Recovery? What Recovery?

The Associated Press reported on January 25:

“Sales of previously occupied homes took the largest monthly drop in more than 40 years last month, sinking more dramatically than expected after lawmakers gave buyers additional time to use a tax credit.

“The report reflects a sharp drop in demand after buyers stopped scrambling to qualify for a tax credit of up to $8,000 for first-time homeowners. It had been due to expire on Nov. 30. But Congress extended the deadline until April 30 and expanded it with a new $6,500 credit for existing homeowners who move…

“December’s sales fell 16.7 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.45 million… Sales had been expected to fall by about 10 percent… The report ‘places a large question mark over whether the recovery can be sustained when the extended tax credit expires,’ wrote Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics… The Federal Reserve’s $1.25 trillion program to push down mortgage rates is scheduled to expire at the end of March…

“Many experts project home prices, which started to rise last summer, will fall again over the winter. That’s because foreclosures make up a larger proportion of sales during the winter months, when fewer sellers choose to put their homes on the market…”

This development will have further devastating consequences for the US economy. Many big banks are holding on to “their” money–especially in light of proposed “fees” requiring them to pay back “bail-out” money received from the government. They are unwilling to provide reasonable and affordable loans and mortgages, while many of the smaller banks are being shut down by the Federal Government. 

“The U.S. Is Broke…”

USA Today wrote on January 27:

“Trouble is, the deficit is only a symptom of a chronic disease that strikes at the very heart of democratic government… Thanks to decades of promises for ever-higher benefits and low taxes for the indefinite future, there’s now less give in future budgets than at any point in American history. At least profligate Congresses in the past confined their excesses and temporarily large deficits to the current year. Until recently, they didn’t box in the future…

“For the first time in U.S. history, in 2009 every single dollar of revenue was committed before Congress voted on any spending program. Meanwhile, most of government’s basic functions — from justice to education to turning on the lights in the Capitol — are paid for out of swelling, unsustainable deficits. Blame the recession for some of this dip. But even a recovery only temporarily restores a bit of financial freedom, not enough to reverse the downward trend.”

Hillary Clinton Deeply Resents International Criticism of USA

AFP wrote on January 26:

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she ‘deeply resents’ foreign criticism of the US response to the earthquake in Haiti, saying the United States was doing as much as it could. ‘I deeply resent those who attack our country, the generosity of our people and the leadership of our president in trying to respond to historically disastrous conditions after the earthquake,’ Clinton told State Department employees…

“Clinton did not single out critics but said that ‘some of the international press either misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued’ the US decision to send troops along with civilians to Haiti. A senior Italian official on Sunday criticized the lack of a coordinated international aid effort in Haiti, saying that the United States had ‘too many officers’ there and could not find a capable leader.”

All justification for anger about such criticism aside, the fact that the US IS encountering these kinds of verbal attacks shows the lack of trust and confidence many nations have in US leadership.

“Warfare” Between US and German Armies Over Afghanistan

Bild Online wrote on January 21:

“In a BILD interview US General Stanley McChrystal yesterday challenged the Germans to also take more risks in the fight against the Taliban. But German defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg held a press conference in which he hit back at McChrystal’s criticism and gave his full support to the German army: ‘Our soldiers are being exposed to high risks every day.’ Asked by a reporter whether the German soldiers are cowards, Guttenberg said: ‘That interpretation is nonsense! General McChrystal made it clear how much he values the engagement of the Germans.’

“Guttenberg told BILD: ‘McChrystal describes the high risks that all ISAF soldiers are exposed to in Afghanistan. Our German soldiers also risk their lives there every day. For this they deserve thanks and recognition from all of us.’ A German general told news agency ‘ddp’ that the comments of the US General were ‘inappropriate’ and ‘unfounded.’

“It is true that other countries in Afghanistan are indeed exposed to much higher risks. The main reason for this is that they are fighting in the South whereas the German army has been assigned, at least in recent years, to the noticeably quieter North. It could also explain why the British, for example, have deployed around double the number of troops in Afghanistan but have had seven times the number of deaths (249)…

“The German army is even often left out of important operations in the North. Yesterday special forces invaded a farmstead in Kunduz to dismantle a weapon store – an operation headed by the Americans and Afghans. The German soldiers were not with them…”

The Bible clearly shows that the relationship between the USA and Germany–and united continental Europe–will deteriorate. The next article shows the degree of German frustration with the USA.

Afghanistan–Another Nail in the Coffin of American-German Friendship…

Der Spiegel Online wrote on January 25:

“The German government hopes to discuss a new approach to Afghanistan at Thursday’s conference in London. But the Americans see the strategy as already fixed. If Berlin adopts the new counterinsurgency methods, more German troops are likely to die — making the operation even more unpopular back home…

“The weeks leading up to the London conference were also deeply humiliating for the Germans, and not just because of the arrogance of someone like Richard Holbrooke [the US government’s special envoy for Afghanistan]. The Americans decided to deploy an initial contingent of 2,500 soldiers to northern Afghanistan, and perhaps to even double that number in the future. It was a vote of no confidence in the Germans, who are responsible for the north, and the message was clear: You can’t get it done, so move aside and let us take over…

“Germany has acquired the reputation of a discredited nation, a nation incapable of waging war, a cowardly nation. It is an accusation that has been around for a long time. It was apparent when the Germans refused to take part in the first and second Iraq wars. It was apparent when the Germans requested a region that was guaranteed to be safe during the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Somalia. And it was apparent when the Germans took responsibility for what was then the relatively safe northern part of Afghanistan. Now the north is no longer safe, and the Germans are seen as too cowardly to take on the Taliban.

“It is largely an unfair accusation. After the horrors of World War II, the Germans had to take an extremely cautious approach to the subject of war. For the Germans, unlike their current allies, military traditions are severely tainted by historical events. But now, almost 65 years after the end of the war, Germans are grappling with the question of how and when a democratic Germany should wage war.

“Until now, the Germans had expected Afghanistan to be a clean mission in support of a worthy cause, with no bloodshed involved. Germany can now forget about that idea, after Colonel Georg Klein used fabricated information to order an air strike on two tanker trucks which killed up to 142 people, including civilians, on Sept. 4, 2009. It is no longer possible to separate the worthy cause from bloodshed…”

The time will come when Germany WILL wage war again. It is a great paradox and a tragedy that countries like the USA will be highly responsible for this development, since they are encouraging and demanding German military engagement in other countries, including Afghanistan.

Germany’s Incoherent Government

On January 26, Berlin announced it will send an extra 500 troops to Afghanistan, plus an additional 350 soldiers as a “flexible reserve.” It was also stated that Berlin will contribute €50 million towards a program to reintegrate Taliban fighters. At the same time, German Foreign Minister Guide Westerwelle stated on Tuesday that he will begin withdrawing German troops by 2011. This inconsistent approach is puzzling to many. The German government is in disarray.

Openly gay Westerwelle’s decision to have his partner accompany him to official visits with Arab leaders did not help in building foreign confidence in effective German leadership. According to a report of The Local and DDP, dated January 27, a “new poll on Wednesday showed public support for the pro-business Free Democrats, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s junior coalition partners, had dropped by a third just four months after national elections.”

Angela Merkel’s position on Afghanistan has been met with strong criticism. It might actually lead to her political downfall.

The German press wrote in overwhelmingly negative terms about Germany’s future engagement in Afghanistan. Der Spiegel Online reported on January 26.

“German commentators on Tuesday take a closer look at the cash-for-Taliban idea, with most of them pointing out the massive potential for corruption in the proposed ex-Taliban money pool. But others wonder why, after eight years, Afghanistan’s state institutions are so weak.

“The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: ‘…There will be no more “presence” without more soldiers. And working closer to the Afghan people will mean more danger for German troops… A defense minister who wants to send soldiers into Afghan villages in anything besides up-armored vehicles is proposing more risk.’

“The left-wing Berliner Zeitung argues: ‘… Under the new plan German taxpayers could… be subsidizing human-rights violators.’

“The business daily Handelsblatt writes: ‘… Presence in Afghanistan, for German soldiers, means taking far greater risks. If they follow newly-trained Afghan soldiers into new regions, they will come in range of insurgents… The German government hopefully understands that a public debate over mounting casualties will be the result.'”

However, it seems that the German government does not understand this, or that it does not want to. This will have terrible consequences for its survival.

Growing Tensions Between Germany and Iran

The Local and AFP reported on January 27:

“Iran said Wednesday it arrested two German diplomats for allegedly having a hand in deadly anti-government protests which erupted on a Shiite Muslim holy day last month… The agencies did not specify whether the diplomats were still detained, but German officials dismissed the reports. ‘No German diplomats were arrested on December 27 last year,’ German Foreign Ministry spokesman Andreas Peschke told a press conference in Berlin. ‘If the accusations turn out to have been made, we reject them categorically’…

“Meanwhile, German industrial giant Siemens said on Wednesday it would stop signing new business deals in Iran from mid-2010 amid growing tensions between Berlin and Tehran… Germany is one of the world’s leading exporters to Iran, although pressure to roll back dealings with the regime in Tehran has grown as the international community mulls sanctions over its disputed nuclear programme.

“Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tuesday that German-Iranian trade had ‘declined considerably’ while acknowledging that the two countries had a ‘long tradition of economic cooperation.’ In 2008, German exports to Iran, mainly machine tools and industrial equipment, rose by nearly nine percent despite international condemnation of the regime in Tehran.

“For her part, Merkel warned that time was running out before the international community considers sanctions, adding that February would be the ‘crucial month’ in the UN Security Council. Sanctions on Iran would only work if applied ‘over the broadest possible basis,’ Merkel added, following talks with Israel’s President Shimon Peres.”

US Court Recognizes Religious Persecution in Germany

The Local wrote on January 27:

“A US court has granted asylum to an evangelical Christian family who fled Germany because they were not allowed to homeschool their children. An immigration judge in Nashville, Tennessee ruled that parents Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, and their five children, are free to stay in the US, where they have been since 2008… The parents, who came from the state of Baden-Württemberg, allege they were persecuted for their faith and defiance of Germany’s compulsory school attendance since those who do not comply face fines and jail time.

“According to Uwe Romeike, his family was fined the equivalent of some $10,000 over two years, but could not afford to make payments after their court appeals failed. ‘I think it’s important for parents to have the freedom to choose the way their children can be taught,’ Romeike told AP, later adding that German curriculum was increasingly ‘against Christian values.’

“In October 2006, police forcefully took the family’s children to school in their home town of Bietigheim-Bissingen when they refused to do so themselves. One year later, the country’s high court ruled that in some similar cases the state could take children from their parents…

“’This decision finally recognises that German homeschoolers are a specific social group that is being persecuted by a Western democracy,’ Mike Donnelly, a lawyer for the Home School Legal Defense Association, said in a statement. ‘It is embarrassing for Germany, since a Western nation should uphold basic human rights, which include allowing parents to raise and educate their own children,’ he said. ‘We hope this decision will cause Germany to stop persecuting homeschoolers’… In November 2009, another Christian couple was fined by a Kassel court for refusing to send their children to school.”

The importance of this decision, even though not yet final, cannot be over-emphasized.

As Der Spiegel Online wrote on January 28, “Fundamentalist Christians in the United States have been critical of German mandatory school attendance laws for years… It is illegal to keep children out of school for any reason. The outcomes of several cases in the past indicate that parents opposed to mandatory school attendance have little chance of success…

“In late May 2006, the German Constitutional Court ruled that parents are not entitled to keep their children from attending school because of their religious views. In November 2007, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that parents can even be deprived of the custody of their children… In September 2006, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Germany’s mandatory school attendance policy, along with the corresponding ban on homeschooling, is compatible with both European law and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

As a consequence, according to Der Spiegel, the court in Memphis held that Germany’s mandatory school law violates the basic human rights of German citizens. The magazine wrote:

“Announcing his verdict in a court in Memphis, Tennessee, Judge Lawrence Burman ruled that the Romeikes’ were entitled to political asylum… Burman argued that he believed the Romeike family’s basic human rights were being violated in Germany… Burman also defined so-called homeschoolers… as ‘a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress.’ The family, Burman argued, has ‘a well-founded fear of persecution’ and, as a result, the right to political asylum in the United States.

“HSLDA attorney Mike Donnelly [said:] ‘This is simply about the German state trying to coerce ideological uniformity in a way that is frighteningly reminiscent of past history.'”

State of the Union Address

The Telegraph wrote on January 28:

“As expected, Barack Obama’s 70 minute State of the Union address focused heavily on the economy and the domestic political agenda. This was hardly surprising in the aftermath of last week’s catastrophic defeat for his party in the Massachusetts special Senate election, where the Republicans scored an historic victory. American voters are turning strongly against the president’s health care reform package as well as his big government vision for the economy, which has contributed to spiraling public debt and mounting unemployment, now standing at over 10 percent.

“But the scant attention paid in the State of the Union speech to US leadership was pitiful and frankly rather pathetic. The war in Afghanistan, which will soon involve a hundred thousand American troops, merited barely a paragraph. There was no mention of victory over the enemy, just a reiteration of the president’s pledge to begin a withdrawal in July 2011. Needless to say there was nothing in the speech about the importance of international alliances, and no recognition whatsoever of the sacrifices made by Great Britain and other NATO allies alongside the United States on the battlefields of Afghanistan. For Barack Obama the Special Relationship means nothing, and tonight’s address further confirmed this.

“Significantly, the global war against al-Qaeda was hardly mentioned, and there were no measures outlined to enhance US security at a time of mounting threats from Islamist terrorists. Terrorism is a top issue for American voters, but President Obama displayed what can only be described as a stunning indifference towards the defence of the homeland.

“The Iranian nuclear threat, likely to be the biggest foreign policy issue of 2010, was given just two lines in the speech, with a half-hearted warning of ‘growing consequences’ for Tehran, with no details given at all. There were no words of support for Iranian protestors who have been murdered, tortured and beaten in large numbers by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s thuggish security forces, and no sign at all that the president cared about their plight. Nor was there any condemnation of the brutality of the Iranian regime, as well as its blatant sponsorship of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“As the example of Iran showed, the advance of freedom and liberty across the world in the face of tyranny was not even a footnote in the president’s speech. I cannot think of a US president in modern times who has attached less importance to human rights issues. For the hundreds of millions of people across the world, from Burma to Sudan to Zimbabwe, clamouring to be free of oppression, there was not a shred of hope offered in Barack Obama’s address.

“Obama’s world leadership in his first year in office has been weak-kneed and little short of disastrous. He has sacrificed the projection of American power upon the altar of political vanity, with empty speeches and groveling apologies across the world, from Strasbourg to Cairo. He has appeased some of America’s worst enemies, and has extended the hand of friendship to many of the most odious regimes on the face of the earth. Judging by the State of the Union address tonight, we can expect more of the same from an American president who seems determined to lead the world’s greatest power along a path of decline.”

Just Blame Others…

The New York Post added on January 28:

“Obama’s response last night was to recommit himself to the agenda that has gotten him in so much trouble… Obama, in his supreme arrogance, didn’t really seem to care… there was an innumerate, inaccurate and distinctly unpresidential whine — blaming George W. Bush for nearly all of his problems (leaving out, among other things, that the Democrats have been controlling Congress and crafting budgets since 2006).

“… the president promised more jobs bills, more ‘investments’ in schools, roads, trains and factories. He even reaffirmed his support for his carbon-tax legislation — which would send far more jobs overseas than it would create here at home.

“But Obama has a bigger problem: Aside from a few throwaway lines of self-deprecation, whenever he grew passionate, it was to blame others. His predecessor topped his list, of course. But also everyone else who disagrees with him. Obama insists that Americans need to muster the courage to agree with him, to sign on to his agenda…

“He decried the politicians who are in ‘permanent campaign’ mode — the same week he brought into the White House his campaign manager. Other politicians are vain, cowardly and insubstantial. They need the courage to change. Meanwhile, Obama is great the way he is. That is the attitude that has gotten the president in so much trouble. And last night’s State of the Union speech showed us that change really isn’t easy, particularly for the president.”

No Specifics Given…

Times On Line wrote on January 28:

“In a gesture to his liberal base, the President said that he would seek the repeal of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy instituted by President Clinton on gays in the military. He also admitted that he and his team had made mistakes in their first year. Most were unspecified but he owned up to a failure to communicate his aims for health reform more clearly.

“No detailed strategy was expected for saving the healthcare Bill that dominated Mr Obama’s first year in office, and none was offered. Mr Obama restricted himself to a plea ‘to come together and finish the job for the American people’. Earlier, Senator Harry Reid, who led round-the-clock negotiations on the Bill until the Democrats lost their Senate supermajority last week, said that there was ‘no rush’ to get it passed.

“… polls published yesterday showed that three quarters of Americans believe that their federal government is not working and 58 per cent feel that their country is heading in the wrong direction.”

… But What ARE the Facts?

In analyzing President Obama’s State of the Union address, The Associated Press wrote on January 28:

“The anticipated savings from this proposal [to freeze government spending for three years, beginning in 2011] would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit – and that’s if the president can persuade Congress to go along. Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. ‘The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel,’ he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain’s…

“OBAMA [said:]: ‘I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.’

“THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted – a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success…

“OBAMA [said:] ‘Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. … And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.’

“THE FACTS: The success of the Obama-pushed economic stimulus that Congress approved early last year has been an ongoing point of contention. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.

“The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million ‘compared with what those values would have been otherwise.’ It said the ranges ‘reflect the uncertainty of such estimates.’ And it added, ‘It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.’

“OBAMA… called for action by the White House and Congress ‘to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve.’

“THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign – to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN ‘so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.’ Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it’s acted upon.”

Obama’s Fiercest Opponent?

Conservative German tabloid Bild Online wrote on January 22:

“A man who once stripped off for the nude centrefold of ‘Cosmopolitan’ magazine has become US President Barack Obama’s (48) fiercest opponent. Scott P. Brown (50) is an ultra conservative Republican who recently stunned America by conquering Massachussetts, the stronghold of the Democrats and the Kennedy clan. In doing so, Obama lost his majority in the Senate, giving the Republicans back the power to block his major projects such as health reform.

“So just who is Scott P. Brown, the hunk who stripped naked for a photo shoot in ‘Cosmopotitan’ in 1982? He’s a lawyer, lieutenant colonel in reserve and ‘Aerosmith’ fan. He’s a child of divorced parents who had constantly changing stepfathers, who were in part violent. And he’s a fitness freak – he gets up at 5 am every morning and jogs for 10 km. ‘I was the small boy who was woken at night by his mother screaming and believed that he had to save her…'”

The disappointment of many Americans with President Obama and his government, as well as with former President Bush and his administration, will induce especially independent voters or disenfranchised and disillusioned Democrats and Republicans to look for leaders in different places, such as the growing “Tea party” movement, which can be classified as a development of protest. However, that search for alternatives will likewise be met with disappointment. The only security would lie in a return to God and His laws–but neither the American people as a whole nor any other nation today, is simply willing to do so.

The Sickness of Self-Flagellation

CNN wrote on January 27:

“Pope John Paul II used to beat himself with a belt and sleep naked on the floor to bring himself closer to Christ, a book published Wednesday says. The late pope had a particular belt for self-flagellation and brought it with him to his summer residence, according to the book, ‘Why he is a Saint: The True story of John Paul II.’

“‘As some members of his own entourage were able to hear with their own ears, both in Poland and in the Vatican, Karol Wojtyla flagellated himself,’ the book says, using the name the pope was given at birth. ‘In the closet, among the cloaks, a particular pant-belt hung from a hook, which he utilized as a whip and one which he always had brought to Castel Gandolfo,’ the book says.

“The book was written by a Vatican insider, Slawomir Oder, with Italian journalist Saverio Gaeta of the Catholic weekly Christian Family. Oder is head of the Vatican committee investigating whether John Paul II should be declared a saint. John Paul died in 2005…

“Mother Teresa is among famous Catholics who self-flagellated in some way…

“Catholics are not alone in choosing to inflict pain on themselves for religion reasons. Some Shiite Muslims lash themselves until they bleed when marking the mourning period of Ashura…

“David Gibson [is] a journalist who worked for Vatican Radio when John Paul II was pope… ‘John Paul was a product of a very Old World Polish Catholicism,’ said Gibson… The authors of the new book clearly approve of any whipping the pope did of himself, he added. ‘Even though it’s going to weird people out, it’s obviously seen by his postulators as a sign of his holiness,’ he said…

“The authors of the book based it on interviews with 114 “witnesses” and access to unedited documents in the Vatican’s archives… The book is available only in Italian, but the publisher is having it translated into Polish and other languages.”

Big Earthquakes in USA

LiveScience reported on January 15:

“As disaster crews and scientists investigate the havoc wrought in Haiti, questions emerge as to whether such a vastly destructive disaster could happen at home in the United States. In fact, cities are located near dangerous earthquake zones all throughout the country, from the most infamous on the West Coast to potential time bombs in the Midwest and even on the Eastern Seaboard…

“Stretching from northern Vancouver Island in Canada to northern California is the Cascadia subduction zone, where one giant plate of the Earth’s surface is diving deep beneath another one. ‘The very largest earthquakes all occur on subduction zones,’ said seismologist Geoffrey Abers at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in New York. ‘These are also the faults that make very large tsunamis that propagate across ocean basins to cause a lot of damage.’

“These ‘megathrust earthquakes’ that threaten Seattle, Portland and Vancouver can be magnitude 9 or greater, geological records reveal… The Seattle Fault runs right through downtown Seattle…

“The most well-known earthquake zone in the United States is the San Andreas Fault, where the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate are sliding past each other, running along heavily populated areas of California. Still, other fractures in the earth threaten the state as well, such as the Hayward Fault that lies mainly on the east side of San Francisco Bay, and [a] previously unknown fault that caused the 1994 Northridge quake… Geologists expect the Los Angeles area will eventually be struck by an earthquake larger than any seen in recorded history…

“Three of the largest earthquakes in North America recorded in history originated from the New Madrid fault system over the course of two months from 1811 to 1812. These magnitude 7 events shook with enough power to apparently force the Mississippi River to temporarily flow backward. The quakes — the largest ones ever known in the center of the United States — have raised fears of a ‘big one’ there sometime this century. The closest cities to the New Madrid fault system are Memphis and St. Louis…

“The ancient Ramapo Fault runs near New York City… A number of other ancient faults go from Canada all the way at least to South Carolina… Alaska experiences the most earthquakes in the United States, more per year than the combined total of the rest of the country. The nation’s largest recorded earthquakes have all happened there as well. ‘The last big earthquake in 1964 there was the largest ever recorded in the United States at magnitude 9.2,’ Abers said. ‘It destroyed several towns and it heavily damaged Anchorage. The risk of tsunami is high for coastal areas as well…'”

We can expect many more big earthquakes to occur soon on a worldwide scale. On January 17, Reuters reported that “A 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the southern coast of Argentina on Sunday… The quake was centered about 220 miles (355 km) southeast of Ushuaia, Argentina, at a depth of 6.2 miles (10 km).” On January 18, Reuters reported that “A magnitude 6.0 earthquake hit Guatemala’s Pacific coast near the border with El Salvador on Monday, the U.S. Geological Survey reported. It said the quake, 64.2 miles (103.3 km) deep, was centered 60 miles (97 km) southeast of Guatemala City.” CNN reported on January 19: “A 5.8-magnitude earthquake struck Tuesday off the Cayman Islands…” The Washington Post reported on January 20 that Haiti was hit “by a 6.1-magnitude tremor — one of the strongest aftershocks since the 7.0-magnitude quake crippled this city eight days ago.”

“America Must Tread Carefully in Haiti”

On January 18, Der Spiegel Online reported on the German reaction to America’s involvement in Haiti, which has been overwhelmingly positive. However, it is also pointed out that in this world of political maneuvering and jealousies, hidden dangers are lurking for the US.

The magazine wrote:

“UN chief Ban Ki-moon has appealed for patience as anger mounts in Haiti over the tardiness of the relief effort and aid groups criticize the US management of the airport… The aid is starting to get through to Haiti. But it is insufficient and it is not reaching enough of the people who desperately need it…

“The US is preparing to send in more troops to deal with the aftermath of the 7.0 quake… While planes and ships are descending on the country to provide relief, the US- controlled airport is proving to be a bottleneck and the ports cannot be used because of quake damage…

“The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

“In this catastrophe the United States is showing its best side. Helping its neighbors in their hour of need is one of America’s primary virtues. Washington is reacting to the crisis in Haiti with a kind of general mobilization, even an invasion of mercy. The humanitarian superiority of the US has already raised suspicions. France has criticized the abrasive way the Americans at the airport have taken command, as the completely helpless government in Port-au-Prince abandons control to the US soldiers.

“‘This kind of criticism will only increase as soon as thousands of GIs go on patrol in order to provide temporary security. America must tread carefully in Haiti — after decades of interference and occupation. No one can help more at the moment than the superpower. Later, however, many will claim to know how things could have been done better. The good deed of today can in the long term become a terrible curse.’

“The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

“‘The frustration of the foreign aid workers’ and the helpless people in the face of a humanitarian disaster is understandable. However, the bottlenecks occurring in Haiti are unavoidable and the criticism is unfair. When an earthquake completely destroys the already weak infrastructure of a poor country, then blockages are unavoidable…

“‘One thing is striking about the operation in Haiti: The US has taken a leading role. Not only is it sending an enormous amount of material and personnel, it is also coordinating much of the aid coming from other countries. However, it would be negligent if the international community were to depend on the US or other big powers to do the same in future disasters — the US reacted far too late in the case of the tsunami five years ago…’

“The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

“‘As if the international aid organizations didn’t have better things to be doing, a narrow-minded rivalry has begun over the “leadership.” Mexico has already called for a session of the UN Security Council with the aim of strengthening the role of the US in handling the relief effort. And in Europe, too, people are seeking the limelight by attacking the US, which is putting in motion the massive capabilities of its forces, providing huge amounts of money and mobilizing prominent fundraisers.

“No power in the world is better placed to get things off the ground. That is the political truth: Nothing works without… America’s determined involvement, no matter how generous other providers of aid may be. Without Washington’s long-term engagement, Haiti has no future…'”

The world is still hoping for and looking to the United States for leadership. But confidence in American accomplishments will diminish more and more. Even now, the US is blamed for apparent shortcomings, dealing with Haiti, while nobody else has been willing to assume any leadership role in this crisis.

France Accuses the US of Trying to “Occupy” Haiti

Britain’s Times on Line has been much more critical towards the humanitarian relief efforts in Haiti. In its article of January 18, titled, “France and America bicker as Haiti aid fails to reach city,” the paper wrote the following:

“The international effort to deliver humanitarian aid to the victims of last week’s Port-au-Prince earthquake was hit by bickering today as a French government minister accused the Americans of trying to occupy Haiti instead of helping it. Thousands of American soldiers have poured in to Port-au-Prince airport since President Obama announced that he was ordering a ‘swift and aggressive’ campaign to help millions of Haitians left homeless by last week’s 7.0 magnitude earthquake.

“Six days after the quake, however, precious little aid is getting beyond the airport perimeters – largely because of security concerns – and aid agencies with long experience of operating in disaster zones have complained that their flights in are being blocked unnecessarily. Among the aircraft turned back by American air traffic controllers who have assumed control at Port-au-Prince airport was a French government Airbus carrying a field hospital… Speaking to Europe 1 radio from an EU ministerial meeting in Brussels this morning, Mr Joyandet said that the UN would have to clarify the role of the US in the Haitian aid effort. ‘It’s a matter of helping Haiti, not occupying Haiti,’ he said…

“One of the MSF flights turned back on Saturday was carrying a large inflatable hospital of a type that MSF have used in various disaster zones since the Kashmir earthquake four years ago. The flight was diverted to the neighbouring Santa Domingo and the hospital and the medical supplies are having to be brought in overland…

“Ordinary water supplies are polluted and broken, and bottled water is selling for $6 a bottle on the black market in the streets. On the rare occasion that a water truck appears on the streets, it is mobbed. Even the most visible camp for homeless people… has not a single fixed water supply, aid distribution point or clinic to assess the needs of the wounded… At the airport, many soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division have been hanging around since Wednesday night without leaving the complex. One of them, Private First Class Patrick Jones, told The Times that only a few supplies of food and water had arrived…

“The delays are causing anger and frustration, and leading to unrest and violence. Witnesses report large-scale, organised looting by groups of youths armed with knives in the tight grid of streets next to the Champs de Mars homeless camp, stripping the last remaining supplies from the empty city… A New York Times [newscaster] reported seeing four alleged looters dumped by police at the national cemetery, three dead and one dying from gunshot wounds. Mobs of Haitians are also reported… taking the law into their own hands, with at least one confirmed case of a looter lynched to death.

