Friday, February 27, 2015

Israel: A Nation in Constant Peril

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the nation of Israel. This follows this post about the U.S. government. This follows this post about Homeland Security. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.




Israel: A Nation in Constant Peril




Hostility against the Jewish state, encircled by antagonistic countries, threatens to get completely out of control. How will Jerusalem cope with these anti-Semitic outbursts? What does the Bible reveal about this vulnerable nation's destiny?

Israeli flag
Source: Photos.com
Israel, a small democratic nation about the size of New Jersey, is virtually surrounded by 22 Islamic nations, some of which have regularly called for its total demise.
Typical of such statements is the most recent utterance of open hostility from Khaled Meshaal, leader of the terrorist group Hamas: "Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land. We will never recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation" ( The Observer, Dec. 9, 2012).
"From the river to the sea" is typical Islamist shorthand for the territory between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea—meaning the entirety of the land of Israel. No "two-state solution" there!
Even more hostile statements have periodically come from the lips of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who regularly threatens Israel with annihilation.
Recently installed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has also joined in such calls. He presented himself as the arbiter of the cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas-ruled Gaza and in July 2012 called Israeli President Shimon Peres a "great and good friend."
But when interviewed on video in Arabic earlier in 2010 he called Israelis "bloodsuckers" and "descendants of apes and pigs." Morsi also argued for Muslim "military resistance" against Israel and referred to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations as "a waste of time." In addition he firmly declared: "There is no place for them on the land of Palestine," adding that Jews "are hostile by nature—they have been fanning the flames of civil strife wherever they were throughout history. There should also be political resistance and economic resistance through a boycott, as well as supporting the resistance fighters.
"This should be the practice of the Muslims and the Arabs outside Palestine. They must not be given any opportunity, and must not stand on any Arab or Islamic land . They must be driven out of our countries" ( The Jewish Chronicle , Jan. 11, 2013, emphasis added throughout).
Morsi also stated on video in 2010: "Dear brothers, we must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them. They must be nursed on hatred. The hatred must continue" (posted at the Middle East Media Research Institute [MEMRI] website, Jan. 10, 2013).
Has President Morsi softened his approach toward Israel since becoming head of state in Egypt? Time will tell, but his actions to date don't offer a great deal of hope. (For more on him, be sure to read " Winter Advisory: The Arab Spring That Wasn't ")
As foretold in the Bible, the Jewish state has been and will increasingly be a focal point of enemy rage and global conflict. What does this mean for Israel, and what lies ahead?

What the Bible reveals

The Bible remains an up-to-date, now book, continually commenting on current affairs with astounding accuracy.
You may be surprised to learn that some 3,000 years ago a psalm of "Asaph the seer" (2 Chronicles:29:30) was right on target with these prophetic words about Israel in the end time: "O God . . . Your enemies make a tumult; and those who hate You have lifted up their head. They have taken crafty counsel against Your people, and consulted together against Your sheltered ones.
"They have said, 'Come and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more.' For they have consulted together with one consent; they form a confederacy against You" (Psalm:83:1-5).
While Israel has faced its share of enemies throughout its turbulent history, this vivid description applies even more now. Today the Arab nations are partially divided among themselves, but they generally agree on one point—their fervent desire for Israel's demise. Today the ominous threat level has increased on all of its borders.
Truly Israel today remains a fulfillment of Ezekiel:5:5: "Thus says the Lord God: 'This is Jerusalem: I have set her in the midst of the nations and countries all around her.'" This passage reflects a lot deeper meaning than its historical context alone would indicate. Throughout Israel's history, God has always understood her fragile position in a hostile world. (For further historical and prophetic insight, see "A Biblical Prophecy of an Arab Confederation .")

