from a Major General of the United States Army.


Since the full weight of government exists for the sole purpose of protecting the president in times of disaster and scandal, we expected that all officials of the Bush Administration would act to protect the President, to keep the "plausible deniability" bubble surrounding Bush. Indeed, this is exactly what happened. While Bush and Rumsfeld were expressing their personal disgust and horror with the photos and the breaking stories, news reports from the field were indicating that the CIA and Military Intelligence actually operated that portion of the prison in which the sexual degradation occurred.


However, Fox News did report a Timeline of Events in which we see that Rumsfeld informed Bush of the scandal on or about January 15, 2004 (NEWS1913). Yet, President Bush uttered his infamous bragging statement on April 30, 2004, that at least Iraq no longer had "torture chambers or rape rooms"! [Ibid.]

At last report, we hear that about 30 different prisons are now under investigation, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the floodwaters from this scandal threatened to reach President Bush, we realized that someone needed to step forward with an unofficial/official explanation and with a defense which would calm Bush's greatest supporters -- the genuine Conservative and/or Christian. Did Rush Limbaugh fulfill this urgent need? Is his explanation the unofficial/official explanation designed to calm troubled waters? When you realize that other fervent supporters of Bush began speaking out during the same time frame, using the same type of defense, it seems even more credible that Rush Limbaugh was acting as the President's point man on this issue; and, finally, when White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to repudiate Limbaugh the very next day, you have to admit that is surely does look like Limbaugh was speaking for the President.

Let us review the facts.

Original Limbaugh Statements

NEWS BRIEF: "Limbaugh on torture of Iraqis: U.S. guards were 'having a good time', 'blow[ing] some steam off", Media Matters For America, May 5, 2004, http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050003

"Hours before President George W. Bush announced plans to address the Arab world to condemn the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison, Rush Limbaugh justified the U.S. guards' mistreatment of the Iraqis, stating that they were just 'having a good time', and that their actions served as an 'emotional release'."

As reported by Wonkette.com, Limbaugh's comments can be found on his website. From the May 4 Rush Limbaugh Show, titled "It's Not About Us; This Is War!":

CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men --

LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?

"The day before, on his May 3 show, Limbaugh observed that the American troops who mistreated Iraqi prisoners of war were 'babes' and that the pictures of the alleged abuse were no worse than 'anything you'd see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage'."

LIMBAUGH: And these American prisoners of war -- have you people noticed who the torturers are? Women! The babes! The babes are meting out the torture.

LIMBAUGH: You know, if you look at -- if you, really, if you look at these pictures, I mean, I don't know if it's just me, but it looks just like anything you'd see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage. Maybe I'm -- yeah. And get an NEA grant for something like this. I mean, this is something that you can see on stage at Lincoln Center from an NEA grant, maybe on Sex in the City -- the movie. I mean, I don't -- it's just me.

NOTE: You can hear Rush say these things on MP3 audio tape at: http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-20040504.mp3

Notice, above, that Rush said the type of torture and sexual degradation our prisoner guards were committing was no different than the "what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation". Now, to be fair to Rush, he seems to have been responding to one specific picture in which a smiling Private England and her sidekick, Graner, posed behind a group of naked men stacked in a pyramid. However, you cannot get around the fact that this statement is going to be repeated in Muslim circles as applying to all the types of torture and degradation, thereby widening the circle of outrage.

Further, we appreciate Rush confirming the Satanic nature of Skull & Bones, for their initiation ritual does include graphic displays of sex and sexual histories recounted. Skull & Bones ritual also employs some degree of torture of the initiate. For a complete article on the nature of Skull & Bones, we invite you to read our article, NEWS1314 and the "Fleshing Out Skull & Bones" book pictured, above. It is a very serious matter when our current President is a lifelong Adept in this secret society and when his Democrat challenger comes from the same society! America's Satanic goal is very clear and seems very near.

Not to be outdone, two days later, Rush called our types of torture and sexual degradation "brilliant"! He thought our prison guards were employing a brilliant strategy, and then he enunciated the same fact I had noted, i.e., that these types of abuses were specifically aimed at Muslim sensibilities.