“Dorsainvil Robenson, a policeman chasing down looters in the capital, said: ‘We do not have the capacity to fix this situation. Haiti needs help … the Americans are welcome here, but where are they? We need them here on the street with us.’”

Der Stern Online added on January 19 that “one week after the earthquake, Haiti might drown in chaos.”

President Obama’s Huge Loss in Massachusetts

The election of Republican Scott Brown as new senator of Massachusetts will have tremendous negative consequences for President Obama and the Democrats. The importance of Brown’s victory cannot be over-emphasized.

The Associated Press reported on January 19:

“In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office…

“The loss by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat on Tuesday signaled big political problems for the president’s party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

“Brown’s victory was the third major loss for Democrats in statewide elections since Obama became president. Republicans won governors’ seats in Virginia and New Jersey in November… Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president’s health care legislation. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

“The trouble may go deeper: Democratic lawmakers could read the results as a vote against Obama’s broader agenda, weakening their support for the president. And the results could scare some Democrats from seeking office this fall. The Republican will finish Kennedy’s unexpired term, facing re-election in 2012.”

Reuters added on January 20:

“Dealing a stunning blow to Obama, Republican Scott Brown won a bitter election battle in Massachusetts on Tuesday seen by some analysts as a sign of voter anxiety over the president’s policies amid double-digit unemployment and a sluggish economic recovery. Brown’s win deprived Democrats of a crucial 60th Senate vote they need to pass the healthcare bill… and push through other big measures on climate change and financial regulatory reform…

“The election upset in Massachusetts compounded the problems confronting Obama as he reached the one-year anniversary of the day he took office with soaring paeans to hope and change. Since then, Obama’s public approval rating has fallen from 70 percent-plus at his inauguration to around 50 percent now, among the lowest of recent presidents at this stage in their tenure…”

Times On Line wrote on January 20:

“Republicans scored an historic victory overnight that put President Barack Obama’s agenda in jeopardy exactly a year after he took power – and which could kill his plans for healthcare reform. A little-known Republican state legislator won Edward Kennedy’s old seat in the US Senate in Massachusetts in what appeared to be a massive protest vote against the party that controls both chambers of Congress and the White House… Scott Brown, a lawyer, military officer and former male model, has promised to use his Senate vote to defeat the Democrats’ healthcare reform, which was on the brink of passage after decades of trying.

“Democrats pledged to try to push through healthcare reform despite the loss, but they risk a popular backlash if they do so… The Democrats now face failure on healthcare or the risk of employing strong-arm tactics that could be devastatingly unpopular. The most straightforward would be to force through a vote in the Senate before Mr Brown is officially certified as a senator – thereby using their old 60-seat super majority. Another option would be persuading the Democrat majority in the House to vote through the weaker version of the healthcare bill that had already been passed by the Senate.

“A more convoluted approach would be to pass the Senate’s bill and repackage the additional measures into a budget reconciliation bill – this kind of legislation can be passed with a simple majority of 51 in the 100-seat Senate. All three approaches would be dismissed as dishonest by the Republicans although the latter tactic was used by George W. Bush to force through two sets of tax cuts.

“The only other options available to Mr Obama are to persuade one or two Republican senators to change their minds on the issue, probably at the cost of further concessions, or to give the legislation up altogether and risk limping towards the mid-term elections in November having failed to achieve his defining domestic policy pledge.

“The Democrats’ defeat in Massachusetts was particularly ironic because healthcare reform was Senator Kennedy’s lifelong passion until his death from brain cancer in August… The state – often considered the most liberal in America with legal gay marriage and its own universal healthcare plan – has not elected a Republican to its other Senate seat since 1972.”

German Reactions to President Obama’s Defeat

Der Stern commented on January 20 that with the defeat of the Democrats in Massachusetts, President Obama’s image as a “messiah” has clearly and totally evaporated.

Der Spiegel Online wrote on January 21:

“The World Bids Farewell to Obama… German commentators say it is the end of hope…

“The Financial Times Deutschland writes: ‘… For everyone else in the world, this means that they will have to bid farewell to a candidate for whom the hopes were so high. They will have to say goodbye to the charisma they fell in love with. Obama will be staying home after all.’

“The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes: ‘In addition to health care reform, Obama’s reputation has primarily been harmed by the high unemployment rate and the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. It will become even more difficult in the future for the president to push projects through successfully. Not just because Republicans now have a means of preventing it, but also because the Democratic camp is deeply divided. Some would like to see the party shift toward the center — wherever that may be — whereas others want the party to position itself to the left. Such a battle is hardly a good sign for the mid-term elections in November. Massachusetts could prove to be an omen.’

“The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes: ‘Of course the president rejects the interpretation that the Massachusetts election was a referendum on his first year in the White House. But he cannot ignore the fact that his health care reform package is not popular, the situation of the country’s finances is seen as threatening and many voters blame the high unemployment rate on the party in power — on the Democrats, led by Obama…'”

Ahead–Stormy Relations Between China and USA

The Financial Times wrote on January 18:

“Google’s clash with China is about much more than the fate of a single, powerful firm. The company’s decision to pull out of China, unless the government there changes its policies on censorship, is a harbinger of increasingly stormy relations between the US and China. The reason that the Google case is so significant is because it suggests that the assumptions on which US policy to China have been based since the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 could be plain wrong. The US has accepted – even welcomed – China’s emergence as a giant economic power because American policymakers convinced themselves that economic opening would lead to political liberalisation in China.

“If that assumption changes, American policy towards China could change with it. Welcoming the rise of a giant Asian economy that is also turning into a liberal democracy is one thing. Sponsoring the rise of a Leninist one-party state… is a different proposition. Combine this political disillusionment with double-digit unemployment in the US that is widely blamed on Chinese currency manipulation, and you have the formula for an anti-China backlash.

“Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush firmly believed that free trade and, in particular, the information age would make political change in China irresistible… So far, the facts are refusing to conform to the theory…

“Google’s decision to confront the Chinese government is an early sign that the Americans are getting fed up with dealing with Chinese authoritarianism… To date, the Obama administration has based its policy firmly on the assumptions that have governed America’s approach to China for a generation… But, after being censored by Chinese television in Shanghai and harangued by a junior Chinese official at the Copenhagen climate talks, Barack Obama may be feeling less warm towards Beijing…

“Even if the administration itself does not move, the voices calling for tougher policies against China are likely to get louder in Congress. Google’s decision to highlight the dangers of cyberattack from China will play to growing American security fears about China. The development of Chinese missile systems that threaten US naval dominance in the Pacific are also causing concern in Washington. Impending US arms sales to Taiwan are already provoking a dispute…

“A trade war between America and China is hardly to be welcomed. It could tip the world back into recession and inject dangerous new tensions into international politics…”

On January 21, 2010, Times On Line wrote the following:

“Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, dramatically raised the stakes with China over internet freedom today, insisting that that [sic] those who carried out cyber attacks should face ‘international condemnation.’… Mrs Clinton said she expected China to make a thorough and transparent investigation of cyber attacks on Google… ‘The United States and China have different views on this issue. And we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently.’ Mrs Clinton also criticised China for restricting Internet access and erecting other electronic barriers to the free flow of information.”

America is predestined to lose more and more power and influence in the world. Deteriorating relationships with China will hurt greatly the US economy.

“Falling into the Abyss”

Deutsche Welle reported on January 20:

“Speaking in parliament on the second day of a four day session to debate her government’s 2010 budget proposals, Chancellor Angela Merkel said… ‘We have managed to do the right thing to prevent falling into the abyss…’

“The draft budget, proposed by Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, foresees the highest deficit in Germany’s post-war history. Total expenditures for 2010 are expected to reach some 325 billion euros; 33 billion euros more than last year. The largest, single outlay at nearly 147 billion euros is earmarked for social services. Schaeuble warned that public spending would be cut in 2011 and said ‘grave decisions lie ahead’…

“Merkel said the goal of her government was to bring the economy ‘intelligently out of the slump’ and defended controversial tax cuts agreed on by her center-right coalition. The chancellor said she aimed to have the economy back to its pre-crisis growth levels by 2013.”

Chancellor Merkel’s choice of words (“falling into the abyss”) is quite remarkable in light of a prophecy in Revelation 9, stating that the ancient Roman Empire would be revived, under German leadership, by coming out of “the bottomless pit” (or “abyss” in Greek; compare the rendering in the New International Version; the Revised English Bible; and the New Jerusalem Bible, among others.).

“German Support Key to European Efforts in Middle East”

The Netzeitung wrote on January 18:

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a historic… joint cabinet meeting in Berlin with top ministers on Monday. The gathering of the two governments, the second ever after a similar meeting in Israel two years ago, will address urgent security issues such as Iran and underline the strong bond forged in the wake of the Holocaust. Netanyahu and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were also to hold bilateral talks focused on efforts to revive Middle East peace talks…

“Media have widely reported that Israel has ordered a sixth Dolphin-class diesel submarine from Germany… The submarines are believed to have a range of 4,500 kilometres (2,800 miles) and the capacity to launch nuclear-capable cruise missiles…

“Germany is playing a leading role in efforts to broker a prisoner exchange between Israel and the Islamist Hamas movement for an Israeli soldier held by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip since 2006…

“Meanwhile Avi Primor, the former Israeli ambassador to Berlin, on Monday called on Germany to back an international security force to ensure peace and stability in the Middle East… He said Germany would not necessarily have to send troops to the region, but that Berlin needed to take the political responsibility for its creation… [Primor] said German support was key to European efforts in the Middle East…”

Europe, under German leadership, will soon intervene in the Middle East to bring “peace” to that war-stricken region. However, this intervention will only lead to more war.

“Who Killed Masoud Ali Mohammadi?” — Terrorists “Above Iran’s Law”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on January 18:

“The recent assassination of physicist Masoud Ali Mohammadi in Tehran was baffling even by Iranian standards. The regime claims he was murdered by foreign agents, while some observers think he may have been killed to warn other opposition supporters. There is even speculation that Hezbollah was involved…

“The killing is one of the most puzzling in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country not exactly lacking in assassinations… Tehran… did everything it could to create the impression that foreign powers were behind the attack…

“It is certainly true that the Israeli government fears nothing more than nuclear weapons falling into the hands of a fanatical regime that threatens its existence… But why would agents have wanted to kill Mohammadi? His friend Shirzad says that he ‘cannot recall that he did any research on nuclear issues’…

“This suggests that the assassination could also have been meant as a warning to other people who were tempted to step out of line… A militant group from Lebanon… which maintains close ties to its fellow Shiites in Iran, has experience with the use of explosives to liquidate its enemies, namely Hezbollah, which, with Tehran’s help, has been fighting archenemy Israel for years from its base in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah members are also believed to be supporting the fanatics in Iran in their efforts to quell the ‘green rebellion’ in the streets of Iranian cities…

“Could the attack on the professor bear the signature of Hezbollah involvement, as members of the opposition speculate? On the other hand, Tehran’s intelligence agencies are very technically adept and could easily have built any type of bomb themselves… Whoever Tehran’s Chief Prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi presents as the killer, he is highly unlikely to belong to Hezbollah or the government security apparatus. In Iran, the members of those organizations are considered to be above the law.”

A7-News reported on January 19:

“Evidence is mounting that Hizbullah may have been behind last week’s assassination of Professor Ali Mohammadi… Within a day of the assassination, Iran accused ‘Zionists’ and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of being responsible for the murder. The government on Monday warned it will take revenge against the two countries.

“An opposition group has claimed that a Hizbullah assassin was photographed at the scene of the bomb explosion and that Iran hired its ally Hizbullah to carry out the murder in order to scare opposition forces. A blogger associated with the opposition named the possible assassin as Abu Nasser Hossein, identifying him as a prominent Lebanese Hizbullah member who has been in Tehran and who has been involved in suppressing demonstrations…

“The bomb blast, a rarity in Tehran although not uncommon in outlying areas of Iran, was similar to the modus operandi of Hizbullah explosions in Lebanon.”

It appears very likely that Iran’s fanatic and totalitarian regime was behind this murder–either directly or through Hezbollah or Hizbullah–to intimidate opponents and to gain support from the Iranian people for military or terrorist actions against Israel and the USA. At the same time, any meaningful “sanctions” against Iran appear highly questionable, in light of the economic interests involved, as the next article shows.

One-Billion-Euro Deal Between Germany and Iran

AFP reported on January 20:

“Iran has signed a one-billion-euro (1.44-billion-dollar) deal with a German firm to build 100 gas turbo-compressors… The contract provides for the unnamed German firm to transfer the know-how to build, install and run the equipment needed to exploit and transport gas… The German company has already delivered 45 such turbo-compressors to Iran… Industry experts said [that the company is apparently]Siemens… But the National Iranian Gas Company… denied the signing of a deal.

“The reported 2010-2015 deal for material not under an international embargo comes as the Islamic republic faces the threat of new financial, technological and international trade sanctions over its disputed nuclear programme… Iran has the world’s second largest proven global gas reserves after Russia but so far has played only a minor role on the gas export market…

“The government daily Iran Daily said the contract was signed at the start of the week and would be a ‘relief for many German businesses that have long complained about restrictions on trade with Iran’ under sanctions. Germany and China are Iran’s top trading partner after the United Arab Emirates…”

Ongoing Violence in Afghanistan

Times On Line reported on January 18:

“Taleban militants struck in the heart of the Afghan capital today, launching suicide attacks on key government targets around Hamid Karzai’s presidential palace. Kabul’s streets were all but abandoned as traders fled their stalls amid fears of more spectacular attacks. Shops and banks closed early as smoke billowed across the city during a four-hour battle to restore order.

“At least ten people including seven insurgents and a child were killed and almost 40 people were injured when a Taleban suicide squad launched a series of coordinated attacks on the edge of the presidential palace, where more than a dozen new Cabinet ministers were being sworn in…

“A few hundred metres… away gunmen attacked the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice, the Afghanistan National Bank, a shopping centre and a cinema… A Taleban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahed said 20 suicide bombers had infiltrated the city. ‘This is the work of our Holy Warriors,’ he said…

“It was the biggest assault on the capital since October 28 when gunmen disguised as police officers stormed a guest house used by United Nations staff, killing at least 11 people including three UN employees. In February last year suicide squads stormed the Justice Ministry, while in January 2008 a similar tactic was used to overrun security guards outside the five star Serena hotel.”

German Media Comments on Terrorism in Afghanistan

On January 19, 2010, Der Spiegel Online published excerpts from the German press regarding the terrorist attack in Afghanistan:

“In its coverage, SPIEGEL ONLINE writes: ‘In the run-up to the Afghanistan conference in London, the attack is evidence of how vulnerable security is in the capital city. As much as politicians would like to discuss perspectives for a withdrawal in London, the Taliban (attack) clearly shows that this intent is hardly realistic right now. The security situation is too precarious…’

“The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: ‘The Taliban have shown once again that they can have a relatively large impact at relatively little cost. It took only 20 of its well-coordinated fighters to carry the war into the Afghan capital. The attack shows how terrorism can keep on harassing a society and curtailing its freedoms. It also shows how poorly prepared the Afghan security forces are to combat it. Kabul was paralyzed for five hours until the gunfire finally stopped. There was little coordination among the security forces, and a lot of confusion…’

“The conservative Die Welt writes: ‘…The goal is… to prove that Karzai’s government and its Western protectors are not even capable of protecting themselves. If they can’t do that, then how are they supposed to protect the average man, woman or young girl making her way to school?… If the insurgents can continue long enough to spark the rejection and protests of voters in Germany and elsewhere, then they will have won…’

“The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes: ‘The aim of the attack had less to do with military objectives and more with propaganda… The Taliban demonstrated that there can be no military security in Afghanistan. In the process, they wanted to show that US President Barack Obama’s strategy of a surge aimed at defeating the Taliban militarily cannot succeed. That will make it more difficult for other countries to increase their troop levels and increase pressure to reach a political solution based on the Taliban’s conditions, which include the withdrawal of all foreign troops.'”

Even though the German press wants to convince their readers that the war in Afghanistan must continue and troop withdrawals would be a mistake, the German public is increasingly opposed to Germany’s involvement. Now, the German Catholic and Protestant Churches have joined the opposition to the war, as the next article shows.

German Catholic and Protestant Churches Criticize Afghan War

The Netzeitung wrote on January 18:

“Germany’s Catholic bishops echoed Protestant criticism of the country’s military presence in Afghanistan…

“Munich Catholic Archbishop Reinhard Marx told broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk on Sunday that Margot Käßmann, head of Germany’s Protestant churches, had raised an important debate about the country’s role in Afghanistan. Käßmann has been the subject of intense criticism by politicians and the DBwV German Military Association after condemning the military operation in Afghanistan as immoral, but Marx told the station that the row was ‘long overdue.’

“And head of Germany’s Catholic Bishop’s Conference Robert Zollitsch called for a re-evaluation of military service in Afghanistan and ‘new decisions.’ On Monday the Protestant church umbrella organisation the EKD greeted this support from the Catholics… The debate over the morality of military service in the region expanded as more violence erupted there over the weekend.

“German soldiers opened fire on a car speeding towards a checkpoint in northern Afghanistan, killing an Afghan and wounding another, the military said Sunday… The shooting follows a similar incident on Friday in which German troops shot and injured another Afghan driver whom they said had been speeding towards a checkpoint.

“Germany has the third largest international contingent in the NATO force with about 4,300 troops, most of them in the north where security has deteriorated this year with a sharp rise in attacks on foreign forces.”

Pope Visits Rome’s Main Synagogue

AFP reported on January 17:

“The role of the Roman Catholic Church during the Holocaust hung over a landmark visit Sunday by Pope Benedict XVI to Rome’s main synagogue. ‘Unfortunately many remained indifferent’ as the Nazis slaughtered millions of Jews before and during World War II, the German-born pope said in a speech often punctuated by applause in the cavernous temple. But silence greeted his assertion that the Holy See ‘performed actions of support, often hidden and discreet’…

“The much-anticipated visit came barely a month after the pope angered many Jews by moving his wartime predecessor Pius XII, accused of inaction during the Holocaust, further on the road to sainthood. The Catholic Church has long argued that Pius XII, who was pope from 1939 to 1958, saved many Jews who were hidden away in religious institutions, and that his silence was born out of a wish to avoid aggravating their situation. Speaking before the pope, the head of Rome’s Jewish community demanded access to Vatican archives on Pius XII…

“Benedict’s visit, announced in October, appeared at risk of being cancelled amid howls of protest over a papal decree bestowing the title ‘venerable’ on Pius XII. Adding fuel to the fire, the head of the Roman Catholic Church on Friday urged Vatican doctrinal experts to speed rapprochement with a Catholic fraternity that includes a Holocaust-denying bishop, Richard Williamson… Israel’s ambassador to the Holy See attended but remarked that ‘Catholic anti-Judaism still exists.'”

The relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jews will not improve, but gradually deteriorate.

“America Slides Deeper Into Depression”

The Telegraph wrote on January 10:

“December was the worst month for US unemployment since the Great Recession began… [Is] History repeating itself? President Obama has been accused by some economists of making the same mistakes policymakers in the US made in the Great Depression, which followed the Wall Street crash of 1929… The labour force contracted by 661,000. This did not show up in the headline jobless rate because so many Americans dropped out of the system. The broad U6 category of unemployment rose to 17.3pc. That is the one that matters…

“The home foreclosure guillotine usually drops a year or so after people lose their job, and exhaust their savings. The local sheriff will escort them out of the door, often with some sympathy… defaults and repossessions have been running at over 300,000 a month since February [of 2009]. One million American families lost their homes in the fourth quarter. Moody’s Economy.com expects another 2.4m homes to go this year…

“The home seizures are occurring despite frantic efforts by the Obama administration to delay the process… It takes heroic [naivete] to think the US housing market has turned the corner… The fuse has yet to detonate on the next mortgage bomb…Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research said the Fed is baking deflation into the pie later this year, and perhaps a double-dip recession…”

Even though overly optimistic “experts” are telling us that the RECESSION is over, the reality is that we are sliding deeper into DEPRESSION! Irresponsible sugar-coating notwithstanding, we must face the facts. Almost two years ago, we warned in our StandingWatch program that DEPRESSION for the USA is a distinct possibility, and we gave advice to our viewers as to how to prepare for the times ahead. 

Will Americans Flirt Soon With Bankruptcy?

The Financial Times wrote on January 11:

“When Americans are asked what they want – lower taxes, more lavish social spending or the world’s best-funded military machine – their collective answer tends to be ‘all of the above’. The result is that the US is piling up debt… What should worry Americans is that, with entitlement spending set to surge, there is no credible plan to bring the budget deficit under control over the medium term.

“But if the US keeps running huge deficits, sooner or later the country will start flirting with bankruptcy… Sometimes, if a government is truly rotten… it is a good thing if a fiscal crisis leads to political collapse. But for most normal countries, it is much better to get close to the edge of national bankruptcy than actually to go over the Niagara Falls of sovereign default… An actual sovereign default… can destroy confidence and trust among citizens and investors for years.”

It is perhaps beyond imagination that the greatest nation on earth might have to face the possibility of economic ruin! But as we are moving farther and farther away from God, our economic prosperity is by no means guaranteed.

Politics and Racism in America

The Wall Street Journal wrote on January 12:

“[U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid is apologizing to all and sundry for saying in private in 2008 that Barack Obama should run for President because he was ‘light-skinned’ and spoke with ‘no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’ Republicans are calling for Mr. Reid to resign, on grounds of the Trent Lott precedent.

“When the Republican leader in 2002 joked at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond that America might have been better off had the one-time Dixiecrat won his 1948 Presidential campaign, Democrats demanded Mr. Lott’s resignation… Mr. Lott resigned, notwithstanding his profuse apologies.

“In contrast, Mr. Obama and various black Democrats have rushed to Mr. Reid’s defense… here’s hoping the President will be equally quick to absolve the next Republican who says something stupid about race… it would be edifying to the American public to hear this President say so on behalf of someone who isn’t a partisan ally.

“Some Americans, white and black, might be more insulted by Mr. Reid’s implication that most Americans—45 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964—are still so residually racist that they would only vote for a black candidate who isn’t really . . . black. In reality, we saw in November 2008 that Americans were more than ready to elect a black politician who campaigned to be President of all Americans…

“The irony is that Democrats are increasingly the victims of this kind of racial politicking. Bill Clinton’s dismissal of Mr. Obama as a Jesse Jackson-style ‘black candidate’ hurt his wife’s candidacy in 2008. Democratic Congressman Artur Davis, vying to become the first black governor of Alabama, has been declared a traitor to his race for having voted against Nancy Pelosi’s health bill.

“Mr. Reid’s allies are even now responding to critics by playing the race card. Democrats are pointing to the NAACP’s voting assessments of Republicans who have called on him to resign. ‘Senator Reid’s record provides a stark contrast to actions of Republicans to block legislation that would benefit poor and minority communities—most recently reflected in Republican opposition to the health bill,’ says Congressional Black Caucus leader Barbara Lee (D., Calif.). Thus do Mr. Reid’s ill-chosen words morph into the accusation that Republicans are racist for opposing government health care…”

Politicians of all “color” are indeed looking for whatever “argument” or accusation they could use for their advantage. Politics is indeed a dirty business.

Religious Exemption from Mandatory Health Care Insurance?

The Watertown Daily Times wrote on January 9:

“Federal health care reform will require most Northern New Yorkers — but not all, it turns out — to carry health insurance or risk a fine. Hundreds of Amish families in the region are likely to be free from that requirement.
 
“The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a ‘religious conscience’ exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections…

“Lawmakers reportedly included the provision at the urging of Amish constituents, although the legislation does not specify that community and the provision could apply to other groups as well, including Old Order Mennonites and perhaps Christian Scientists…

“Marci A. Hamilton, who teaches at the University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, wrote at Findlaw.com in August, ‘If the government can tolerate a religious exemption, then it must do so evenhandedly among religious believers with the same beliefs…

“Congressional aides said the exemption is based on a carve-out the Amish have had from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the 1960s. Whether Amish businesses, however, would fall under the bill’s mandates is still an open question. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who was a key negotiator on the Senate bill, supports the religious exemption, said a spokesman… who called the provision a ‘no brainer.'”

Major Earthquake in Haiti

ABC News reported on January 12:

“A major earthquake struck just off the coast of Haiti late this afternoon, reportedly causing extensive damage in the capital of Port-au-Prince… The quake had a magnitude of 7.0…”

AFP added on January 13:

“Already the poorest nation in the Americas, Haiti has been hit by a series of disasters recently and was battered by hurricanes in 2008… Seventy per cent of Haiti’s population lives on less than two dollars per day, and half of its 8.5 million people are unemployed… food insecurity already affects more than a quarter of Haiti’s population.”

The Associated Press wrote on January 13:

“The strongest earthquake in more than 200 years rocked Haiti on Tuesday… USGS geophysicist Kristin Marano called it the strongest earthquake since 1770 in what is now Haiti. In 1946, a magnitude-8.1 quake struck the Dominican Republic and also shook Haiti, producing a tsunami that killed 1,790 people… ‘Parliament has collapsed. The tax office has collapsed. Schools have collapsed. Hospitals have collapsed,’ [President Rene] Preval told the Miami Herald… Even the main prison in the capital fell, ‘and there are reports of escaped inmates,’ U.N. humanitarian spokeswoman Elisabeth Byrs said in Geneva. The Roman Catholic archbishop of Port-au-Prince was among the dead, and the head of the U.N. peacekeeping mission was missing.”

The Los Angeles Times wrote on January 14:

“On Wednesday, President René Préval described the destruction as ‘unimaginable.’ Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive said a preliminary assessment led him to fear that the number of dead could be ‘well over 100,000.'” The German press reported that the number of dead could be over 500,000.

Der Spiegel Online wrote on January 14:

“US Secretary of State Clinton has compared the catastrophe to the 2004 tsunami in southeast Asia… the Red Cross estimates that a total of 3 million people have been affected… Police and soldiers from the UN peacekeeping troops cleared the rubble, directed the traffic and security. But they were unable to prevent the looting of the many damaged shops.

“Meanwhile, there were fears of more plundering in the city. ‘At present, people are only thirsty, but when they start to starve we will have an apocalypse here,’ German journalist Anne Rose Schön said in an interview over Skype. During her journey to Port-au-Prince, she said she had witnessed a rising aggression among the city’s inhabitants. ‘Half of this city has been devastated,’ said Schön, who has lived in Haiti for more than a decade. She warned of an increase in the risk of disease…”

Major Earthquake in California

The Los Angeles Times wrote on January 10:

“The day after a powerful earthquake rocked the Northern California city of Eureka, residents woke today to a mess: toppled chimneys, downed traffic signals, and shattered nerves as minor aftershocks continued to rattle windows… there were no reports of major injuries caused by the magnitude 6.5 temblor, which struck offshore at 4:27 p.m. about 33 miles southwest of the coastal city of 26,000. More than 25,000 people were initially left without power…

“Centered about 13 miles deep, the quake was felt as far north as central Oregon, as far south as Santa Cruz and as far east as Reno, the U.S. Geological Survey said. ‘It was a monstrous one,’ said Phil Burns, owner of Mity Nice Bakery Cafe Restaurant in Eureka, which is about 80 miles south of the Oregon border. ‘Usually, they’re sharp, but this one was very wiggly. It was rolling in all directions.’