A free world unfriendly to Israel

British author Melanie Phillips, also a Daily Mail columnist and contributing writer for The Jewish Chronicle, concluded a recent Internet piece with this stark statement about current world conditions—especially in the West:
"You are looking at the emergence of a new world order: the eclipse of the west, brought about by the unholy alliance between the Obama administration and death-wish Britain and Europe—and leaving Israel, once the forward salient of the west in the Middle East, emerging instead as the lonely and isolated defender of liberty in the face of a gathering Islamic storm" ("Into the Abyss," Dec. 12, 2012).
Britain and Western Europe have a history of often favoring the Arab countries over Israel. But the United States has long been a loyal supporter and ally of this tiny democratic state. That threatens to change, perhaps more radically than we could ever imagine.
Many observers have pointed out that President Barack Obama's recent choices for two key cabinet posts, State and Defense, do not have an encouraging history of support for the state of Israel. As Melanie Phillips, who also appears as a commentator on radio and TV programs in Britain, observed, "John Kerry, tipped to become Secretary of State, is an anti-war activist and left-wing fantasist."
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry warned against "prejudging" the Muslim Brotherhood as it prepared to take power in Egypt. And he gave assurances that Egypt's President Morsi was committed to freedom and good relations with Israel and the United States—despite much evidence to the contrary ("Exclusive: Muslim Brotherhood Preaching Israel Destruction After Election," IPT [Investigative Project on Terrorism] News, June 27, 2012).
Phillips went on to remark: "The record of Chuck Hagel, is more troubling still . . . He has consistently voted against sanctions on Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability; he voted against naming Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization; and he refused to sign a letter calling on the European Union similarly to name Hezbollah—which has the blood of countless Americans on its hands—as a terrorist organization. Instead he advocates engaging with Iran."
A Wall Street Journal editorial adds that Hagel "has long advocated engagement with Syria's dictator [Bashar al-Assad] and the terror group Hamas" ("A Hagel Education," Jan. 9, 2013).
The Economist quoted Lindsey Graham, Republican U.S. Senator of South Carolina and a member of the Arms Services Committee as stating that Hagel is "well out of the 'mainstream' in his foreign-policy views" and, if confirmed, would be "the most antagonistic Secretary of Defense towards the state of Israel in our nation's history" ("Obama Picks His Soldiers," Jan. 12, 2013).
Texas Republican U.S. Senator Ted Cruz echoes this observation, stating: "His record on Israel strongly suggests that he views Israel not as a friend, but as a nuisance. The U.S.-Israel alliance is critical to our national security, but Hagel has been far too willing to undermine that alliance" ("Why I Expect to Oppose Hagel," USA Today, Jan. 9, 2013).
We should also recognize that President Obama's foreign policy has favored Islamists during and following recent uprisings (see " Puzzling U.S. Support for Islamists Over Moderates "). And Islamists are hostile to the state of Israel.

Israel's long history of encirclement

Douglas Murray stated in his article "Israel Under Siege" in The Spectator: "Since 1973 Israel has suffered a status quo of quiet enemies and even quieter friends. Now it is surrounded by disappearing friends and even louder enemies" (Nov. 24, 2012). He spoke of "the overarching movement that has been overlooked for too much of the [20th] century since its birth [in 1948]."
But Israel has faced many enemies since the nation left Egypt some 3,500 years ago. The late British theologian and historian F.F. Bruce tells us, "The departure of the people of Israel from Egypt marks their birth as a nation" ( Israel and the Nations, 1969, p. 13). He had observed earlier: "Yet Israel's national history was not lived out in isolation from other peoples. The Israelites were surrounded by nations greater and mightier than themselves, who impinged upon the life of Israel, at many points" (p. 11).
During Israel's early days as a nation, "it was not only Canaanite cities in the land that tried to reduce them to serfdom; from time to time they suffered from incursions from beyond Jordan, by their own kinsman of Moab and Ammon [descendants of Abraham's nephew Lot] and Edom [the descendants of Jacob's brother Esau], and more disastrously by the beduin [or Bedouin] from remoter parts of Arabia, who mounted on camels, raided their territory year by year at harvest time and destroyed their crops" (pp. 19-20).
Yet ancient Israel also had her share of national heroes and deliverers—Joshua, Gideon, King Hezekiah and King David, the latter conquering the city of Jerusalem and founding it as his nation's capital. In more recent times we think of Israel's modern founder David Ben-Gurion (1948), Moshe Dayan (of the 1967 War) and even of Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Still, throughout too much of Israel's history its peoples have been in either actual or virtual captivity. In the eighth century B.C. the northern 10 tribes of the kingdom of Israel were taken captive into Assyria, followed in the sixth century B.C. by the southern kingdom of Judah being invaded and exiled by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. In the days of Jesus Christ and His apostles and the early Church, the Jews were under the occupation of Rome.
After two failed revolts against Rome's might, the Jewish nation was crushed and its people scattered. Many centuries later the tragic experience of the Holocaust (with 6 million Jews perishing) was followed by the prophesied return of many Jews to their ancient homeland.
These hardy survivors were determined not to become slaves yet again. Thus we see the strong survival mentality of the modern state of Israel, again threatened by a host of enemy countries and now also hindered by waning friendships with key supporter nations.
The late historian Barbara Tuchman wrote in her book Practicing History: "With all its problems, Israel has one commanding advantage—a sense of purpose: to survive. It has come back. It has confounded persecution and outlived exile to become the only nation of the world that is governing itself in the same territory, under the same name, and with the same religion and the same language as it did three thousand years ago. It is conscious of fulfilling destiny . It knows it must not go under now, that it must endure" ("Israel: Land of Unlimited Impossibilities," 1981, p. 134).