NEWS BRIEF: "Limbaugh: prisoner abuse 'brilliant' ", Media Matters For America, May 7, 2004

On his May 6 radio show, Rush Limbaugh continued to defend U.S. military personnel accused of abusing Iraqi prisoners, comparing the abuse photos to "good old American pornography":

LIMBAUGH: All right, so we're at war with these people. And they're in a prison where they're being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one Arab male disrobe in front of another. Sounds to me like it's pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation -- and especially if you put a woman in front of them and then spread those pictures around the Arab world. And we're sitting here, "Oh my God, they're gonna hate us! Oh no! What are they gonna think of us?" I think maybe the other perspective needs to be at least considered. Maybe they're gonna think we are serious. Maybe they're gonna think we mean it this time. Maybe they're gonna think we're not gonna kowtow to them. Maybe the people who ordered this are pretty smart. Maybe the people who executed this pulled off a brilliant maneuver. Nobody got hurt. Nobody got physically injured. But boy there was a lot of humiliation of people who are trying to kill us -- in ways they hold dear. Sounds pretty effective to me if you look at us in the right context.

Did you notice Limbaugh's admission that these abuses were "ordered" by higher authority? "Maybe the people who ordered this are pretty smart."

Cutting Edge has also been making the point from the start of this scandal that the types of degradation to which these Muslims were subjected seemed aimed at specific Muslim religious sensibilities; this is exactly what you would expect if the Bush Administration were following the strategies called for the "Blood In The Streets" scenario. Another news story made this same point, so let us digress for just one moment to examine this revelation.

NEWS BRIEF: "Photos hit core beliefs of Muslims, scholars say", journalnow.com, Saturday, May 8, 2004, http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031775329594

"As soon as Ingrid Mattson saw the photo of the smiling American woman soldier pointing at the genitals of a hooded, naked Iraqi prisoner, she knew that it would touch a deep, inner chord in Muslims, no matter where they live. That image and others like it assault at a visceral level such core Islamic values as modesty and dignity while evoking feelings of humiliation that non-Muslims may not fully understand, Mattson and other scholars of Islam say."

" 'This is definitely symbolic," said Mattson, a professor of Islamic studies at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut. "This soldier is symbolic of American force, and the prisoner is symbolic of Muslim peoples. For the broader Muslim public, this will be a symbol of the subjugation and rape of Muslim lands."

We could not have said it better! Muslims throughout the world will look upon this scandal as a symbol of the American and British rape of their land, and they will be outraged as a result. The only question is, how much deliberate stoking of these fires of rage, humiliation, and hatred will it take to ignite the entire Muslim world against the Western powers -- United States, Great Britain, Israel?

Now, let us return to another ridiculous, unchristian remark by Limbaugh:

"... Limbaugh says it's no different from a pop concert or homoerotic pornography:

LIMBAUGH: The thing though that continually amazes -- here we have these pictures of homoeroticism that look like standard good old American pornography, the Britney Spears or Madonna concerts or whatever, and yet the Libs upset about the mistreatment of these prisoners thought nothing of sitting back while mass graves were being filled with three to 500,000 Iraqis during the Saddam Hussein regime.

"On his May 5 show, Limbaugh attributed the American public's outrage over the allegations to "feminization":

LIMBAUGH: I think a lot of the American culture is being feminized. I think the reaction to the stupid torture is an example of the feminization of this country." ["Limbaugh: prisoner abuse 'brilliant' ", Media Matters, May 7, 2004]

Rush is utterly ridiculous and without any spiritual backing to try to explain away these crimes by saying that, because our decadent culture now accepts this kind of sexual practice both in pornography and on-stage, our soldiers should be allowed to treat Muslims in this manner. Notice his statement that "these pictures of homoeroticism that look like standard good old American pornography".

How many American parents will now revise their attitudes toward Brittney Spears?

Muslims have long held the idea that American values degrade civilized society. This scandal and the resulting lame excuses put forward by Conservative leaders, and by the failure of the Bush Administration to take action against anyone higher up in the Chain of Command will only reinforce this Muslim stereotype of America and all of Western Culture.

White House Validation

But, then, the White House validated Limbaugh's statements the very next day!

NEWS BRIEF: "White House refuses to repudiate controversial Limbaugh remarks", Media Matters For America, May 7, 2004, http://mediamatters.org/items/200405070004

"Following recent reports that radio host Rush Limbaugh compared the torture of Iraqi prisoners to a college fraternity prank and said the American guards were simply "having a good time," White House press secretary Scott McClellan was asked by a reporter about Limbaugh's comments -- and McClellan refused to repudiate them:

Q: Scott, there's a segment of society that differs with the White House as it relates to these pictures and the investigation of the U.S. soldiers' conduct to include Rush Limbaugh who, Tuesday, agreed with the caller, equating the pictures to a college fraternity prank, and said the U.S. soldiers should not be punished because it was an emotional release as they were letting off steam. What's the White House say about that?