“In the south Eureka fishing village of King Salmon… residents raced to the only access road to the closest higher ground, the 150-foot-high Bell Hill, in case of a tsunami… None materialized, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Residents of Northern California coastal communities have reason to worry about tsunamis. In 1964, a magnitude 9.2 earthquake off the Alaskan coast sent a catastrophic tsunami to Crescent City, north of Eureka.

“… the area where the earthquake occurred was in the Mendocino Triple Junction, where three tectonic plates collide: the Pacific, North American and Juan de Fuca. It is one of the most seismically active parts of the San Andreas fault system that runs through the state… The last major quakes in the offshore region… were magnitude 7.2 and 6.6 temblors in June 2005.”

God warns of major earthquakes here and there in these end times. These will be one sign of the “beginning of sorrows.” We can indeed expect big earthquakes to rattle this globe in the not-too-distant future.

China’s Ally–Iran

Deutsche Welle wrote on January 12:

“The so-called P5+1 nations (UN Security Council permanent members the US, Russia, China, Britain and France together with Germany) are set to meet later this week to discuss Iran’s failure to agree to a solution that would assuage concerns about Tehran’s nuclear program…

“The meeting has been called after Tehran did not meet a deadline set by the US at the end of 2009 to accept a deal that would have seen uranium being taken out of Iran and returned as enriched fuel rods needed in the production of nuclear energy…

“But chances of any progress toward… punitive measures are slim. China, in particular, does not see eye to eye with the US on the potential threat posed by Iran… The Chinese leadership is also no great believer in sanctions in general.

“… the question of sanctions is not the only issue on which Beijing is closer to Tehran than to Washington… the popular protests in Iran that arose last year after the controversial reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad probably remind Chinese leaders of the pro-democracy demonstrations in China in 1990, which Beijing suppressed with military force…

“Iran is China’s third-largest supplier of crude oil… Iran also supplies the Asian giant with significant quantities of natural gas… China is also one of the leading exporters of products to Iran, and the relationship between the two countries has rapidly been growing closer in recent years.”

With the possibility of China’s veto, we should not expect anything meaningful resulting from the meetings of the P5+1 nations. Israel and the USA are being pushed more and more into the position of having to attack Iran militarily.

Iran Accuses USA and Israel of Terrorist Attack

BBC News reported on January 12:

“Iranian state media have accused Israel and the US of being involved in a bomb attack which killed an Iranian physicist in Tehran… saying there were signs of Israeli and US involvement ‘in the terrorist act’. The US state department dismissed the allegation as ‘absurd’.

“Masoud Ali Mohammadi… was killed by a remotely-controlled bomb. Reports in the Iranian media described Mr Mohammadi as a nuclear physicist, but it appears that his field of study was quantum theory… reports said his name appeared on a list of academics backing opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi before the 2009 presidential election.

“Tensions have been high in Iran since the disputed election led to mass protests against the government… The opposition in Iran will fear that Tuesday’s blast will be used against it as part of a crackdown…”

The current Iranian regime might indeed try to “capitalize” on the death of Ali Mohammadi–as Hitler justified the “Reichskristallnacht” (“Night of the Long Knives”) against Jews after a Jewish socialist had allegedly burned down the Berlin Reichstag building. We might see further terrible oppression and violence in Iran, as well as terrorist attacks against Israeli and American facilities. Iran has vowed that Mohammadi’s murder will have “consequences” for Iran’s enemies.

Science Fiction Nightmare–Armies of Robots…

The Wall Street Journal wrote on January 13:

“Israel is developing an army of robotic fighting machines… In 10 to 15 years, one-third of Israel’s military machines will be unmanned, predicts Giora Katz, vice president of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., one of Israel’s leading weapons manufacturers…

“Over 40 countries have military-robotics programs today… Even Hezbollah… flew four Iranian-made drones against Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War… U.S. forces have around 7,000 unmanned vehicles in the air and an additional 12,000 on the ground… In 2009, for the first time, the U.S. Air Force trained more ‘pilots’ for unmanned aircraft than for manned fighters and bombers…

“Military analysts say unmanned fighting vehicles could have a far-reaching strategic impact on the sort of asymmetrical conflicts the U.S. is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Israel faces against enemies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. In such conflicts, robotic vehicles will allow modern conventional armies to minimize the advantages guerrilla opponents gain by their increased willingness to sacrifice their lives in order to inflict casualties on the enemy.

“However, there are also fears that when countries no longer fear losing soldiers’ lives in combat thanks to the ability to wage war with unmanned vehicles, they may prove more willing to initiate conflict… Israel and the U.S. have already faced backlash over civilian deaths caused by drone-fired missiles in Gaza, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those ethical dilemmas could increase as robots become more independent of their human masters.”

There does not seem to be an end to man’s ability to devise weapons and machines for war. In the end, man will cause a time of such Great Tribulation that no “flesh” would be saved alive, if it weren’t for God’s intervention. But God will make an end to man’s war-like ambitions, and Christ will come to “destroy those who destroy the earth” (Revelation 11:18) and to make “wars cease to the end of the earth” (Psalm 46:9).

The Wild West of Afghanistan

ABC News reported on January 12:

“Guns displayed in public in this part of the world [Afghanistan] are not usually reason for a second glance. They’re everywhere… Lawlessness is part of the culture, and everyone seems to own at least one weapon. Centuries ago, the Silk Road, the major trade route between Europe and Asia which passed right through here, helped eventually [turn] this place into the eastern version of the Wild West.  

“Today, there is a virtual arms race among the nearly 2,000 militias which abound in this country, all armed to the teeth. The Northern Alliance alone, historically one of the most powerful militias, is still said to have more than 7,000 weapons. To fill the void created by inadequate police and courts, guns settle many disputes here, whether tribal, domestic or personal — and there is often little doubt who the winner is.

“… there is not much of a gun control debate here… Cultural change in this part of the world is glacial. ‘The vision of a gun free Afghanistan,’ says the UN, ‘remains as elusive as ever.'”

This Satan-inspired world believes that guns are a major solution to our problems. When Jesus Christ rules this earth, then man will understand the error of his ways. Then, the people will “beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).

Slaves Did Not Build the Great Pyramid

Times on Line wrote on January 11:

“The long-held image of slaves toiling in the Egyptian desert to build the Great Pyramids of Giza was challenged this week by the discovery of new tombs along the pyramids. Egypt’s chief archaeologist, Zahi Hawass, said that the tombs supported the view that the pyramids were built by free, paid workers — not slaves. ‘These tombs were built beside the king’s pyramid, which indicates that these people were not by any means slaves,’ said Mr Hawass. ‘If they were slaves, they would not have been able to build their tombs beside their king’s.’

“The 4,150-year-old tombs belonged to workers who toiled on the pyramids of Khufu and Khafre, he said. Graffiti on the walls of the tombs calls them ‘friends of Khufu’. Experts say that workers’ tombs from the 4th Dynasty were cone-shaped constructions of mud bricks covered in white plaster — probably meant to mimic the nearby pyramids of the kings.

“The discovery sheds new light on the labourers of that time, said Hawass, showing that the makers of the pyramids ate and toiled. The men who took part in building the pyramids ate well — consuming meat regularly. Hawass said that the ten thousand labourers working on the pyramids ate 21 cattle and 23 sheep sent to them daily from farms in northern and southern Egypt. The work was done in three-month shifts, after which labourers were given the honour of building their mud tombs within the shadow of the pyramids…

“The Greek historian, Herodotus, visited Egypt several thousand years after Khufu’s pyramid was built. He wrote that Khufu forced his people to ‘labour as slaves for his own advantage’ thus prompting the first accounts that the pyramids were built by slaves.

“The myth that Jewish slaves built the pyramids began towards the end of the first century AD, when the Jewish historian Josephus listed pyramid building among the hardships that ancient Hebrews had to endure during their years in Egypt. His idea has persisted, though modern-day historians have concluded that the Great Pyramids were built thousands of years before the Hebrews would have arrived in Egypt.”

We have said for many years that the Great Pyramid of Giza was possibly built by the biblical Job–long before the Israelites became slaves in Egypt. Biblical indications can be found in Job 38:4-7, where God compares the creation of the earth with the building of a pyramid. As a righteous man, Job would not have forced slaves to build the Pyramid. For more information, please watch or listen to Norbert Link’s two video-and audio-recorded sermons, titled, “Lessons from the Book of Job,” Parts 1 and 2, as posted on our Website, dated April 25 and May 2, 2009.

Crises Loom for 2010

Reuters reported on January 4:

“For global markets, probably the main political risk would be one of the world’s more troubled economies defaulting or coming close to default on its sovereign debt… Worries over Dubai, Ukraine and Greece have all spilled over into global markets in the last month, and all three look set to remain under economic and political pressure in the coming year… Among those in the spotlight over public debt will be euro zone weak links Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain — dubbed insultingly the PIIGS — as well as non-euro Britain…

“A number of important elections loom this year, with U.S. mid-term congressional elections coming alongside likely changes of leadership in Britain and Brazil, as well as a host of votes in emerging Europe that could have wider consequences… Any signs Britain is heading towards a hung parliament will unsettle sterling…

“The United States and China are already by far the two most important countries in terms of political clout. In 2010, China is set to overtake Japan as the second-largest global economy… Pressure on China to allow the yuan to appreciate will become ever more intense in 2010 as economic storm clouds evaporate… Beijing will not want to jeopardise economic growth by letting the currency rise too quickly, and does not welcome being told what to do by Washington or the European Union… If President Barack Obama imposes more tariffs, under pressure from Congress and domestic industry, expect sparks to fly…

“Ongoing confrontation over Iran’s nuclear programme remains a risk, particularly for energy markets, and the situation is complicated by deepening domestic instability following last year’s disputed presidential election… North Korea continues to be dangerously unpredictable, with potential scenarios ranging for a war to the death of leader Kim Jong-il — an event that might prompt a reunification that could prove financially crippling for South Korea…

“Both Nigeria and Thailand could face market uncertainty over the health of their president and king respectively. Both were hospitalised in 2009. Analysts expect al Qaeda and its allies to try to spark conflict between nuclear-armed neighbours Pakistan and India… And Pakistan’s weak government, under threat on several fronts, may have its own reasons to focus popular anger on India.

“The attempted bombing of an airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas Day shows that attacks on Western targets also remain a threat.”

The Yemen Debacle

Der Spiegel wrote on January 4:

“Eight years after the 9/11 attacks, [Yemen] is the place the latest generation of Islamist terrorists have chosen to make their ‘base’… In the US, the failed attack by the suspected bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on the Northwest Airlines flight has reawakened a fear of terrorism that had been painstakingly overcome. The focal point of this fear is no longer Afghanistan, where 68,000 US troops are stationed, or Iraq, with 120,000 US troops. Nor is it Pakistan, where it is assumed Osama bin Laden and the leadership of the old al-Qaida, are holed up. It is Yemen…

“Washington has been investing huge sums in military infrastructure in Yemen: In 2006 they provided the country with $11 million (€7.6 million) and by 2009 the sum had increased to $70 million (€48.5 million)…

“The more the Americans stepped up the pressure on al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the more attractive Yemen became as a place to retreat to. And even though many Islamist leaders were arrested in Yemen and others ended up in the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, the young Islamists kept coming in their droves, mainly from Africa and Southeast Asia. Hundreds of Somalis, Indonesians and Malaysians attended al-Zindani’s notorious Iman University in San’a and returned home as firebrand preachers. Yemen proved to be particularly useful for members of the Saudi Arabian branch of al-Qaida… Several members relocated to Yemen, including the two Guantanamo returnees…

“For Washington and the West, Yemen poses a challenge where all the possible courses of action are equally unattractive. Leaving the country to its own devices and its tribes could lead to a Somalia-style failed state. Increasing military operations and engaging more strongly in the fight against terrorism would, however, turn the population further against the US, as has happened in Pakistan.”

No Success in Yemen?

In an accompanying article, Der Spiegel Online stated on January 4:

“After the foiled attack on a US airliner, Yemen is suddenly the focus of the war on terror. As embassies shut and Yemeni security forces intensify their operations against al-Qaida, the US is doubling its counterterrorism aid to the impoverished country. German commentators, however, doubt that the West will be any more successful here than in Afghanistan…

“The United States, the United Kingdom and now France have taken the precaution of shutting their embassies in the Yemeni capital San’a, while US transport authorities have reacted by heightening security checks for passengers flying from 14 ‘terror linked’ countries on Monday. The foiled Dec. 25 attack may also have the knock-on effect of making it even more difficult to close the US detention center at Guantanomo, as half of the remaining inmates are from Yemen…

“Yemen, the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden, is friendly to [the] West, but its central government is weak outside the capital and it has a history of tolerating militants. Yemen was the site of the bombing of the USS Cole back in 2000 which killed 17 US sailors and an attack by al-Qaida on the US embassy back in 2008 killed one American…

“The conservative Die Welt writes: ‘The US public are now pretty upset to discover that for almost a decade their media, their intelligence agencies and their former President George W. Bush had ignored the strengthening terror network in Yemen…’

“The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes: ‘With its unstable societal and political structures, Yemen is very similar to Afghanistan. It is therefore hardly surprising that al-Qaida has shifted its base here following severe setbacks in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Yemen offers al-Qaida fighters a quasi natural headquarters on the Arabian peninsula… The US is reacting to this real threat by arming the central power in Yemen and by joining — still in a limited manner — the military fight against the Islamists. It is doubtful if this kind of war will be any more successful in Yemen than it has been in Afghanistan.’

“The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes: ‘London and Washington want to arm the fragile government of President Saleh for the war against the terrorists. At the same time the Pentagon is honing in on targets for possible attacks by drones in the east of the country. However, just as they are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, America and the world are faced with a dilemma. The governments are too weak to take on the terrorists…'”

The Yemen Dilemma–“America Shares the Blame”

On January 4, Der Spiegel Online published the following comments by Yemeni Major General Jahja Abdullah:

“America also shares the blame for the al-Qaida danger: Washington built up the Islamic fighting units that were meant to bring the Soviets to their knees in Afghanistan during the Cold War. They were followed by the Taliban, al-Qaida and similar Islamic-aligned groups that are today fighting against America and the civilized world… In the north, the al-Qaida conspirators have taken advantage of the fighting between the army and the Houthis and taken the initiative themselves. But they are fighting against a sea of Yemeni people who hate them. Most of the militants aren’t even Yemeni citizens. We have captured some who come from Somalia and other African countries and even from Arabian brother countries — like Algeria and Libya, where things had gotten too difficult for them.

“… these bandits who falsely call themselves ‘defenders of Islam’ are being supported from outside of our borders — with weapons, money and propaganda… I am not referring to the Iranian government, but rather to ‘certain circles in Iran’ that have very much taken al-Qaida under their wings. We have come across ships in Yemen territorial waters with Iranian crews who were carrying weapons supplies. At the very least, the Iranian media have clearly sided with the rebels and they have portrayed the Houthis as having their own state. But it is no longer as easy to smuggle in goods and accomplices because the Saudi Arabian navy is providing our fleet with support in securing the Red Sea coast…

“A lot of militants definitely come from Somalia, which has spiralled out of control and where al-Qaida members are able to go into hiding with relative ease. And then they come across the sea to Yemen. Poverty, lack of opportunities, a distorted image of Islam, the disintegration of Iraq into bloody religious division — these are all factors that explain the continued survival and threat presented by violent Islamists… Our people — of all parties and faiths, and the opposition — have declared war on al-Qaida. No Yemeni will stand silently when extremists attack girls’ schools in Sanaa (the capital) and tear the legs off girls.

“… the destruction of the Iraqi state was a huge mistake. But to withdraw from Afghanistan now would be a catastrophe for the whole world, because al-Qaida will try to remain active there. The reports from news agencies confirm that every day. In Yemen, we need more support in the battle against militant Ultras at all levels. Those who aid Yemen are helping to defend the entire world against criminals disguised in religious clothes.”

President Obama’s Hopeless Challenges

The Financial Times wrote on January 3:

“Obama snowed under by his promises of action… national security has shot to the top of his to-do list with the attempted Christmas day terrorist attack and the holes in the US’s intelligence systems it exposed. His challenges in Afghanistan, meanwhile, deepened with a New Year’s day suicide attack that killed eight Central Intelligence Agency officers…

“The president’s desk was far from empty when he left Washington on Christmas eve – the healthcare reform legislation he wanted to sign before the end of 2009 still requires a lot of work, as does financial regulation, while the unemployment rate remains in double ­digits. This year Mr Obama will have to juggle two wars and a growing al-Qaeda threat against a slew of domestic tasks, all the while grappling with the reality that his political honeymoon is over…

“With so many pressing tasks on his agenda, the criticism of the president’s first year in office that he was trying to do too much at once looks set to be repeated… if the voting public perceive the president to be focusing too much on second-tier issues, even if they were presidential campaign pledges, he will be seen to be out of touch…

“‘What [Americans] are seeing is weakness, waff­ling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass,’ Drew Westen, professor at Emory University, wrote in a blog on the Huffington Post website. ‘That’s a recipe for going nowhere fast…'”

President Obama on the Defensive

Der Spiegel Online wrote on January 7:

“President Barack Obama has slammed the ‘near-disastrous’ intelligence failures surrounding an attempted Christmas Day terror attack on a Northwest Airlines jetliner… A jury in Michigan on Wednesday indicted Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, on six counts for his bid to bomb the Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. The failed plot has raised a number of questions about the effectiveness of US security and intelligence. It has also put Obama firmly on the defensive.

“On Tuesday, Obama said that the review into the terrorist watch listing system had revealed ‘human and systemic failures.’ He said it showed that US intelligence agencies missed a series of alerts related to Abdulmutallab. The terror suspect was known to have extremist links, but was still able to board the plane. In addition, Obama has said that US intelligence agencies were aware that the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula terror group aimed to attack targets in the United States over the holidays.

“Earlier this week, the US president summoned members of the security services to the White House and voiced his anger over their shortcomings. ‘The bottom line is this: The US government had sufficient information to have uncovered this plot and potentially disrupt the Christmas Day attack, but our intelligence community failed to connect those dots,’ he said. ‘This was not a failure to collect intelligence, it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.’

“But German editorialists on Thursday asked whether Obama was too tardy in his reaction to the security debacle…

“SPIEGEL ONLINE Washington correspondent Gregor Peter Schmitz writes: ‘The images speak for themselves: Nearly a year after taking office, Obama has now become an anti-terrorist president. His spokesman Robert Gibbs already speaks of the “War on Terror,” as if George W. Bush were still in power. This speech leaves no doubt as to Obama’s determination… The only question which remains is whether his statement comes too late… Obama now must shake off this impression of mismanagement…’

“The left-wing Tageszeitung writes: ‘Barack Obama has never — not even during his electoral campaign — made a secret of the fact that he does not rule out war as a political tool. Otherwise he would not have been elected. Those in Europe who believed that his statement wasn’t serious, and was accompanied by a knowing wink towards the pacifists, only have themselves to blame. Military strength and the willingness to use it, are fundamental in the United States, which has not had territorial wars since the mid-19th century. You don’t have to like it, but ignoring this global political reality … reveals naivety. Whoever saw Obama as a prince of peace has made a mistake…’

“The business daily Handelsblatt writes: ‘All of a sudden President Barack Obama has presented himself as a determined fighter of terrorism… Obama has avoided dealing with the anti-terrorist theme for a year. Now it has caught up with him. Obama is facing the same issues as George W. Bush. But he has not come up with any new answers than those of his predecessor… Obama will only manage to restore confidence in the safety of the country if he succeeds in presenting a concept that is both efficient and lean. That is not an easy task given that the heads of the intelligence services often like to spend more time arguing than organizing the defense of their country. Following the recent debacle, Obama must realize that, alongside all his other problems, he now has a new issue to deal with — and urgently.'”

President Obama Appoints Transgender

ABC News reported on January 4:

“President Obama recently named Amanda Simpson to be a Senior Technical Advisor to the Commerce Department. In a statement, Simpson, a member of the National Center for Transgender Equality’s board of directors, said that ‘as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others’…

“Simpson — a former test pilot who had worked for the company for more than a generation — transitioned from male to female and was instrumental in convincing the military contractor to add gender identity and expression to its equal employment opportunity policy. She later ran unsuccessfully for Congress and was a delegate for then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to the Democratic National Convention in 2008.”

Where Are our Spiritual Leaders?

USA Today wrote on January 5:

“Annise Parker, the newly-elected happens-to-be-lesbian mayor of Houston was sworn in Monday and the opening prayer was given by … Rev. Joel Osteen. Is your head spinning? Osteen heads the nation’s most mega of evangelical non-denominational megachurches, Lakewood Church in Houston where about 45,000 people cycle through a revamped sports stadium for services every weekend.

“Osteen has been all over telling folks (Larry King, Whoopi Goldberg) for years that homosexuality is not ‘God’s best’… But ‘God’s best’ is a phrase Osteen never finishes…”

“It Was the Worst of Times”

The Lost Angeles Times wrote on January 2:

“The first decade of the 21st century saw the American dream slip further away from most Americans… No deceit was more malevolently corrosive than the fiction that this was a period of expansive prosperity in which significant numbers of our people were able to share in the American dream of financial security. All the triumphalist rhetoric emanating from Wall Street and the White House notwithstanding, this was — materially speaking — a disastrous decade for U.S. families.

“For the first time since World War II, according to the departments of Commerce and Labor, an average American’s net worth actually fell — by a whopping 13%. By way of comparison, and to demonstrate just how anomalous such a decline is, consider that net worth grew 44% in the 1990s; 35% in the 1980s; 12% in the 1970s (even with the Carter administration’s ‘stagflation’); 25% in the 1960s; and 26% in the 1950s.

“The employment picture was no better. Though the U.S. population has grown by 35 million since 2000, employment has increased just 0.5% over the last 10 years. For the first time since the federal government began keeping such statistics, the number of private sector jobs actually declined. (In both the 1980s and 1990s, employment grew by 20%, and in the 1960s it climbed by 31%.)

“Meanwhile, as the private sector’s flight from its pension obligations became virtually general, tens of millions of Americans were compelled to trust their retirements to the equity markets through 401(k) accounts. It was a bonanza for Wall Street, which raked in commissions and fees, and a disaster for working families, because the decade ended without any gains in the stock averages…

“Even though most American families had two working adults throughout the last decade, many had to borrow simply to maintain their standard of living. People maxed out their credit cards and tapped their home’s equity — something that proved catastrophic when the value of houses collapsed. With incomes and employment stagnant, families had nowhere to turn. Not so employers. While most lacked the managerial creativity to grow their businesses, they found a way to keep profits up by laying off huge numbers of people and simply working those who remained — too frightened to protest — harder…”

Bible prophecy has long predicted that in these end times, the American dream of prosperity will fade away. And as the next article indicates, the new decade will not bring us substantial recovery. For more information, please read our free booklet, “The Fall and Rise of Britain And America.”

U.S. Growth Prospects Deemed Bleak in New Decade

Reuters wrote on January 3:

“A dismal job market, a crippled real estate sector and hobbled banks will keep a lid on U.S. economic growth over the coming decade, some of the nation’s leading economists said on Sunday… Many predicted U.S. gross domestic product would expand less than 2 percent per year over the next 10 years. That stands in sharp contrast to the immediate aftermath of other steep economic downturns, which have usually elicited a growth surge in their wake…

“One reason is that U.S. consumers remain heavily indebted… Another is that many of the country’s largest banks are still largely dependent on funding from the U.S. Federal Reserve and the implicit backing of the Treasury Department. Kenneth Rogoff… of Harvard… cited government programs giving large financial institutions access to zero-cost borrowing as artificially padding their bottom lines.”

Germans Upset With Afghanistan War

Der Spiegel Online wrote on January 4:

“The head of Germany’s Protestant church, Bishop Margot Kässmann… told the Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper before Christmas: ‘Even by the broadest standards of the Protestant Church in Germany, this war cannot be justified and that the armed conflict must be ended as soon as possible.’ She also said that German troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible. [The] bishop repeated her view in a sermon on New Year’s Day and in an interview with the mass-circulation Bild newspaper on Monday…

“Opinion polls show most Germans agree with Kässmann that the troops should come home. But politicians from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right coalition government lined up to criticize her…

“Germany has over 4,200 troops in Afghanistan, the third-largest contingent in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The mission has become increasingly unpopular in Germany as violence has increased. Merkel’s second term has been dogged by controversy over Germany’s role in Afghanistan after a German-ordered air strike in September killed civilians. Merkel’s government has said it will wait to decide on whether to deploy more troops until after the international conference on Afghanistan in London at the end of January.

“Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle echoed the call for an exit strategy, telling newsweekly Focus in an interview published on Monday that the international Afghanistan conference should start the process of ‘handing over responsibility for security to Afghanistan from 2010 onwards.’ Westerwelle had said in an interview with Stern magazine last week that he may boycott the Jan. 28 conference if it focuses only on deploying more troops…

“The statement by Westerwelle… has highlighted divisions on Afghanistan in the German government. Philipp Missfelder, the foreign policy spokesman of the CDU’s parliamentary group, said: ‘I cannot imagine that the German foreign minister would boycott the Afghanistan conference, because Germany and France in [particular] have a special interest in the success of this conference and were among the initiators.’

“SPD Chairman Sigmar Gabriel said… Westerwelle was letting Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg take the lead in defining Germany’s foreign policy strategy. ‘That’s not in line with our constitution. We don’t want foreign policy to be militarized,’ Gabriel said.”

The Afghan War may prove to become one distinctive nail in the coffin of U.S.-German relationships.

God Knew It All Along…

The Telegraph wrote on January 3:

“A study found that youngsters smacked up to the age of six did better at school and were more optimistic about their lives than those never hit by their parents. They were also more likely to undertake voluntary work and keener to attend university, experts discovered. The research, conducted in the United States, is likely to anger children’s rights campaigners who have unsuccessfully fought to ban smacking in Britain. Currently, parents are allowed by law to mete out ‘reasonable chastisement’ on their children, providing smacking does not leave a mark or bruise. These limits were clarified in the 2004 Children’s Act.

“But children’s groups and MPs have argued that spanking is an outdated form of punishment that can cause long-term mental health problems. Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to determine how their children should be punished. She said: ‘The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up…’

“Teenagers who had been hit by their parents from age seven to 11 were also found to be more successful at school than those not smacked but fared less well on some negative measures, such as getting involved in more fights. However, youngsters who claimed they were still being smacked scored worse than every other group across all the categories… The findings were rejected by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has fought to ban smacking…”

Notwithstanding the “opinions” of God- and Bible-Defying “Experts” and “Psychologists,” the Holy Scriptures have much to say about proper child rearing, including the occasional need for spanking. For more information, please read our free booklet, “The Keys to Happy Marriages and Families.”

Britain Drowned in Alcohol

The Sun wrote on January 2:

“Experts reckon Brits got through a staggering £100 millions of booze as revellers drank pubs and clubs across the country dry – resulting in thousands being violently ill… In the West Midlands the Ambulance Service said they dealt with an emergency 999 call every nine seconds in the first three hours of 2010. Overall, New Year’s Day was the busiest in their history dealing with a staggering 1,418 calls…

“Overall, the cost of treating drunks has almost doubled in just five years, rising to £2.7billion in 2006/7 compared with £1.47billion in 2001/2.”

The book of Hosea has much to say about modern-day Britain, referred to in prophecy as Ephraim. Hosea 4:11 says that “harlotry, wine and new wine enslave the heart.”