What Bible prophecy clearly reveals

So what does Bible prophecy tell us about what will happen to Israel and Jerusalem in the years ahead? One specific prophetic passage in the Bible becomes supremely important at the time of the end of this age of human misrule, which will be followed by the utopian, millennial reign of Jesus Christ and His saints (Revelation:20:4-6). This key scripture is found in Zechariah:12:2-3, where God says:
"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall happen in that day [of God's direct intervention] that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it."
Although Jerusalem (often meaning not only the city itself, but the nation of Israel as a whole) has been a source of contention throughout much of its history, this prophetic passage primarily speaks of the time of Armageddon (see Revelation:16:14-16). This occurs just prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ. (For a detailed account, read the article, "Armageddon: The End of the World? ")
But what decisive geopolitical events lead directly to this most crucial of all benchmarks in future world history? In brief, a new European-centered superpower will arise and take control of Egypt and the Holy Land. The leader of this power is identified in Bible prophecy as "the king of the North."
Another end-time leader referred to as "the king of the South" (most likely leading an alliance of Islamic Middle Eastern nations, possibly a restored Islamic caliphate) will attack or "push at" the king of the North. This will provoke the North into a blitzkrieg-like invasion of Egypt and neighboring lands, with northern forces also entering the "Glorious Land"—the Holy Land (Daniel:11:40-42).
But then what happens to these conquering enemies? Zechariah:14:3-4 gives us the answer with a basic prophecy about Christ's return to the earth: "Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations . . . and in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the east." These nations will have been gathered together at Armageddon to fight the Messiah, Jesus Christ, at His coming.
Shortly before that time, "half of the city [of Jerusalem] shall go into captivity" (verse 2). So the clear indication is that Israel will once again be occupied by foreign armies, coming under gentile control for 3½ years just before Christ's second coming (Revelation:11:2).
As mentioned at the outset of this article, a number of surrounding nations are already intent on destroying the nation of Israel. Yet in spite of all the troubles they may inflict on Israel, Bible prophecy indicates that these Middle Eastern nations will not be able to eliminate the Jewish state.
Ultimately Israel's captivity and occupation is destined to come from an unexpected source—the aforementioned prophesied European-centered superpower. Then the peoples of Israel will finally learn how dependent they are on God for safety and security (these peoples being more than just the Jews—see "Where Are the 'Lost 10 Tribes' Today? "). Then they will welcome the Anointed One, their-long-sought-for Messiah.

Christ will rescue Israel

An encouraging, yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecy of Christ enters this end-time picture: "'Behold, the days are coming' says the Lord, 'that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness'" (Jeremiah:23:5-6).
The fulfillment of this prophecy will be so important to Israel's future that it is repeated almost verbatim in Jeremiah:33:15-16.
The context of this particular prophecy makes it even more intriguing. These wonderful, inspiring words are uttered by Jeremiah in the midst of a series of prophecies relaying the terrible news that the nation of Judah was going into Babylonian captivity at that time.
Yes, even in the most discouraging of circumstances, God keeps His plan of ultimate rescue and deliverance fully in mind.    
Whatever troubles the peoples of the tiny Middle Eastern nation of Israel may have to endure before that ultimate outcome, we may be absolutely sure that God Himself will come to Israel's rescue through the direct intervention of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Our Creator keeps His eyes on Jerusalem and Israel. And so should we!


Flyer To Print Out For CPAC–VDARE.com Warned You!

A timely post about from www.lifenews.com about CPAC. This follows this post about movies better than the Oscars.
You can follow me here.


                                                                                                  

Flyer To Print Out For CPAC–VDARE.com Warned You!


clicktodownloadpdf
Neil Munro in the Daily Caller had a story yesterday headedObama: Immigration Will Reshape America’s Politics“. Really? Who knew? Well, in fact, we knew.
Specifically, Peter Brimelow knew, when he wrote Alien Nation in 1995 (Chapter 10: Immigration Has Consequences–Political Power) and also when he wrote Electing a New People as a National Review cover story. [June 16, 1997]
But there are many people who don’t know, and  a lot of them are at CPAC. They need to know. At this point, if you are a Republican operative, immigration is endangering your job.
A flyer saying  all this, suitable for printing and handing out to the throngs at CPAC  can be downloaded here. (6.2 MB PDF, 1 printable page.)
Time for some grassroots activism!

Thursday, February 26, 2015

U.S.A.: Best Government in Existence?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the U.S. government. This follows this post about Homeland Security. This follows this post about the book Flashpoints from Stratfor. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.



Best Government in Existence?



Printer-friendly version


Is the U.S. form of government "the best existing, or that ever did exist"? Does its system of "checks and balances" produce strength—or contentiousness?