MR. McCLELLAN: April, I think the White House says what we said yesterday and what the President has said over the last few days.

Q: No, but Scott -- no, seriously. This man is a conservative --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I actually got asked a question earlier today about that matter.

Q: But none --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I addressed it then.

Q: But if you stand out strongly trying to let the Arab world know that this is wrong and then you have the proverbial spokesperson for the conservative party saying this, doesn't that send a mixed message?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President's views have been very -- have been made very clear."


(NOTE: If you want to view the official White House verbatim transcript of McClellan's remarks, you can go to the official web site of the White House.)

Media Matters then concluded this short article: "On March 22, Vice President Dick Cheney was a guest on Limbaugh's radio show. In 1992, Limbaugh was an overnight guest in the White House of then-President George H.W. Bush."

Just as we have been saying for eight full years now, Limbaugh is the official Republican Party apologist, which means he is the official apologist for both Presidents Bush! Rush has had many Bush Administration officials on his radio program, from both Bush Administrations. No one gets invited to be an overnight guest in the White House unless they have a very special and very direct link to the President himself. Such is Rush Limbaugh.

Other Conservative Media Leaders Spout Same "Party Line"

The other factor which makes me belief that Limbaugh was spouting the unofficial/official White House defense in this matter is that at the same general time frame in which Limbaugh was trying to justify our torture and sexual degradation, other media pundits were saying much the same thing on their shows! This development brings us to the point where we must realize that these men were probably sent "Talking Points" by the White House, which they dutifully aired on their program.

Let us now examine the very similar lines of defense put forth by these other media leaders.

NEWS BRIEF: "Hannity & Colmes guest compared U.S. soldiers' maltreatment of Iraqi POWs to 'frat hazing' ", Media Matters, May 3, 2004

"ROBINSON: Well, one thing that needs to be understood, is that there's also an impact on the torturer. ... Now, I use the word torture, but that's not what's happening in these pictures.

HANNITY: What is it?

ROBINSON: I've seen -- I've seen worse than this at -- frat hazing is worse than this.

HANNITY: So in other words, this is not a big deal? What should the punishment be if these guys in fact are found guilty of whatever is going on over there, whatever is going on?

ROBINSON: Well, it's not torture. If it was, they'd be accused of torture. They're accused of maltreatment. I'm not making excuses for them."

Notice that Hannity did not mount a repudiation of this caller, thereby allowing his conclusion to stand. This places a stamp of validity on the part of the caller, who may have been prompted to make that call. Such staged calls are done very regularly in the world of radio talk show. If you need to be reminded of the true horrific nature of the abuses our prison guards carried out against Iraqi males and female civilians, just go back up in this article to the official Army report written by Major General Tagube.

Now, let us listen to a similar line of defense by another media commentator.

NEWS BRIEF: "On CNBC: Iraqi prison abuses likened to fraternities ... again", Media Matters For America, May 5, 2004, http://mediamatters.org/items/200405060003

"On May 4, the same day that Rush Limbaugh described U.S. military personnel abusing Iraqi prisoners as "having a good time" and "blow[ing] some steam off," Weekly Standard online editor Jonathan V. Last said on CNBC's Dennis Miller that he believed worse things happen in fraternity houses:

I hope these guys are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law ... but at the same time, let's not get too crazy and call them Nazi-like. ... Worse happens in frat houses across America ... bad pictures with some guys playing naked Twister. It's bad, but we don't want to get too crazy."

Several other Conservative media leaders sounded the same tired theme.

NEWS BRIEF: "Conservatives Justify Torture As 'Blowing Off Steam' ", Center For American Progress, May 7, 2004, http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=68054

"Rush Limbaugh, the voice of conservatives across America, claimed the torture at Abu Ghraib was "about people having a good time" and that the perpetrators just needed to 'blow some steam off'. Displaying his trenchant understanding of geopolitics, Limbaugh later claimed, 'Maybe the people who executed this pulled off a brilliant maneuver'."

" Weekly Standard editor Jonathan Last also downplayed the allegations claiming, 'Worse things happen in frat houses across America'. Syndicated columnist and Fox News host Cal Thomas stated, 'If there has been humiliation, it isn't the fault of the West. It is Muslims' fault'."