Silvester or New Year’s–German Style

Netzeitung wrote on December 31:

“Silvester is the German name for New Year’s Eve – owing to the fourth century Pope Sylvester I. Eventually made a saint by the Catholic Church, his feast day is observed on December 31… Sylvester’s day became associated with New Year’s Eve with the reform of the Gregorian calendar in 1582, when the last day of the year was fixed at December 31. But despite the holiday’s Christian name, many German New Year’s traditions can be traced back to the pagan Rauhnächte practices of heathen Germanic tribes, which took place at the end of December and beginning of January.

“Instead of recognizing a single day as the winter solstice, the Germanic tribes observed twelve Rauhnächte – hairy nights, so called due to the furry forms of the deep winter demons – or Rauchnächte – smoky nights, due to the practice of smoking the spirits out of one’s house on January 5. Bringing very little sun to the northern regions, the twelve Rauhnächte were considered days outside of time, when the solar and lunar years were allowed to re-synchronise. Silvester took place right in the middle of the twelve Rauhnächte and was the night of the god Wotan’s wild hunt, a time of particular commotion and celebration.

“As in many other countries, the Germans celebrate Silvester with fireworks, champagne, and boisterous social gatherings. Making noise is key: the ruckus of fireworks, firecrackers, drums, whip-cracking and banging kitchen utensils has been driving away evil winter spirits since the days of the Germanic Teutons…

“Besides being a fun spectacle, the light of pyrotechnic displays also provides a surrogate sun during the dark Silvester night. Suffering the winter bleakness in their northern regions more than anyone, the Teutons feared that the sun, which they thought of as a wheel that rolled around the earth, was slowing to a stop during the darkest days of winter. Perhaps as a sign of protest, they lit wooden wheels on fire and sent them rolling down mountains and clubbed trees with flaming cudgels. These practices are likely forerunners to the Silvester firework tradition.

“The belief that the sun was slowing to a stop also led to the German tradition of doing no work on New Year’s Eve: everything should stand just as still on earth. Above all no one should do any laundry, because the god Wotan made his rounds with his army of devils for a wild hunt during Silvester and would be terribly angry if he got caught in any clotheslines.

“Because the twelve Rauhnächte – now associated with the twelve days of Christmas made famous by the partridge in a pear tree – were days outside of time, all manner of supernatural events were possible. Spirits of all sorts charged through the night, either embodying the horror of winter or chasing it away. These figures still emerge in the Perchtenläufen of the Alpine areas of Germany, when troll-like forms cavort about with bells to drive away winter. Perchtenläufen take place in different Alpine cities between Advent and January 5, the last of the Rauhnächte.

“The Rauhnächte were also a time when the future for the New Year could be divined. Silvester in Germany still calls for oracle traditions, which often take the form of party games. Bleigießen (lead pouring) is the most popular Silvester fortune-telling tradition. Party-goers melt small lead forms with a candle in an old spoon and pour them into cold water. The lead hardens into a shape that supposedly bears a certain meaning for the New Year… Other oracle traditions on Silvester include swinging a pendulous object, such as a necklace or watch, and asking it a yes-or-no question…

“For those who go out on Silvester, good luck charms and New Year’s greetings are often exchanged. Acquaintances may give good luck charms to each other in the form of ladybugs, four-leaf clovers, horseshoes and pigs…”

As can be seen, the origins of Silvester or New Year’s are thoroughly pagan and even demonic. For more information, please read our free booklet, “Is That in The Bible–Man’s Holidays or God’s Holy Days.”

Amazing Intelligence of Dolphins

Sunday Times wrote on January 3:

“Studies into dolphin behaviour have highlighted how similar their communications are to those of humans and that they are brighter than chimpanzees. These have been backed up by anatomical research showing that dolphin brains have many key features associated with high intelligence…

“Dolphins have long been recognised as among the most intelligent of animals but many researchers had placed them below chimps, which some studies have found can reach the intelligence levels of three-year-old children. Recently, however, a series of behavioural studies has suggested that dolphins, especially species such as the bottlenose, could be the brighter of the two. The studies show how dolphins have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self and can think about the future…

“In one study, Diana Reiss, professor of psychology at Hunter College, City University of New York, showed that bottlenose dolphins could recognise themselves in a mirror and use it to inspect various parts of their bodies, an ability that had been thought limited to humans and great apes. In another, she found that captive animals also had the ability to learn a rudimentary symbol-based language.

“Other research has shown dolphins can solve difficult problems, while those living in the wild co-operate in ways that imply complex social structures and a high level of emotional sophistication. In one recent case, a dolphin rescued from the wild was taught to tail-walk while recuperating for three weeks in a dolphinarium in Australia. After she was released, scientists were astonished to see the trick spreading among wild dolphins who had [learned] it from the former captive.

“There are many similar examples, such as the way dolphins living off Western Australia [learned] to hold sponges over their snouts to protect themselves when searching for spiny fish on the ocean floor.”

God created dolphins and apes with an animal spirit. This spirit is qualitatively different from the spirit of man, and of course from God’s Holy Spirit. However, these spirits explain, to an extent, certain abilities of animals and men; and the absence of the Holy Spirit in man also makes clear why unconverted people cannot understand godly truth. For more information on this highly intriguing and largely misunderstood topic, please read our free booklet, “The Theory of Evolution–a Fairy Tale for Adults.” 

Let the Blame Game Begin…

Newsmax wrote on December 30:

“President Obama has acknowledged that the United States had early signals that a terrorist attack was being plotted in Yemen and failed to take adequate steps to prevent it. According to a page one story in the New York Times, two federal officials told the paper that U.S. intelligence was aware that a Nigerian Muslim was preparing an attack, yet officials did nothing to give warning of such an attack…”

It was predictable that Republicans would seize on the opportunity, accusing the Obama administration of weakness on security measures. However, as the Financial Times warned on December 29, such criticism might very well backfire:

“Republicans have seized on the Christmas day attempted terrorist attack as evidence that Democrats are weak on national security issues, as they seek to bolster their credentials ahead of next year’s congressional elections. As the Obama administration’s investigation into how a 23-year-old Nigerian was able to carry explosives on to a US-bound aircraft gathers pace, a slew of Republicans have criticised everything from the timing of the president’s first public comments to his plans to close the Guantánamo Bay prison camp…

“Barack Obama… answered such critics on Tuesday with a surprisingly blunt admission that ‘human and systemic failures’ were to blame… Republicans had been emboldened by the administration’s faltering response to the attempted attack. Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, on Sunday said ‘the system worked’ but later performed a U-turn, saying that it did not work and ‘no one is happy with that’, comments that were reinforced by Mr Obama on Tuesday…

“Americans traditionally perceive Republicans to be strong on national security issues. But the party’s tactics in this case could backfire. ‘If this line of attack continues, it is going to reveal problems not just with the Obama administration but with the homeland security system, a system that was put in place by President [George W.] Bush,’ said Julian Zelizer, a professor at Princeton University.

“‘If Republicans want hearings into what happened, it could very well raise questions about Bush-era failures and that would be politically dangerous.’ Some Democrats are already pointing to Republican obstructionism on national security matters. More than 100 Republicans in the House voted against the Department of Homeland Security’s 2010 appropriation bill funding airport security measures, including explosives detection systems.”

New “Security” Measures for Airline Passengers

The Associated Press reported on December 26:

“Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing (including going to a restroom). The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day. Air Canada said… that during the final hour of flight passengers must remain seated. They won’t be allowed access to carryon baggage or to have any items on their laps.

“Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn’t have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows…

“Air Canada said it was limiting passengers to one carryon bag in response to a request from the U.S. and Canadian governments. The airline advised U.S.-bound passengers to restrict their carryon item to ‘the absolute minimum’ or to not carry any bag on board at all. ‘Carriage of any carryon item will result in lengthy security delays for the customer,’ the airline said.”

Disruptive Air Travel

The Telegraph wrote on December 27:

“Tens of thousands of people flying to the US for the New Year break have been forced to endure delays of up to three hours after strict new security rules were imposed overnight in the wake of the attempted terrorist attack in Detroit.

“… the most stringent restrictions came as aircraft entered US airspace, with passengers confined to their seats for the last hour of their flight, banned from having access to books, newspapers or even blankets or pillows. Passengers were warned to expect the restrictions to remain in place ‘indefinitely’.

“With pilots ordered to switch off ‘moving maps’ throughout the flight in an effort to conceal the exact locations of their aircraft from potential terrorists, passengers on some Virgin flights on Boxing Day were warned to buy books as in-flight films and other entertainment systems were also being disabled for the entire journey…

“Meanwhile travellers arriving at British airports from the US told a similar story of delays and restrictions… In Paris passengers were told to check all hand baggage into the hold with anything essential for the flight placed into clear plastic bags usually reserved for liquids.

“Meanwhile several Asian airlines disabled cabin telephones or internet connections on flights to the US… Information was kept deliberately vague prompting confusion among passengers about what was allowed… While check-in and security queues were unaffected at British airports, there were long delays in departure areas as airlines were forced to impose a second set of checks at flight gates.

“All passengers were subjected to body searches and baggage checks as they boarded flights, holding departures up by an average of one hour. At Heathrow some departures were delayed by up to three hours while at Manchester New York flights were two hours late. With most flights to the US at least 90 per cent full over the holiday period, the numbers affected could reach almost 30,000 per day this week. Some of the delayed passengers arriving from the United States missed their connecting flights.”

Discouraged Business Fliers?

The Associated Press wrote on December 28:

“New security restrictions… will make air travel more burdensome and could discourage some business fliers, key customers for the airlines… business travelers may think twice before flying if stepped-up security means spending hours at the airport. That’s troubling to the airlines, because business travelers tend to fly frequently and pay higher fares.

“Alarmed by the prospect of losing their best customers, airlines are already asking federal officials to make any new procedures palatable to passengers… Travelers on incoming international flights said that during the final hour, attendants removed blankets, banned opening overhead bins, and told passengers to stay in their seats with their hands in plain sight…

“Jack Riepe, a spokesman for the Association of Corporate Travel Executives… said corporate travel managers want the government to explain how Friday’s suspect reached Detroit even though he was on a watch list maintained by counterterrorism experts. A government official said the suspect’s father raised concerns about him to U.S. officials several weeks ago, but the father’s information about his son’s possible ties to fundamentalist Islamic groups was too vague to act upon.”

So we’d rather (re-)act now by imposing ridiculous restrictions on all air travelers, threatening the very survival of some airline companies. We are seemingly reaching more and more the point of the biblical warning that there will not be any more soundness in the land (or in the air), compare Isaiah 1:6. But perhaps, there is still a little bit left today, considering the next two articles.

Don’t Overreact!

Deutsche Welle reported on December 28:

“Wolfgang Bosbach, the chairman of the parliamentary Internal Affairs Committee told the Berliner Zeitung daily on Monday that the recent attempt to blow up a Northwest/KLM flight from Amsterdam to Detroit should not result in the introduction of new security procedures at German airports… Bosbach said, however, that European Union plans to relax certain restrictions, such as on bringing liquids onto aircraft, should probably be put on hold…

“A key opposition figure, the Green Party’s Hans-Christian Stroebele, echoed Bosbach’s assessment. He said that last week’s attempted attack was made possible by a failure to correctly assess existing intelligence, not a lack of security… The head of a German police union, Rainer Wendt, also said it would be a mistake to adopt new, more intrusive search methods like the much-debated full-body or ‘nude’ scanner.”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 29:

“German media commentators say the new measures smack of hysteria, and will do nothing to improve security because they can easily be circumvented by a determined terrorist. For example, if toilets are out of bounds in the last hour, an attacker could still assemble a bomb there earlier in the flight. The solution, German editorials say, is to improve security checks at airports rather than treating all passengers as potential terrorists once they’re on board.”

President Obama’s Missed Opportunities

The Financial Times wrote on December 27:

“Many Americans – conservatives, liberals and centrists – are dismayed by Barack Obama’s first year. Republicans call Mr Obama a tax and spend liberal. Progressives say he surrendered to corporate interests, and his foreign policy is a continuation of George W. Bush by other means. Independents feel let down because Mr Obama said he would bridge the partisan divide and unite the country. Except for uniting left and right in disappointment, he failed…

“Foreign policy saw the biggest gap between expectations and any real likelihood of success. Foreigners and Americans naively thought the world would submit to Mr Obama’s charm. It did not. Yes, he brought US diplomacy back from the dead – but diplomacy is a means to an end, not an end in itself… Afghanistan underlines the point… Mr Obama took too long to make up his mind, and muddled the message by talking of an early withdrawal…

“Just as those earlier hopes were exaggerated, so now is much of the criticism. The sense of betrayal on the left, in particular, is just bewildering. Progressives want the troops brought home, the security state dismantled, capitalism defanged, the profit motive dethroned, the banks nationalised, private health insurance abolished, and energy policy turned over to Greenpeace. Anything less is just another sell-out. Who on earth did these people think they were electing?

“Republican complaints have a bit more justification. Having cast himself as a fiscal moderate, the president laid out a first budget that permanently raises the ratio of US public spending to gross domestic product, without disclosing the tax increases that will be needed to pay for it. In announcing that programme, Mr Obama did reveal himself more clearly than before as a centre-left Democrat. To be fair, though, in the campaign he never claimed otherwise. The point is, there was wishful thinking to his right, as well as to his left.

“Independents have much the most reason to be disappointed. They see – and are right to – a broken political system. Congress is polarised to its roots. The country’s wide political centre is largely unrepresented on Capitol Hill. Committed Democrats and Republicans can hardly bear to be in the same room, let alone talk to each other. Mr Obama promised to strive for consensus…

“In his first year, he rarely even tried. He simply chose not to exercise this kind of leadership. To be sure, moderate Republicans (an endangered breed) offered no encouragement, content to oppose for opposition’s sake. But Mr Obama made no stand against this. Instead he went with the flow, deferring to the implacably partisan Democratic majorities. This disengagement, this reluctance to lead, is the real disappointment of Mr Obama’s first year.”

The lack of U.S. leadership is becoming increasingly apparent around the world–a power vacuum which will be filled soon, as the following articles postulate.

Sarkozy Cool on Relationship With Obama

The Financial Times wrote on December 27:

“Nicolas Sarkozy, the most pro-American president of France for half a century, has gone cold on Barack Obama, the most popular American leader in France in generations. A year ago Mr Sarkozy was engaged in a tussle among European leaders anxious to be the first to secure a meeting with the freshly elected Mr Obama. Mr Sarkozy described Mr Obama as ‘my friend’ after meeting him just once as a senator.

“But the French president has since clashed with his US counterpart on a series of issues, raising the question of whether Mr Sarkozy is reverting to the more Gaullist, anti-American posture of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac…

“Like his predecessor, Mr Sarkozy plays up differences with the US for domestic purposes. But there is a crucial difference. Whereas Mr Chirac’s stance towards the US was determined by suspicion of US power, current French frustration is aimed at Washington’s hesitancy or even weakness.”

This article and the following ones show that the relationship between the USA and Europe is not improving, and that due to the lack of U.S. leadership, Europe is determined to fill the vacuum.

Germany and USA Continue Disagreements on Substance

Deutsche Welle reported on December 28:

“The good personal chemistry between president [Obama] and chancellor [Merkel] and Obama’s immense international popularity has smoothed over some quite profound differences on major topics…

“Berlin has all but ruled out deploying troops to the more dangerous southern part of [Afghanistan] and in fact is very reluctant to significantly increase its military contingent at all. Despite Obama’s hope for a stronger German role in Afghanistan, the new center-right government’s position is largely unchanged from that of [Germany’s] grand coalition during the presidency of George W. Bush…

“While Germany and the US agree on the broad goal of mitigating the effects of the worst recession since the 1930s and reforming the global financial system, Berlin and Washington are not on the same page when it comes to how this can be accomplished. The German government contends that the goal of stimulating the economy has to be balanced against fiscal responsibility. For the US administration however, restarting the economy clearly trumps concerns about fiscal stability…

“The new US administration by acknowledging the problem and by vowing to take an active role in combating climate change reversed the stance of Bush presidency – at least in theory. But as observers in Germany have had to learn against the backdrop of the failed negotiations at the Copenhagen climate conference, even an American president who supports European efforts to curb global warming cannot by himself convince a reluctant Congress to sign on to an international climate change treaty…

“When push comes to shove, when words need to be translated into action the current leaderships in the US and Germany have not behaved very differently to those under the previous administrations. That is true not just on Afghanistan, the financial crisis and climate change, but also on other issues such as how to deal with the Guantanamo prisoners.”

The relationship between the USA and Europe will steadily deteriorate, according to the clear prophecies of the Bible.

“Europe (under Germany) Must Lead”

On December 28, 2009, Der Spiegel published a revealing interview with German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen. As the magazine wrote, Mr. Röttgen talked about “the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit, why neither China nor the US can take the lead in the fight against global warming and Germany’s role in the new world order.” We are bringing you the following excerpts from his statements:

“First and foremost, the result [in Copenhagen] is a great disappointment… There is no disguising the fact that the outcome does not meet our criteria for success, and it is miles away from what we consider to be urgently necessary…

“Emerging economies, led by China, were not willing to commit themselves to CO2 reduction targets as a part of their foreign policy or to join the common political will. With the United States, the problems were domestic in nature. The political conditions are lacking there for the country to be part of a global framework. Both countries… seem to consider national politics to be more important…

“A chapter has been closed in Copenhagen, the well-intended attempt at harmony. Now the wrestling will begin for positions of power, but no fixed structure has yet taken hold. At the moment we are experiencing a lack of structure, a lack of results and an inability to act, triggered mainly by the United States which, in the case of climate protection, as in capital markets, is no longer capable of leading. This has created a power vacuum. And when there is a power vacuum, there are others who would like to step in…

“The US as leader is part of the political concept of the West. But the US hasn’t led — instead it reached a deal with China that there wouldn’t be any leadership… I see an erosion of their leadership role. Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao have agreed to the lowest common denominator: China doesn’t want to lead, and the US cannot lead. The major blockade at the summit grew out of an unfortunate combination of weak leadership on the part of the Americans and Chinese power to impede progress…

“Europe is not the loser because it presented itself as a unified bloc at the summit, with clear goals and a solid strategy. That was one of the few really positive experiences in Copenhagen and vitally important to our role in this new world order. We have shown what Europe’s role could be… I do not believe there is a conscious American-Chinese alliance. It is more a case of two forms of weakness coming together… The government in Beijing, of course, takes advantage of the fact that the US and Europe do not have a common position…

“Germany alone cannot determine anything in global politics — the only thing that counts there is European unity. And we worked to unite the Europeans in Copenhagen… It is German policy to take a leading role in environmental technology…”

Of course, the concept that carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change is by no means undisputed, as the next article shows. However, from a biblical perspective, the discussion on climate change and its political consequences may contribute to the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, clearly revealing that the influence of the USA on virtually every aspect of life will continue to diminish worldwide, while the United States of Europe under German leadership will become the most powerful bloc in the world–including on economic, political and military issues.

Will the Earth Become Cooler Rather than Warmer?

Newsmax wrote on December 28:

“A university professor challenges the widely held notion that carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change — and says the Earth will continue to cool for the next half-century. Rather than carbon dioxide, cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer — are to blame for changes in the global climate, according to a paper by Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo in Canada…

“Lu’s peer-reviewed paper, published in the prestigious journal Physics Reports, states: ‘My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century. Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.’

“The total amount of CFCs decreased around 2000, Lu said, and ‘correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.’ Lu found that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002, and his research indicates that the cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years.”

War in Middle East Continues–With No End in Sight

Deutsche Welle reported on December 27:

“The year began in the Middle East with war and ended without peace. New leaders arrived with optimistic plans for a resolution to the Israel-Palestinian crisis but little was achieved by the year’s end…

“Any hopes of a lasting peace coming from the Gaza war would be dashed, the international community would increasingly isolate Israel, a UN report by South Africa’s Richard Goldstone would accuse both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and threaten to bring both sides before the International Criminal Court…

“Between Obama’s inauguration and his speech in Cairo, Israel had taken a radical swing to the right. Many observers believed that the election victory for Benjamin Netanyahu of the hard-line Likud party was a direct reaction to the rise of Hamas, the continued threat of rocket attacks from Gaza and the increasing anti-Israel rhetoric from a belligerent, nuclear ambitious Iran…

“Before peace talks could resume, President Mahmoud Abbas demanded that Israel should endorse a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [and] stop all Israeli construction in the occupied West Bank… Netanyahu’s ban on construction fell far short of the full freeze demanded by the Palestinians…

“The apparent inability of the Obama administration to get Israel to agree to its first condition for resuming peace talks angered the Arab world and heaped more pressure on a US president who had promised much when he first came to office… The Arab world is… very disappointed with Obama because the Arabs really thought that this president would be able to put pressure on Israel, not only on the settlement issue but in the wider context of finding a solution to the Middle East conflict…”

“USA Should Attack Iran”

The New York Times wrote on December 23:

“If Iran acquired a nuclear arsenal, the risks would simply be too great that it could become a neighborhood bully or provide terrorists with the ultimate weapon, an atomic bomb. As for knocking out its nuclear plants, admittedly, aerial bombing might not work. Some Iranian facilities are buried too deeply to destroy from the air. There may also be sites that American intelligence is unaware of. And military action could backfire in various ways, including by undermining Iran’s political opposition, accelerating the bomb program or provoking retaliation against American forces and allies in the region.

“But history suggests that military strikes could work… Iran’s atomic sites might need to be bombed more than once to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. As for the risk of military strikes undermining Iran’s opposition, history suggests that the effect would be temporary… Yes, Iran could retaliate by aiding America’s opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does that anyway…

“Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran’s bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. They should be precision attacks, aimed only at nuclear facilities, to remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate.

“The final question is, who should launch the air strikes? Israel has shown an eagerness to do so if Iran does not stop enriching uranium, and some hawks in Washington favor letting Israel do the dirty work to avoid fueling anti-Americanism in the Islamic world. But there are three compelling reasons that the United States itself should carry out the bombings.

“First, the Pentagon’s weapons are better than Israel’s at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel’s relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign… Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators…

“We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.”

Europe Warns and Condemns Iran’s Leadership

Deutsche Welle reported on December 28:

“In a strong statement to the press on Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the actions of Iran’s state security services ‘unacceptable.’… At least eight people were killed in street clashes in Tehran when police and Basij militia members confronted protest marchers who were attempting to gather at a number of central squares. Sunday’s protests took place on Ashura, a Shiite Islamic holy day devoted to honoring martyrs, often through street marches… According to opposition sources, security forces used tear gas and live ammunition to try to get the marchers to disperse.

“German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle criticized Iran’s tactics as ‘brutal,’ and said that the international community ‘would be watching, not looking away.’ A spokesman for the French foreign ministry, Bernard Valero, said his country again expressed ‘deep concern,’ and ‘condemns the arbitrary arrests and violence carried out against ordinary protesters.’… The Italian foreign ministry, meanwhile, warned the Islamic republic that ‘safeguarding human lives is a fundamental value which must be defended everywhere and in every circumstance.'”

It is becoming more and more plausible that we will soon see an outright war in the Middle East, involving a military attack on Iran. This attack might be led by Israel with or without American support; and it will also be interesting to see how powerful players such as Europe and Russia will react to such military action. The Bible shows that ultimately, Europe will turn against the USA and Israel; and that it will intervene militarily in the Middle East in an effort to bring peace to that region.

How Russia Justifies Its Nuclear Policies

The Russian pro-government paper, Pravda, wrote the following on December 24:

“Russia now announced its right to use nuclear weapons not only in case of aggression against itself, but also as a ‘response to a threat of using (or usage) against itself and (or) its allies of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, as well as a response to the aggression with regular weapons in the situations critical for the Russian Federation.’

“The similar document signed by the United States does not have this provision. The US does not consider itself entitled to use nuclear weapons as a response to a ‘threat’… Russia does not have resources for aggression. Even Pavel Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based defense analyst said… ‘The weaker the army, the more important nuclear weapons are. We don’t have anything left besides our nuclear weapons. We have no guarantees that the West would not interfere with our wars, like it happened with Georgia, therefore, we do need nuclear restraining…’

“Nuclear weapons remain the main, and maybe, the only defense for Russia. It would be silly to walk around the area filled with stray dogs without an electroshock or at least a good stick.”

Russia Justifies Its Military Occupation of Georgia

The Pravda wrote on December 23:

“As though it was any of their business, six US senators have taken it upon themselves to warn France against the planned sale of a warship to Russia… The senators were ‘worried’ and underlined a Russian Navy commander’s recent statement that the ship would have allowed Russian forces battling Georgia’s military in August 2008 to land troops ashore in 40 minutes, against the 26 hours it took them to do so in last year’s war.

“Well that’s good, perhaps more lives would have been saved. But these saber rattling, arrogant Americans are still bound and determined to protect the criminal behavior of their puppet in Georgia. Of course their words make them nothing less than hypocrites of the worst kind, and accessories to the war crimes of Georgia and Saakashvili.

“The truth is not in them, they either knowingly or ignorantly promote the lie that the war was Russia’s fault and of course Russia has no right to save the lives of citizens. Again, how dare they!… Senator Lugar and other neo-con Senators called on President Obama to increase military supplies to Georgia. I am sure if this were 1939, they would also call on the President to increase military supplies to Nazi Germany.”

Interestingly, the Pravda conveniently forgets to mention the friendship pact between Russia’s war criminal, Josef Stalin, and Germany’s war criminal, Adolf Hitler. There will not be a war between Russia and the United States, prior to Christ’s return. But a worldwide war WILL occur very soon. However, the respective allies and enemies will be quite different from what many may expect. For more information, please read our free booklets, “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America,” “Europe in Prophecy” and “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

Japan Moves Closer to India, While Moving Further Away from the USA

India’s national newspaper, The Hindu, wrote the following on December 26:

“Apart from improving their coordination on security issues, India and Japan will also consolidate their economic ties… Japanese investment in India [has] exceeded its investment in China for the first time in 2008-09… Without India, Japan cannot grow in [the] future.”

Times on Line added on December 26:

“Yukio Hatoyama, the new Japanese Prime Minister, has stunned a nation already mired in huge public debt by unveiling the country’s biggest ever postwar budget: a 92.3 trillion yen (£630 billion) spending spree… The new budget will require additional debt issuance of Y44.3 trillion…

“Four months on from [his election] victory and Mr Hatoyama has spent more than any of his predecessors and has yet to make any serious impact on the wider effort of repairing Japan’s shattered economy… Mr Hatoyama has also been hurt personally by the arrest of a former aide this week amid a money scandal that bore all the hallmarks of the politics of ‘old Japan’… Prosecutors in Tokyo accused Keiji Katsuba, 59, of falsifying funding reports beginning in 2000 and listing dead people as donors.

“Political analysts said that the episode would not be crippling to Mr Hatoyama… but it adds to pressures that already include a weakened domestic economy and strained relations with the United States…”

The Bible clearly shows that in these last days, many nations in the Far East, including Japan, India, China and Russia, will align and cooperate, even militarily, and an outright war will see a military confrontation between these nations and the emerging United States of Europe.

Britain Powerless?

AFP wrote on December 30:

“Shaikh, a 53-year-old father-of-three whom supporters say was mentally ill, was executed on Tuesday [in China] for drug smuggling despite extensive British ministerial lobbying that continued almost up until his death. But in a letter to the Guardian newspaper, his cousins Amina and Ridwan Shaikh lamented the lack of real British influence in the case.

“‘This is an example of Britain’s powerlessness in the world. Their strategy of being shoulder to shoulder with the US in the “war on terror” has not given them the status they so desperately desire,’ they said… ‘Britain’s economic dependence far outweighs these “individual cases.”‘

“Shaikh was arrested in September 2007 in Urumqi in far western China with four kilograms (nine pounds) of heroin, but campaigners say a criminal gang duped him into carrying the drugs. He was the first national from a European Union country to be executed in China in 50 years… China’s ambassador Fu Ying was hauled into the Foreign Office hours after the execution on Tuesday to be told of Britain’s anger, in what was described as a ‘difficult’ meeting…

“Britain has vast trade and economic ties with China, and has long underlined the need to engage closely with the emerging global powerhouse despite criticism notably of China’s human rights record… But ties have long been complicated, and tensions were highlighted at this month’s Copenhagen climate summit where environment minister Ed Miliband said China had led a group of countries that ‘hijacked’ the negotiations.