With all the imperfections of our present government, it is without comparison the best existing, or that ever did exist," wrote Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington in 1787 ( Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government, © 1995-1998, by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., ME 6:227). Now 213 years later, the 2000 presidential election process afforded a test of that lofty claim. Is the U.S. form of government really "the best existing, or that ever did exist"?
Leaders who answer to no one have it easier than leaders in a democratic republic. Interviewed by the press after meeting with partisan leaders of Congress, President—elect George W. Bush commented that he would not want to live in a dictatorship—"unless I was the dictator," he quipped!
But, despots are easily corrupted. History is replete with the biographies of kingly leaders who were corrupt either before their coronation or were corrupted in time by the cheers of their subjects. Setting aside for the moment the despots who have forced the hands of their citizens together in applause, even well intentioned, democratic leaders have also fallen prey to the praise of those who surround them. Too easily, they begin to rate themselves more highly than they should.
Enter the American model of government. (By "American," I mean U.S.—apologies to Canada, Central and South America!) "The Founding Fathers knew well the kind of government they were trying to avoid, but could only project what their own experiment in government would become. They based this projection on their analysis of governments in the past, on principles derived from natural rights, and on an assessment of the nature of man" (ibid., Introduction).
Looking forward along the annals of time, Jefferson forecast, "Those who will come after us will be as wise as we are, and as able to take care of themselves as we have been" (Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1811, ibid . ME 13:40). Have the present leaders and citizens fulfilled his optimistic prophecy? Let's first consider how the U.S. founding fathers constructed the U.S. governmental structure.
Checks and balances
Theoretically, each of the three branches of government in the United States "checks" or restrains the other two. An executive (the president) administers and enforces laws that are made by the legislature (the House of Representatives and Senate). A court (the ultimate being the Supreme) speaks to the legitimacy of executive policies, based upon law, and the validity of new legislation, based upon the Constitution.
The hypothesis continues with the premise that every branch strengthens the other's performance. The mutual strengthening lies in the fact that no one branch is permitted to do the tasks of all three: create and administer law, as well as respond to challenges about both law and its administration. The system acknowledges the founders' assumption that any person or group of people vested with overly much power would become despotic.
A given division of the government that performs questionably in the discharge of its responsibility would face challenges by the other two. Thereby, orders, propositions and rulings would be made stronger than they would be if their issuers answered to no one. It's at least a partial application of the biblical proverb, "Iron sharpens iron" (Proverbs:27:17).
In idealistic terms, the ultimate authority of the U.S. government, the force that could and would stop all abuses of power, is its citizenry. The Electoral College chooses the president. How the college members vote is determined by popular vote in each state (not by the popular vote nationwide, as many were reminded in the daily civics lessons associated with the recent election contest). Members of the Congress are selected by popular vote, based upon a formula that was designed to insure a stable government. The president appoints members of the Supreme Court for life, but the Senate must confirm each appointee.
The American press evolved over the centuries into a "fourth branch of government," often called "the Fourth Estate," taking on the role of holding the nation's leaders to an honest commitment to the constitutional responsibility each occupies. (The media did not always enjoy the freedom and power it now notably wields. Once, in frustrated anger over the Washington press corps, President Jefferson had every member of it jailed over a weekend! How times have changed!) Ostensibly, the media is made up of "the people" and furthers the objectives of the U.S. founders.
So, it is ultimately the people's government. Common citizens can question the highest officials of the land. The sought-after result is a nation whose citizens would enjoy the greatest possible freedoms to pursue their personal goals.
Government of, by and for the people
Jefferson extolled the foundational role of the citizenry in a private letter to Richard Price in 1785. "The happiness of governments like ours wherein the people are truly the mainspring is that they are never to be despaired of. When an evil becomes so glaring as to strike them generally, they arouse themselves, and it is redressed. He only is then the popular man and can get into office who shows the best dispositions to reform the evil" (ibid., Papers, 7:630).
President Lincoln, in his renowned Gettysburg address, intoned, "...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people , shall not perish from the earth."
Has the United States been able to fulfill this noble, idyllic aim? As charges and countercharges were fired back and forth during the recent postelection challenges in the United States, many reporters observed that at least it was words, not lead, being fired. To be sure, this is good! The country's politicians lauded themselves that they resolved their disputes peacefully.
Did they? I referred to Proverbs:27:17 above, noting the sense of "iron sharpens iron" imbedded in early American thought. The rest of that verse reads, "so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend ." That is, challenges made with respect to people who are honored can engender better decisions, better thought, better policies. However, hostile opposition and rivalry will only reinforce a party spirit-as postelection events have demonstrated.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We have no interests nor passions different from those of our fellow citizens. We have the same object: the success of representative government. Nor are we acting for ourselves alone, but for the whole human race. The event of our experiment is to show whether man can be trusted with self-government . The eyes of suffering humanity are fixed on us with anxiety as their only hope, and on such a theatre, for such a cause, we must suppress all smaller passions and local considerations" (Thomas Jefferson to Gov. Hall, 1802, ibid.).