Cal Thomas must have training as a trial lawyer in rape cases, for many such lawyers have attempted to defend their client on this basis: the rape was the fault of the victim!

The Washington Times got into the act in a "round-about way" on May 10 as they praised Limbaugh.

NEWS BRIEF: "Washington Times: Limbaugh "an important conservative voice", Media Matters For America, May 10, 2004, http://mediamatters.org/items/200405100001

"The Sunday after Rush Limbaugh compared the torture of Iraqi prisoners to a college fraternity prank and said the U.S. guards were simply "having a good time," The Washington Times praised the radio commentator. A May 9 editorial (about Florida state prosecutors' investigation of allegations over Limbaugh's prescription drug use) argued that "legal actions against Rush Limbaugh are politically motivated," calling Limbaugh "one of the most able communicators of conservative political ideas in America" and "such an important conservative voice."

This kind of praise coming in the time frame as it did, just a week after Limbaugh uttered his infamous defense of our torture in Iraq's prisons, has the effect of validating his remarks. If Rush is this well thought of and if he is such a "communicator of conservative political ideas in America" and "such an important conservative voice", and if the White House refused to repudiate his remarks, then his original remarks must represent official thinking of the Bush Administration.

Certainly, Arabs will view the situation this way.

Let us allow Rush Limbaugh to close out this article, as he returned to this theme on May 7. Listen carefully to his words.

NEWS BRIEF: "Rush returned fire, attacked media focus on his Iraqi prisoner abuse rants", Media Matters of America, May 7, 2004, http://mediamatters.org/items/200405070007

"On May 7 -- while Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld offered his personal apology for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees on Capitol Hill, saying that the wrongdoings were 'fundamentally un-American' -- radio host Rush Limbaugh defended the prison abuse for the fifth straight day and attacked media coverage of the controversial remarks Limbaugh made on May 3, May 4, May 5, and May 6.

Limbaugh on the May 7 Rush Limbaugh Show:

Now why -- why on the NBC Nightly News and why on Crossfire does my name come up, and why do I have to be challenged? Don't - don't misunderstand - I don't mind that I am. Don't misunderstand that, I said, but 'Do you condemn Limbaugh?' 'Do you - ?' 'I condemn Limbaugh! [mocking CNN Crossfire co-host Paul Begala and guest Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL)]" ...

I think the reason that I have to be condemned and they've got to play sound bites from this show and have everybody pooh-pooh it is because it's effective -- it's because there's one voice in this country that's contrary to the herd, to the to the to the mentality here that has -- that has picked up steam. And everybody is in that herd and everybody's making a rush in that certain direction, and there's one voice out there that's saying 'Hey wait a minute! This is not what everyone's saying it is'."

I'm not an elected official. I'm not part of the Joint Chiefs. I'm not in the command structure. I'm not in the chain of command at all, and yet I have to somehow be condemned. It proves it's politics, folks! ...

Who died? Who, who died here? What are we, what are we investigating? We haven't learned anything here. In fact, this is not about learning what happened, this is about these senators. ...

If you people in the media want to continue to characterize what I said, you can at least put it in context. You could say that it also reminds me of things I've seen at a Britney Spears or Madonna concert and on the MTV music awards. And if you're gonna do this let's just go ahead and get it right. ...

[We did.]

I do not subscribe to the theory that the American military is a bunch of idiots, I don't subscribe to the theory the American military is a bunch of boobs. .... The whole thing here just troubles me because what could have been or what could be actually something pretty smart is being cast now as one of the biggest most egregious mistakes that's ever been made. ... It could well be that the whole purpose here, which has been said, was to humiliate these prisoners. And there's no better way of doing it than what was done. These are Arab males -- what better way to humiliate them than to have a woman have authority over them? What's the purpose here? What's the objective of this? The objective is to soften them up for interrogation later, later on. As I said, there was no horror, there was no terror there was no death, there was no injuries, nothing. And given the profound fear of these jihadists and these prisoners, if you confront them with that fear, if you humiliate them that way, it might open them up, you might get keys to unlock what it is that have that they're not coming forward with. ...