“In a commentary on the Shaikh case the Times said that Britain’s ‘diplomatic failure’ was forcing a rethink of strategy towards China. ‘After the Copenhagen debacle this month and the execution of the first citizen of a European country by China since 1951, Britain is now reassessing how to handle China diplomatically,’ it said.”

How Votes Are “Bought”…

Fox News reported on December 21:

“Sen. Ben Nelson [is] hardly the only lawmaker extracting sweetheart deals out of the health care reform bill. While the Nebraska Democrat got a particularly juicy concession in exchange for a ‘yes’ vote on the 10-year, $871 billion package — permanent and full federal aid for his state’s expanded Medicaid population — support from a slew of other senators likewise came with a price…

“Senate Democrats said the payoffs are nothing unusual, and in fact typical. ‘People fight for their own states. That’s the nature of a democracy,’ Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said… ‘This is just part of the normal legislative process,’ said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“As a measure of just how typical they are, a slew of payoffs and concessions have been struck over the past several months.

“Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., won between $100 million and $300 million in additional federal aid for her state’s Medicaid population. The deal, secured before she cast her critical vote in favor of bringing the health bill to the floor, was immediately dubbed the ‘Louisiana Purchase,’  though the actual Louisiana Purchase was considerably cheaper.

“Vermont and Massachusetts got $1.2 billion in Medicaid money… Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also boasted Saturday that he requested and won an investment worth between $10 and $14 billion for community health centers.

“Western states secured higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. The provision covers the low-population ‘frontier’ states and applies to Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming — the latter two states are both represented by two Republicans, but ended up as beneficiaries anyway since they qualify…

“Florida, New York and Pennsylvania — where five of six senators are Democrats — will have their seniors’ Medicare Advantage benefits protected, even as the program sees massive cuts elsewhere. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., reportedly secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure in a mine in Libby, Mont.

“One unknown state is receiving $100 million for a ‘health care facility’ affiliated with an academic health center at a university that contains the state’s only ‘public academic medical and dental school.’ It’s unclear for which state that language was written.

“Nebraska’s Nelson won permanent federal aid for his state’s expanded Medicaid population, a benefit worth up to $100 million over 10 years. Other states get the federal aid for three years, but Nebraska’s benefit is indefinite. His state also got an exemption for nonprofit insurance companies from a health insurance company tax. Many believe this was targeted at Mutual of Omaha, but senior Democratic aides would not confirm that…”

Whatever will come out of this, the methods and means used do not “sanctify” the outcome. God hates corruption, bribery, payoffs and political maneuvering for personal gains. “Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it” (Psalm 127:1).

President Obama Blamed for “Copenhagen Debacle”

The Associated Press reported on December 18:

“President Barack Obama said the United States, China and several other countries reached an ‘unprecedented breakthrough’ Friday to curb greenhouse gas emissions – including a mechanism to verify compliance – after a frenzied day of diplomacy at the U.N. climate talks. The agreement, which also includes the developing nations of India, South Africa and Brazil, requires each country to list the actions they will take to cut global warming pollution by specific amounts, a senior Obama administration official said…

“The U.S. got its share of blame… Obama may eventually become known as ‘the man who killed Copenhagen,’ said Greenpeace U.S. Executive Director Phil Radford… Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, negotiating on behalf of the 27-nation European Union, blamed the impasse on the Chinese for ‘blocking again and again,’ and on the U.S. for coming too late with an improved offer…”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 19 that President Obama did not appear in Copenhagen as the “Messiah,” but as the “Debunked” or “Disenchanted.” The magazine also wrote that one participant at the summit said that President Obama offered developing nations “30 pieces of silver” for their future.

Deutsche Welle reported on December 19:

“For US President Barack Obama, Copenhagen offers no good news. His last trip in Copenhagen was his failed attempt to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. Now with the stakes much higher, he has failed again. His speech was good – but others like Brazil’s Lula da Silva were better. His effort was good, but simply not good enough. In terms of his leadership, there was little to be seen.”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 19:

“What a disaster. The climate summit in Copenhagen has failed because of the hardball politicking of the United States, China and several other countries — and because people just can’t seem to fathom how catastrophic climate change will be… The debacle of Copenhagen is also Barack Obama’s debacle…

“When it comes to immediate assistance for impoverished countries, the United States intends to contribute a total of $3.6 billion between 2010 and 2012. But, if you compare that with what other regions contribute, this figure appears rather miserly. The European Union plans to contribute about $10.6 billion, or about three times as much. And even Japan is chipping in $11 billion. In poor countries, people are presumably confused about whether they should laugh or cry about the US contribution.”

The world is turning away from confidence in American leadership. As the next selection of articles shows, some strongly implore Europe to take a leading role in the world. Bible prophecy reveals that while the USA will drift further and further into political oblivion, Europe will emerge as the most powerful entity on the planet.

Now What After “Flopenhagen”?

Deutsche Welle reported on December 21:

“After the widely disappointing UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen – aka ‘Flopenhagen’ – European editorialists let the bitter comments flow… Britain’s Guardian newspaper saw positives alongside negatives in the outcome of the conference… ‘while the Copenhagen product is every inch the sham that campaigners say it is, the Copenhagen process has set important precedents,’ the Guardian wrote. ‘Most obviously …the sheer fact that it took place – and at such a high political level – means it will probably do so again.’…

“Taking a harsher line, left-leaning French newspaper La Libération oozed disappointment in the ‘large countries which, in a delirium of diplomatic ineptitude and the blindness of superiority, torpedoed the binding worldwide accord’ they had hoped for. The paper pitched for the EU to take immediate, unilateral action: ‘Eco-reformers need to focus on the US and China,’ it wrote… ‘If the EU took the necessary actions from its side, it would jump to the head of the movement. Then the fiasco of Copenhagen could be overcome step by step’…

“German editorialists were less inclined to focus on positive signals from the conference. The Sueddeutsche Zeitung called the Copenhagen summit an ‘insult to the world community,’ noting that ‘never were expectations for a climate conference higher, and never before were so many heads of state and government officials in one place, meeting to solve one single problem. But they didn’t solve it – they made it worse’…

“Finally, the Stuttgarter Zeitung expressed the disappointment felt by many in Europe when they compared US President Barack Obama’s focus on China and other developing countries with his relative lack of interest in the European negotiators… ‘The trans-Atlantic relationship is coming up on hard times. Barack Obama showed one thing for certain in Copenhagen: His focus will be on the trans-Pacific axis with China,’ [the paper wrote].”

Der Spiegel Online added on December 21:

“German papers on Monday are scathing in their criticism of the climate conference and most are resoundingly pessimistic about the prospects for ever reaching an agreement in the future… The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes: ‘Above all national selfishness stood in the way of an agreement… That can only change if such a refusal has consequences. There are already methods of imposing sanctions…’

“The Financial Times Deutschland writes: ‘Forget Copenhagen, now we are making a climate treaty in 2010 in Bonn and Mexico. That is the message from those who are talking up the conference, and trying to sell the result as some kind of progress. But after the fiasco there is no sensible reason for assuming that things will be any better next year. From the very beginning it was an illusion to believe that the two biggest climate sinners — China and the US — would allow themselves to be roped into a binding agreement with clear emissions targets and international monitoring’…

“The conservative Die Welt writes: ‘Even if Chancellor Merkel is warning people not to bad mouth the climate summit, the result is still deplorable. Over 40,000 politicians, diplomats, scientists, journalists, lobbyists and NGO activists traveled there to save the world. One hundred and forty private jets landed, 1,200 limousines ferried delegates around. The feverish summit, which gave a new name to gigantism, offered a soapbox for alarmists and the self-important. But now it is time to consider whether smaller, more matter-of-fact conferences would make more sense. It would also mean allowing those scientists to speak who have expressed well-founded doubts about the scenarios presented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They have many facts on their side.

“‘Evaluation would be more appropriate than roaring that the world is about to end. The question of whether binding and dramatic limits of CO2 emissions are the only correct way to protect the climate must also be revisited. This is not only dogmatic but would also cost a fortune and have little effect. The plan to limit the average rise in the global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius is the most expensive task of all time. … Besides, it is a figure that has been set arbitrarily. The one-sided fixation on CO2 limits could be a greater detriment to the global economy than climate change itself. A global competition for the cleanest energy production and investments in saving and replanting forests would be more useful than the rabid caps in emissions at the cost of economic growth.’

“The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes: ‘The climate summit in Copenhagen was no success — not even a small one. That’s why one can’t bad mouth the results, which Merkel has warned them not to do. No one can make them sound better than they are: Copenhagen was an all-out failure. … How this (process) is to be brought to an end in the next year remains a mystery. The format of the consultations at the UN level, in which every member state can exercise veto power, holds no promise for any success…'”

More U.S. Banks Fail…

The Associated Press reported on December 18:

“Regulators on Friday shut down two big California banks, as well as banks in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Michigan and Illinois, bringing to 140 the number of U.S. banks brought down this year by the weak economy and mounting loan defaults. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took over all seven. Regulators shuttered First Federal Bank of California…[and] Imperial Capital Bank… [bringing] to 17 the number of California banks to fail this year…

“As the economy has slumped, with unemployment rising, home prices tumbling and loan defaults soaring, bank failures have accelerated around the country. The 140 bank failures are the most in a year since 1992 at the height of the savings-and-loan crisis. They have cost the government-backed deposit insurance fund – which has fallen into the red – more than $30 billion so far this year. The failures compare with 25 last year and three in 2007. The FDIC expects the cost of bank failures to grow to about $100 billion over the next four years…

“If the economic recovery falters, defaults on the high-risk loans could spike. Nearly $500 billion in commercial real estate loans are expected to come due annually over the next few years. Last week, the Obama administration extended until next October the $700 billion financial bailout program, saying the fund was still needed to prevent further turmoil in the banking system.”

Reality is sinking in that the recession is by no means ending–expressions of political correctness notwithstanding. The Bible shows that in these last days, the political, economic and even military downfall of the USA will be accelerating.

Obama Czar “Promotes Sex Between Children and Adults”

On December 9, the Washington Times reported the following:

“The Obama administration is stonewalling serious inquiries about sexual filth propagated by a senior presidential appointee who is responsible for promoting and implementing federal education policy. Democrats clearly are terrified of ruffling the feathers of their activist homosexual supporters, who are an influential part of the Democratic party’s base. This scandal, however, is not merely about homosexual behavior; it is about promoting sex between children and adults – and it’s time for President Obama to make clear that abetting such illegal perversion has no place in his administration.
 
“It is curious why White House officials and Education Secretary Arne Duncan believe it’s worth… politically to continue taking arrows for defending Kevin Jennings, who is Mr. Obama’s controversial ‘safe schools czar.’ The evidence suggesting he is unfit to serve as a senior presidential appointee is startling and plentiful. It was revealed this week that Mr. Jennings was involved in promoting a reading list for children 13 years old or older that made the most explicit sex between children and adults seem normal and acceptable…

“But there is more. There are shocking new revelations this week of tape recordings from a youth conference involving 14-year-old students. The conference, billed as a forum to encourage tolerance of homosexuality, was sponsored by Mr. Jennings’ organization and was held at Tufts University in March 2000. Mr. Jennings was executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) from its founding in 1995 until August 2008. The conference sessions appear to have had less to do with promoting tolerance and more to do with teaching children how to engage in sex.

“Andrew Breitbart’s Biggovernment.com provides tapes of some of the sessions. Describing the subject matter as smut would be putting it lightly. The conference discussions were very graphic… Teaching children sexual techniques is simply not appropriate. Unfortunately, it is part of a consistent pattern by some homosexual activists to promote underage homosexuality while pretending that their mission is simply to promote tolerance for so-called alternative lifestyles. It is outrageous that someone involved in this scandal is being paid by the taxpayers to serve in a high-powered position at the Education Department, of all places.”

This is awful. The agenda of homosexual activists destroys the very fabric of our nation. When innocent children become victims in the hands of these kinds of influences, which are not restricted by our leadership, then we should know that the end of this God-defying civilization is drawing near (compare 2 Peter 2:4-9; 3:1-13; Jude 5-7).

But “Our Legal System Works…”???

CNN reported on December 17:

“After more than three decades in prison, a man in Florida was set free Thursday after a DNA test showed he did not kidnap and rape a 9-year-old boy in 1974. James Bain, 54, was 19 when he was convicted on charges of kidnapping, burglary and strong-arm rape… Bain was serving a life sentence… Of the 245 people in the United States who have been exonerated by DNA testing, none has spent more time behind bars than Bain…

“Bain was convicted in 1974 of taking a 9-year-old Lake Wales, Florida, boy from his bed and raping him. According to police records, the victim told police that he fell asleep with his brothers and sisters, but when he woke up a man was dragging him by a baseball field. The boy said he was forced to the ground and raped. The Lake Wales police report says that the boy told police that his attacker had bushy sideburns and a mustache. After being shown five photographs of potential suspects, the report says, the victim picked out the photo of Bain…

“Florida in 2001 passed a statute allowing cases to be reopened for DNA testing. Four times Bain submitted handwritten motions seeking such testing, only to be denied. His fifth try was successful only after an appeals court ruled that he was entitled to a hearing… His twin sister, Jannie Jones, told police that James was home with her, watching a popular television medical drama called ‘Medical Center’ at the time of the attack.”

The Bible prohibits the conviction of an accused unless at least two eye witnesses agree on and confirm the facts of the underlying charge. If, however, the witness lied or was negligent in his or her testimony, he or she had to be punished.

Strained Relations Between Vatican and Israel

Deutsche Welle reported on December 19:

“Pope Benedict XVI is facing criticism after he put a controversial wartime predecessor one step closer to sainthood. Jewish groups say Pope Pius XII did not do enough to save Jewish lives during the Second World War… Pope Benedict has approved a decree that recognizes the pontiff, who is accused of doing too little to help Europe’s Jews during World War II, as having ‘heroic virtues.’ The posthumous honor gives the former pope the title ‘venerable’ and places him two steps from full canonization.

“Pius XI has been accused of turning a blind eye to the Nazi genocide of the Jews, in a controversy that has strained relations between the Vatican and Israel… Attempts to beatify the former pope had been described as ‘unacceptable’ by Israel’s social affairs minister Isaac Herzog… ‘Throughout the period of the Holocaust, the Vatican knew very well what was happening in Europe,’ Herzog told the Haaretz newspaper in 2008.”

The New York Times added on December 23:

“In an effort to calm growing tensions with Jewish groups, the Vatican said Wednesday that Pope Benedict XVI’s decision moving the wartime pope Pius XII closer to sainthood was not a ‘hostile act’ against those who believe Pius did not do enough to stop the Holocaust. The Vatican spokesman… issued a statement saying that the beatification process evaluated the ‘Christian life’ of Pius, who reigned from 1939 to 1958, and not ‘the historical impact of all his operative decisions’… Benedict confirmed the ‘heroic virtues’ of Pius — along with those of John Paul II — on Saturday, opening the door to beatification once a miracle is attributed to each. A second miracle would be required for sainthood.

“The move created anger among many Jewish groups, which have argued that Pius did not speak out vocally enough against the Nazis or intervene to save Jews during World War II, and that the Vatican helped many former Nazis escape to South America after World War II. The decision by Benedict — a German who was an unwilling member of the Hitler Youth — to move Pius closer to sainthood was the latest in a series of controversies. It came less than a year after he revoked the excommunication of a schismatic bishop who had denied the scope of the Holocaust, an act that caused the pope and the Vatican to issue a series of extensive clarifications. Benedict also upset many Jews when he did not directly mention the Nazis or Germany during a visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Israel in May, as John Paul II had done, although Benedict has denounced the Holocaust on many other occasions…

“[The Vatican spokesman] added that the Vatican hoped the pope’s expected visit to the Rome synagogue next month would reaffirm ties between Judaism and the Roman Catholic Church… The legacy of Pius is particularly sensitive for the Jewish community in Rome. More than 1,000 of its members were rounded up in 1943 and deported to Auschwitz. Documents in the Vatican archives indicate that Pius knew of the deportation and did not act to stop it.”

The Bible shows that ultimately, the Roman Catholic Church will be at odds with Israel. In spite of wrong assumptions taught by some, there is nothing in the Bible prophesying a future friendship pact, contract or treaty between Catholic Europe and the state of Israel, which will allegedly last for 3 1/2 years. Rather, the relationship between these two entities will steadily deteriorate. For more information, please read our Q&A on Daniel 9:27.

Will the Habsburgs Run for Presidency?

Europe World News reported on December 16:

“Austria’s Habsburg family suffered a blow in their bid for the Austrian presidency Wednesday, after the country’s Constitutional Court delayed a ruling on whether the former rulers could be barred from running for office until after forthcoming elections. Ulrich Habsburg-Lothringen and his daughter-in-law Gabriele Maria Habsburg-Lothringen are seeking to overturn a clause in the constitution that excludes members of current or former ruling families from being elected head of state. The court said it has no mandate to take up the matter before the elections in April – but advised the Habsburgs on how to proceed in order to have their case heard eventually.

“They should formally announce their candidature, which would be rejected by the national election authority, and Habsburg-Lothringen and his daughter-in-law could then contest the decision at the court. ‘Of course, I will follow through with this,’ said Ulrich Habsburg-Lothringen, 68. He is a third-degree nephew of Otto von Habsburg, the son of the last emperor Charles. He is set to run as an independent candidate, but the Green party, along with the far-right Freedom Party, has said it wants to change the constitution so that former ruling nobility can be elected. Habsburg-Lothringen said he was confident that he could collect the 6,000 signatures necessary to launch a presidential bid.”

This development is worth watching, as the Bible says that modern Europe will unite as the tenth resurrection of the ancient Roman Empire, and the Habsburgs (under Charles V.) constituted the seventh revival of the Roman Empire (and the fourth revival of the Holy Roman Empire). For more information, please read our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy.”

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize–“Fundamental Misjudgments”

The Financial Times wrote on December 10:

“When the Nobel committee awarded Barack Obama the annual Peace Prize a few months back, it made two fundamental misjudgments. First, it failed to recognise that there would be widespread dismay that the prize was being awarded to someone at the outset of his public journey, with little to show in terms of solid international achievement. Secondly, it failed to predict that Mr Obama would end up making his acceptance speech little more than [a] week after ordering a massive US troop uplift in the war in Afghanistan.

“To be fair to Mr Obama, his acceptance speech in Oslo recognises these points head on… while he may be winding down the war in Iraq, the conflict in Afghanistan is accelerating: ‘We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed.’ As statements on war go, world leaders rarely get this blunt.

“Mr Obama’s frankness does not stop there, however. He keeps up this blunt approach before a Norwegian audience which, I suspect, must have wondered at times whether they’d chosen the right guy for the peace prize. For the major theme of Obama’s speech is his defence of the ‘just war,’ of the argument that nations are right at times to take military action…

“As ever with Obama, it all adds up to a finely crafted carefully balanced speech. Yet what stands out, when considering the audience before which he stands, is his justification of military action when necessary. Barack Obama must surely  be the first Nobel peace laureate ever to turn up at the prize ceremony and confront a notably pacifist audience with such belligerence.”

“Mr. President, War Is Not Peace!”

The Huffington Post wrote on December 12:

“Eloquence in Oslo cannot change the realities of war… From President Obama, we hear that peace is the ultimate goal. But ‘peace’ is a fixture on a strategic horizon that keeps moving as the military keeps marching… War is not peace. It never has been. It never will be…

“In the name of pragmatism, Obama spoke of ‘the world as it is’ and threw a cloak of justification over the grisly escalation in Afghanistan by insisting that ‘war is sometimes necessary’ — but generalities do nothing to mitigate the horrors of war being endured by others. President Obama accepted the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize while delivering — to the world as it is — a pro-war speech. The context instantly turned the speech’s insights into flackery for more war.”

As Christians, we are not to participate in any war fought by humans. The Bible clearly prohibits this. For more information, please read our free booklet, “Should You Fight in War?” Also, please watch our most recent StandingWatch programs on the subject, “Lessons from the Afghan War,” and “Coming–Worldwide Nuclear War.” 

“Obama Does Not Deserve the Peace Prize”

The Israeli paper, Haaretz, wrote on December 10:

“An American president who has not yet managed to make peace anywhere in the world will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He will be awarded the prize even though he is personally responsible for scores of targeted killings and much slaughter of civilians in aerial bombardments. He will be awarded the prize even though he has just decided to escalate one of the two ineffectual wars he is conducting. He will be awarded the prize only because he is a Democrat, a liberal and a black man who defeated the Republicans and cast George W. Bush out of the White House.

“Oslo has provided us with many amusing jokes in recent decades. However, the joke of Obama as peace prize laureate is the funniest of all. It proves the absurdity of the lengths to which the self-righteous European culture of political correctness can go. Obama is not to blame for the Norwegians having decided to act foolishly. However, if he had any courage he would have refused to accept a Nobel [Peace Prize] prematurely. He would have asked the prize committee to judge him at the end of his term in office and not at its start.

“Obama hasn’t done so, and this isn’t surprising. Thus far the glamorous president has not shown courage on any issue or in any area. True, Obama is intelligent, articulate and charismatic. However, he hasn’t really done anything yet in the international arena. He has orchestrated neither confrontations nor reconciliations. He has neither won a victory nor made peace. He has not evinced willingness to pay any sort of price for any sort of achievement. In his first year as president of the world, Obama has not proved he has a backbone. He has not yet manifested himself as a leader.

“In 2010 the world will need a leader. From day to day, Iran is increasingly becoming a nuclear nightmare; Pakistan is a barrel of nuclear explosives and North Korea is a nuclear rogue. The Iranian-Pakistani-North Korean triangle makes clear what the challenge of the 21st century is: how to prevent turning the world into a nuclear jungle. How to maintain nuclear order and prevent nuclear chaos. How to get through the next half-century without a Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

“Obama’s Washington understands the challenge very well. So do Nicolas Sarkozy’s Paris, Angela Merkel’s Berlin and Gordon Brown’s London. Even Dmitry Medvedev’s Moscow is beginning to understand. But the general public in North America and Europe has not yet internalized what its leaders know. The media are indeed reporting on centrifuges, enrichment programs and warheads. Politicians and pundits are indeed paying lip service to the Iranian-Pakistani-North Korean nuclear triangle. But there is no fervor in the talk. There is no real sense of urgency. There is no committed discourse. International public opinion is still focused on global warming, not global nuclearization, as the most urgent issue on the agenda…”

The Bible clearly prophesies that in these end times, the world will be facing nuclear war–and that no human being would SURVIVE this terrible time soon to come, unless God was to intervene and cut those days short. For more information, please listen to our StandingWatch program, “Coming–Worldwide Nuclear War,” and read our free booklet, “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

The Ongoing Health-Care Debacle–Politics at its “Finest”…

ABC News reported on December 16:

“President Obama said he likes the Senate health care compromise and wants it passed by Christmas, but he faces a revolt from some liberals who say the health care bill has been gutted to appease insurance companies. ‘This is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG,’ former Democratic National Committee chairman and medical doctor Howard Dean [said]… ‘A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works… Dean sent shockwaves when he said Tuesday… that the removal of the Medicare buy-in means Democrats should just kill the health care bill and start over.”

ABC News added on December 16:

“[Joe] Lieberman has scrambled the politics of health care overhaul continually… His objections to including a public option were a main reason Democrats fashioned a compromise that would replace such a mechanism with a Medicare expansion, allowing people as young as 55 to buy into the system. Then, on Sunday, Lieberman seemed to reverse himself on that provision, notifying Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada that he couldn’t support the expansion in Medicare after all.

“That leaves Senate Democratic leaders, who can’t afford to lose a single vote on health care, poised to strip that out as well, with the White House’s acquiescence… Lieberman benefits from the simple fact that Democrats need him, even if many of them don’t like him. He might be among the few political figures who comes out of the grueling health care debate with a smile.”

The Associated Press reported on December 16:

“The Senate is in health care gridlock after a Republican senator forced the clerk to read aloud a 767-page amendment. GOP Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had sought approval to require that any amendment considered by the Senate must be offered 72 hours in advance and with a full cost report. When he was rebuffed by Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, Coburn invoked his right to require that an amendment by another lawmaker be read aloud. That sent the Senate into limbo, since the amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, is 767 pages long.”

ABC News reported on December 16:

“President Obama told ABC News’ Charles Gibson in an interview that if Congress does not pass health care legislation that will bring down costs, the federal government ‘will go bankrupt.’”

At the same time, the Associated Press reported on December 16:

“President Barack Obama has signed into law a $1.1 trillion bill that increases the budgets in many areas of the government by about 10 percent, including health, law enforcement and veterans’ programs. Obama signed the bill privately at the White House on Wednesday after receiving the bill from Congress on Sunday… Most Republicans opposed the bill, citing runaway federal spending… Democrats said the spending would help the economy recover from the recession.”

Why the Disdain for Britain by Obama Administration?

The Wall Street Journal wrote on December 14:

“Britain is the only European country President Barack Obama can really count on to respond positively to his plea for NATO to provide extra forces for Afghanistan. So why is it, then, that the Obama administration can barely conceal its disdain for a nation that, by its deeds, time and again proves itself to be America’s staunchest and most reliable ally?…

“Before he became president it was said that Mr. Obama harbored a deep grudge against Britain for its colonialist past. It is alleged that his paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was tortured by the British during the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s, when it was controlled by Britain. In his autobiographical book “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama unflatteringly compares the British Empire to South Africa’s apartheid regime and the former Soviet Union.

“Soon after his inauguration, he sent back to the U.K. a bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had been loaned to President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. The sculpture had enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office.

“There is also an important ideological reason that Britain’s leading policy makers find themselves increasingly shunned by the U.S. Key foreign-policy advisers to Mr. Obama are keen advocates of a federal Europe, one in which the European Commission based in Brussels is the main center of power and influence, rather than the individual capitals, such as London, Paris and Berlin. In this context, Britain’s dogged attachment to a ‘special relationship’ with America is regarded as an embarrassing relic of a previous era.”

Britain Angers Israel

Deutsche Welle reported on December 14:

“Israel has slammed an arrest warrant issued by a British court against former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. The now opposition leader is under fire for her role in the offensive in the Gaza Strip one year ago… A statement released by the foreign ministry urged Britain to change the law to prevent such action from being taken in the future.

“The details of the warrant are currently unclear. British daily The Guardian reports that the warrant was issued on the weekend for Livni’s role in the war in the Gaza Strip almost a year ago. The warrant has now been withdrawn after it emerged that Livni had cancelled a planned visit to Britain…

“Several Israeli officials have previously called off trips to Britain as a result of efforts by Palestinians to prosecute Israelis in British courts. In September, pro-Palestinian activists tried to have Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak arrested for his role in the Gaza conflict but the attempt was rejected on the grounds of diplomatic immunity. Livni would not have enjoyed this immunity as she is no longer a government minister.”

The Jerusalem Post wrote on December 15:

“British Foreign Secretary David Miliband called Kadima head Tzipi Livni and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman Tuesday evening in an apparent effort to prevent the diplomatic crisis stemming from a British arrest warrant issued against Livni from spinning completely out of control. According to a statement put out by Livni’s office, Miliband expressed his ‘shock’ at the arrest warrant and promised to work immediately to ensure that a similar occurrence would not happen in the future against Livni or other Israeli leaders. Miliband told Lieberman that the warrant was ‘completely unacceptable.’

“While Israel has heard such promises numerous times over the last five years, there was a sense in Jerusalem Tuesday night that the wall-to-wall outrage in Israel that accompanied news of the warrant against Livni had registered in London. Britain’s outgoing ambassador Tom Phillips bore the brunt of Israeli anger over the matter, being summoned to the Foreign Ministry and having a conversation on the matter with National Security Council head Uzi Arad.

“Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement saying he instructed Arad to deliver a ‘clear message’ to Phillips that Israel expected the British government to ‘act against this immoral phenomenon which is trying to impair Israel’s right to self-defense’…

“While in the past Israel did not press too hard on the issue, that policy seemed to change abruptly when the Foreign Ministry issuing a statement Tuesday morning, surprisingly harsh in the cautious world of diplomacy, saying that Israel rejected the ‘cynical’ move taken in the British courts at the behest of extremist elements in Britain and called on the British government ‘for once and for all’ to keep its promises and work to prevent the manipulation by anti-Israeli elements of the British legal system against Israel. ‘The lack of determined and immediate action to correct this distortion harms the relations between the two countries,’ the statement read. ‘If Israeli leaders cannot visit Britain in a dignified manner, it will naturally be a real obstacle to Britain’s desire to have an active role in the peace process in the Middle East’…

“The crisis comes at a time of already deteriorating relations between Israel and Britain, with Jerusalem frustrated at London for its abstention in the UN General Assembly on the Goldstone report, its support of the Swedish proposal that the EU recognize east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, and its guidelines to stores and retailers last week to label produce from the territories as either coming from Palestinians or the settlements.”

Britain’s conduct in this matter can only be described as outrageous, provocative, negligent, ignorant and stupid at the same time. As the Associated Press reported on December 16, “Livni’s office says the British premier phoned her Wednesday afternoon and said he intends to act to change a law that allows non-citizens to be brought before British courts.”

It added: “Britain is vowing to curtail a peculiar legal power that lets judges order the arrest of visiting politicians and generals — a threat currently focused on Israeli visitors that, one day, might be invoked against Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin. Lawyers working with Palestinian activists in recent years have sought the arrest of senior Israeli civilian and military figures under terms of ‘universal jurisdiction.’ This ill-defined legal concept empowers judges to issue arrest warrants for visiting officials accused of war crimes in a foreign conflict.”

The shameful truth is that the British government knew of this ridiculous law to empower political judges to issue offensive decisions, promised Israel to repeal this law, and did nothing to keep this promise. Britain must be careful that it does not find itself alienated from and abandoned by the rest of the world because of its own doing.

Is EU Backing East Jerusalem as Palestine Capital?

The EUobserver wrote on December 11:

“Palestine Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has said that the EU backs the establishment of East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, fueling the dispute over a recent EU communique. Mr Fayyad on a visit to Brussels on Friday (11 December) said Tuesday’s EU statement on the Middle East makes a number of references to East Jerusalem that, ‘if added [together], in my reading, add up to nothing less than recognising East Jerusalem as the future capital of the state of Palestine’…

“Mr Fayyad’s remarks continue a dispute on what the EU really thinks about Palestine, which erupted two weeks ago when Israel first attacked a Swedish draft of the EU statement, which contained more explicit pro-Palestinian language. East Jerusalem – which is home to Muslims and Jewish settlers as well as some of the holiest sites in Islam and Judaism – lies at the heart of international efforts to bring peace to the region, with Israel claiming it as part of its own ‘indivisible’ capital…

“The [EU] commission is preparing to launch a new Action Plan for Palestinian relations that is to involve sending in more EU experts and ‘front-loading’ €158.5 million of aid in early 2010…”

The Bible states that Jerusalem will be “surrounded” by European armies [of the LAST resurrection of the ancient Roman Empire], and that it will become a stumbling block for ALL nations. For more information, please read our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy.”

Iran’s Latest Advanced Missile

On December 16, the Associated Press reported the following:

“Iran on Wednesday test-fired an upgraded version of its most advanced missile, which is capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe, in a new show of strength aimed at preventing any military strike against it amid the nuclear standoff with the West. The test stoked tensions between Iran and the West, which is pressing Tehran to rein in its nuclear program. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it showed the need for tougher U.N. sanctions on Iran…

“Wednesday’s test was for the latest version of Iran’s longest-range missile, the Sajjil-2, with a range of about 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers). That range places Israel, Iran’s sworn enemy, well within reach, as well as U.S. bases in the Gulf region and parts of southeastern Europe… Iran has repeatedly warned it will retaliate if Israel or the United States carries out military strikes against its nuclear facilities, at a time when the U.S. and its allies accuse Tehran of seeking to develop a nuclear weapon… Nuclear negotiations have been deadlocked for months…

“The name ‘Sajjil’ means ‘baked clay,’ a reference to a story in the Quran, Islam’s holy book, in which birds sent by God drive off an enemy army attacking the holy city of Mecca by pelting them with stones of baked clay… Solid-fuel missiles like the Sajjil-2 are more accurate than the liquid fuel missiles of similar range currently possessed by Iran. They are also a concern because they can be fueled in advance and moved or hidden in silos. Iran previously had a solid-fuel missile, the Fateh, with a far shorter range of 120 miles (200 kilometers).”

The Australian wrote on December 18:

“Israeli officials told Haaretz Mr Obama warned Chinese President Hu Jintao during the US President’s visit to Beijing a month ago as part of the US attempt to convince the Chinese to support strict sanctions on Tehran if it does not accept Western proposals for its nuclear program. The Israeli officials said the US had informed Israel about Mr Obama’s meetings in Beijing on Iran. They said Mr Obama made it clear to Mr Hu that at some point the US would no longer be able to prevent Israel from acting as it saw fit in response to the perceived Iranian threat, the report said.”

How Much Allah Can Europe Bear?

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 11:

“The Swiss decision has shocked Europe and the world because its ramifications go far beyond the building of minarets — they also concern the identity of an entire continent. This was a referendum on Western society’s perception of Islam as a threat. The issue is generating intense debate: Just how much of Islam is predominantly Christian Europe prepared to accept? The decision by the otherwise so tolerant Alpine country reveals the deep-seated fear of an Islam that is becoming increasingly visible…

“Surveys last week revealed that 44 percent of Germans oppose the construction of minarets, followed by 41 percent of the French. Fifty-five percent of all Europeans see Islam as an intolerant religion. Does the Swiss vote reveal an attitude that a majority in Europe would also support if given the opportunity?…

“Can Europe still be Europe if, for instance, in 2050 most young people under the age of 15 in Austria are Muslims? And when Muhammad today is already the most common name for newborn boys in Brussels and Amsterdam, and the third most common in England?…

“Dealing with Islam is perhaps the greatest challenge facing Europe… sometimes fears are stronger than facts, and sometimes a ban on minarets has nothing to do with minarets…”

The Local reported on December 11:

“A poll… for [Germany’s] public broadcaster ARD showed a third of those asked expressed great concern that Islam was growing too quickly in Germany. Thirty-nine percent were… worried about Islam’s impact on society, but to a lesser degree. Only 22 percent said they had no problem with the religion.”

We will see more and more an increased influence of orthodox “Christianity” in Europe, which will ultimately not tolerate the existence of any non-“Christian” competitive religions or convictions.

“Thou Shalt Not Shop!”

Der Tagesspiegel wrote on December 3:

“It was just another Tuesday, but Germany’s Christian churches had a reason to let their bells toll this week. In the name of religious freedom, they won a major victory at the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe against the heathen city of Berlin. It had to be Berlin – a godless place that has ditched compulsory religion classes for schoolchildren and would like to prohibit prayer in school buildings. But the churches now have it from the highest judicial authority in the country – Berlin’s secular push has gone too far. Advent Sundays in the run-up to Christmas are holy and shops must remain closed…

“How is it that Switzerland’s recent prohibition on minarets can be seen as an affront to religious freedom, but in Germany we allow churches rather than a democratically elected government tell us what to do with our Sundays? What happened to the religious freedom of those citizens who don’t believe in the Christian ideal of the Sabbath [the author means Sunday and wrongly identifies it with the Sabbath. The biblical Sabbath is not Sunday, but the time from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset] and would rather go to the shops than church?

“The place to go for answers from now on is Karlsruhe, home to the Constitutional Court. No-one should underestimate the legal gymnastics required to reach this decision. According to the constitution, Sunday is a day to rest and rejuvenate the soul. There’s not a single word about God or Christmas or even the birth of Jesus. And no wonder – Sunday was never holy to the German constitution, which is why no-one could claim it was in the name of religion.

“But that’s all changed now. The Constitutional Court’s decision refers directly to the Christian roots of resting on Sundays, constructing a legal precedent for the churches. If politicians from one of Germany’s 16 federal states want to re-think their retail shopping hours, it might now be a good idea to stop by the local bishop’s place to see if they have his blessing first. But how do you reconcile that with the right to a neutral, secular government? This is the real reason three Constitutional Court judges rejected the ruling. Had it been just one more, Berliners could have kept their Sunday shopping during Advent. The topic of store opening hours might be banal, but the court ruling fundamentally changes the state’s relationship between religion and law…”

The Roman Catholic Church will exert more and more power in Germany and continental Europe, to enforce Sunday worship on unsuspecting people. The Bible warns us of this. To learn more about the connection between Sunday worship and the “mark of the beast,” please read our free booklet, “Is That in The Bible?–The Mysteries of the Book of Revelation.”

“Joining Rome ‘Means Commitment'”

BBC News wrote on December 11:

“Discontented Anglicans who convert must not become a ‘sect’ within the Roman Catholic Church, a senior Catholic clergyman dealing with church unity has warned… Monsignor Andrew Faley, Assistant General Secretary of the English and Welsh Catholic bishops’ conference [said:]… ‘They become members of a Church which has the ministry of the successor of St Peter as its source of unity… unity for Catholics is central to their understanding of the Church’…

“A substantial number of married ex-Anglican priests are already Catholic priests, having crossed to Rome in the years following the ordination of women priests by the Church of England in the 1990s. But the overwhelming majority of Catholic priests in Britain are required to remain unmarried and celibate… But a man in the ordinariate who wishes to be considered as a priest ‘would be ordained as a celibate priest; he wouldn’t be allowed to marry.’ And a married man who has not been an Anglican priest, could he apply? ‘No,’ says Mgr Faley, ‘A married man within the Catholic tradition cannot be ordained; the norm is celibacy.'”

The Church of Rome will not just accept clergy from other churches, with different ideas, without insisting that these ideas will not be practiced, but abolished. It is the position of the Catholic Church that the pope speaks with godly authority and that he is Christ’s representative on earth. With this claim, it is obvious that those who want to become part of that church must submit in all points to that “authority.”

The Celebration of the German “Nikolaus”

The Local wrote on December 4:

“Each year on December 6, Germans remember the [mythological] death of Nicholas of Myra (now the Anatolia region of modern Turkey), who [supposedly] died on that day in 346. He was [allegedly] a Greek Christian bishop known for miracles and giving gifts secretly, and is now the patron saint of little children, sailors, merchants and students. Known as Nicholas the Wonderworker for his miracles, he is also identified with Santa Claus. Beliefs and traditions about Nikolaus were probably combined with German mythology, particularly regarding stories about the bearded pagan god Odin, who also had a beard and a bag to capture naughty children…

“According to the legend, Nikolaus comes in the middle of the night on a donkey or a horse and leaves little treats – like coins, chocolate, oranges and toys – for good children. What do naughty children get? This depends on different family traditions. Sometimes Nikolaus only leaves a switch in the boot, ostensibly for spankings, to show that the child doesn’t deserve a treat. In other families, a man disguised as St. Nicholas will visit the family or the child’s school alone or with his… sinister-looking alter ego Knecht Ruprecht [portrayed as a demon or the devil in many ancient pictures] to question the children about their behaviour.”

Nikolaus–or Santa Claus–and his alter-ego, the demonic “Knecht Ruprecht,” are clearly of pagan origin. For more information, please read our free booklet, “Don’t Keep Christmas.”

Who Will Be the Next King of England?

Mail On Line wrote on December 13:

“The Queen is to hand over a substantial part of her public duties to Prince William to help him prepare for the day when he becomes King, according to a confidential document obtained by The Mail on Sunday. Secret papers reveal that plans to ease the strain on the 83-year-old monarch and her 88-year-old husband, Prince Philip, are at an advanced stage. The disclosures come despite months of denials from the Palace that the Queen was planning to step back from her official work in favour of her 27-year-old grandson…

“The leak will add to speculation that the Queen believes William, rather than Charles, represents the best long-term interests of the monarchy… It is bound to lead to new speculation that when the Queen dies, the monarchy could skip a generation, with the Crown bypassing Charles and being handed straight to William, although Royal sources strongly discount this option… Significantly, William will undertake his first official overseas tour in January when he represents the Queen in New Zealand and Australia. He is also expected to attend the World Cup in South Africa.”

According to further press releases, Buckingham Palace denied as “a complete lie” the allegation that Prince Charles was intended to be circumvented by appointing Prince William as the next king.

The Bible shows that the end-time royal house of England will play a prophetic role in these last days. It is therefore interesting to see who will turn out to be the future king.

“Europe’s Secret Nuclear Weapons”

Time magazine wrote on December 2:

“Is Italy capable of delivering a thermonuclear strike? Could the Belgians and the Dutch drop hydrogen bombs on enemy targets? And what about Germany – a country where fear of atomkraft is so great that the last government opposed all civilian nuclear power? Germany’s air force couldn’t possibly be training to deliver bombs 13 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, could it?

“It is Europe’s dirty secret that the list of nuclear-capable countries extends beyond those – Britain and France – who have built their own weapons. Nuclear bombs are stored on air-force bases in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands – and planes from each of those countries are capable of delivering them. The Federation of American Scientists believes that there are some 200 B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs scattered across these four countries.

“Under a NATO agreement struck during the Cold War, the bombs, which are technically owned by the U.S., can be transferred to the control of a host nation’s air force in times of conflict. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war.”

The Bible prophesies that a nuclear world war is coming soon–and that a nuclear Europe will be heavily involved.

The Russian View–Europe Needs an Army

The Pravda wrote on November 27:

“The European Union needs the joint all-European army… The US administration is very negative about the idea. The question about the all-European army was pushed into the background after the Balkan war… Things changed in 2009. The European Parliament established the Rapid Deployment Force of the European Union in 2009. Last week, officials of the Italian administration put forward a suggestion to look into the matter of the European Army again. Italy’s Foreign Minister Franco Frattini stated that Europe needed the army to deepen the European integration, optimize the spending on military operation in NATO and repulse possible threats…

“Europe wants to increase its weight in the world and turn into a real center of influence. Europe has not been happy with its role of America’s minor partner, not to mention its position of a subordinate member in NATO…

“Some experts say that the EU does not need the army because it is a political, not a military organization. European countries prefer not to participate in military actions. They would rather subordinate to someone than get ready for war to defend their interests and territories…

“Other experts say that the creation of the common European force is good for Russia. Russia supposedly used its friendly relations with Italy and initiated Frattini’s statement to distract the EU from the USA… Europe needs to get rid of America’s influence because the latter plans to betray its old-time partners for the sake of the new partnership – with China. The Washington-Beijing axis is a real threat, and Europe will be able to handle it only if it joins forces with Russia.”

The Bible clearly shows that Europe will have a very powerful joint army in the very near future. It is also possible, judging from history, that Europe will align at first with Russia, against the USA, but prophecy also reveals that finally Europe and Russia will be warring enemies (as happened so many times before, including under Hitler and Stalin).

Is the EU Escalating War in the Middle East?

  The EUobserver wrote on December 4:

“The EU must put real pressure on Israel to halt settlement growth in East Jerusalem or risk seeing an escalation of the Middle East conflict that could spill into Europe, a Jewish politician on the front line of the peace process has warned. ‘We have reached the last moment when it is still possible to divide and share Jerusalem. If it [decisive action] does not happen this year, it will become impossible to implement any plan like the two-state solution,’ Meir Margalit, a Jerusalem city councilor, told EUobserver in a phone interview on Thursday (3 December).

“‘This is not an internal conflict. You [the EU] are part of this conflict,’ he added. ‘I am talking about terrorism. I am talking about another London, about the clash of civilisations. The clash of civilisations started in Jerusalem and it will end in Jerusalem,’ Mr Margalit said, referring to the tube bombing in the UK capital in 2005…

“Mr Margalit believes the situation has reached such a dangerous point that the EU should consider economic sanctions against Israel. The councilor rejected the argument that Europe cannot influence Israeli policy unless it acts jointly with the US. ‘The EU is not a bunch of boy scouts,’ he said. ‘It is the biggest power here after the US. It must realise that what happens here will impact what happens in Europe much more than what happens in the US.'”

It is prophesied that Europe will intervene militarily in the Middle East in an attempt to bring “peace” to that region.

Europe Pleases Both Sides–Temporarily

The Australian wrote on December 10:

“ISRAEL has expressed relief that the European Union has watered down a resolution that would have declared Jerusalem as the capital of any future Palestinian state. The EU yesterday supported a resolution that Jerusalem should be subject to negotiations as part of any final status agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. The softening of the initial Sweden-sponsored resolution followed lobbying by Israel, which feared the initial proposal would have made it difficult to engage in negotiations.

“It is understood Italy, France, Germany, Poland and Hungary were among the countries that overturned the earlier draft. The statement by the council of foreign ministers was a rare accomplishment for the EU, giving both Israel and the Palestinians something to be pleased with…

“Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat rejected any suggestion that Jerusalem be divided, saying the EU’s resolution was ‘a real danger for the future of Jerusalem that will never work.'”

A Third Temple by 2010?

On December 6, Haaretz reported the following:

“If the 18th-century rabbinic authority the Vilna Gaon was right, on March 16, 2010, construction will begin on the third Temple. His projection states that the auspicious day will coincide with the third completion of the Hurva Synagogue in Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter. The great day is at hand: On March 15, the reconstructed Hurva Synagogue, considered the most important house of prayer in Jerusalem will be rededicated. It was last destroyed in the War of Independence.”

The Bible strongly indicates that a third Temple will be built, and that the Jews will begin to offer sacrifices in that Temple.

Jews and Muslims–an Unlikely Alliance

The Jerusalem Post wrote on December 3:

“Citing religious discrimination, a diverse coalition of Jewish organizations is objecting to Switzerland’s ban of minarets on local mosques… Jewish organizations, realizing that a crackdown on Islam could have repercussions for Jews as well, have come to the defense of Muslim worshipers, arguing that the Swiss’s move was unjustifiable…

“‘This is not the first time a Swiss popular vote has been used to promote religious intolerance,’ said the ADL [Anti-Defamation League] in a press release. ‘A century ago, a Swiss referendum banned Jewish ritual slaughter, in an attempt to drive out its Jewish population’…

“Meanwhile, it appeared that Italy might hold an anti-minaret referendum of its own. Roberto Caldeoli, leader of Italy’s right-wing Northern League party, said, ‘Respect for other religions is important, but we must put the brakes on Muslim propaganda, or else we will end up with an Islamic political party.’

“French Ambassador Christophe Bigot told The Jerusalem Post that ‘Muslims, like Catholics, like Jews, should be allowed to worship the way they wish. So why limit construction of mosques?’…

“Hegumen Filaret (Bulekov), a Moscow Patriarchate representative at the Council of Europe, voiced support for Switzerland’s ban. ‘Accusing Switzerland that it is somehow discriminating against the Islamic minority would be at least lopsided,’ Filaret told Interfax [news] service. ‘The issue of minarets is not an issue of religious freedom, but it is an issue of political presence of people of a certain faith and ethnic background in a country. Taking into account a rapid rate of Islamization, visible signs of Muslims’ presence would have, in particular, a political tint,’ he said.”

The New York Times wrote on December 9:

“Suddenly, people are expressing views that they once would have considered racist or intolerant… 41 percent of French people questioned said they opposed the construction of mosques, up from 22 percent in 2001. On the question of building minarets, 46 percent were opposed… One source of the fear of Muslims… is Europeans’ deep and complicated resentment of an unfamiliar, historically hostile religion that is perceived as a direct challenge to Christianity, Europe’s dominant faith.”

Europe is returning to its historical roots. The historical Holy Roman Empire–a combination of state and church–is being revived. We can expect that the EU will embrace Roman Catholicism as their state religion (as is already the case in Italy and some other EU countries). The EU will become an Orthodox Christian power bloc, which will not tolerate in the end non-Christian religions, including Islam and Judaism. Most non-Catholic “Christian” churches will come under the Catholic Church’s umbrella and accept the pope as their spiritual leader with unquestioned authority in spiritual matters. The next article on the election of a lesbian bishop in the Anglican Church might give us one of the reasons why this might be happening.

Anglican Church–“In Your Face…”

Mail On Line wrote on December 6:

“The worldwide Anglican Church has been plunged into a fresh crisis after a lesbian was chosen as its second gay bishop… Canon Mary Glasspool was elected as an assistant bishop for the diocese of Los Angeles… Rod Thomas, the leader of the conservative evangelical group Reform and a member of the General Synod, said: ‘I feel deeply ashamed that this is happening in the Anglican Church. I think a schism is absolutely inevitable.’

“But St Paul’s Cathedral’s Canon Chancellor Giles Fraser, a leading liberal, said: ‘This is another nail in the coffin of Christian homophobia.’ Canon Glasspool, 55, has openly stated that she has lived with her partner, Becki Sander, since 1988. American Gene Robinson became the first gay Anglican bishop in 2003.”

Times On Line wrote on December 6:

“The Archbishop of Canterbury and a majority of the other 38 Anglican primates had requested a moratorium on gay bishops and same-sex blessings in an attempt to prevent the Communion from splitting between evangelicals and liberals… Kendall Harmon, of the conservative diocese of South Carolina, said that the election of Canon Glasspool was damaging. ‘This decision represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching.’

“However, influential Anglicans spoke up in support of Canon Glasspool’s election… Liberals in England are increasingly frustrated that an Archbishop of Canterbury who was himself elected for his supposedly liberal views on this and other subjects has embraced conservative Christian values in the name of Church unity…

“Canon Glasspool needs approval from a majority of dioceses in the Episcopal Church in the US before she can be consecrated. The US church has become more conservative in the wake of the gay controversy and recently the dioceses voted against the consecration of a bishop who is sympathetic towards the Buddhist tradition. However, it is thought likely that this latest consecration will go ahead.”

It appears that many Anglicans have taken an “in your face”–approach. They don’t only seem to care about the survival of their church; they seem to pursue intentionally and willfully a suicidal road of self-destruction to push their own anti-biblical agenda. In all this discussion, we should not forget that the Bible does not only prohibit the appointment of practicing homosexual or lesbian ministers; it also prohibits the appointment of women–whether lesbian or heterosexual–to the office of a minister.

Britain and France at Odds

The EUobserver wrote on December 4:

“A meeting between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, scheduled to take place in London on Friday (4 December), has been cancelled amid ongoing tensions surrounding recent EU appointments… The French president recently proposed the London visit as a means of defusing angst over last week’s appointment of Frenchman Michel Barnier to the important internal market portfolio inside the European Commission.

“The City of London greeted the job announcement with dismay. But subsequent comments from Mr Sarkozy that he had ‘out-manoeuvred’ Mr Brown and that the appointment was a ‘triumph’ for French ideas on financial regulation only added fuel to the fire and served to enrage Downing Street. Fears that further public comments during Friday’s visit could serve to aggravate the dispute appear to be the reason behind the cancellation, with British civil servants suggesting it was London that put the brakes on the idea.”

The centuries-long feud between Britain and France will continue, and will affect continental Europe. It is very likely that ultimately, Britain will exit the EU.

Is America Betraying Britain?

The Daily Mail wrote on December 9:

“In all the speeches Obama has made since becoming President – indeed, in all the speeches he made when on the campaign trail, too – neither Britain nor the special relationship have merited a single mention. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that while the special relationship may not be dead yet, it’s certainly dying, a fact that should be enormously worrying to politicians – and voters – on both sides of the Atlantic.

“And yet Obama seems strangely oblivious to the dangerous path he has embarked on, becoming the first U.S. President in modern times to place no importance on the historic relationship between the U.S. and Britain…

“This, after all, is a man who, within days of being sworn in as President, ordered that a bust of Winston Churchill – a gift from the British people to the U.S. in the dark days that followed 9/11 – be removed from the Oval Office… Unlike so many of his predecessors, Obama is certainly a man with no close family ties to this country. He never attended a university here and has no great political affinity with Britain either. His Kenyan grandfather, however, was reportedly mistreated under British colonial rule during that country’s Mau Mau rebellion – an event to which he devotes 35 pages of his memoir, Dreams From My Father…

“Obama… seems to be a president with no real grasp of history… By withdrawing plans for a missile shield to be located in Eastern Europe, he not only appeased the Russians, he also betrayed the Poles and the Czechs, people who have only just been released from the yoke of Soviet control and have since become enthusiastic and valuable Western allies. What he did in Eastern Europe, he now seems to be doing to us…

“Time and again, history has shown – most recently, of course, in Iraq and Afghanistan – that when it comes to taking decisive military action, the only country the U.S. has ever been able to rely on is Britain. When the U.S. marches in, it’s only ever the British who can be depended on to march alongside them. And yet all that proud history, all that noble sacrifice, seems to count for nothing in Obama’s eyes. He seems oblivious to the debt of gratitude he, and the American people, owe this country…

“Britain needs America – of that there is no doubt. But recent history shows that America needs Britain, too. Barack Obama needs to wake up to that; before it’s too late.”

It is entirely possible that Britain will find itself in the end abandoned by the USA.

Wartime President Obama Accepts Peace Prize

The Associated Press reported on December 10:

“President Barack Obama entered the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize winners Thursday with humble words, acknowledging his own few accomplishments while delivering a robust defense of war… A wartime president honored for peace, Obama became the first sitting U.S. president in 90 years and the third ever to win the prize – some say prematurely.

“And yet Obama was staying here only about 24 hours and skipping the traditional second day of festivities. This miffed some in Norway but reflects a White House that sees little value in extra pictures of the president, his poll numbers dropping at home, taking an overseas victory lap while thousands of U.S. troops prepare to go off to war and millions of Americans remain jobless.

“Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Obama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on war’s use and prevention… In them, Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership…

“‘A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms,’ Obama said. ‘To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history.’

“The president laid out the circumstances where war is justified – in self-defense, to come to the aid of an invaded nation and on humanitarian grounds, such as when civilians are slaughtered by their own government or a civil war threatens to engulf an entire region. ‘The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it,’ he said. He also spoke bluntly of the cost of war, saying of the Afghanistan buildup he just ordered that ‘some will kill, some will be killed.'”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 10 that President Obama received the “wrong prize at the wrong time.” But the German reaction overall was mixed, and Der Stern wrote that President Obama’s “furious speech,” explaining when a war is “justified,” has increased his credibility.

However, what this deceived world does not understand is that NO war, fought by humans, is EVER justified. The lesson and recognition of history is that wars fought by humans have NEVER produced lasting peace, and they never will. Christ commanded His disciples to put the sword away (Matthew 26:52) and to rely instead on GOD (verse 53; compare Exodus 14:14). Ancient Israel did not do this, and neither does our “Christian” world today. This is WHY we don’t have peace–and WHY we will NEVER achieve peace with this kind of thinking. Far too many “Christians” are rejecting God and the words of Jesus Christ, while following their own wrong philosophies and reasoning. For more information, please read our free booklet, “Should YOU Fight in War?,” and please listen to our new StandingWatch program, “Lessons from the Afghan War.”

The Return of Syphilis in the UK

The Daily Mail wrote on December 5:

“Syphilis is making a comeback because of promiscuity among middle-aged men who ignore safe sex guidance, warn experts. Cases of the sexually transmitted infection have shot up more than tenfold in the past decade. It was thought the disease – which can cause madness, paralysis and even death in its final stages – had been largely wiped out with the advent of penicillin. But while their great-grandparents were well aware of the dangers of syphilis, adults today are seemingly ignorant about it and aiding its spread, with hotspots in London and the North West… Sexual health clinics say the rise in syphilis in the UK can also be traced back to increased contact with former Eastern Bloc countries such as Russia and Poland, where the disease has remained endemic.”

The Bible shows that many known and unknown diseases and sicknesses will affect this world, and especially countries like the United States and Great Britain, in these end times.

Copenhagen and the Global Warming Debate

This week, the global warming summit in Copenhagen began. It is unparalleled in size and attendance. It has been labeled as the most important summit in the history of man. But what is it all about? The selection of our articles below shows that there is strong disagreement regarding the existence of man-made global warming or climate change–and this debate recently accelerated, of course, with the infamous “climate-gate” occurrences. It is interesting that parallels are drawn by global warming supporters between the theory of evolution and climate change–perhaps without realizing that the theory of evolution HAS BEEN PROVEN to be false. Also interesting is the fact that Europe is turning on the USA and President Obama, insisting that he make more concessions on behalf of the USA–but very few believe that he will.

Belief in Global Warming at All-Time Low — Even BEFORE Climategate

Newsmax reported on December 6:

“A new poll reveals that the percentage of Americans who believe carbon dioxide emissions will cause global warming has dropped dramatically in recent years. And that poll by Harris Interactive was conducted between Nov. 2 and 11 — before the so-called ‘climategate’ controversy erupted, calling into question the validity of some of the science supporting manmade global warming.

“The poll found that the percentage of American[s] who believe in global warming has dropped from 75 percent in 2001 and 71 percent in 2007 to just 51 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who do not believe in global warming has risen from 19 percent in 2001 and 23 percent in 2007 to 29 percent today, and the percentage who are unsure has climbed from 6 percent to 21 percent since 2001… Opinions differed sharply along party lines — 73 percent of Democrats believe in manmade global warming, compared to 28 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Independents…

“Six days after the poll closed, on Nov. 17, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents… The leaked documents ‘show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,’ CBS News reported.”

Worst Fears Have Come True

The Financial Times reported on December 7:

“Failure to agree [to] a new global framework on climate change at Copenhagen would squander the world’s best hope of avoiding the worst effects of global warming, officials from close to 190 countries heard on Monday morning.”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 7:

“The worst fears of many delegates to the Copenhagen climate negotiations have already come true: It has become clear that the official attempt to replace the Kyoto Protocol will fail to produce a concrete plan to reduce carbon emissions…

“It is often claimed that we could easily stop warming through carbon emission reductions, if only politicians had the willpower. In fact, political willpower is the least of our worries. This policy approach — which we have followed for nearly 20 years — is critically flawed. It is flawed economically, because short-term carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little. It is flawed politically, because negotiations to reduce CO2 emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive for the actors in Europe, America and Asia. And it is flawed technologically, because it will not ensure that alternative energy is ready to end our reliance on carbon…

“Global energy demand will double by 2050. Alternative sources of energy are far from ready for widespread use… Rather than making fossil fuels more expensive, we need to make alternative energy cheaper.”

“Europe Turns on US and China Over Weak Emission Targets”

Times on Line reported on December 7:

“The European Union today rejected the new carbon emission targets tabled by the United States and China and said they were much too weak to prevent catastrophic climate change. The dispute between the three main players at the Copenhagen climate change summit overshadowed the first day of negotiations and dashed hopes that a deal on emissions was imminent.

“The EU called on President Obama to announce a more ambitious target next week, when he arrives in Copenhagen for the last day of the conference on December 18. But the US insisted that the provisional offer made 10 days ago by Mr Obama was ‘remarkable’ and in line with what scientists had recommended.

“Mr Obama has proposed to cut its emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, although he has said this is subject to getting the approval of Congress. The EU has made a legally binding commitment to cut its emissions by 20 per cent over the same period. It has also said it would increase the cut to 30 per cent if other countries committed to ‘comparable action’.

“Andreas Carlgren, Sweden’s environment minister and the EU’s main negotiator under the rotating presidency, said the targets proposed by the US and China were too low to qualify as comparable action and therefore the EU would not strengthen its 20 per cent target.”

“Saboteurs” Against Global Warming?

Times On Line wrote on December 6:

“Ed Miliband was furious. His press conference should have highlighted Britain’s role at the Copenhagen climate talks that open tomorrow — but instead he faced questions on whether global warming was even true. ‘We have to beware of the climate saboteurs,’ he barked. ‘The timing of this leak and the questioning of the science [are] not coincidental.’

“Miliband was not just referring to the now infamous leaking of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. His definition of ‘saboteurs’ also included climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson, who recently set up the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and David Davis, the former Conservative frontbencher, who last week challenged the science in a newspaper article… Miliband said [:] ‘The science is, however, clear and settled and we will push on in getting an agreement that is consistent with the science.’

“The day he spoke, his words were being undermined — by the man who has done most to make global warming a global obsession. Jim Hansen, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he shared the sceptics’ hope that the Copenhagen talks would fail. ‘The whole approach [at Copenhagen] is so wrong that it is better to reassess the situation,’ he said. What Hansen was complaining about was not the science, but the solutions to be proposed at Copenhagen and, in particular, the proposal to set up global carbon markets, in which permits to pollute are bought and sold.”

Danish Speaker of Parliament Questions Man-Made Global Warming

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 4:

“Denmark’s Speaker of Parliament has expressed serious doubts as to the way in which the climate debate has developed. ‘The problem is that lots of people go around saying that the climate change we see is a result of human activity. That is a very dangerous claim… Unfortunately… scientists say: “We have a theory” – then that crosses the road to the politicians who say: “We know”‘… Thor Pedersen says.

“[He] adds that the temperature has not risen in the past decade… ‘You should say that although we believed in our models, that the temperature would rise from 1998 to 2008, we have to admit that it has not risen. We cannot explain why it has not risen, but we believe we still have a problem. I’m just asking that people say what they actually know,’ Pedersen  [says]… ‘We should all shake hands and agree to do everything possible to create good living conditions. That has nothing to do with the climate debate, in which we try to determine the globe’s temperature. It is common sense…'”

Republicans and Democrats at Odds Over Climate Change

The Associated Press wrote on December 2:

“House Republicans pointed to controversial e-mails leaked from climate scientists and said it was evidence of corruption. Top administration scientists looking at the same thing found no such sign, saying it doesn’t change the fact that the world is warming… House Republicans Wednesday read excerpts from at least eight of the e-mails, saying they showed the world needs to re-examine experts’ claims that the science on warming is settled… ‘These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit,’ said U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis…

“Defending the scientists, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said somehow the e-mails aren’t stopping the Arctic from warming, the oceans from getting more acidic, and glaciers from melting…”

When All Else Fails… Blame It on Russian Conspiracy…

Times on Line wrote on December 6:

“UN officials likened the Climategate controversy to Watergate today, claiming that computer hackers who stole thousands of e-mails sent by a senior climate scientist were probably paid to do it by people intent on undermining the Copenhagen summit. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said… the fact that the e-mails were first uploaded to a sceptic website from a computer in Russia was an indication that the culprit was paid…

“Jonathan Pershing, the senior US climate negotiator, said the controversy surrounding the e-mails came at an unfortunate time ‘but has no fundamental bearing on the outcome’ of the summit…

“Reports today suggest that the Tomcity server based in the Siberian town of Tomsk was used to upload the e-mails on to the web. The server is used mainly by Tomsk State University, one of the leading academic institutions in Russia, and other scientific institutes…”

Is Global Warming as Fake as Evolution?

In an accompanying article, Times on Line wrote on December 5:

“In 1999, National Geographic magazine announced the discovery of a remarkable fossil. Archaeoraptor, as it was named, was claimed to be a dinosaur with feathers, a missing link of evolution that showed these long-extinct creatures were the ancestors of modern birds. A year later, however, the magazine was left with a dinosaur-sized portion of egg on its face. Scientific investigations revealed that Archaeoraptor was a fake — a composite of dinosaur and primitive bird fossils that had been glued together. The episode was seized upon by creationists, yet it has done nothing to dent the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. It survived this fraud — as it survived others such as Piltdown Man — because it is far too broadly attested to be threatened by a single piece of dodgy evidence.

“Research in dozens of disciplines — including genetics, anthropology, palaeontology, geology and medicine, to name but a few — shows evolution to be a scientific fact. It is hard to credit the view that all are wrong. This is worth remembering in the context of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) hacking scandal…

“It is possible that a few scientists might have faked or manipulated evidence, like the fossil-maker behind Archaeoraptor, though there is no proof of this in the CRU emails. But the notion that so many different branches of science have all connived undetected to manufacture a falsehood defies belief.”

Not, if we realize that Satan the devil is the author of many “scientific” postulations and conclusions. Satan, the god and ruler of this world, is called a liar, and the truth is not in him. And it is he who has deceived the whole world, and the Bible says that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

The fact that Darwin’s evolution theory IS a massive fraud must not be questioned in light of the biblical and archeological fossil records. You might want to read our free booklet, “The Theory of Evolution–a Fairy Tale for Adults?” Whether the notion of man-made global warming is equally a fraudulent fake, invented by scientists under Satan’s tutelage, still awaits a final verdict.

Afghanistan–the Gordian Knot

Der Stern wrote on November 26 about “Obama’s dangerous decision” to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. The paper said that “he does not know a way out” and that the situation appears more and more like the “Gordian knot”–that is, “unsolvable.” It also wrote:

“For eight years, the USA and NATO are fighting, but the Taliban is as strong as never before. For eight years, money flows into the country for reconstruction, but the drug traffic tops all records. For eight years, President Karzai is supported, but he only won the election through massive fraud…”

Afghanistan is a lost cause for the Western World. The attempt to bring democracy to that country–especially with the use of weapons–was destined to failure from the outset. The declared goal to capture Osama Bin Laden and to defeat the Taliban has been a total debacle–the incompetence of Western powers to achieve this goal is utterly astonishing and embarrassing.

Afghanistan–President Obama’s Biggest Test

The Financial Times wrote on November 29:

“Even more than healthcare, the war in Afghanistan will decide whether Barack Obama succeeds or fails… Mr Obama already owns this ‘necessary’ war, as he has called it, contrasting this battle with his predecessor’s supposedly needless war in Iraq… If health reform goes wrong, there will be others to blame. If this war goes wrong, it will be all his fault. It is Mr Obama’s biggest bet by far…

“At the moment the US and its allies are losing. It is that simple. Mr Obama’s options are essentially to pull out altogether, conceding defeat in his necessary war; maintain roughly the existing commitment… or provide the resources his military commanders say are needed…

“A point may come when the US is doing more harm than good, or when the Afghans themselves want us out. The case for gradual withdrawal, starting now, is not obviously wrong. This is not a necessary war. It is a war of choice, and a finely balanced choice at that. This makes Mr Obama’s political difficulty acute.

“Parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam are impossible to ignore. The most pressing is that the US loses wars like this at home. A bigger effort in Afghanistan can be sustained only as long as the country supports it… As with Vietnam, most Americans are unsure why their sons and daughters are dying in Afghanistan. The administration’s unduly protracted debate over what to do has sent the message that it too is unsure. Shallow support for the war suggests that one spectacular Taliban strike might flip the balance of opinion – and, with or without extra forces, the US would then be back on the path to defeat.

“It gets worse. Mr Obama’s own party opposes the policy he seems to have chosen. Last week leading Democrats called for a war tax to cover the cost of the country’s expanding commitments. Not exactly helpful: but they are right that operations in Afghanistan are enormously costly, in financial as well as human terms. The administration says it costs $1m a year for every extra soldier. An additional 35,000 troops would cost $35bn a year – enough to buy a lot of health reform.

“For his narrow margin of support on extra forces Mr Obama relies on Republicans, with whom he has fallen out bitterly on every aspect of domestic policy. The president’s approval rating continues to slide. The mid-term elections are in sight, and Democrats are anxious. They have reason to be. In short, the test for Mr Obama could hardly be more demanding. Having made his decision, he must get the country behind it, without making promises he cannot keep or sending messages that encourage the enemy…

“Since taking office, Mr Obama has been a less effective leader than many of his admirers, myself included, had hoped. On many issues, he has simply chosen not to try. On Afghanistan, standing aside is not an option. We will see what kind of president he is.”

On December 3, 2009, The Financial Times added:

“Instead of posing as a visionary, Obama played the role of a sober realist in his West Point speech. He no longer spoke of a victory in Afghanistan, rather he talked of bringing ‘this war to a successful conclusion.’ It was a clear recognition of the facts on the ground. Afghanistan is not a classic war in which one can ‘break the enemy’s will’ as Republican Senator John McCain is now demanding.

“The situation in Afghanistan is so confusing and — for foreign powers — so uncontrollable that it will be difficult enough for the Western alliance to achieve even its most modest of aims. NATO has failed to reach the formerly espoused goal of introducing a stable, Western-style democracy to Afghanistan. Obama’s West Point speech was an admission of this failure.”

Afghanistan–President Obama’s Devastating and Untruthful Speech

Der Spiegel Online reported on December 2:

“Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught… Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond ‘enthusiastically’ to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

“One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly… US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama’s re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

“The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the ‘world’s great religions.’ He promised that responsibility for the country’s security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai — a government which he said was ‘corrupt.’

“… the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama’s magic no longer works… In his speech on America’s new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught. The American president doesn’t need any opponents at the moment. He’s already got himself.”

Most Controversial Promises

On December 1, The Washington Post commented in particular on one segment  in President Obama’s speech. The President said: “I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”

The paper wrote:

“This is likely to be the most controversial notion in the speech — that the president can flood the zone with troops, and that in the same breath he can talk about removing them from the country… Obama is careful to offer a caveat — ‘we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground’ — but that date is likely to linger in viewers’ minds. This administration has had real trouble meeting deadlines — witness the difficulty with closing the detainee facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — so it will be interesting to see how much of an albatross this date becomes.

“Obama’s timeline for the start of a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan is likely to stir some concerns in military circles, even though the pace of that eventual drawdown remains vague. Many in the military will recall how both in Iraq and Afghanistan previous predictions about the need for fewer troops proved overly optimistic and destabilizing when drawdowns were undertaken without regard for deteriorating security. In addition, some U.S. military officers may worry that the Obama timeline, while a warning to the Karzai government, could also encourage Taliban insurgents who seek simply to outlast the military offensive.”

The Left Attacks Obama

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 2:

“As expected, US President Barack Obama promised a large increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. But at the same time, he promised to begin pulling them out already in 2011. His speech offered many details, but little vision. And Obama failed to adequately explain a war that many no longer support…

“This mixture of retreat and advance is also making it more difficult for Obama to convince perhaps the most important group of constituents: his supporters… Controversial film maker Michael Moore… was harsh in his criticism. ‘With just one speech … you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics,’ he wrote… In the letter he asked whether Obama really wanted to be the new ‘war president’… Meanwhile the president’s advisors were busy trying to put a positive spin on the decision, arguing that the trust of the Afghan people would be strengthened through the increased troop numbers. But it’s the trust of Americans that Obama should be most worried about.”

No Substantial Help from Europe

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 2:

“The US government is looking for up to 7,000 additional troops for Afghanistan from its NATO allies. But few countries in Europe are rushing to fill the void. Germany and France want to wait until the Afghanistan conference at the end of January… Indeed, the only countries which immediately offered to up their troop contingent were Britain, Poland and Italy. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that the UK would send an additional 500 troops with Poland likely to up its contribution to 2,600 from 2,000. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said his country would send more as well, but avoided a concrete pledge, saying only that Rome would ‘do a lot.'”

Germany in Political Upheaval Over Afghanistan

The Financial Times wrote on November 27:

“Angela Merkel was forced to reshuffle her cabinet less than one month into her second term as German chancellor on Friday after Franz Josef Jung resigned his portfolio as labour minister. Mr Jung, defence minister in Ms Merkel’s first government, stood accused of playing down the high number of civilian casualties caused by a German-ordered Nato air strike in Afghanistan in September. The controversy could undermine already fragile support for the German mission in the country. Mr Jung’s departure… is the latest and most serious setback for the new centre-right coalition, which has spent much of its first weeks in office squabbling over economic policy… this week’s revelations about the controversial air strike could have more negative repercussions for the government.”

Der Spiegel Online added on November 29:

“The furore centers on Jung’s immediate claims following the Sept. 4 airstrike that no civilians had been killed. At the time, he announced that it was only members of the Taliban who had been killed when a German colonel called in a US air strike on two tankers that had been seized by the insurgents in Kunduz, near a German military base. However, it has subsequently emerged that civilians were most likely among the victims, with estimates ranging from 17 to 142 casualties.

“Jung said on Thursday that he had told the public and parliament what he knew at the time regarding the events in Afghanistan. But a Thursday report in the tabloid Bild suggested that reports about civilian casualties had reached his ministry by the evening of Sept. 4, reports that he then forwarded to NATO headquarters. He claimed on Thursday that he did not read the report before sending it further and had not knowingly lied to the German public and parliament…

“The debacle has made things difficult for Germany’s new Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. He is reported to have ‘exploded’ when he first learned of the report… He immediately called in the General Inspector Schneidhan to see if he was aware of the report. Once it was clear that he had known about it, there was little choice but for him to resign. Peter Wichert, the deputy defense minister, was also fired.

“Guttenberg was in effect left hanging by his staff. After coming into office, the young minister had quickly said he regretted any civilian casualties but stated that, having seen the NATO report into the incident, the air strike had been ‘appropriate militarily.’ He now says he may have to reassess that statement. It now appears that the Bundestag’s defense committee will establish a parliamentary investigation into the affair.”

EU Provokes Israel

The EUObserver wrote on December 1:

“EU plans to call for East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future Palestinian state have been described as a ‘provocation’ of Israel’s right-wing government by a key figure in the history of the Middle East Peace Process. Israeli daily Haaretz on Tuesday (1 December) published a leaked copy of a draft statement on Israel to be adopted by EU foreign ministers next week.

“The text – which is likely to undergo changes during internal EU discussions in the run-up to the ministerial meeting – said that peace talks should lead to: ‘an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine, comprising the West Bank and Gaza and with East Jerusalem as its capital.’ ‘The European Union will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders,’ it added, in reference to Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank following the so-called Six Day War…

“The Israeli foreign ministry reacted angrily to the Haaretz leak on Tuesday… But a number of EU officials voiced surprise that the provisional statement evoked such a hostile reaction. ‘Jerusalem should be the shared capital of two states. I think this is a position which has been stated often enough,’ Lutz Gellner, the spokesman of the EU’s new foreign relations chief, Catherine Ashton, said.”

Israel and Iran

Der Spiegel wrote on December 2:

“Iran’s leaders continue to reject compromises over their nuclear program and are rebuffing the IAEA. The West is likely to respond with tighter sanctions, but that is unlikely to satisfy Israel, which has attack plans already drawn up…

“Netanyahu has said often enough that he will never accept an Iranian nuclear bomb. He doesn’t believe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he insists that Iran’s nuclear program is intended solely for civilian purposes. But he does take Ahmadinejad — a notorious Holocaust denier — at his word when he repeatedly threatens to wipe out Israel. Netanyahu draws parallels between Europe’s appeasement of Hitler and the current situation. ‘It’s 1938, and Iran is Germany,’ he says. This time, however, says Netanyahu, the Jews will not allow themselves to be the ‘sacrificial lamb’…

“A narrow majority of the Israeli population currently favors bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities, while 11 percent would consider leaving Israel if Tehran acquires nuclear weapons.”

How Iran Defies the World

BBC News reported on November 29:

“Iran’s government has approved plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants… The government told the Iranian nuclear agency to begin work on five sites, with five more to be located over the next two months. It comes days after the UN nuclear watchdog rebuked Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant… Sunday’s announcement is a massive act of defiance likely to bring forward direct confrontation over Iran’s nuclear programme.”

With the exception of Israel, the Western World has demonstrated its unwillingness to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The time is drawing nearer when we can expect an Israeli attack on Iran. 

Switzerland Votes to Ban Minarets

AFP wrote on November 29:

“Over 57 percent of Swiss voters on Sunday approved a blanket ban on the construction of Muslim minarets… A final tally of 26 cantons indicates that 57.5 percent of the population have voted in favour of the ban on minarets… Only four cantons rejected the proposal brought by Switzerland’s biggest party — the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which claims that minarets symbolise a ‘political-religious claim to power.’

“The SVP had forced a referendum under Swiss regulations on the issue after collecting 100,000 signatures within 18 months from eligible voters. The Swiss government was firmly against the call, arguing that accepting a ban would bring about ‘incomprehension overseas and harm Switzerland’s image.’ Switzerland has an uneasy relationship with its Muslim population of some 400,000 in a country of 7.5 million people. Islam is the second largest religion here after Christianity.”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 30:

“Switzerland’s decision to ban the construction of minarets in a referendum on Sunday has drawn condemnation from politicians across Europe and from Muslim leaders, but far-right politicians have welcomed it as a courageous step that should be copied by other countries. Egypt’s Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, the country’s top cleric, called the ban an ‘insult’ to Muslims across the world… The right-wing populist Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is famous for his anti-Islam views, called the result ‘great’ and said he would push for a similar referendum in the Netherlands.

“… mass circulation Bild, which can claim to have its finger on the nation’s pulse more than other newspapers, said Germans would probably vote the same way if they were allowed a referendum on the issue: ‘The minaret isn’t just the symbol of a religion but of a totally different culture. Large parts of the Islamic world don’t share our basic European values: the legacy of the Enlightenment, the equality of man and woman, the separation of church and state, a justice system independent of the Bible or the Koran and the refusal to impose one’s own beliefs on others with “fire and the sword.” Another factor is likely to have influenced the Swiss vote: Nowhere is life made harder for Christians than in Islamic countries. Those who are intolerant themselves cannot expect unlimited tolerance from others’…

“The left-wing Die Tageszeitung writes: ‘… the collapse of Swissair and other objects of Swiss national pride was also painful, as was the humiliating treatment by Libya’s dictator Moammar Gadhafi who has been holding two Swiss nationals as hostages for more than a year. The global economic crisis has also left clear marks on Switzerland. The perfectly devised campaign for a ban on minarets provided a suitable bogeyman for those who were unsettled by this general uncertainty and whose self-confidence has been shattered…'”

BBC News wrote on November 30:

“In Switzerland the soul-searching has begun following Sunday’s nationwide referendum in which voters surprisingly backed a plan to ban the construction of minarets… What many Swiss politicians are beginning to realise this morning is that they underestimated the concern among their population about integration of Muslims in Switzerland, and about possible Islamic extremism…

“Swiss cabinet ministers who had advised, and confidently expected, voters to reject a ban, have woken up to newspaper headlines calling the referendum a slap in the face for the government, and a ‘catastrophe’ for Switzerland. They are now facing the delicate task of explaining the voters’ decision to Muslim countries with whom Switzerland has traditionally good trade relations. Within government circles, there is the expectation that these relations will be damaged and that the Swiss economy may suffer as a result.

“So concerned is the government by the decision that Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer Schlumpf, watching the results come in on Sunday afternoon, apparently told her advisers there ought to be some restrictions on what the general public can actually vote on. This, for Switzerland, is political dynamite. The country’s system of direct democracy is sacrosanct. The people are allowed to vote on any policy and to propose policy themselves, which is what they did on minarets… The real issue is that there was clearly unease among the Swiss population, particularly among rural communities, about Islam.”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on December 1:

“Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Switzerland’s vote to ban the construction of minarets was a ‘sign of an increasing racist and fascist stance in Europe’… Islamophobia was a ‘crime against humanity,’ just like anti-Semitism, Erdogan said. Turkish President Abdullah Gül… said the vote was a ‘disgrace’ for the people of Switzerland and showed how far Islamophobia had advanced in the Western world… In Cairo, Egypt’s Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, the country’s top cleric, said the ban was an attack on freedom of religion and an attempt to ‘hurt the feelings of the Islamic community inside and outside Switzerland.'”

The EU will develop into a “Christian” power bloc–returning to its very “roots” of “orthodox Christianity.” Islam will be perceived more and more as a “foreign” institution which should have no legitimate place in Europe.  

No German Shopping on Sunday

Following a law suit by Germany’s main churches, the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Church, Germany’s highest constitutional court has upheld the ban against Sunday shopping–at least in general–while at the same time ignoring the religious beliefs of those who don’t want to keep Sunday. In addition, the main tragedy is that the Bible nowhere demands Sunday worship–in fact, it condemns it.

Der Spiegel wrote on December 2:

“Germany’s highest court has ruled that Sunday should be kept as a day of rest and has overturned a Berlin law easing restrictions on Sunday shopping…

“Yet many of Germany’s 16 states have already made some exceptions, allowing stores to open a few Sundays a year. And in Berlin the city government had gone the furthest in chipping away at the ban on Sunday trading. In 2006 the German capital gave the green light for retailers to open on 10 Sundays a year, including the four Advent Sundays preceding Christmas.

“However, Germany’s Constitutional Court has now upheld a complaint made by the country’s Catholic and Protestant churches, based on a clause in the German constitution that Sunday should be a day of rest and ‘spiritual elevation.’ The court on Tuesday decided in favor of the churches, saying that Sunday opening should not take place four weeks in a row. The ruling will not affect shopping this December, but would come into force next year. However, the ruling did not overturn completely the principle of limited Sunday store opening.

“The labor unions had joined the churches in their campaign to ring-fence Sunday as a day off for the nation. However, their focus was not on protecting the right to practise religion, but rather on protecting workers in the retail sector from having to work on Sundays, sometimes the only day they might get to spend with other members of their family…

“The conservative Die Welt writes: ‘The churches have argued correctly that employees in the retail sector are not given the possibility of organizing their Advent Sundays according to Christian principles: going to church, being involved in the community, singing and reading aloud. It is part of religious freedom to be able to do these things…’

“The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: ‘… It may sound old fashioned but it is still correct: Sunday is Sunday because it is unlike other days. This is not about tradition or religion or a social heritage… It is a day to synchronize society, that is what makes it so important…’

“The Financial Times Deutschland writes: ‘The ruling by the Constitutional Court has revived the emotional debate about opening hours of shops on Sundays. That alone is annoying. But even more annoying is that with its strong emphasis on the religiously based day of rest on Sunday, it is interfering in individual and economic freedom. Without a doubt the freedom to practise religion is of great value… In the public debate there is too little mention of the freedom of shop owners to keep customers through opening on Sundays, who would otherwise order online. And the freedom of towns to use Sunday opening hours to attract tourists. Or the freedom of customers to decide for themselves if they would rather spend Sundays amidst the crowds in the shopping malls or walking in the forest…’

“The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung, which is based in Berlin, writes: ‘Sunday as a day off is a great gift. The treadmill is closed for 24 hours. The court has given relaxation, rest and ‘spiritual elevation’ precedence over the thirst for profit and the right to a consumer fix. However, it made it clear in its ruling that Sunday was not just for those who wanted to practise their religion undisturbed. It is also to play cards, go for a walk or simply to laze around. After all even the strictest atheist needs the switching off that Sundays allow.'”

Deutsche Welle wrote on December 1:

“Sunday is enshrined in Article 140 of Germany’s Basic Law as a day of rest and ‘spiritual edification’… The idea that traders need particularly stringent regulation remains firmly anchored in German law, according to Berlin Retail Association head, Nils Busch-Petersen. ‘Boozing and waging war is allowed on Sundays, but retailers are looked on very critically. Shining through this ruling is an unfortunate tradition with Occidental-Christian roots that discriminates against traders,’ he commented…”

The Local wrote on December 1:

“Citing the so-called Weimar Church Article of the German Reich’s constitution from 1919, [which is now part of Germany’s basic law, Art. 140], the justices said that Sunday had a special protected status to ensure Germans could rest from work and have time for spiritual rejuvenation. Shops in Berlin will now only be allowed to open a few Sundays a year deemed in the ‘public interest’ by the city government, as well as a handful [of] other days for special events such as street festivals or anniversaries.

“Both church and trade union officials welcomed the verdict as a victory for families and workers. Katrin Göring-Eckardt, head of Germany’s main Protestant lay organisation, called it a ‘gift to society from Christians’… But Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit called the ruling a ‘real step backwards’ that did not take into consideration modern lifestyles.”

The reaction to the ruling by readers is interesting. Here are a few excerpts, as published by The Local:

“Yes, the Church is protecting us from ourselves… Unfortunately we don’t live in a free world. Religious beliefs still continue to dictate to the rest of us what we can or can’t do… How can the church expect to get any money in their collection baskets on Sunday when people are out buying food instead?… This is supposed to be a secular state, so the church ‘shouldn’t’ have a say – but religion is nothing more than fancy dressed politics… I work away from home so only have the weekend available to me to do shopping, see friends, do housework… etc I might have to do. Wouldn’t it be great if I could choose to do some of those things on a Sunday instead of being dictated to that I have to do those on a Saturday?… Strange isn’t [it] how some people accept this law on grounds of religion and social unity, yet are outraged at the thought of a minaret because Islam and sharia law may have similar laws restricting freedoms… As if Jesus would not like to buy his bread, fish and wine supplies on a Sunday!… after laws against home schooling, this is one of another crazy law i have ever seen,,,churches attendance in Germany is already so low, how could this help?”

More News on EU President Herman Van Rompuy

WorldNetDaily wrote on November 24:

“Jerome Corsi, senior WND staff writer and author of the New York Times best-seller ‘The Obama Nation,’ has issued an alert… The report cited a speech from Herman Van Rompuy, as he was appointed the first permanent president of the European Council of the European Union, saying he believes a new world order will be dominated by international organizations that will seek to destroy the last vestiges of nation-states.

“The speech was captured by BBC and posted on YouTube. In it, Van Rompuy proclaimed ‘2009 is the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis.’ He continued, ‘The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet.’

“In another widely viewed YouTube video, Mario Borghezio, a member of Italy’s Lega Nord, who is also a member of the European Parliament, pointed out in a speech to the European Parliament that Van Rompuy is a frequent attendee at Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission meetings.”

EU Commissioners Nominated

The EU published the nominations of their 27 commissioners. If approved in January by the European Parliament, they don’t include any spectacular candidates. But some tendencies seem to emerge–especially the involvement of Eastern nations (including the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria) in potential relationships with Russia; the roles of France, Germany and Spain; and the diminished influence of an “Anglo-Saxon voice.”

BBC News reported on November 27:

“France will take charge of the key internal market post in the new 27-strong European Commission… Former French agriculture minister Michel Barnier got the job… Joaquin Almunia from Spain will become EU Competition Commissioner – another much-coveted post in the EU’s executive arm… Timothy Kirkhope MEP, the UK Conservative leader in Brussels, said that ‘the loss of an Anglo-Saxon voice in the commission’s top economic team is of concern, given the recent spate of over-prescriptive economic and financial legislation to come from Brussels’…

“A Czech politician, Stefan Fuele, will take charge of the EU’s enlargement job. He will also be in charge of the EU’s neighbourhood policy concerning Ukraine and other former Soviet states. Germany’s Guenther Oettinger was named Energy Commissioner, a reflection of the policy’s growing importance for the EU…

“The biggest countries in Eastern Europe also got plum jobs – budget for Janusz Lewandowski from Poland and agriculture for Romania’s Dacian Ciolos… [The post for] International Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response was assigned to Rumiana Jeleva [from Bulgaria].” 

Britain Unhappy with Nomination of French Michel Barnier

The Daily Mail wrote on November 28:

“The power to oversee the City of London was yesterday given to a Frenchman known for his dislike of the free market and love of a strong EU. The unveiling of former French foreign minister Michel Barnier was seen as a severe blow for Gordon Brown. Mr Barnier is expected to push hard to give Brussels the power to regulate financial institutions here instead of the British authorities. He helped draw up the original European constitution and has called for an end to Britain’s EU budget rebate…

“French government officials are on record as saying they want Paris to become ‘a rival’ to London, which is Europe’s dominant financial market and vital for the UK economy. City insiders fear tighter regulations could drive British-based finance firms offshore or push them to list on the New York stock market instead…

“The Commissioner has significant leeway to set the EU agenda for financial services and is responsible for drafting new legislation. The EU is already creating a single regulator of financial markets with the power to overrule national regulator.”

Brussels is tremendously unpopular in Britain, and the perception that a Frenchman will decide on British economic issues will only pour oil onto the fire. It is very likely that Britain will exit the EU. 

Britain on the Brink of Bankruptcy?

The Daily Mail wrote on November 27:

“A year ago, the world reacted with astonishment as Iceland technically went bust. It seemed inconceivable that a modern democratic nation could have such parlous finances that only an emergency $6billion bail-out from the International Monetary Fund enabled its economy to keep functioning. This week, we witnessed a similar crisis in the Middle East but on a far, far more dangerous scale, as Dubai effectively defaulted on £48billion of loans… Which leads us to a haunting question: as the country in the world hardest hit by the credit crunch, with gross domestic product (GDP) projected to decline by almost five per cent in 2009, could Britain be next?…

“Even before the financial crisis, the British Government spent roughly £30billion more per year than it earned in tax revenues. This money, of course, had to be borrowed from international investors. Today, the Government needs up to £200billion a year for at least the next three years in order to meet its spending commitments… There may be other, hidden, liabilities. After this week’s shocking revelation of secret loans of £62billion made by the Bank of England to the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS at the height of the credit crunch, who knows how many other skeletons remain in the Treasury’s closet? It is wise to assume that the true size of Britain’s debts could be much bigger than we all think…

“If international lenders begin to doubt the creditworthiness of UK plc, they will downgrade our credit rating and dramatically increase the rates of interest they charge. UK banks will have to follow suit to match these rates, putting unsustainable pressure on our struggling economy. Thousands of businesses already hit by the recession will go bust. Trapped by soaring unemployment and welfare benefits, the Government will have to borrow more. And so the vicious debt cycle will continue to spiral down towards national insolvency – and, potentially, social anarchy…”

If Britain should go bankrupt, continental Europe might ultimately not react in friendly terms. The Bible strongly indicates an outright war between continental Europe and Great Britain in the not-too-distant future. For more information, please read our free booklet, “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America.”

Flagellation in the Catholic Church

Newsmax wrote on November 24:

“As Pope John Paul II’s beatification cause moves forward, more is coming to light about the late pontiff’s life… John Paul II often put himself through ‘bodily penance,’ said Sister Tobiana Sobodka, a Polish nun who worked for the Pope in his private Vatican apartments and at his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo near Rome. ‘We would hear it,’ said Sister Sobodka, who belongs to the Order of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. ‘We were in the next room at Castel Gandolfo. You could hear the sound of the blows when he would flagellate himself. He did it when he was still capable of moving on his own.’ Emery Kabongo, a secretary of John Paul II, also backed up the claim. ‘He would punish himself and in particular just before he ordained bishops and priests,’ he said…

“The Catholic Church’s tradition of corporal mortification is founded on the Christian belief that Jesus Christ, out of love for mankind, voluntarily accepted suffering and death as the means to redeem the world from sin. The church teaches that Christians are called to emulate Jesus and join him in his redemptive suffering… John Paul II used to whip himself, according to the recent testimonies…

“Many of the church’s greatest saints flagellated themselves, including St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Ignatius of Loyola, Blessed Mother Teresa, and St. Thomas More…”

The practice of flagellation is a horrible perversion of the teaching of the Bible. Christ died and suffered for us; He never sinned, but He paid the penalty for our violating physical and spiritual laws of God. We read that we can obtain forgiveness of sins and healing of our sicknesses because of His sacrifice for us. To voluntarily inflict oneself with bodily harm is a wrong attempt to usurp authority and responsibilities which were only given to Christ, and it is in total contradiction to God’s expressed love for us. 

Despicable Methods of Scientists to Support Global Warming

Whether one believes in man-made global warming or climate change, or not, the following article’s description of methods by leading scientists to support their claim would be outright despicable. If the allegations in the article are correct, then lying and cheating and attacking and suppressing the opinions of others constitute a terrible indictment against “academic freedom.” Totalitarian governments are famous for their willingness to brainwash and control the minds of their subjects. Now leading scientists are accused of the same “crime”! Of course, similar methods have been used for decades by some scientists desirous to support their idle belief in Darwin’s false theory of evolution–and we suspect, this may be true in many other areas of life which most people take for granted.  

The Telegraph wrote on November 28:

“A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term ‘Climategate’ to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

“The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated. What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“[Professor Philip Jones’] global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it… Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods… were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging… [calling] into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case…

“There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious… is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

“This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got ‘lost’. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

“But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to ‘adjust’ recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often… that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story…

“The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports…

“In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate… Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.”

The Daily Express wrote on December 2:

“THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a ‘load of hot air underpinned by fraud’. Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby… In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like ‘fools’ and using climate change to increase taxes. He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over ­billions of years.

“His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place. The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.

“… mining geology professor Plimer said there was a huge momentum behind the climate-change lobby. He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: ‘The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.'”

REPORT ON EUROPE

Even though Europe’s elections of their new leaders do not constitute the final configuration of the United States of Europe (the “ten toes” in Daniel 2 and the “ten horns” in Revelation 17), these developments show how quickly altogether unknown personalities can arise on the world scene. Virtually nobody had seriously considered so-called “nobodies” such as Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton as candidates for their respective positions–and here they are, bursting on the world scene over night.

Similar developments can be expected when the proverbial “beast”–Europe’s final political-military leader, mentioned in the Book of Revelation–will manifest himself in the public arena. For more information, please read our free booklet, Is That in the Bible?–The Mysteries of the Book of Revelation.

The election of the new EU President and Foreign Minister has been met–overwhelmingly–with consternation, unbelief or outright condemnation. Because of their perceived self interests, Angela Merkel, Nikolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown are labeled as the main “villains” and are blamed for the “debacle.” And still, as the expectations are so incredibly low, the new European officials might end up surprising quite a few observers–not to mention the fact that especially Herman Van Rompuy has been described as a “shrewd manipulator,” who “will do all in his power to further EU integration (except for including the Muslim country of Turkey),” who is “consumed with Catholic piety,” and who has compromised and “sold his soul.”

At the same time, a British paper wrote that the outcome of the European elections “has made a profound clash between Britain and Brussels more inevitable than ever,” and the question is being posed whether Britain will leave the EU.

The world, if it listened, received perhaps a small foretaste of what might be in store, when Mr. Van Rompuy said the following during a press conference on November 19, after his appointment as EU President:

“I also think that going back to our roots in the European Council could help us to discuss from time to time in an informal and open way the big questions of the European project… 2009 was the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards global management of our planet.”

The following articles present an overview regarding the world’s reaction to Europe’s elections, and they introduce in more detail the new leaders of Europe.

“Europe Chooses Nobodies!”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 20:

“Europe’s leaders are relieved that the wrangling over the EU’s new positions of president and foreign minister is finally over. But they have no reason to be proud. Once again, the EU has missed an opportunity to boost its standing on the global stage… The appointments confirm all the prevalent prejudices about the EU. Both jobs are going to candidates who are unknown in Europe. Ashton is not even well known in Britain…

“In addition, both candidates were merely acting as placeholders in their previous positions. The political career of the 62-year-old Herman Van Rompuy was already on the decline when, almost a year ago, he stepped in as interim prime minister to sort out the political chaos in Belgium. And the only reason that Ashton, 53, became the EU’s trade commissioner in 2008 was because her predecessor Peter Mandelson was desperately needed in London to save the Labour government.

“It’s no wonder, then, that the news disappointed many observers… the bloc’s leaders have now chosen two nobodies to represent the EU… Nobody seems to care about the fact that neither of them has any significant foreign policy experience… Germany had even decided from the outset to not put forward any candidates for the two jobs. It was hoping to get the presidency of the European Central Bank, which will fall vacant in 2011, in return for disclaiming interest in the two EU top positions…

“Chancellor Angela Merkel reacted by saying graciously that the two would ‘grow’ into their new positions. Indeed, expectations are so low that Van Rompuy and Ashton can only be a positive surprise.”

Keep your eyes on Germany, which will play a most important role in future European developments.

Europe’s Politics…

Deutsche Welle reported on November 20:

“As Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton blink in the unfamiliar glare of media attention, world leaders have been trying to foresee the impact of the new pair on international politics. If there is one…

“Many Europeans outside the Brussels bubble will see their worst prejudices of the EU confirmed. Namely, that the organization’s appointments tend to be less about democracy, transparency and merit than about political deals designed to balance the competing interests of the bloc’s various centers of power… Once again, observers will be concluding that the EU’s most powerful countries are merely looking out for their own interests.

“French President Nikolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel chose someone who would not threaten their authority. Meanwhile, Britain, always that awkward partner in Europe’s economic triumvirate, was appeased with a high-profile appointment, though not with the candidate it was hoping for, the still-contentious Tony Blair.”

The Telegraph wrote on November 21:

“Behind the scenes, the Eurocrat elite had already established a detailed template for the two top jobs. One would be a man, the other a woman; one from the Left, the other from the Right. One would hail from the EU’s inner realm, the other from the mutinous outer territories. Above all, both would be relatively unknown, and preferably nonentities, whose new powers – formidable under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty – would not go to their heads.

“These parameters were essentially fashioned by the French president Nicolas Sarkozy and the German chancellor Angela Merkel, whose flourishing alliance is founded upon the sharing of real control between Paris and Berlin, and are the reason why Tony Blair, an early front-runner for the top job, never really had a chance. Blair was too big a name, too controversial, too keen to take it on.

“So, instead, we have Van Rompuy, known to hardened Eurosceptics as ‘the Belgian waffler’, a mild-mannered economist, consumed with Catholic piety, who spends one day a month in a monastery among an order of silent monks.”

“Europe Disgraced Itself”

Bild Online wrote the following biting commentary on November 20:

“Europe is seeking to build a reputation and increase its standing and voice on the world stage, yet it has disgraced itself by putting a pair of political no-names in charge… Unfortunately this isn’t a bad joke. It is a methodology. The worst thing is that the selection of the two was no accident, quite the opposite – they were conscious appointments.

“The continent’s big bosses – Angela Merkel (Germany), Nicolas Sarkozy (France), Gordon Brown (United Kingdom) – did not want a strong, shining duo of leaders at the top of newly formed EU. They did not want rivals, but rather their silence. They will get dead silence. A blackout in Brussels. It is disastrously short-sighted. Almost everything which the EU has to be proud of – the engine of prosperity of the single European market; the Euro, an anchor of stability – it owes to strong leadership guiding from the top in Brussels… After this evening it is clear what the unifying factors in Europe are – timidness and paralysis.”

We know how terrible the mood must be in Germany, when even a conservative, Merkel-supporting tabloid like Bild sharply criticizes the German chancellor.

“Brussels’ Anti-Democratic Maneuverings”

The Daily Mail wrote on November 20:

“At last we approach the final act of the squalidly anti-democratic Brussels farce that began when the idea of a European Constitution was first mooted. Last night, after meetings behind closed doors, the European Union chose a President and a High Representative  –  an unthreatening title for someone who will preside over Europe’s foreign policy, superseding our own government… But the entire exercise  –  from the jobs themselves to the way they have been filled to the people who have filled them  –  is a slap in the face for the fundamental principles of British democracy.

“First, the UK electorate never wanted a President or a High Representative, but its views became irrelevant when our government went back on its promise of a referendum on the Constitution. And although there might be those who take heart that the two jobs have been filled by non-entities  –  one of them British  –  that would be a profound mistake.

“President van Rompuy may be largely unknown, but the one certainty about him is that he is a rabid federalist, who believes in rapidly transferring more powers to Brussels  –  including the right for the EU to impose direct taxes  –  and will use his new job to further these aims. And Baroness Ashton, a lady for whom no one has voted, but whose appointment is supposedly a British victory, has been selected precisely because those in Brussels know that she has neither the political influence nor the determination to stand up for our interests… this grubby stitch-up has made a profound clash between Britain and Brussels more inevitable than ever.”

Who Is Van Rompuy?

On November 20, Der Spiegel Online presented the following profile of Europe’s first President, Herman Van Rompuy:

“Herman Van Rompuy is a practicing Catholic who belongs to the conservative wing of the Flemish Christian Democrat party… The 62-year-old politician likes to project an image of modesty. In a recent interview he admitted he still can’t bring himself to call the German chancellor by her first name. ‘I just can’t do it. I’m too timid,’ he said. Now this shy politician will preside over meetings between Angela Merkel and the 26 other government leaders of the EU bloc… As prime minister, Van Rompuy brought back calm to Belgium, after what was the worst political crisis in the country’s 180-year history.

“Much is unknown about the new EU president, including what his ideas about Europe are. In the past few weeks an old statement by Van Rompuy about Turkish entry into the EU was unearthed. In December 2004 Van Rompuy… said: ‘Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be part of Europe (…) The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigor with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey’…

“Even though Thursday’s European summit was only the sixth he has attended, he is no stranger to the EU. As budget minister (1993-1999) he prepared the ground for Belgium’s adoption of the euro…”

Did Mr. Van Rompuy “Sell His Soul”?

The Daily Mail added on November 20:

“Devoid of patriotism and contemptuous of democracy, Herman Van Rompuy perfectly embodies the culture of the EU. His sole political ideal is the creation of a federal superstate, destroying national identities across Europe.

“As someone who has known him since the mid-1980s, I recognise Van Rompuy as a man of powerful intellect and deep cynicism. Although diffident in manner, it would be a great mistake to underestimate this Belgian. A shrewd manipulator, he will do all in his power to further EU integration…

“Van Rompuy is a product of the debased, corrupt political life of Belgium… Because of… lack of real nationhood, Belgians despise their own state. But this unpatriotic attitude is precisely the reason why Belgian politicians have been so enthusiastic about the EU, in which they see the mirror image of their own fraudulent, unprincipled country.

“The tragedy of Van Rompuy’s political career is that he used to have a very different outlook. When I first met him in 1985, he was much more skeptical about European federalism. A conservative Catholic… Van Rompuy wrote elegantly about the importance of traditional values and the need to maintain the Christian roots of Europe.

“He was so disgusted by the Belgian establishment’s rejection of these principles he told me he was thinking of leaving politics. But his bosses the Flemish Christian-Democrat Party were appalled at the thought of losing this bright young star. So he was offered rapid advancement up the political ladder. Van Rompuy accepted, and embarked on a series of shabby compromises which brought him high office but proved he had sold his soul.

“In one telling deal, for instance, he helped push through one of Europe’s most liberal abortion bills, even though, as a Catholic, he had once written in defence of the rights of the unborn child. He will feel very at home at the top of the EU.”

Who Is Catherine Ashton?

On November 20, Der Spiegel Online presented the following profile of Europe’s first Foreign Minister, Catherine Ashton:

“… the big surprise came with the appointment of Catherine Ashton as the EU’s new foreign representative… Ashton will now have to set to work earning the respect of the world… the 53-year-old Ashton is a foreign-policy blank slate… She does not, however, lack in self confidence…

“Ashton, though, has never stood for election. In 1999, she was appointed as Labour Party leader in the House of Lords, Britain’s upper house of parliament, by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. As part of the appointment, she received the title of Baroness. During her time in the upper house, her greatest achievement was getting a majority vote on the Lisbon Treaty…

“Her affable but tough personality has strengthened her reputation as a tough negotiator. The skills served her well as Commerce Commissioner when she quietly put together a trail-blazing free trade agreement with South Korea…

“Part of her new role will be to create a new European diplomatic force that could involve as many as 7,000 people, thus pioneering a genuine European foreign policy… Ashton and van Rompuy are facing expectations so low, they can only exceed them.”

Will Britain Leave the EU?

BBC News wrote on November 16:

“Up to 55% of those asked in recent British opinion polls say they would support… Britain leaving the European Union.

“After all the constitutional wrangling and embarrassing referendum results within the EU in recent years, reluctance to talk about this among the EU mainstream may be greater than ever. But look carefully at the focus of all that wrangling, the Lisbon Treaty. It contains a shock for those used to the EU talking of ‘ever-closer union’. Buried deep in the treaty is a kind of anti-integration time-bomb, a clause which sets out clearly for the first time how an EU member state could ‘withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’…

“But what would a divorce between Britain and the EU mean in practice? It’s hard to know precisely. Like any such separation, much would depend on the mood in which it was done, co-operative or acrimonious…

“There are many… intriguing aspects of a UK exit… Britain leaving the EU would be an unpredictable process. But the idea that all this is simply inconceivable and irrelevant is no longer credible.”

Bible prophecy strongly indicates that Great Britain WILL leave the EU in the not-too-distant future.

REPORT ON AMERICA’S DOWNWARD SLOPE

We begin with reports on the U.S. Senate’s shameful health care maneuverings, followed by reports on the Fed’s and Mr. Geithner’s controversial actions and the desperate economic situation of the USA, and concluding with a biting analysis of President Obama’s disappointing trip to Asia. All these articles show one thing: The impending FALL of America. For more information, please do not neglect to read our free booklet, “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America.”

The New $300 Million Louisiana Purchase–How Politicians Can Be Bought

ABC News reported on November 19:

“What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform? Here’s a case study.

“On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for ‘certain states recovering from a major disaster.’ The section spends two pages defining which ‘states’ would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that ‘during the preceding 7 fiscal years’ have been declared a ‘major disaster area.’

“… the section applies to exactly one state:  Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill. In other words, the bill spends two pages describing [what] could be written with a single word:  Louisiana…”

And so the deal was fixed, as were many more deals in the political arena, as the next article explains.

Senate Votes Yes to Reid’s Health Care Bill — Nothing to be Proud Of!!!

The Washington Post wrote on November 22:

“On the eve of Saturday’s showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn’t secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.

“And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote — and to trumpet the financial ‘fix’ she had arranged for Louisiana. ‘I am not going to be defensive,’ she declared. ‘And it’s not a $100 million fix. It’s a $300 million fix’…

“After Landrieu threw in her support… the lone holdout in the 60-member Democratic caucus was Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Like other Democratic moderates who knew a single vote could kill the bill, she took a streetcar named Opportunism, transferred to one called Wavering and made off with concessions of her own. Indeed, the all-Saturday debate, which ended with an 8 p.m. vote, occurred only because Democratic leaders had yielded to her request for more time.

“Even when she finally announced her support, at 2:30 in the afternoon, Lincoln made clear that she still planned to hold out for many more concessions in the debate that will consume the next month…

“The health-care debate was worse than most. With all 40 Republicans in lockstep opposition, all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had to vote yes — and that gave each one an opportunity to extract concessions from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid… And the big shakedown is yet to occur: That will happen when Reid comes back to his caucus in a few weeks to round up 60 votes for the final passage of the health bill…

“Landrieu… went to the floor during the lunch hour to say that she would vote to proceed with the debate — but that she’d be looking for much bigger concessions before she gives her blessing to a final version of the bill… That turned all the attention to the usually quiet Lincoln, who emerged from the cloakroom two hours later to announce her decision… she made clear that Democratic leaders would have to give more if they want her to vote yes as the health-care debate continues…

“By the time this thing is done, the millions for Louisiana will look like a bargain.”

Whether one chooses to view this as political “extortion” or political “bribery,” this current state of affairs, “business as usual,” is disgraceful and ungodly.

Fed and Mr. Geithner Under Fire

On November 20, the Wall Street Journal wrote the following:

“The House Financial Services Committee voted, 43-26, to approve a measure sponsored by Texas Republican Ron Paul, vociferously opposed by the Fed, that would direct the congressional Government Accountability Office to expand its audits of the Fed to include decisions about interest rates and lending to individual banks. The Fed says the provision threatens its ability to make monetary policy without political interference…

“The vote was the latest blow to the central bank, which has… become a lightning rod for politicians responding to popular anger that Wall Street was bailed out while the public wasn’t. The Fed faces a stinging backlash from legislators from both parties who argue that [it] has too much power and too little oversight. On Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee began debating legislation that would largely remove the Fed from bank supervision over the objections of the Fed and the Obama administration…

“At the Joint Economic Committee, a couple of House Republicans called for the resignation of Mr. Geithner… Although several Democrats defended Mr. Geithner at the hearing, some liberal Democrats have been complaining that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to combat unemployment…”

America’s Declining Prosperity

CNBC wrote on November 19:

“As experts debate the potential speed of the US recovery, one figure looms large but is often overlooked: nearly 1 in 5 Americans is either out of work or under-employed. According to the government’s broadest measure of unemployment, some 17.5 percent are either without a job entirely or underemployed… The number dwarfs the statistic most people pay attention to… which most recently showed unemployment at 10.2 percent for October, the highest it has been since June 1983.

“The difference is that what is traditionally referred to as the ‘unemployment rate’ only measures those out of work who are still looking for jobs. Discouraged workers who have quit trying to find a job, as well as those working part-time but looking for full-time work or who are otherwise underemployed, count in the [rate of 17.5 percent].”

The New York Times wrote on November 23:

“The United States government is financing its more than trillion-dollar-a-year borrowing with i.o.u.’s… With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically.

“Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher… In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

America’s imminent fate is one of a constant and inevitable downfall. The reasons are spiritual in nature. God says that He will turn His back on His people when they turn their back on Him. Sadly, this applies today to the overwhelming majority of the American people [modern descendants of the ancient House of Israel]–all the way from the top to the bottom. True genuine change or “repentance” might at least delay the coming disaster–but in light of our materialistic, greedy and politically corrupt society, that possibility appears more than remote.

President Obama’s Asian Trip an Utter Failure

Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 23:

“When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it’s not working…

“The mood in Obama’s foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia trip that produced no palpable results. The ‘first Pacific president,’ as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions… The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington’s new foreign policy…

“In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.

“The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences…”

America is losing all respect in the world–something that the Bible prophesied would happen in these last days.

The Catholic Church in the News

The Bible shows that the Roman Catholic Church will soon play a predominant role on the world scene. In the past, Europe has seen a constant love-hate relationship between “church” and “emperor,” and this relationship is bound to continue in our days.

Still, the book of Revelation shows that the EU and the Catholic Church will work together–to an extent–and that its European political and religious leaders will work hand-in-hand; therefore, a close connection between the EU and the Roman Catholic Church is to be expected; and we also read in the Bible that most “Christian” religions will embrace Roman Catholicism and accept the pope as their spiritual leader. The following two articles hint at the beginnings of the fulfillment of these prophesied events. For more information, please read our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy.”

Continuing Economic Relationship Between Catholics and Anglicans

Times On Line wrote on November 21:

“The Archbishop of Canterbury met privately with the Pope today in an effort to ease tensions over the Vatican’s move to ‘poach’ Anglican clergy… Referring to a potential rift over the Vatican’s invitation to disillusioned Anglicans [a statement from the Vatican] said the talks reiterated ‘the shared will to continue and to consolidate the ecumenical relationship between Catholics and Anglicans’…

“Pope Benedict is offering Anglican clergy the chance to transfer to the Roman Catholic Church, while maintaining many of their traditions and practices, including the right to marry…

“Addressing the ecumenical conference at the Gregorian Pontifical University conference in Rome, yesterday, Dr Williams reaffirmed his stance on women bishops. He said: ‘For many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women.’

“The Vatican signalled they were changing their Apostolic Constitution… Pope Benedict XVI said this would allow Anglicans to preserve ‘elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony’ while entering ‘full communion’ with the Catholic Church.”

CNN added on November 20:

“The process will enable groups of Anglicans to become Catholic and recognize the pope as their leader, yet have parishes that retain Anglican rites, Vatican officials said. The move comes some 450 years after King Henry VIII broke from Rome and created the Church of England…”

The Catholic Church will make “concessions” to non-Catholics to gain a following, as long as the pope is going to be recognized as their spiritual leader.