More self ish than self less
Has the United States demonstrated that "man can be trusted with self-government"?
What began as the world's best answer to despotism has become a complex tangle of conflicting interest. Presidents "legislate" by executive order, bypassing the lawmakers. President Clinton used this avenue to place thousands of acres into national parks, without going through legislative channels. Many conservatives already are calling on the incoming Bush administration to issue countermanding executive orders to rescind the Clinton directives.
Legislators have their own "creative" means of getting their way, by adding non sequitur amendments to critical bills. For example, a congressman may write an amendment that authorizes several thousand dollars to be paid to someone in his district for the study of methane gas produced by cattle manure (seriously!). He would then add that amendment to a crucial highway appropriations bill that has passed committee debate and is ready to go to the president for his signature.
Activist courts go beyond interpreting the law, adding precepts to existing statutes. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court, not the Congress, mandated busing. Vermont had no law acknowledging same-sex relationships, but the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that such "couples" were entitled to the same benefits as married couples. The legislature felt obliged, with the encouragement of the governor, to respond by creating the infamous civil union law. A more recent example of an activist court is the Florida Supreme Court, whose justices added new election law in the course of interpreting existing law. Another example of judicial activism is the action of the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided the presidential election.
Nothing human could be perfect
"Perfect human government" is an oxymoron, for nothing "human" could be "perfect." Truthfully, Americans themselves make no claim that their government is perfect, but they often assert that it is "the best possible" form of government. We've already noted several imperfections. Breaking down the U.S. system further, we see more.
That ambiguous entity, "the White House" is synonymous with the presidency at the same time as it affords an illusory anonymity. "White House sources" attempt to mold and shape public opinion, amplifying the influence of the executive branch of government. An "unofficial" call from the White House, asking for consideration for a certain person or project conveys a weighty endorsement in itself.
The Congress is comprised of liberals, moderates and conservatives principally of the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans. Each one theoretically represents his constituency, his ideological allies in both parties, his own party, his own conscience and his personal political ambitions for reelection or for higher office-at the same time! Additionally, congressmen respond to professional lobbyists who seek legislation favorable to their private interests.
Courts theoretically are made up of men and women who are not ideologues, but rather "pure" jurists who seek to adjudicate the law and the Constitution. The Supreme Court justices typify the "supreme" jurist-in theory, anyway. In practice, students of the high court know that the justices are selected for the bench, in part, on the basis of their personal ideology. Why else would people pose the oft-asked question of the presidential candidates: "Would you nominate a pro-life or pro-choice judge for the Supreme Court?" Further, many justices have been blatant about pursuing their personal political convictions at every possible turn.
Jefferson's prayer
Thomas Jefferson said he prayed that selfishness of the few would not obstruct serving the needs of the many. "A government regulating itself by what is wise and just for the many, uninfluenced by the local and selfish views of the few who direct their affairs, has not been seen, perhaps, on earth. Or if it existed for a moment at the birth of ours, it would not be easy to fix the term of its continuance. Still, I believe it does exist here in a greater degree than anywhere else; and for its growth and continuance...I offer sincere prayers" (Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816, ibid., ME 15:31).
His prayer might have been answered for a time, or it simply may have taken time for the innate selfishness of human nature to permeate the U.S. system. Either way, selfishness is more evident than cooperation for the common good. Even those who proudly claim "the system works" would not be so naïve as to posture that its participants act unselfishly.
The perception of the U.S. founders about the corruptibility of human nature truly was insightful, and the model of government they devised has been remarkably successful. However, Americans would be remiss to take undue credit for their triumph, given the state of their government's inherent divisiveness. It is to the credit of God's will and mercy that the country has endured so long.
If the U.S. form of government is truly "the best existing, or that ever did exist" and if the "eyes of suffering humanity are fixed on" the United States as its only hope, then the future of humanity is bleak indeed. Such a claim likely sounds patriotic to its citizens and, perhaps, self-congratulatory to other world citizens, but it actually is a presumptuous assertion.
Nonetheless, an answer to Jefferson's prayer will come-not in the way that he expected. The best is yet to come in the form of the government of God, which Christ will soon establish over the world. He alone will rule with unselfishness. His government will not be " of the people, by the people" for no human government could achieve what a government should accomplish. But, His government truthfully will be " for the people."
Of this perfect government, Isaiah prophesied, "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel and might; the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. His delight will be obedience to the Lord. He will not judge by appearance, false evidence or hearsay, but will defend the poor and the exploited. He will rule against the wicked who oppress them. For he will be clothed with fairness and with truth" (Isaiah:11:2-4, The Living Bible). WNP
Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!
Login/Register to post comments


6 GOP Governors Supporting Obama's Lawless Amnesty Decrees

An interesting article from www.alipac.us about GOP Governors who are supporting the president's amnesty. This follows this post about DHS, Loretta Lynch, and impeachment. This follows this post on HOW amnesty is funded in ways other than the DHS. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.


6 GOP Governors Supporting Obama's Lawless Amnesty Decrees

6 GOP Governors Supporting Obama's Lawless Amnesty Decrees

For National Release



Contact: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) (866) 703-0864 | WilliamG@alipac.us

Six GOP Governors are feeling the heat today from American activists who oppose illegal immigration, amnesty for illegals, and unconstitutional and dictatorial actions by Obama due to their acquiescence and support for Obama's lawless Amnesty edicts.

While 26 states have rapidly joined forces to sue to stop Obama's overtly unconstitutional amnesty orders, which mirror "immigration reform" amnesty legislation that was defeated in Congress 7 times, 6 GOP governors are in states that are silent or actually supporting Obama's move despite landslide level opposition among voters!

"Each of these 6 Republican Governors has the power to have their state join the Texas led lawsuit against Obama today and we know more than 80% of GOP voters in their states want that to happen," said William Gheen, President of ALIPAC. "Yet they are supporting Obama's overthrow of our Constitution and nation by acquiescing and allowing their Democrat Attorneys General to speak for their states instead of the Governors offices. Here in North Carolina, our Republican Governor Pat McCrory put NC behind the lawsuit even though he has an illegal immigrant supporting Democrat Attorney General!"


ALIPAC is taking steps today to notify GOP party leadership and voters in 6 targeted states about how their Governors are supporting Obama's explosively unpopular lawless Amnesty efforts. The Governors of Iowa and Hawaii have staffers claiming their Governors are not responsible for their states being listed in support of Obama's amnesty.

Concerned citizens are asked to contact these six Governors to demand that they stop their states from supporting Obama's amnesty in court! All GOP lawmakers who support Amnesty or Obama on this matter are expected to lie and order their staffs to lie to concerned callers because GOP lawmakers who tell the truth about their support for amnesty for illegals are usually destroyed like Eric Cantor.

The 6 GOP Governors that lead states listed as supporting Obama's lawless amnesty in court documents are...

Governor Bruce Rauner of Illinois--Phone: 217/782-0244 Fax: 217/524-4049
Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa--Phone: 515/ 281-5211 Fax: 515/281-6611
Governor Larry Hogan of Maryland--Phone: 410/974-3901 Fax: 410/974-3275
Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts--Phone: 617/725-4005 Fax: 617/727-9725
Governor Suzanna Martinez of New Mexico--Phone: 505/476-2200 Fax: 505/476-2226
*Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey--Phone: 609/292-6000 Fax: 609/777-2922
Each of these GOP Governors are allowing their Democrat Attorney General to nationally represent their citizens in support of Obama's lawless Amnesty in court * with the exception of of Chris Christie whose state's complete silence on the matters conveys his support for his political ally Obama.

To see a list of all 50 states to determine which ones are for or against Obama's lawless amnesty, click here.

For more information, to join our e-mail alerts, or to schedule interviews, please visit www.alipac.us.


Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Life Cycles of Empires: Lessons for America Today?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the U.S. following previous empires. This follows this post about Homeland Security. This follows this post about the book Flashpoints from Stratfor. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.



The Life Cycles of Empires: Lessons for America Today?





Perceptive historians recognize that great powers go through a cycle of growth, stability, maturity and decline. Where is America in this cycle? Will we learn from the lessons of history?

The Life Cycles of Empires: Lessons for America Today?
Source: Wikimedia
The German philosopher Hegel (1770-1831) knew that just because men and women learned about the past, that didn't mean they'd make better decisions about the future. He once cynically commented, "What experience and history teach us is this—that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
For years after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, America seemingly towered over the world as a great giant—economically, culturally and militarily. But now for nearly a decade since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, its armed services have clashed with the forces of Islamic extremism and terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the world.
If that weren't bad enough, the worldwide economic crisis has laid the country low with high unemployment, an immense federal government deficit, rising inflation and depressed home values. Other challenges loom ahead, flowing from the European Union's growing political and economic integration, Russia's increased strength and assertiveness, and China's rapid economic, industrial and military growth.

Will America follow the path of past empires?

Clearly America's present lone-superpower status is being increasingly challenged. Could it be lost completely? While it clings to a general preeminence right now, could America still decline and fall?
Didn't that happen to other great empires in the past, such as those of Britain, Spain, Rome, Persia, Babylon and Egypt? Is America' s future more secure than theirs was?
Sir John Bagot Glubb (1897-1987), a highly honored British general and historian better known as Glubb Pasha, wrote about the collapsed empires of the past. In his 1978 book The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival, he described a common pattern fitting the history of some fallen empires. They went through a cycle of stages as they started, expanded, matured, declined and collapsed.
Does the pattern apply to America today? Has the United States entered this cycle's ending stages? If so, shouldn't Americans critically examine the current state of their culture to see what could be done to prevent the same grim fate?
By knowing history better, we can better project our likely national futures. As the great British Prime Minister and noted historian Winston Churchill observed, "The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see."

Seven steps in the life cycles of great powers

Glubb Pasha learned that different empires had similar cultural changes while experiencing a life cycle in a series of stages that could overlap. He generalized about empires having seven stages of development, identifying these successive ages as follows:
1. The age of outburst (or pioneers).

2. The age of conquests.

3. The age of commerce.

4. The age of affluence.

5. The age of intellect.

6. The age of decadence.

7. The age of decline and collapse.
Each stage helps progression to the next as the values of the people change over time. Military, political, economic and religious developments all influence an empire's people to act and believe differently over time.
Let's look at these stages in more detail.

The rise of empires

In the first two stages or ages, the warrior's adventuresome and manly values drive an empire to gain power as it conquers land from others.
Later on, during the following ages of commerce and affluence, businessmen and merchants—who normally value material success and dislike taking unnecessary risks—take over at the highest levels of society. Their societies downplay the values of the soldier.
According to Glubb, they normally do this not "from motives of conscience, but rather because of the weakening of a sense of duty in citizens, and the increase in selfishness, manifested in the desire for wealth and ease."
During these middle stages, empires stop taking more land and start building walls instead. They switch from the offensive to the defensive. Historical examples include the wall built near the Scottish border by the Roman emperor Hadrian, the Great Wall of China constructed to keep out intrusion by certain nomadic groups, and even 20th-century France's Maginot Line, placed along the German border.
Conquest and (later) business investment promoted by the empire's unity builds the wealth that leads to the age of intellect. Even the brutal Mongol Empire, by bringing most of Asia under its rule, encouraged the caravan trade along Eurasia's famed Silk Road. During this fifth stage, the empire's leaders spent lots of money to establish educational institutions resembling modern universities and high schools.

Sowing the seeds of decline

During the age of intellect, schools may produce skeptical intellectuals who oppose the values and religious beliefs of their empires' early leaders. For example, the medieval Muslim philosophers Avicenna and Averroes, by accepting much of ancient Greek philosophy, weren't orthodox in belief.
Scholars also might manage schools that teach the ruling class and/or some of the average people subjects that are either mainly oriented towards financial success or are simply impractical. For example, in the early Roman Republic, students received a basic education that stressed character development and virtue. But in the later Roman Empire, teachers taught rhetoric (the art of speaking) when emotionally persuading assemblies was no longer of political or practical value.
The corrosive effects of material success encourage the upper class and the common people to discard the self-confident, self-disciplined values that helped to create the empire. Then the empire eventually collapses. Perhaps an outside power, such as the so-called barbarians in Rome's case, wipes it out. Or maybe an energetic internal force, such as the pro-capitalist reformers in the Soviet Union, finishes the job instead.
The growth of wealth and comfort clearly can undermine the values of character, such as self-sacrifice and discipline, that led to a given empire's creation. Then the empire so affected by moral decline grows weaker and more vulnerable to destruction by forces arising inside or outside of it.
Not surprisingly, God in the Bible specifically warned the ancient Israelites against departing from worshipping Him once they became materially satisfied after entering the Promised Land (Deuteronomy:8:11-20; 31:20). He understood this human tendency.

A society is known by its heroes

Has the United States entered the latter phases of the empire life cycle? True, it's only been independent from Britain for somewhat over two centuries. It's a young country compared to those of Europe or Asia. But does America today have the same values or cultural developments that past empires such as Rome had before they fell?
For example, who are the nation's heroes? What does a people's choice of heroes tell us about the people themselves? Today in America the people generally admired above all (and perpetually gossiped about) are celebrities such as sports stars, singers, actors and musicians.
As Glubb explains, the heroes of an empire's people change over time as their values do. Soldiers, builders, pioneers and explorers are admired in the initial stages of the empire life cycle. Then successful businessmen and entrepreneurs are esteemed during the ages of commerce and affluence.
For example, late 19th-century middle-class Americans wanted their children to learn the values of prudence, saving and foresight as found in the stories of author Horatio Alger, whose heroes lead exemplary lives striving to succeed in the face of adversity and poverty. Intellectuals are also increasingly respected during the age of intellect.
During the last stages of decadence and decline, an empire's people often think most highly of and imitate athletes, musicians and actors—despite how corrupt these celebrities' private lives are.
Remarkably, according to Glubb Pasha, in 10th-century Baghdad during the Muslim Abbasid Empire's decline, its writers complained about the singers of love songs having a bad influence on the young people! It seems the old adage is true: The more things change, the more they stay the same (or, perhaps, become the same again).
Because people grow emotionally attached to the music they love, they have a high regard for its singers and want to emulate them. Inevitably, popular music's often spiritually rotten lyrical content—such as foul language, blunt sexual references, glorifying immorality, and even Satanic allusions at times—influences fans. Furthermore, the immoral lifestyles of many musicians, often including drug abuse and promiscuous sex, also have an impact on society.

What are some key signs of decline?

What are some common features of an empire's culture in its declining period? Glubb describes developments like these:
1. Rampant sexual immorality, an aversion to marriage in favor of "living together" and an increased divorce rate all combine to undermine family stability. This happened among the upper class in the late Roman Republic and early Empire. The first-century writer Seneca once complained about Roman upper-class women: "They divorce in order to re-marry. They marry in order to divorce."
The birthrate declines, and abortion and infanticide both increase as family size is deliberately limited. The historian W.H. McNeill has referred to the "biological suicide of the Roman upper classes" as one reason for Rome's decline. Homosexuality becomes publicly acceptable and spreads, as was the case among the ancient Greeks before Rome conquered them.
2. Many foreign immigrants settle in the empire's capital and major cities. The mixture of ethnic groups in close proximity in these cosmopolitan places inevitably produces conflicts.
Because of their prominent locations within the empire, their influence greatly exceeds their percentage of the population. Here diversity plainly leads to divisiveness.
We see this today in the growing conflict in European countries such as France and the Netherlands, where large numbers of immigrants are stoking violent cultural clashes. German chancellor Angela Merkel recently made headlines when she stated that attempts to create a multicultural society had "utterly failed" and immigrants must do more to integrate into society.
3. Both irresponsible pleasure-seeking and pessimism increase among the people and their leaders. The spirit described in 1 Corinthians:15:32 spreads throughout society: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!"
As people cynically give up looking for solutions to the problems of life and society, they drop out of the system. They then turn to mindless entertainment, to luxuries and sexual activity, and to drugs or alcohol.
The astonishingly corrupt and lavish parties of the Roman Empire's elite are a case in point. The Emperor Nero, for instance, would spend the modern equivalent of $500,000 for just the flowers at some banquets.
4. The government provides extensive welfare for the poor. In the case of the city of Rome, which had perhaps 1.2 million people around A.D. 170, government-provided "bread and circuses" (food and entertainment) helped to keep the masses content. About one half of its non-slave population was on the dole at least part of the year.
True, helping the poor shows Christian compassion (Mark:14:7). But such help also can lead to laziness and dependency (2 Thessalonians:3:10-12). Such problems are especially likely when the poor believe state-provided charity is a permanent right or entitlement.

Is America on a downward cultural and spiritual spiral?

Considering this list of indicators of an empire's cultural and moral decline, is it reasonable to deny that the United States has entered the stages of decadence and decline?
True, the tidal wave of social and cultural decay unleashed by the 1960s in America has ebbed some in recent years. The rates of abortion, divorce, illegitimate births, drug abuse, welfare dependency and violent crime have either declined or gone up much more slowly.
Furthermore, some indicators of decline have good, not just bad, results. For instance, some immigration is helpful. As skilled, educated immigrants arrive, they normally benefit America economically while being a "brain drain" from Third World countries. And, indeed, the United States has historically embraced vast numbers of immigrants.
Nevertheless, the present flood of immigrants, legal or illegal, equals in impact the wave that arrived at America's shores around 1900. Today, they are far more apt to be a divisive force. Why? Unlike a hundred years ago, America's intellectual elite overall has adopted multiculturalism (the promotion of immigrants maintaining their prior distinct cultures) and has rejected assimilation (adopting the existing national culture) as its ideal.
Today multiculturalism is the ideology underlying a potentially ultimate political Balkanization, wherein society is fragmented along ethnic and cultural lines. (For evidence, see the liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger's 1991 book The Disuniting of America ). A lack of cultural unity inevitably leads to conflict in a free society such as in the United States.

Are we paying attention?

How should we react to the historical insights of Sir John Glubb Pasha's The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival as they relate to America, Britain and other related English-speaking nations?
As he notes in his examination of a number of previous empires, the processes of history often repeat themselves. We shouldn't believe that America will automatically avoid the fate of other great empires that declined and fell in the past.
God is ever so merciful, but His patience in the face of our national sins is wearing thin. He has given His true servants a mission to warn the nations of what is coming (Ezekiel:33:1-9), and that is one of the purposes of this magazine. We want to help you see how prophecies given long ago are now shaping up before our eyes!
If modern nations repent, as the people of the ancient Assyrian capital of Nineveh did after the prophet Jonah delivered God's warning to them (as described in the book of Jonah), they can avoid the dreadful punishments prophesied to come. But even if only the few of us reading this article repent before the time of tribulation arrives, God will keep us in His care.
Many of God's faithful followers will be protected from the tribulation (Revelation:3:10). And, most importantly, Jesus promises eternal life to all who truly believe, turn from sin and persevere in their faithful obedience: "He who endures to the end shall be saved" (Matthew:24:13).
Since we know that the handwriting is on the wall, what will we now choose to do?