If you look at these pictures you cannot deny that there are elements of homoeroticism and as was stated by a woman -- and I forget her name [Donna M. Hughes] -- column on National Review Online yesterday, her point was, -- yeah, I've seen things like this on American websites. You can find these if you have the passwords to these various porn sites, you can see things like this. And her point was maybe these kids -- the soldiers, the guards whoever, who are of a certain age group, who've grown up with access to this -- are simply acting out what they've on these websites or something, just for the fun of it. Or maybe other reasons." [Emphasis was in the original]

Thus has Rush Limbaugh defended the Bush Administration from the torture and sexual degradation scandal in Iraq. His remarks seem to carry the weight of the official Bush Administration, especially since the White House refused to condemn his statements. No Bush Administration official could ever have stated these things, but they could come from the unofficial/official mouth of Rush Limbaugh.

Before we get to our conclusion, let us note several important factors concerning Limbaugh's statements.

1. His assertion that these tortures and rapes and other sexually degrading abuses should be laughed off as just soldiers "blowing off steam" is ridiculous when you consider the horrific nature of the crimes. Can you imagine any defense lawyer arguing that his client should not be prosecuted for rape and sodomy because he was just a good old boy "blowing off steam"? The judge would throw that lawyer out of the courtroom and maybe into the brig! Newspapers would laugh that lawyer to scorn. Yet, Limbaugh is not so castigated by the regular media, while The Washington Times runs an article several days later praising Limbaugh!

2. Rush did not deny any of the allegations; he just attempted to minimize their impact. For genuine Christians, this point must be carefully pondered. No Christian who truly loves Jesus and orders his life by the Bible can justify these crimes. The Bible does not allow anyone to "check their religious values at the door" when they go to war. We are allowed to kill enemy soldiers, but not innocent civilians. The Bible does not allow any Christian soldier to rape, sodomize, humiliate, and sadistically torture prisoners.

The very fact that Rush is attempting to justify these crimes by making light of them should cause every genuine Christian to realize, once and for all, what Limbaugh is all about. Cutting Edge was absolutely right when we posted our articles -- listed above -- in 1996 and 1997 respectively. Limbaugh is truly a sophisticated spokesman for the Illuminati. He has never demonstrated any good spiritual fruit which would stand Biblical examination. I hope that these pastors I have heard calling Rush to commend him for his "Christianity" will stop once and for all! Remember, Rush and Bush both mention "God", but never Jesus. Believing in "God" does not make a person a Christian! (Read NEWS1104)

3. Rush was wrong when he said no one got killed. News stories indicated that prisoners died under American interrogation. Listen to this news story:

NEWS BRIEF: "Photos of Dead May Indicate Graver Abuse", The New York Times, May 7, 2004

"WASHINGTON, May 6 — Grisly photographs taken at Abu Ghraib prison of two dead men may indicate that the violence at the prison went far beyond degrading treatment of detainees. The Bush administration has provided only limited information about one of the men; the other remains a mystery. The photographs come from the same collection of pictures that show military guards humiliating other detainees. All of the photographs, including those of the dead men, were taken at Abu Ghraib, according to people who provided them to The New York Times. One photograph shows the body of a man with a huge head wound. Next to him is a piece of paper with a detainee identification number: 153399."

"Pentagon officials have not answered any questions about the identity of that prisoner or the circumstances of his death. However, an internal military report completed in March by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba described the death of prisoner No. 153399 during a riot on Nov. 24, 2003. The Taguba report said that the guards were authorized to use deadly force, but it harshly criticized the handling of the incident ... The other unidentified photo shows the body of a man with facial wounds and a bandage under his swollen right eye. He is in an unzipped body bag covered with bags of ice. There is no other information ... The photograph of the man packed in ice appears to match a reference in a diary entry made by Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick, who was a guard at the prison. He is one of six members of a military police unit charged in the abuse cases at Abu Ghraib ... Since the prisoner abuse scandal broke, the C.I.A.'s inspector general has said he is investigating the involvement of C.I.A. officers and contractors in three deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, including one at Abu Ghraib."

4. The very fact that Limbaugh tried to excuse American torture and sexual degradation on the basis that these activities are widely accepted in current American culture tells us two things: a) The moral collapse of our culture is further along than we had thought; b) Limbaugh is indirectly approving of these new, lower cultural standards, his rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding! Rush would never have attempted to excuse these crimes on this basis if he really strongly disapproved of their existence in our culture.

UPDATE ON LIMBAUGH: My wife heard Rush say yesterday (May 10) that most of these photographs were taken by one woman. While the woman about which Rush spoke may have taken many photos, American troops regularly took their own pictures. Listen:

NEWS BRIEF: "New abuse photo developments", news24.com, 06/05/2004, http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1522773,00.html

"Washington - More photos of Iraqi prisoners being abused by their US jailers have turned up among a thousand digital pictures passed around among US military police who served at the Abu Ghraib prison, The Washington Post said on Thursday. The new images of prisoner abuse were among about a thousand digital photographs the US troops took of their experience in Iraq, including many tourist-like images of soldiers riding camels and standing before mosques. The graphic images, taken by several digital cameras, loaded onto compact discs and passed around among military police who served at the now notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, include a soldier holding a leash tied around a naked prisoner writhing on the ground."

Therefore, Rush was wrong when he implied that one woman had taken most of the photos. The implication seemed to be that, if only one person took most of the photos, the abuse was not as widespread as originally believed.


When you add up all these disparate elements, you can only conclude that Rush Limbaugh and these other Conservative American media personalities were defending the Bush Administration exactly as President Bush wishes to be defended! Otherwise, White House spokesman Scott McClellan would have jumped at the opportunity to quash the ridiculous statements of Rush Limbaugh. By refusing to repudiate Rush's remarks, the White House indirectly placed its stamp of approval on them.

Right on cue, other Conservative media personalities defended the President on much the same grounds!

The only people likely to believe this ridiculous, nonsensical Limbaugh line are those propagandized "Ditto-Heads" who have allowed Rush to tell them what to think. Even though Rush screams about his opponents having a "herd mentality", by the time I realized what he was really like and the role he is playing, I knew that nobody instills a "herd mentality" like Rush Limbaugh. If someone parrots this seriously flawed argument, ask them if they have read Major General Taguba's official Army report (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001); since the answer is likely to be "no", invite them to read what this career general had to say about the conduct of these American prison guards. The deceptive nature of Rush's argument will then be self-evident!

When the Arabs examine these same facts, they will conclude that President Bush was really not serious when he "apologized" for these crimes. When they further realize that Rumsfeld and the top American military leadership in Iraq are not going to suffer any recriminations for these degrading actions, their anger is only going to get higher and deeper, and closer to the boiling point.

Let us quickly sum up the various elements causing rage to build up in the Muslim heart against America:

1. Invasion of two Muslim countries by infidel armies -- Afghanistan, 2001 and Iraq, 2003

2. Invasion of these two countries was based upon a lie (No WMD and we have lost the moral high ground we expressed at the time of the invasion)

3. Capture of a major Muslim capital by an infidel army

4. Deadly contamination of Iraqi soil by Depleted Uranium poisoning - NEWS1909

5. Destruction and desecration of mosques (NEWS1914)

6. New strategy of killing large numbers of civilians (NEWS1914)

7. Torture and sexual degradation of Muslim men and women by American and British soldiers

All these elements can be thought of as ingredients to a cauldron of soup being brought to a boil. After the contents have been brought to a boil, producing a most inflammable product, one spark is all it would take to ignite the entire region into an all-out war which will include Israel. We believe a single horrifying incident will be needed at just the right time to cause this cauldron to reach "critical mass" and explode with unbelievable fury throughout the Muslim world. We believe the destruction of the Dome of the Rock -- by any means -- may very well be that incident.

Or, we might have to start worrying about Basra, for in 1933, H.G. Wells wrote a book entitled, "The Shape of Things To Come". In this book, he revealed a part of the Illuminati plan to start the World War III that would usher in the "Modern World-State" that will be ruled by "The Christ" -- Antichrist. Listen carefully to this part of the Plan, for we may see it come to pass in our Daily News:

".. the plan for the 'Modern World-State' would succeed in its third attempt (Third World War) and would come out of something that would occur in Basra, Iraq." ["The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed", by Dr. Dennis Cuddy, p. 50.

Once Islamic armies come against Western interests in the Middle East, Western powers will have the excuse they need to unleash our unbelievable array of weaponry, annihilating entire armies and possibly entire peoples. This type of event would be a perfect unfolding of the "Blood In The Streets" Strategy!

Truly, events seem to be spiraling toward the pre-determined end: the World War III that will produce Antichrist.

Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference.

If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you need to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then, you need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.

If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, but have come to realize His reality and the approaching End of the Age, and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually.

If you would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation Page now.

We hope you have been blessed by this ministry, which seeks to educate and warn people, so that they can see the coming New World Order -- Kingdom of Antichrist -- in their daily news.

Finally, we would love to hear from you.

You can contact us by mail or email.

God bless you.

Subscribe to our email updates and messages from our editor by entering your email address below
Return to: